United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Utah State Office

P.O. Box 45155

Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0155

http://www.b1m.gov

IN REPLY REFER TO:

UT-080-1610-Dl0J

Dear Reader:

Enclosed is the Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP) and Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FElS) for the Vernal Field Office. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared the

PRMPIFEIS in consultation with cooperating agencies, taking into account public comments received

during this planning effort. This PRMPIFEIS provides a framework for the future management direction

and appropriate use of BLM-administered lands and resources located in Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah

Counties, as well as 3,000 acres of public lands in Grand County, Utah. The document contains both land

use planning decisions and implementation decisions to guide the BLM's management of the Vernal

Field Office. The PRMPIFEIS is open for a 30-day review and protest period beginning the date the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the Notice of Availability of the FEIS in the Federal

Register.

This PRMPIFEIS has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The PRMPIFEIS is

largely based on Alternative A, the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP and EIS, which was released

in January 2005. A Supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS evaluating non-WSA lands with wilderness

characteristics was released in October 2007. This PRMPIFEIS contains the proposed plan and potential

impacts of the proposed plan. The alternatives presented in the Draft and Draft Supplement RMPIEIS are

also provided for comparative purposes. Major comments received during the public review period of the

Draft RMP/EIS as well as the Draft Supplement and responses to these comments are provided on an

attached CD. To aid the reader, substantive changes made between the Draft RMPIEIS and the

PRMP/FEIS are described in Chapter I and are detailed in Appendix N.

Pursuant to BLM's planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2, any person who participated in the planning

process for this PRMP and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the planning decisions

may protest approval of the planning decisions within 30 days from date the Environmental Protection

Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. For further information on filing a

protest, please see the accompanying protest regulations in the pages that follow (labeled as Attachment

I). The regulations specify the required elements of your protest. Take care to document all relevant

facts. As much as possible, reference or cite the planning documents or available planning records (e.g.

meeting minutes or summaries, correspondence, etc.). To aid in ensuring the completeness of your

protest, a protest check list is attached to this letter (labeled as Attachment 2). If your protest does not

include all of the elements outlined in 43 CFR 1610.5-2 the BLM will not respond to your protest.



Abstract 

Proposed Vernal RMP and Final EIS 

Proposed Vernal 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: Dagget, Duchesne, Uintah, and a small portion of Grand Counties, Utah 

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

(EIS) describes and analyzes the Proposed RMP and draft alternatives for the planning and management of public 

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

Office is located in the northeast corner of Utah and administers lands within Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah 

Counties, plus a small portion of Grand County. There are 5,518,859 acres within the boundary of the Vernal Field 

Office, of which 1,725,512 acres (approximately 30%) are BLM-managed surface lands. The Vernal Field Office 

administers energy-related mineral activities on 3.9 million acres of Federal mineral lands (includes 1.3 million 

acres of National Forest Service lands) and post-lease mineral operations on Indian trust mineral lands. The 

1,911,000 acres of BLM-managed mineral estate includes the split estate mineral lands within the Hill Creek 

Extension (consisting of 185,500 acres of mineral estate underlying Indian trust surface). 

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

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

Alternatives A through D were presented in the Draft RMP and EIS. Alternative E was presented in the Supplement 

to the Draft RMP and EIS. The management direction of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) is generally broad 

and accommodates a wide variety of values and uses. Alternative B provides for most resource uses but would 

emphasize oil and gas development, where feasible. Alternative C would strongly emphasize maintenance of 

watershed conditions, species viability, properly functioning ecosystems, and a reduction of habitat fragmentation. 

Alternative D (Current Management/No Action) would maintain present uses by continuing current management 

direction and activities by all new mandates, Executive Orders, and directives that have been implemented since the 

Books Cliffs and Diamond Mountain RMPs were completed. Alternative E gives emphasis to all non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, including closure of these areas to mineral leasing and off-road vehicles, exclusion 

of rights-of-way, protection of undisturbed landscapes, and providing opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive 

recreation. 

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS is primarily based on the Preferred Alternative (Alternative A) from the Draft 

RMP/EIS. However, it has been modified to include aspects of all alternatives analyzed after careful consideration 

of both public and internal comments received on the Draft and Supplement RMP/EIS. The major issues addressed 

consist of: (1) travel management, (2) energy and mineral resource exploration and development, (3) special 

designations, (4) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and (5) special status species. 

Protest/Comment: Protests on the Vernal Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Proposed 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. The close of 

the review and protest period will be announced in news releases, newsletters, and on the Vernal RMP/EIS website 

at http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vernal/planning.1.html.

For Further Information Contact: 

Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office 

Attn: Kelly Buckner, RMP Project Manager 

170 South 500 East 

Vernal, Utah, 84078 

Telephone (435) 781-4400 

Kelly_Buckner@blm.gov
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP iii

VOLUME 1 

Table of Contents 

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

List of Figures........................................................................................................................... xxxi 

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xxxiii 

List of Maps................................................................................................................................ xlv 

List of Appendices.................................................................................................................... xlvii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1

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

ES.2 Purpose and Need for the Action ..................................................................................ES-2 

ES 2.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................ES-2 

ES 2.2 Need .......................................................................................................................ES-3 

ES.3 Planning Issues........................................................................................................... ES-3 

ES.4 Proposed RMP and Draft RMP Alternatives.......................................................... ES-4 

ES.5 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... ES-8 

ES.6 Environmental Impacts............................................................................................. ES-8 

ES.7 Summary of Changes Made between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS ............................................................................................................... ES-8 

ES 7.1 Summary of Changes to Decisions Between the Draft RMP/EIS Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative A) and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS..............................ES-9 

ES 7.2 Summary of Editorial Changes Made between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS and 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS.....................................................................................ES-10 

CHAPTER ONE Introduction, Purpose and Need ................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................... 1-2 

1.3.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ 1-2 

1.3.2 Need ............................................................................................................................ 1-2 

1.4 Planning Area Description.............................................................................................. 1-3 

1.4.1 Geographic Setting...................................................................................................... 1-3 

1.4.2 Resource Setting ......................................................................................................... 1-4 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP iv

1.5 Planning Process .............................................................................................................. 1-5 

1.6 Scoping.............................................................................................................................. 1-9 

1.6.1 The Scoping Process ................................................................................................... 1-9 

1.7 Identification of Issues................................................................................................... 1-10 

1.7.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 1-10 

1.7.2 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ................................................................... 1-10 

1.7.3 Related Cultural and Paleontological Issues............................................................. 1-10 

1.7.4 Fire Management ...................................................................................................... 1-11 

1.7.5 Lands and Realty....................................................................................................... 1-11 

1.7.6 Minerals Management............................................................................................... 1-12 

1.7.7 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics................................................... 1-12 

1.7.8 OHV Use and Transportation ................................................................................... 1-12 

1.7.9 Related OHV and Transportation Issues................................................................... 1-13 

1.7.10 Rangeland Management and Health ....................................................................... 1-13 

1.7.11 Recreation Resources and Management ................................................................. 1-14 

1.7.12 Special Management Designations ......................................................................... 1-14 

1.7.13 Visual Resource Management (VRM).................................................................... 1-15 

1.7.14 Watershed Management, Soils, and Vegetation ..................................................... 1-15 

1.7.15 Wild Horse Management ........................................................................................ 1-16 

1.7.16 Wildlife Habitat and Fisheries Management .......................................................... 1-16 

1.7.17 Woodland and Forest Management ........................................................................ 1-16 

1.8 Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan............................................................................. 1-17 

1.9 Planning Criteria ........................................................................................................... 1-17 

1.10 Related Plans................................................................................................................ 1-19 

1.10.1 County Land-use Plans ........................................................................................... 1-19 

1.10.2 State of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1-20 

1.10.3 Other Federal Plans................................................................................................. 1-20 

1.10.4 Activity Plans.......................................................................................................... 1-20 

1.10.5 Habitat Management Plans ..................................................................................... 1-20 

1.10.6 Endangered Species Recovery Plans ...................................................................... 1-21 

1.10.7 Existing Environmental Impact Statements............................................................ 1-21 

1.10.8 Documents Incorporated by Reference................................................................... 1-21 

1.10.9 National Programmatic EIS for Tar Sands and Oil Shale Resources ..................... 1-22 

1.10.10 Relationship to the President's National Energy Policy and the Scientific 

Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands' Oil and Gas Resources and Reserves, and 

the Extent and Nature of Restrictions or Impediments to Their Development...... 1-23 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP v

1.10.11 Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic 

EIS (PEIS).............................................................................................................. 1-25 

1.11 Summary of Changes Made between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS ................................................................................................................ 1-25 

1.11.1 ES.7.1. Summary of Changes to Decisions Between the Draft RMP/EIS 

Preferred Alternative (Alternative A) and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.............. 1-26 

1.11.2 ES.7.2. Summary of Editorial Changes Made between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS 

and Proposed RMP/Final EIS ................................................................................ 1-27 

CHAPTER TWO Proposed RMP and Alternatives............................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Development of the Proposed RMP and Draft RMP Alternatives ............................. 2-1 

2.2.1 General Description of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS ............................................. 2-2 

2.2.2 General Description of the Draft RMP/EIS Alternatives......................................... 2-2 

2.2.1.1 Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative (Alternative A) ........................................ 2-3

2.2.1.2 Alternative B........................................................................................................ 2-3 

2.2.1.3 Alternative C........................................................................................................ 2-3 

2.2.1.4 Alternative D (Current Management/No Action)................................................ 2-3 

2.2.1.5 Alternative E ........................................................................................................ 2-3 

2.3 Alternatives and Management Options Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 2-4 

2.3.1 No Grazing Alternative............................................................................................... 2-4 

2.3.2 Livestock Grazing Adjustments Alternative............................................................... 2-5 

2.3.3 Greater Dinosaur/Book Cliffs Heritage Plan .............................................................. 2-6 

2.3.4 No Leasing Alternative ............................................................................................... 2-6 

2.4 Brief Summary of the Proposed RMP and Draft RMP / EIS Alternatives in Tables 

2.1.1 through 2.1.27........................................................................................................... 2-8 

2.4.1 Travel Management .................................................................................................... 2-9 

2.4.2 Oil and Gas Leasing and Development....................................................................... 2-9 

2.4.3 Special Designations—Potential ACECs ................................................................. 2-10 

2.4.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers............................................................................................. 2-10 

2.4.5 Special Status Species............................................................................................... 2-11 

2.4.6 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics................................................... 2-11 

List of Chapter 2 Tables 

Table 2.1.1 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Management Common to the Proposed 

RMP and All Alternatives ...................................................................................... 2-13 

Table 2.1.2 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Abandoned Mine Lands .................................. 2-15

Table 2.1.3 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Air Quality ...................................................... 2-16 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP vi

Table 2.1.4 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Cultural Resources .......................................... 2-17 

Table 2.1.5 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Fire Management ............................................ 2-20 

Table 2.1.6 Proposed RMP and Alternatives - Forage .............................................................. 2-22 

Table 2.1.7 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Lands and Realty Management....................... 2-29 

Table 2.1.8 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Livestock and Grazing Management .............. 2-33 

Table 2.1.9 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Minerals and Energy Resources...................... 2-36 

Table 2.1.10 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics......................................................................................................... 2-39 

Table 2.1.11 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Paleontology Resources ................................ 2-41 

Table 2.1.12 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Rangeland Improvements.............................. 2-43 

Table 2.1.13 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreational Resources ................................. 2-44 

Table 2.1.14 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Special Recreation 

Management Areas ................................................................................................. 2-47 

Table 2.1.15 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Trail Maintenance and 

Development........................................................................................................... 2-50 

Table 2.1.16 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Riparian Resources........................................ 2-52 

Table 2.1.17 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Soil and Water Resources ............................. 2-55

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs....................... 2-57 

Table 2.1.19 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (WSRs)........................................................................................................ 2-67 

Table 2.1.20 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSAs)......................................................................................................... 2-72 

Table 2.1.21 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Status Species................................... 2-77 

Table 2.1.22 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Roads and Trails............................................ 2-82 

Table 2.1.23 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Vegetation Resources.................................... 2-84 

Table 2.1.24 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Visual Resource Management....................... 2-86 

Table 2.1.25 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wild Horses................................................... 2-88 

Table 2.1.26 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources.................. 2-93 

Table 2.1.27 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Woodlands and Forest Resources ................. 2-97 

Table 2.2.1 Summary of Impacts – Air Quality....................................................................... 2-101 

Table 2.2.2 Summary of Impacts – Cultural Resources .......................................................... 2-102 

Table 2.2.3 Summary of Impacts – Environmental Justice ..................................................... 2-103 

Table 2.2.4 Summary of Impacts – Fire Management............................................................. 2-104 

Table 2.2.5 Summary of Impacts – Hazardous Materials........................................................ 2-105 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP vii

Table 2.2.6 Summary of Impacts – Lands and Realty............................................................. 2-106 

Table 2.2.7 Summary of Impacts – Livestock and Grazing Management............................... 2-107 

Table 2.2.8 Summary of Impacts – Minerals and Energy Resources...................................... 2-108 

Table 2.2.9 Summary of Impacts – Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ......... 2-110 

Table 2.2.10 Summary of Impacts - Paleontology .................................................................. 2-113 

Table 2.2.11 Summary of Impacts - Recreation ...................................................................... 2-114 

Table 2.2.12 Summary of Impacts – Riparian Resources........................................................ 2-116 

Table 2.2.13 Summary of Impacts – Social and Economic Considerations............................ 2-118 

Table 2.2.14 Summary of Impacts – Soil and Water Resources ............................................. 2-120 

Table 2.2.15 Summary of Impacts – Special Designations ..................................................... 2-123 

Table 2.2.16 Summary of Impacts – Special Status Species ................................................... 2-124 

Table 2.2.17 Summary of Impacts - Vegetation...................................................................... 2-127 

Table 2.2.18 Summary of Impacts – Visual Resources........................................................... 2-129 

Table 2.2.19 Summary of Impacts – Wild Horses................................................................... 2-131 

Table 2.2.20 Summary of Impacts – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources.................................. 2-132 

Table 2.2.21 Summary of Impacts – Woodlands and Forest Resources ................................. 2-135

CHAPTER THREE Affected Environment............................................................................ 3-1 

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 3-1 

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

3.1.2 Resource Setting ......................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Air Quality........................................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.2.1 Regional Overview ..................................................................................................... 3-2 

3.2.2 Baseline Air Quality ................................................................................................... 3-3 

3.2.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................... 3-4 

3.2.4 Regional Air Emissions .............................................................................................. 3-4 

3.2.4.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Criteria ....................... 3-5 

3.2.4.2 Criteria for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) ................................. 3-5

3.2.4.3 Visibility Criteria ................................................................................................. 3-8 

3.2.5 Consistency with Non-Bureau Plans .......................................................................... 3-8 

3.2.6 Global Climate Change............................................................................................... 3-8 

3.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-10 

3.3.1 Previous Projects and Known Cultural Resource Types within the VPA ................ 3-10 

3.3.2 Prehistoric and Ethnographic Site Types.................................................................. 3-11 

3.3.3 Historical Site Types................................................................................................. 3-14 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP viii

3.3.4 Non-Archaeological Site Types................................................................................ 3-16 

3.3.5 General Site Locations and High Site Density Areas ............................................... 3-17 

3.3.6 Known National Register Listed Sites...................................................................... 3-18 

3.3.7 Summary of Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 3-19 

3.4 Environmental Justice................................................................................................... 3-19 

3.5 Fire Management........................................................................................................... 3-20 

3.5.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-20 

3.5.2 Fire Management Categories .................................................................................... 3-21 

3.6 Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 3-22 

3.6.1 BLM Hazardous Materials Management Program Goals......................................... 3-22 

3.6.2 Hazardous Materials Risks within the VPA ............................................................. 3-24 

3.6.2.1 Landfills and Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities........................................... 3-24 

3.6.2.2 Storage Tanks..................................................................................................... 3-24 

3.6.2.3 Small Businesses................................................................................................ 3-24 

3.6.2.4 Oil and Gas ........................................................................................................ 3-25 

3.6.2.5 Tar Sand............................................................................................................. 3-25 

3.6.2.6 Gilsonite............................................................................................................. 3-25 

3.6.2.7 Oil Shale............................................................................................................. 3-25 

3.6.2.8 Phosphate ........................................................................................................... 3-29 

3.6.2.9 Mineral Materials............................................................................................... 3-29 

3.7 Lands and Realty ........................................................................................................... 3-29 

3.7.1 Land Ownership Adjustment .................................................................................... 3-30 

3.7.2 Disposal and Acquisition .......................................................................................... 3-30 

3.7.3 Withdrawals .............................................................................................................. 3-30 

3.7.4 Rights-of-way (ROWs)............................................................................................. 3-31 

3.7.5 Utility/Transportation Systems ................................................................................. 3-31 

3.7.6 Access ....................................................................................................................... 3-32 

3.7.7 Permits and Leases.................................................................................................... 3-33 

3.7.8 Trespass..................................................................................................................... 3-33 

3.8 Livestock and Grazing Management ........................................................................... 3-33 

3.8.1 Past Grazing Management Categories and Current Range Conditions, Carrying 

Capacity, Management, and Facilities ................................................................... 3-34 

3.8.2 Current Grazing Management Categories ................................................................ 3-35 

3.8.2.1 Category M – Maintain Existing Resource Conditions ..................................... 3-35 

3.8.2.2 Category I – Improve Existing Resource Conditions ........................................ 3-35 

3.8.2.3 Category C – Custodial Management................................................................ 3-36 

3.9 Minerals and Energy Resources................................................................................... 3-36 

3.9.1 Oil and Gas ............................................................................................................... 3-36 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP ix

3.9.1.1 Oil and Gas Leasing, and Locatable and Saleable Minerals Categories............ 3-36 

3.9.1.2 Manila-Clay Basin Exploration and Development Area ................................... 3-39 

3.9.1.3 Tabiona-Ashley Valley Exploration and Development Area ............................ 3-39 

3.9.1.4 Altamont-Bluebell Exploration and Development Area.................................... 3-39 

3.9.1.5 Monument Butte-Red Wash Exploration and Development Area .................... 3-39 

3.9.1.6 West Tavaputs Plateau Exploration and Development Area............................. 3-39 

3.9.1.7 East Tavaputs Plateau Exploration and Development Area .............................. 3-40 

3.9.2 Tar Sand .................................................................................................................... 3-40 

3.9.3 Gilsonite.................................................................................................................... 3-41 

3.9.4 Oil Shale.................................................................................................................... 3-42 

3.9.5 Phosphate .................................................................................................................. 3-42 

3.9.6 Mineral Materials...................................................................................................... 3-42 

3.9.7 Locatable Materials................................................................................................... 3-43 

3.9.8 Coal ........................................................................................................................... 3-43 

3.10 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics................................................... 3-43 

3.10.1 Overview................................................................................................................. 3-43 

3.10.2 Planning Area Profile.............................................................................................. 3-44 

3.11 Paleontology ................................................................................................................. 3-48 

3.11.1 Regional Overview ................................................................................................. 3-48 

3.11.2 Evaluation of Paleontological Resource and Conditions........................................ 3-49 

3.11.2.1 Class 4 and 5 Areas.......................................................................................... 3-52 

3.11.2.2 Class 3 Areas.................................................................................................... 3-52 

3.11.2.3 Class 1 and 2 Areas.......................................................................................... 3-52 

3.12 Recreation..................................................................................................................... 3-52 

3.12.1 Regional Overview ................................................................................................. 3-52 

3.12.1.1 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs)........................................... 3-53 

3.12.1.2 Extensive Recreation Management (ERMAs)................................................. 3-53 

3.12.2 Recreation Types .................................................................................................... 3-54 

3.12.2.1 Trails ................................................................................................................ 3-54 

3.12.2.2 Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs) ....................................................................... 3-54 

3.12.2.3 Hunting and Wildlife Viewing......................................................................... 3-55 

3.12.2.4 Scenic Drives ................................................................................................... 3-55 

3.12.2.5 River Recreation .............................................................................................. 3-55 

3.12.2.6 Boating/Swimming .......................................................................................... 3-56 

3.12.3 Management Strategies........................................................................................... 3-57 

3.13 Riparian and Wetland Resources............................................................................... 3-57 

3.13.1 Regional Overview ................................................................................................. 3-57 

3.13.2 Riparian and Wetland Inventory............................................................................. 3-58 

3.14 Socioeconomics............................................................................................................. 3-58 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP x

3.14.1 Regional Overview ................................................................................................. 3-58 

3.14.2 Uintah County......................................................................................................... 3-60 

3.14.2.1 Social Characteristics....................................................................................... 3-60 

3.14.2.2 Economic Characteristics................................................................................. 3-61 

3.14.2.3 Government Setting ......................................................................................... 3-67 

3.14.3 Duchesne County.................................................................................................... 3-68 

3.14.3.1 Social Characteristics....................................................................................... 3-68 

3.14.3.2 Economic Characteristics................................................................................. 3-69 

3.14.3.3 Government Setting ......................................................................................... 3-74 

3.14.4 Daggett County ....................................................................................................... 3-74 

3.14.4.1 Social Characteristics....................................................................................... 3-74 

3.14.4.2 Economic Characteristics................................................................................. 3-76 

3.14.4.3 Government Setting ......................................................................................... 3-78 

3.14.5 Region-wide Conclusions ....................................................................................... 3-79 

3.15 Soil and Water Resources ........................................................................................... 3-79 

3.15.1 Regional Overview ................................................................................................. 3-79 

3.15.2 Topography............................................................................................................. 3-80 

3.15.3 Soil Resources......................................................................................................... 3-80 

3.15.3.1 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Surveys....................... 3-81 

3.15.3.2 Soil Characteristics of Greatest Management Concern ................................... 3-82 

3.15.4 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-85 

3.15.4.1 Surface Water Supply and Use ........................................................................ 3-85 

3.15.4.2 Groundwater Supply and Use .......................................................................... 3-86 

3.15.4.3 Water Quality................................................................................................... 3-86 

3.16 Special Designations .................................................................................................... 3-87 

3.16.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ................................................ 3-87 

3.16.1.1 Currently Designated ACECs.......................................................................... 3-87 

3.16.1.2 Potential ACECs .............................................................................................. 3-88 

3.16.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers........................................................................................... 3-90 

3.16.2.1 Regional Overview .......................................................................................... 3-90 

3.16.2.2 River Segments Determined Eligible for Wild and Scenic River 

Designation ........................................................................................................ 3-91 

3.16.3 Wilderness Study Areas.......................................................................................... 3-93 

3.16.3.1 Overview.......................................................................................................... 3-93 

3.16.3.2 Planning Area Profile....................................................................................... 3-93 

3.17 Special Status Species .................................................................................................. 3-94 

3.17.1 Regional Overview ................................................................................................. 3-94 

3.17.1.1 Federally listed Species.................................................................................... 3-94 

3.17.1.2 Federally Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and Proposed Species ........... 3-97 

3.17.1.3 State-listed Wildlife Species and BLM-listed Sensitive Plant Species ......... 3-102 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xi

3.18 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 3-113 

3.18.1 Dominant Vegetation Communities ..................................................................... 3-113 

3.18.1.1 Plains Grassland/Herbaceous......................................................................... 3-113 

3.18.1.2 Desert Shrub................................................................................................... 3-113 

3.18.1.3 Sagebrush/Perennial Grass............................................................................. 3-114 

3.18.1.4 Pinyon-Juniper ............................................................................................... 3-116 

3.18.1.5 Mountain Shrub ............................................................................................. 3-117 

3.18.1.6 Conifer Forest: Conifer/Aspen, Aspen/Forb, and Spruce/Fir ........................ 3-118 

3.18.1.7 Riparian Areas and Wetlands......................................................................... 3-119 

3.18.1.8 Badlands......................................................................................................... 3-119 

3.18.2 Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds................................................................... 3-120 

3.19 Visual Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-124 

3.19.1 Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes..................................................... 3-124 

3.19.2 Regional Overview ............................................................................................... 3-124 

3.20 Wild Horses ................................................................................................................ 3-125 

3.20.1 Bonanza Herd Management Area......................................................................... 3-125 

3.20.2 Winter Ridge Herd Area ....................................................................................... 3-126 

3.20.3 Hill Creek Herd Management Area ...................................................................... 3-127 

3.20.3.1 Hill Creek Northwest/Wild Horse Bench ...................................................... 3-127 

3.20.3.2 Hill Creek Southeast/Agency Draw............................................................... 3-127 

3.21 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources.............................................................................. 3-128 

3.21.1 Wildlife Associated with the VPA........................................................................ 3-129 

3.21.1.1 Mule Deer ...................................................................................................... 3-129 

3.21.1.2 Rocky Mountain Elk...................................................................................... 3-130 

3.21.1.3 Pronghorn....................................................................................................... 3-132 

3.21.1.4 Bighorn Sheep................................................................................................ 3-133 

3.21.1.5 Moose............................................................................................................. 3-133 

3.21.1.6 Bison .............................................................................................................. 3-134 

3.21.1.7 Black Bear...................................................................................................... 3-134 

3.21.1.8 Mountain Lion ............................................................................................... 3-135 

3.21.1.9 Upland Species............................................................................................... 3-135 

3.21.1.10 Waterfowl, Shorebirds, and Wading Birds.................................................. 3-136 

3.21.1.11 Raptors ......................................................................................................... 3-136 

3.21.1.12 Other Non-Game Species ............................................................................ 3-137 

3.21.1.13 Fisheries and Aquatic Species ..................................................................... 3-138 

3.21.2 Habitat Fragmentation .......................................................................................... 3-138 

3.22 Woodlands and Forest Resources ............................................................................ 3-139 

3.22.1 Regional Overview ............................................................................................... 3-139 

3.22.2 Woodland and Forest Products ............................................................................. 3-140 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xiii

VOLUME 2 

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER FOUR Environmental Consequences.................................................................. 4-1

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

4.1.1. Analytical Assumptions ............................................................................................. 4-1 

4.1.2. Assumptions and Methodology for Minerals Development...................................... 4-2 

4.1.3. Assumptions and Methodology for Air Quality Modeling........................................ 4-6

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

4.1.5. Impacts to Critical Elements...................................................................................... 4-7 

4.1.5.1. Impacts of Alternatives on Prime and Unique Farmlands.................................. 4-7 

4.1.5.2. Impacts of Alternatives on Invasive and/or Noxious Non-native Plants............ 4-7 

4.1.5.3. Incomplete or Unavailable Information.............................................................. 4-7 

4.2. Air Quality....................................................................................................................... 4-8 

4.2.1. Global Climate Change.............................................................................................. 4-8 

4.2.2. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives .................................. 4-8 

4.2.3. Impacts from the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ............................................. 4-9 

4.2.3.1. Impacts of Cultural, Paleontological, Special Status Species, Visual 

Resource Management, and Wild Horse Management Decisions....................... 4-9 

4.2.3.2. Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E............................................ 4-9 

4.2.3.3. Impacts of Livestock Grazing, Rangeland Improvement, Riparian 

Management, Vegetative Management, and Woodland and Forest 

Management Decisions...................................................................................... 4-10 

4.2.3.4. Impacts of Land and Realty Management Decisions on Air Quality ............... 4-11 

4.2.3.5. Impacts of Fire Decisions on Air Quality......................................................... 4-11 

4.2.3.6. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Air Quality................................................... 4-13 

4.2.3.7. Discussion......................................................................................................... 4-28 

4.2.4. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 4-30 

4.2.5. Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-30 

4.2.5.1. NAAQS............................................................................................................. 4-31 

4.2.5.2. PSD Increment Thresholds ............................................................................... 4-31 

4.2.5.3. HAPs Emissions................................................................................................ 4-31 

4.2.5.4. Visibility Analyses............................................................................................ 4-31 

4.2.5.5. Deposition......................................................................................................... 4-32 

4.2.5.6. Acid Neutralizing Capacity............................................................................... 4-33 

4.2.6. Air Quality Impact Summary................................................................................... 4-33 

4.2.7. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................................. 4-33 

4.2.8. Short-term Use Versus Long-term Productivity...................................................... 4-34 

4.2.9. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts...................................................................... 4-34 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xiv

4.3. Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 4-35 

4.3.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ................................ 4-36 

4.3.2. Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts.................................................................. 4-38 

4.3.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Cultural Resources ...................... 4-39 

4.3.2.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Cultural Resources....................... 4-41 

4.3.2.3. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Cultural Resources ....................... 4-42 

4.3.2.4. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Cultural Resources....................................... 4-45

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

on Cultural Resources........................................................................................ 4-57 

4.3.2.6. Impacts of Rangeland Management Decisions on Cultural Resources ............ 4-58 

4.3.2.7. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Cultural Resources.................................. 4-61 

4.3.2.8. Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Cultural Resources ................... 4-65 

4.3.2.9. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Cultural Resources......................................... 4-68 

4.3.2.10. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Cultural Resources................................ 4-73 

4.3.2.11. Impacts of Visual Resource Management Decisions on Cultural 

Resources ........................................................................................................... 4-74 

4.3.2.12. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Cultural Resources.............. 4-76 

4.3.2.13. Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................... 4-77 

4.3.3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................................. 4-78 

4.3.4. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ..................................................... 4-78 

4.3.5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts...................................................................... 4-78 

4.4. Environmental Justice.................................................................................................. 4-79 

4.4.1. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C and E ............................................... 4-79 

4.4.1.1. Mitigation.......................................................................................................... 4-80 

4.4.2. Alternative D (No Action) ....................................................................................... 4-80 

4.4.2.1. Mitigation.......................................................................................................... 4-81 

4.5. Fire Management.......................................................................................................... 4-82 

4.5.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ................................ 4-83 

4.5.2. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Impacts ................................................................ 4-84 

4.5.2.1. Impacts of Fire Decisions on Fire Management............................................... 4-84 

4.5.2.2. Impacts of Mineral Development Decisions on Fire Management .................. 4-85 

4.5.2.3. Impacts of Non-WSA Areas with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Fire Management .......................................................................................... 4-86 

4.5.2.4. Impacts of Rangeland Improvement Decisions on Fire Management.............. 4-87 

4.5.2.5. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Fire Management .................................... 4-88 

4.5.2.6. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Fire Management........................................... 4-91

4.5.2.7. Impacts of Woodland and Forest Decisions on Fire Management ................... 4-93 

4.5.2.8. Summary........................................................................................................... 4-94 

4.5.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 4-95 

4.5.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................................. 4-96 

4.5.5. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity....................................................... 4-96 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xv

4.5.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts...................................................................... 4-96 

4.6. Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 4-97 

4.6.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ................................ 4-97 

4.6.1.1. Minerals ............................................................................................................ 4-97 

4.6.1.2. Abandoned Mine Land (AML)....................................................................... 4-101 

4.6.2. Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts................................................................ 4-101 

4.6.2.1. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Hazardous Materials ................................ 4-101 

4.6.2.2. Impacts of Non-WSA Areas with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 4-105 

4.6.2.3. Summary......................................................................................................... 4-106 

4.6.3. Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 4-106 

4.6.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................... 4-106 

4.6.5. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ................................................... 4-106 

4.6.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................... 4-106 

4.7. Lands and Realty ........................................................................................................ 4-107 

4.7.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives .............................. 4-107 

4.7.1.1. Direct Impacts................................................................................................. 4-107 

4.7.1.2. Indirect Impacts .............................................................................................. 4-109 

4.7.2. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Impacts .............................................................. 4-109 

4.7.2.1. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Lands and Realty........................ 4-109 

4.7.2.2. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Lands and Realty ....................................... 4-111 

4.7.2.3. Impacts of Non-WSA Areas with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Lands and Realty......................................................................................... 4-113 

4.7.3. Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 4-113 

4.7.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................... 4-113 

4.7.5. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ................................................... 4-113 

4.7.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................... 4-114 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management ........................................................................ 4-115 

4.8.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives .............................. 4-115 

4.8.2. Alternative Impacts................................................................................................ 4-117 

4.8.2.1. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing...................... 4-118 

4.8.2.2. Impacts of Forage Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing ................. 4-119 

4.8.2.3. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Livestock Grazing ..................................... 4-122 

4.8.2.4. Impacts of Non-WSA Areas with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Livestock Grazing....................................................................................... 4-126 

4.8.2.5. Impacts of Rangeland Improvement Decisions on Livestock Grazing .......... 4-127 

4.8.2.6. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Livestock Grazing........... 4-129 

4.8.2.7. Summary......................................................................................................... 4-129 

4.8.3. Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 4-130 

4.8.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................... 4-131 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xvi

4.8.5. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ................................................... 4-131 

4.8.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................... 4-131 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources................................................................................ 4-132 

4.9.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives .............................. 4-132 

4.9.1.1. Oil and Gas Resources.................................................................................... 4-133 

4.9.1.2. Locatable Mineral Resources.......................................................................... 4-133 

4.9.1.3. Mineral Materials............................................................................................ 4-135 

4.9.1.4. Alternative Energy.......................................................................................... 4-135 

4.9.2. Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts................................................................ 4-135 

4.9.2.1. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Mineral Resources ..................................... 4-136 

4.9.2.2. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Mineral Resources..................... 4-149 

4.9.2.3. Impacts of Non-WSA Areas with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Mineral Resources ...................................................................................... 4-150 

4.9.2.4. Impacts of Recreation Resource Decisions on Mineral Resources ................ 4-151 

4.9.2.5. Impacts of Soil Resources Decisions on Mineral Resources.......................... 4-153 

4.9.2.6. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Mineral Resources................ 4-154 

4.9.2.7. Impacts of Special Status Species Resource Decisions on Mineral 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-157 

4.9.2.8. Impacts of Wildlife Decisions on Mineral Resources .................................... 4-169 

4.9.2.9. Impacts of Visual Management Decisions on Mineral Resources ................. 4-170 

4.9.2.10. Summary of Impacts from Alternatives........................................................ 4-173 

4.9.3. Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 4-174 

4.9.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................... 4-174 

4.9.5. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ................................................... 4-174 

4.9.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................... 4-174 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics................................................ 4-175 

4.10.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ............................ 4-175 

4.10.1.1. Fire Management .......................................................................................... 4-175 

4.10.1.2. Lands and Realty........................................................................................... 4-177 

4.10.1.3. Livestock and Grazing Management ............................................................ 4-177 

4.10.1.4. Minerals ........................................................................................................ 4-178 

4.10.1.5. Recreation ..................................................................................................... 4-178 

4.10.1.6. Riparian and Wetland Resources .................................................................. 4-179 

4.10.1.7. Special Designations..................................................................................... 4-179 

4.10.1.8. Visual Resources........................................................................................... 4-180 

4.10.1.9. Wildlife and Fisheries................................................................................... 4-180 

4.10.2. Alternative Impacts.............................................................................................. 4-181 

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

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-181 

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

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-183 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xvii

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

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics............................................................ 4-186

4.10.2.4. Impacts of Livestock and Grazing Management on Non-WSA Lands 

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

4.10.2.5. Impacts of Minerals and Energy Resources on Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-190 

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

on Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..................................... 4-228 

4.10.2.7. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics.................................................................................................. 4-232 

4.10.2.8. Impacts of Travel, Roads, and Trails Decisions on Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics....................................................................... 4-239 

4.10.2.9. Impacts of Riparian/Soils/Watershed Decisions on Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics....................................................................... 4-246 

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

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-248 

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

Characteristics.................................................................................................. 4-263 

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

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics............................................................ 4-267

4.10.2.13. Impacts of Wild Horse Decisions on Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics.................................................................................................. 4-273 

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

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................... 4-277 

4.10.2.15. Summary of Impacts from the Proposed RMP and Alternatives................ 4-281 

4.10.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4-283 

4.10.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-285 

4.10.5. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity................................................... 4-285 

4.10.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-286 

4.11. Paleontology .............................................................................................................. 4-287 

4.11.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ............................ 4-288 

4.11.1.1. Fire Management and Woodland/Forest....................................................... 4-288 

4.11.1.2. Livestock and Grazing .................................................................................. 4-288 

4.11.1.3. Minerals ........................................................................................................ 4-288 

4.11.1.4. Paleontology ................................................................................................. 4-289 

4.11.1.5. Rangeland Improvements ............................................................................. 4-289 

4.11.1.6. Recreation ..................................................................................................... 4-289 

4.11.2. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Impacts ............................................................ 4-289 

4.11.2.1. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Paleontological Resources ....... 4-290 

4.11.2.2. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Paleontological Resources ....... 4-291 

4.11.2.3. Impacts of Mineral Decisions on Paleontological Resources....................... 4-292 

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

on Paleontological Resources .......................................................................... 4-295 

4.11.2.5. Impacts of Paleontological Decisions on Paleontological Resources........... 4-296 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xviii

4.11.2.6. Impacts of Rangelands Improvement Decisions on Paleontological 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-296 

4.11.2.7. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Paleontological Resources .................. 4-298 

4.11.2.8. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Paleontological Resources ......................... 4-301 

4.11.2.9. Impacts of Visual Resource Management Decisions on Paleontological 

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

4.11.3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-306 

4.11.4. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ................................................. 4-306 

4.11.5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-306 

4.12. Recreation.................................................................................................................. 4-307 

4.12.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ............................ 4-307 

4.12.2. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Impacts ............................................................ 4-310 

4.12.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Recreation ............................... 4-310 

4.12.2.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Recreation ................................ 4-312 

4.12.2.3. Impacts of Land and Realty Management Decisions on Recreation ............ 4-312 

4.12.2.4. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Recreation .............................................. 4-315 

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

on Recreation ................................................................................................... 4-318 

4.12.2.6. Impacts of Paleontology Decisions on Recreation ....................................... 4-319 

4.12.2.7. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Recreation ........................................... 4-320 

4.12.2.8. Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Recreation ............................ 4-330 

4.12.2.9. Impacts of Travel/Roads and Trails Decisions on Recreation...................... 4-336 

4.12.2.10. Impacts of Visual Resource Management Decisions on Recreation .......... 4-339 

4.12.2.11. Summary..................................................................................................... 4-341 

4.12.2.12. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4-343 

4.12.3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-344 

4.12.4. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity................................................... 4-344 

4.12.5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-344 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources............................................................................ 4-345 

4.13.1. Impacts Common to All....................................................................................... 4-345 

4.13.2. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives Impacts ..................................................... 4-349 

4.13.2.1. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Riparian Resources .................. 4-349 

4.13.2.2. Impacts of Forage and Wild Horse Management Decisions on Riparian 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-350 

4.13.2.3. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Riparian Resources................... 4-350 

4.13.2.4. Impacts of Livestock and Grazing Decisions on Riparian Resources .......... 4-351 

4.13.2.5. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Riparian Resources ................................ 4-352 

4.13.2.6. Impacts of Non-WSA Areas with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Riparian Resources ..................................................................................... 4-353 

4.13.2.7. Impacts of Rangeland Improvement Decisions on Riparian Resources....... 4-354 

4.13.2.8. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Riparian Resources ............................. 4-354 

4.13.2.9. Impacts of Riparian Management Decisions on Riparian Resources........... 4-356 

4.13.2.10. Impacts of Soils and Watershed Decisions on Riparian Resources............ 4-357 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xix

4.13.2.11. Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Riparian Resources ............ 4-358 

4.13.2.12. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Riparian Resources......... 4-359 

4.13.2.13. Impacts of Vegetation Management Decisions on Riparian Resources ..... 4-361 

4.13.2.14. Impacts of Visual Resource Management Decisions on Riparian 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-361 

4.13.2.15. Impacts of Woodlands and Forest Management Decisions on Riparian 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-362 

4.13.2.16. Summary..................................................................................................... 4-363 

4.13.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4-363 

4.13.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-363 

4.13.5. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ................................................. 4-363 

4.13.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-363 

4.14. Socioeconomics.......................................................................................................... 4-364 

4.14.1. Summary and General Assumptions.................................................................... 4-364 

4.14.1.1. Proportional Impacts..................................................................................... 4-364 

4.14.1.2. Qualitative versus Quantitative Data ............................................................ 4-364 

4.14.2. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ............................ 4-364 

4.14.2.1. Livestock and Grazing Management ............................................................ 4-365 

4.14.2.2. Lands and Realty........................................................................................... 4-365 

4.14.2.3. Minerals ........................................................................................................ 4-365 

4.14.2.4. Recreation ..................................................................................................... 4-366 

4.14.3. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Impacts ............................................................ 4-367 

4.14.3.1. Impacts of Livestock and Grazing Management on Socioeconomics.......... 4-367 

4.14.3.2. Impacts of Minerals Development on Economic Conditions....................... 4-367 

4.14.3.3. Impacts of Minerals Development on Social Conditions ............................. 4-380 

4.14.3.4. Impacts of Non-WSA lands with Wilderness Characteristics decisions 

on Socioeconomics .......................................................................................... 4-381 

4.14.3.5. Effect of Paleontology on Socioeconomics .................................................. 4-384 

4.14.3.6. Impacts of Recreation on Socioeconomics................................................... 4-384 

4.14.3.7. Impacts of Special Designations on Socioeconomics................................... 4-389 

4.14.3.8. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Socioeconomics ......................................... 4-390 

4.14.3.9. Impacts of Visual Resource Management decisions on Socioeconomics .... 4-392 

4.14.3.10. Impacts of Wild Horses on Socioeconomics.............................................. 4-393

4.14.3.11. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries on Socioeconomics............................... 4-394 

4.14.3.12. Impacts of Woodland and Forests on Socioeconomics .............................. 4-394 

4.14.4. Summary.............................................................................................................. 4-394 

4.14.4.1. Proposed RMP .............................................................................................. 4-394 

4.14.4.2. Alternative B................................................................................................. 4-395 

4.14.4.3. Alternative C................................................................................................. 4-395 

4.14.4.4. Alternative D (No Action) ............................................................................ 4-395 

4.14.4.5. Alternative E ................................................................................................. 4-396 

4.14.5. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-396 

4.14.6. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ................................................. 4-396 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xx

4.14.7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-396 

4.15. Soil and Water Resources ........................................................................................ 4-397 

4.15.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ............................ 4-398 

4.15.1.1. Impacts Common to All Fire Management Decisions.................................. 4-398 

4.15.1.2. Impacts Common to All Lands and Realty Management Decisions ............ 4-399 

4.15.1.3. Impacts Common to All Livestock and Grazing, Forage, and Wild Horse 

Management Decisions.................................................................................... 4-399 

4.15.1.4. Impacts Common to All Minerals Management Decisions.......................... 4-400 

4.15.1.5. Impacts Common to All Rangeland Improvement Decisions ...................... 4-401 

4.15.1.6. Impacts Common to All Recreation Management Decisions....................... 4-402 

4.15.1.7. Impacts Common to All Riparian Management Decisions .......................... 4-402 

4.15.1.8. Impacts Common to All Soil and Water Management Decisions ................ 4-402 

4.15.1.9. Impacts Common to All Special Designations ............................................. 4-403

4.15.1.10. Impacts Common to All Special Status Species Management Decisions .. 4-403 

4.15.1.11. Impacts Common to All Travel Management Decisions............................ 4-403 

4.15.1.12. Impacts Common to All Vegetation Management Decisions..................... 4-404 

4.15.1.13. Impacts Common to All Visual Resource Management Decisions............ 4-404 

4.15.1.14. Impacts Common to All Wildlife Management Decisions......................... 4-404 

4.15.1.15. Impacts Common to All Woodlands and Forest Management Decisions .. 4-404 

4.15.2. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Impacts ............................................................ 4-405 

4.15.2.1. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Water and Soils........................ 4-405 

4.15.2.2. Impacts of Forage Management Decisions on Water and Soils ................... 4-405 

4.15.2.3. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Water and Soils ........................ 4-406 

4.15.2.4. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Water and Soils...................................... 4-406 

4.15.2.5. Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics on Water 

and Soils........................................................................................................... 4-412 

4.15.2.6. Impacts of Rangeland Improvement Decisions on Water and Soils............. 4-413 

4.15.2.7. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Water and Soils................................... 4-414 

4.15.2.8. Impacts of Riparian Management Decisions on Water and Soils................. 4-415 

4.15.2.9. Impacts of Soils and Water Resources Decisions on Water and Soils ......... 4-416 

4.15.2.10. Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Water and Soils .................. 4-417 

4.15.2.11. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Water and Soils .............. 4-418 

4.15.2.12. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Water and Soils........................................ 4-418

4.15.2.13. Impacts of Visual Resource Management Decisions on Water and Soils.. 4-420 

4.15.2.14. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Management Decisions on Water and 

Soils.................................................................................................................. 4-421 

4.15.2.15. Impacts of Woodlands and Forest Management Decisions on Water 

and Soils........................................................................................................... 4-421 

4.15.2.16. Summary..................................................................................................... 4-422 

4.15.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4-424 

4.15.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-424 

4.15.5. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity................................................... 4-424 

4.15.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-424 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxi

4.16. Special Designations ................................................................................................. 4-426 

4.16.1. ACECs ................................................................................................................. 4-426 

4.16.1.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ..................... 4-426 

4.16.1.2. Alternatives Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-427 

4.16.1.3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-437 

4.16.1.4. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity .......................................... 4-437

4.16.1.5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-437 

4.16.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers........................................................................................ 4-437 

4.16.2.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ..................... 4-437 

4.16.2.2. Alternative Impacts....................................................................................... 4-440 

4.16.2.3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-443 

4.16.2.4. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity .......................................... 4-443

4.16.2.5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-444 

4.16.3. Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs)......................................................................... 4-444 

4.16.3.1. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................... 4-445 

4.16.3.2. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity .......................................... 4-445

4.16.3.3. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts........................................................... 4-445 

4.17. Special Status Species ............................................................................................... 4-446 

4.17.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ............................ 4-447 

4.17.1.1. Fire and Woodland Management.................................................................. 4-447 

4.17.1.2. Forage Allocation/Livestock Grazing........................................................... 4-448 

4.17.1.3. Mineral and Energy Development................................................................ 4-448 

4.17.1.4. Rangeland Improvement............................................................................... 4-450 

4.17.1.5. Recreation and Travel................................................................................... 4-450 

4.17.1.6. Special Status Species................................................................................... 4-450 

4.17.2. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Impacts ............................................................ 4-453 

4.17.2.1. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Special Status Species.............. 4-453 

4.17.2.2. Impacts of Forage Allocation and Livestock Grazing Decisions on 

Special Status Species...................................................................................... 4-453 

4.17.2.3. Impacts of Mineral Development Decisions on Special Status Species....... 4-456 

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

on Special Status Species................................................................................. 4-466 

4.17.2.5. Impacts of Rangeland Improvement Decisions on Special Status Species .. 4-467 

4.17.2.6. Impacts of Recreation and Travel Decisions on Special Status Species ...... 4-468 

4.17.2.7. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Special Status Species ...... 4-469 

4.17.2.8. Impacts of Soils and Watersheds Decisions on Special Status Species........ 4-471 

4.17.2.9. Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Special Status Species.......... 4-472 

4.17.2.10. Impacts of Woodlands and Forest Management Decisions on Special 

Status Species................................................................................................... 4-475 

4.17.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4-476 

4.17.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-478 

4.17.5. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity................................................... 4-478 

4.17.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-478 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxii

4.18. Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 4-479 

4.18.1. Impacts Common to All....................................................................................... 4-479 

4.18.2. Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts.............................................................. 4-481 

4.18.2.1. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Vegetation Resources .............. 4-481 

4.18.2.2. Impacts of Forage Decisions on Vegetation Resources................................ 4-482 

4.18.2.3. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Vegetation Resources............... 4-483 

4.18.2.4. Impacts of Livestock and Grazing Decisions on Vegetation Resources ...... 4-485 

4.18.2.5. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Vegetation Resources............................. 4-486 

4.18.2.6. Impacts of Minerals Decisions by RFD Area ............................................... 4-492 

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

on Vegetation Resources.................................................................................. 4-494 

4.18.2.8. Impacts of Rangeland Improvements Decisions on Vegetation Resources.. 4-495 

4.18.2.9. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Vegetation Resources ......................... 4-496 

4.18.2.10. Impacts of Soils and Watersheds Decisions on Vegetation Resources ...... 4-500 

4.18.2.11. Impacts of Special Designations on Vegetation Resources........................ 4-500 

4.18.2.12. Impacts of Wild and Scenic Rivers Decisions on Vegetation Resources... 4-502 

4.18.2.13. Impacts of Travel Decisions on Vegetation Resources .............................. 4-503 

4.18.2.14. Impacts of Visuals Decisions on Vegetation Resources............................. 4-504 

4.18.2.15. Impacts of Wild Horses Decisions on Vegetation Resources..................... 4-505 

4.18.2.16. Impacts of Wildlife Decisions on Vegetation Resources ........................... 4-506 

4.18.2.17. Impacts of Woodland Decisions on Vegetation Resources ........................ 4-506 

4.18.2.18. Summary..................................................................................................... 4-508 

4.18.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4-508 

4.18.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-509 

4.18.5. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity................................................... 4-509 

4.18.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-509 

4.19. Visual Resources ....................................................................................................... 4-510 

4.19.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives .................................................................. 4-510 

4.19.1.1. Abandoned Mine Lands................................................................................ 4-510 

4.19.1.2. Fire Management .......................................................................................... 4-510 

4.19.1.3. Lands and Realty........................................................................................... 4-511 

4.19.1.4. Minerals ........................................................................................................ 4-511 

4.19.1.5. Recreation ..................................................................................................... 4-512 

4.19.1.6. Visual ............................................................................................................ 4-512 

4.19.1.7. Special Designations..................................................................................... 4-512 

4.19.2. Alternative Impacts.............................................................................................. 4-512 

4.19.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Decisions on Visual Resources..................................... 4-512 

4.19.2.2. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Visual Resources...................... 4-514 

4.19.2.3. Impacts of Grazing Decisions on Visual Resources ..................................... 4-514 

4.19.2.4. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Visual Resources...................... 4-516 

4.19.2.5. Effects of Minerals/Energy Decisions on Visual Resources ........................ 4-517 

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

on Visual Resources......................................................................................... 4-520 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxiii

4.19.2.7. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Visual Resources................................. 4-521 

4.19.2.8. Impacts of Travel/Roads/Trails Decisions on Visual Resources.................. 4-524 

4.19.2.9. Impacts of Riparian/Soils/Watershed Decisions on Visual Resources......... 4-528 

4.19.2.10. Impacts of Special Designation Area Decisions on Visual Resources....... 4-529 

4.19.2.11. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Visual Resources .............................. 4-538 

4.19.2.12. Impacts of Visual Decisions on Visual Resources ..................................... 4-538 

4.19.2.13. Impacts of Woodland and Forest Decisions on Visual Resources ............. 4-539 

4.19.2.14. Summary of Impacts from Alternatives...................................................... 4-541 

4.19.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4-543 

4.19.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-543 

4.19.5. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity................................................... 4-543 

4.19.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-544 

4.20. Wild Horses ............................................................................................................... 4-545 

4.20.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ............................ 4-545 

4.20.1.1. Fire ................................................................................................................ 4-545 

4.20.1.2. Lands and Realty........................................................................................... 4-546 

4.20.1.3. Riparian......................................................................................................... 4-546 

4.20.1.4. Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 4-546 

4.20.2. Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts.............................................................. 4-546 

4.20.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Decisions, Recreation Decisions, Special 

Designations Decisions, Travel Decisions, and Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics Decisions on Wild Horses.................................... 4-546 

4.20.2.2. Impacts of Fire Decisions on Wild Horses ................................................... 4-548 

4.20.2.3. Impacts of Forage Allocation Decisions on Wild Horses............................. 4-549 

4.20.2.4. Impacts of Minerals Development Decisions on Wild Horses..................... 4-550 

4.20.2.5. Impacts of Non-WSA Wilderness Area Decisions on Wild Horses............. 4-552 

4.20.2.6. Impacts of Rangeland Improvements Decisions on Wild Horses ................ 4-552 

4.20.2.7. Impacts of Wild Horse Decisions on Wild Horses ....................................... 4-554 

4.20.2.8. Summary....................................................................................................... 4-557 

4.20.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4-557 

4.20.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-557 

4.20.5. Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity................................................... 4-558 

4.20.6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-558 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources............................................................................. 4-559 

4.21.1. Impacts of Resource Management Decisions Common to the Proposed RMP 

and All Alternatives ............................................................................................. 4-559 

4.21.2. Impacts of Resource Management Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries for the 

Proposed RMP and all Alternatives..................................................................... 4-559 

4.21.2.1. Impacts of Cultural Resources Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-559 

4.21.2.2. Impacts of Fire Management on Wildlife and Fisheries Resources ............. 4-560 

4.21.2.3. Impacts of Forage Allocation on Wildlife and Fisheries Resources............. 4-560 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxiv

4.21.2.4. Impacts of Land and Realty Management on Wildlife and Fisheries 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-571 

4.21.2.5. Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Wildlife and Fisheries Resources............ 4-572 

4.21.2.6. Impacts of Mineral Resource Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-574 

4.21.2.7. Impacts of Non-WSA lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Wildlife and Fisheries Resources................................................................ 4-584 

4.21.2.8. Impacts of Rangeland Improvements on Wildlife and Fisheries 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-585 

4.21.2.9. Impacts of Recreation and Travel on Wildlife and Fisheries Resources...... 4-586 

4.21.3. Impacts of Riparian on Wildlife and Fisheries Resources................................... 4-588 

4.21.3.1. Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E .......................................... 4-588 

4.21.3.2. Impacts of Special Designations on Wildlife and Fisheries Resources........ 4-588 

4.21.3.3. Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-590 

4.21.3.4. Impacts of Soils and Watersheds on Wildlife and Fisheries Resources ....... 4-590 

4.21.3.5. Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Management Decisions on Wildlife 

and Fisheries Resources................................................................................... 4-591 

4.21.3.6. Impacts of Wild Horse Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries Resources ...... 4-594 

4.21.3.7. Impacts of Woodlands and Forest Management Decisions on Wildlife 

and Fisheries Resources................................................................................... 4-595 

4.21.4. Summary.............................................................................................................. 4-596 

4.21.5. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4-596 

4.21.6. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................. 4-596 

4.21.7. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ................................................. 4-596 

4.21.8. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-597 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources ........................................................................... 4-598 

4.22.1. Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives ............................ 4-598 

4.22.2. Alternative Impacts.............................................................................................. 4-600 

4.22.2.1. Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Woodland Resources ............... 4-600 

4.22.2.2. Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Woodland Resources................ 4-600 

4.22.2.3. Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Woodland Resources ............................. 4-601 

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

on Woodlands .................................................................................................. 4-602 

4.22.2.5. Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Woodland Resources .......................... 4-603 

4.22.2.6. Impacts of Soils/Watershed/Riparian Decisions on Woodland Resources... 4-604 

4.22.2.7. Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Woodland Resources.......... 4-605 

4.22.2.8. Impacts of Travel/Roads/Trails Decisions on Woodland Resources............ 4-608 

4.22.2.9. Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Woodland Resources .......................... 4-610 

4.22.2.10. Impacts of Visual Decisions on Woodland Resources ............................... 4-610 

4.22.2.11. Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Woodland Resources ....................... 4-612 

4.22.2.12. Summary..................................................................................................... 4-613 

4.22.2.13. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4-615 

4.22.3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ......................................................................... 4-615 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxv

4.22.4. Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ................................................. 4-615 

4.22.5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Impacts.................................................................. 4-616 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................. 4-617 

4.23.1. Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality..................................................................... 4-617 

4.23.2. Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources......................................................... 4-618 

4.23.3. Cumulative Impacts on Fire Management........................................................... 4-620 

4.23.4. Cumulative Impacts on Hazardous Materials ...................................................... 4-620 

4.23.5. Cumulative Impacts on Lands and Realty ........................................................... 4-620 

4.23.6. Cumulative Impacts on Livestock and Grazing................................................... 4-621 

4.23.7. Cumulative Impacts on Mineral Resources ......................................................... 4-621 

4.23.8. Cumulative Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ........ 4-621 

4.23.9. Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources............................................. 4-622 

4.23.10. Cumulative Impacts on Recreation.................................................................... 4-622 

4.23.11. Cumulative Impacts on Riparian Resources ...................................................... 4-622 

4.23.12. Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics ........................................................... 4-623 

4.23.13. Cumulative Impacts on Soil and Water Resources............................................ 4-624 

4.23.14. Cumulative Impacts on Special Status Species ................................................. 4-625 

4.23.15. Cumulative Impacts on Special Designations.................................................... 4-626 

4.23.15.1. ACECs ........................................................................................................ 4-626 

4.23.15.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers............................................................................... 4-626 

4.23.15.3. Wilderness................................................................................................... 4-626 

4.23.16. Cumulative Impacts on Vegetation.................................................................... 4-626 

4.23.17. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources ......................................................... 4-627 

4.23.18. Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife and Fisheries.................................................. 4-627 

4.23.19. Cumulative Impacts on Woodlands ................................................................... 4-628 

4.23.20. Cumulative Impacts on Wild Horses ................................................................. 4-628 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxvi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxvii

VOLUME 3 

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER FIVE 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 Interests and Tribes........................................................................ 5-3 

5.2.2. Summary of Results................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.2.2.1. Jicarilla Apache Tribe......................................................................................... 5-9 

5.2.2.2. Navajo Nation ..................................................................................................... 5-9 

5.2.2.3. Kaibab Paiute Tribe .......................................................................................... 5-10 

5.2.2.4. Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah............................................................................... 5-10 

5.2.2.5. San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe ........................................................................ 5-10 

5.2.2.6. Hopi Tribe......................................................................................................... 5-10 

5.2.2.7. Pueblo of Acoma............................................................................................... 5-10 

5.2.2.8. Pueblo of Cochiti .............................................................................................. 5-10 

5.2.2.9. Pueblo of Isleta ................................................................................................. 5-11 

5.2.2.10. Pueblo of Jemez .............................................................................................. 5-11 

5.2.2.11. Pueblo of Laguna ............................................................................................ 5-11 

5.2.2.12. Pueblo of Nambe............................................................................................. 5-11 

5.2.2.13. Pueblo of Picuris............................................................................................. 5-11 

5.2.2.14. Pueblo of Pojoaque ......................................................................................... 5-11 

5.2.2.15. Pueblo of San Felipe ....................................................................................... 5-11 

5.2.2.16. Pueblo of San Ildefonso.................................................................................. 5-12 

5.2.2.17. Pueblo of San Juan.......................................................................................... 5-12 

5.2.2.18. Pueblo of Santa Clara...................................................................................... 5-12 

5.2.2.19. Pueblo of Santa Ana........................................................................................ 5-12 

5.2.2.20. Pueblo of Santo Domingo............................................................................... 5-12 

5.2.2.21. Pueblo of Sandia ............................................................................................. 5-12 

5.2.2.22. Pueblo of Taos ................................................................................................ 5-13 

5.2.2.23. Pueblo of Tesuque........................................................................................... 5-13 

5.2.2.24. Pueblo of Zia................................................................................................... 5-13 

5.2.2.25. Pueblo of Zuni................................................................................................. 5-13 

5.2.2.26. Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribe............................................................... 5-13 

5.2.2.27. Duckwater Shoshone Tribe............................................................................. 5-13 

5.2.2.28. Eastern Shoshone Tribe .................................................................................. 5-14 

5.2.2.29. Ely Shoshone Tribe......................................................................................... 5-14 

5.2.2.30. Confederated Tribes of Goshute Nation ......................................................... 5-14 

5.2.2.31. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes .............................................................................. 5-14 

5.2.2.32. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians............................................................ 5-14 

5.2.2.33. Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians................................................ 5-14 

5.2.2.34. Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe ................................................................ 5-15 

5.2.2.35. Southern Ute Tribe.......................................................................................... 5-15 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxviii

5.2.2.36. White Mesa Ute Tribe..................................................................................... 5-15 

5.2.2.37. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.................................................................................. 5-15 

5.2.3. Environmental Protection Agency........................................................................... 5-15 

5.2.4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................ 5-16 

5.2.5. State Agency Coordination ...................................................................................... 5-16 

5.2.6. Cooperating Agency Involvement ........................................................................... 5-17 

5.3. Consistency with Other Plans...................................................................................... 5-17 

5.4. Public Outreach and Participation ............................................................................. 5-64 

5.4.1. Scoping and Notice of Intent to Plan (NOI) ............................................................ 5-64 

5.4.2. Notice of Availability (NOA) of Draft RMP/EIS.................................................... 5-64 

5.4.3. Mailing List.............................................................................................................. 5-65 

5.4.4. Website .................................................................................................................... 5-65 

5.4.5. Public Meetings ....................................................................................................... 5-66 

5.5. Public Comments on the Vernal DRMP/EIS and Supplemental DRMP/EIS......... 5-66 

5.5.1. Process and Methodology........................................................................................ 5-66 

5.5.2. Comment Analysis................................................................................................... 5-67 

5.5.3. Public Comments..................................................................................................... 5-67 

5.5.4. Summary of Comments ........................................................................................... 5-74 

5.5.4.1. DEIS/RMP Comment Period............................................................................ 5-74 

5.5.4.2. ACEC Comment Period.................................................................................... 5-75 

5.5.4.3. Supplement to the DEIS/RMP Comment Period.............................................. 5-76 

5.5.5. Public Comments and Responses ............................................................................ 5-77 

5.6. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS................................................. 5-500 

5.7. List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 5-508 

5.8. Record of Decision ...................................................................................................... 5-509 

5.9. Vernal RMP/EIS Meeting and Coordination Log................................................... 5-510 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxix

VOLUME 4 

Table of Contents 

Maps..................................................................................................................... see List of Maps 

Appendices..................................................................................................see List of Appendices 

References.................................................................................................................................. X-1 

Acronyms and Glossary ......................................................................................................... X-17 

Index......................................................................................................................................... X-53 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxx

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxxi

List of Figures 

Figure 1.5.1. Required planning steps. ........................................................................................ 1-6 

Figure 3.2.1. Representative windroses for the VPA (RAWS data, 1996).................................. 3-3 

Figure 3.2.2. Annual mean temperature change for northern latitudes (24–90° N). Source: 

Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2007)................................................................... 3-10 

Figure 3.14.1. Uintah County Oil and Gas Production, 1999–2004. Source: Utah State 

Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, Department of Natural Resources 2004................... 3-65 

Figure 3.14.2 Duchesne County Oil and Gas Production 1994-2004. Source: Utah State 

Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, Department of Natural Resources 2004................... 3-72
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxxii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxxiii

List of Tables 

Table ES.1. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: Oil and Gas and Coal-bed 

Methane Leasing (acres) ................................................................................................ES-6 

Table ES.2. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: ACECs (acres) .............................ES-6 

Table ES.3. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: Wild and Scenic River 

Suitability Recommendations (linear miles)..................................................................ES-7 

Table ES.4. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: OHV Use......................................ES-7 

Table ES.5. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics (acres).................................................................................ES-8 

Table 1.4.1. Land Ownership in the VPA and the Surrounding Area ......................................... 1-5 

Table 1.6.1 Letters and Comments Breakdown......................................................................... 1-10 

Table 2.1.1 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Management Common to the Proposed 

RMP and All Alternatives.............................................................................................. 2-13 

Table 2.1.2 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Abandoned Mine Lands .................................. 2-15

Table 2.1.3 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Air Quality ...................................................... 2-16 

Table 2.1.4 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Cultural Resources .......................................... 2-17 

Table 2.1.5 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Fire Management ............................................ 2-20 

Table 2.1.6 Proposed RMP and Alternatives - Forage .............................................................. 2-22 

Table 2.1.7 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Lands and Realty Management....................... 2-29 

Table 2.1.8 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Livestock and Grazing Management .............. 2-33 

Table 2.1.9 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Minerals and Energy Resources...................... 2-36 

Table 2.1.10 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics................................................................................................................ 2-39 

Table 2.1.11 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Paleontology Resources ................................ 2-41 

Table 2.1.12 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Rangeland Improvements.............................. 2-43 

Table 2.1.13 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreational Resources ................................. 2-44 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxxiv

Table 2.1.14 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Special Recreation 

Management Areas ........................................................................................................ 2-47 

Table 2.1.15 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Trail Maintenance and 

Development.................................................................................................................. 2-50 

Table 2.1.16 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Riparian Resources........................................ 2-52 

Table 2.1.17 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Soil and Water Resources ............................. 2-55

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs....................... 2-57 

Table 2.1.19 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (WSRs) ............................................................................................................... 2-67 

Table 2.1.20 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSAs) ................................................................................................................ 2-72 

Table 2.1.21 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Status Species................................... 2-77 

Table 2.1.22 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Roads and Trails............................................ 2-82 

Table 2.1.23 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Vegetation Resources.................................... 2-84 

Table 2.1.24 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Visual Resource Management....................... 2-86 

Table 2.1.25 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wild Horses................................................... 2-88 

Table 2.1.26 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources.................. 2-93 

Table 2.1.27 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Woodlands and Forest Resources ................. 2-97 

Table 2.2.1 Summary of Impacts – Air Quality....................................................................... 2-101 

Table 2.2.2 Summary of Impacts – Cultural Resources .......................................................... 2-102 

Table 2.2.3 Summary of Impacts – Environmental Justice ..................................................... 2-103 

Table 2.2.4 Summary of Impacts – Fire Management............................................................. 2-104 

Table 2.2.5 Summary of Impacts – Hazardous Materials........................................................ 2-105 

Table 2.2.6 Summary of Impacts – Lands and Realty............................................................. 2-106 

Table 2.2.7 Summary of Impacts – Livestock and Grazing Management............................... 2-107 

Table 2.2.8 Summary of Impacts – Minerals and Energy Resources...................................... 2-108 

Table 2.2.9 Summary of Impacts – Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ......... 2-110 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxxv

Table 2.2.10 Summary of Impacts - Paleontology .................................................................. 2-113 

Table 2.2.11 Summary of Impacts - Recreation ...................................................................... 2-114 

Table 2.2.12 Summary of Impacts – Riparian Resources........................................................ 2-116 

Table 2.2.13 Summary of Impacts – Social and Economic Considerations............................ 2-118 

Table 2.2.14 Summary of Impacts – Soil and Water Resources ............................................. 2-120 

Table 2.2.15 Summary of Impacts – Special Designations ..................................................... 2-123 

Table 2.2.16 Summary of Impacts – Special Status Species ................................................... 2-124 

Table 2.2.17 Summary of Impacts - Vegetation...................................................................... 2-127 

Table 2.2.18 Summary of Impacts – Visual Resources........................................................... 2-129 

Table 2.2.19 Summary of Impacts – Wild Horses................................................................... 2-131 

Table 2.2.20 Summary of Impacts – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources.................................. 2-132 

Table 2.2.21 Summary of Impacts – Woodlands and Forest Resources ................................. 2-135

Table 3.2.1. Applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................. 3-5 

Table 3.2.2. Increment Standards for Class I and Class II Areas ................................................ 3-6 

Table 3.2.3. Sensitive Areas to Be Considered in the Analysis................................................... 3-7 

Table 3.2.4. Background Concentrations for Vernal RMP Area................................................. 3-7 

Table 3.3.1. Known High Site Density Areas within the VPA.................................................. 3-18 

Table 3.3.2. Known National Register Listed Sites within the VPA......................................... 3-19 

Table 3.6.1. Hazardous Constituents Potentially Used or Produced During Construction, 

Drilling, Production, and Reclamation Operations Associated with Oil and Gas 

Production...................................................................................................................... 3-25 

Table 3.9.1. Estimated Number of Barrels of Bitumen Contained within Each STSA............. 3-40 

Table 3.10.1 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the VPA............................ 3-45 

Table 3.10.2. Federal Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in Utah that are Currently 

Being Managed to Protect Those Values....................................................................... 3-48 

Table 3.11.1. Correlation between Condition and PFYC Classification Systems for 

Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................. 3-49 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxxvi

Table 3.14.1. County Comparisons............................................................................................ 3-59 

Table 3.14.2. Population Growth by Area, Past, Present, and Projected................................... 3-60 

Table 3.14.3. Uintah County Labor Force Statistics.................................................................. 3-62 

Table 3.14.4. Federal Royalty Values Generated, 1998 and 2001 ............................................ 3-63 

Table 3.14.5. Uintah County Travel-related Spending in 2003................................................. 3-66 

Table 3.14.6. Duchesne County Population, Past, Present, and Projected ................................ 3-68 

Table 3.14.7. Median Household Income.................................................................................. 3-69 

Table 3.14.8. Duchesne County Labor Force Statistics............................................................. 3-70 

Table 3.14.9. Federal Royalty Values Generated, 1998 and 2001 ............................................ 3-71 

Table 3.14.10. Duchesne County Travel-related Spending in 2003 .......................................... 3-74 

Table 3.14.11. Daggett County Labor Force Statistics.............................................................. 3-76 

Table 3.14.12. Daggett County Travel-related Spending in 2003 ............................................. 3-78 

Table 3.15.1. Watersheds Associated with the VPA ................................................................. 3-79 

Table 3.15.2. Water Bodies on Utah's 303(d) List of Impaired Waters, 2000........................... 3-86 

Table 3.16.1. Relevance and Importance Criteria of Currently Designated ACECs................. 3-88 

Table 3.16.2. Relevance and Importance Criteria of Potential ACECs..................................... 3-89 

Table 3.16.3. Summary Information for Eligible Rivers in the VPA........................................ 3-91 

Table 3.16.4. Wilderness Study Areas....................................................................................... 3-94 

Table 3.17.1. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Potentially 

Occurring in the VPA .................................................................................................... 3-97 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring 

in the VPA.................................................................................................................... 3-103 

Table 3.18.1. Common Plants in the Desert Shrub Community in the VPA*......................... 3-114 

Table 3.18.2. Species Commonly Associated with Sagebrush/ Perennial Grassland 

Communities in the VPA*........................................................................................... 3-115 

Table 3.18.3. Species Commonly Associated with Pinyon-Juniper Communities in the 

VPA*............................................................................................................................ 3-116 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxxvii

Table 3.18.4. Species Commonly Associated with Mountain Shrub Communities in 

the VPA*...................................................................................................................... 3-117 

Table 3.18.5. Species Commonly Associated with Conifer Forest Community in the 

VPA*............................................................................................................................ 3-118 

Table 3.18.6. Noxious Weeds and Undesired Plant Species ................................................... 3-121 

Table 3.21.1. Wildlife Management Units within the VPA .................................................... 3-129 

Table 3.21.2. Mule Deer Habitat in the VPA .......................................................................... 3-130 

Table 3.21.3. Wildlife Management Goals for Mule Deer ...................................................... 3-130 

Table 3.21.4. Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat in the VPA.......................................................... 3-131 

Table 3.21.5. Wildlife Management Goals for Rocky Mountain Elk...................................... 3-131 

Table 3.21.6. Pronghorn Habitat in the VPA........................................................................... 3-132 

Table 3.21.7. Pronghorn Population Trends in the VPA

1

........................................................ 3-132 

Table 3.21.8. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat in the VPA........................................ 3-133 

Table 3.21.9. Moose Habitat in the VPA................................................................................. 3-134 

Table 3.21.10. Moose Population Trends in the VPA1............................................................ 3-134 

Table 3.21.11. Black Bear Habitat in the VPA........................................................................ 3-135 

Table 4.1.1. Disturbance Assumptions ........................................................................................ 4-3 

Table 4.1.2. Potential for Occurrence and Future Oil and Gas Activity...................................... 4-4 

Table 4.1.3. Related Oil and Gas Activity Surface Disturbance—Present and Historic 

Activity ............................................................................................................................ 4-4 

Table 4.1.4.a Related Oil and Gas Activity Surface Disturbance—Future Activity ................... 4-5 

Table 4.1.4.b Related Oil and Gas Activity Surface Disturbance—Future Activity, 

continued.......................................................................................................................... 4-5 

Table 4.2.1. Receptor Spacing for Near-field Modeling ........................................................... 4-14 

Table 4.2.2. Summary of HAP Acceptable Ambient Concentration Levels (AACLs) ............. 4-17 

Table 4.2.3. Near-field HAPS Modeling Results for Vernal MA ............................................. 4-18 

Table 4.2.4. Base Year Date for Background Concentrations................................................... 4-21 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxxviii

Table 4.2.5. Recommended HAPs Background Concentration................................................. 4-23 

Table 4.2.6. Results of Screening Visibility Analysis for Alternative A (BLM Sources 

Only) .............................................................................................................................. 4-26 

Table 4.2.7. HAPs Analysis Results for HAPs Found to Exceed AACLs ................................ 4-27 

Table 4.2.8. Relative Comparison of Modeled Air Quality Parameters from BLM 

Sources for Proposed Management Alternatives........................................................... 4-28 

Table 4.2.8. Screening Visibility Modeling Results and Refined Visibility Analysis for All 

Sources (Cumulative)..................................................................................................... 4-32 

Table 4.3.1. Summary of Minerals Development Relative to High and Low Cultural 

Resource-site Probability Zones .................................................................................... 4-46 

Table 4.3.2. Estimated Disturbance in High Cultural Resource-site Probability Zones by 

Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) Development by RFD Area and 

Alternative...................................................................................................................... 4-48 

Table 4.3.3. Estimated Disturbance in Low Cultural Resource-site Probability Zones by 

Oil, Gas, and Coal-bed Natural Gas Development by RFD Area and Alternative........ 4-49 

Table 4.3.4. Estimated Numbers of Cultural Resource Sites Potentially Involved in Oil, 

Gas, and Coal-bed Natural Gas Development by RFD Area and Alternative............... 4-51 

Table 4.3.5. Estimated Acres and Potential Cultural Resource Sites Associated with 

Rangeland Constructions and Vegetation Treatments by Alternative........................... 4-59 

Table 4.3.6. Estimated Numbers of Acres Open to OHV Travel and Limited OHV 

Travel in High and Low Cultural Resource-site Probability Zones, and Estimated 

Numbers of Cultural Resource Sites Potentially within Open OHV Travel Areas by 

Alternative...................................................................................................................... 4-69 

Table 4.3.7. Estimated Acres and Potential Cultural Resource Sites Associated with 

Travel Routes and the 300-foot Travel Buffer by Alternative....................................... 4-70

Table 4.5.1. Acreages in the VPA Receiving Various Treatments per Decade, by Fire 

Management Category................................................................................................... 4-82 

Table 4.5.2. Acreages in the VPA to Receive Treatment via Natural Wildland Fires, 

by Fire Management Category....................................................................................... 4-82 

Table 4.9.1. Acres or Miles of Land Available to Energy and Mineral Development 

under All Alternatives.................................................................................................. 4-136 

Table 4.9.2. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under The Proposed RMP....... 4-137 

Table 4.9.3. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative A................. 4-139 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xxxix

Table 4.9.4. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative B................. 4-142 

Table 4.9.5. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative C ................... 4-144 

Table 4.9.6. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative D 

(No Action) .................................................................................................................. 4-146 

Table 4.9.7. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative E ................. 4-147 

Table 4.9.8. Acres of Non-WSA Areas with Wilderness Characteristics, by RFD................. 4-150 

Table 4.9.9. Minerals Leasing NSO and Closed Restrictions within Proposed ACECs, 

by Acres and Alternative ............................................................................................. 4-154 

Table 4.9.10. River Segments That Would Be Determined Suitable and Total River 

Miles by Alternative .................................................................................................... 4-156 

Table 4.9.11. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to 

Mineral Resources under the Proposed RMP .............................................................. 4-160 

Table 4.9.12. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to 

Mineral Resources under Alternative A ...................................................................... 4-161 

Table 4.9.13. Seasonal Restrictions in Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral 

Resources under Alternative B .................................................................................... 4-165 

Table 4.9.14. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to 

Mineral Resources under Alternatives C and E ............................................................ 4-166 

Table 4.9.15. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to 

Mineral Resources under Alternative D (No Action)................................................. 4-167 

Table 4.9.16. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative................................................................. 4-171 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics........................................................................................... 4-203 

Table 4.10.2 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Located in Special 

Designations................................................................................................................. 4-249 

Table 4.10.3 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Located in Special 

Designations................................................................................................................. 4-251 

Table 4.10.4 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Located in Special 

Designations................................................................................................................. 4-252 

Table 4.10.5 Visual Resource Management Objectives by Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics Areas ................................................................................ 4-267 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xl

Table 4.12.1. Mineral Leasing Acreages ................................................................................. 4-315 

Table 4.12.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness characteristics in SRMAs — 

Alternative E................................................................................................................. 4-328 

Table 4.12.3. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in ACECs— 

Alternative E................................................................................................................. 4-336 

Table 4.12.4. VRM Class Acreages for the Proposed RMP and each Alternative.................. 4-340 

Table 4.14.1. Producing Wells and Employment in the Oil and Gas Industry-Uintah County, 

2001-2006 .................................................................................................................... 4-369 

Table 4.14.2. Estimated Number of Wells under the Proposed RMP and Each Alternative, 

by Resource Type ........................................................................................................ 4-370 

Table 4.14.3. Summary of the Impacts of Oil and Gas Development in the VPA.................. 4-378 

Table 4.14.4. Reported Crime Indices for State of Utah, Uintah County and Vernal 

City, 1980-2005 ........................................................................................................... 4-380 

Table 4.14.5. Minerals Leasing Restrictions Acreages within Proposed ACECs, for 

the Proposed RMP and each Alternative ..................................................................... 4-389 

Table 4.14.6. VRM Class Acreages for the Proposed RMP and all Alternatives.................... 4-393 

Table 4.15.1. Vernal Soils with Limitations by RFD Area ..................................................... 4-397 

Table 4.15.2. Acres of VPA Erodible Soils Open to Oil and Gas Development, by 

RFD Area..................................................................................................................... 4-407 

Table 4.15.3. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison for Minerals Decisions.............. 4-409 

Table 4.16.1. Areas and Acres of ACECs That Would Be Designated by Alternative........... 4-427 

Table 4.16.2. River Segments That Would Be Determined Suitable and Total River 

Miles by Alternative .................................................................................................... 4-438 

Table 4.17.1. Comparison of Potential Resource Decision Impacts within the VPA to 

Overall Species Threat for Federally Listed and BLM Sensitive Species................... 4-452 

Table 4.17.2. Differences in Acreages Available for Mineral and Energy Development 

under Each the Proposed RMP and Action Alternative as Compared to Alternative 

D (No Action) .............................................................................................................. 4-456 

Table 4.17.3. Rangeland Improvements for the Proposed RMP and all Alternatives ............. 4-467 

Table 4.18.1. Forage Utilization and AUM Allocations for the Proposed RMP and each 

Alternative.................................................................................................................... 4-483 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xli

Table 4.18.2. Acreage of Each Vegetation Cover Type by Minerals Leasing Category 

under the Proposed RMP and Each Alternative .......................................................... 4-487 

Table 4.19.1. Mineral Leasing Acreages ................................................................................. 4-520 

Table 4.19.2. Impacts of Special Designation Areas on Visual Resources 1

........................... 4-530 

Table 4.19.3. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative................................................................. 4-539 

Table 4.20.1. Maintaining Wild Horse Herds, Proposed RMP and all Alternatives ............... 4-545 

Table 4.20.2. Acres of Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface-use Minerals 

Leasing within the HMAs and HA ............................................................................. 4-552 

Table 4.21.1. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on 

BLM Lands in the Manila-Clay Basin RFD Area ....................................................... 4-577 

Table 4.21.2. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on 

BLM Lands in the Tabiona-Ashley Valley RFD Area ................................................ 4-577 

Table 4.21. 3. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on 

BLM Lands in the Altamont-Bluebell RFD Area........................................................ 4-577 

Table 4.21.4. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on 

BLM Lands in the Monument Butte-Red Wash RFD Area ........................................ 4-578 

Table 4.21.5. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on 

BLM Lands in the West Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area................................................. 4-578 

Table 4.21 6. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on 

BLM Lands in the East Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area .................................................. 4-579

Table 4.21.7. Habitat Fragments Created by Roads and Pipelines in the VPA and Roadeffects Zones Associated with These Fragments......................................................... 4-579 

Table 4.21. 8. Rangeland Improvements Proposed under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives1

................................................................................................................. 4-585 

Table 4.21.9. ACEC Designations for the Proposed RMP and Alternatives........................... 4-589 

Table 4.21.10. Maintaining Wild Horse Herds by the Proposed RMP and Alternatives ........ 4-594

Table 5.1. Cooperating Agencies and their Representatives ....................................................... 5-3 

Table 5.2. Native American Organizations Requesting to Be Contacted for Future Projects 

in the Price Field Office................................................................................................... 5-4 

Table 5.3. Native American Organizations Requesting to Be Contacted for Future Projects 

in the Vernal Field Office ................................................................................................ 5-5 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xlii

Table 5.4. Native American Organizations Requesting No Further Consultation on Projects 

in the Price and Vernal Field Offices............................................................................... 5-5 

Table 5.5. Native American Organizations that Did Not Submit a Final Response.................... 5-5 

Table 5.6. Native American Organizations that Did Not Specify the Need for Future 

Consultation (see Summary of Results for comments).................................................... 5-5 

Table 5.7. Plan Consistency Review.......................................................................................... 5-19 

Table 5.8. DRMP/EIS Open House Locations and Dates ......................................................... 5-66 

Table 5.9. List of Government Agencies and Organizations that Submitted Substantive 

Comments on the DRMP/EIS........................................................................................ 5-69 

Table 5.10. List of Businesses, Government Agencies, and Organizations that Submitted 

Substantive Comments on the ACEC NOA .................................................................. 5-72 

Table 5.11. List of Businesses, Government Agencies, and Organizations that Submitted 

Substantive Comments on the Supplemental DRMP/EIS ............................................. 5-72 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah .................................................. 5-78 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe .......................................... 5-162 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County......................................... 5-177 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County ............................................. 5-230 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County............................................ 5-252 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties 

(Collaborative Comments)........................................................................................... 5-280 

Table 5.13a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Adequacy and Analysis....... 5-333 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern ............................................................................................... 5-333 

Table 5.13c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Alternatives Development .. 5-349 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality.......................... 5-350 

Table 5.13e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Cultural Resources .............. 5-364 

Table 5.13f. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Fire Management................. 5-366 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock........ 5-368 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xliii

Table 5.13h. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Hazardous Materials ........... 5-382 

Table 5.13i. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Lands and Realty ................. 5-383 

Table 5.13j. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals and Energy............ 5-387 

Table 5.13k. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Leasable............ 5-391 

Table 5.13l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Oil and Gas........ 5-392 

Table 5.13m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Other .................................. 5-400

Table 5.13n. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Paleontology ....................... 5-405 

Table 5.13o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Process and Procedure ........ 5-405 

Table 5.13p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Recreation ........................... 5-407 

Table 5.13q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Riparian............................... 5-408

Table 5.13r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Scope ................................... 5-414 

Table 5.13s. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Designation............. 5-415 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics................... 5-417 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species......... 5-442 

Table 5.13v. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel.................................. 5-451 

Table 5.13w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Vegetation.......................... 5-453 

Table 5.13x. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Visual Resource 

Management................................................................................................................. 5-461 

Table 5.13y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wilderness 

Characteristics.............................................................................................................. 5-465 

Table 5.13z. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Woodlands .......................... 5-470 

Table 5.14aa. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild Horses and 

Burros........................................................................................................................... 5-470 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife............................. 5-473 

Table 5.14cc. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Water Resources................ 5-484 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers .... 5-486 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xliv

Table 5.15. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS............................................... 5-500 

Table 5.16. List of Preparers.................................................................................................... 5-508
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xlv

LIST OF MAPS 

(Maps contained in Volume 4) 

1 Land Ownership 

2 Fire Management Categories 

3 Fire Regime 

4 Fire Condition Classes 

5 Forage Assignments Locality and Riparian Inventory 

6 Lands and Realty 

7 Seasons of Use-Proposed RMP 

8 Seasons of Use-Alternative A 

9 Seasons of Use-Alternative B 

10 Seasons of Use-Alternative C and E 

11 Seasons of Use-Alternative D 

12 Oil and Gas Leases-Proposed RMP 

13 Oil and Gas Leases-Alternative A 

14 Oil and Gas Leases-Alternative B 

15 Oil and Gas Leases-Alternative C 

16 Oil and Gas Leases-Alternative D 

17 Oil and Gas Leases-Alternative E 

18 Mineral Materials/Phosphate/Gilsonite – Proposed RMP 

19 Mineral Materials/Phosphate/Gilsonite -Alternative A 

20 Mineral Materials/Phosphate/Gilsonite -Alternative B 

21 Mineral Materials/Phosphate/Gilsonite -Alternative C 

22 Mineral Materials/Phosphate/Gilsonite -Alternative D 

23 Mineral Materials/Phosphate/Gilsonite -Alternative E 

24 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Areas 

25 Hill Creek Extension Indian and Federal Minerals 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xlvi

26 Non-WSA Lands With Wilderness Characteristics-Alternatives A and E 

27 Special Recreation Management Areas-Proposed RMP 

28 Special Recreation Management Areas-Alternatives A, B, C, D and E 

29 Special Designations-Proposed RMP 

30 Special Designations-Alternative A 

31 Special Designations-Alternatives B and D 

32 Special Designations-Alternatives C and E 

33 Travel/OHV Areas-Proposed RMP 

34 Travel/OHV Areas-Alternative A 

35 Travel/OHV Areas-Alternative B 

36 Travel/OHV Areas-Alternative C 

37 Travel/OHV Areas-Alternative D 

38 Travel/OHV Areas-Alternative E 

39 Visual Resource Management-Proposed RMP 

40 Visual Resource Management-Alternative A 

41 Visual Resource Management-Alternative B 

42 Visual Resource Management-Alternative C 

43 Visual Resource Management-Alternative D 

44 Visual Resource Management-Alternative E 

45 Wild Horse Herd Areas and Herd Management Areas 

46 Deer, Elk and Lynx 

47 Wildlife Fragmentation 

48 Areas Open to Woodcutting-Proposed RMP 

49 Areas Open to Woodcutting-Alternatives A, B, C, D and E 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xlvii

LIST OF APPENDICES 

(Appendices contained in Volume 4)

A Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats In Utah, 

August 2006 

B Hydraulic Considerations for Pipeline Crossings of Stream Channels 

C Wild and Scenic Rivers Review, Vernal Field Office 

D National Register Sites and Districts 

E Withdrawal and Classifications Identified in the Diamond Mountain and Book 

Cliffs RMPs 

F Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Management 

G ACEC Evaluations for the Vernal Resource Management Plan 

H Disturbances and Fragmentation of Wildlife Habitat 

I Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class Objectives 

J Grazing Allotments 

K Surface Stipulations Applicable to all Surface-Disturbing Activities 

L Utah's Threatened and Endangered Species Lease Notices for Oil and Gas 

Development and BLM-committed Conservation Measures

M Utah Public Lands Study-Key Social Survey Findings for Daggett, Duchesne and 

Uintah Counties 

N Changes Between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

O Letter from the State of Utah Regarding Air Quality Mitigation Strategies 

P State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation 

Compact Disk – All substantive comments from: 

• Draft RMP/EIS 

• ACEC Comment Period 

• Supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS 

These three databases have been sorted both by commenter name and by resource. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Table of Contents

Vernal RMP xlviii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

The Vernal Field Office (VFO) of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Utah is revising and 

integrating the Book Cliffs and Diamond Mountain Resource Management Plans (RMPs) into a 

single new RMP. The revised RMP will be called the Vernal Field Office Resource Management 

Plan (VFO RMP) and will provide planning guidance for public land and the federal mineral 

estate managed by the VFO in Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah counties, as well as in a small 

portion of Grand County in northeastern Utah. The consolidated Diamond Mountain and Book 

Cliffs areas will be referred to as the Vernal Planning Area (VPA) or the VFO. 

There are 5,518,859 acres within the boundary of the VFO, of which 1,725,512 acres 

(approximately 30%) are BLM-managed surface lands. The VFO administers energy-related 

mineral activities on 3.9 million acres of federal mineral lands, including 1.3 million acres of 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands, and post-lease mineral operations on Indian Trust mineral 

lands. The 1,911,000 acres of BLM-managed mineral estate includes the split-estate mineral 

lands within the Hill Creek Extension, comprising 185,500 acres of mineral estate underlying 

Indian Trust surface. Table 1.4.1 clarifies in detail land ownership in the VPA and surrounding 

areas. 

Most of the land that the BLM manages is in the eastern and southern portions of the VPA and is 

generally characterized by habitats associated with the Uinta Basin and Colorado Plateau. Other 

agencies managing land in the vicinity of the VFO include the USFS, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and Utah Division of Lands and Forestry. Additional lands are 

held in private ownership or in trust by the U.S. for the Ute Indian Tribe or for individual Native 

Americans. 

The Diamond Mountain portion of the VPA includes BLM-administered lands and minerals in 

Daggett and Duchesne counties and a portion of Uintah County northwest of the Green River. 

The plan is responsible for the administration of public land in Browns Park and the Diamond 

Mountain Plateau for the Little Snake Field Office of Colorado. The Little Snake Field Office 

administers public land in Browns Park for some resources. Administration of these agreed-upon 

resources is in accordance with the parent resource area’s management plan. There is also a firesuppression agreement between the VFO and Little Snake Field Office. 

The Book Cliffs portion of the VPA is located in northeastern Utah. It is bounded by the Utah–

Colorado state line on the east, the Book Cliff Mountains to the south, the Green River to the 

west, and Blue Mountain to the north (see Map Figure 1). The Book Cliffs area includes public 

land and minerals in Uintah and Grand counties. The VFO boundary officially ends at the Uintah 

County line; however, a small portion of the public lands in Grand County of the Moab Field 

Office are administered by the VFO under a memorandum of understanding (MOU). 

A small portion of the Flume Canyon Wilderness Study Area (WSA) lies within the VPA. 

However, this WSA is managed by the Moab Field Office due to easier access to this area from 

Moab. 

Vernal RMP ES-1
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

A small portion of the West Cold Springs and Diamond Breaks WSAs lie within the Vernal 

Planning Area. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is in place between the Little Snake 

Field Office in Craig, Colorado, and the VFO. The Little Snake Field Office has administrative 

responsibility for managing both of these areas. 

A small number of grazing allotments straddle the Utah/Colorado border. An MOU is in place 

between the White River Field Office and the Vernal Field Office, where each office, depending 

on the allotment boundaries, administers livestock grazing for the other office. 

Land ownership patterns within both the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs planning areas 

range from large blocks of BLM-administered public lands to small, privately owned blocks. 

This is complicated by lands where BLM administers a fractional percentage of the minerals, 

while other owners hold the other interests in the land. Land ownership, surface administration 

and mineral management responsibilities within the VPA are shown in Map Figure 1 and 

described in Table 1.4.1. 

Decisions and actions of the RMP only apply to BLM lands. In the case of split estate lands, such 

as lands within the planning area that are split between the BLM and the Uintah and Ouray 

Indian Tribe, actions affecting the surface must be coordinated with the surface owner. 

Undertakings conducted on lands not wholly or partly administered by the BLM are subject to 

the laws, regulations, conditions, and policies of the relevant land management agency or other 

landowner. 

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

ES 2.1 PURPOSE 

The purpose of this project is to revise and integrate the Book Cliffs and Diamond Mountain 

RMPs into a new single comprehensive RMP that will guide management of public lands in the 

VPA. Mineral development in the VPA is one of the major issues driving this land use planning 

effort. However, due to mineral development, many of the other decisions necessary to complete 

a comprehensive resource management plan needed to be updated and revised. 

In 2002, the BLM prepared a projected reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) scenario in 

order to project environmental impacts across a 15-year period; this RFD has been modified 

(2008) for oil and gas development only in order to project environmental impacts for up to five 

years. Development projections included in-depth reviews of potential for occurrence, past well 

production, current well production, and future potential for production. During the pendency of 

this planning effort (beginning with public meetings in 2001 and 2002 for scoping purposes 

through the notice of availability of the Draft RMP/EIS published in the Federal Register on 

January 14, 2005), the RFD scenario, which is a planning tool and not a prediction or limit to 

development, did not track completely with the pace of development in the Uinta Basin. The 

BLM has carefully monitored industry trends and believes that the RFD used as an analytical 

tool in this Proposed RMP can be considered accurate up to approximately five years from the 

time the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. 

Within the next five years, the BLM will monitor impacts to resources of continued development 

in the VPA and ensure that the impacts disclosed in this Proposed RMP are not exceeded by the 

pace of development. 

Vernal RMP ES-2
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

ES 2.2 NEED 

Current management of these public lands is guided by the Book Cliffs and Diamond Mountain 

RMPs. This RMP revision process is necessary because of the dated nature of the Book Cliffs 

RMP, completed in 1985, and to ensure consistency between the Book Cliffs and Diamond 

Mountain RMPs. Significant changes have occurred since completion of the Diamond Mountain 

and Book Cliff RMPs. Population growth and increased need for resource development has 

occurred, while concern for the environment has also increased. In addition to traditional 

consumptive uses (e.g., oil and gas development, mining and livestock grazing), there is now an 

increased interest in uses that emphasize aesthetic values such as open space and increased 

recreational opportunities. These often conflicting uses need to be addressed in terms of how 

they affect local communities; national, regional, and state interests: and ecosystem health. 

Additionally, policy guidance has resulted in the initiation or completion of local and national 

activity plans, recovery plans, and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) that 

have changed land management direction in the VFO since the Book Cliffs RMP was written. 

A large block of 188,500 acres of federal mineral estate within the Hill Creek Extension of the 

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation has not been previously analyzed for oil and gas leasing. 

This issue has been addressed as part of this RMP revision. 

Ownership of federal land formerly managed by the Department of Navy and, more recently, by 

the Department of Energy (DOE) was transferred to the Ute Indian Tribe. The BLM managed 

certain resource programs for the Department of Energy on these 47,978 acres. This Vernal RMP 

will not analyze management of these programs. 

These changes have been addressed as part of this RMP revision and integration process. See 

Section 1.5 for a description of the BLM’s land use planning process. 

ES.3 PLANNING ISSUES

Key planning issues identified through the scoping process that have been addressed in the RMP 

are: 

• Air Quality 

• Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

• Fire Management 

• Lands and Realty 

• Minerals Management 

• Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

• Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) Use and Transportation 

• Rangeland Management and Health 

• Recreation Resource Management 

• Special Management Designations 

• Visual Resource Management 

Vernal RMP ES-3
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

• Watershed Management, Soils, and Vegetation 

• Wild Horse Management 

• Wildlife Habitat and Fisheries Management 

• Woodland and Forest Management 

ES.4 PROPOSED RMP AND DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES

Five management alternatives were developed to address the major planning issues and to 

provide direction for resource programs influencing land management. Each alternative 

emphasizes a different combination of resource uses, allocations, and restoration measures to 

address issues and resolve conflicts among uses to allow program goals to be accomplished in 

varying combinations across the alternatives. Management scenarios for programs not tied to 

major planning issues and/or mandated by law often contain few or no differences in 

management between alternatives. 

Alternative D, continuation of current management (No Action), is based on existing planning 

decisions that remain valid, as well as on current direction and policy. The remaining alternatives 

were developed with input received during scoping and with expertise from the interdisciplinary 

planning team and input from local, state, federal, and tribal governments. 

The alternatives were developed in response to the issues identified in the public scoping process 

and the planning criteria. 

The BLM recognizes that social, economic, and environmental issues cross land ownership lines 

and that extensive cooperation is needed to actively address issues of mutual concern. To the 

extent possible, the alternatives were crafted using the input from public scoping comments and 

from comments submitted by Duchesne, Daggett, and Uintah county representatives and other 

cooperating agencies, including the Ute Indian Tribe. 

All management under any of the alternatives would comply with state and federal regulations, 

laws, standards, and policies. Management items common to all and a more detailed discussion 

for each alternative may be found in Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27. 

A comparison of the alternatives regarding these key management decisions are given in Tables 

ES.1 through ES.5 below. 

Proposed RMP

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS is primarily based on the decisions from the Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative A) from the Draft RMP/EIS (January 14, 2005). However, it has been modified to 

include aspects of all alternatives analyzed after careful consideration of public comments, 

cooperating agency review, and internal review. The reviews were provided on the Draft 

RMP/EIS; call for information on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) (Federal 

Register Notice, December 13, 2005); and, Alternative E from the supplement that was issued on 

October 5, 2007, analyzing the management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

These alternatives are combined in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Some changes to the draft 

alternatives have been made in response to the public comments received during the comment 

period. These changes are limited, for the most part, to correcting mistakes and refining technical 

Vernal RMP ES-4
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

points. Changes in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS from the Draft RMP/EIS Alternative A (Draft 

RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) are summarized for the reader in Appendix N. 

Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative)

Management direction is generally broad and accommodates a wide variety of values and uses. 

The VPA would be managed to provide a sustainable flow of resources for human use, while 

protecting important watersheds and providing viable populations of native and desirable nonnative plants species, and to provide wildlife habitat and opportunities for recreation use. 

Alternative B 

This alternative provides for most resource uses but would emphasize oil and gas development, 

where feasible. Renewable resources would be protected by balancing the development of 

mineral resources with focused and prudent mitigation measures. 

Alternative C 

The natural succession of ecosystems would be allowed to proceed in select management areas. 

This alternative would strongly emphasize maintenance of watershed conditions, species 

viability, properly functioning ecosystems, and a reduction of habitat fragmentation. 

Alternative D (Current Management/No Action)

Maintain present uses by continuing present management direction and activities while abiding 

by all new mandates, executive orders, and directives that have been implemented since the 

previous RMPs were completed. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E gives emphasis to protection of all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

including closure of these areas to mineral leasing and off-road vehicles, avoidance of rights-ofway, protection of undisturbed landscapes, and providing opportunities for primitive and semiprimitive recreation. The natural succession of ecosystems would be allowed to proceed in these 

and other select management areas. This alternative strongly emphasizes maintenance of 

watershed conditions, species viability, properly functioning ecosystems, and a reduction of 

habitat fragmentation. It also includes designation of ACECs and determinations for wild and 

scenic river suitability, while still providing for resource uses in other parts of the VFO, 

including mineral and energy development and motorized recreation use. 

Alternative E is the same as Alternative C, except that it adds a protective management 

prescription to 277,596 acres of land in 25 areas that comprise non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Alternative E, however, applies to all public lands within the VPA. The proposed 

decisions that apply to the lands outside of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

remain the same as those in Alternative C. 

Vernal RMP ES-5
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

Table ES.1. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: Oil and Gas and Coal-bed 

Methane Leasing (acres) 

Leasing Category Proposed 

RMP 

Draft 

RMP/EIS 

Alternative A

(Preferred) 

Alternative B Alternative 

C 

Alternative D 

(No Action) Alternative E

Open 860,651 983,905 1,113,116 858,619 918,315 818,891 

Administratively 

Open with Controlled 

Surface Use 

779,730 796,955 706,281 768,466 617,715 680,570 

Administratively 

Open with No 

Surface Occupancy 

86,789 69,302 42,053 58,670 136,930 47,629 

Closed 186,917 63,839 52,550 228,246 52,540 367,037 

Table ES.2. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: ACECs (acres) 

ACECs Proposed 

RMP 

Draft 

RMP/EIS 

Alternative A

(Preferred) 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) Alternative E

Bitter Creek 0 68,834 0 147,425 0 147,425 

Bitter Creek–P.R. 

Spring 0 0 0 78,591 0 78,591 

Browns Park 18,490 52,721 18,475 52,721 52,721 52,721 

Coyote Basin 0 87,743 47,659 124,161 0 124,161 

Four Mile Wash 0 0 0 50,280 0 50,280 

Lears Canyon 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 

Lower Green River 

Corridor 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 

Lower Green River 

Expansion 0 1,700 0 1,700 0 1,700 

Main Canyon 0 0 0 100,915 0 100,915 

Middle Green River 0 0 0 6,768 0 6,768 

Nine Mile Canyon 44,168 48,000 44,181 81,168 44,181 81,168 

Pariette 10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 

Red Creek 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 

Red Mountain–Dry 

Fork 24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285 

White River 0 17,810 0 47,130 0 47,130 

Total Acres 133,400 345,850 179,357 759,901 165,944 759,901 

Vernal RMP ES-6
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

Table ES.3. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: Wild and Scenic River 

Suitability Recommendations (linear miles) 

WSR Designations Proposed 

RMP 

Draft 

RMP/EIS 

Alternative A

(Preferred) 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) Alternative E

Argyle Creek 0 0 0 22 0 22 

Bitter Creek 0 0 0 22 0 22 

Evacuation Creek 0 0 0 21 0 21 

Lower Green River 30 30 30 30 30 30 

Middle Green River 0 0 0 36 0 36 

Nine Mile Creek 

between Green 

River and 

Duchesne County 

Line 

0 0 0 13 0 13 

Nine Mine Creek 

between Carbon 

County Line and 

Confluence with 

Gate Canyon (two 

segments) 

0 0 0 6 0 6 

Upper Green River 22 22 22 22 22 22 

White River (three 

segments) 0 44 0 44 0 44 

Total Linear Miles 52 96 52 216 52 216 

Table ES.4. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: OHV Use 

Categories of OHV 

Use 

Proposed 

RMP 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Alternative A 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

(No Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Open to OHV 

(acres) 6,202 6,202 5,434 5,434 787,859 5,434 

Limited to OHV 

(acres) 1,643,475 1,643,475 1,659,901 1,353,529 887,275 1,326,024 

Closed to OHV 

(acres) 75,845 75,845 60,187 366,559 50,388 392,818 

Designated OHV 

Routes (miles) 4,860 4,860 4,861 4,707 0 4,654 

Vernal RMP ES-7
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

Table ES.5. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics (acres) 

PROPOSED 

RMP 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Alternative A 

(Preferred) 

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) Alternative E 

106,178 0 0 0 0 277,596 

ES.5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Resources within the VPA include mineral resources, wildlife, fisheries, botanical (including 

listed and non-listed sensitive species), rangeland, wild horses, wilderness, cultural resources, 

water resources, wetlands and riparian resources, visual resources, and recreational resources. 

Land use and economic resources include oil and gas, phosphate, tar sands, gilsonite, livestock 

grazing, woodland products, building stone, and rights-of-way. Opportunities for hunting, 

sightseeing, hiking, viewing historic sites, camping, fishing, and OHV use provide public 

enjoyment, as well as additional revenues to businesses in and adjacent to the VPA. Unique 

features within the VPA include the White and Green rivers; Browns Park, which provides 

crucial deer winter range and a high density of cultural and historical sites; the Pariette Wetlands, 

which provide habitat for over 100 species of wildlife; Red Mountain, with its high mountain 

vistas and plentiful recreational opportunities; Nine Mile Canyon, with its Fremont rock art; and 

the Book Cliffs, an area rich in resources with abundant management opportunities. 

ES.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The environmental impacts of the project alternatives are summarized in Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 

of this EIS. 

ES.7 SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE BETWEEN THE DRAFT RMP/EIS AND THE 

PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS 

The BLM has made numerous changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. These changes are described below and detailed in Appendix N. BLM has 

prepared this Appendix to document if changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS resulted in a significant change in circumstances or conditions, or if the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS contains different information from that which was presented to the public in the 

Draft RMP/EIS. Finally, in order to confirm that all changes made to the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS fall within the range of alternatives presented and analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS and the 

Supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS. 

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: 

 The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns; or 

There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impact. 

Vernal RMP ES-8
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

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. 

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 Vernal Field Office Draft RMP/EIS were made in response to public comment 

and/or internal review. The majority of the changes were editorial changes made to add clarity to 

the document. In some cases, alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/EIS were modified in the 

Proposed RMP to reflect technical corrections and data updates. In other cases, such as in 

Chapter 3, incorporation of updated information was necessary to refine the analysis in Chapter 4 

that was incomplete or needed augmentation. 

None of the changes described above and further detailed in Appendix N meet the regulatory 

definition for significance as found 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 RMP 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. 

Following is an executive summary of the major changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The summary of changes has been broken into two parts: 

• Summary of Changes to Decisions Between the Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative A) and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

• Summary of Editorial Changes Made Between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS and Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. 

ES 7.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO DECISIONS BETWEEN THE DRAFT RMP/EIS 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE A) AND THE PROPOSED 

RMP/FINAL EIS 

• Air Quality decisions were refined based upon State of Utah, Department of Air Quality 

correspondence included in Appendix O. 

• The Draft RMP alternatives made proposed decisions for Combined Hydrocarbon 

Areas/Special Tar Sand Areas. The Proposed RMP now defers those decisions to the 

Programmatic Tar Sands Oil Shale EIS discussed in Section 1.10.9 of Chapter 1. 

• Wild horses will no longer be permitted in the Winter Ridge Herd Area and Hill Creek 

Herd Area due to disease (e.g., Equine Infectious Anemia) and trespass of private horses 

because of mixed surface ownership with the Ute Indian Tribe, State of Utah, and 

privately held lands. The Draft RMP Preferred Alternative allocated 2,340 AUMs for 

wild horses in the Winter Ridge Herd Area and the Hill Creek Herd Area. 

• The Proposed RMP provides Greater Sage-grouse additional protection during lekking, 

nesting, brooding, and during winter by selecting the protections in Alternative C. 

Vernal RMP ES-9
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

• All or portions of 15 areas, approximately 106,178 acres, would be managed as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics: Beach Draw, Bourdette Draw, Bull 

Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, Diamond Breaks, 

Diamond Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, Stuntz 

Draw, Vivas Cake Hill, White River, and Wild Mountain. The Draft RMP Preferred 

Alternative did not specifically provide management for non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The Proposed RMP preserves and maintains management prescriptions in 

these areas and does not allow for surface-disturbing activities. 

• Bitter Creek, Coyote Basin, Lower Green River Expansion ACECs were not brought 

forward from the Draft RMP Preferred Alternative. 

• White River, Browns Park, and Nine Mile Canyon ACECs were brought forward, with a 

reduction in acreage. 

• Manage 24,259 acres in Red Mountain-Dry Fork as a SRMA to provide for maintenance 

and development of OHV or non-OHV trails, minimal facilities necessary for human 

health and safety, watershed values, relict vegetation communities, and crucial deer and 

elk winter habitat. An activity plan for the SRMA would be developed to determine what 

areas are appropriate for day use only. 

• The Draft RMP Preferred Alternative proposed 24,183 acres as the White River SRMA. 

The Proposed RMP identified 2,831 acres as a SRMA. A portion of the lands not 

included in the SRMA in the Proposed RMP are being carried forward for management 

as non-WSA with wilderness characteristics. 

• The Draft RMP Preferred Alternative recommended two segments of the White River, 

the Upper Green River and the Lower Green River, for inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic River System as well as the Upper and Lower Green River. The Proposed 

RMP recommends only the Upper and Lower Green River. 

• In the Draft RMP Preferred Alternative, the BLM identified the Hill Creek Extension as 

available for leasing. The BLM, in cooperation with Ute Indian Tribe, identified in the 

Proposed RMP specific oil and gas leasing constraints for the Hill Creek Extension. 

ES 7.2 SUMMARY OF EDITORIAL CHANGES MADE BETWEEN THE DRAFT 

RMP/DRAFT EIS AND PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS 

Throughout the Plan

• The Supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS has been merged into the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. The Supplement presents an analysis of the effects of managing non-Wilderness 

Study Area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics in a protective manner. This 

analysis is identified as Alternative E in the combined RMP. 

• Acreage numbers and figures have been revised and clarified based on refined GIS 

techniques throughout all chapters. 

Chapter 1

• Chapter 1 has been rewritten to emphasize the decisions brought forward in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. 

Vernal RMP ES-10
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

• Discussion on monitoring and evaluation and how it plays into the planning process has 

been added in Chapter 1. 

• Chapter 1, Language Added: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) Wildlife 

Habitat Classification System Change and included specific language regarding 

exceptions, modifications and waivers (Appendix K). This information has been 

graphically displayed on all maps highlighting wildlife habitat. 

Chapter 2

• In Chapter 2 an additional column has been added to the matrices Tables 2.1.1 through 

2.1.27 reflecting the Proposed RMP. 

• All implementation–level decisions in Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27 have been italicized 

and asterisked with a footnote at the bottom of the page as follows: *This is an 

implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. 

Please see the cover letter for further information on protesting. 

• Language provided by the State of Utah regarding Air Quality has been added to Chapter 

2, Table 2.1.2 “Common to All” section. 

• Language provided by the State of Utah concerning compressor engine emission controls 

has been added to Chapter 2, Table 2.1.9. 

• Revised the WSR “Common to All” management actions in Table 2.1.19 to work with 

upstream and downstream water users and applicable agencies to ensure that water flows 

are maintained at a level sufficient to sustain the values from which affected river 

segments were designated. 

• Table 2.4 in Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS was removed in the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. 

Chapter 3 & 4

• Completely revised the Socioeconomics section of Chapters 3 and 4 to include the 

information provided by the State of Utah and cooperating counties included in the new 

Appendix M. 

Chapter 5

• Chapter 5 – Table 5.7 has been added to show consistency findings between the Proposed 

RMP/EIS, Utah state law, and county plans.

References Added

• BLM, 2007. Northeast National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska Draft Supplemental 

Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. USDOI BLM, August 2007. 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/npra_general/ne_npra/ne_npra_supplement.html. 

• Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 2007. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three 

Latitude Bands. Datasets and Images. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, Analysis 

Vernal RMP ES-11
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Executive Summary

Graphs and Plots. New York, New York. Available on the Internet: 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif. 

• 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 on the Internet: 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf. 

• National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: 

Highlights of National Academies Reports. Division on Earth and Life Studies. National 

Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. Available on the Internet: 

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf. 

• Jeffery C. Mosely, Prescribed Sheep Grazing to Enhance Wildlife Habitat on North 

American Rangelands. “Sheep Research Journal,” 1994, pp. 79-91 

• K.M. Havstad, Sheep Grazing as a Rangeland Improvement Tool, "Sheep Research 

Journal,” 1994, pp.72-78 

• B.E. Olson and J.R. Lacey, Sheep: A Method for Controlling Rangeland Weeds, “Sheep 

Research Journal,” 1994, pp.105-112 

Appendices Added 

• Utah Public Lands Study – Key Social Survey Findings for Daggett, Duchesne, and 

Uintah Counties (Appendix M) 

• Document Change Appendix (Appendix N) 

• Air Mitigation Strategies Appendix (Appendix O) 

• SHPO 106 Concurrence Letter (Appendix P) 

Vernal RMP ES-12
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter contains background information on the planning process and sets the stage for the 

information that is presented in the rest of the document. There are 11 main sections in Chapter 

1, including: 

• Background 

• Purpose and Need for the Plan 

• Planning Area Description 

• Planning Process 

• Scoping 

• Identification of Issues 

• Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan 

• Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints 

• Related Plans 

• Summary of Changes Made between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS and the Proposed 

Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

1.2 BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2001, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in 

the Federal Register to prepare an RMP and an associated EIS for public lands administered by 

the VFO. As defined by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the 

"public lands" are those federally owned lands and interests in lands (for example, federally 

owned mineral estate) that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior, specifically through 

the BLM. 

The approved RMP would meet the BLM statutory requirement for a land-use plan (LUP) as 

mandated by Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which 

specifies the need for a comprehensive LUP consistent with multiple-use and sustained-yield 

objectives. The RMP/EIS also fulfills requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, to disclose and address environmental impacts of proposed major 

federal actions through a process that includes public participation and cooperation with other 

agencies. 

The BLM is the lead agency in preparing the RMP/EIS. Uintah (August 2003), Daggett (May 

2002), and Duchesne (April 2002) counties have been cooperating agencies in this effort as local 

governments with special expertise. The Ute Indian Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

also became cooperating agencies with special expertise in September 2004. The State of Utah 

Vernal RMP 1-1
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

became a cooperating agency in this effort in January 2003. The BLM is also coordinating 

closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of the Department of Interior (DOI), 

the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and the Utah Division of State History in this planning effort. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

1.3.1 PURPOSE

The purpose for this project is to revise and integrate the Book Cliffs and Diamond Mountain 

RMPs into a single new comprehensive RMP that would guide management of public lands in 

the Vernal Planning Area (VPA). Through completion of an RMP/EIS, the BLM proposes to 

provide a single, comprehensive LUP that would guide management of the public lands and 

interests administered by the VFO into the future. The revised RMP, also referred to as the 

Vernal Field Office Resource Management Plan (VFO RMP), would coordinate the management 

of the VPA with other BLM offices. As appropriate, the VFO would collaborate with other land 

management agencies and private entities, including the State of Utah; the NPS; the USFS; the 

BIA; Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah counties; and municipalities would be conducted. The 

revised RMP would also coordinate the management of federal subsurface mineral estates with 

private landowners, the Ute Indian Tribe, or other nonfederal surface owners. 

1.3.2 NEED

Current management of these public lands is guided by the Book Cliffs and Diamond Mountain 

RMPs. This RMP revision process is necessary because of the dated nature of the Book Cliffs 

RMP, completed in 1985, and to ensure consistency between the Book Cliffs and Diamond 

Mountain RMPs. Significant changes have occurred since completion of the Diamond Mountain 

and Book Cliff RMPs. Population growth and increased need for resource development has 

occurred, while concern for the environment has also increased. In addition to traditional 

consumptive uses (e.g., oil and gas development, mining and livestock grazing), there is now an 

increased interest in uses that emphasize aesthetic values such as open space and increased 

recreational opportunities. These often conflicting uses need to be addressed in terms of how 

they affect local communities; national, regional, and state interests; and ecosystem health. 

Additionally, policy guidance has resulted in the initiation or completion of local and national 

activity plans, recovery plans, and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) that 

have changed land management direction in the VFO since the Book Cliffs RMP was written. 

A large block of 188,500 acres of federal mineral estate within the Hill Creek Extension of the 

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation has not been previously analyzed for oil and gas leasing. 

This issue has been addressed as part of this RMP revision. 

Ownership of federal land formerly managed by the U.S. Department of the Navy and more 

recently the Department of Energy (DOE) was transferred to the Ute Indian Tribe. The BLM 

managed certain resource programs for the DOE on these 47,978 acres. This Vernal RMP will 

not analyze management of these programs. 

Vernal RMP 1-2
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

These changes have been addressed as part of this RMP revision and integration process. See 

Section 1.5 for a description of the BLM's land-use planning process. 

1.4 PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION

1.4.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The VFO is located in the northeast corner of Utah and administers lands within Daggett, 

Duchesne, and Uintah counties, plus a small portion of Grand County. The VFO also has Native 

American Trust responsibilities for Northern Ute Tribe and allotted mineral trust lands located 

within these counties. 

There are 5,518,859 acres within the boundary of the VFO, of which 1,725,512 acres 

(approximately 30%) are BLM-managed surface lands. The VFO administers energy-related 

mineral activities on 3.9 million acres of federal mineral lands (including 1.3 million acres of 

USFS lands) and post-lease mineral operations on Indian trust mineral lands. The 1,911,000 

acres of BLM-managed mineral estate includes the split estate mineral lands within the Hill 

Creek Extension (comprises 185,500 acres of mineral estate underlying Indian trust surface). 

Most of the land that the BLM manages is in the eastern and southern portions of the planning 

area and is generally characterized by habitats associated with the Uinta Basin and Colorado 

Plateau. Other agencies that manage land in the vicinity of the VFO include the USFS, BIA, 

NPS, USFWS, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and Utah Division of Lands and 

Forestry. Additional lands are held in private ownership or in trust by the United States for the 

Ute Indian Tribe or for individual Native Americans. 

The Diamond Mountain portion of the planning area includes BLM-administered lands and 

minerals in Daggett and Duchesne counties and a portion of Uintah County northwest of the 

Green River. The plan is responsible for the administration of public land in Browns Park and 

the Diamond Mountain Plateau for the Little Snake Field Office of Colorado. The Little Snake 

Field Office administers public land in Browns Park for some resources. Administration of these 

agreed-upon resources is in accordance with the parent resource area's management plan. There 

is also a fire-suppression agreement between the VFO and Little Snake Field Office. 

The Book Cliffs portion of the planning area is located in northeastern Utah. It is bounded by the 

Utah–Colorado state line on the east, the Book Cliff Mountains to the south, the Green River to 

the west, and Blue Mountain to the north (see Map Figure 1). The Book Cliffs area includes 

public land and minerals in Uintah and Grand counties. The VFO boundary officially ends at the 

Uintah County line; however, a small portion of the public lands in Grand County of the Moab 

Field Office are administered by the VFO under a memorandum of understanding (MOU). 

A small portion of the Flume Canyon Wilderness Study Area (WSA) lies within the VPA. 

However, this WSA is managed by the Moab Field Office due to easier access to this area from 

Moab. 

Vernal RMP 1-3
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

A small portion of the West Cold Springs and Diamond Breaks WSAs lie within the VPA. An 

MOU is in place between the Little Snake Office in Craig, Colorado, and the VFO. The Little 

Snake Office has administrative responsibility for managing both of these areas. 

A small number of grazing allotments straddle the Utah–Colorado border. An MOU is in place 

between the White River Field Office and the VFO, where each office, depending on the 

allotment boundaries, administers livestock grazing for the other office. 

Land ownership patterns within both the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs planning areas 

range from large blocks of BLM-administered public lands to small, privately owned blocks. 

This is complicated by lands where the BLM administers a percentage of the minerals, while 

other owners hold the other interests in the land. Land ownership, surface administration, and 

mineral management responsibilities within the VPA are shown in Map Figure 1 and described 

in Table 1.4.1. 

Decisions and actions of the RMP only fully apply to BLM lands. In the case of split estate 

lands, such as lands within the planning area that are split between the BLM and the Uintah and 

Ouray Indian Tribe, actions affecting the surface must be coordinated with the surface owner. 

Undertakings conducted on lands not wholly or partly administered by the BLM are subject to 

the laws, regulations, conditions, and policies of the relevant land management agency or other 

landowner. 

1.4.2 RESOURCE SETTING

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the implementation of management guidance that would 

allow energy-related minerals to be leased, explored for, and developed in an environmentally 

responsible manner. Programmatic EISs have been initiated and completed to carry out the 

following programs: Oil Shale/Tar Sands Development, West-wide Energy Corridors, and 

Wind/Solar Energy Development. A series of interim and permanent policy guidance were 

formulated and released under the policy act direction. These incorporated best management 

practices (BMPs), application processing timeframes, increased NEPA document consistency, 

and timeliness. In addition, under the policy act, the VFO was designated as a pilot office. 

Additional positions were identified for the VFO to provide needed expertise in renewable 

resource specialties and energy-related exploration, development, and monitoring. 

Memorandums of understanding were signed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the EPA, 

and the Army Corp of Engineers. Transferred funds were used to identify employees of these 

entities who would provide to the VFO needed expertise for consultations and other regulatory 

issues. 

Resources within the VPA include botanical (including listed and non-listed sensitive species), 

cultural resources, fisheries, mineral resources, paleontological resources, rangeland, recreational 

resources, riparian resources, visual resources, water resources, wetlands, wild horses, 

wilderness, and wildlife. Land-use and economic resources include building stone, Gilsonite, 

livestock grazing, oil and gas, phosphate, rights-of-way tar sands, and woodland products. 

Opportunities for camping, fishing, hiking, hunting, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, sightseeing, 

and viewing historic sites provide public enjoyment, as well as additional revenues to businesses 

Vernal RMP 1-4
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

in and adjacent to the VPA. Unique features within the planning area include the Book Cliffs, an 

area rich in resources with abundant management opportunities; Browns Park, which provides 

crucial big game winter range and a high density of cultural and historical sites; Nine Mile 

Canyon, with its rock art; the Pariette Wetlands, which provide habitat for over 100 species of 

wildlife; Red Mountain, with its high mountain vistas and plentiful recreational opportunities; 

and the White and Green rivers. 

Table 1.4.1. Land Ownership in the VPA and the Surrounding Area 

Federal Acres Percent 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Vernal Field Office (VFO) 1,697,039 30.75% 

BLM Moab Field Office (MFO) 28,473 0.52% 

Forest Service (USFS) 1,248,651 22.63% 

National Park Service (NPS) 50,113 0.91% 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 10,898 0.20% 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 3,046 0.06% 

Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA (Indian Trust Lands for the benefit of the 

Ute Indian Tribe and Allottees)] 

846,669 15.34% 

Total 3,884,889 70.39% 

State of Utah Acres Percent 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 32,210 0.58% 

School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) 377,969 6.85% 

Total 410,179 7.43% 

Private Acres Percent 

Total 1,223,791 22.17% 

Total Acreage in Vernal Planning Area (VPA) 5,518,859 100.00% 

1.5 PLANNING PROCESS

The RMP is the master LUP that guides the management of public lands in a particular area or 

administrative unit. Resource management plans are usually prepared to cover the lands 

administered by a certain field office. 

An approved RMP establishes the following items in a written document: 

• Resource condition goals and objectives 

• Allowable resource uses and related levels of production or use to be maintained 

• Land areas to be managed for limited, restricted, or exclusive resource uses or for transfer 

from BLM administration 

• Program constraints and general management practices and protocols 

• General implementation schedule or sequences 

• Intervals and standards for monitoring the plan 

Vernal RMP 1-5
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

Preparation of an RMP involves several interrelated steps as illustrated and described below. 

Teams typically develop planning documents and complete other planning activities. The shapes 

in the image below represent minimum planning requirements, with different shapes representing 

different activities and documents. 

The BLM frequently goes above and beyond the minimum requirements. For example, BLM 

strives to involve the public throughout the planning process—not just during the formal 

comment periods. Field offices may produce a wide variety of documents in addition to those 

shown below in Figure 1.5.1. The white rectangles represent planning documents. The green 

ovals represent the point at which the BLM is required to issue Federal Register Notices. The 

orange hexagons are minimum requirements for public comment and review. The purple ovals 

are other required steps.

Figure 1.5.1. Required planning steps. 

Steps in the BLM Land-use Planning Process 

Step 1 

Identification of 

Issues 

This planning step is designed to identify major problems, concerns, or opportunities 

associated with public land management in the planning area. Issues are identified 

by the public, the BLM, and other governmental entities. The planning process is 

then focused on resolving the planning issues. 

Step 2 

Development of 

Planning 

Criteria 

Planning criteria are identified to guide development of the RMP and prevent the 

collection of unnecessary information and data. 

Vernal RMP 1-6
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

Vernal RMP 1-7

Steps in the BLM Land-use Planning Process 

Step 3 

Collect and 

Compile 

Inventory Data 

This planning step involves the collation and collection of various kinds of 

environmental, social, economic, resource, and institutional data. In most cases, this 

process is limited to information needed to address the issues. The data required for 

land-use planning decisions is usually at a broader scale than data required in 

implementation level planning and analyses. 

Step 4 

Analysis of the 

Management 

Situation 

This step calls for the deliberate assessment of the current situation. It identifies the 

way lands and activities are currently managed in the planning area, describes 

conditions and trends across the planning area, identifies problems and concerns 

resulting from the current management, and identifies opportunities to manage these 

lands differently. It also forms the basis for the "No Action" alternative. 

Step 5 

Formulate 

Alternatives 

During this step, the BLM formulates a reasonable range of alternatives for 

managing resources in the planning area. Alternatives include a continuation of 

current management (No Action) alternative and other alternatives that strive to 

resolve the major planning issues while emphasizing different management 

scenarios. Alternatives usually vary by the amounts of resource production or 

protection that would be allowed, or in the emphasis of one program area over 

another. 

Step 6 

Estimation of 

Effects 

This step involves estimating the physical, biological, economic, and social effects of 

implementing each alternative in order to provide a comparative evaluation of 

impacts in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500). 

Step 7 

Selection of 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Based on the information resulting from the estimation of effects, the BLM identifies 

a Preferred Alternative. The Draft RMP/EIS is then prepared for printing and 

distributed for a 90-day public review. 

Step 8 

Selection of 

RMP 

Following review and analysis of public comments on the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM 

makes adjustments as warranted and selects a Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan 

and a Final EIS is then published. A final decision is made after a 60-day Governor's 

Consistency Review and a 30-day public protest period are completed. The BLM 

then publishes the Record of Decision (ROD) and prepares the approved RMP. 

When the BLM prepares the final RMP and ROD, it may select one of the 

alternatives in its entirety or management actions from more than one of the 

alternatives analyzed in the planning process. With respect to management of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, it means the BLM may choose to 

protect all, some, or none of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, or 

select all or some of the actions of the protective management prescription. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

Vernal RMP 1-8

Steps in the BLM Land-use Planning Process 

Step 9 

Monitoring and 

Evaluation 

Step 9 is the monitoring and evaluation process. 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 is examined and used to draw conclusions on whether 

management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, why. Conclusions are 

then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management or 

what changes need to be made in management practices to meet objectives. 

The two types of monitoring that are tied to the planning process include 

implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Land-use plan monitoring is the 

process of (1) tracking the implementation of land-use 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 the 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 at 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. 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 the 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 information, or significant changes in other plans, 

legislation, or litigation triggers an evaluation. Land-use plan evaluations determine if 

decisions are being implemented, whether mitigation measures are satisfactory, 

whether there are significant changes in the related plans of other entities, whether 

there is new data of significance to the plan, and if 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.
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

1.6 SCOPING 

1.6.1 THE SCOPING PROCESS

Early in the planning process, the public and other agencies were invited to help the BLM 

identify planning issues and concerns relating to the management of BLM-administered lands 

and resources in the planning area. The formal scoping period began with publication of the 

Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register in March 2001. The scoping process included five 

scoping meetings conducted in locations within and outside of the planning area March 12, 2001 

through December 31, 2001. News releases and radio announcements were also used to notify 

the public of the planning process and how to become involved. Management concerns were 

identified through discussions with BLM resource specialists. 

As part of this scoping process, the following public meetings were held to solicit input: 

• Duchesne County Courthouse, Duchesne, Utah; October 17, 2001 

• Vernal Western Park, Vernal, Utah; October 18, 2001 

• Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah; October 25, 2001 

• Daggett County Courthouse, Manila, Utah; November 1, 2001 

• Green River City Offices, Green River, Utah; November 8, 2001 

On January 14, 2005, the BLM published a notice of availability (NOA) of the Draft RMP/EIS in 

the Federal Register to announce and solicit public comment 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 April 14, 2005. The comments and the BLM's responses thereto are addressed in 

Chapter 5 of this Proposed Plan/Final EIS (PRMP/FEIS, or the Proposed Plan). The BLM 

received approximately 360 substantive letters during this comment period. Out of these 

comment letters, approximately 320 comments necessitated changes to the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. 

A more detailed breakdown of the letters and comments received are shown in the chart below. 

Separate from the Draft RMP and EIS for the VFO planning area, the BLM published a NOA in 

the Federal Register on December 13, 2005, announcing the availability of information on 

existing and potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) considered within the 

Draft RMP and EIS, as required in 43 CFR 1610.7-2. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

also provided an associated 60-day comment period beginning December 13, 2005. The BLM 

received 5 substantive letters during this comment period. Out of these comment letters, 10 

comments necessitated changes to the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. A more detailed breakdown of the 

letters and comments received are shown in the chart below. 

In order to adequately address the management of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, a supplemental EIS (SEIS) fifth alternative (Alternative E) was published by the 

BLM in 2007. An NOA of the SEIS was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2007. 

The 90-day public comment period to solicit public comment on Alternative E began October 5, 

2007, and ended on January 3, 2008. The BLM received 191 substantive letters during this 

Vernal RMP 1-9
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

comment period. Out of these comment letters, approximately 500 comments necessitated 

changes to the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. A more detailed breakdown of the letters and comments 

received are shown in the chart below. 

Table 1.6.1 Letters and Comments Breakdown 

Draft RMP/Draft EIS ACEC Comment 

Period 

Supplement to the 

Draft RMP/Draft EIS 

Total Substantive 

Letters Approximately 320 5 Approximately 52 

Total Non-Substantive 

Letters Approximately 1,774 6,835 Approximately 20,000+ 

Total Letters Approximately 2,094 6,840 Approximately 20,000+ 

Total Substantive 

Comments Approximately 2,500 30 Approximately 500 

Total Non-Substantive 

Comments Approximately 438 32 Approximately 65 

Total Comments Approximately 2,938 37 Approximately 565 

Total Comments that 

Changed the RMP Approximately 320 10 Approximately 34 

1.7 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES

The key planning issues identified as a result of the scoping process for developing alternatives 

in the RMP and EIS are outlined below. 

1.7.1 AIR QUALITY

How can natural resources such as air quality be addressed in order to comply with the State of 

Utah and the EPA standards? 

1.7.2 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

How can cultural and paleontological resources be protected from resource uses such as 

motorized recreation, livestock grazing, and mineral development? 

Note: The Proposed Plan provides for enhanced management of cultural and paleontological 

resources in the planning area. Many new discoveries, excavations, and analyses in the field of 

paleontology have occurred. These new findings are enhancing the BLM's understanding of 

these resources in the VPA. 

1.7.3 RELATED CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL ISSUES

• What management practices (i.e., method of development and location) can be applied to 

human activities and uses in order to protect cultural and paleontological resources? 

Vernal RMP 1-10
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

• Where can cultural and paleontological resources be used for scientific, educational, 

recreational, and traditional purposes? 

1.7.4 FIRE MANAGEMENT

Where is fire desired and not desired, and in what areas could fire be used as a management tool 

for vegetative treatments? 

Note: Fire management planning is necessary to address high risk areas, fire prevention, 

prescribed burns, rehabilitation and restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, protection of life and 

property, and other wildfire-related issues. 

1.7.5 LANDS AND REALTY

What lands within the VPA should be identified as targets for acquisition, disposal, or 

withdrawal? 

Note: As mandated by Section 102 (a)(1) of FLPMA (43 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 or exchange), as described under Section 203(a) and Section 206 of 

FLPMA (43 U.S.C. §§ 1713 and 1716). Public lands cannot be effectively administered without 

legal and physical access. Therefore, 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. The preferred method of disposal is 

land exchange. Other lands can be considered for disposal on a case-by-case basis. Disposal 

actions are usually in response to a public request or an application and result in a title transfer, 

wherein the lands leave the public domain. 

Methods used to acquire legal rights to lands that meet resource management needs include 

negotiated purchase, donation, and exchange. In a withdrawal of lands, an area of public land is 

withheld from settlement, sale, location, or entry, for the purpose of limiting activities in order to 

maintain other public values. 

Related Lands and Realty Issues

• How will transportation and utility right-of-way corridors (including avoidance areas and 

exclusion areas) be managed? 

• What specific land-use authorization decisions will be determined to be appropriate in 

meeting specific resource goals and objectives? 

• How will access needs and tenure adjustment proposals (all lands identified for disposal 

or retention) be addressed? 

• How will land-tenure adjustments or ownerships and management agreements be 

addressed when they have not previously been addressed because they occurred since the 

completion of previous planning? (For example, Hill Creek federal minerals and private 

Vernal RMP 1-11
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

lands were acquired as a part of the Book Cliffs initiative and the lands near the mouth of 

Nine Mile Creek were acquired as mitigation.) 

1.7.6 MINERALS MANAGEMENT

What areas will be available for mineral development, and what restrictions should be imposed? 

Note: Historically, the mineral industry has been an important aspect of the local economy in the 

VPA. Mineral development is considered a major issue for this planning area not only for 

economic reasons but also for the degree to which it can potentially affect other resources. 

Related Minerals Management Issues

• How can hazardous materials issues be identified when they arise due to proposed oil, 

gas, and mineral development that are regulated by the state? 

• How can conflicts be reduced between mineral development and increasing recreation? 

• Where can mineral leasing and development occur, while protecting other resources? 

• What are the economic benefits of mineral development? 

1.7.7 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

How should non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics be managed? 

Note: Certain non-WSA lands in the area managed by the VFO are proposed by members of 

Congress and/or members of the public for wilderness designation. After updating its wilderness 

inventory, the BLM found that some of these lands have wilderness characteristics as defined in 

Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and others do not. 

The Land-use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 guides the consideration of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics in land-use planning. The handbook provides that the BLM may not 

establish new WSAs. However, the BLM may consider information on wilderness characteristics 

in land-use planning efforts and manage such lands in a way that would 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. 

1.7.8 OHV USE AND TRANSPORTATION

How can increased recreation use, especially motorized vehicle access, be managed while 

protecting natural resource values? 

Note: Growth of OHV use has become a significant issue within the planning area due to 

increased conflicts between OHV users and other recreationists, as well as the potential for 

increased soil damage, while protecting the natural and cultural values of the public lands. With 

the number of visitors growing, recreation is expanding further into the backcountry, while 

Vernal RMP 1-12
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

resource and user conflicts are becoming more common. Although all recreational uses need to 

be managed, OHV use needs particular attention, including identifying areas to be open, 

restricted, or closed for the protection of other resource values. 

1.7.9 RELATED OHV AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

• Which areas should be designated as open, limited, or closed to OHV use, and which 

OHV routes should be designated within the limited category? 

• What types of recreation travel should be available on which designated routes and 

under what limitations? 

1.7.10 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT AND HEALTH

Are there areas where grazing should not be allowed due to resource conflicts? 

Note: The Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, manages approximately 264 million acres 

of public rangelands throughout the western U.S. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the FLPMA, 

and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 together guide the BLM's management of 

livestock grazing on public lands. The objectives for grazing administration regulations are to 

"promote healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement 

of public rangelands to properly functioning condition; to efficiently and effectively administer 

domestic livestock grazing; and to provide for the sustainability of the western livestock industry 

and communities that are dependent upon productive, healthy public rangelands" (43 CFR Part 

4100.0-2). 

Resource concerns and potential conflicts have arisen regarding the allocation and season of use 

of forage within the planning area. The BLM's grazing regulations recognize suspended non-use 

if carried on a permit prior to 1995. If a permit is reduced after 1995, the animal unit months 

(AUMs) are not carried on the permit. A permittee may apply for temporary non-renewable 

AUMs; however, the BLM must determine if forage is available. Isolated instances of resource 

degradation have occurred in site-specific areas particularly associated with seasons of use and 

forage allocation. 

The BLM incorporates standards for rangeland health by: 

• Evaluating adjustments in livestock and wildlife numbers and seasons of use. 

• Evaluating forage allocation and carrying capacity for wildlife, wild horses, and 

livestock. 

• Evaluating range capability, including potential impacts to range health for both wildlife 

and wild horse populations and permitted livestock use. 

Related Rangeland Management and Health Issues

• How should grazing be managed during times of drought? 

• How should grazing be managed in riparian areas? 

Vernal RMP 1-13
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

1.7.11 RECREATION RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT

Where should adaptive management practices be applied in response to unacceptable resource 

impacts? 

Note: Recreation management is of significant concern within the planning area because it 

contains world-class recreational resources. Use has grown rapidly and is expected to continue to 

grow. This increase in recreational activities may bring additional risk of wildfire within 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas. Recreation uses and projected needs are reviewed on all 

lands to determine appropriate management for the following: 

• Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) requiring enhanced or special 

management for recreational uses, or for protection of recreation-related resource values; 

• Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) are areas where dispersed 

recreation is encouraged and where visitors have recreational freedom of choice with 

minimal regulatory constraint. These areas usually receive very little recreation use. 

Related Recreation Resource Management Issues

• How should recreational uses be managed to limit conflicts among recreational users? 

• How should camping, human waste, fires, and wood collection be managed? 

• Where should SRMAs be managed for recreational uses or for protection of recreationrelated values? 

• How should conflicts with other, non-recreational uses be reduced? 

• What management actions should be implemented to mitigate damage caused by 

recreational uses, including vehicles, on other resources and sensitive areas, especially 

riparian areas? 

• How should recreation in the VPA be managed to ensure public health and safety? 

• Where and under what circumstances should permitted recreation uses be available? 

• What types of recreational facilities and uses should be available, and what limitations 

should be required? 

1.7.12 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT DESIGNATIONS

What areas should have special designations such as ACECs and Wild and Scenic Rivers 

(WSR)? 

Note: FLPMA and BLM policy require the BLM to give priority to designation and protection of 

ACECs during the land-use planning process. The Wild and Scenic River Act directs federal 

agencies to consider the potential for including watercourses into the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System during the land-use planning process. 

As a cooperating agency involved with the development of the VFO RMP/EIS, the State of Utah 

has proposed that a statewide WSR review be completed. In accordance with Section 5(d) of the 

Vernal RMP 1-14
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the BLM would continue to make WSR recommendations through 

the land-use planning process. 

Related Special Management Designation Issues

• What management prescriptions should be applied to areas with special designations? 

• What resources need the protection provided by a special designation? 

1.7.13 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) 

How will visual resources be managed? 

Note: Changes in visitor use patterns and frequency, as well as intensive development, are 

causing concerns in some areas and enhanced protection of visual resources may be necessary. 

The VRM designations would be consistent with overall management plan goals and objectives. 

1.7.14 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, SOILS, AND VEGETATION

How can resources such as watersheds, soils, and vegetation be protected, maintained, or 

restored? 

Note: Some resource uses (i.e., grazing, mineral development, OHV use, and recreation) can 

affect the natural function and condition of watersheds. A healthy cover of perennial vegetation 

stabilizes the soil, increases infiltration of precipitation, reduces runoff, provides clean water to 

adjacent streams, and minimizes noxious weed invasion. Plant communities provide habitat for 

wildlife as well as forage for domestic animals. 

Related Watershed Management, Soils, and Vegetation Issues

• Which watersheds may require special protection? 

• Where and with what methods can noxious weeds be controlled? 

• How should activities and uses be managed during drought? 

• How should soil and vegetative resources be managed? 

• What management prescriptions should be in place to allow for appropriate 

consideration to water quality concerns related to activities on public lands, including 

but not limited to, the requirements mandated by the Clean Water Act and the state water 

classifications in the 303D state water inventories, as well as at-risk water quality due to 

naturally occurring formations? 

• What management prescriptions should be in place to ensure compliance with the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, the Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach, and the 

Colorado River Basis Salinity Control Act? 

• What management prescriptions are appropriate and consistent for flood plain 

protection? 

Vernal RMP 1-15
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

• How will the VFO management for the inventory and protection of riparian areas in 

accordance with current BLM policy? 

1.7.15 WILD HORSE MANAGEMENT

How should wild horses be managed in the VPO? 

Note: Management of wild horses remains difficult due to disease (e.g., EIA), trespass of private 

horses, and manageability of the herd. The Proposed Plan addresses the following: 

• Wild or feral horses will be gathered and removed. 

• Forage allocation has been allocated until removal. 

1.7.16 WILDLIFE HABITAT AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

How can wildlife habitat and fisheries be managed to be protected, maintained, or restored? 

Related Wildlife Habitat and Fisheries Management Issues

• What restrictions could be placed on resource uses in identified areas to maintain the 

existence or promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species, or to prevent 

the listing of additional species? 

• How should wildlife corridors and unfragmented, crucial wildlife habitat be protected or 

improved? 

• What considerations should be made for state-listed sensitive plant and animal species 

and their associated habitats? 

• What consideration should be made for animal damage control within the scope of the 

national and local MOU with Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and 

UDWR? 

• What consideration should be made for reintroduction or transplants of native fish and 

wildlife species into the planning area that were not addressed during the previous 

planning efforts, including allocating AUMs, where appropriate? 

• What consideration should be made for species not recognized during the previous 

planning efforts—such as newly listed threatened and endangered species, species 

proposed for listing, candidate species, and other non-listed special status species, 

including those on the Utah BLM State Director's Sensitive Species List? 

1.7.17 WOODLAND AND FOREST MANAGEMENT

What treatments and management prescriptions will be employed to address forest health, land 

health, sustainability, and resiliency to disturbances, fuel loadings, fire hazard, composition, 

structure, and function? 

Vernal RMP 1-16
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

Note: Treatments across the planning area would need to be implemented to meet desired future 

conditions. Existing RMPs also do not address special forest vegetation product management 

such as seed collection [private and commercial]. In recent years the public demand for these 

types of products has grown significantly. 

Related Woodland and Forest Management Issues

What areas should be available for fuel wood harvesting? 

1.8 ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PLAN

Issues beyond the scope of the RMP planning process include all issues not related to decisions 

that would occur as a result of the planning process. They include decisions that are not under the 

jurisdiction of the MFO or are beyond the capability of the BLM to resolve as part of the 

planning process. Issues identified in this category include: 

• The State of Utah, Uintah, Duchesne and Daggett counties may hold valid existing rightsof-way 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 rights-of-way. However, nothing 

in the RMP extinguishes any valid right-of-way 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. 

• New wilderness or WSA proposals. 

• Eliminating grazing, mineral development, and OHV use on all public lands. 

• Activities and uses beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM. 

• Changing existing laws, policies, and regulations. 

• Availability of funding and personnel for managing programs. 

• Considering alternative energy sources as substitutes for activities related to mineral 

development. 

1.9 PLANNING CRITERIA 

The FLPMA is the primary authority for the BLM's management of public lands. This law 

provides the overarching policy by which public lands would be managed and establishes 

provisions for land-use planning, land acquisition and disposition, administration, range 

management, rights-of-way, designated management areas, and the repeal of certain laws and 

statutes. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides the basic national charter for 

environmental responsibility and requires the consideration and public availability of information 

regarding the environmental impacts of major federal actions significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment. In concert, these two laws provide the guidance for administration of 

all BLM activities. 

Vernal RMP 1-17
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and guidelines that help to guide data collection, 

alternative formulation, and alternative selection in the RMP development process. In 

conjunction with the planning issues, planning criteria assures the planning process is focused. 

The criteria also help guide the final plan selection and provide a basis for judging the 

responsiveness of the planning options. 

The following criteria were developed by the BLM and reviewed by the public as part of the 

scoping process: 

• The principles of multiple use and sustained yield as set forth in the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act have been applied in the RMP. 

• The RMP has complied with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. 

• All decisions made in the RMP and subsequent implementation decisions would be 

subject to valid, existing rights. 

• The RMP is accompanied by an EIS that would comply with NEPA requirements. 

• RMP decisions apply to lands under jurisdiction of the VFO. 

• The RMP relies on available inventories of public lands and their resources. 

• Boundaries and recommendations on WSAs identified as a result of inventory conducted 

prior to October 21, 1993, under Section 603 of FLPMA and awaiting action by Congress 

would not be changed by the RMP. 

• Although the formal Section 603(a) wilderness review process expired on October 21, 

1993, the BLM has continuously maintained an inventory of current public land 

attributes, including lands that may have wilderness character, but which were either not 

analyzed in earlier planning efforts as having those characteristics, or which were 

determined presently to have these characteristics that may not have been present during 

earlier inventory efforts. It is not within the BLM's authority to designate additional 

WSAs. 

• The RMP incorporates the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing as set out by the RAC. 

• The RMP considers provisions of the Vernal Fire Management Plan. 

• The RMP considers the existing recovery plans and management strategies and 

guidelines in place for federally listed threatened and endangered species that use the 

planning area. State management plans have been considered for delisted species. 

• The RMP has considered conservation and management strategies developed for the 

protection, conservation, and restoration of westslope cutthroat trout, fluvial arctic 

grayling, and Greater Sage-grouse. 

• The RMP recognizes the State of Utah's responsibility to manage fish and wildlife 

populations, including hunting and fishing uses. 

• The RMP recognizes the State of Utah's authority regarding Utah water law and water 

rights. 

Vernal RMP 1-18
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

• RMP decisions are compatible to the extent possible with the plans and mandates of other 

agencies and governments that have jurisdiction in the region. 

• The RMP recognizes private land owner obligations under applicable tribal treaties and 

laws or executive orders relating to Native American reserved rights, religious freedoms, 

and traditional use areas. 

• The RMP considers and integrates local, statewide, and national interests. 

1.10 RELATED PLANS

The BLM's planning regulations require that plans be consistent with officially approved or 

adopted resource-related plans of other federal, state, local, and tribal governments to the extent 

those plans are consistent with federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands. Plans 

formulated by federal, state, local and tribal governments that relate to management of lands and 

resources have been reviewed and considered as the RMP/EIS has been developed. 

Management of federal and state lands immediately adjacent to public land administered by the 

BLM was considered in the formulation of alternative management scenarios and land-use 

allocations. As cooperating agencies in development of the Vernal RMP, Uintah, Daggett, and 

Duchesne counties have evaluated consistency with appropriate county plans as the Proposed 

Plan/Final EIS has been developed. The main major planning documents of other federal, state, 

local, and tribal governments considered in development of the RMP are included below. (Note: 

This may not be a complete list.) 

1.10.1 COUNTY LAND-USE PLANS

Daggett County, Utah Daggett County General Plan 

Duchesne County General Plan 

Duchesne County, Utah Duchesne County Public Land Implementation 

Plan 

Grand County, Utah Grand County General Plan 

Uintah County General Plan 

Uintah County, Utah Uintah County Plan for Management of the Book 

Cliffs Resource Area Ordinance No. 9-25-2000A, 

Wild Horse Habitat on Public Land 

Garfield County, Colorado Garfield County General Plan 

Moffat County, Colorado Moffat County General Plan 

Rio Blanco County, Colorado Rio Blanco County General Plan 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming Sweetwater County General Plan 

Vernal RMP 1-19
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

1.10.2 STATE OF UTAH

Division of State Parks and Recreation, Steinaker, and Red Fleet State Plans 

2003. State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

2001. Utah's Water Resources Planning for the Future 

1999. Uintah Basin Water Plan 

1990. Utah State Water Plan 

1.10.3 OTHER FEDERAL PLANS

Ashley National Forest Land-use Plan 

Dinosaur National Monument Plan 

Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Plan 

Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge Plan 

Price BLM Field Office RMP 

Moab BLM Field Office RMP 

Green River BLM Field Office RMP 

Little Snake BLM Field Office RMP 

White River BLM Field Office RMP 

Park City Management Framework Plan (Salt Lake City BLM Field Office) 

1.10.4 ACTIVITY PLANS

1979. Desolation & Gray Canyons on the Green River—River Management Plan 

1988–1989. John Jarvie Historic District Site Management Plan, completed in 1988 and 

amended in 1989 

1994. Recreation and Cultural Management Plan for Nine-Mile Canyon; Joint 

Management Plan; Vernal and Price Field Offices 

1996. Green River Management Plan; Joint Management Plan; VFO and Ashley National 

Forest 

1.10.5 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLANS

1979. Myton Habitat Management Plan 

1983. Diamond Mountain/Ashley Creek Habitat Management Plan 

1987. Browns Park Habitat Management Plan 

Vernal RMP 1-20
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

1.10.6 ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS

1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan 

1987. The Recovery Implementation Plan for the Endangered Fish Species in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin 

1988. Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan 

1990. Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan 

1990. Humpback Chub Recovery Plan 

1990. Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Recovery Plan 

1991. Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan 

1999. Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan 

1995. Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan 

1995. Draft Ute Ladies-tresses Recovery Plan 

2003. Conservation and Research Plans for Four Plant Species in Northeastern Utah 

(White River Beardtongue, Goodrich Beardtongue, Graham Beardtongue, and Horseshoe 

Milkvetch) 

1.10.7 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

1983. Uinta Basin Synfuels Development EIS 

1983. Wild and Scenic River Study, Green and Yampa Rivers EIS 

1984. Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional EIS 

1985. PR Spring Combined Hydrocarbon Lease Conversion EIS 

1990. Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness EIS 

1.10.8 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

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) 

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 (FES 07-21) 

2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic Environmental Report. USDI, BLM (FES07-21) 

Vernal RMP 1-21
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

1.10.9 NATIONAL PROGRAMMATIC EIS FOR TAR SANDS AND OIL SHALE RESOURCES

The VFO contains areas of tar sands and oil shale resources. The tar sand resources have been, 

and currently are, available for lease under the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 and 

in accordance with decisions in the existing BLM LUPs/plan amendments. There are, at present, 

no regulations in place to allow for leasing oil shale, nor any existing commercial oil shale leases 

upon BLM-managed lands. The VFO contains one research and development oil shale lease. 

In Utah, the major tar sand resources lie within 11 designated Special Tar Sands Areas (STSAs) 

managed by the Vernal, Price, Richfield, and Monticello Field Offices. One of these STSAs lies 

within the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument where leasing is prohibited. The VFO 

wholly or in part manages seven of the remaining 10 STSAs. 

Lands containing oil shale resources were originally identified through an inventory that 

portrayed the occurrence of the Green River geologic formation in Utah, Wyoming, and 

Colorado. Once identified, lands containing oil shale resources were withdrawn from mineral 

entry through a 1930 Executive Order, which was later modified to allow for oil, gas, sodium 

leasing, and leasing of UA UB Oil Shale tracts. Since that time, the economic potential for the oil 

shale resource has been further defined, now comprising a much smaller area in Utah, primarily 

in the southern part of the BLM VFO area with a small area in the northeast portion of the lands 

managed by the Price Field Office. 

When the Vernal RMP revision was initiated in 2001, there was no reasonable foreseeable 

development (RFD) expectation for tar sands or oil shale over the life of the plan. The mineral 

report identified these resources, 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 three states. Since that time, the scope of the PEIS has been revised. The 

BLM is no longer using the PEIS as the document that supports the NEPA requirements for 

leasing. Given that the development technologies for in situ production of oil shale are just 

emerging, there is a lack of information regarding resource use and associated impacts. 

Consequently, the BLM has changed this document to a resource allocation document that 

identifies the BLM-managed lands for which applications to lease oil shale and tar sands 

resources would be accepted in the future. However, although applications would be accepted, 

additional NEPA analysis would be performed before any leasing of the area would be 

considered. 

All land-use planning decisions related to oil shale and tar sands resources (areas open to 

application for potential leasing) in this RMP will be made by the ongoing PEIS for oil shale and 

tar sands resources. The ROD on the final PEIS will amend the existing Diamond Mountain and 

Vernal RMP 1-22
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

Book Cliffs RMP or the Vernal RMP by making land-use planning decisions on whether or not 

lands will be available for future application, leasing, and development of oil shale and tar sands 

on public lands for those areas where the resource is present. Additional site-specific NEPA 

analysis will be completed on each lease application before any leases would be issued. 

As part of the site-specific NEPA analysis, the environmental consequences to specific resource 

values and uses within the areas and any alternative actions would be analyzed. Any decision to 

offer the lands for lease would be made based on a full disclosure of the impacts. If a decision is 

made to offer the lands for lease, specific mitigation measures will be developed to ensure that 

the commercial operations use practices that minimize or mitigate impacts. 

This pre-leasing NEPA analysis would include the same opportunities for public involvement 

and comment that are part of this PEIS process and every other land-use planning and NEPA 

process the BLM undertakes. The decisions associated with the PEIS will be incorporated into 

the Vernal RMP as it is finalized or will amend the Vernal RMP. Additional opportunities for 

public involvement and comment will occur when the Proposed Plan Amendment/ Final PEIS is 

available. 

This RMP will, however, provide allocation and leasing decisions for conventional oil and gas 

leasing in the STSAs and oil shale areas. 

1.10.10 RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY AND THE 

SCIENTIFIC INVENTORY OF ONSHORE FEDERAL LANDS' OIL AND GAS 

RESOURCES AND RESERVES, AND THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF RESTRICTIONS 

OR IMPEDIMENTS TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT

The President's comprehensive National Energy Policy, issued in May 2001, directed the 

Secretary 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).” 

Under this directive the assistant secretary 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 EPCA). 

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 practices and are not to be considered mutually 

exclusive priorities. 

• The BLM must ensure the appropriate amount of accessibility to energy resources 

necessary for the nation's security while recognizing that special and unique non-energy 

resources can be preserved. 

Vernal RMP 1-23
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

• Sound planning would weigh the relative resource values consistent with the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act. 

• All resource impacts, including those associated with energy development and 

transmission, would be mitigated to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. 

By July 29, 2003, the BLM started to provide direction necessary to outline a strategy for 

integrating EPCA inventory results into LUPs. 

The VFO is located partially within the Uinta–Piceance oil and gas basin, one of seven areas 

identified as priority basins in the EPCA inventory. The VFO and their contractors conducted an 

extensive review of the inventory data regarding energy resources within the planning area. That 

data is profiled in the Proposed Vernal RMP and consists primarily of two types of information 

as outlined in EPCA: 1) data on oil and gas resources (volumetric data), and 2) data on leasing 

constraints. This data is considered an important part of the BLM's administrative record for the 

RMP. 

The EPCA volumetric data is documented in the Affected Environment section of the EIS. The 

BLM also considered many other sources of energy-related data, including USGS and Utah 

Geologic Survey (UGS) information, industry information, as well as some academic work 

completed on oil and gas plays and areas with potential for occurrence of mineral resources. This 

information is part of the more detailed Mineral Potential Report prepared in support of the 

planning effort. 

In 2002, the BLM prepared a projected reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) scenario to 

project environmental impacts across a 15-year period; this RFD has been modified (2008) for 

oil and gas development only to project environmental impacts for up to 5 years. Development 

projections included in-depth reviews of potential for occurrence, past well production, current 

well production, and future potential for production. During the pendency of this planning effort 

(beginning with public meetings in 2001 and 2002 for scoping purposes through the notification 

in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005, of the availability of the Draft RMP/EIS), the RFD 

scenario, which is a planning tool and not a prediction or limit to development, did not track 

completely with the pace of development in the Uinta Basin. The BLM has carefully monitored 

industry trends and believes that the RFD used as an analytical tool in this Proposed RMP can be 

considered accurate up to approximately 5 years from the time the Record of Decision (ROD) is 

signed. 

Within the next 5-year timeframe, the BLM would monitor the impacts to resources of continued 

development in the VPA and ensure that the impacts disclosed in this Proposed RMP are not 

exceeded by the pace of development. 

The BLM also conducted additional support work regarding energy-related management and 

energy benefits in the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS), as well as the 

Socioeconomic Baseline Report; these characterize the significant beneficial impacts of energy 

and mineral development for the Uinta Basin. 

Vernal RMP 1-24
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

Also, as part of EPCA, a review was provided outlining existing leasing constraints within the 

focus areas. Data on proposed and existing leasing constraints specific to the proposed Vernal 

RMP are provided in Table 2.1.9 (Minerals and Energy Resources) as found in Chapter 2. 

1.10.11 ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 AND THE WEST-WIDE ENERGY CORRIDOR 

PROGRAMMATIC EIS (PEIS) 

Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (designation of West-wide energy corridors) is 

being implemented via the current development of an interagency, Programmatic EIS (PEIS). 

The Final PEIS could amend numerous RMPs in the western U.S., providing decisions that 

would address numerous energy corridor-related issues, including the use of existing corridors 

(with enhancements and upgrades), identification of new corridors, supply and demand 

considerations, and compatibility with other corridor and project planning efforts. 

1.11 SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE BETWEEN THE DRAFT RMP/EIS AND THE 

PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS 

The BLM has made numerous changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. These changes are described below and detailed in Appendix N. BLM has prepared this 

Appendix to document if changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

resulted in a significant change in circumstances or conditions, or if the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

contains different information from that which was presented to the public in the Draft 

RMP/EIS. Finally, BLM wanted to confirm that all changes made to the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS fall within the range of alternatives presented and analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS and the 

Supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS. 

The regulation controlling whether or not a supplement is required is found at 40 CFR 1502.9(c), 

which provides that agencies: 

(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if: 

(i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns; or 

(ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impact. 

(2) May also prepare supplements when the agency determines that the purposes of the 

Act will be furthered by doing so. 

(3) Shall adopt procedures for introducing a supplement into its formal administrative 

record, if such a record exists. 

(4) 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 Vernal Field Office Draft RMP/EIS were made in response to public comment 

and/or internal review. The majority of the changes were editorial changes made to add clarity to 

the document. In some cases, alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/EIS were modified in the 

Proposed RMP to reflect technical corrections and data updates. In other cases, such as in 

Vernal RMP 1-25
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

Chapter 3, incorporation of updated information was necessary to refine the analysis in Chapter 4 

that was incomplete or needed augmentation. 

None of the changes described above and further detailed in Appendix N 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 RMP or its impacts, 

using context and intensity as the trigger for significance. 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. 

Following is an executive summary of the major changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The summary of changes has been broken into two parts: 

• Summary of Changes to Decisions Between the Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative A) and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

• Summary of Editorial Changes Made Between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS and Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. 

1.11.1 ES.7.1. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO DECISIONS BETWEEN THE DRAFT 

RMP/EIS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE A) AND THE PROPOSED 

RMP/FINAL EIS 

• Air Quality decisions were refined based upon State of Utah, Department of Air Quality 

correspondence included in Appendix O. 

• The Draft RMP alternatives made proposed decisions for Combined Hydrocarbon 

Areas/Special Tar Sand Areas. The Proposed RMP now defers those decisions to the 

Programmatic Tar Sands Oil Shale EIS discussed in Section 1.10.9 of Chapter 1. 

• Wild horses would no longer be permitted in the Winter Ridge Herd Area and Hill Creek 

Herd Area due to disease (e.g., EIA) and trespass of private horses because of mixed 

surface ownership with the Ute Indian Tribe, State of Utah, and privately held lands. The 

Draft RMP Preferred Alternative allocated 2,340 AUMs for wild horses in the Winter 

Ridge Herd Area and the Hill Creek Herd Area. 

• The Proposed RMP provides Greater Sage-grouse additional protection during 

breeding, nesting, brooding, and during winter by selecting the protections in Alternative 

C. 

• All or portions of 15 areas, approximately 106,178 acres, would be managed as nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics: Beach Draw, Bourdette Draw, Bull 

Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, Diamond Breaks, 

Diamond Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, Stuntz 

Draw, Vivas Cake Hill, White River, and Wild Mountain. The Draft RMP Preferred 

Alternative did not specifically provide management for non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The Proposed RMP preserves and maintains management prescriptions in 

these areas and does not allow for surface disturbing activities. 

Vernal RMP 1-26
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

• Bitter Creek, Coyote Basin, Lower Green River Expansion ACECs were not brought 

forward from the Draft RMP Preferred Alternative. 

• White River, Browns Park, and Nine Mile Canyon ACECs were brought forward, with a 

reduction in acreage. 

• Manage 24,259 acres in Red Mountain-Dry Fork as a SRMA to provide for maintenance 

and development of OHV or non-OHV trails, minimal facilities necessary for human 

health and safety, watershed values, relict vegetation communities, and crucial deer and 

elk winter habitat. An activity plan for the SRMA would be developed to determine what 

areas are appropriate for day use only. 

• The Draft RMP Preferred Alternative proposed 24,183 acres as the White River SRMA. 

The Proposed RMP identified 2,831 acres as a SRMA. A portion of the lands not 

included in the SRMA in the Proposed RMP are being carried forward for management 

as non-WSA with wilderness characteristics. 

• The Draft RMP Preferred Alternative recommended two segments of the White River, 

the Upper Green River and the Lower Green River, for inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic River System as well as the Upper and Lower Green River. The Proposed 

RMP recommends only the Upper and Lower Green River. 

• In the Draft RMP Preferred Alternative, the BLM identified the Hill Creek Extension as 

available for leasing. The BLM, in cooperation with Ute Indian Tribe, identified in the 

Proposed RMP specific oil and gas leasing constraints for the Hill Creek Extension. 

1.11.2 ES.7.2. SUMMARY OF EDITORIAL CHANGES MADE BETWEEN THE DRAFT 

RMP/DRAFT EIS AND PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS 

Throughout the Plan

• The Supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS has been merged into the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. The Supplement presents an analysis of the effects of managing non-Wilderness 

Study Area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics in a protective manner. This 

analysis is identified as Alternative E in the combined RMP. 

• Acreage numbers and figures have been revised and clarified based on refined GIS 

techniques throughout all chapters. 

Chapter 1

• Chapter 1 has been rewritten to emphasize the decisions brought forward in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. 

• Discussion on monitoring and evaluation and how it plays into the planning process has 

been added in Chapter 1. 

• Chapter 1, Language Added: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) Wildlife 

Habitat Classification System Change and included specific language regarding 

exceptions, modifications and waivers (Appendix K). This information has been 

graphically displayed on all maps highlighting wildlife habitat. 

Vernal RMP 1-27
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

Chapter 2

• In Chapter 2 an additional column has been added to the matrices Tables 2.1.1 through 

2.1.27 reflecting the Proposed RMP. 

• All implementation–level decisions in Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27 have been italicized 

and asterisked with a footnote at the bottom of each page as follows: *This is an 

implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. 

Please see the cover letter for further information. 

• Language provided by the State of Utah regarding Air Quality has been added to Chapter 

2, Table 2.1.2 “Common to All” section. 

• Language provided by the State of Utah concerning compressor engine emission controls 

has been added to Chapter 2, Table 2.1.9. 

• Revised the WSR “Common to All” management actions in Table 2.1.19 to work with 

upstream and downstream water users and applicable agencies to ensure that water flows 

are maintained at a level sufficient to sustain the values from which affected river 

segments were designated. 

• Table 2.4 in Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP/EIS was removed in the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. 

Chapter 3 & 4

• Completely revised the Socioeconomics section of Chapters 3 and 4 to include the 

information provided by the State of Utah and cooperating counties included in the new 

Appendix M. 

Chapter 5

• Chapter 5 – Table 5.7 has been added to show consistency findings between the Proposed 

RMP/EIS, Utah state law, and county plans.

References Added

• BLM, 2007. Northeast National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska Draft Supplemental 

Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. USDOI BLM, August 2007. 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/npra_general/ne_npra/ne_npra_supplement.html. 

• 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 on the Internet: 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif. 

• 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 on the Internet: 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf. 

Vernal RMP 1-28
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

• National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: 

Highlights of National Academies Reports. Division on Earth and Life Studies. National 

Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. Available on the Internet: 

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf. 

• Jeffery C. Mosely, Prescribed Sheep Grazing to Enhance Wildlife Habitat on North 

American Rangelands. “Sheep Research Journal,” 1994, pp.79-91 

• K.M. Havstad, Sheep Grazing as a Rangeland Improvement Tool, "Sheep Research 

Journal,” 1994, pp.72-78 

• B.E.Olson and J.R. Lacey, Sheep:A Method for Controlling Rangeland Weeds, “Sheep 

Research Journal,” 1994, pp.105-112 

Appendices Added 

• Utah Public Lands Study – Key Social Survey Findings for Daggett, Duchesne, and 

Uintah Counties (Appendix M) 

• Document Change Appendix (Appendix N) 

• Air Mitigation Strategies Appendix (Appendix O) 

• SHPO 106 Concurrence Letter (Appendix P) 

Vernal RMP 1-29
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Vernal RMP 1-30
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.1. Introduction 

Vernal RMP 2-1

2.0 PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 2 contains the Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and alternatives that 

describe different approaches to the management of public lands and resources in the Vernal 

Planning Area (VPA) that considered issues and concerns raised during the scoping period (see 

Chapter 1, Identification of Issues), planning criteria, and the guidance applicable to the resource 

uses. Each alternative as well as the Proposed RMP represents a complete and reasonable set of 

objectives, actions, and allocations to guide future management of public lands and resources in 

the VPA. 

The Proposed RMP and five alternatives are presented in this chapter. The Proposed RMP 

specifies what management would be carried forward into future management. Alternative D 

(No Action Alternative) describes the continuation of current, existing management. The No 

Action Alternative is required by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and 

provides a baseline for comparison of the other alternatives. Four other alternatives (A, B, C, and 

E) describe proposed changes to current management. 

This chapter provides a brief introduction followed by Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27, which 

summarize the differences between the Proposed RMP and the alternatives. The Proposed RMP 

as well as the alternatives within this RMP share many goals, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines that ensure protection of resources and compliance with applicable laws. A “Goals 

and Objectives” section is at the beginning of each resource, followed by “Management 

Common to All” in order to avoid redundancy. Each category then includes several subsections, 

each of which focuses on a particular resource, resource use, or program. 

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED RMP AND DRAFT RMP ALTERNATIVES

The development of the Proposed RMP and the Draft RMP alternatives for the Vernal RMP and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was guided by provisions of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as by 

planning criteria listed in Chapter 1. Other laws, as well as Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

planning regulations and policy, directed alternative considerations and focused the alternatives 

on appropriate decisions made at the level of the land use plan (LUP). To begin the alternative 

development process, goals and desired future conditions were identified by the planning team 

after carefully considering public comments received throughout the scoping period, as well as 

direction established by BLM national policy guidance. 

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS is primarily based on the components from the Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative A) of the Draft RMP/EIS (January 14, 2005). However, it has been 

modified to include aspects of all alternatives analyzed after careful consideration of public 

comments, cooperating agency review, and internal review. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.2. Development of the Proposed RMP and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Vernal RMP 2-2

The Draft RMP, which includes the Supplement to the Draft, developed five management 

alternatives to address the major planning issues and to provide direction for resource programs 

influencing land management. Each alternative emphasizes a different combination of resource 

uses, allocations, and restoration measures to address issues and resolve conflicts among uses, to 

allow program goals to be accomplished in varying combinations across the alternatives. 

Management scenarios for programs not tied to major planning issues and/or mandated by law 

often contain few or no differences in management between alternatives. 

Alternative D, continuation of current management (No Action), is based on existing planning 

decisions that remain valid, as well as on current direction and policy. The remaining alternatives 

were developed with input received during scoping and with expertise from the interdisciplinary 

planning team and input from local, state, federal, and tribal governments. 

2.2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS 

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS is primarily based on the decisions from the Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative A) from the Draft RMP/EIS (January 14, 2005). However, it has been modified to 

include aspects of all alternatives analyzed after careful consideration of public comments, 

cooperating agency review, and internal review. The reviews were provided on the Draft 

RMP/EIS; call for information on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) (Federal 

Register Notice, December 13, 2005); and, Alternative E from the supplement that was issued on 

October 5, 2007, analyzing the management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

These alternatives are combined in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Some changes to the draft 

alternatives have been made in response to the public comments received during the comment 

period. These changes are limited, for the most part, to correcting mistakes and refining technical 

points. Changes in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS from the Draft RMP/EIS Alternative A (Draft 

RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) are summarized for the reader in Appendix N. 

2.2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAFT RMPEIS ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives were developed in response to the issues identified in the public scoping process 

and the planning criteria. 

The BLM recognizes that social, economic, and environmental issues cross land ownership lines 

and that extensive cooperation is needed to actively address issues of mutual concern. To the 

extent possible, the alternatives were crafted using the input from public scoping comments; 

from comments submitted by Duchesne, Daggett, and Uintah county representatives; and from 

input from other cooperating agencies such as the Northern Ute Tribe. 

All management under any of the Proposed RMP and alternatives would comply with state and 

federal regulations, laws, standards, and policies. Management items common to all and a more 

detailed discussion for the Proposed RMP and the alternatives may be found in Table 2.1.1 

through 2.1.27. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.2. Development of the Proposed RMP and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Vernal RMP 2-3

2.2.1.1 DRAFT RMP/EIS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE A)

Management direction is generally broad and accommodates a wide variety of values and uses. 

The VPA would be managed to provide a sustainable flow of resources for human use, while 

protecting important watersheds and providing viable populations of native and desirable nonnative plants species, as well as to provide opportunities for recreational use and wildlife habitat. 

2.2.1.2 ALTERNATIVE B

This alternative provides for most resource uses but would emphasize oil and gas development, 

where feasible. Renewable resources would be protected by balancing the development of 

mineral resources with focused and prudent mitigation measures. 

2.2.1.3 ALTERNATIVE C

The natural succession of ecosystems would be allowed to proceed in select management areas. 

This alternative would strongly emphasize maintenance of watershed conditions, species 

viability, properly functioning ecosystems, and a reduction of habitat fragmentation. 

2.2.1.4 ALTERNATIVE D (CURRENT MANAGEMENT/NO ACTION) 

This alternative would maintain present uses by continuing present management direction and 

activities while abiding by all new mandates, executive orders, and directives that have been 

implemented since the previous RMPs were completed. 

2.2.1.5 ALTERNATIVE E

Alternative E gives emphasis to protection of all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

including closure of these areas to mineral leasing and off-road vehicles, avoidance of rights-ofway, protection of undisturbed landscapes, and providing opportunities for primitive and semiprimitive recreation. The natural succession of ecosystems would be allowed to proceed in these 

and other select management areas. This alternative strongly emphasizes maintenance of 

watershed conditions, species viability, properly functioning ecosystems, and a reduction of 

habitat fragmentation. It also includes designation of ACECs and determinations for wild and 

scenic river suitability, while still providing for resource uses in other parts of the VFO, 

including mineral and energy development and motorized recreation use. 

Alternative E is the same as Alternative C, except that it adds a protective management 

prescription to 277,596 acres of land in 25 areas that comprise non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Alternative E, however, applies to all public lands within the VPA. The proposed 

decisions that apply to the lands outside of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

remain the same as those in Alternative C. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.3. Alternatives and Management Options Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 

Vernal RMP 2-4

2.3 ALTERNATIVES AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED 

FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

Several organizations and individuals provided components of alternatives and management 

actions as possible ways of resolving individual resource management issues and conflicts. 

However, none of the submittals addressed the BLM’s purpose and need (outlined in Chapter 1) 

and multiple-use requirements as identified in the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA). These submissions were considered during alternative development; however, none 

provided the full range of protections required. The following alternatives and management 

options were considered as possible ways of resolving resource management issues and conflicts 

but were eliminated from detailed analysis because they were unreasonable or not practical as a 

result of technical, legal, regulatory, or policy issues. 

2.3.1 NO GRAZING ALTERNATIVE

An alternative that proposes to make the entire planning area unavailable for grazing would not 

meet the purpose and need of this RMP/Draft EIS. The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 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 resources. No issues or conflicts have been identified during this 

land-use planning effort which requires the complete elimination of grazing within the planning 

area for their resolution. Where appropriate, removal of livestock and adjustments to livestock 

use have been incorporated into the alternatives on an allotment or area basis to address issues 

identified in this planning effort. 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 RMPs, the analysis of an 

alternative to entirely eliminate grazing is not needed. 

An alternative that proposes to make the entire planning area unavailable for grazing would also 

be inconsistent with the intent of the Taylor Grazing Act, 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 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

requires that public lands be managed on a "multiple use and sustained yield basis" (FLPMA 

Sec. 302(a) and Sec. 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 planning area 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 planning area for 

many years and is a continuing government program. Although the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) guidelines for compliance with NEPA requires that agencies analyze the No 

Action Alternative in all EISs, for purposes of this NEPA analysis, the No Action Alternative 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 

planning area has been dismissed from further consideration in this RMP/EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.3. Alternatives and Management Options Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 

Vernal RMP 2-5

2.3.2 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ADJUSTMENTS ALTERNATIVE

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 Vernal Field Office (VFO) to benefit wildlife and protect and 

promote land health, including soils, hydrologic cycles, and biotic integrity. 

The BLM’s 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 standards for rangeland health 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 VFO 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, 

p. 15). The BLM assesses rangeland health, 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 Guidelines for 

Rangeland Management on Public Lands in Utah are implemented through a proposed decision 

in accordance with 43 CFR 4160. These decisions determine the exact levels of use by livestock 

in conformance with the LUP and to meet resource objectives and maintain or enhance land 

health. For these reasons this alternative has been dismissed from further consideration in this 

LUP revision. 

2.3.3 GREATER DINOSAUR/BOOK CLIFFS HERITAGE PLAN

The BLM did not incorporate this plan in whole, but elements of the plan were incorporated in 

its action alternatives, particularly Alternatives C and E. The BLM has also incorporated several 

elements of this plan in its Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS contains 

similar objectives in Management Common to All; they are: 

• Mitigate or reduce long-term habitat fragmentation through avoidance and site-specific 

reclamation in order to return disturbed areas to productive levels. 

• Ensure that management of native and naturalized plant species enhances and restores, 

and does not reduce, the biological and genetic diversity of natural ecosystems. 

• Conserve and protect special status species and enhance their habitats. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.3. Alternatives and Management Options Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 

Vernal RMP 2-6

2.3.4 NO LEASING ALTERNATIVE

During scoping and/or the comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS, commenters 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. 

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 second alternative (lease expiration) would occur to some degree 

under any 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 VFO 

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 resources.” No 

issues or conflicts have been identified during this land-use planning effort that 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) 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 EIS 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 the No–

Leasing Alternative. To supplement that EIS, the BLM prepared a series of environmental 

assessments (EAs, then referred to as environmental analysis records, or EARs), including the 

Vernal District Oil and Gas Program Environmental Analysis Record (EAR) of 1975, which 

addressed oil and gas leasing for the public lands in the VFO area. Alternatives again included 

the No Action or No-Leasing alternative. The outcome was a category system for leasing that 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.4. Brief Summary of the Proposed RMP and Draft RMP/EIS 

 Alternatives in Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27 

Vernal RMP 2-7

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 VFO area has been 

an ongoing federal program under the established categories. 

The CEQ (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 Vernal Draft RMP/Draft EIS and the 

Proposed RMP/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 Diamond 

Mountain RMP and the Book Cliffs RMP. 

2.4 BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RMP AND DRAFT RMP / EIS

ALTERNATIVES IN TABLES 2.1.1 THROUGH 2.1.27 

The major resources and uses where issues were identified during scoping were travel 

management, recreation, oil and gas leasing and development, special designations (ACECs and 

Wild and Scenic Rivers [WSR]), special status species, wildlife, and non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. These resources and uses, among others, are displayed under a range 

of management alternatives that set forth different priorities and measures to emphasize uses or 

resource values over other uses or resource values to achieve specific goals or objectives outlined 

in detail in Table 2.1.1 through 2.1.27. Below is a brief summary of the range of alternatives for 

those major resources and uses brought forward during scoping. Much more detail for each of 

these resources and uses, among others, and their proposed management is in Table 2.1.1 

through 2.1.27. For ease of reference, the following list is provided: 

Table Number Table Title Page 

Table 2.1.1 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Management Common to the 

Proposed RMP and All Alternatives 2-13 

Table 2.1.2 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Abandoned Mine Lands 2-15 

Table 2.1.3 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Air Quality 2-16 

Table 2.1.4 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Cultural Resources 2-17 

Table 2.1.5 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Fire Management 2-20 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.4. Brief Summary of the Proposed RMP and Draft RMP/EIS 

 Alternatives in Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27 

Vernal RMP 2-8

Table Number Table Title Page 

Table 2.1.6 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Forage 2-22 

Table 2.1.7 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Lands and Realty Management 2-29 

Table 2.1.8 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Livestock and Grazing Management 2-33 

Table 2.1.9 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Minerals and Energy Resources 2-35 

Table 2.1.10 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 2-39 

Table 2.1.11 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Paleontology Resources 2-41 

Table 2.1.12 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Rangeland Improvements 2-43 

Table 2.1.13 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreational Resources 2-44 

Table 2.1.14 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Special Recreation 

Management Areas 2-47 

Table 2.1.15 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Trail Maintenance and 

Development 2-50 

Table 2.1.16 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Riparian Resources 2-52 

Table 2.1.17 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Soil and Water Resources 2-55 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 2-57 

Table 2.1.19 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 2-68 

Table 2.1.20 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs) 2-73 

Table 2.1.21 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Status Species 2-78 

Table 2.1.22 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Roads and Trails 2-83 

Table 2.1.23 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Vegetation Resources 2-85 

Table 2.1.24 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Visual Resource Management 2-87 

Table 2.1.25 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wild Horses 2-89 

Table 2.1.26 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 2-94 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.4. Brief Summary of the Proposed RMP and Draft RMP/EIS 

 Alternatives in Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27 

Vernal RMP 2-9

Table Number Table Title Page 

Table 2.1.27 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Woodlands and Forest Resources 2-98 

2.4.1 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

All public lands are required to have off-highway vehicle (OHV) area designations. Areas must 

be classified as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel activities. Off-highway vehicle 

designation areas, or categories, are listed by alternative. Within the Limited category, routes 

would be limited to "designated roads and trails" (43 CFR Part 8340.0-5(g)). Specific routes are 

being designated as open to motorized use by alternative as part of implementation-level 

planning. Table 2.1.22 portrays how travel and access management would be designated under 

the Proposed RMP and each alternative. 

2.4.2 OIL AND GAS LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT

One of the major decisions in a LUP is to determine which areas should be: 

• Open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form 

stipulations. 

• Open to leasing, subject to moderate constraints such as timing limitations (TL) or 

controlled surface use (CSU) restrictions. 

• Open to leasing subject to major constraints such as no surface occupancy (NSO) 

stipulations. 

• Administratively unavailable to leasing (closed). 

All of these proposed decisions must be consistent with the goals and objectives of other 

resources and uses for each alternative. Table 2.1.9 depicts how oil and gas leasing would be 

managed under the Proposed RMP and each alternative. 

In addition, this planning revision proposes to apply the same oil and gas stipulations to all other 

surface-disturbing activities where they are not contrary to laws, regulations, or policy under the 

Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives. For example, if an area has a timing stipulation on it 

for oil and gas development, it would also apply that same timing stipulation on a right-of-way 

(ROW) construction proposal or an organized recreational event. Appendix K contains proposed 

stipulations for surface-disturbing activities and applicable Waivers, Exceptions, and 

Modifications. 

2.4.3 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS—POTENTIAL ACECS

A Federal Register Notice of Availability (December 2005) announced the availability of 

information on existing and potential ACECs considered within the Draft RMP and EIS, as 

required in 43 CFR 1610.7-2. The CFR also provided an associated 60-day comment period 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.4. Brief Summary of the Proposed RMP and Draft RMP/EIS 

 Alternatives in Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27 

Vernal RMP 2-10

beginning December 13, 2005. 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 relevance and importance criteria 

encompass scenery, sensitive plant species, rare plants, cultural and historic resources, wildlife, 

fish, natural systems, and natural hazards. Table 2.1.18 shows the numbers and acres of ACECs 

considered by the Proposed RMP and alternatives. Where ACECs are designated, special 

management attention would be directed at the relevant and important values, resources, natural 

systems, and/or natural hazards. 

2.4.4 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

During planning, the BLM must assess all eligible river segments and determine which are 

suitable or non-suitable per Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as 

amended. The VFO reviewed all river segments for WSR eligibility and suitability as part of the 

RMP process. The BLM Manual 8351 directs the BLM to provide tentative classifications of 

Wild, Scenic, or Recreational to the eligible river segments. The information considered by 

alternative and brought forward in the Proposed RMP is in Table 2.1.19. Where rivers are 

determined as suitable, protection of the outstandingly remarkable values, tentative 

classification, and free-flowing nature would be provided until a determination is made by 

Congress. 

2.4.5 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Land use plan decisions must be consistent with the BLM's mandate to recover listed species and 

must be consistent with objectives and recommended actions in approved recovery plans, 

conservation agreements and strategies, MOUs, and applicable biological opinions for threatened 

and endangered species. Currently, the VFO has one federally listed bird species (and one 

candidate species), two federally listed mammal species, four federally listed fish species, and 

six federally listed plant species (and one candidate species). The information considered by 

alternative and brought forward in the Proposed RMP is in Table 2.1.21. Species conservation 

measures (Appendix L) have been developed in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). They will be implemented under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. In 

addition, there are federally listed as well as state sensitive species where TLs and CSU 

stipulations are applied. 

The BLM will work with UDWR, USFWS, and others to ensure that plans and agreements are 

updated as necessary to reflect the latest scientific data. 

2.4.6 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

During planning, the VFO identified decisions to protect, preserve, and maintain non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics (naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and 

outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation). There are 15 areas totaling 

106,178 acres that were identified as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that were 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.4. Brief Summary of the Proposed RMP and Draft RMP/EIS 

 Alternatives in Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27 

Vernal RMP 2-11

brought forward in the Proposed RMP. The total acreage considered, by alternative, is shown in 

Table 2.1.10. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 2 

 2.4. Brief Summary of the Proposed RMP and Draft RMP/EIS 

 Alternatives in Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27 

Vernal RMP 2-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Table 2.1.1 Propos

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.1 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Management Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNAT

INTRODUCTION The Proposed RMP and all alternatives within this RMP share several goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that ensure protection of resources and compliance wit

alternatives, these types of guidance are categorized as “Management Common to All.” 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Utah BLM Rangeland Health Standards, described below, apply to all resource programs and authorized activities: 

o Upland soils exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site productivity, considering the soil type, climate, and landform. o Riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition. Stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate to soil type, climate, and landformo Desired species, including native, threatened, endangered, and special-status species, are maintained at a level appropriate for the site and species involved. o The BLM would apply and comply with water quality standards established by the State of Utah (R317-2) and the Federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Wat

in the Utah Water Quality Standards (R317-2) for surface water and groundwater. 

• Joint monitoring and evaluation strategies would be implemented by the BLM and permittees to measure progress in accordance with Utah BLM Rangeland Health St

in order to warrant modification of prescriptions. 

• The BLM recognizes that not all activities authorized by implementation of the Proposed RMP or any of the alternatives would comply with Rangeland Health Standard

ensure sustainability and productivity of the site. 

• Assure that counties and others, such as Native American tribes whose interests might be affected have a sufficient opportunity for productive participation in the BLM

CLIMATE CONSIDERATIONS The BLM would continue to regularly monitor and evaluate climatic and vegetative data. This data would be shared and compiled with other land managing agencies of the data reveal a substantial shift (either upward or downward) in both the timing and level of production of native rangelands, either planning-area-wide or on specific sites wi

such resources would not adversely affect the long-term productivity of such areas. 

EDUCATION, INTERPRETATION, AND RESEARCH The BLM would work with its partners, including local school districts and universities to develop a variety of opportunities to promote education, research, and interpretatioFIRE, DROUGHT, AND NATURAL DISASTERS • The BLM would coordinate appropriate management responses (AMR) with affected parties where natural resources may be impacted by fire, drought, insects and dis

necessary to minimize land health degradations, such as reduced forage allocations; reductions in the number of livestock; wildlife; increased mitigation measures to e

• Current Utah BLM Rangeland Health Standards would be incorporated, as appropriate, across all resource programs as a minimum. Management prescriptions in the 

sustain rangeland health and viability. Management prescriptions would consider the following: 

o Livestock Grazing — Use would be allowed in both quantity and timing that would not result in a downward shift in rangeland health. The BLM would work coo

allotment(s), and make changes to the grazing authorizations as appropriate within the limits of the existing permit and in accordance with the grazing regulati

the range, or portions of it, to livestock grazing. 

o Off Highway/Road Vehicles (OHV) — OHV use during period of prolonged dryness would be further restricted to existing routes; or, if site-specific conditions w

damage to rangeland and/or woodlands and forest and to minimize the potential of spark caused fires. 

o Recreation — During periods of prolonged dryness or drought, the BLM, in cooperation with local and state fire management agencies, would limit campfires t

public lands to campfires of any kind. 

o Surface-disturbing Activities — These would be closely monitored to ensure compliance with authorizations/permits, conditions of approval, or terms and cond

actions insuring successful reclamation, would be of paramount concern. During periods of drought, the BLM would require additional actions such as changes 

Methods to ensure successful revegetation following disturbance may include hydromulching, installation of drip irrigators, or fencing to exclude ungulate graz

o Wild Horse Management — Wild or feral horses will be gathered and removed. Forage allocation has been allocated until removal. o Wildlife Management — During periods of prolonged dryness or drought, to the extent that wildlife grazing ungulate populations cannot be sustained due to co

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) regarding herd numbers and overall management options to ensure that rangeland health is maintained and to ad

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT • Appropriately manage noxious and invasive weeds and prevent introduction of new invasive species through the implementation of a comprehensive weed program p

partners; prevention and early detection; education; inventory and monitoring; and using the principles of integrated pest management. 

• All projects that involve ground-disturbing activities should incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for control of weeds with an emphasis on prevention. 

• Use of pesticides and herbicides shall comply with the applicable federal and state laws. Pesticides and herbicides shall be used only in accordance with their register

• Prior to the use of pesticides, project proponents shall obtain from the Authorized Officer written approval of Pesticide Use Proposal, which is a plan showing the type 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Table 2.1.1 Propos

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.1 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Management Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNAT

location of storage and disposal of containers; and any other information deemed necessary by the Authorized Officer. Emergency use of pesticides shall be approved pesticide application, a Pesticide Application Record must be completed. A similar procedure is required for the release of biological control agents.

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS The VPA includes a wide array of geographical landscapes and ecosystems. The expansive nature of the RMP mandates a broad scale of decision-making.SURFACE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL SURFACE-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES • Appendix K lists by alternative surface stipulations referred to throughout the Final RMP/EIS. 

• Surface stipulations (including exceptions, modifications, and waivers), would be applied to all land use authorizations, permits, and leases issued on BLM-administere

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES, BY RES

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • The goals and objectives described below apply to the Proposed Plan and Action Alternatives A, B, C, and E, not to the No Action Alternative D.D. • Goals and objectives for Alternative D are contained in the 1994 Diamond Mountain RMP and the 1985 Book Cliffs RMP. Acreage figures for Alternative D may reflect 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Tab

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.10 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Protect, preserve and maintain the wilderness characteristics (i.e., appearance of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation or solitude) 

backcountry landscapes for their undeveloped character and provide opportunities for primitive recreational activities and experiences of solitude. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES There are no non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics actions common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. • Approximately 106,178 acres would 

be managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for the following areas: Beach Draw, Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, Stuntz Draw, Vivas Cake Hill, White River, and Wild Mountain. 

• They would be managed with the 

following common prescriptions: 

o VRM Category II o Closed to oil and gas 

leasing, except for the White River area that would be open to leasing, subject to major constraints, (NSO). 

o Closed to solid mineral 

leasing. 

o Closed to disposal of 

mineral materials. 

o Closed to woodland product 

harvest. 

o Avoidance area for rights-ofway. o OHVs would be limited to 

designated routes, except for the upper portion of the Lower Flaming Gorge wilderness characteristics area, which would be closed. 

o No motorized vehicles would 

be allowed to travel on a single path up to 300 feet from designated routes to access a camp. 

o Retain public lands in 

federal ownership. 

• When compatible with the goals and 

objectives for management of nonNo specific actions are specifically prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Tab

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.10 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

WSA lands with wilderness characteristics: 

o Permit vegetation and fuel 

treatments using prescribed fire, mechanical and chemical treatments, and other actions compatible with the Healthy Lands Initiative (HLI). 

o Permit construction of 

wildlife water and livestock facilities, and minimal recreation facilities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.11 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Paleontology Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

PALEONTOLOGY RESOURCES 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Locate, evaluate, and manage paleontological resources, and protect them where appropriate. Facilitate suitable scientific, educational, and recreational uses of fossils. E

public ownership as a result of surface disturbance or land exchanges. Foster public awareness and appreciation of the area’s paleontological heritage. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common invertebrate and plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use. Surface disturbance m• Vertebrate fossils may be collected only under a permit issued to qualified individuals. Vertebrate fossils include bones, teeth, eggs, and other body parts of animals w

include trace fossils, such as footprints, burrows and dung. 

• 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 

• Lands identified for disposal or exchange would be evaluated to determine whether such actions would remove significant fossils from federal ownership. In areas whe

significant fossils, the BLM would follow its policy (see Manual and Handbook 8270-1) to assess any threat and mitigate damage. The BLM Washington Office Instruct

Paleontological Resources on Public Lands, dated October 15, 2007, revised the classification system of Handbook 8270-1. 

• The BLM would work with local communities, interest groups, individuals, and other agencies to enhance the public’s understanding and enjoyment of paleontological 

• Where scientifically significant fossils are threatened by natural hazards or unauthorized collection, the BLM would work with permittees and other partners to salvage 

• Implement regular patrols as feasible to protect areas where unauthorized use may occur. • Modify the existing General Agreement between the VFO, the NPS, the Vernal Field House of Natural History, and the Friends of Paleontology Chapter to encourage 

would ensure proper storage and curation of paleontological resources and include methods to promote interpretation and education. 

• Areas with significant fossils would 

be identified through predictive modeling and broad-scale sampling. 

• Assessment and mitigation would be 

required as needed in these areas. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • Damage to significant fossils would 

be prevented through lease notices, stipulations, and other requirements. 

• Impacts would be mitigated in 

response to reports of finds 

Same as Alternative A, but would require assessment and mitigation in all Class 4 or Class 5 areas and in Class 3 areas as needed 

Information on fossils and collecting rules would be provided to public through websites, publications, and personal contacts. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as Alternative D. • Interest groups and public land users 

would be contacted to provide information about fossils and appropriate uses. 

• Class 4 or Class 5 areas that receive 

high levels of development or visitor use would be identified and monitored. 

Written and web-based information would be provided about fossils, hobby collecting, and local interpretive sites to promote visitor education. 

Written and web-based information would be provided about fossils, hobby collecting, and local interpretive sites. 

Same as Alternative D. • New websites and publications would 

be developed and maintained to promote visitor education. 

• The BLM would assist in developmen

of local museum exhibits on paleontology. 

Paleontological Resources Use permits would be issued for scientific study, promoting or supporting investigations in poorly known areas. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as Alternative D. • Paleontological Resources Use 

permits would be issued for scientific study, promoting or supporting investigations in poorly known areas. 

• The BLM would support 

investigations in lesser-known areas and in areas where surface disturbance is occurring or anticipated. 

• Collection of common invertebrate 

and plant fossils would be allowed for personal, non-commercial use. 

• Areas for hobby collection would be 

• Collection of common invertebrate 

and plant fossils would be allowed for personal, non-commercial use. 

• Areas for hobby collection would be 

Same as Alternative D. Same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.11 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Paleontology Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

PALEONTOLOGY RESOURCES 

identified, publicized, and monitored. 

• Areas with rare and significant 

invertebrate and plant fossils would be closed to hobby collection. 

identified, publicized, and monitored. 

Permit excavation of fossils in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, when compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.12 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Rangeland Improvements 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Restore, maintain and/or improve rangeland conditions and productivity to maintain, meet or make substantial progress towards meeting rangeland health standards while 

as wildlife habitat. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES Specific improvements to rangeland health would include, but are not limited to, vegetation treatments, fencing, spring development, reservoirs, guzzlers, pipelines, and wPart or all of the following measures would be implemented to meet resource objectives for habitat enhancement: • Fencing (69 Miles) • Vegetation Treatment (34,640 

Acres) 

Water Developments: • 812 Guzzlers/Reservoirs • Pipeline (38 Miles) • 51 Wells/Springs 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Part or all of the following measures 

would be implemented to meet resource objectives for habitat enhancement: • Fencing (369 Miles) • Vegetation Treatment (50,900 

Acres) 

Water Developments: • 1,165 Guzzlers/Reservoirs • Pipeline (51 Miles) • 78 Wells/Springs 

Part or all of the following measures would be implemented to meet resource objectives for habitat enhancement: • Fencing (129 Miles) • Vegetation Treatment (45,860 

Acres) 

Water Developments: • 811 Guzzlers/Reservoirs • Pipeline (30 Miles) • 87 Wells/Springs 

Permit use of prescribed fire in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for vegetation treatments, when compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Rehabilitation fire lines and other surface disturbances following completion of the burning operation. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 

Permit construction of rangeland improvements in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, when compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.13 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreational Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RECREATION RESOURCES — MAP FIGURES 27 AND 28 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Ensure the continued availability of quality outdoor recreation opportunities and experiences that are not readily available from other sources; protect the health and sa

enjoyment of public lands; and enhance recreational opportunities. 

• Work collaboratively with affected user groups and organizations, state and local officials, and other interested parties to provide for site-specific or area-specific comp

• Assure there is a spectrum of recreation opportunities and settings through comprehensive integrated activity level planning. Such plans would include, but are not lim

o Recreation use allocations o Group size or seasonal limitations o Opportunities for dispersed or organized camping, including large events o Facility development o Opportunities for interpretation or other signage o Campfire restrictions o Establish limits of acceptable change or other environmental indicators in order to provide for adaptive management 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Continue to implement public education and environmental awareness programs such as Tread Lightly and the Leave No Trace. • Continue to manage 1,014 acres at Pelican Lake as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). The area would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to major 

materials sales. 

• Manage 24,259 acres in Red Mountain-Dry Fork as a SRMA to provide for maintenance and development of OHV or non-OHV trails, minimal facilities necessary for h

deer and elk winter habitat. An activity plan for the SRMA would be developed to determine what areas are appropriate for day use only. 

• BLM lands within Dry Fork Canyon would be closed to the shooting of firearms. • Areas not managed as SRMAs would be managed for dispersed recreational uses that require minimum facility development. 

• Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) would continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis. All proposed applications for permits would be evaluated to determine c

• Motorized camping vehicles would be allowed to travel off designated routes on a single path up to 300 feet to access an existing disturbed dispersed campsite, excep

travel route areas, an activity level plan would be used to identify areas suitable for camping that would allow motorized vehicles to travel from those designated routes

groups to address adverse environmental conditions if warranted. If use is such that undue environmental impacts are taking place, the BLM would close and rehabilit

would evaluate the viability of developed campsites. 

• Where routes would remain available for motorized use within, such use could continue on a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in the WSAs (“ways” when lo

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 ussuitability 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 

• Establish signed pull-off wildlife viewing areas along the Book Cliffs Divide Ridge Road. 

• Develop comprehensive activity plans for Blue Mountain, Fantasy Canyon, and Pelican Lake. These plans would address appropriate levels of use and facility develop

• Continue to implement the 1979 Green River Management Plan for Desolation and Gray Canyons to protect the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark within 

levels while protecting other resources. 

• The Upper Green River from Little Hole to the Colorado state line would limit all surface-disturbing activities within line of sight up to one-half mile, except within establ

• All developed recreation sites within VFO would be closed to the shooting of firearms, closed to grazing, and all forms of surface-disturbing activities not directly relate

• Special recreation permit holders using horses in connection with their operation within Herd Management Areas would be required to have them tested for Equine Inf

area. 

• Special recreation permit holders using horses from out of state would be required to test them for EIA per state law. 

• If cave resources are identified on public lands, then the VFO would develop a cave management plan that results in appropriate management to protect them from da

• Maintain or expand infrastructure of all recreational sites, including, but not limited to, cabins, restrooms, campsites, and trail head development and ensure their safet

• Stabilize and preserve Chipeta, Moonshine, Rat Hole, and Trujillo cabins.

• Mountain bike use would be limited to designated roads and trails. BLM RECREATION GUIDELINES The following recreation management guidelines were developed to help achieve and maintain healthy public lands as defined by the Rangeland Health Standards. They 

Light and Sound

BLM-contracted fixed wing and helicopter aircraft would not be authorized to fly over Dinosaur National Monument unless warranted by an emergency situation or approve
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.13 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreational Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RECREATION RESOURCES — MAP FIGURES 27 AND 28 

Rangeland Health Standard 1

• Upland soils exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site productivity, considering the soil type, climate, and landform. 

• Designate areas for intensive recreational use or cross-country motorized travel where disturbance of soil and vegetation is acceptable, either because impacts are ins

whatever ecological changes may occur. Decisions on such designation should take into account conflicts with other users as well as adverse effects on archaeologica

beauty, solitude, and quiet. 

• In all other areas, travel routes and other disturbances should be kept to the minimum necessary to provide access and visitor facilities appropriate to the area. Throug

and rehabilitated and unplanned development of new ones discouraged. 

• It may be necessary to manage some areas to be entirely free of planned travel routes. Rangeland Health Standard 2

• Riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition. Stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform. 

• Where feasible, and consistent with user safety, developed travel routes should be located/relocated away from sensitive riparian and wetland areas. • Camping in riparian areas should be avoided and must be managed, monitored, and modified as conditions dictate to reduce vegetation disturbance and sedimentatio

• Stream crossings would be limited to the number dictated by the topography, geology, and soil type. Design any necessary stream crossings to minimize sedimentatioRangeland Health Standard 3

• Desired species, including native, T&E and special status species, are maintained at a level appropriate for the site and species involved. 

• Protect against the establishment and/or spread of noxious or other weeds from intensive recreation, including the use of riding and pack animals, hiking, motorized, o

• Conduct an educational campaign to inform recreational users about the damage caused by noxious weeds and how their spread can be minimized. 

• Where appropriate, apply restrictions, (i.e., do not permit surface-disturbing activities). 

• Protect wildlife and plant and/or habitat by: 

o Preserving connectivity and avoiding fragmentation. o Controlling recreational activities that would interfere with critical wildlife stages such as nesting, reproduction, or seasonal concentration areas. o Avoiding creation of artificial attractions such as the feeding of wild animals or improper disposal of garbage. 

• Where necessary, control recreational use by changing location or kind of activity, season, intensity, distribution, and/or duration in order to protect plant and animal co

candidate species. 

Rangeland Health Standard 4

• The BLM would apply and comply with water quality standards established by the State of Utah (R. 317-2) and the federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. 

the Utah Water Quality Standards (R. 317-2) for surface water and groundwater. 

• Manage recreational uses in coordination with other uses on public lands to comply with applicable water quality standards by:

o Identifying areas where recreational activities may seriously impair water quality. o Establishing thresholds for numbers, types, and duration of visitor use, and when those thresholds are reached, by developing facilities and/or possibly limiting o Monitor and control disposal of human or domestic animal waste, trash, and other pollutants to prevent serious impairment of water quality. 

• Atchee Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, and 

Seep Ridge Routes would be designated as BLM Back Country Byways. 

• Appropriate interpretive and 

educational literature and signage would be developed. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Seep Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, and 

Atchee Ridge Routes would not be designated as Back Country Byways. 

Additional cabins for permitted/ administrative use could be constructed at or near the existing Chipeta, Trujillo, Moonshine, Rat Hole, and Wolf Den cabins and at Westwater Point, Dick Canyon, and other locations. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Additional cabins in the Book Cliffs 

would not be constructed. 

Permit construction of minimal recreation facilities in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, when 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.13 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreational Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RECREATION RESOURCES — MAP FIGURES 27 AND 28 

compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Table 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.14 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Special Recreation Management Areas 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RECREATION — SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMA

BLUE MOUNTAIN 

• Blue Mountain (42,729 acres) would 

be managed as an SRMA. 

• An integrated activity plan would be 

developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives. 

• Recreation activities would be 

identified in the plan; these activities would include but are not limit to hang-gliding (competitive and special events), rock climbing, historic interpretation, and OHV use on designated routes. 

Note: Acreage figures for the Proposed RMP may reflect different sum totals, as calculations were determined using different technology. 

• Blue Mountain (42,758 acres) would 

be managed as an SRMA. 

• An integrated activity plan would be 

developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives. 

• In the recreation portion of the plan 

the following uses would be emphasized: hang-gliding (competitive and special events), wildlife viewing, small and big game hunting, sightseeing, photography, equestrian use, camping, hiking, rock climbing, historic interpretation, and OHV use on designated routes. (This would not exclude other recreational opportunities). 

An SRMA would not be established for Blue Mountain and an integrated activity plan would not be developed and implemented. 

Same as Alternative A. 

The non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the SRMA would be managed for primitive and nonmotorized/non-mechanized forms of recreation, and the settings required to support those types of activities and experiences. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 

BOOK CLIFFS 

• The Book Cliffs would not be 

designated as an SRMA. 

• Unlimited and unconfined recreation 

would continue to be provided for. 

Note: To protect high-value, old-growth pinyon pines, special management actions include the following: enhancing habitat utilizing forest manipulation and tree spraying’ restricting woodcutting around old growth pinyon; and no surface occupancy (NSO) for old growth pinyon pine area. See Woodlands and Forest Resources, Section 2.1.27. 

• An SRMA would be established for 

273,486 acres in the Book Cliffs. 

• An integrated activity plan would be 

developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives considering a frontier mystique of adventure and discovery (unconfined recreation, limited facilities). 

• The recreational portion of the plan 

would provide for the following uses: wildlife viewing, hunting, hiking, back packing, OHV use, camping, cultural values, including petroglyph viewing, picnicking, mountain biking, photography, back country horse riding, and visits to turn of the century homesteads. 

Same as Alternative D. • An SRMA would be established for 

273,486 acres in the Book Cliffs. 

• An integrated activity plan would be 

developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives considering a frontier mystique of adventure and discovery (unconfined recreation, limited facilities). 

• The recreational portion of the plan 

would provide for the following useswildlife viewing, hunting, hiking, back packing, OHV use, camping, cultural values, including petroglyph viewing, picnicking, mountain bikingphotography, back country horse riding, and visits to turn of the century homesteads. 

• Wolf Point, Bitter Creek drainages, 

and the head of Sweetwater Canyowould be closed to mineral leasing. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Table 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.14 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Special Recreation Management Areas 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RECREATION — SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMA

BROWN'S PARK 

• Brown’s Park (18,490 acres) would 

continue to have an SRMA designation that would provide for outstanding scenic, riparian, fisheries, special status species resource values, water quality, water based recreation, wildlife viewing opportunities, hunting, comprehensive trail system for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and OHV use, camping, cultural and historic interpretation and facility development. 

Note: Acreage figures for the Proposed RMP may reflect different sum totals, as calculations were determined using different technology. 

• Brown’s Park (52,720 acres) would 

be managed as a SRMA to provide for outstanding scenic vistas and enhancement of resources and associated activities such as, riparian, fisheries, special status species, water quality, water-based recreation, hunting, comprehensive trail system for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and OHV use, camping, cultural and historic interpretation and facility development. 

• The south side of the river between 

Little Hole and Fire Flat extending around the Taylor Flat subdivision to Rye Grass Draw in the east would be managed for primitive recreation values, VRM I, and closed to surface-disturbing activities, except for activities that complement recreation values. 

• The area would be closed to OHV 

use. 

• The historic wagon route in Sears 

Canyon would be evaluated and analyzed along with other routes (i.e., Crouse Canyon and Rye Grass), to determine if an opportunity exists to provide a loop route for OHV use. 

Same as Alternative D. Same as Alternative A. 

FANTASY CANYON 

• Fantasy Canyon (69 acres) would 

be managed as an SRMA. 

• An activity management plan would 

be developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives. 

• In the recreation portion of the plan, 

An activity management plan would be prepared for Fantasy Canyon (69 acres) to protect the unique geological formations and to address health and human safety consideration. 

Fantasy Canyon would not be managed as an SRMA nor have an activity management plan prepared for it. 

Fantasy Canyon (69 acres) would be managed as a SRMA to provide for the following uses: guided or self-guided tours, hiking, and interpretation. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Table 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.14 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Special Recreation Management Areas 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RECREATION — SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMA

the following uses would be emphasized: protection of the unique geological formations, health and human safety considerations, guided or self-guided tours, hiking, and interpretation. 

NINE MILE CANYON 

Nine Mile Canyon (44,168 acres) would continue to have an SRMA designation and recreational opportunities would be managed to protect high-value cultural resources and scenic vistas. Note: Acreage figures for the Proposed RMP may reflect different sum totals, as calculations were determined using different technology. 

Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 acres) would be managed as a SRMA to protect highvalue cultural resources and scenic vistas. 

Same as Alternative D. Same as Alternative A 

WHITE RIVER 

• The White River (2,831 acres) would 

be managed as an SRMA from where the river exits the White River non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics and to where the river leaves Section 18, T10S, R23E. 

• An integrated activity plan would be 

developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives. 

• Recreational activities would be 

identified in the activity plan. These activities would include but are not limited to canoeing, rafting, primitive camping, and hiking. 

• NSO would be within line of sight 

from the centerline, up to one-half mile either side of the river from where the river enters Section 28, T10S, R23E, to where it leaves Section 18, T10S, R23. 

• 24,183 acres along the White River 

from where the river enters Section 12, T10S, R24E, to where it leaves Section 18, T10S, R23E, would be managed as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). 

• An integrated activity plan would be 

developed and implemented. 

• In the recreational portion of the 

plan, some of the following uses would be provided for canoeing, rafting, camping, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, historic interpretation, and day hiking. (This would not exclude other recreational opportunities.) 

Same as Alternative D. • The White River (47,130 acres) 

would be managed as an SRMA along the White River from where the river enters Utah to the reservation boundary. 

• An integrated activity plan would be 

developed and implemented consistent with overall management objectives. 

• In the recreational portion of the 

plan, some of the following uses would be provided for canoeing, rafting, camping, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, historic interpretation, and day hiking. (This would not exclude other recreationaopportunities.) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Ta

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.15 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Trail Maintenance and Development 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RECREATION — TRAIL MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT 

Up to 400 miles of hiking, horseback riding, and mechanized (non-motorized) trails would be signed, improved, and/or developed in the following areas: Bitter Creek, Boulevard Ridge, Burnt Timber Canyon, Centennial Book Cliffs Trail, Chipeta Canyon, Daniels Canyon, Devils Hole, Green River, Dry Fork, Ely/Rainbow Park, Home Mountain, Little Mountain, Nine Mile, Rat Hole Canyon, Spitzenberg/Warren Ridge, Taylor Canyon, Westwater Point, Willow Creek, Yellow Pine, other additional trails. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Hiking, horseback riding, and 

mechanized (non-motorized) trails would not be developed. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Up to 800 miles of motorized routes would be signed, improved, and/or developed. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Up to 800 miles of motorized routes 

would not be improved and/or developed. 

OHV use for big game retrieval off designated routes would not be allowed. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Big game retrieval off designated routes 

would be allowed within 24 hours after a tag has been punched. (Limited to one vehicle). 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

• The BLM would work in conjunction 

with the National Park Service to minimize noise and light pollution adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument using best available technology. 

• Movement of operations to mitigate 

sound and light impacts would be required to be at least 200 meters from the Monument boundary unless otherwise designated by oil and gas leasing constraint or a determination is made that natural barriers or view sheds would meet these mitigation objectives. 

• The BLM would work in conjunction 

with the National Park Service to minimize noise and light pollution adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument using best available technology, such as installation of multi-cylinder pumps, hospital sound-reducing mufflers, and placement of exhaust systems to direct noise away from the monument. 

• There would be a requirement to 

reduce light pollution by using methods such as limiting height of light poles, timing of lighting 

• Same as Alternative A. • The BLM would work in conjunction 

with the National Park Service to minimize noise and light pollution adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument using best available technology, such as installation of multi-cylinder pumps, hospital sound-reducing mufflers, and placement of exhaust systems to direct noise away from the monument. 

• There would be a requirement to 

reduce light pollution by using methods such as limiting height of light poles, timing of lighting 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Ta

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.15 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Recreation: Trail Maintenance and Development 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RECREATION — TRAIL MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT 

operations (meaning limiting lighting to times of darkness associated with drilling and work over or maintenance operations), limiting wattage intensity, and constructing light shields. 

• Movement of operations to mitigate 

sound and light impacts would be required to be at least 200 meters from the Monument boundary for VRM Classes II, III, and IV, unless otherwise designated by oil and gas leasing constraint or a determination is made that natural barriers for view sheds would meet these mitigation objectives. 

operations (meaning limiting lighting to times of darkness associated with drilling and work over or maintenance operations), limiting wattage intensity, and constructing light shields. 

• Lands would be open to oil and gas 

leasing, subject to major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) for one-half mile from the monument boundary. 

• VRM Class designations would be I

II, and III. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.16 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Riparian Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Maintain, restore, improve, protect, and expand riparian-wetland areas so they are in Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) and meet Utah Rangeland Health Standards 

(late-climax seral stage) ecological status, except where resource management would require an earlier ecological status for such purposes as vegetation diversity. 

• PFC is the minimum acceptable riparian goal. However, PFC may not provide the streamside and aquatic conditions to meet goals for other resources. These include, b

and/or forage. Specific objectives and management actions such as those stated below would be implemented in order to meet riparian goals. 

o Maintain the natural configuration of all streams. o Stream bank damage caused by livestock would be less than 10% of a stream segment within an allotment/pasture. o Site-specific plans, where appropriate, would be prepared in collaboration with affected livestock operators, the UDWR, the Central Utah Water Conservancy D

communities, establish specific management objectives, and recommend practices to be employed to achieve desired results. 

o Monitoring and evaluation strategies would be implemented to measure progress in accordance with Utah’s Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for Gr

• Certain situations may occur that would allow the BLM to modify specific grazing objectives set forth in this plan. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Appropriate management actions to meet riparian objectives could include fencing, herding, change of livestock class, temporary closures, and/or change of season. • Allow no new surface-disturbing activities within active flood plains, public water reserves, or 100 meters of riparian areas unless: 

o There are no practical alternatives. o Impacts would be fully mitigated. o The action was designed to enhance the riparian resources. 

• Acquire and expand riparian-wetland areas through exchange, donation, or purchase as opportunities arise. 

• Restore and/or re-establish cottonwood, willow, and other riparian species along major riparian and other wetland areas. • Development of springs and seeps to improve livestock and wildlife distribution would be designed and constructed to protect ecological processes and functions. 

• Restrict or mitigate those surface-disturbing activities that would adversely affect wetlands. 

• Adjust livestock management practices on riparian areas that do not satisfactorily respond to improved grazing management after all other options have been pursued.

• Where feasible, fence spring sources and any other areas that may need special protection (such as amphibian ecosystems) on a site-by-site basis. 

• The following mitigation measures would be included as applicable: 

o Keep construction of all new stream crossings to a minimum. Stream crossings with culverts would be designed and constructed to allow fish passage, where n

riparian and aquatic habitat to a minimum. 

o Relocate existing routes out of riparian areas where feasible or necessary to restore watershed and riparian stability. 

• As identified in the preliminary riparian inventory, maintain 295 miles and 3,674 acres of riparian areas currently in proper functioning condition. Improve 133 miles and 

condition. Note: These are preliminary numbers and they may change as the inventory is completed. 

The following management strategies would be employed in riparian areas that are not achieving proper functioning condition: • Key streamside herbaceous riparian 

vegetation, where stream bank stability is dependent upon it, would have a minimum stubble height at the end of the growing season capable of trapping and assuring retention of sediment during high flows 

• Management actions could be based 

on residual stubble height or utilization of current year's growth at the end of the growing season. 

• An initial management action would 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.16 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Riparian Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

be to set a stubble height of 4 inches or 30% utilization on key species if riparian conditions in that reach are to be maintained and 6 inches or <20% utilization if riparian conditions need to be improved. 

• This initial stubble height or 

utilization level would need to be monitored to verify if it provides for maintenance or improvement objectives, with adjustments in allowable utilization or stubble height being made as needed. 

• Key herbaceous riparian vegetation 

in riparian areas, other than the stream banks, would not be grazed more than would allow for trapping and retention of sediment during high water events. 

• Management actions would be 

based on residual stubble height or utilization of current year’s growth at the end of the growing season. 

• An initial management action that 

has been shown to obtain riparian goals is to set a stubble height of 4 inches or 30% utilization if riparian conditions in that reach are to be maintained and 6 inches or <20% utilization if riparian conditions need to be improved. 

• This initial stubble height or 

utilization level would need to be monitored to verify if it provides for maintenance or improvement objectives, with adjustments in allowable utilization or stubble height being made as needed. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Key herbaceous riparian vegetation in 

riparian areas, other than the stream banks, would not be grazed more than 50% during the growing season, or 60% during the dormant season. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

• Key riparian woody vegetation would 

not be browsed more than allows for the adequate recruitment to maintain or recover the woody component. Specifically, more plants in the combined sprout and young categories would be managed for than in the combined mature and dead categories. 

• Management action would be based 

on utilization of the current annual twig growth that is within reach of the animals. 

 Same as the Proposed RMP. Key riparian woody vegetation would not 

be used more than 50% of the current annual twig growth that is within reach of the animals. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.16 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Riparian Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

• An initial management action that 

has been shown to obtain riparian goals is to set a woody vegetation utilization level of 30%. 

• The specific utilization would need to 

be monitored to verify if it provides for maintenance or improvement objectives, with adjustments in allowable utilization being made as needed. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.17 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Soil and Water Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Eliminate or reduce discharge of pollutants into surface waters and achieve water quality that provides protection and propagation of fish, amphibians, wildlife, livestock

to limit surface discharges into water. Implement BMPs, as applicable, adopted by Utah Division of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) to limit surface discharges into water

• Restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the area’s waters as required by the State of Utah’s and EPA’s water quality standards. • Restore and maintain soil quality and long-term productivity through the implementation of applicable BMPs, guidelines for rangeland health and other soil protection m• Reduce salinity loading where possible to accomplish the goals outlined in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. • Pipeline crossings of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream channels should be constructed to withstand 100-year floods to prevent breakage and subsequent a

through riparian areas and across stream channels to minimize impacts to these resources. Guidance may be updated over the life of the plan, but current technical guCrossing Stream Channels (Fogg 2007), which as of April 2008, was available at ftp://ftp.blm.gov/pub/nstc/TechNotes/TechNote423.pdf. Specific recommendations reg

(See Appendix B). 

• VFO would operate under the unified policy to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems on federal lands (Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Fede

aquatic ecosystem health through the reduction of polluted runoff, the improvement of natural resources stewardship, and an increase in public involvement in watershe

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Collaborate with the USFS, state, counties, Native American tribes, and the Division of Water Rights when possible to protect and enhance priority watersheds. • Cooperate with states and Native American tribes to review processes for issuing and renewing use authorizations and licenses when these uses/licenses may affect w

they address watershed protection, improvement, and monitoring and water quality compliance needs. 

• Continue partnership with State of Utah, Daggett County, UDWR, USFS, Wyoming Fish and Game, and Rock Springs BLM to develop a watershed activity plan for Red • Restore and protect water quality and severe and critical erosion areas by restricting or mitigating surface disturbance. 

• Comply with standards identified in “The Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” (Gold Book) unless otherwise specified in the plan

• The BLM would adhere to criteria outlined in the Colorado River Salinity Control Act. • The BLM implements multiple types of water uses on public lands that require water rights from the State of Utah, such as livestock watering, wildlife watering and habit

to implement actions to maintain its current water rights for these purposes, such as filing proofs of beneficial use, filing diligence claims, changing existing water rights water rights. The BLM will also file for new water rights in accordance with and when allowed under state water law procedures. Situations in which the BLM will file for place to support the water use, or when existing water rights cannot be changed to support the water use on public land. 

• Work in partnership with the State of Utah and others to reduce potential effects of selenium loading on the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge and Pariette Wetlands. 

• Ensure the physical presence and legal availability of water on public lands. Ensure that those waters meet or exceed established federal and state water quality standa

degradation. 

• Reduce sediment and salinity production on important watersheds and critical soils through intensive management and construction measures to reduce water degrada

• The State of Utah’s Non-Point Source Management Plan would be used as a standard to reduce potential non-point source of pollution impacts. Coordinate with the Uta• On a case-by-case basis, major water developments would be permitted if they are consistent with the plan. 

BIOLOGICAL SOIL CRUSTS • Measures would be taken to identify and avoid biological soil crust areas when possible by considering the following factors: disturbance type, intensity, timing, frequenc

soil crusts and relationships of other ecosystem parameters. 

• Specific activities that would include biological crust considerations would be prescribed fire, post-fire management, invasive weed control, energy development, grazing

with all other resource values in site-specific NEPA analyses. 

• The “Surface Operating Standards 

for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” (Gold Book), would be used as a guide for surfacedisturbing proposals on steep slopes/hillsides. 

• Specific to oil and gas activities, 

steep hillsides should be avoided in the construction of routes, pipelines, and flowlines. 

• If surface-disturbing activities 

cannot be avoided on slopes 21-40%, an approved plan would be required prior to construction and maintenance that would include: 

• Same as the Proposed RMP. • The “Surface Operating Standards 

for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” (Gold Book), would be used as a guide for surfacedisturbing proposals on steep slopes/hillsides. 

• Specific to oil and gas activities, 

steep hillsides should be avoided in the construction of routes, pipelines, and flowlines. 

• If surface-disturbing activities cannot 

be avoided on slopes greater than 20%, an approved plan would be required prior to construction and maintenance that would include: 

• The “Surface Operating Standards 

for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” (Gold Book), would bused as a guide for surfacedisturbing proposals on steep slopes/hillsides. 

• Specific to oil and gas activities, 

steep hillsides should be avoided in the construction of routes, pipelinesand flowlines. 

• If surface-disturbing activities canno

be avoided on slopes 21-40%, an approved plan would be required prior to construction and maintenance that would include: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.17 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Soil and Water Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 

o An erosion control strategy o GIS modeling o Proper survey and design by 

a certified engineer 

o 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. 

o An erosion control strategy o GIS modeling o Proper survey and design by 

a certified engineer 

o An erosion control strategy o GIS modeling o Proper survey and design b

a certified engineer 

o No surface disturbance 

would be allowed on slopes greater that 40%. 

• Old agricultural fields could be 

irrigated and existing ditches and diversion structures could be restored on acquired lands in Bitter Creek and Rat Hole Drainages. 

• New ditches and diversion structures 

would be constructed, as well. 

Old fields would be irrigated and existing ditches and diversion structures would be restored on acquired lands in Bitter Creek and Rat Hole Drainages. 

Old fields in Bitter Creek and Rat Hole Drainages would not be irrigated. 

Same as Alternative A plus new ditches and diversion structures constructed as well. 

Implement BMPs adopted by UDEQ to limit surface discharges into water. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — ACECS — MAP FIGURES 29–32 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Designate and manage areas as ACECs where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic 

life and safety from natural hazards. 

BITTER CREEK 

Bitter Creek would not be designated as an ACEC. 

• 68,834 acres referred to as Bitter 

Creek would be designated as an ACEC/Research Natural Area to protect high-value, old-growth pinyon pines, cultural resources, historical features, and watersheds. 

• Special management actions would 

include the following: 

o Establishing a 

research/monitoring program; 

o Enhancing habitat utilizing 

forest manipulation and tree spraying, 

o Restricting woodcutting 

around old-growth pinyon. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 68,674 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 160 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Approximately 400 acres 

would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• VRM class designations would be I, 

II, or III, and OHV use would be closed or limited to designated routes. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • 147,425 acres referred to as Bitter 

Creek (includes Bitter Creek and Bitter Creek/PR Spring) would be designated as an ACEC to protect high-value, old-growth pinyon pinescultural resources, historical features, and watersheds. 

• Special management actions would 

include the following: 

o Establishing a 

research/monitoring progra

o Enhancing habitat utilizing 

forest manipulation and tree spraying 

o Restricting woodcutting 

around old-growth pinyon. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 207 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 10,323 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 459 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Approximately 57,744 acres 

would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• VRM class designations would be 

II, or III, and OHV use would be closed or limited to designated routes. 

BROWN'S PARK 

• Brown’s Park consists of 

approximately 18,490 acres and would continue to be designated as an ACEC. 

• A comprehensive integrated activity 

• 52,721 acres in Brown's Park would 

be managed as an ACEC. 

• A comprehensive integrated activity 

plan would be developed/implemented that would 

• Brown’s Park consists of 18,474 

acres and would be designated as an ACEC. 

• A comprehensive integrated activity 

plan would be 

Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — ACECS — MAP FIGURES 29–32 

plan would be developed/implemented that would address protection of high-value scenic views, wildlife habitat, and cultural and historic resources. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 3,137 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 5,014 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Approximately 10,188 acres 

would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• OHV use would be closed or limited 

to designated routes. 

Note: Acreage figures for the Proposed RMP may reflect different sum totals, as calculations were determined using different technology. 

address protection of high-value scenic views, wildlife habitat, and cultural and historic resources. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 27,969 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 6,415 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Approximately 17,996 acres 

would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• OHV use would be closed or limited 

to designated routes. 

developed/implemented that would address protection of high-value scenic views, wildlife habitat, and cultural and historic resources. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 2,152 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 7,191 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 6,857 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Approximately 2,135 acres 

would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• OHV use would be closed or limited 

to designated routes. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — ACECS — MAP FIGURES 29–32 

COYOTE BASIN 

Coyote Basin would not be designated as an ACEC. 

• 87,743 acres in Coyote Basin would 

be designated as an ACEC/Research Natural Area to protect high value critical ecosystem for the white-tailed prairie dog and the numerous special status wildlife species that are closely associated with this ecosystem. 

• Special management attention would 

include controlling noxious weeds, restoring a natural fire regime, implementing actions to maintain or enhance ferret habitat and associated prey base, and establishing a research-monitoring program. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 83,250 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 4,312 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 99 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• VRM class designations would be II, 

III, or IV. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. 

• 47,659 acres in Coyote Basin would 

be designated as an ACEC/Research Natural Area to protect high-value critical ecosystem for the black-footed ferret. 

• Special management attention would 

include actions to maintain or enhance ferret habitat and associated prey base. 

• Special management attention would 

include controlling noxious weeds, restoring a natural fire regime, implementing actions to maintain or enhance ferret habitat and associated prey base, and establishing a research-monitoring program. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 47,282 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 248 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 110 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• 124,161 acres in Coyote Basin, 

Snake John, Shiner, and Kennedy Wash sub-complexes and the MytoBench complex would be designateas an ACEC. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 94,821 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 23,104 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 5,325 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• VRM class designations would be I

III or IV. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes or closed. 

• Special management attention wou

include controlling noxious weeds, restoring a natural fire regime, implementing actions to maintain or enhance ferret habitat and associated prey base, and establishing a research-monitoring program. 

FOUR MILE WASH 

The Four Mile Wash area would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. • 50,280 acres in the Four Mile Wash 

area would be designated as an ACEC/Outstanding Natural Area to protect high-value scenic values, riparian ecosystems, and special status fish species. 

• An integrated activity level plan 

would be developed to provide additional site-specific managemenprescriptions. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — ACECS — MAP FIGURES 29–32 

• The area would be closed to oil and 

gas leasing. 

• Visual Resources would be 

managed as class II, III, and IV. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. 

LEARS CANYON 

• Lears Canyon consists of 

approximately 1,375 acres and would continue to be designated as an ACEC. 

• A comprehensive integrated activity 

plan would be developed/implemented that would address protection of relict vegetation. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o 1,375 acres would be open 

to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• OHV use would be closed or limited 

to designated routes. 

• Visual Resources would be 

managed as Class II. 

• Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. • Same as the Proposed RMP. 

LOWER GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR AND LOWER GREEN RIVER EXPANSION 

• The Lower Green River 

Corridor (approximately 8,470 acres) is carried forward in management common to all as an ACEC. 

• For oil and gas leasing within the 

Lower Green River Corridor: 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

• The Lower Green River 

Corridor and Expansion, comprising 10,170 acres (line of sight from the center line of the river up to one-half mile along both sides of the Lower Green River), between the trust land boundary at Ouray National Wildlife Refuge and the Carbon County line would be designated as ACEC to protect high-value 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — ACECS — MAP FIGURES 29–32 

o Approximately 71 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 8,079 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• Existing management objectives 

of NSO would continue to be applied to within line of sight or up to one-half mile from the centerline of the river, whichever is less. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. Visual Resources would be managed as Class II. _______________________ 

• The Lower Green River 

Expansion (approximately 1,700 acres) would not be designated as an ACEC. 

• Existing management objectives 

of NSO would continue to be applied to within line of sight or up to one-half mile from the centerline of the river, whichever is less. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. 

• Visual Resources would be 

managed as Class II. 

scenic resources and riparian ecosystems. 

• The area would be managed as 

NSO for oil and gas leasing. 

• Visual Resources would be 

managed as Class II. 

• OHV would be limited to 

designated routes. 

MAIN CANYON 

Main Canyon would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. • 100,915 acres in Main Canyon wou

be designated as an ACEC. 

• Special management attention wou

include permitting surface-disturbing activities found to be complimentary or compatible to the goals and objectives of the ACEC. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 5,198 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — ACECS — MAP FIGURES 29–32 

conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 38,255 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 240 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Approximately 57,152 acres 

would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• Visual Resources would be 

managed as Class I or II. 

• OHV use would be closed or limited 

to designated routes. 

MIDDLE GREEN RIVER 

The Middle Green River would not be designated as an ACEC. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. • 6,768 acres (line of sight from the 

centerline of the river up to one-half mile along both sides of the Middle Green River) between Dinosaur National Monument and the boundary of the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge would be designateas an ACEC to protect riparian ecosystems. 

• Special management attention wou

include permitting surface-disturbing activities found complimentary to thgoals and objectives of the ACEC. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 4,858 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 128 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Zero acres would be open t

leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — ACECS — MAP FIGURES 29–32 

for leasing. 

• VRM would be managed as Class I

III or IV. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. 

NINE MILE CANYON 

• Nine Mile Canyon consists of 

approximately 44,168 acres with a boundary along the upper rim and would continue to be designated as an ACEC. 

• The area would be managed to 

enhance cultural and special status plant species while enhancing scenic vistas, recreation, and wildlife resource values. 

• A comprehensive integrated activity 

plan would be developed and implemented. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 26,736 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 209 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 17,198 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. 

Note: Acreage figures for the Proposed RMP may reflect different sum totals, as calculations were determined using different technology.

• 48,000 acres in Nine Mile Canyon 

would be designated as an ACEC and a comprehensive integrated activity plan would be developed/implemented. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 27,109 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 342 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 20,487 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• VRM would be managed as Class II, 

III, or IV. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. 

Same as Alternative D. • 81,168 acres in Nine Mile Canyon 

would be designated as an ACEC and a comprehensive integrated activity plan would be developed/implemented. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 49,182 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 19,032 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 1,374 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Approximately 10,059 acres 

would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• VRM would be managed as Class I

III, or IV. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. 

PARIETTE WETLANDS 

• Pariette Wetlands consists of 

approximately 10,437 acres and would continue to be designated as an ACEC. 

• A comprehensive integrated activity 

Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP Same as Proposed RMP 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — ACECS — MAP FIGURES 29–32 

plan would be developed/implemented that would address protection of special status bird and plant species and habitat, wetlands ecosystem, waterfowl production, and soil. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o About 10,437 acres would 

be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. 

• Visual Resources would be 

managed as Class III.

RED CREEK WATERSHED 

• 24,475 acres in the Red Creek 

Watershed would continue to be managed as an ACEC. 

• A comprehensive integrated activity 

plan would be developed / implemented. 

• Manage the watershed to continue 

the reduction of sedimentation into Red Creek, and the downstream Green River, by stabilizing channels and stream banks to lessen erosion, and by maintaining or increasing vegetation cover throughout the watershed and enhance wildlife habitat values. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 24,111 acres 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. • Same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — ACECS — MAP FIGURES 29–32 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 364 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. 

RED MOUNTAIN — DRY FORK COMPLEX 

• 24,285 acres in Red Mountain-Dry 

Fork Complex would continue to be managed as an ACEC. 

• A comprehensive integrated activity 

plan would be developed / implemented. 

• Special management attention would 

include maintenance and development of OHV or non-OHV routes, minimal facilities development necessary for human health and safety, and protection of watershed values, relict vegetation communities, and crucial deer and elk winter habitat. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 495 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 21,994 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 1,988 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• VRM would be managed as Class II, 

• 24,285 acres in Red Mountain-Dry 

Fork Complex would continue to be managed as an ACEC. 

• A comprehensive integrated activity 

plan would be developed / implemented. 

• Special management attention would 

include maintenance and development of OHV or non-OHV routes, minimal facilities development necessary for human health and safety, and protection of watershed values, relict vegetation communities, and crucial deer and elk winter habitat. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Zero acres would be open to 

leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 24,285 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• VRM would be managed as Class II, 

III, or IV. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.18 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: ACECs 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — ACECS — MAP FIGURES 29–32 

III, or IV. 

• OHV use would be limited to 

designated routes. 

designated routes. 

WHITE RIVER 

The White River corridor would not be designated as an ACEC. 

• 17,810 acres along the White River 

corridor would be designated as an ACEC to protect unique geologic formations with spectacular vistas and high-value river riparian ecosystems. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 1,438 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 7,371 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 8,993 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Zero acres would be 

administratively unavailable for leasing. 

• The western portion of the area 

would be managed as VRM I. The eastern portion would be managed as VRM II. 

• The western portion of the area 

would be closed to OHV use. The eastern portion would limit OHV use to designated routes. 

• NSO would be within line of sight 

from the centerline, up to one-half mile either side of the river. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • 47,130 acres along the White River 

corridor would be designated as an ACEC to protect unique geologic formations with spectacular vistas and high-value river riparian ecosystems. 

• The area would be managed as 

VRM I, II, III, or IV and closed or limited to designated routes for OHV use. 

• NSO would be within line of sight 

from the centerline, up to one-half mile either side of the river. 

• For oil and gas leasing: 

o Approximately 27,087 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

o Approximately 6,683 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as TLs and CSU. 

o Approximately 6,380 acres 

would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO stipulations. 

o Approximately 6,893 acres 

would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.19 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Determine eligibility and suitability for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Continue to manage previously recommended segments of the Upper Green and Lower Green Rivers to protect their outstandingly remarkable values and the tentative 

• New river segments found suitable and recommended for designation would be managed in accordance with the Wild and Scenic River Act to prevent impairment of ou

mark on each side of the river not to exceed 320 acres per mile (see Appendix C for classifications). 

• The BLM would work with the State of Utah, local and tribal governments, and other federal agencies, in a statewide study, to reach consensus regarding recommenda

System. Besides applying consistent criteria across agency jurisdictions, the joint study would avoid subdividing of river segments in logical watershed units in the state

the local and state economies, agricultural and industrial operations and interests, outdoor recreation, natural resources (including the outstandingly remarkable values planning, and access to and across river corridors within, and upstream and downstream from the proposed segments(s). Actual designation of river segments would orequest of the Governor in accordance with provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (the Act). The BLM will work with the state, local, and tribal governments, and 

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. Before stream segments that havCongress for designation, the BLM will continue to work with affected local, state, federal, and tribal partners to identify in-stream flows necessary to meet critical re

would be included in any recommendation for designation. The BLM would then seek to jointly promote innovative strategies, community-based planning, and volun

Should designations occur on any river segment as a result of Secretarial or congressional action, existing rights, privileges, and contracts would be protected. Und

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 Wild areserved water rights for new components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System are established at the discretion of Congress. If water is reserved by Congress whfrom 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 

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 

water allocation in designated streams. Thus, it is the BLM's position that existing water rights, including flows apportioned to the State of Utah interstate agreemen

such rights would not be affected by designation or the creation of the possible federal reserved water right. The BLM would seek to work with upstream and downs

a level sufficient to sustain the values for which affected river segments were designated.

UPPER GREEN RIVER 

The segment from Little Hole to the Utah state line would continue to be managed as previously recommended as a suitable scenic segment to protect its outstandingly remarkable values. Management would include: • Oil and Gas Leasing – Closed and 

NSO

• Mineral Materials – Closed• OHV – Closed and limited to 

designated routes.

• VRM – Class II

The segment from Little Hole to the Utah state line would continue to be managed as previously recommended as a suitable scenic segment to protect its outstandingly remarkable values. Management would include: 

• Oil and Gas Leasing – Closed and 

NSO

• Mineral Materials – Closed• OHV – Closed and limited to 

designated routes.

• VRM – Class II

The segment from Little Hole to the Utah state line would continue to be managed as previously recommended as a suitable scenic segment to protect its outstandingly remarkable values. Management would include: 

• Oil and Gas Leasing – NSO• Mineral Materials – Closed• OHV –Limited to designated routes.

• VRM – Class II and III

The segment from Little Hole to the Utastate line would continue to be manageas previously recommended as a suitable scenic segment to protect its outstandingly remarkable values. Management would include: 

• Oil and Gas Leasing – Closed and 

NSO

• Mineral Materials – Closed

• OHV – Closed and limited to 

designated routes.

• VRM – Class II

LOWER GREEN RIVER 

The segment from the public land boundary south of Ouray to the Carbon County line would continue to be managed as previously recommended as 

The segment from the public land boundary south of Ouray to the Carbon County line would continue to be managed as previously recommended 

The segment from the public land boundary south of Ouray to the Carbon County line would continue to be managed as previously recommended 

The segment from the public land boundary south of Ouray to the Carbon County line would continue to be managed as previously recommended 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.19 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

a suitable scenic segment to protect its outstandingly remarkable values. Management would include: • Oil and Gas Leasing – NSO

• Mineral Materials – Closed• OHV – Limited to designated routes.• VRM – Class I and II

as a suitable scenic segment to protect its outstandingly remarkable values. Management would include: 

• Oil and Gas Leasing – NSO• Mineral Materials – Closed

• OHV – Limited to designated routes.• VRM – Class II 

as a suitable scenic segment to protect its outstandingly remarkable values. Management would include: 

• Oil and Gas Leasing – Moderate 

Constraints

• Mineral Materials – Closed• OHV – Limited to designated routes.

• VRM – Class II and III

as a suitable scenic segment to protect its outstandingly remarkable values. Management would include: 

• Oil and Gas Leasing – Closed and 

NSO

• Mineral Materials – Closed

• OHV – Closed and limited to 

designated routes.

• VRM – Class II

ARGYLE CREEK 

The segment of Argyle Creek between its headwaters and the Carbon County line would not be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. The segment of Argyle Creek between 

its headwaters and the Carbon County line (22 miles) would be identified as suitable for designation into the NationaWild and Scenic River system with a tentative classification of “Recreational”

BITTER CREEK 

The segment of Bitter Creek between the Utah state line and where it enters private property would not be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River system. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. The segment of Bitter Creek between 

the Utah state line and where it enters private property (22 miles) would be identified as suitable for designation intthe National Wild and Scenic River system with a tentative classification of “Scenic”. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.19 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

EVACUATION CREEK 

The segment of Evacuation Creek between the Utah state line and the White River would not be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River system. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. The segment of Evacuation Creek 

between the Utah state line and the White River (21 miles) would be identified as suitable for designation intthe National Wild and Scenic River system with a tentative classification of “Scenic”. 

GREEN RIVER — MIDDLE 

The segment of the Middle Green River, between SR-45 and the boundary of the Ouray National Waterfowl Refuge would not be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River system. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. The segment of the Middle Green Rive

from Dinosaur National Monument to thboundary of the Ouray National Waterfowl Refuge (36 miles), would be identified as suitable for designation intthe National Wild and Scenic River system with a tentative classification of “Recreational”. 

NINE MILE CREEK 

The segment of Nine Mile Creek within Duchesne County between the Green River and the Duchesne County Line (13 miles) would not be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River system. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. The segment of Nine Mile Creek within 

Duchesne County between the Green River and the Duchesne County Line (1miles) would be identified as suitable fodesignation into the National Wild and Scenic River system with a tentative classification of “scenic”. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.19 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

The segment of Nine Mile Creek within Duchesne County between the Carbon county line and its confluence with Gate Canyon would not be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River system. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. The segment of Nine Mile Creek within 

Duchesne County, between the Carbon county line (6 miles) and its confluence with Gate Canyon, would be identified asuitable for designation into the NationaWild and Scenic River system with a tentative classification of “Recreational”

WHITE RIVER 

The White River Segments A, B, and C would not be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

• That portion of the White River, 

between the Colorado state line and the trust land boundary (44 miles) have the following tentative classifications: 

o Segment A (between the 

state line and its confluence with Asphalt Wash): "Scenic." 

o Segment B (between 

Asphalt Wash to where the river leaves Section 18 T10S R23E SLBM): "Wild." 

o Segment C (from where the 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • That portion of the White River, 

between the Colorado state line anthe trust land boundary (44 miles) would be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System with a tentative classification of: 

o Segment A (between the 

state line and its confluencwith Asphalt Wash): "Scenic." 

o Segment B (between 

Asphalt Wash to where the river leaves Section 18 T10
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.19 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs) 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A 

(Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSR) 

river leaves Section 18 T10S R23E SLBM, and the Indian trust land boundary) would not be identified as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

R23E SLBM): "Wild." 

o Segment C (from where the 

river leaves Section 18 T10R23E SLBM, and the Indiatrust land boundary): "Scenic." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.2 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Abandoned Mine Lands 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

ABANDONED MINE LANDS 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • In conformance with the BLM’s long-term strategies and National Policies regarding Abandoned Mine Lands (AML), this RMP recognizes the need to work with our pa

all AML sites on public lands. In order to accomplish this long-term goal, the following criteria would be established to assist in determining priorities for site and area m

• The criteria that would be used to establish physical safety hazard program priorities are: 

o AML physical safety program’s highest priority would be the cleaning up of those AML sites where (a) a death or injury has occurred, (b) the site is situated on 

and (c) upon formal risk assessment, a high or extremely high risk level is indicated. 

o AML would be factored into future recreation management area designations, land-use planning assessments, and all applicable use authorizations. o The site is presently listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS). o AML hazards should be, to the extent practicable, mitigated or remediated on the ground during site development. 

• The criteria used to establish water-quality-based AML program priorities are: 

o The state has identified the watershed as a priority based on (a) one or more water laws or regulations; (b) threat to public health or safety; and (c) threat to tho The project reflects a collaborative effort with other land managing agencies. o The project would be funded by contributions from collaborating agencies. 

• These priorities would be maintained and updated as needed in the state AML strategy. 

• The BLM Utah State Office would continue to consult and collaboratively work together with the State of Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM) concerning th
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

T

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.20 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA) 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Preserve the wilderness character of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) until Congress designates them or releases them.

• Manage the existing WSAs listed below (53,058 acres) as directed in the Interim Management Policy (IMP) for Lands under Wilderness Review (H-8550-1) in a manne

uses that create no new surface disturbance nor involve permanent placement of structures. Temporary, non-disturbing activities, as well as activities governed by val

o Book Cliffs Mountain Browse Natural Area (400 acres) o Bull Canyon (600 acres) o Daniels Canyon (2,496 acres) o Diamond Breaks (3,900 acres) o West Cold Springs (3,200 acres) o Winter Ridge (42,462 acres) 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE)ALTERNATIVE) • WSAs are right-of-way exclusion areas. • WSAs are closed to oil and gas leasing. • Fire activities and projects in WSAs will follow the IMP. • All WSAs designated as VRM Class 

I (53,058 acres) 

• Closed to OHV travel. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

T

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.20 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA) 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS-IF RELEASED BY CO

If any WSA is released by Congress from wilderness consideration and management during the life of the RMP, those lands would be managed with the following prescrip

BOOK CLIFFS MOUNTAIN BROWSE (400 ACRES) 

Should any WSA, in whole or in part, be released from wilderness consideration, such released lands would be managed in accordance with the goals, objectives, and management prescriptions established in this RMP, unless otherwise specified by Congress in its releasing legislation. The BLM would examine proposals in the released areas on a case-by-case basis, but would defer all actions that are inconsistent with RMP goals, objectives, and prescriptions, until it completes a land use plan amendment. (Because any released lands would continue to be managed consistent with the prescriptions identified in this plan, unless and until the plan is amended, no separate analysis is required to address impacts to the released lands.)

Manage lands in the ISA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category C • Oil and gas category timing and 

CSU 

• As part of the Book Cliffs SRMA and 

Bitter Creek ACEC 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class II • Livestock grazing allowed 

Manage lands in the ISA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category C • Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• As part of the Book Cliffs SRMA • OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class IV • Livestock grazing allowed 

Manage lands in the ISA according to the following prescription: Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

T

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.20 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA) 

BULL CANYON (600 ACRES) 

Should any WSA, in whole or in part, be released from wilderness consideration, such released lands would be managed in accordance with the goals, objectives, and management prescriptions established in this RMP, unless otherwise specified by Congress in its releasing legislation. The BLM would examine proposals in the released areas on a case-by-case basis, but would defer all actions that are inconsistent with RMP goals, objectives, and prescriptions, until it completes a land use plan amendment. (Because any released lands would continue to be managed consistent with the prescriptions identified in this plan, unless and until the plan is amended, no separate analysis is required to address impacts to the released lands.) 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category D • Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class IV • Available for woodcutting • Livestock grazing allowed 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category D • Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class II • Available for woodcutting • Livestock grazing allowed 

DANIELS CANYON (2,496 ACRES) 

Should any WSA, in whole or in part, be released from wilderness consideration, such released lands would be managed in accordance with the goals, objectives, and management prescriptions established in this RMP, unless otherwise specified by Congress in its releasing legislation. The BLM would examine proposals in the released areas on a case-by-case basis, but would defer all actions that are inconsistent with RMP goals, objectives, and prescriptions, until it completes a land use plan amendment. (Because any released lands would continue to be managed consistent with the prescriptions identified in this plan, unless and until the plan is amended, no separate analysis is required to address impacts to the released lands.) 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category C • Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class IV • Livestock grazing allowed 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category C • Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• Closed to OHV use • VRM Class II • Livestock grazing allowed 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

T

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.20 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA) 

DIAMOND BREAKS (3,900 ACRES) 

Should any WSA, in whole or in part, be released from wilderness consideration, such released lands would be managed in accordance with the goals, objectives, and management prescriptions established in this RMP, unless otherwise specified by Congress in its releasing legislation. The BLM would examine proposals in the released areas on a case-by-case basis, but would defer all actions that are inconsistent with RMP goals, objectives, and prescriptions, until it completes a land use plan amendment. (Because any released lands would continue to be managed consistent with the prescriptions identified in this plan, unless and until the plan is amended, no separate analysis is required to address impacts to the released lands.) 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category C • Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• As part of the Brown’s Park SRMA 

and ACEC 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class II • Available for woodcutting • Livestock grazing allowed 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category C • Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• As part of the Brown’s Park ACEC 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class IV • Available for woodcutting • Livestock grazing allowed 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category C • Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• As part of the Brown’s Park SRMA 

and ACEC 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class III • Available for woodcutting • Livestock grazing allowed 

WEST COLD SPRING (3,200 ACRES) 

Should any WSA, in whole or in part, be released from wilderness consideration, such released lands would be managed in accordance with the goals, objectives, and management prescriptions established in this RMP, unless otherwise specified by Congress in its releasing legislation. The BLM would examine proposals in the released areas on a case-by-case basis, but would defer all actions that are inconsistent with RMP goals, objectives, and prescriptions, until it completes a land use plan amendment. (Because any released lands would continue to be managed consistent with the prescriptions identified in this plan, unless and until the plan is amended, no separate analysis is required to address impacts to the released lands.) 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category B • Oil and Gas lease category: timing 

and CSU 

• As part of the Brown’s Park SRMA 

and ACEC 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class II • Available for woodcutting • Livestock grazing allowed 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category B • Oil and Gas lease category: timing 

and CSU 

• As part of the Brown’s Park ACEC 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class IV • Available for woodcutting • Livestock grazing allowed 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: Same as Alternative A. 

WINTER RIDGE (42,462 ACRES) 

Should any WSA, in whole or in part, be released from wilderness consideration, such released lands would be managed in accordance with the goals, objectives, 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category C 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category C 

Manage lands in the WSA according to the following prescription: • Fire management category C 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

T

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.20 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Designations: Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS — WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSA) 

and management prescriptions established in this RMP, unless otherwise specified by Congress in its releasing legislation. The BLM would examine proposals in the released areas on a case-by-case basis, but would defer all actions that are inconsistent with RMP goals, objectives, and prescriptions, until it completes a land use plan amendment. (Because any released lands would continue to be managed consistent with the prescriptions identified in this plan, unless and until the plan is amended, no separate analysis is required to address impacts to the released lands.) 

• Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• As part of the Book Cliffs SRMA • OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class III • Available for woodcutting • Livestock grazing allowed 

• Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class IV • Available for woodcutting • Livestock grazing allowed 

• Oil and gas category: timing and 

CSU 

• As part of the Book Cliffs SRMA and 

Main Canyon ACEC 

• OHVs limited to designated routes • VRM Class II • Available for woodcutting • Livestock grazing allowed 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.21 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Status Species 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Special Status Species — Plants 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Conserve and protect special status species and enhance their habitats. • Implement recovery measures for special status species, including listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend. • Mitigate or reduce long-term habitat fragmentation through avoidance and site-specific reclamation to return areas to productive levels. 

• Manage all listed T&E plant species and the habitats upon which they depend in such a manner as to conserve and recover these species to the point where protectio

• Manage non-listed sensitive species and the habitats upon which they depend in such a manner as to preclude the need to list them as either threatened or endanger

the BLM 6840 Manual. 

• Implement the specific goals and objectives of recovery plans, conservation agreements and strategies, and approved activity level plans. The BLM would continue to 

necessary to reflect the latest scientific data. 

• Implement the direction contained in the Northwest National Fire Plan Project Design and Consultation Process and the Counterpart Regulations, including Alternative 

• Implement the management necessary to increase populations of special status species, including federally listed animal species, and restore them to their historic ran

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • The BLM would continue to implement the specific goals and objectives of all recovery plans, conservation plans and strategies, and activity level plans. • The BLM would continue to work with USFWS and others to ensure that plans and agreements are updated as necessary to reflect the latest scientific data. Recovery 

clay reed-mustard. A draft plan is being developed by the USFWS for Ute ladies’ tresses. A Conservation Plan has been prepared for Astragalus equisolensis, Penste

• Where special status plant species, including listed T&E plant species, occur on public lands in the VPA, the BLM would collaborate with affected local, state, and fede

conservation strategies to protect, stabilize, and recover such species and their habitats. In addition to on-the-ground actions, strategies would be developed to provid

biological communities, and reasons for protective measures that would be applied to the lands involved. Continue or develop monitoring studies in order to determine 

• Complete inventories and map current occupied and potential habitats for all listed and non-listed special status plant species. • Develop relevant species-specific plans utilizing USFWS guidelines where applicable. This may include habitat management plans, conservation agreements, or othe

Special Status Species — Wildlife 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Conserve and recover all state special status species, including federally listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend. 

• Mitigate or reduce long-term habitat fragmentation through avoidance and site-specific reclamation to return areas to productive levels. 

• Manage all listed T&E animal species and the habitats upon which they depend in such manner as to conserve and recover these species to the point where protectio

• Manage non-listed sensitive species and the habitats upon which they depend in such a way as to preclude the need to list them as either threatened or endangered u

BLM 6840 Manual. 

• Implement the direction contained in the Northwest National Fire Plan Project Design and Consultation Process and the Counterpart Regulations, including Alternative 

• The BLM would continue to work with USFWS and others to ensure that plans and agreements are updated as necessary to reflect the latest scientific data. Recovery 

bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker). Two recovery plans were finalized for the peregrine falcon species and the bald eagle, which 

• Implement the management necessary to increase populations of special status species, including federally listed animal species, and restore them to their historic ran

• In cooperation with UDWR and USFWS, continue to implement the goals of the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan by augmenting existing population in the Snake Jo

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Collaborate with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies to promote public education on species, their importance to the human and biological community, an

• Continue inventories and map current occupied and potential habitats for all special status animal species. 

• In collaboration with the USFWS, DWR, and other partners, develop and implement habitat management plans or conservation strategies for sensitive species. • As additional data are collected over the life of the RMP, land managers would continually re-evaluate population and habitat status. Management emphasis would be 

ability to protect, conserve, recover, and manage these species in the future. 

• The BLM would continue to implement the specific goals and objectives of all Recovery Plans, Conservation Plans and Strategies, and activity level plans. Recovery P

• The BLM will work with UDWR and other partners to implement conservation actions identified in the State Wildlife Action Plan (Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

assessed threats to their survival, and identified long-term conservation action needs (per WO IM 2006-114). 

• Conservation Measures developed during the consultation on existing LUPs (June 2007) would be implemented as part of committed mitigation on new oil and gas lea

• Enhance habitat and remove or control of non-native fish that threaten various life stages of the special status species fish.

BLACK-FOOTED FERRET: The BLM would manage the black-footed ferret consistent with the 1999 Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Plan Amendment and those portions of the Cooperative Plan fCounty, Utah that are consistent with the Black-footed ferret plan amendment. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.21 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Status Species 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG: In conjunction with the USFWS and UDWR, participate in the development of a conservation plan for the white-tailed prairie dog.

BONYTAIL, COLORADO PIKEMINNOW, HUMPBACK CHUB, AND RAZORBACK SUCKER: Implement recovery plans actions for bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker. COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT: Implement Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River cutthroat trout in the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (signed April 2001), or more recent revis

the agreement would be implemented: • Monitor vegetation with low level infra-red photography • Continue macro-invertebrate sampling • Fencing • Stream bank stabilization • Stream flow modifications • Pursue in flow agreements BLUEHEAD SUCKER, FLANNELMOUTH SUCKER, AND ROUNDTAIL CHUB: Implement range-wide conservation agreement for bluehead sucker (Catastomus discobolus), flannelmouth sucker (Catastomus latipinnis), and roundtail chub (Gila robus

YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO: • Restore and conserve riparian areas and develop specific riparian vegetation objectives that would benefit bird species dependent on riparian areas 

• Fence riparian areas to reduce or eliminate grazing pressure on young trees, especially willow and cottonwood. • Apply rotation grazing or consider eliminating hot-season grazing in riparian areas to allow young trees to become established. 

• Control or eliminate non-native plant species in riparian habitats. 

COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT Per the Conservation Agreement/Conservation and Sportfishing Management Strategy for the Colorado River cutthroat trout, habitat would be provided, maintained and/or enhanced in Beaver, Bitter, Crouse, Davenport, Jackson, Sears, Sweetwater Creeks, Tolivers, and Upper Willow (Brown's Park), including tributaries for the reintroduction of Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Special Status Species — Raptors 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES BALD EAGLE: Protect and restore cottonwood bottoms for Bald Eagle winter habitat along the Green and White rivers, at Pelican Lake, and at the Cliff Creek Bald Eagle roost site, as weBURROWING OWL AND SHORT-EARED OWL: In cooperation with UDWR, maintain nesting habitat and maintain/enhance prey-base habitat. FERRUGINOUS HAWK: In cooperation with UDWR, maintain and enhance white-tailed prairie dog and other foraging habitat to provide primary food sources for the Ferruginous Hawk. 

MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL: • Establish Protected Activity Centers (PACs) at all known Mexican Spotted Owl nest sites. • Maintain habitat to support small mammal populations as a prey base for Mexican Spotted Owls in occupied and suitable owl habitats. 

• Retain large down logs, large trees, and snags as prey habitats in occupied and suitable Mexican Spotted Owl habitats. PEREGRINE FALCON: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.21 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Status Species 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Protect and enhance riparian habitat in Pariette Draw, as well as along the Green River, White River, Bitter Creek, and other drainages. BUFFERS Raptor management would be guided by the use of "Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah" (Utah BLM, 2006, Appendix A), utilizing seasonal and spatial buffers, as well as mitigation, to maintain and enhance raptor nesting and foraging habitat, while allowing other resource uses. 

• Raptors would be managed under 

the auspices of Best Management Practices (BMPs) (see Appendix A), which would include implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers comparable to the USFWS's Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and Land Use Disturbances, with modifications allowed as long as protection of nests is ensured. 

• Seasonal and spatial buffers 

(including USFWS’s) are listed in Appendix H. 

• Raptors would be managed at a 

level less restrictive than the USFWS guidelines. Protections for nests of threatened and endangered raptor species and Ferruginous Hawks would include implementation of spatial buffers comparable to the USFWS guidelines with modifications allowed as long as protection of nests is insured. 

• Seasonal buffers would generally 

be less restrictive. 

• Other raptor species would be 

provided protection at a level less than recommended in the USFWS guidelines. 

• Seasonal and spatial buffers for 

raptor nests are listed in Appendix H. 

USFWS's spatial and seasonal buffewould be implemented for raptors as recommended in Table 2 of the Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and Land UDisturbances. 

NEST PROTECTION FOR RAPTORS On unoccupied nests for all activities, including new oil and gas leases: • Raptor management would be guided 

by the use of "Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah" (Utah BLM, 2006, Appendix A), utilizing seasonal and spatial buffers, as well as mitigation, to maintain and enhance raptor nesting and foraging habitat, while allowing other resource uses. 

On unoccupied nests for all activities, including new oil and gas leases:

• Nests would be protected for a 

period of seven years yet allow for permanent (long-term) facilities and structures to be constructed outside of the breeding season as long as they would not cause the nest site to become unsuitable for future nesting. 

• Non-permanent (short-term) 

activities would be allowed within the spatial buffer of nests during the nesting season as long as those activities are shown to be nonimpacting to nesting raptors. 

• Existing Oil and Gas leases: Bald 

Eagle, Golden Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Ferruginous Hawk, and Burrowing Owl nests would be protected for two years by not allowing permanent surfacedisturbing activities during the breeding season. 

• Permanent surface-disturbing 

activities would be allowed outside of the seasonal buffer within the seasonal buffer within the spatial 

On unoccupied nests for all activities, 

including new and existing oil and gas leases:

• For T&E species and Ferruginous 

Hawks, nests would be protected for a period of three years yet allow for facilities and structures to be constructed outside of the temporary spatial and seasonal buffers. 

• However, new or additional surface 

occupancy would not be allowed within one-quarter mile of nests. 

• For all other raptor nests, a 

temporary buffer zone would be provided within one-quarter mile between February 15th and August 1st. 

On unoccupied nests for all activities

including new oil and gas leases:

• For long-term land-use activities

nests should be protected for sevyears and such activities should occur proximally to unoccupied nests unless it is determined that mitigation is appropriate. 

• Short-term land use and human 

activities could progress near a nest or nest territory after sufficietime has elapsed in a specific breeding season to determine a nest is unoccupied and prior to thbeginning of the next year's breeding season. 

• Existing Oil and Gas leases: Sam

as Alternative D. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.21 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Status Species 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

buffer as long as the activity would not cause the nest site to become unsuitable for future nesting. 

• Nonpermanent (short-term) activities 

would be allowed within the spatial buffer of nests during the nesting season as long as those activities are shown to be non-impacting to nesting raptors. 

On occupied nests under all leases: 

• Raptor management would be guided 

by the use of "Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah" (Utah BLM, 2006, Appendix A), utilizing seasonal and spatial buffers, as well as mitigation, to maintain and enhance raptor nesting and foraging habitat, while allowing other resource uses. 

On occupied nests under all leases: 

• Long-term land-use activities that 

would have an adverse impact would not be allowed within the spatial buffer of occupied nests. 

• Short-term land-use activities would 

be allowed outside the breeding/nesting period within the spatial buffer of nests. 

On occupied nests under all leases: 

• For T&E raptor species and 

Ferruginous Hawk nests, new or additional surface occupancy would not be authorized within one-half mile of nests between February 15 through August 1. 

• Additionally there would be NSO 

within one-quarter mile of occupied nests. 

• For all other raptor species, new or 

additional surface occupancy would not be authorized within 1⁄4 mile of nests between February 15th and August 1st. 

On occupied nests under all leases: 

• Activities would not occur within 

spatial/seasonal buffer of any ne

• Short-term land use and human 

use activities would only proceed within the spatial buffer of an occupied nest outside the seasobuffer after coordination with appropriate agency biologists. 

• Long-term land-use activities and 

human use activities would not occur within the species-specific spatial buffer of nests. 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE • No surface-disturbing activities within 

1⁄4-mile of active Sage-grouse leks would be allowed year-round. 

• No surface-disturbing activities within 

two miles of active Sage-grouse leks would be allowed from March 1 through June 15. 

• No permanent facilities or structures 

would be allowed within two miles when possible. 

• The Strategic Management Plan for 

Sage-grouse, State of Utah June 11, 2002, would be adopted and implemented as the baseline threshold. 

• Human disturbances would be 

avoided within 0.6 mile of a lek during the breeding season (March 1 to May 31) from one hour before sunrise to three hours after sunrise, and construction of routes, fences, poles, and utility lines would be avoided within 1,300 feet of a lek. 

• Exception(s): Livestock, wildlife, and 

wild horse use would be managed to achieve and maintain sagebrush and 

• Significant human disturbances 

would be avoided within 0.6 mile of a lek during the breeding season (March 1 through May 31) from one hour before sunrise to three hours after sunrise. 

• Construction of routes, fences, 

poles, and utility lines would be avoided within 1,300 feet of a lek. 

• Any developments within the 1,300 

feet would be designed to minimize, to the extent possible, bird structure collision and to prevent raptor perching. 

• Any development within two miles 

of a lek would be designed to 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.21 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Special Status Species 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

riparian/meadow habitats in good ecological condition per the BLM May 1997 Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management. 

minimize, to the extent possible, raptor perching. 

Within 0.5 mile of known active leks, the best available technology would be used to reduce noise, such as installation of multicylinder pumps, hospital sound-reducing mufflers, and placement of exhaust systems. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Special measures to reduce noise 

would not be required. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.22 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Roads and Trails 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

TRAVEL — ROADS AND TRAILS — MAP FIGURES 33–38 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Establish working partnerships with local and state agencies, user groups, commercial providers, and other interested parties that would facilitate effective OHV program 

and use areas. 

• Provide areas for OHV and motorized use, while protecting other resource values. • The Proposed RMP and all alternatives would comply with the BLM’s National OHV Policy. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • In collaboration with interested parties, the BLM would make future route adjustments based on access needs, recreational opportunities, and natural resource constrai

designations and would be analyzed at the activity planning level. 

• 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 

• Where the authorized officer determines that OHVs are causing or would cause considerable adverse impacts, the authorized officer shall close or restrict such areas. T

• 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 disturban

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” wh

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

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 o

• 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, 

SCENIC BACKWAYS AND BYWAYS • Continue to manage Nine Mile Canyon as a National Backcountry Byway. • Crouse Canyon would be managed as a State of Utah Scenic Byway. • The Flaming Gorge–Uintas Scenic Byway and the Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway would be managed as National Scenic Byways.

*

The Chipeta Canyon road would be 

open up to the Chipeta cabin. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. The Chipeta Canyon road would be 

closed at the mouth of Chipeta Canyon. 

Newly permitted routes would be obliterated and/or returned to their original condition when they no longer serve their permitted purpose or public interest. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Newly permitted routes would not be 

obliterated if the route serves a public interest. 

Newly permitted routes would be obliterated when they no longer serve their permitted purpose. 

• Routes causing resource damage 

would be repaired by maintenance, upgrade, or realignment.

• BLM routes would be closed if none 

of the above is economically feasible.

Same as the Proposed RMP. Routes causing resource damage would 

be maintained, upgraded, and/or realigned. 

Routes causing resource damage would be maintained, upgraded, realigned, and/or closed. 

OHV travel would be limited to designated routes or closed except for managed open areas. • Acres that would be open to OHV 

travel: 6,202 

• Acres that would be limited to OHV 

travel: 1,643,475 

• Acres that would be closed to OHV 

travel: 75,845 

This includes: all WSAs and ISA; the White River area (SRMA, river corridor); Lears Canyon ACEC, the Nine Mile Acquired Area; and the upper portion of the Lower Flaming Gorge nonWSA lands with wilderness 

Same as the Proposed RMP. OHV travel would be limited to 

designated routes or closed except for managed open areas. • Acres that would be open to OHV 

travel: 5,434 

• Acres that would be limited to OHV 

travel: 1,659,901 

• Acres that would be closed to OHV 

travel: 60,187 

• Miles of routes that would be 

designated to OHV travel: 4,861 

OHV travel would be limited to designated routes or closed except for managed open areas. • Acres that would be open to OHV 

travel: 5,434 

• Acres that would be limited to OHV 

travel: 1,353,529 

• Acres that would be closed to OHV 

travel: 366,559 

• Miles of routes that would be 

designated to OHV travel: 4,707 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.22 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Roads and Trails 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

TRAVEL — ROADS AND TRAILS — MAP FIGURES 33–38 

characteristics. 

•

*

Miles of routes that would be 

designated to OHV travel: 4,860 

__________________________ 

*This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.23 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Vegetation Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Ensure that management of native and naturalized plant species enhances, restores, and does not reduce the biological and genetic diversity of natural ecosystems. 

• Maintain and/or enhance soil and watershed conditions and forage production. • Achieve a desired ecological stage or desired plant community structure. • Appropriately control and manage noxious weeds, poisonous and invasive plants, and insects. • Protect special status plant species and their habitats. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Allow mechanical, fire, biological, or chemical control of noxious weeds and insect infestations within the resource planning area with restrictions to protect desired gro

with other land use objectives. 

• Continue implementation of noxious weed and invasive species control actions as per national guidance and local weed management plans in cooperation with state, 

directly affected. 

• Utilize principles of integrated pest management for control and management of noxious weeds and invasive species. This includes prevention, control through mecha

• Manage the vegetation to attain the ecological stage that would benefit wildlife in crucial habitat and livestock grazing. Manage vegetation in remaining areas that resu

• Allow mechanical, fire, biological, cultural, or chemical methods for vegetation manipulation, using the type of manipulation appropriate to and consistent with other lan

spplicable, to protect other resources. 

• Continue implementation of noxious weed and invasive species control actions as per national guidance and local weed management plans in cooperation with state, 

directly affected. 

• Manage the vegetation to attain the ecological stage that would benefit wildlife in crucial habitat and livestock grazing. Manage vegetation in remaining areas that resu

• Use of pesticides and herbicides shall comply with the applicable federal and state law. Prior to the use of pesticides, project proponents shall obtain from the Authoriz

and quantity of material to be used; pest(s) to be controlled; method of application; location of storage and disposal of containers; and any other information deemed nwriting by the Authorized Officer prior to use. In addition, within 24 hours of any pesticide application, a Pesticide Application Record must be completed. A similar proc

• Manage the vegetation to attain the ecological stage that would: 

o Ensure sustainability o Meet authorized use allocations (livestock, wildlife). o Ensure species diversity 

• Manage the following vegetative types to achieve the desired mix of seral stages, as outlined below 

Existing Seral Stages by Vegetation Type 

% Late % Mid % Early # of Acres % Late 

Aspen 90 5 5 2,927 Aspen 45 Black Sagebrush 70 20 10 241,416 Black Sagebrush 80 Desert Shrub 65 10 25 351,766 Desert Shrub 80 Douglas Fir 80 15 5 137,997 Douglas Fir 60 Four Wing Salt Bush 75 15 10 145,012 Four Wing Salt Bush 55 Gardner’s Salt Bush 80 10 5 58,704 Gardner’s Salt Bush 90 Greasewood 90 5 5 61,213 Greasewood 55 Mountain Browse 85 10 5 109,987 Mountain Browse 55 Mountain Sagebrush 70 20 10 78,000 Mountain Sagebrush 55 Pinyon-Juniper 80 10 10 614,518 Pinyon-Juniper 60 Riparian 75 15 10 8,974 Riparian 90 Wyoming Sagebrush 75 20 5 377,817 Wyoming Sagebrush 55 Source: Steve Strong, VFO, 2002 • In order to help control noxious weeds power washing would be required for permitted uses. • Users of BLM-administered land would be required to use certified weed-free feed such as hay, straw, mulch, hay cubes, pellets, and grain. 

• Restore or rehabilitate up to 200,000 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat over the life of the plan. Such vegetation treatments would consider the Western Association o
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.23 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Vegetation Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Populations and Habitats and State and Local Conservation Plans. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.24 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Visual Resource Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURES 39–44 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Manage the public lands in such a way as to preserve those scenic vistas, which are deemed to be most important: 

o In their impact on the quality of life for residents and communities in the areas. o In their contribution to the quality of recreational visitor experiences. o In supporting the regional tourism industry and segments of the local economy dependent on public land resources. 

• Seek to complement the rural, agricultural, historic, and urban landscapes on adjoining private, state, and tribal lands by maintaining the integrity of background vistas 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES Maintain or improve the scenic quality of the landscape and design and mitigate visual intrusions consistent with the objectives established for the specific visual resource Approximately 57,776 acres would be managed as VRM Class I. All WSAs and ISA Note: Acreage differences between the alternatives are the result of management prescriptions within the alternatives. 

63,136 acres would be managed as VRM Class I. Note: The VRM acreage numbers under Alternative A have been changed to reflect BLM-administered lands only. In the Draft RMP/EIS, lands controlled by other surface management entities were included in the numbers for Alternative A. This change does not impact the analysis of the document. 

53,058 acres would be managed as VRM Class I. 

145,781 acres would be managed as VRM Class I. 

Approximately 231,911 acres would be managed as VRM Class II. Note: Acreage differences between the alternatives are the result of management prescriptions within the alternatives. 

294,773 acres would be managed as VRM Class II. Note: The VRM acreage numbers under Alternative A have been changed to reflect BLM-administered lands only. In the Draft RMP/EIS, lands controlled by other surface management entities were included in the numbers for Alternative A. This change does not impact the analysis of the document. 

114,030 acres would be managed as VRM Class II. 

362,660 acres would be managed as VRM Class II. 

Approximately 786,612 acres would be managed as VRM Class III. Note: Acreage differences between the alternatives are the result of management prescriptions within the alternatives. 

716,186 acres would be managed as VRM Class III. Note: The VRM acreage numbers under Alternative A have been changed to reflect BLM-administered lands only. In the Draft RMP/EIS, lands controlled by other surface management entities were included in the numbers for Alternative A. This change does not impact the analysis of the document. 

199,179 acres would be managed as VRM Class III. 

580,846 acres would be managed as VRM Class III. 

Approximately 643,641 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. Note: Acreage differences between the alternatives are the result of management prescriptions within the alternatives. 

645,845 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. Note: The VRM acreage numbers under Alternative A have been changed to reflect BLM-administered lands only. In the Draft RMP/EIS, lands controlled by other surface management entities were included in the numbers for Alternative A. This change does not impact the 

1,353,967 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. 

630,653 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.24 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Visual Resource Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURES 39–44 

analysis of the document. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.25 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wild Horses 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WILD HORSES — MAP FIGURE 45 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Provide for interim management of wild horses as the goals and objectives of the Proposed RMP for gathering and removal is completed. 

BONANZA 

This Herd Area will not be managed for wild horses. Any horses present are in trespass. 

This Herd Area will not be managed for wild horses. 

Same as Alternative A The Book Cliffs Resource Management 

Plan Amendment involving the Bonanza Wild Horse Herd Area would be implemented. 

This Herd Area will not be managed for wild horses. Any horses present are in trespass. 

This Herd Area will not be managed for wild horses. 

Same as Alternative A. A herd of 40 horses, allowing for a 

maximum of 85, would be re-establishethat would have the following physical and conformation characteristics: • Color — bay, buckskin, palomino, 

red and blue roan, brown, dunn, sorrel, black, and grulla. 

• Markings — Spanish mustang 

indicators, such as dorsal and zebra stripes. 

• Size — 13 to 15 hands high and 

weighing 800 to 1,000 pounds. 

• Breed-mixed, including Appaloosa 

and Spanish mustang. 

The Bonanza HA delineation will continue. 

Do not maintain Herd Management Area (HMA). 

Same as Alternative A. • The HMA would be maintained with 

horses. 

• In an area/s identified where wild 

horses would be maintained and managed, protect them from unauthorized capture, branding, harassment, or death. 

• Provide for the appropriate number 

by: 

o Reducing reproductive rate

to levels which would accommodate a minimum four-year gather schedule to allow for maintenance of the AML; 

o Maintaining the desired sex 

structure for herds; 

o Establishing a more “norma

distribution” through selective removal; and 

o Managing horse population

to reflect allocated or available forage. 

• Maintain herd characteristics and 

genetic diversity. 

• Periodically introduce new animals 

to maintain genetic viability. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.25 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wild Horses 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WILD HORSES — MAP FIGURE 45 

• Maintain healthy wild horse 

populations and continue appropriate testing protocols through close coordination with the State of Utah Veterinarian. 

• Limit management of wild horses to 

the projected occurrence area of the Herd Management Area (HMA). 

• Manage habitat to: 

o Sustain established wild 

horse populations. 

o Achieve and maintain a 

desired plant community that would provide palatable, nutritious forage for wild horses while sustaining rangeland health and a thriving natural ecological balance. 

This Herd Area will not be managed for wild horses. Any horses present are in trespass. 

This Herd Area will not be managed for wild horses. 

Same as Alternative A. • Establish an AML of 85 wild horses 

with a minimum herd of 40. 

• Adjustments in the interim AML 

would be in accordance with criteria outlined under the Forage section. 

Gap fences would not be constructed. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. • Three miles of gap fences would be 

constructed where cliffs on the north rim of the White River would not provide natural barriers. 

• Cattle guards would be placed on 

routes where needed to ensure integrity of the fences. 

Additional water developments would not be provided for wild horses. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 25 additional water developments 

consisting of a combination of reservoirs, shallow wells, and guzzlers would be provided. 

Up to 15 reservoirs outside of, but in close proximity to, the Herd Area (HA) boundary would not be fenced. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. The need to fence up to 15 reservoirs in 

proximity to the Herd Area (HA) boundary would be determined under the Herd Area Management Plans. 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. Any horses present are in trespass. 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. 

Same as Alternative A. A gathering plan would be prepared and 

approximately 45 horses would be removed every four years; gathered horses would be available for adoption under the BLM's Adopt-A-Horse program. 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. Any horses present are in trespass. 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. 

Same as alternative A A Wild Horse Herd Area Management 

Plan would be prepared within three years after the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.25 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wild Horses 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WILD HORSES — MAP FIGURE 45 

HILL CREEK 

• All wild horses would be removed, 

the area would be declared unpopulated, and the HMA designation would be removed. 

• The area would only be managed as 

a HA with no specific management plan for wild horses. 

• Any horses present are in trespass. 

Same as Alternative D. • All wild horses would be removed, 

the area would be declared unpopulated, and the HMA designation would be removed. 

• The area would only be managed as 

a HA with no specific management plan for wild horses. 

No horse grazing permits would be issued on public lands within the HMA oimmediate areas to grazing permittees, including the Northern Ute Tribe. 

• There would be no horses managed 

for in this HA. 

• An AML of 70 to 145 horses would 

be established with a minimum herd 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.25 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wild Horses 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WILD HORSES — MAP FIGURE 45 

• Any horses present are in trespass. of 70. 

• A management objective would be 

to manage for a 100 animal wild horse herd. 

No horse grazing permits would be issued on public lands within the former HMA or immediate areas to grazing permittees, including the Northern Ute Tribe. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • A horse-grazing permit or permits 

would be offered on the public lands within the Hill Creek HA (Figure 45) to the Northern Ute Tribe. 

• The permit or permits could 

collectively total up to a 1,200 AUM allocation for up to 100 tribal horses. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

A Nation-to-Nation agreement with the Northern Ute Tribe and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with adjacent private property owners would be entered into for the gathering of and phasing out of wild and feral horses on federal lands. 

A Nation-to-Nation agreement with the Northern Ute Tribe and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with adjacent private property owners would be entered into for range improvements, (i.e., fences) for key areas of management concern and for wild horse and tribal horse management. 

A Nation-to-Nation agreement with the Northern Ute Tribe and a MOU with adjacent private property owners would be entered into for range improvements (i.e., fences) for key areas of management concern and for tribal horse management. 

Same as Alternative A. 

A gathering plan would be prepared for the removal of wild horses and made available for adoption under the BLM's Adopt-A-Horse program. 

A gathering plan would be prepared every four years and approximately 75 horses would be removed and made available for adoption under the BLM's Adopt-A-Horse program. 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. 

Same as Alternative A. 

• All wild horses would be removed, 

the area would be declared unpopulated, and the HMA designation would be removed. 

• The area would only be managed as 

a HA with no specific management plan for wild horses. 

• Any horses present are in trespass. 

The boundaries of the Herd Management Area would be extended to include the north end of Wild Horse Bench (approximately 30,347 acres) and Big Pack Mountain (approximately 22,865 acres). 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. 

Same as Alternative A. 

• All wild horses would be removed, 

the area would be declared unpopulated, and the HMA designation would be removed. 

• The area would only be managed as 

a HA with no specific management plan for wild horses. 

• Any horses present are in trespass. 

A Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan would be prepared after the ROD is signed. 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. 

Same as Alternative A. 

WINTER RIDGE 

• All wild horses would be removed, 

the area would be declared unpopulated. 

• The area would only be managed as 

a HA with no specific management plan for wild horses. 

• Any horses present are in trespass. 

• An AML of 50 to 100 horses would 

be established. 

• The herd would not be reduced 

below 50. 

• Adjustments in the AML would be 

accordance with criteria outlined under the forage section. 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. 

Same as Alternative A. 

• All wild horses would be removed, 

the area would be declared 

• A gathering plan would be prepared 

and an estimated 50 horses would 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.25 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wild Horses 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WILD HORSES — MAP FIGURE 45 

unpopulated. 

• The area would only be managed as 

a HA with no specific management plan for wild horses. 

• Any horses present are in trespass. 

be removed approximately every four years. 

• Gathered horses would be available 

for adoption under the BLM's AdoptA-Horse program. 

• All wild horses would be removed, 

the area would be declared unpopulated. 

• The area would only be managed as 

a HA with no specific management plan for wild horses. 

• Any horses present are in trespass. 

The HA would be designated as a HMA. There would be no horses managed for 

in this HA. 

Same as Alternative A. 

• All wild horses would be removed, 

the area would be declared unpopulated. 

• The area would only be managed as 

a HA with no specific management plan for wild horses. 

• Any horses present are in trespass. 

A Wild Horse Herd Management Area Monitoring Plan would be prepared after the ROD is signed. 

There would be no horses managed for in this HA. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.26 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Provide, maintain, enhance, and protect habitats for a diversity of fish and wildlife species within the VPA. 

• Maintain, restore, enhance, and protect crucial habitats for all fish and wildlife species and restore degraded habitats. Manage for unfragmented blocks of continuous h

• Identify species and habitats most in need of conservation. • Coordinate with UDWR and other partners to accomplish the population and habitat goals and objectives of current, revised, and/or future big game Herd Managemen

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • The BLM would consider habitat banking (i.e., off-site mitigation) as a method to compensate for habitat loss due to surface-disturbing activities. 

• Coordinate with Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to prepare an annual operating plan for predator control within the VPA. • Enlist APHIS’ continued support to provide predator control within the black-footed ferret reintroduction area and provide carnivore samples for on-going disease moni• The VFO would assist in implementing the strategic plan for Utah’s Initiative on Blue Ribbon Fisheries by managing aquatic and riparian habitats along the Green Rive

cold-water sport fishery and Pelican Lake for a quality warm water sport fishery. In addition, any aquatic and riparian habitats along other waters identified as Blue Rib

this initiative to the extent consistent and appropriate with the Vernal RMP and other land use authorizations. 

• Reduce habitat fragmentation by requiring oil and gas field development plans and encouraging such activities as well clustering, multiple drilling from a single pad, uti

impacts. 

• In accordance with Executive Order 13186, incorporate conservation measures for the protection of migratory birds, as outlined in the Utah Partners-In-Flight Avian Co

• Manage habitat to prevent the need for additional listing of species under the Endangered Species Act and to contribute to the recovery of those species already listed• 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

• Minor adjustments to crucial wildlife habitat boundaries periodically made by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) would be accommodated through plan mHABITAT IMPROVEMENTS • Wildlife habitat improvement projects would require consultation with UDWR on job design, construction techniques, and project feasibility. Revise the Pariette Wetlan

• Work with permittees to provide water to wildlife on all BLM water developments, including troughs, after livestock are removed from an allotment or pasture. Wildlife e

• Existing Habitat Management Plans (e.g., Brown’s Park, Myton, and Diamond Mountain-Ashley Creek) would continue to be implemented and revised, and new ones • Develop antelope and upland game guzzlers on a case-by-case basis considering the effects to migratory birds, wildlife, and livestock. 

• Encourage coordination with oil and gas companies to inform the BLM and USFWS of plans for workovers in order to protect species from disturbances during critical 

HABITAT PROTECTION • Do not allow activities that would result in adverse impacts to antelope from May 1 through June 30 on currently identified 7,800 acres of antelope fawning ground in A

would be mitigated through other management actions. This restriction also does not apply to maintenance and operations of existing facilities. 

• Modify existing fences on public lands where wildlife are adversely affected. Work with other surface management agencies or surface owners toward modifying wildlif

• All applications to pave roads would be evaluated in the site-specific NEPA analysis to determine the need for fencing. Applicants receiving a ROW grant would be req

health and safety. 

• In order to protect crucial elk calving and deer fawning habitat, exploration, drilling, and other development activity would not be allowed from May 15 through June 30

RAPTORS • Cooperate with utility companies, UDWR, and USFWS to prevent electrocution of raptors. 

• Spatial and temporal buffers applied to disturbances in the vicinity of nesting raptors should be tailored to the individual raptor species involved and based on factors s

disturbance, nest structure security, sensitivity of the species to disturbance, observed responses to related disturbances, and the amount of other disturbances alread

• Pursue a partnership between industries, local governments, USFWS, UDWR, the BLM, USFS, NRCS, and others as appropriate to establish a raptor management fu

MOUNTAIN LION AND BLACK BEAR • In consultation with UDWR, promote appropriate habitat enhancement to contribute to maintaining a healthy predator population within the existing suitable habitat, wh

• Placement of bear bait on public land would require a permit. MULE DEER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK, AND PRONGHORN • Improve or increase forage through vegetation treatments that would setback the seral stage of crucial use areas, and, if necessary, re-seed areas with a variety of na

• It is preferred that surface-disturbing actions within crucial deer winter range would be located in pinyon juniper rather than browse where both vegetation types occur. 

• Acquire and protect crucial wildlife habitat through sale or exchange. • Establish new and maintain all existing guzzlers and other water sources to improve habitat and distribution in the VPA. 

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS • Provide habitat for cavity-nesting non-game wildlife species and other species that utilize standing snags during a portion of their life cycles. 

• In cooperation with permittees, manage grazing to allow regeneration of riparian tree species and to protect natural water sources. 

• Prevent the spread of non-native plants, especially cheatgrass, salt cedar, and Russian olive. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.26 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES 

• Strive for a dense understory with a reduction in salt cedar and improvement of cottonwood regeneration. 

REINTRODUCTIONS • Reintroduction of native fish and wildlife species into appropriate habitats would be accomplished through coordination with UDWR, counties, and interested publics th

may not be limited to, native species such as Rocky Mountain big horn sheep, moose, bison, and Colorado River cutthroat trout, and wild turkey. 

• Implement the guidelines outlined in the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Reintroduction Cooperative Agreement between the BLM, Diamond Mountain Resource Area

Mountain Big Horn Sheep Guidance Plan (1987). 

• Allotments near current or potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat, where future transplants are likely to occur, should be considered for conversion from dom

miles of bighorn sheep habitat areas. Conversion would only be done in cooperation with affected parties. 

• Potential reintroduction of gray wolves would be made in consultation with the UDWR, USFWS, Ute Tribe, counties, and private landowners through the Resource Adv

management plan for wolves (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication #: 05-17-- Prepared by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and The Utah Wolf Work

.No surface-disturbing activities would be allowed from April 15 through May 31 within McCook and Monument Ridge mule deer migration corridors (Figure 46). 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. No surface-disturbing activities would 

be allowed from April 15 to May 31 and September 1 to October 15 within McCook and Monument Ridge mule deer migration corridors (Figure 46). 

Habitat and forage would be provided for the emigration and/or reintroduction of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the following areas: • Ashley Gorge • Beaver Creek/Willow Creek Area • Big Brush Creek • Brown’s Park/Green River Corridor 

that includes Red Creek Canyon 

• Crouse Canyon • Diamond Mountain ridgetops • Goslin Mountain • Island Park /Dry Fork area • Little Brush Creek • Nine Mile Canyon • Richard's Mountain • Sears Creek Canyon • Teepee Mountain • Toliver's Creek • White River • Upper Book Cliffs (Willow Creek 

drainage upstream from Wood Canyon and the Bitter Creek drainage upstream from the Sweetwater confluence) 

Forage required for Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep would be included in the AUMs allocated for wildlife. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP except the 

BLM would only support Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep if natural emigration occurs. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

The BLM would continue to work cooperatively with UDWR and other entities to revise and implement the Book Cliffs Bison Management Plan. 

• Habitat and forage would be 

provided for the emigration and/or reintroduction of bison in the Southern Book Cliffs. 

• Forage required for bison would be 

The BLM would not support bison in the Southern Book Cliffs. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.26 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES 

included in the AUMs allocated for wildlife. 

• Habitat and forage would be 

provided for the emigration and/or reintroduction of moose populations. 

• Forage required for moose would be 

included in the AUMs allocated for wildlife. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. The BLM would not support moose in the 

Upper Book Cliffs. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

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 accordance with current guidance. 

Disturbance within sagebrush habitat on crucial deer winter range would be reclaimed at or enhanced at a ratio of 1.5:1. 

Disturbance within sagebrush habitat on crucial deer winter range would be reclaimed at or enhanced at a ratio of 1:1. 

Disturbance within sagebrush habitat on crucial deer winter range would be reclaimed or enhanced at a ratio of 3:1. 

• Activities that would result in 

adverse impacts to deer and elk within crucial winter range would not be allowed from December 1 through April 30. 

• This restriction would not apply if 

deer and/or elk are not present, or if it is determined through analysis and coordination with UDWR that impacts could be mitigated 

• Factors to be considered would 

include snow depth, temperature, snow crusting, location of disturbance, forage quantity and quality, animal condition, and expected duration of disturbance. 

• Activities that would result in 

adverse impacts to deer and elk within crucial winter range would not be allowed from November 15 through April 30. 

• This restriction would not apply if it 

is determined through analysis and coordination with UDWR that impacts could be mitigated. 

• Factors to be considered would 

include snow depth, temperature, snow crusting, location of disturbance, forage quantity and quality, animal condition, and expected duration of disturbance. 

• Disturbance activities would not be 

allowed from December 15 through March 15 that would displace deer and elk from more than 10% of their total winter habitat at any given time. 

• Waivers would be granted if deer 

and elk are not present, topography or other attributes screen the activity sufficiently so that the proposed activity would not displace the subject species, or disturbance resulting from the proposed activity could be mitigated. 

Same as the Alternative A. 

• Within crucial deer winter range, no 

more than 10% of such habitat would be subject to surface disturbance and remain unreclaimed at any given time. 

New Surface disturbance of up to 560 acres per township would be allowed, prorated based on the percentage of the crucial deer winter range within the township. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Total surface disturbance (new and 

existing) of 560 acres per township would be allowed, prorated based on percentage of the crucial deer winter range within the township. 

Raptor management would be guided by the use of Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah (Utah BLM, 2006, Appendix A), utilizing seasonal and spatial buffers, as well as mitigation, to maintain and enhance raptor nesting and foraging habitat, while allowing other resource uses. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.26 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.27 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Woodlands and Forest Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WOODLANDS AND FOREST RESOURCES —MAP FIGURES 48 AND 49 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Follow national BLM Forest Health and Forest Management Standards and Guidelines to assess conditions and guide management actions for the forest and woodlan• Allow public utilization of forest and woodland species before/after vegetative treatments that would be conducted to achieve desired future conditions. Allow the utiliza

• Manage forests and woodlands for long-term healthy habitat for animal and plant species, forest and woodland health, and riparian restoration and enhancement. Prov

resource management objectives. 

• Restore productivity and biodiversity in forest, woodland, and riparian areas. Allow for the harvest of pinyon/juniper for fuel wood, biomass, posts, pinyon nuts, Christm

control encroachment and to improve wildlife habitat, woodland health, and watershed conditions. 

• Manage oak by sustaining and enhancing some of the trees in the older age classes in areas that are suitable for maintaining and increasing acorn yields. Manage as

• Encourage utilization of woodland products, including biomass, from lands that would be converted to other resource uses and salvage of woodland products where co• Pursue partnerships to provide social and economic benefits to local residents, businesses, and future generations. Encourage stewardship contracting in some areas • Identify, maintain, and restore forest and woodland old-growth stands to a pre-fire suppression condition. The VFO would adopt the USFS old-growth definitions and id

Forests in the Intermountain Region (April 1993).” In instances where the area of application in the previous document does not apply to specific species (for example

Descriptions, UDSA Forest Service Southwestern Region, (Sept.1992).” 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Develop a forest and woodland management plan incorporating the goals and objectives listed below: 

o Allow for reforestation of forest and woodland sites after disturbances, where needed for stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, and succession of ecosystem

other stand replacing events. 

o Areas determined to need re-seeding would be treated with a variety of plant species that are desirable for wildlife habitat, livestock, and watershed managem

species is encouraged. 

o Forests and woodlands would be managed using timber harvest and/or woodcutting in conjunction with pre-commercial thinning, prescribed fire, chaining and 

health, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat; insect and disease control; as a tool for hazard fuel reduction and WUI projects; riparian restoration and; and other res

o Forest and woodland treatments and harvests would continue to be designed in accordance with silvicultural prescriptions. Irregular boundaries of treatment a

values. 

o Pinyon / juniper and oak management would be implemented to maintain commodity production, enhance resource values, and reduce pinyon/juniper domina

grasslands, forested areas, and shrublands where loss of vegetative diversity is likely. The treatments would be conducted to provide a mosaic pattern to mee

o Oak stands on suitable sites would be managed to maintain and increase the size, vigor and productivity of individual trees to increase acorn yields. Methods o Aspen stands would be managed to maintain or enhance distribution, density, regeneration and sustainability, and to favor regeneration of aspen where deem

variety of methods, including harvest cutting or burning. 

o Allow for the harvesting, cutting, and pruning, of forest and woodland species that are a hazard to public safety, private property, structures, and cultural resouo Allow for the collection of common native seed and non-barrel cacti, except in periods of low vegetative or seed production. 

• Allow for the maintenance and enhancement of relict stands, picnic areas, and other stands of special significance by methods such as chemical, mechanical, and pre

• Allow for the management of cottonwood and other species to restore, enhance, and maintain riparian vegetation. 

• Forests and woodlands would be 

managed to maintain and restore ecosystems to a condition in which biodiversity is preserved and occurrences of fire, insects, disease and other disturbances would not exceed levels normally expected in healthy forests and woodlands. 

• Relict stands would be maintained 

for biological and genetic diversity. 

• Forests and woodlands would be 

managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment; use of 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • Public utilization of forest and 

woodland species before and after vegetative treatments would be allowed to achieve desired future conditions. 

• The utilization of forest and 

woodland species as a tool for vegetative treatments would be allowed. 

• Public harvesting of forest and 

woodland species would be allowed to achieve the greatest output of forest and woodland products. This would be achieved by harvesting stands that have reached culmination of mean annual 

• Forests and woodlands would be 

managed to maintain and restore ecosystems to a condition in which biodiversity is preserved and occurrences of fire, insects, disease and other disturbances do not exceed levels normally expected in healthy forests and woodlands. 

• Forests and woodlands would be 

managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment; use of forest, woodlands and certain 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.27 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Woodlands and Forest Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WOODLANDS AND FOREST RESOURCES —MAP FIGURES 48 AND 49 

forest, woodland, and certain vegetation products in areas specified for this use, and other areas would be allowed to meet RMP goals. 

• The National Healthy Forest 

Initiative would be implemented. 

• The National Fire Plan would be 

implemented by conducting treatments to reduce fuel loadings, fire severity, and restoring historical disturbance regimes. 

• Materials from such treatments, 

including those from hazard fuel reduction projects and wildland urban interface projects would be utilized. 

increment (growth begins to decrease). 

• Stands would thereafter be grown 

and thinned to approximately 80-90% of "normal (maximum) basal area" until the culmination of mean annual increment, at which time the stand(s) would be cut again. 

vegetation products in areas specified for this use, and other areas to meet RMP goals would be allowed. 

• Public utilization of forest and 

woodland species would be allowed as one tool for vegetative treatments to achieve desired future conditions. 

• Relict stands would be maintained 

for biological and genetic diversity. 

• The National Healthy Forest 

Initiative would be implemented. 

• The National Fire Plan would be 

implemented by conducting treatments to reduce fuel loadings, fire severity, and restoring historical disturbance regimes. 

A proactive program of woodland management would be initiated for the salvage of forest and woodland products that are dead and/or dying due to fire, disease, insect-kill, or other disturbance with the management intent of promoting healthy forest and woodlands. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. • The salvage of forest and 

woodland species would be allowed only when a threat to forest and woodlands or other resources within proposed ACECs (242,760 acres) exists. 

• Salvage of forest and woodland for 

other resources on up to 343,110 acres outside of proposed ACECs would be allowed. 

• Up to 546,152 acres of forest and 

woodland would have treatments or be harvested. 

• No vegetation removal would occur 

in WSAs. 

Note: Acreage figures for the Proposed RMP may reflect different sum totals, as calculations were determined using different technology. 

• Up to 552,152 acres of forest and 

woodland would have treatments or be harvested. 

• Approximately 13,606 acres within 

WSAs would not have vegetation removal. 

• Up to 554,108 acres of forest and 

woodland would have treatments or be harvested. 

• Approximately 13,606 acres within 

WSAs would not have vegetation removal. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Special management actions for the oldgrowth pinyon area in Bitter Creek would include: • Establishing a research/monitoring 

program 

• Restricting wood-cutting around oldUnspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.27 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Woodlands and Forest Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

WOODLANDS AND FOREST RESOURCES —MAP FIGURES 48 AND 49 

growth pinyon 

• NSO for old-growth pinyon (160 acres). 
Proposed RMP and FinalEIS 

Vernal RMP 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.3 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Air Quality 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

AIR QUALITY 

INTRODUCTION The VPA is located in an area designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all pollutants (40 CFR 81.345; 2002). GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Ensure that authorizations granted to use public lands and the BLM’s own management programs comply with and support applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulaMANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Prescribed burns would be consistent with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) permitting process and timed to minimize smoke impacts. 

• The BLM is required to be in compliance with all local, state, federal and tribal air quality regulations and will do so with Utah regulations, including Utah Administrative 

• Section R307-205-3 and 205-4 are relevant sections of UAC dealing with fugitive dust and offering some dust abatement mechanisms. • UAC R446-1, the best air quality control technology, provided by the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), would be applied as needed to meet air quality standards. 

• Comply with the appropriate UAC Regulations R307-205-5 through R307-205-7, which prohibit the use, maintenance, or construction of roadways without taking appro

stipulations as a requirement on new projects and through the use of dust abatement control techniques in problem areas. 

• Comply with the current Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) between the BLM, USFS, and UDAQ. The MOU (in accordance with UAC regulation 

emissions from each prescribed burn. 

• The BLM will continue to work cooperatively with state, federal, and tribal entities in developing air quality assessment protocols to address cumulative impacts and re

• 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. Spec

case basis in processing land use authorizations. 

• The BLM will utilize BMPs and site specific mitigation measures, when appropriate, based on site specific conditions, to reduce emissions and enhance air quality. Exa

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 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.4 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Cultural Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

INTRODUCTION The VPA encompasses a large and diverse assemblage of prehistoric archaeological sites, historical archaeological sites and localities, and sites with traditional cultural vGOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Preserve and protect a representative array of significant cultural resources, including but not limited to traditional cultural properties, traditional use areas, rock art, an

and future generations. 

• Preserve and protect cultural resources in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (EO), in consultation with designated contacts from Native 

are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations. 

• Preserve and conserve cultural resources by conducting activities in a way that protect values and provide for the following benefits: education, research, public use, c

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Protect burial sites, associated burial goods, and sacred items in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological • Evaluate cultural resources according to National Register criteria (36 CFR Part 60.4) and assign cultural resources to appropriate use categories as the basis for man• Encourage public/volunteer involvement in the management of cultural resources by establishing site stewardship and other programs. 

• Specific plans would be developed for culturally sensitive areas unless included in other integrated activity plans. Such plans would include protective measures, Nativ

but not be limited to developing a site monitoring system; identifying sites in need of stabilization, restoration, and protective measures (e.g., fences, surveillance equip

interpretive development; identifying areas for cultural inventory where federal undertakings are expected to occur; and developing specific mitigation measures. The p

nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 

• Limit land-disturbing activities within selected Native American traditional cultural and religious sites for continued use by tribes. Traditional cultural sites would be sele

• Consult with Native American tribes for the protection of areas and items of traditional life-ways and religious significance that includes but is not limited to burials, rock • Pursue appropriate National Register designation, including but not limited to currently eligible sites under current policy and guidance. • Conduct an inventory according to professional standards commensurate with the land-use activity, environmental conditions, and the potential for cultural resources. • Pro-actively reduce hazardous fuels or mitigate the potential hazard around archaeological and cultural sites that are susceptible to destruction by fire from prescribed 

• Conduct consultation process to identify both the resource management concerns and the strategies for addressing them through an interactive dialogue with appropr

• Reduce or eliminate imminent threats from natural or human-caused deterioration or conflict with other resource uses. 

• Identify priority geographic areas for new field inventory based upon a probability for unrecorded significant resources. • Ensure that all authorizations for land and resource use would comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, consistent with and subject to the obj

interest. 

• The BLM, in coordination with the appropriate county, would continue to identify, evaluate, and nominate historic routes for inclusion into the National Register of Histo

• When new sites are discovered, interim protection may be applied, if warranted. 

• Provide for legitimate field research by qualified scientists and institutions. 

• Allow for reconstruction, stabilization, maintenance, and interpretation of selected sites for public enjoyment and education.• Continue to implement, maintain, and revise as necessary the Nine Mile Canyon Recreation/Cultural Management Plan that includes developing interpretive facilities a

the Price Field Office, the Nine Mile coalition team, and the counties. Promote collaborative partnerships to assist in meeting management goals and objectives for cul

• Should National Register–eligible cultural resources be found during an inventory, impacts to them would be mitigated, generally through avoidance. Should it be dete

Preservation Officer (SHPO) would be initiated. A program on mitigation would be developed via consultation between VFO, the SHPO, and the Advisory Council on H

• VFO would continue to allocate cultural sites, including ethnographic properties, to one of six management categories: experimental, discharged, public, scientific, trad

• Implement regular patrols as feasible to monitor and protect known cultural sites. • Establish and implement protective measures for sites, structures, objects, and traditional use areas that are important to Native American tribes with historical and cu

the auditory, visual, and aesthetic settings of the resources. Protection measures for undisturbed cultural resources and their natural setting would be developed in com

• Nominate eligible sites, districts, landscapes, and traditional cultural properties for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Manage National Register listed 

JOHN JARVIE HISTORIC SITE Revise the 1989 plan for John Jarvie Historic Site to provide for: • Maintaining the integrity of the National Historic District through reconstruction, stabilization and restoration of important cultural features, and the elimination or separa• Providing adequate protection and management of site. • Managing the site for public education and enjoyment by developing educational and interpretive programs and keeping the site open for public viewing during normal On- and off-site interpretive facilities would be developed at appropriate archeological, historical, and cultural sites in a manner that would not 

Same as the Proposed RMP. On- and off-site interpretive materials 

would be developed at appropriate archeological, historical, and cultural sites only when considered mitigation for 

On- and off-site interpretive facilities would be developed for all appropriate archeological, historical, and cultural resources only if it would not adversely 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.4 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Cultural Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

adversely impact the site. authorized or permitted activities. impact the site. To protect cultural sites that include lithic scatters, burials, tool manufacturing sites, structures, and rock shelters in the Uinta Foothills area: • The area would be open for oil and 

gas leasing, subject to timing and controlled surface-use stipulations or No Surface Occupancy (NSO). 

• OHV travel would be limited to 

designated routes. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. To protect high-density cultural site 

areas that include burial sites, petroglyphs, task sites, pictographs, and villages in the Uinta Foothills area would be closed to: • Oil and gas leasing. • OHV travel. 

To protect cultural sites that include lithic scatters, burials, tool manufacturing sites, structures, and rock shelters in the Little/Devils Hole areas: • The area would be open for oil and 

gas leasing, subject to CSU stipulations. 

• OHV travel would be limited to 

designated routes. 

To protect cultural sites that include lithic scatters, burials, tool manufacturing sites, structures, and rock shelters in the Little/Devils Hole areas, OHV travel would be limited to designated routes. 

Same as Alternative A. To protect high-density cultural sites tha

include lithic scatters, burials, tool manufacturing sites, structures, and rocshelters in the Little/Devils Hole areas that would be closed to: • Oil and gas leasing. • OHV travel. 

To protect high-density cultural sites that include pictographs, petroglyphs, burials, and storage crypts and to preserve the unique representation of the Archaic period in the Upper Willow Creek area of the Book Cliffs: • The area would be open for oil and 

gas leasing, subject to timing and CSU stipulations. 

• OHV travel would be limited to 

designated routes. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

To protect traditional sacred properties in the Four Mile Wash area (Section 18, T10S, R19E): • The area would be open for oil and 

gas leasing, subject to timing and CSU or No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations. 

• OHV travel would be limited to 

designated routes. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. To protect traditional sacred properties 

in the Four Mile Wash area (Section 18, T10S, R19E): • The area would be open for oil and 

gas leasing, subject to standard stipulations. 

• OHV travel would be limited to 

designated routes. 

To protect traditional sacred properties in the Four Mile Wash area (Section 18, T10S, R19E) would be closed to: • Oil and gas leasing. • OHV travel. 

Excavation of cultural sites in non-WSA lands that are managed for wilderness 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.4 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Cultural Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

characteristics would be permitted when compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.5 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Fire Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

FIRE MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURES 3 & 4 

INTRODUCTION A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-compliant Fire Management Plan (FMP) was completed for the VPA in 1998. The FMP reflects the goals and objectives for veincorporated into this EIS. The FMP was updated in 2005 and will be signed once the Vernal RMP ROD has been signed for the VFO.GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Firefighter safety and public safety would be the first priority in every fire management activity. Property values and critical resource values would be the next priority. 

• The primary goal and objective of fire management is to help restore natural systems to their proper functioning condition by restoring fire to its legitimate role in the ec

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • All alternatives would attempt to restore natural fire regimes in fire dependent/adapted ecosystems primarily through the use of prescribed fire and managed wildland fi

and/or chemical treatments would be used. 

• The Fire Management Plan has been updated and amended to meet the direction and objectives of the RMP. The FMP has been revised to comply with the Interagenc

that describe the mix of management activities that can be used to meet the desired future conditions and land use objectives. 

EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND RESTORATION • Following any wildland fire event, the VFO manager would select an Interdisciplinary Emergency Stabilization and Restoration (ESR) team that would evaluate any bur

procedures outlined in the BLM Manual Handbook H-1742-1 (including supplemental guidance dated 11/27/2002). If the interdisciplinary team determined that ESR tre

measures designed to minimize resource losses, both on-and off-site, following the wildfire. Consideration would be given to sensitive resource values in preparation oresources, and special status species habitat. ESR treatments may include, but would not be limited to seeding, seedbed preparation practices, fencing, chemical appl

specific ESR plans would be tiered to the existing Normal Fire Year Rehabilitation Plan for the VPA. 

• Criteria for developing ESR actions would consist of: 

o Areas where the risk of imminent soil loss is high. o Areas that contain T&E Species or state sensitive species habitat. o Areas that contain municipal watersheds; and areas where there is a high potential for invasive species establishment.

HAZARDOUS FUELS • Hazardous fuel reduction activities would be implemented primarily through the use of prescribed fire and managed wildland fire. In some cases, chemical and/or mech

constraints preclude the use of fire, mechanical and/or chemical treatments would be used. 

• Criteria for developing hazardous fuel reduction priorities would consist of the following: 

o Areas of Fire Regime Condition Class 2 and 3. o Areas where the potential risk of losing keystone ecosystem species is present. o Areas where threats to private/public property exist. 

• All fire-management planning activities would comply with the National Fire Plan, including the streamlined Section 7 Consultation procedures. 

• Fire Regime and Condition Classes for the VPA have been designated and mapped (Map Figures 3 and 4 respectively). The FMP would be updated and amended to m

Interior’s Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. 

• In partnership with the State of Utah, the Utah Indian Tribe, and the counties, the BLM would develop WUI Projects. 

• The VPA is divided into fire management categories. Fire suppression activities and the Appropriate Management Response (AMR) would be implemented through the 

used in development of the categories were determined through an Interdisciplinary Team of resource specialists. Criteria for each category is described below: 

o Category A — Areas where unplanned fire is not desired at all. This category includes the salt desert shrub vegetation type where the risk of cheatgrass invas

results in the loss of Fremont cottonwood, a keystone species in present decline. Other constraints to fire management activities include cultural resource sites

o Category B — Areas where unplanned fire is not desired because of current conditions. Prescribed fire use is allowed to obtain resource management objectiv

constraints preclude the use of prescribed fire. This category includes the five identified WUI areas for the VFO, including adjacent urban interfaces, cultural re

Wyoming sagebrush is identified as a keystone species, which has been in a continual state of decline due to widespread drought and invasive species encroa

o Category C — Areas where wildland fire is desired. Prescribed fire is allowed and may be extensive to obtain resource management objectives; mechanical/ch

the use of prescribed fire. This category contains the pinyon-juniper vegetation type, along with aspen/Douglas fir, mountain browse, and non-crucial areas of s

and gas development, non-crucial Sage-grouse habitat, a limited amount of T&E species habitat, and a limited amount of cultural resources. 

o Category D — Areas where wildland fire is desired, and there are few or no constraints for its use. This category contains non-crucial Sage-grouse habitat, a l

and a limited amount of cultural resources.
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.5 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Fire Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

FIRE MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURES 3 & 4 

Hazardous Fuel Targets Wildland Fire Use Tar

Category Prescribed Fire (acres) Mechanical (acres) Chemical (acres) Category 

Category A 1,000 5,000 5,000 Category C Category B 19,570 10,000 10,000 Category D 

Category C 82,738 20,000 20,000 Category D 53,117 0 0 

WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE (WUI) • For Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas, the objective would be to reduce hazardous fuels adjacent to these at-risk areas through mechanical, prescribed fire, or che

Indian Tribe, and the counties, the BLM would develop WUI Projects. 

• WUI areas within the VFO area have been identified in NFPORS. These are communities/developed areas that are located within the vicinity of federal lands and are a

adjacent to these at-risk areas through mechanical, prescribed, or chemical fire or a combination of these treatments. The priority areas identified for WUI projects are 

Prescribed burning would be allowed for approximately 156,425 acres per decade. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

• The use of prescribed fire in nonWSA lands that are managed for 

wilderness characteristics would be permitted for forest, woodland, and vegetation treatments, and for reduction of fuels, when compatible with the goals and objectives for management of the areas. 

• Fire lines and other surface 

disturbances would be rehabilitated following completion of the burning operation. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 

• Wildfire suppression operations 

would be permitted in non-WSA lands that are managed for wilderness characteristics. 

• Fire lines and other surface 

disturbances would be rehabilitated following completion of suppression operations. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.6 Proposed RMP and Alternatives - Forage 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

FORAGE — ALL LOCALITIES — MAP FIGURE 5 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Maintain or improve the total forage resource using techniques that are compatible with the use and development of other resources and that would maintain, meet, or maMANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Monitoring would be used to determine the amount of forage available for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses. Results of monitoring would be used to adapt manageme

conditions, and to meet other resource objectives. 

• Any adjustment in forage assignments to either livestock or wildlife would be based on analysis of monitoring data, including long-term vegetation trend, actual use, cli

production is less than 25 pounds per acre, which equates to 32 acres per AUM. Areas that are seldom or never grazed by livestock due to physical factors such as sl

be included in the livestock forage allocation. An exception for areas in excess of four miles of water if water is hauled or the area would be grazed when snow is on th

documented mutual agreement or decision. 

• Increases or reductions associated with joint monitoring of base allocations would be evaluated against the established grazing permits and UDWR herd unit objective

etc. Unless specified elsewhere in the plan, changes in forage allocation would be as follows: 

o When all other management options have been exhausted and it is determined that rangeland standards are not being met, reductions would be made to the o If additional forage is determined to be available, it would be proportionally allocated to grazing animals according to their dietary need or would be allocated to o Increases in available forage resulting from conservation practices, improved range condition, or development of improvements by the livestock permittee, DW

the plan. 

• Should a permittee apply for reinstatement of suspended use, it would only be considered if: 

o Adjustment of suspended use would follow policy, regulation, and guidelines. o The allotment/s is/are being grazed at full permitted use in order to adequately assess the carrying capacity of the range resource; o Adequate monitoring data is in place to assess AUMs; and o A signed agreement is in place that outlines at least a subsequent five-year monitoring protocol. 

• AUMs would be adjusted downward for livestock, wildlife, or wild horses (or any combination thereof) when monitoring shows that rangeland objectives are not being m

uses. 

• If it is determined through monitoring that livestock grazing is beneficial to other resource values, it would be allowed on 16 miles of river corridor along the Upper Gree

is allowed, it would be of short duration and would not detract from recreation and/or riparian values along the river. 

• Grazing preference is retired on the following allotments: Red Creek Flat, Taylor Flat, Watson, Rye Grass, Marshall Draw, South Warren Draw, and Sears Canyon. Ap

duration basis following an adequate evaluation and assessment to determine if it would enhance wildlife values. 

• When the Vernal RMP becomes effective, the active AUMs permitted to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (4,232) and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) (4,026) 

also have permits in the allotments where these AUMS are relinquished; they would continue to graze cattle in accordance with their permitted use. Note: Further revi

(4,239 to 4,232) and RMEF was 1 more (4,025 to 4,026) than the figures stated in the Vernal Draft RMP/EIS. This revision will not impact the management decision. 

Unless otherwise specified by a management plan, up to 50% utilization of forage on uplands would be allowed. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Unless otherwise specified by a 

management plan, up to 60% utilization of forage on uplands would be allowed. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

AUMs would be allocated as follows: • 138,402 AUMs for livestock • 104,865 AUMs for wildlife • 2,340 AUMs for wild horses Note: The Book Cliffs RMP/EIS ROD did not allocate any AUMs for wild horses in the Bonanza area. The 1,020 AUMs for wild horses in the Bonanza area should not have been carried forward in Alternative D in the Vernal Draft RMP/EIS. The Proposed RMP does not include these AUMs. 

AUMs would be allocated as follows: • 137,838 AUMs for livestock • 104,871 AUMs for wildlife • 2,940 AUMs for wild horses 

AUMs would be allocated as follows: • 139,163 AUMs for livestock • 104,871 AUMs for wildlife • 0 AUMs for wild horses 

AUMs would be allocated as follows: • 77,294 AUMs for livestock • 106,196 AUMs for wildlife • 3,960 AUMs for wild horses 

FORAGE–BONANZA LOCALITY 

If forage allocation reductions are necessary to make significant progress towards or sustain rangeland health, the following criteria would be followed to mak
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.6 Proposed RMP and Alternatives - Forage 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

o Demonstrated Conflicts Between Wildlife And Livestock 

• Sheep and/or cattle and pronghorn 

would be reduced proportionately. 

• Pronghorn use would not be 

reduced below 502 AUMs. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • Pronghorn use would be reduced, 

but not below 502 AUMs. 

• Appropriate reductions in big game 

would be made prior to making needed reductions in livestock numbers. 

• Livestock use would be reduced. • Pronghorn use would not be 

reduced. 

• Deer or other big game use would 

not be reduced. 

If additional forage is available and rangeland health is being sustained, or if significant progress is being made towards sustaining rangeland health, increase

o Additional Forage Meets the Dietary Needs of Livestock and Wildlife 

• Forage increases would be divided 

proportionately between livestock and big game. 

• Wildlife AUMs that are made 

available would go to pronghorn and deer. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • Up to 502 AUMs of forage would be 

provided for pronghorn and sheep and/or cattle use would be increased in accordance with available forage. 

• If the additional AUMs are not 

needed for livestock or pronghorn, any remaining AUMs would be allocated to deer. 

• Wildlife use would be increased in 

accordance with available forage. 

• Livestock use would not be 

increased above permitted use. 

FORAGE — BONANZA WILD HORSE HERD AREA LOCALITY 

This Herd Area will not be managed for wild horses. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Allocate 1,020 AUMs for wild horses. 

If forage allocation reductions are necessary to make significant progress towards or sustain rangeland health, the following criteria would be followed to mak

o Demonstrated Conflicts between Wildlife and livestock 

Would proportionately reduce sheep and pronghorn use; however, pronghorn use would not be reduced below 239 AUMs. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Wildlife use would be reduced; however, 

pronghorn use would not be reduced below 239 AUMs nor deer use below 147 AUMs. 

• Livestock use would be reduced. • Wildlife use would not be reduced. 

o Demonstrated Conflicts with Wild Horses and Livestock 

This Herd Area will not be managed for Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. • Livestock use would be reduced. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.6 Proposed RMP and Alternatives - Forage 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

wild horses. • Wild horse use would be reduced, 

but not below 480 AUMs. 

o Demonstrated Conflicts with Wild Horses and Wildlife 

This Herd Area will not be managed for wild horses. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Wild horse and wildlife use would be 

proportionately reduced. 

If additional forage is available and rangeland health is being sustained, or if significant progress is being made towards sustaining rangeland health, increase

o Additional Forage Meets the Dietary Needs of Livestock and Wildlife 

Sheep and wildlife use would be increased proportionately in accordance with available forage. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Sheep and cattle use would be 

increased in accordance with available forage. 

• Pronghorn and deer use would be 

increased in accordance with available forage. 

• Livestock would not be increased 

above permitted use. 

o Additional Forage Meets the Dietary Needs of Horses, Sheep, or Pronghorn 

• This Herd Area will not be managed 

for wild horses. 

• Sheep and wildlife use would be 

increased proportionately in accordance with available forage. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • This Herd Area will not be managed 

for wild horses. 

• Sheep and cattle use would be 

increased in accordance with available forage. 

• Would not increase AML. • Would increase pronghorn use until 

there are conflicts with sheep. 

• Would increase sheep use in 

accordance with available forage. 

o Additional Forage Meets the Dietary Needs of Horses and Sheep 

• This Herd Area will not be managed 

for wild horses. 

• Sheep would be increased 

proportionately in accordance with available forage. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Would increase horse use in 

accordance with available forage. 

FORAGE — BOOK CLIFFS LOCALITY 

CRIPPLE COWBOY 1,325 unallocated AUMs acquired by acquisition of private lands (Cripple Cowboy) would be reserved for watershed. Although wildlife and livestock would not be excluded from utilizing these lands, no additional AUMs would be allocated. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 1,325 unallocated AUMs acquired by 

acquisition of private lands (Cripple Cowboy) would be allocated to livestock. 

1,325 unallocated AUMs acquired by acquisition of private lands (Cripple Cowboy) would be allocated to wildlife. 

WINTER RIDGE HERD AREA/HILL CREEK HERD MANAGEMENT AREA • No long-term management 

prescriptions for wild horses. No wild horses due to disease (e.g. EIA), trespass of private horses, and manageability of the horses. 

• Initially wild horses would be 

authorized in the Winter Ridge HA/Hill Creek HMA and 2,340 AUMs would be allocated until the horses are removed. 

• The 2,340 AUMs no longer needed 

for wild horses would be allocated through a future planning process. 

• 1,200 AUMs would be allocated for 

wild horses in the Winter Ridge Herd Area. 

• 1,740 AUMs would be allocated for 

wild horses in the Hill Creek HMA. 

Forage for wild horses would not be allocated in Winter Ridge Herd Area or Hill Creek HMA. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.6 Proposed RMP and Alternatives - Forage 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

If monitoring shows that reductions are necessary in all areas except the Wild Horse Herd Areas because of: 

o Demonstrated Conflicts between Wildlife and Livestock 

Reductions in grazing use would be divided proportionately between livestock and big game. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Big game use would be reduced. Livestock use would be reduced. 

If monitoring shows that reductions are necessary in the Wild Horse Herd Areas because of: 

o Demonstrated Conflicts between Big Game, Livestock, and Wild Horses 

• No wild horses would be permitted 

in the Winter Ridge HA and Hill Creek HMA due to disease (e.g., EIA) and trespass of private horses. 

• Any reductions in grazing due to 

demonstrated conflicts between livestock and big game would be divided proportionately. 

Reductions in grazing use would be divided proportionately between livestock, big game, and wild horses. 

• This Herd Area will not be managed 

for wild horses. 

• Big game use would be reduced. 

Livestock use would be reduced. 

o Demonstrated Conflicts between Big Game and Livestock 

• No wild horses would be permitted 

in the Winter Ridge HA and Hill Creek HMA due to disease (e.g., EIA) and trespass of private horses. 

• Any reductions in grazing due to 

demonstrated conflicts between livestock and big game would be divided proportionately. 

Reductions in grazing use would be divided proportionately between livestock and big game. 

Big game use would be reduced. Livestock use would be reduced. 

o Demonstrated Conflicts between Livestock and Wild Horses 

This Herd Area and Herd Management Area will not be managed for wild horses. 

Reductions in grazing use would be divided proportionately between livestock and wild horses. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Livestock use would be reduced. 

o Demonstrated Conflicts between Big Game and Wild Horses 

This Herd Area and Herd Management Area will not be managed for wild horses. 

Reductions in grazing use would be divided proportionately between wild horses and big game. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as Alternative A. 

Additional forage would be allocated in areas except wild horse herd areas as follows: 

o Cattle Allotments 

• 60% to reinstate suspended cattle 

AUMs and 40% for wildlife. 

• After restoring all suspended AUMs, 

allocate additional AUMs proportionately between livestock and wildlife. 

• 60% to restore suspended cattle 

AUMs and 40% for wildlife. 

• After restoring all suspended AUMs, 

allocate any additional forage to livestock. 

• 60% to reinstate suspended cattle 

AUMs and 40% for wildlife. 

• After restoring all suspended AUMs, 

allocate any additional forage to livestock. 

• 60% to reinstate suspended cattle 

AUMs and 40% for wildlife. 

• After reinstating all suspended 

AUMs, allocate additional forage to wildlife. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.6 Proposed RMP and Alternatives - Forage 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

o Sheep Allotments 

Forage increases would be divided proportionately between livestock and big game. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Any additional forage would be allocated 

to sheep. 

• Forage increases would be 

allocated to big game. 

• If additional forage were not needed 

by big game, it would be given to livestock. 

• Big game numbers would be 

allowed to increase only to the poinlivestock permitted use would not be reduced. 

Additional forage would be allocated in the Winter Ridge HA and Hill Creek HMA as follows: • This Herd Area and Herd 

Management Area will not be managed for wild horses. 

• Forage increases would be divided 

proportionately between livestock and big game. 

• If big game does not need additional 

forage, it would be given to livestock. 

• Forage increases would be divided 

proportionately between livestock, big game, and wild horses. 

• If wild horses or big game do not 

need additional forage, it would be given to livestock. 

• This Herd Area and Herd 

Management Area will not be managed for wild horses. 

• Additional forage would be allocated 

to livestock. 

• Forage increases would be divided 

proportionately between big game and wild horses. 

• If wild horses or big game do not 

need additional forage, it would be given to livestock. 

• Big game and wild horse numbers 

would be allowed to increase only to the point livestock permitted use would not be reduced. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.6 Proposed RMP and Alternatives - Forage 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

FORAGE — BLUE MOUNTAIN LOCALITY 

• If monitoring indicates forage 

assignments cannot be met, livestock permitted use and wildlife use would be reduced proportionately. 

• The first year livestock reductions 

would be made with an initial 10% adjustment. 

• Five-year agreements would be 

developed and signed outlining the process for phased reductions to the desired level. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • If monitoring indicates forage 

assignments cannot be met, wildlife use would be reduced to a level at which no livestock/wildlife forage conflict exists. 

• Any additional necessary reductions 

would be made to livestock. 

• Five-year agreements would be 

developed and signed outlining the process for phased reductions to the desired level. 

• If monitoring indicates forage 

assignments cannot be met, livestock permitted use would be reduced. 

• Adjustments would be attained by 

decision or agreement. 

• The first year reductions would be 

made with an initial 10% adjustmen

• Five-year agreements would be 

developed and signed outlining the process for phased reductions to thdesired level. 

Additional forage would be allocated in the Blue Mountain area as follows: Additional AUMs realized through management changes and/or livestockoriented vegetation treatments would be divided proportionately between livestock and big game. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Additional AUMs realized through 

management changes and/or livestockoriented vegetation treatments would be assigned to livestock. 

Additional AUMs realized through management and/or created from wildlife-oriented vegetation treatment would be provided to wildlife. 

FORAGE — DIAMOND MOUNTAIN LOCALITY 

• If monitoring indicates that forage 

assignments cannot be met, then livestock and wildlife use would be reduced proportionately. 

• The first year livestock reductions 

Same as the Proposed RMP. • If monitoring indicates that forage 

assignments cannot be met, then wildlife use would be reduced to a level at which no livestock/wildlife forage conflict exists. 

• If monitoring indicates that forage 

assignments cannot be met, then livestock permitted use would be reduced. 

• Adjustments would be attained by 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.6 Proposed RMP and Alternatives - Forage 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

would be made with an initial 10% adjustment. 

• Five-year agreements would be 

developed and signed outlining the process for phased reductions to the desired level. 

• Any additional necessary reductions 

would be made to livestock. 

decision or agreement. 

• The first year, reductions would be 

made with an initial 10% adjustmen

• Five-year agreements would be 

developed and signed at the same time outlining the process for phased reductions to the desired level. 

Additional forage would be allocated in the Diamond Mountain area as follows: Additional AUMs would be provided as follows: • In the northern half of the area 

(Diamond Mountain and Brown’s Park), additional AUMs would be provided to livestock until wildlife demands require them. 

• In the southern half of the area 

(Ashley Valley and Myton Bench), forage increases would be divided proportionately between livestock and big game on non-crucial wildlife areas. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Additional AUMs realized through 

management changes and/or vegetation treatments would be assigned to livestock. 

Additional AUMs realized through management changes and/or vegetation treatment would be provided to wildlife or retained for watershed. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.7 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Lands and Realty Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURE 6 

INTRODUCTION Federal public land laws and implementing regulations enable the BLM to engage in and complete realty actions involving acquisition, use, disposal, and adjustment of land GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Accommodate community growth and development when it is determined that it is in compliance with other goals and objectives of the plan. • Improve management opportunities for resource protection, resource development, or administration of public lands. • Process applications, permits, operating plans, mineral exchanges, leases, and other use authorizations for public lands in accordance with policy and guidance. 

• Manage public lands to support goals and objectives of other resources programs, respond to public requests for land use authorizations, and acquire administrative an• Dispose of lands that are effectively unmanageable due to size, location, etc. • Acquire lands that would enhance management objectives of this RMP. • Give land exchanges with the State of Utah priority consideration to resolve inholdings issues. • 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, 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • Consider new major communication sites on an as-needed basis. • Acquisitions, exchanges, easements, or disposals would be considered, using LTA criteria on a case-by-case basis, between willing buyers and sellers. • The BLM would retain lands within its administrative jurisdiction, except where necessary to accomplish one or more of the following objectives: 

o Improve management of natural resources through consolidation of federal, state and private lands. o Secure key property necessary to protect special status species, including threatened and endangered species, promote biological diversity, increase recreatio

• Implement specific acquisitions authorized by Acts of Congress by acquiring minimal non-federal lands or interest in lands. 

• When opportunities occur, acquire isolated tracts of non-federal land from willing sellers within special management areas to consolidate ownership and eliminate non-f

• The following criteria would be used when evaluating proposed land use authorizations: 

o Land use authorizations would not be approved in any designated exclusion areas. o Land use authorizations in avoidance areas may be authorized provided they are considered consistent with the current management objectives; those that are o Habitat for listed T&E species would be retained in federal ownership. Exceptions may be considered in exchanges with the State of Utah and others with cons

DISPOSALS • Public lands within the VFO would be considered for disposal through methods such as sale, exchange, state indemnity selection Airport and Airway Improvement Act, 

Purpose Act patent, other lesser-used authorities, or as directed by special legislation. 

• All disposal actions would be coordinated with adjoining landowners, local governments, and current land users. Approximately 32,067 acres of public lands for disposa

EASEMENTS Acquire public access to approximately 70,700 public acres for recreational purposes identified as follows: • High Priority: Ashley Creek drainages, White River, Jackson Draw, Warren Draw, Allen Draw, Red Mountain, Wild Mountain-South Pot Creek, Spring Creek, Nine Mile

• Moderate Priority: Horseshoe Bend, Argyle Ridge, Jensen Canyon, Little Sulfur Canyon, Ashley Creek Recreation Site, Hoy Mountain, Dead Horse Draw, and Blue Mo

• Low Priority: Sears Canyon, Marshall Draw, West Little Mountain, and East Nine Mile Canyon.

EXCHANGES/ACQUISITIONS • Public lands would be considered for disposal by exchange provided the exchange would result in more efficient federal management of the public lands. Land exchang

as defined in Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Acquisitions and by current BLM policy. 

• Non-federal lands would be considered for acquisition through exchange of suitable public land, on a case-by-case basis, where acquisition of the non-federal lands wo

• Exchanges with the State of Utah would be given a priority consideration. There are a significant number of state land sections administered by the School and Institutio

these state lands are in-holdings located within designated resource management areas identified in this RMP. SITLA has indicated their desire to exchange SITLA land

RMP area. The BLM recognizes the opportunity for mutually beneficial land tenure adjustments and would apply the RMP Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria. 

• Non-federal lands to be acquired through both Bureau- and public-initiated exchanges must be in the public interest and have at least one of the following characteristic

o Acquisition would facilitate access to public lands and resources and/or contribute to a more efficient and manageable land ownership pattern. o Acquisition would facilitate implementation of the RMP management actions. o Acquisition of the non-federal lands would maintain or enhance public uses and values, with priority given to acquiring riparian/wetlands; lands with high recreat

cultural sites and/or paleontological localities or within other special designations. 

o Acquisitions that would meet other conditions pursuant to FLPMA Section 206 or 43 CFR 2200. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.7 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Lands and Realty Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURE 6 

• Acquired lands would be managed in accordance with management objectives identified for adjacent lands unless resource considerations require a plan amendment.FENCING REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVED HIGHWAYS All applications to pave routes would be evaluated in site-specific NEPA analysis to determine the need for fencing. LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENTS (LTAS) • Land ownership changes would be considered on lands not specifically identified in the RMP (Map Figure 6) for disposal or acquisition if the changes are in accordance 

public interest, and would accomplish one or more of the following criteria: 

o The changes are determined to be in the public interest. The public would benefit from land resources coming into public ownership, while at the same time acc

purposes, community growth and the economy. 

o The changes result in a gain of important manageable resources on public lands such as crucial wildlife habitat, significant cultural sites, mineral resources, wato The changes ensure public access to lands in areas where access is needed and cannot otherwise be obtained. o The changes would promote more effective management and meet essential resource objectives through land ownership consolidation. o The changes result in acquisition of lands that serve regional or national priorities identified in applicable policy directives or legislation. 

• If one or more of the above criteria are not met, proposed land ownership changes outside of designated transfer areas would not be approved or would require a plan a

landowners and the public. 

• Non-federal lands located within sensitive areas would be acquired through donation, purchase, or land exchange. Land acquisitions would be negotiated from willing la

• Acquire fee title or interest in non-federal lands with priority placed on lands with critical resource values (e.g., water rights, scenic easements, Greater Sage-grouse lek

• No lands acquired through land tenure adjustments would be classified or opened for agricultural entry or leasing in the RMP planning area. 

OTHER METHODS OF ACQUISITION In addition to acquiring non-federal lands through land exchanges, VFO would acquire lands by direct purchase utilizing programs such as the Land and Water Conservatiowould be vested in the U.S. in perpetuity unless otherwise directed by Bureau or Congressional policy.RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSE ACT (R&PP) • Lands conveyed to state or local governments or non-profit organizations under the Recreation and Public Purpose Act (R&PP) Act may include those identified in LTAs

disposal provided the proposed use would provide a greater public benefit than that which the current management provides, and that the action is otherwise consistent 

profit recreational and public purpose facilities such as public shooting ranges, landfills, motor-cross, and racetracks, etc. 

• All Recreation & Public Purposes (R&PP) lease areas would be administratively unavailable for leasing or open to leasing subject to major constraints such as No Surfa

RIGHTS-OF-WAY (ROWS)/EASEMENTS • All future ROW applications involving projects that are less than the major project thresholds described above would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Future ROW

• Future ROWs that cross the Lower or Upper Green River would be placed in the Four Mile Bottom Area or at the Head of Little Swallow Canyon. 

• Generally, future ROWs would be located adjacent to existing routes and within existing R/W granted routes, when facilities are compatible, as much as possible. 

• Easements would be acquired from willing landowners to gain access to public lands. • Lands are also available for major water development ROWs on a case-by-case basis with special restrictions depending on the scope of the project and resource conc

Major ROW projects such as hydroelectric dam and wind farm ROWs may be permitted on a case-by-case basis if the project is consistent with the goals and objective

management prescriptions, then it would require a plan amendment. 

• Authorization of any right-of-way for wind or solar energy would incorporate BMPs as applicable and provisions contained in the Final Wind Energy Programmatic Envir

SALES • Any lands to be disposed of by sale that are not identified in this RMP would require a plan amendment. Land sales would reserve all minerals as required by FLPMA e

of Section 209 FLPMA. 

• If the public lands have no known mineral values, the mineral estate would be disposed of pursuant to the authority of Section 209(b) of FLPMA. 

• In instances where the surface estate is already in private ownership and the mineral estate is reserved to the U.S., the surface owner may purchase the reserved mine

• Lands identified for consideration for disposal would be used for a variety of other authorized activities, based on the need for future community growth and developmen

TRANSPORTATION/UTILITY CORRIDORS • This RMP is consistent with existing right-of-way (ROW) corridors, including the Western Utility Group (WUG) updates to the Western Regional Corridor Study (Map Fig

sensitive resource values. Sensitive resource values would include, but are not limited to, threatened and endangered species habitat, cultural and paleontological reso

• These approved corridors are the preferred location for future major linear ROWs which meet the following criteria: 

o Pipelines with a diameter greater than 20 inches. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.7 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Lands and Realty Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURE 6 

o Transmission lines (not distribution) with a voltage capacity of 69 kV or greater. o Paved routes or routes consisting of more than two lanes. o Significant canals, ditches, or conduits requiring a permanent width greater than 50 feet. 

• Major linear ROWs meeting the above thresholds that are proposed outside of the preferred, designated corridors may require a plan amendment.

• The Vernal LUP would be consistent with decisions identified in the West-wide Energy Corridor (WWEC) PEIS ROD. 

TRESPASS RESOLUTION • Intentional trespass resolution would be limited to removal and / or restoration as appropriate. Unintentional trespass resolution may include: 

o Authorization under ROW grant, commercial/agricultural lease, or permit. o Disposal of the affected land through sale or exchange. o Removal, depending on the nature of the trespass. 

• In all such trespass cases, administrative costs incurred by the BLM for investigating and resolving trespasses will be collected. All trespass incidents resolved by issua

holder/lessee/permittee of rent based on market value. Trespass cases resolved by land sales would be based on fair market value, and land exchanges would be com

WITHDRAWALS • Review existing withdrawals and classifications on BLM-administered lands on a case-by-case basis to determine their need and consistency with the intent of the withd

modifying, or terminating as applicable (Figure 6). 

• Any lands becoming unencumbered by withdrawals or classifications would be managed according to the decisions made in this RMP. If the RMP has not identified ma

with adjacent or comparable public lands within the VPA. If the unencumbered lands fall within two or more management scenarios where future-planning criteria may n

LAND ACCESS 

Public access to the White River would be pursued at the mouth of Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Public access to the White River would 

not be pursued at the mouth of Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

An easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed from the Utah / Colorado line to Watson in Evacuation Creek would not be pursued. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. An easement for the old Uintah Railroad 

bed would be pursued from the Utah / Colorado line to Watson in Evacuation Creek. 

Acquisition of Indian trust lands in Bitter Creek and Willow Creek would be pursued. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Administrative access only across the 

Indian trust lands in Bitter Creek would be pursued. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Acquisition of Indian trust lands near the confluence of South and Sweetwater Canyon would be pursued. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Administrative access only across Indian 

trust lands near the confluence of South and in Sweetwater Canyon would be pursued. 

Same as Alternative A. 

OTHER LAND AND REALTY ACTIONS 

Retain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in federal ownership (106,178 acres). 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as rights-of-way avoidance areas. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 

WITHDRAWALS The following areas are recommended for locatable mineral withdrawal: • Book Cliffs Natural Area (401 acres) 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. The following areas are recommended 

for locatable mineral withdrawal: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.7 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Lands and Realty Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURE 6 

• Green River Scenic Corridor in 

Brown’s Park (8,208 acres) 

• Lears Canyon relict vegetation areas 

(1,375 acres) 

• White River nonWSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (6,720 acres) 

• White River SRMA (1,110 acres) • Developed and potential recreation 

sites (5,000 acres) 

• Book Cliffs Natural Area (401 acres• Green River Scenic Corridor in 

Brown’s Park (8,208 acres) 

• Lears Canyon relict vegetation area

(1,375 acres) 

• Lower Green River Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) (17,063 acres) 

• White River (9,218 acres) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.8 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Livestock and Grazing Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURES 7–11 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Achieve appropriate utilization of the range by livestock and wildlife through management prescriptions and administrative adjustments. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA FOR CHANGING CLASS OF LIVESTOCK Requests from permittees to convert class of livestock would be handled as follows: • On crucial deer winter ranges, cattle are preferred. • In areas where fencing would be required, conversion would be contingent upon signed fence agreement and fences would be in place prior to issuance of permit to gra

and cattle guards/gates and to construct and maintain fences. (Consistent with Vernal District Grazing Advisory Board and Vernal BLM joint Rangeland Improvement (R

• In areas where grazing would be along paved routes, evaluate and determine the need for fencing. Applicants would be required to fence the road if it is determined ne• Areas with riverine/lotic systems may require additional management actions such as, but not limited to, fencing of streams. • Prior to the authorization of any livestock conversions in WSAs, the impacts from any necessary rangeland improvements projects would be assessed. Conversions in W

Chapter 3 Guidelines for Specific Activities -D. The IMP is to direct activities within the WSAs until such time as Congress acts on the WSA designations.

GRAZING IN RIVER CORRIDORS • As opportunities arise, such as voluntary relinquishment, consider changes to livestock use to assure management objectives are met. 

• Where livestock conflicts with other uses of the river, mitigate through management or other actions. 

• Identify criteria for acceptable levels of livestock grazing use along river bottoms. (See Riparian section.) • If grazing is causing resource degradation, to the extent that rangeland health standards are not being met and progress is not being made, monitoring data show that l

close those riparian areas that do not satisfactorily respond to changes in management. 

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 

actions and the BLM will not be bound by them. Relinquished permits and the associated preference will remain available for application by qualified applicants after the 

with achieving LUP goals and objectives. Prior to re-issuance of the relinquished permit, the terms and conditions may be modified to meet LUP goals and objectives an

• However, upon relinquishment, the BLM may determine through a site-specific evaluation and associated NEPA analysis, that the public lands involved are better used 

amendment to the existing LUP or a new LUP effort. Any decision issued concerning discontinuance of livestock grazing is not permanent and may be reconsidered an

SEASONS OF USE • Prior to approving changes in permitted seasons of use, the following would be mandatory: 

o Compliance with the standards for range management (see Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah, Mo Preparation, signature, and implementation of a monitoring plan. o Signature of permittee accepting the grazing management practices determined necessary by the Authorized Officer to approve the change. o Agreement by permittee to management practices that provide for the physiological requirements of desired plants. 

• Requests from a permittee to change seasons of use would be a priority if all of the following criteria were met: 

o Changes enhance or meet resource objectives contained in the Vernal RMP. o Allotment(s) are scheduled for assessment the same year a request is made. o Funding for the assessment is voluntarily provided by sources other than the BLM. 

• Develop management plans and/or grazing agreements for livestock allotments to allow flexibility in grazing management, which may include consolidation of allotment

and pastures (Map Figures 7–11). 

Until all wild horses have been removed, livestock permittees with allotments within Herd Management Areas would be required to have a current health certificate, 

mules, or burros used in their grazing operation.

Lands acquired by acquisition of properties in the Nine Mile Acquired Area would not be grazed to enhance riparian and watershed values. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Livestock grazing would be allowed in 

the Nine Mile Acquired Area if such use is controlled, of short duration, and would not detract from recreation and/or riparian values along the river. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.8 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Livestock and Grazing Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURES 7–11 

SEASONS OF USE 

PHENOLOGY

Livestock grazing would be allowed under the discretion of the VFO in Area 1. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. BILLED USE

Livestock grazing would be allowed under the discretion of the VFO in Area 1. 

ADJUDICATED

Livestock grazing could be allowed under the discretion of the VFO in Area 1. 

*

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

6/1 through 10/31 in Area 2 or 5/1 with a deferment. __________________________ 

*

This is an implementation-level decision that 

cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

5/19 through 10/7 in Area 2. 

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 6/15 through 8/31 in Area 2. 

*

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

5/1 through 12/31 in Area 3. __________________________ 

*

This is an implementation-level decision that 

cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

5/31 through 11/1 in Area 3. 

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 6/15 through 8/31 in Area 3. 

*

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

5/1 through 6/1 in Area 4. __________________________ 

*

This is an implementation-level decision that 

cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

4/25 through 5/26 and 11/1 through 12/31 in Area 4. 

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 10/1 through 3/1 (fall/winter) in Area 4. 

*

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

5/1 through 6/1 and 10/1 through 2/28 in Area 5. __________________________ 

*

This is an implementation-level decision that 

cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

4/10 through 5/26 and 10/1 through 1/30 in Area 5. 

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 10/1 through 3/1 (fall/winter) in Area 5. 

*

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

10/1 through 4/1 or 5/1 with deferment in Area 6. __________________________ 

*

This is an implementation-level decision that 

cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

10/26 through 5/8 in Area 6. 

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 10/1 through 3/1 (fall/winter) in Area 6. 

*

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

4/1 through 5/31 and/or 9/1 through 10/31 in Area 7. __________________________ 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Livestock grazing would be allowed from 

5/20 through 12/1 in Area 7. 

Livestock grazing would be allowed from 10/1 through 11/30 (fall) in Area 7. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.1.8 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Livestock and Grazing Management 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT — MAP FIGURES 7–11 

*

This is an implementation-level decision that 

cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.9 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Minerals and Energy Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES — MAP FIGURES 18–23 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • Continue to meet local and national non-renewable and renewable energy and other public mineral needs. Support a viable long-term mineral industry related to energ

resources. 

• The following principles would be applied: 

o Encourage and facilitate the development by private industry of public land mineral resources in a manner that satisfies national and local needs and provides 

practices. 

o Process applications, permits, operating plans, mineral exchanges, leases, and other use authorizations for public lands in accordance with policy and guidanco Monitor salable and leasable mineral operations to ensure proper resource recovery and evaluation, production verification, diligence, and inspection and enfo

and prospecting permits. 

• The plan would recognize and be consistent with the National Energy Policy by: 

o Recognizing the need for diversity in obtaining energy supplies. o Conserving sensitive resource values. o Improving energy distribution opportunities. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES • In accordance with an UDEQ-DAQ letter dated June 6, 2008, (see Appendix O requesting implementation of interim nitrogen oxide control measures for compressor e

Approval for Applications for Permit to Drill: 

o 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 pe

equal to 40 design-rated horsepower. 

o 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 hors

• Mineral and energy resource exploration and development surface-disturbing activities would be allowed in the VPA unless precluded by other program prescriptions. 

apply to these activities. 

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

• The plan would recognize the opportunity for alternative energy development such as wind, solar, and geothermal. BMPs would be developed from PEISs such as one• Individual proposals would be evaluated based on conformance with other program goals and objectives stated in the plan. 

LIGHT AND SOUND

The BLM would seek to minimize light and sound pollution within the VPA using best available technology such as installation of multi-cylinder pumps, hospital sound-redu

sensitive areas (e.g., sensitive habitat, campgrounds, river corridors, and Dinosaur National Monument). Light pollution would be mitigated by using methods such as limit

of darkness associated with drilling and work over or maintenance operations), limiting wattage intensity, and constructing light shields. If a determination is made that natu

requirements may not apply. LOCATABLE

Operations on lands open to mineral entry (as well as on claim locations that pre-date withdrawal) must be conducted in compliance with the 43 CFR 3809 and 3715 regul

and, plan of operation. A plan would have to be filed for operations usually conducted under notice in: • Areas in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and areas designated for potential addition to the system. • Designated ACECs. • Areas designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System and administered by the BLM. • Areas designated as “closed” to OHV use as defined in 43 CFR 8340-5. • Any lands or waters known to contain federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or designated crucial habitat. 

• National Monuments and National Conservation Areas administered by the BLM; see 43 CFR 3809.11(c). • A plan must be submitted for any bulk sampling of 1,000 tons or more of presumed ore for testing; see 43 CFR 3809.11(b)). 

MINERAL MATERIALS

• All existing material sites would be evaluated to determine continual need and ensure that they are accommodating user needs. 

• Common use areas, community pits, free-use permits, competitive and non-competitive contract sales, and testing and sampling of mineral materials may be authorize

OIL AND GAS

• Approximately 53,111 acres within the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge would be closed to oil and gas leasing. 

• Mitigation of oil and gas impacts developed under the plan and applied to leases issued after the date of this RMP in the form of stipulations would adhere to the BLM’
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.9 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Minerals and Energy Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES — MAP FIGURES 18–23 

provisions/criteria to allow for waiver, exception, and modification if warranted. 

• The plan would provide for a variety of oil and gas operations and geophysical explorations. These activities would be allowed in the VPA unless precluded by other p

Appendix K would generally apply to these activities. 

• Approximately 188,500 acres of split estate lands (federal minerals-Tribal surface) within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation are inclu

COMBINED HYDROCARBON AREAS / SPECIAL TAR SAND AREAS Management decisions regarding combined hydrocarbon area/special tar sand areas are deferred to the PEIS that is being prepared. 

Approximately 51,829 acres would be administratively available for combined hydrocarbon leasing subject to standard lease terms. 

Approximately 61,424 acres would be administratively available for combined hydrocarbon leasing subject to standard lease terms. 

Approximately 43,530 acres would be administratively available for combined hydrocarbon leasing subject to standard lease terms. 

Management decisions regarding combined hydrocarbon area / special tar sand areas are deferred to the PEIS that is being prepared. 

Approximately 200,836 acres would be administratively available for combined hydrocarbon leasing with CSU. 

Approximately 198,238 acres would be administratively available for combined hydrocarbon leasing with CSU. 

Approximately 195,566 acres would be administratively available for combined hydrocarbon leasing with CSU. 

Management decisions regarding combined hydrocarbon area / special tar sand areas are deferred to the PEIS which is being prepared. 

Approximately 10,803 acres would be administratively available for combined hydrocarbon leasing with NSO. 

Approximately 3,806 acres would be administratively available for combined hydrocarbon leasing with NSO. 

Approximately 3,696 acres would be administratively available for combined hydrocarbon leasing with NSO. 

Management decisions regarding combined hydrocarbon area / special tar sand areas are deferred to the PEIS that is being prepared. 

Approximately 35,044 acres would be closed to leasing. 

Approximately 35,044 acres would be closed to leasing. 

Approximately 55,720 acres would be closed to leasing. 

Management decisions regarding combined hydrocarbon area / special tar sand areas are deferred to the PEIS that is being prepared. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 

GILSONITE AND PHOSPHATE (NON-ENERGY LEASABLES) 172 miles or 36,846 acres would be available for prospecting, leasing, and development of Gilsonite (additional veins located through field study or prospecting not shown on Map Figure 18 would also be available if such are within "open" category lands). 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.1.9 Proposed RMP and Alternatives – Minerals and Energy Resources 

PROPOSED RMP Alternative A (Draft RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C 

MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES — MAP FIGURES 18–23 

76,208 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of phosphate with standard and special stipulations within the phosphate occurrence areas. 

87,724 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of phosphate with standard and special stipulations within the phosphate occurrence areas. 

Same as Alternative A. 63,571 acres would be open for 

prospecting, leasing, and development of phosphate with standard and special stipulations within the phosphate occurrence areas. 

MINERAL MATERIALS 389,788 acres would be available for mineral material disposal with standard and special stipulations. Note: Acreage figures for the Proposed RMP may reflect different sum totals, as calculations were determined using different technology. 

415,395 acres would be available for mineral material disposal with standard and special stipulations. 

432,953 acres would be available for mineral material disposal with standard and special stipulations. 

388,699 acres would be available for mineral material disposal with standard and special stipulations. 

Close non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to disposal of mineral materials (106,178 acres). 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 

OIL AND GAS (INCLUDES COAL BED NATURAL GAS) **Note: Further consultation with the Ute Indian Tribe resulted in identification of stipulations for the Hill Creek Extension has occurred, which caused the increase in the Pspecific stipulation categories. **Approximately 860,651 acres would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

Approximately 983,905 acres would open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

Approximately 1,113,116 acres would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

Approximately 858,619 acres would be open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

**Approximately 779,730 acres would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints, such as TLs and CSU. 

Approximately 796,955 acres would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints, such as TLs and CSU. 

Approximately 706,281 acres would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints, such as TLs and CSU. 

Approximately 768,466 acres would be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints, such as TLs and CSU. 

**Approximately 86,789 acres would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations. 

Approximately 69,302 acres would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations. 

Approximately 42,053 acres would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations. 

Approximately 58,670 acres would be open to leasing subject to major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations. 

**Approximately 186,917 acres would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

Approximately 63,839 acres would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

Approximately 52,550 acres would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

Approximately 228,246 acres would be administratively unavailable for leasing. 

No geophysical exploration would be allowed in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics except that hand-carried geophone lines would be permitted. 

Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. Unspecified in the Draft EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.1 Summary of Impacts – Air Quality 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

AIR QUALITY 

PM2.5, CO2, and ozone precursor (VOCs, NOx, CO) emissions would increase as a result of 156,425 acres/decade from prescribed fire treatments. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. 

Beneficial reduction of PM10 and other windborne particulate from erosion of exposed soils as a result of increasing vegetation and lowering soil disturbance. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Due to less restrictive management in 

many areas, PM10 and other windblown particulate from erosion of exposed soils would be higher than under the Proposed RMP. 

Due to more restrictive management in many areas, PM10 and other windblown particulate from erosion of exposed soils would be lower than under the Proposed RMP. 

Mineral resource decisions: projected concentrations of CO, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 and NOx would not have adverse impacts as they would be below the applicable NAAQS as modeled for 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual time frames. BLM sources add an incremental increase (1%)0 to background concentrations of benzene, formaldehyde, and xylenes that already exceed at least one AACL. No visibility criteria exceedances are projected. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.2 Summary of Impacts – Cultural Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Restriction of OHV travel to designated routes in areas of high cultural resource site density would beneficially reduce potential impacts to cultural resources. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. Restrictions on OHV travel and mineral 

development in the areas of high culturaresource site density would have the most beneficial impacts on high-density cultural sites. 

156,425 acres/decade of prescribed fire to reduce fuels and lessen wildfire severity would have beneficial impacts on cultural resources. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. 

Potential acquisition of Indian trust lands, and other areas, as well as pursuing a locatable mineral withdrawal or other protective measures for certain areas would have beneficial impacts on potential cultural sites in these areas. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Potential acquisition of Indian trust lands 

only would have beneficial impacts on potential cultural sites in these areas. Impacts from locatable mineral withdrawals would be the same as Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternative A, except that an easement for the Uintah Railroad bed, a known and documented historical culturasite, would be pursued, with potential beneficial impacts to cultural resources. 

Moderate beneficial impacts to cultural resources from limitations and restrictions imposed on OHV travel. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Greater potential for impacts to cultural 

resources than Alternative A, with less beneficial impacts from limitations and restrictions on OHV travel. 

The most limitations and restrictions on OHV travel would have the most beneficial impacts on cultural resources. 

Areas designated as VRM Class I and II would provide greater protection, and more beneficial impacts to cultural resources than Alternatives B and D. 

Areas designated as VRM Class I and II would provide greater protection and more beneficial impacts to cultural resources than the Proposed RMP and Alternatives B and D. 

Areas designated as VRM Class I and II would provide greater protection than Alternative D, but less than all other alternatives. 

Areas designated as VRM Class I and II would provide the second most protectio(with the second greatest beneficial impacts) to cultural resources behind Alternative E. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.3 Summary of Impacts – Environmental Justice 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Indian tribes would benefit from revenues derived from rights-of-way grants to oil and gas industry, but traditions and religious sites could be adversely impacted. 

Same as Proposed RMP Similar to Proposed RMP, however oil 

and gas-related revenues could be greater and religious sites and traditions could be most adversely impacted under this alternative given Alternative B proposed the greatest amount of wells. 

Same as Proposed RMP. 

Minerals development could adversely reduce or replace tribal livestock grazing, decrease opportunities for hunting and gathering and ceremonial worship. The tribal community of Ouray could be adversely impacted with regard to health and safety with increases in oil and gas extraction-related activity 

Same as Proposed RMP Similar to Proposed RMP, potential for 

adverse heath-related impacts to Ouray community would be greatest under this alternative. 

Same as Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.4 Summary of Impacts – Fire Management 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

156,425 acres/decade of prescribed fire would reduce fuel loading and the risk of a large-scale, catastrophic fire. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. 

Approximately 18,860 acres of surface disturbance would pose a greater risk for wildland fire due to minerals development (and surface disturbances) within the BLM administered areas of the VPA, in the short term and long term. Short-term surface disturbances within this area would increase the risk of wildland fire, particularly during clearing and blading of well pads and access roads, due to spark or heat ignition from vehicles, construction equipment, and construction personnel. Long-term adverse impacts on fire management would be due to limitations on prescribed fire. There may also be beneficial long-term benefits as access roads, well pads, and mines would provide access and create firebreaks that would be helpful in preventing and suppressing future wildfires. 

Impacts similar to those described under Proposed RMP, with approximately 18,971 acres at risk from minerals-related wildland fire. 

Impacts similar to those described under Proposed RMP, with approximately 19,033 acres at risk from minerals-related wildland fire. 

Impacts similar to those described under Proposed RMP, with approximately 18,757 acres at risk from minerals-relatewildland fire. 

Rangeland improvement would occur on 34,640 acres, with beneficial impacts on fire management. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Rangeland improvement would occur on 

50,900 acres, with beneficial impacts on fire management. 

Rangeland improvement would occur on 45,860 acres, with beneficial impacts on fire management. 

Seven SRMAs, 400 miles of nonmotorized trails, and 800 miles of motorized trails would increase indirect fire risks from human- and vehicle-caused ignitions. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Fire risks similar to Alternative A, but with 

only four SRMAs, 800 miles of motorized trails, and no non-motorized trails. 

Fire risks similar to Alternative A, with eight SRMAs and 400 miles of nonmotorized trails, and no motorized trails. 

546,152 acres of forest and woodland available for treatment would reduce wildfire risk. 

552,152 acres of forest and woodland available for treatment would reduce wildfire risk 

554,108 acres of forest and woodland available for treatment would reduce wildfire risk. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.5 Summary of Impacts – Hazardous Materials 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Potentially increased long-term, indirect, adverse impacts from hazardous material use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal associated with the development of 1,640,381 acres of mineral resources. 

Impacts similar to Proposed RMP, but with 1,780,860 acres of mineral resource development. 

Impacts similar to Proposed RMP, but with 1,819,397 acres of minerals resource development. 

Impacts similar to Proposed RMP, but with 1,627,085 acres of minerals resourcdevelopment. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.6 Summary of Impacts – Lands and Realty 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Pursuing easements for Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road would beneficially permit public access to the White River. 

Same as Proposed RMP No pursuit of easements to Cowboy 

Canyon, Bonanza Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road would restrict access to public lands. 

Similar impacts as Proposed RMP, except would also pursue an easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed from the Utah/Colorado line to Watson in Evacuation Wash. 

Acquisition of Indian Trust lands in Bitter Creek and Sweetwater Canyon would beneficially allow public access and improved management of the area. 

Same as Proposed RMP Administration access only sought for 

Indian Trust lands in Bitter Creek and Sweetwater Canyon would have adverse impacts on cohesive management of the area. 

Same as Proposed RMP 

22,814 acres would be pursued as a locatable mineral withdrawal, resulting in adverse impacts to Lands and Realty because more acres would be restricted and the range of allowable land uses would be less. 

Same as Proposed RMP Same as Proposed RMP Similar impacts as the proposed RMP, 

except that 36,265 acres would be pursued as a locatable mineral withdrawal, resulting in adverse impacts to lands and realty 

Management of 106,178 acres non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as right-of-way avoidance areas to prevent surface disturbance and protect the wilderness characteristics of these areas would result in fewer lands and realty actions. 

Unspecified in the DEIS. Unspecified in the DEIS. Unspecified in the DEIS. 

Retention of public lands in federal ownership would maintain and enhance BLM’s ability to manage the resource values and uses of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Unspecified in the DEIS. Unspecified in the DEIS. Unspecified in the DEIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.7 Summary of Impacts – Livestock and Grazing Management 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

156,425 acres/decade of prescribed fire would produce beneficial improvements in the health, biomass, age class, and diversity of forage. 

Same as Proposed RMP Same as Proposed RMP Same as Proposed RMP 

LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT 

Phenology-based use system would have positive impacts on rangeland health. 138,402 AUMs allocated to livestock, a 5.3% AUM reduction compared to Alternative D. 

Same as Proposed RMP, except 137,838 AUMs allocated to livestock, a 5.7% reduction form Alternative D. 

Billed use based system. 139,163 AUMs allocated to livestock, a 4.8% AUM reduction from Alternative D. 

Adjudicated use based system. Adverse impacts from 77,294 AUMs allocated to livestock, a 47.1% AUM reduction from Alternative D. 

Oil and gas well construction would cause adverse short-term loss of 303 AUMs and long-term adverse loss of 829 AUMs from well pads, roads, and minerals infrastructure (a 4% reduction in AUMs compared to Alternative D). 

Same as Proposed RMP, except shortterm loss of 304 AUMs and long-term loss of 833 AUMs (a 4% reduction in AUMs compared to Alternative D). 

Same as Proposed RMP, except adverse short-term loss of 305 AUMs and long-term adverse loss of 837 AUMs from minerals surface disturbances and construction (a 5% reduction in AUMs compared to Alternative D). 

Same as Proposed RMP, except adverse short-term loss of 301 AUMs and long-term adverse loss of 824 AUMfrom constructed minerals facilities and activities (a 3% reduction in AUMs compared to Alternative D). 

Short-term adverse impacts to livestock from displacement during rangeland improvement treatments on 34,640 acres, development of 812 guzzlers/reservoirs and 51 springs. Long-term benefits from improved rangeland for livestock. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP, except 

treatments on 50,900 acres, 1,165 guzzlers/reservoirs, and 78 wells/springs. 

Same as Proposed RMP, except treatments on 45,860 acres, 811 guzzlers/reservoirs, and 87 wells/springs. 

Beneficial impacts from continued grazing allowed on 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

No management for non-WSA wilderness characteristics values. 

No management for non-WSA wilderness characteristics values. 

No management for non-WSA wilderness characteristics values. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.8 Summary of Impacts – Minerals and Energy Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

1,640,381acres available for oil and gas under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations, a 7% increase over Alternative D, would have direct beneficial impacts on minerals development from increased revenues and royalties. Adverse impacts from reduction of finite minerals resources after extraction. Impacts to non-fluid mineral resources would be similar. 

1,780,860 acres available for oil and gas under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations, a 16% increase over Alternative D, with impacts similar to the Proposed RMP for fluid and non-fluid minerals. 

1,819,397 acres available for oil and gas under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations, an 18% increase over Alternative D, with impacts similar to the Proposed RMP for fluid and non-fluid minerals. 

1,627,085 acres available for oil and gas under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations, a 6% increase over Alternative D, with minor adverse impactfrom reduced availability of the resource 

for extraction and reduced royalties and revenues. Impacts to non-fluid mineral resources would be similar to the Proposed RMP. 

Cultural actions would have long-term indirect economically adverse impacts by increasing costs of development. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Similar to Alternative A. Cultural resource decisions would close 

48,801 acres to oil and gas leasing in the Uinta Foothills, Little/Devil’s Hole, Upper Willow Creek, and Four Mile Wash. 

106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing (except White River, which would be NSO), solid mineral leasing, and mineral material disposal. These decisions would reduce opportunities for exploration and production of mineral and energy resources. 

No acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed for protection of wilderness characteristics. There would be no effect on exploration or development of mineral and energy resources. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

• Decision to minimize noise and light 

pollution adjacent to Dinosaur NM would increase costs of exploration and development, and reduce opportunities for development. 

• Closure of the Pelican Lake SRMA to 

mineral material disposal and NSO of oil and gas leasing would increase costs for fluid mineral development and limit production of mineral materials 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Closures and NSO at Pelican Lake SRMA would be the same as the Proposed RMP. In addition, NSO around old growth pinyon in the Book Cliffs and within 1⁄2 mile each side of the White River would increase cost of oil and gas production. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A at the Pelican Lake SRMA. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A at the Pelican Lake SRMA. 

Restrictions on surface disturbance and development on steep slopes would increase costs of mineral and energy exploration and development, potentially limit amount of ultimate development, and decrease royalties paid to the federal government and the State of Utah. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Similar to the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A. 

Similar to the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. 

Management prescriptions to protect 54,958 acres of ACEC, 52 miles of wild and scenic rivers, and 53,058 acres of WSA would close or limit surface disturbance in these special designation areas, limiting future exploration and 

Management prescriptions to protect 101,181acres of ACEC, 86 miles of wild and scenic rivers, and 53,058 acres of WSA would close or limit surface disturbance in these special designation areas, limiting future exploration and 

Management prescriptions to protect 53,411 acres of ACEC, 52 miles of wild and scenic rivers, and 53,058 acres of WSA would close or limit surface disturbance in these special designation areas, limiting future exploration and 

Management prescriptions to protect 266,948 acres of ACEC, 216 miles of wiand scenic rivers, and 53,058 acres of WSA would close or limit surface disturbance in these special designation areas, limiting future exploration and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.8 Summary of Impacts – Minerals and Energy Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 

development of mineral and energy resources. 

development of mineral and energy resources. 

development of mineral and energy resources. 

development of mineral and energy resources. 

Seasonal and spatial buffers and mitigation to maintain and enhance habitat for special status species and other wildlife would have minor adverse impacts on mineral and energy exploration and development by increasing economic costs. 

Protections for special status species and other wildlife would be more restrictive to mineral and energy exploration and development than Alternative D – No Action. 

Limitations for protecting special status species and other wildlife would be less restrictive than Alternative D, with minor adverse impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Similar impacts as the Proposed RMP, but more restrictive, with more adverse economically related impacts to minerals development than Alternative D. 

289,687 acres of VRM Class I and Class II areas would limit mineral and energy development and economic gain by increasing production costs and reducing areas of development. 

357,909 acres of VRM Class I and Class II areas would have impacts similar to the Proposed RMP, but to more acres. 

167,088 acres of VRM Class I and Class II areas would have impacts similar to the Proposed RMP, but to fewer acres. 

508,441 acres of VRM Class I and Class II areas would have adverse impacts on minerals development similar to the Proposed RMP, but to a greater number of acres. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.9 Summary of Impacts – Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Limiting OHV use to designated routes in Little Hole/Devils Hole, Upper Willow Creek, and Four Mile Wash (areas of high cultural site density) would prevent surface disturbance that would degrade the natural characteristics of Lower Flaming Gorge, Wolf Point, and Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Motorized use, however, would reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation in Four Mile Wash would prevent surface disturbance that would impact the natural characteristics of Desolation Canyon non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP, except oil 

and gas leasing would be permitted with standard stipulations, resulting in surface disturbance that degrades the natural characteristics of the Four Mile Wash area of Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

OHV use and oil and gas leasing would be closed in Little Hole/Devils Hole and Four Mile Wash, protecting the wildernescharacteristics of Lower Flaming Gorge and Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Limiting OHV use in Upper Willow Creek would have the same effects on Wolf Point as described in the Proposed RMPOil and gas leasing with timing and controlled surface use stipulations would permit surface disturbance that would degrade the natural characteristics of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

156,425 acres of prescribed fire treatments per decade would restore vegetation communities and the naturalness of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Fire operations would degrade opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in the short term. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Proposed locatable mineral withdrawal of 17,814 acres would protect the wilderness characteristics of portions of the Lower Flaming Gorge, Cold Spring Mountain, White River, and Cripple Cowboy non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP, but also 

includes mineral withdrawal in DesolatioCanyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for a total of 26,386 acres

Land acquired in Nine Mile Canyon would not be grazed by livestock. Improvement of riparian and watershed condition would enhance the natural characteristics of a portion of the Desolation Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and the setting required to provide opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Land acquired in Nine Mile Canyon would 

be grazed by livestock, but there would be no noticeable impacts to the naturalness of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence of livestock could degrade the desired experience of some visitors. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Between 54% and 100% of 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

Between 70% and 100% of 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

Same as Alternative A, except up to 171,412 of non-WSA lands with 

Between 51% and 100% of 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.9 Summary of Impacts – Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

totaling up to 150,421 acres, would lose their wilderness characteristics due to oil and gas development. 

totaling up to 153,768 acres, would lose their wilderness characteristics due to oil and gas development. 

wilderness characteristics would lose their wilderness characteristics. 

totaling up to 123,571 acres would lose their wilderness characteristics due to oiand gas development. 

Managing White River, Blue Mountain, Browns Park, and Nine Mile Canyon SRMAs would provide for primitive recreation opportunities in portions of the SRMAs – preserving wilderness characteristics. Motorized recreation opportunities would be emphasized in other parts of the SRMA, conflicting with opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Same as the Proposed RMP, but also include management of the Book Cliffs SRMA. 

Managing Browns Park and Nine Mile Canyon as SRMAs would have the same impacts on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as Proposed RMP. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Developing 400 miles of non-motorized trails would provide added opportunities for primitive recreation. Development of 800 miles of motorized trails would conflict with primitive recreation, and nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics that provide those opportunities. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Development of 800 miles of motorized 

trails would have the same impacts on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. 

Same as the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, except 800 miles of motorized trails would not be developed. 

75,845 acres closed to OHV use would enhance the wilderness characteristics of portions of the Lower Flaming Gorge and White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 60,187 acres closed to OHV use would 

enhance the wilderness characteristics of portions of the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

366,559 acres would be closed to OHV use, enhancing the wilderness characteristics of 18 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Prohibiting surface disturbance on slope greater than 40% would prevent surface disturbances that would degrade the naturalness of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Erosion control plans required for surface 

disturbances on slopes greater that 20% would not prevent degradation of the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Designation of 4 ACECs would protect the wilderness characteristics of portions of 4 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of 2 recommended wild and scenic rivers would protect the wilderness characteristics of portions of 3 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Designation of 6 ACECs would protect the wilderness characteristics of portions of 7 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of 3 recommended wild and scenic rivers would protect the wilderness characteristics of portions of 3 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Designation of 4 ACECs would protect the wilderness characteristics of portions of 4 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of 2 recommended wild and scenic rivers would protect the wilderness characteristics of portions of 3 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Designation of 8 ACECs would protect the wilderness characteristics of portions of 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of 5 recommended wild and scenic rivers would protect the wilderness characteristics of portions of 8 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

139,502 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and Class II objectives, protecting the landscapes and the natural characteristics of portions of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

148,364 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and Class II objectives, protecting the landscapes and the natural characteristics of portions of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

52,777 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and Class II objectives, protecting the landscape and the natural characteristics of portions of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

191,657 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and Class II objectives, protecting the landscape and the natural characteristics of portions of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

No horse herds would be maintained in the Bonanza, Hill Creek, or Winter Ridge 

The presence of wild horses would supplement the wilderness characteristics 

The presence of wild horses would supplement the wilderness characteristics 

The presence of wild horses would supplement the wilderness characteristic
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.9 Summary of Impacts – Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

herd areas. There would be no supplemental wilderness characteristics or opportunity to view wild horses. 

of the Wolf Point and Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Construction of waters and fences to manage horses would degrade the naturalness of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to some degree. 

of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Construction of waters and fences to manage horses would degrade the naturalness of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to some degree. 

of the White River, Wolf Point, and Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Construction of waters and fences to manage horses would degrade the naturalness of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to some degree. 

546,152 acres of forests and woodlands would be treated or harvested. Treatments with prescribed fire could restore natural vegetation communities and enhance the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Treatments with chainsaws and bulldozers would degrade naturalness of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Operation of the treatment would diminish opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in the short term. 

552,152 acres would be treated or harvested with the same impacts to nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described for the Proposed RMP. 

554,108 acres would be treated or harvested with the same impacts to nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described for Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A, except treatment would not be permitted in 242,760 acres of ACECs. 

A management prescription would be implemented to protect the wilderness characteristics of 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling 106,178 acres. 

No specific actions are prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. There would be no impacts on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.10 Summary of Impacts - Paleontology 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

PALEONTOLOGY 

Long-term, direct, potentially adverse impacts from surface disturbance caused by, fire management, lands and realty decisions, livestock and grazing, minerals development, recreation, and woodland management. Beneficial impacts from development include increased access that would increase likelihood of site discoveries and long-term increase in knowledge of fossil resources. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Limits on surface disturbance in VRM Class I and Class II areas (289,687 acres) and non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (106,178 acres) would protect paleontological resources. 

Limits on surface disturbance in designated VRM Class I and Class II areas (357.909 acres) would protect paleontological resources. 

Same as Alternative A, except protection within 167,088 acres of designated VRM Class I and Class II areas. 

Same as Alternative A, except protection within 508,441 acres of designated VRM Class I and Class II areas. 

Beneficial long- and short-term directprotection-related impacts from travel decisions by limiting open OHV areas to 6,202 acres. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP, except 

open OHV use would be allowed on 5,434 acres. 

Same as Alternative B. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.11 Summary of Impacts - Recreation 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

RECREATION 

OHV restrictions in areas with highdensity cultural sites would be adverse for motorized recreation, but beneficial to non-mechanized recreation. OHV restrictions would beneficially reduce resource use conflicts and improve visitor safety. 

Same as the Proposed RMP Similar impacts as the Proposed RMP Same as the Proposed RMP 

Prescribed burn fuel treatments on 156,425 acres per decade would limit recreation in treatment areas in the short term, but have long-term beneficial impacts on recreation from improved wildlife habitat, increased landscape diversity, and decreased risks of damage to developed recreation sites from wild land fire. 

Same as the Proposed RMP Same as the Proposed RMP Same as the Proposed RMP 

Proposed minerals withdrawals and easements would beneficially increase recreational access and recreational opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized users. Retention of 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in federal ownership and excluding ROWs would have beneficial impacts on non-mechanized recreational opportunities. 

Proposed minerals withdrawals and easements would beneficially increase recreational access and recreational opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized users. 

Beneficial impacts to recreational opportunities from proposed mineral withdrawals. 

Same as the Proposed RMP, except thanon-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be managed under this alternative. 

Potential leasing and minerals development and surface disturbances on approximately 2,143,223 acres would have direct and indirect adverse impacts on recreational opportunities and experiences, except for OHV use that would benefit from additional road construction. Managing 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to mineral leasing would have long-term beneficial impacts on motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities. 

Same as the Proposed RMP, except that 2,320,825acres would be affected by minerals leasing and mining and no management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as Alternative A, except that 2,376,920 acres would be affected by minerals leasing and mining. 

Same as Alternative A, except that 2,116,201 acres would be affected by minerals leasing and mining and no management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Designation of 133,560 acres of SRMAs would have long-term, beneficial impacts on mechanized and non-mechanized recreational opportunities. 

Same as the Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree, from designation of 499,588 acres of SRMAs. 

Same as Alternative D from designation of 86,454acres of SRMAs. 

Same as the Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree, from designation of 522,604 acres of SRMAs. 

Development and/or improvement of 800 miles of motorized trails, development and/or maintenance of 400 miles of mechanized (non-motorized) trails, and increasing the number of cabins would 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP, except tha

800 miles of motorized trails would not bdeveloped (with adverse impacts from limited OHV recreational opportunities, but beneficial to other, non-mechanized 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.11 Summary of Impacts - Recreation 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

RECREATION 

have beneficial impacts on recreation. recreational activities). Designation of 131,697 acres of ACECs would be beneficial to mechanized and non-mechanized recreation opportunities. 

Same as the Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree from designation of 345,850 acres as ACECs. 

Same as the Proposed RMP from designation of 170,886 acres as ACECs. 

Same as the Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree from designation of 681,310 acres as ACECs. 

Management of 106,178 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would provide opportunities for primitive forms of recreation. 

Not managed under this alternative. Not managed under this alternative. Not managed under this alternative. 

6,202 acres would be designated as open to OHV travel, 1,643,475 acres would allow OHV travel on designated routes, 75,845 acres would be closed to OHV travel, and 4,860 miles of designated OHV routes would have long-term beneficial impacts on OHV recreation and long-term beneficial impacts on other forms of recreation by reducing recreation use conflicts. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 5,434 acres would be open to OHV use, 

1,659,901 acres would be designated as limited, 60,187 acres would be closed to OHV use, and 4,860 miles of designated OHV routes would have impacts similar to the Proposed RMP. 

5,434 acres would be open to OHV use, 1,353,529 acres would be designated as limited, 366,559 acres would be closed tOHV use, and 4,707 miles of designated routes would have impacts similar to the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.12 Summary of Impacts – Riparian Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

Prescribed fire allowed on 156,425 acres/decade would result in fewer adverse impacts from wildland fire to riparian resources. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. 

245,607 AUMs allotted with 50% riparian utilization would cause more adverse impacts to riparian resources than Alternative C. 

245,649 AUMs allotted with 50% riparian utilization would cause more adverse 

impacts to riparian resources than Alternative C. 

244,034 AUMs allotted with greater forage utilization (60%) in riparian areas would cause more adverse impacts to riparian resources than Alternative C. 

187,450 AUMs allotted with 50% riparian utilization would have the least adverse impacts to riparian resources. 

Increased public access via easements and acquisitions, and agricultural entry on withdrawn lands would expose riparian areas to adverse impacts from resource degradation. 

Increased public access via easements and acquisitions, and agricultural entry on withdrawn lands would expose riparian 

areas to adverse impacts from resource degradation. 

No easements or acquisitions sought. Agricultural entry on withdrawn lands would expose riparian areas to adverse impacts from resource degradation. 

Similar to Alternative A, though somewhgreater adverse impacts could occur if more easements or acquisitions were sought than under Alternative A. 

Rangeland improvements would treat 34,640 acres, with the least beneficial impacts to riparian resources from improving filtration (reducing sedimentation) and reducing livestock watering within riparian areas. 

Rangeland improvements would treat 34,640 acres, with the least beneficial impacts to riparian resources from improving filtration (reducing sedimentation) and reducing livestock watering within riparian areas. 

Rangeland improvements would treat 50,900 acres, with impacts similar to Alternative A, but would be the most beneficial of all the alternatives. 

Rangeland improvements would treat 45,860 acres, with impacts similar to but less than Alternative B. 

Beneficial impacts from designating SRMAs, managing OHV use. Long-term adverse impacts from trail development. 

Beneficial impacts from designating SRMAs, managing OHV use. Long-term adverse impacts from trail development. 

Similar to Alternative D, but with less beneficial impacts caused by trail development, which would adversely impact riparian areas. 

Similar to Alternative A, but would have the most beneficial impacts on riparian resources. 

Closing obsolete roads and limiting OHV use would have more long-term, direct, beneficial impacts on riparian resources than Alternative D, but less than Alternative C. 

Closing obsolete roads and limiting OHV use would have more long-term, direct, beneficial impacts on riparian resources than Alternative D, but less than Alternative C. 

Management of OHV use would have more beneficial impacts than Alternative D, but less than A and C. 

Closing obsolete roads and placing the most limitations on OHV use would have the most beneficial impacts on riparian resources. 

Limiting surface disturbance on steep slopes would reduce erosion and sedimentation to riparian systems. 

Limiting surface disturbance on steep slopes would reduce erosion and sedimentation to riparian systems. 

Disturbance would not be limited on steep slopes. 

Limiting surface disturbance on steep slopes would reduce erosion and sedimentation to riparian systems. 

Designation of additional special management areas (ACEC and recommended wild and scenic rivers) would limit surface disturbances that lead to erosion and sedimentation and deterioration of riparian zones. 

Designation of additional special management areas (ACEC and recommended wild and scenic rivers) would limit surface disturbances that lead to erosion and sedimentation and deterioration of riparian zones. 

Designation of limited special management areas (ACEC and recommended wild and scenic rivers) would slightly limit surface disturbances that lead to erosion and sedimentation and deterioration of riparian zones. 

Designation of the greatest area of special management areas (ACEC and recommended wild and scenic rivers) would limit surface disturbances that leato erosion and sedimentation and deterioration of riparian zones. 

Protection of 106,178 acres of wilderness characteristics in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would limit surface disturbances that lead to erosion 

Unspecified in the DEIS. Unspecified in the DEIS. Unspecified in the DEIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.12 Summary of Impacts – Riparian Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

and sedimentation in riparian zones. 552,152 acres of woodlands treated or harvested would have long-term adverse impacts caused by soil erosion. 

552,152 acres of woodlands treated or harvested would have long-term adverse impacts caused by soil erosion. 

554,108 acres of woodlands harvested or treated would have impacts similar to Alternative A. 

Same as Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.13 Summary of Impacts – Social and Economic Considerations 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMICS CONSIDERATIONS 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING: Socioeconomic impacts would be identical to current conditions because the amount of AUMs available is identical to Alternative D. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING: Same as Proposed RMP. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING: 7,084 fewer AUMs (5% less) would not alter socioeconomic impacts compared to Alternative D. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING: 68,926 fewer AUMs (47% less) would have negligible impact on socioeconomics given the total average actual use of AUMs has been around 78,500 over the previous 10 years. 

MINERAL DEVELOPMENT:  93,861 jobs over 20 years and 14.8 employees per well. $12.9 billion in development costs $520 million annually in federal royalty revenue. $462.9 million annually in county royalty revenue. $20.4 million estimated annual property tax benefit from oil and gas production 

MINERAL DEVELOPMENT: Same as Proposed RMP 

MINERAL DEVELOPMENT: 94,586 jobs over 20 years. $13.0 billion in development costs. $524.8 million annually in federal royalty revenue. $466.5 million annually in county royalty revenue. $20.5 million estimated annual property tax benefit from oil and gas production 

MINERAL DEVELOPMENT: 92,085 jobs over 20 years. $12.7 billion in development costs. $511.2 million annually in federal royalty revenue. $454.4 million annually in county royalty revenue. $20.0 million estimated annual property tax benefit from oil and gas production 

RECREATION: Long-term, indirect beneficial impacts on communities from development of recreational opportunities, increased tourist spending, and limits on other activities. 

RECREATION: Similar impacts as Alternative A with regard to Backcountry Byways, trails and 

cabins. More potential for visitation and recreation opportunities (and related economic gains) within SRMAs compared to Proposed RMP and Alternative D. 

RECREATION: Similar impacts as Alternative D. Less recreational opportunities than Alternative A, with fewer long-term indirect beneficial impacts from tourism. 

RECREATION: Similar impacts as Alternative A. More potential for visitation and recreational opportunities than Alternative B, but less economic gain than Alternative A. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: Opportunities for adverse socioeconomic impacts resulting from the designation of ACECs is likely to be minor as 83,539 acres would be Closed or designated as NSO. Beneficial impacts of tourism-related revenue as a result of WSA designation would be identical to Alternative D. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: Same as Proposed RMP. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: Opportunities for adverse socioeconomic impacts resulting from ACEC designation would be least under Alternative B, as 23,390 would have major restrictions on oil and gas development. Beneficial impacts of tourism-related revenue as a result of WSA designation would be identical to Alternative D. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: Opportunities for adverse impacts resulting from ACEC designation would be greatest under Alternative C, as 257,006 acres would have major restrictions on oil and gas development. WSR designation of 216 river miles coulhave long-term beneficial impacts on tourism-related revenues. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT: Greatest potential for social and economic benefits to the extent that user conflicts are reduced, and that sufficient opportunities exist for both motorized and non-motorized recreation. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT: Same as Proposed RMP 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT: Social and economic benefits to OHV users and associated businesses higher than under the Proposed Plan, but less than under current conditions. Social and economic benefits to non-motorized recreationists less than under the Proposed Plan, but greater than under current conditions. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT: Potential decrease in OHV visitation with corresponding potential increase in nonmotorized recreation. Adverse economic impacts to businesses focusing on OHV use, but positive economic benefits to businesses focusing on non-motorized recreation. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.13 Summary of Impacts – Social and Economic Considerations 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMICS CONSIDERATIONS 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS: Negligible adverse economic impacts from reduction of oil and gas development on 106,178 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Possible increases in revenues from primitive recreation 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS: No impacts, as no non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS: No impacts, as no non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESCHARACTERISTICS: No impacts, as no non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.14 Summary of Impacts – Soil and Water Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 

Prescribed burning on 156,425 acres/decade would cause short-term erosion on: 20,335 acres of water-erodible soils 123,575 acres of wind-erodible soils, and reclamation difficulty on: 14,078 acres of sodic soils 31,285 acres of saline soils 10,949 acres of gypsic soils 

Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. Same as Proposed RMP. 

50% forage utilization and 245,607 AUMs allocated would moderate adverse impacts on soil and water resources through loss of cover and trampling. 

50% forage utilization and 245,649 AUMs allocated would moderate adverse impacts on soil and water resources through loss of cover and trampling. 

60% forage utilization and 244,034 AUMs allocated would have impacts similar to Alternative A. 

60% forage utilization and 187,450 AUMallocated would have the least adverse impacts on soil and water resources through loss of cover and trampling. 

Increased public access via easements and acquisitions, and agricultural entry on proposed land withdrawals would expose soil and water resources to potential degradation. 

Same as Proposed Plan. No easements or acquisitions would be 

sought. Agricultural entry on withdrawn lands would expose soil and water resources to potential degradation. 

Same as Proposed Plan. 

1,640,381 acres available for oil and gas development under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations, adversely impacting 18,860 acres of soils in the long-term on approximately 3,665 wells. 

1,780,860 acres available for oil and gas development under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations, adversely impacting 18,945 acres of soils in the long-term on approximately 3,688 wells. 

1,819,397 acres available for oil and gas development under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations, adversely impacting 18,757 acres of soils in the long term on approximately 3,712 wells. 

1,627,085 acres available for oil and gas development under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations, adversely impacting 18,757 acres of soilin the long term on approximately 3,637 wells. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.14 Summary of Impacts – Soil and Water Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 

Managing 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with special protections to maintain their wilderness characteristics would result in long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion, sedimentation, and salinity in streams. 

Varying levels of development and surface disturbance within non-WSA lands would have indirect, long-term, adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

34,640 acres of rangeland treatments would beneficially impact vegetation cover, reducing erosion and sedimentation by the least amount. 

Same as Proposed RMP. 50,900 acres of rangeland treatments 

would beneficially impact vegetation cover, reducing erosion and sedimentation by the greatest amount. 

45,860 acres of rangeland treatments would beneficially impact vegetation cover, reducing erosion and sedimentation. 

Designating 3 backcountry byways, 7 SRMAs, 400 miles of non-motorized trails, and 800 miles of motorized trails would likely have adverse impacts from erosion, sedimentation, and soil degradation. Limiting OHV use to trails for game retrieval would beneficially impact soils. 

Designating 3 backcountry byways, 7 SRMAs, 400 miles of non-motorized trails, and 800 miles of motorized trails would likely have adverse impacts from erosion, sedimentation, and soil degradation. Limiting OHV use to trails for game retrieval would beneficially impact soils. 

Designating 3 backcountry byways, 4 SRMAs, and 800 miles of motorized trails would likely have adverse impacts from erosion, sedimentation, and soil degradation. Allowing OHV off trails to retrieve game would be adverse to soils. 

Designating 8 SRMAs, and 400 miles of non-motorized would have adverse impacts caused by erosion, sedimentation, and soil degradation. Limiting OHV use to trails for game retrieval would beneficially impact soils. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.14 Summary of Impacts – Soil and Water Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for slopes 21-40% and greater than 40% would reduce erosion and sedimentation. 

Same as Proposed Plan. Restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities for slopes greater than 20% would reduce erosion and sedimentation, but less than Alternatives A, C, and the Proposed Plan. 

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for slopes 21-40% and greater than 40% would reduce erosion and sedimentation. 

The designation of 131,700 acres as ACECs would result in less surface disturbance but would have the least indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. The designation of 39 BLM shoreline miles as WSRs may increase visitation, but would also prevent surface disturbance in the immediate vicinity and have direct and indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity. 

The designation of 345,400 acres as ACECs would result in less surface disturbance and would have the second greatest indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. The designation of 57 BLM shoreline miles as WSRs may increase visitation, but would also prevent surface disturbance in the immediate vicinity and have direct and indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity. 

The designation of 179,356 acres as ACECs would result in less surface disturbance and would have indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. The designation of 39 BLM shoreline miles as WSRs may increase visitation, but would also prevent surface disturbance in the immediate vicinity and have direct and indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity 

The designation of 681,310 acres as ACECs would result in less surface disturbance and would have the greatesindirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity in the form oreduced soil erosion and sedimentation streams. The designation of 112 BLM shoreline miles as WSRs may increase visitation, but would also prevent surface disturbance in the immediate vicinity and have the greatest direct and indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity. 

OHV USE: 6,202 acres open 1,643,475 acres limited 75,845 acres closed 4,860 miles of designated routes would limit adverse impacts caused by erosion and sedimentation. 

OHV USE: Same as Proposed RMP. 

OHV USE: 5,434 acres open 1,659,901 acres limited 60,187 acres closed 4,861 miles of designated routes would allow more adverse OHV-caused erosion and sedimentation. 

OHV USE: 5,434 acres open 1,353,529 acres limited 366,559 acres closed 4,707 miles of routes designate would allow the least OHV-caused erosion and sedimentation. 

Management of 546,152 acres of forest and woodlands harvested would result in short-term adverse impacts from erosion and sedimentation, but long-term beneficial impacts by reducing wildland fire risks. 

 Management of 552,152 acres of forest and woodlands harvested would result in short-term adverse impacts from erosion and sedimentation, but long-term beneficial impacts by reducing wildland fire risks. 

Management of 554,108 acres of forest and woodlands harvested would result in short-term adverse impacts from erosion and sedimentation, but long-term beneficial impacts by reducing wildland fire risks. 

Same as Alternative A. 

289,687 acres as VRM Class I and II would result in less development and surface disturbance and, thus, in fewer indirect, long-term adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. 

357,909 acres as VRM Class I and II would result in less development and surface disturbance and, thus, in fewer indirect, long-term adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. 

166,794 acres as VRM Class I and II would result in the lowest limitations of development and surface disturbance and, thus, would result in fewer indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity 

508,441 acres as VRM Class I and II would result in the second least amount of development and surface disturbance and, thus, in fewer indirect, long-term adverse impacts to water quality and soiproductivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.15 Summary of Impacts – Special Designations 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Management of 131,700 acres of ACECs, 53,058 acres of WSAs, and 52 miles of wild and scenic rivers would result in the least benefit to special area values including rangeland, fire, soil, watershed, vegetation, riparian, woodland, and wildlife resources, and recreation uses. 

Management of 345,850 acres of ACECs, 53,058 acres of WSAs, and 86 miles of wild and scenic rivers would result in the third highest benefit to special area values including rangeland, fire, soil, watershed, vegetation, riparian, woodland, and wildlife resources, and recreation uses. 

Management of 179,356 acres of ACECs, 53,058 acres of WSAs, and 52 miles of wild and scenic rivers would result in the fourth highest benefit to special area values including rangeland, fire, soil, watershed, vegetation, riparian, woodland, and wildlife resources and recreation uses. 

Management of 681,310 acres of ACECs53,058 acres of WSAs, and 216 miles of wild and scenic rivers would result in the highest benefit to special area values including rangeland, fire, soil, watershedvegetation, riparian, woodland, and wildlife resources, and recreation uses. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.16 Summary of Impacts – Special Status Species 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

156,425 acres/decade of prescribed fire would help beneficially restore habitat health over the long term, though individual displacement and loss of habitat would be adverse in the short term. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

22,814 acres of mineral withdrawals would preclude mineral entry, providing beneficial protection of special status species. 

Same as the Proposed RMP Same as the Proposed RMP. 36,265 acres of mineral withdrawals 

would preclude mineral entry, providing beneficial protection of special status species. 

1,640,381 acres associated with mineral development under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations would have impacts similar to Alternative D, but to a greater degree. 

1,780,860 acres associated with mineral development under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations would have impacts similar to Alternative D, but to a greater degree. 

1,819,397 acres associated with mineral development under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations would have impacts similar to Alternative D, but to the highest degree of all the alternatives. 

1,627,085 acres associated with mineral development under standard and controlled use leasing stipulations would have impacts similar to Alternative D, buto a slightly higher degree. 

34,640 acres of rangeland improvements (vegetation treatments) would benefit special status species where additional water sources were established and habitat were restored, though improvements could have adverse impacts if livestock move into areas that have received little grazing in the past. 

Same as the Proposed RMP 50,900 acres of rangeland improvements 

would have impacts similar to the Proposed RMP but to a greater extent. 

45,860 acres of rangeland improvements would have impacts similar to the Proposed RMP but to a greater extent. 

Establishment of 3 backcountry byways, 7 SRMAs (133,560 total acres), 400 miles of non-motorized and 800 miles of motorized trails would expose areas that may have special status species, causing displacement, disturbance, and/or harm. 

Establishment of 3 backcountry byways, 7 SRMAs (499,588 total acres), 400 miles of non-motorized and 800 miles of motorized trails would expose areas that may have special status species, causing displacement, disturbance, and/or harm. 

Establishment of 3 backcountry byways, 4 SRMAs (86,454 total acres), and 800 miles of motorized trails would expose areas that may have special status species, causing displacement, disturbance, and/or harm. 

Establishment of 8 SRMAs (522,604 totaacres), and 400 miles of non-motorized trails would expose areas that may have special status species, causing displacement, disturbance, and/or harm. 

OHV travel limited to designated routes or closed except for managed open areas. 6,202 acres open to OHV travel; 1,643,475 acres limited to OHV travel; 

Same as the Proposed RMP OHV travel limited to designated routes or 

closed except for managed open areas. 5,434 acres open to OHV travel; 1,659,901 acres limited to OHV travel; 

OHV travel limited to designated routes oclosed except for managed open areas. 5,434 acres open to OHV travel; 1,353,529 acres limited to OHV travel; 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.16 Summary of Impacts – Special Status Species 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

75,845 acres closed to OHV travel. The increase in recreation management and decrease in acres open to OHV travel would result in fewer impacts to special status species than Alternative D. 

60,187 acres closed to OHV travel. The increase in recreation management and decrease in acres open to OHV travel would result in fewer impacts to special status species than Alternative D. 

366,559 acres closed to OHV travel. The increase in recreation management and decrease in acres open to OHV travel would result in fewer impacts to special status species than Alternative D. 

Riparian habitat would be utilized to 30% of vegetation, which would indirectly reduce erosion of stream banks and sedimentation of stream habitat. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Riparian habitat would be utilized to 50% 

during the growing season and 60% during the dormant season to maintain vegetation, which would indirectly reduce erosion of stream banks and sedimentation of stream habitat, but less than the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

131,700 acres of ACEC designation, 53,058 acres of WSAs, and 65 miles of W&SR recommended designations would help maintain habitat for special status species. 

345,850 acres of ACEC designation, 53,058 acres of WSAs, and 96 miles of W&SR recommended designations would help maintain habitat for special status species. 

179,356 acres of ACEC designation, 53,058 acres of WSAs, and 52 miles of W&SR recommended designations would help maintain habitat for special status species. 

681,310 acres of ACEC designation, 53,058 acres of WSAs, and 216 miles of W&SR recommended designations wouhelp maintain habitat for special status species. 

Beneficial seasonal and spatial buffers would be created for raptor species under guidance of Best Management Practices as described in “Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah” (Utah BLM, 2006, Appendix A). Implementation of Sage-grouse protection measures—no surface-disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of active leks year round, no surface-disturbing activities within 2 miles of active leks March 1 through June 15—would have beneficial impacts on this species. 

Raptors would be managed using Best Management Practices including implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers comparable to the USFWS’s Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and Land Use Disturbances, with modifications allowed as long as protection of nests is ensured. Implementation of Sage-grouse protection measures—avoid human disturbance within 0.6 miles of leks from March 1 through May 31 from 1 hour before sunrise to 3 hours after sunrise and construction of routes, fences, poles, and utility lines would be avoided within 1,300 feet of a lek. 

Raptors managed at less restrictive levels than the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. Sage-grouse management similar to Alternative A, but less protective due to allowances for certain developments within 1,300 feet of a lek. 

USFWS seasonal and spatial buffers would be implemented for raptor speciesSage-grouse protection measures would be the same as the Proposed RMP. 

Colorado River cutthroat trout would be beneficially reintroduced into 9 streams and their tributaries. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Management of 546,152 acres of forest and woodlands would have treatments or be harvested resulting in short-term adverse impacts related to the removal of vegetation and other surface disturbance but with beneficial impacts in the longterm as habitat for special status species 

Impacts similar to the Proposed RMP for management of 552,152 acres of forest and woodlands. 

Impacts similar to the Proposed RMP for management of 554,108 acres of forest and woodlands. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.16 Summary of Impacts – Special Status Species 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

is restored. Management of 106,178 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics to protect their wilderness characteristics would limit surface disturbances, providing protection of special status species and their habitat. 

No specific actions are specifically prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.17 Summary of Impacts - Vegetation 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

VEGETATION 

156,425 acres of fire treatments/decade would produce beneficial improvements in the long-term in the health, biomass, age class, and diversity of forage. 

Same as the Proposed RMP Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

245,607 AUMs allotted could result in short-term impacts that include loss of vegetative cover and biomass, and trampling, with long-term impacts such as reductions in plant productivity and regenerative ability, and increases in weeds; though 50% upland vegetation utilization by livestock, and 30% riparian vegetation utilization would set limits on grazing impacts. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that 245,649 AUMs would be allotted for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses. 

244,034 AUMs allotted could result in impacts similar to the Proposed RMP; though 60% upland vegetation utilization by livestock and 50% riparian vegetation utilization would set limits on grazing impacts. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that 187,450 AUMs would be allotted for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses. 

Increased public access via easements and acquisitions, and agricultural entry on withdrawn lands would expose vegetation resources to potential degradation. 22,814 acres of locatable mineral withdrawals would result in protection from surface disturbance due to locatable minerals activities on these lands. 

Same as the Proposed RMP No easements or acquisitions sought 

except across Indian trust lands in Bitter Creek. Agricultural entry on withdrawn lands would expose vegetation resources to potential degradation. 22,814 acres of locatable mineral withdrawals would result in protection from surface disturbance due to locatable minerals activities on these lands. 

Similar to the Proposed RMP, though somewhat greater impacts may occur if more easements/acquisitions are sought than those under the Proposed RMP. 36,265 acres of locatable mineral withdrawals would result in protection from surface disturbance due to locatablminerals activities on these lands. 

18,860 acres of surface disturbance associated with mineral development would have adverse impacts to vegetation resources including direct loss of vegetation and increased risk of noxious weed invasion. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except on 18,971 acres. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except on 19,033 acres. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except on 18,757 acres. 

34,640 acres of vegetation treatments would disrupt vegetation communities in the short-term but, in the long-term, would help restore natural vegetation communities, eliminate weeds, and control livestock movement (through fencing). Guzzlers/ reservoirs (812) would result in the direct removal of vegetation in the locations where these rangeland improvements are installed. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP except that 

50,900 acres would receive vegetation treatments and 1,165 guzzlers/reservoirs would be installed. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that 45,860 acres would receive vegetation treatments and 811 guzzlers/reservoirs would be installed. 

Establishment of 3 backcountry byways, 7 SRMAs (133,560 total acres), 400 miles of non-motorized and 800 miles of motorized trails would adversely expose areas to trampling and weed introduction. 

Establishment of 3 backcountry byways, 7SRMAs (499,588 total acres), 400 miles of non-motorized and 800 miles of motorized trails would adversely expose areas to trampling and weed introduction. 

Establishment of 3 backcountry byways, 4 SRMAs (86,454 total acres), and 800 miles of motorized trails would adversely expose areas to trampling and weed introduction. 

Establishment of 8 SRMAs (522,604 totaacres), and 400 miles of non-motorized trails would adversely expose areas to trampling and weed introduction. 

Erosion control on slopes greater than Same as the Proposed RMP. Erosion control on slopes greater than Erosion control on slopes greater than 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.17 Summary of Impacts - Vegetation 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

VEGETATION 

20% and surface disturbance restrictions on slopes greater than 40% would have beneficial impacts that ensure adequate substrate exists for continued plant growth. 

20% would have beneficial impacts that ensure adequate substrate exists for continued plant growth, but less beneficial than the Proposed RMP and Alternatives C and E. 

20% and no surface disturbance on slopes greater than 40% would have beneficial impacts that ensure adequate substrate exists for continued plant growth. 

131,700 acres of ACEC designation, 53,058 acres of WSAs, and 72 miles of W&SR recommended designations would benefit vegetation resources by reducing surface disturbance in these areas. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that there would be 345,850 acres of ACEC designation and 96 miles of W&SR recommended designation. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that there would be 179,356 acres of ACEC designation, and 65 miles of W&SR recommended designations. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that there would be 681,310 acres of ACEC designation, and 216 miles of W&SR recommended designations. 

75,845 acres would be closed to OHV travel, which would reduce damage to and loss of vegetation, and the spread of weeds. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP except that 

60,187 acres would be closed to OHV travel. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that 366,559 acres would be closed to OHV travel. 

Management of 106,178 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics to protect their wilderness characteristics would limit surface disturbances, providing protection of vegetation communities in these areas. 

No specific actions are specifically prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.18 Summary of Impacts – Visual Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

156,425 acres of fire treatments/decade would have short-term impacts that affect color, line, form, and texture of the treated area; long-term benefits to visual resources would include lower frequency, size, and smoke generation of unmanaged wildland fires, and enhance scenic quality through greater variety of vegetation. 

Same impacts as the Proposed RMP. Same impacts as the Proposed RMP. Same impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

22,814 acres of locatable mineral withdrawals, and ROW exclusion and prohibitions on oil and gas leasing within the 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have protection-related, beneficial impacts on scenic quality. 

22,814 acres of locatable mineral withdrawals would have beneficial, longterm, protection-related impacts on scenic 

quality. 

Same as Alternative A. Same impacts as the Proposed RMP, 

except 36,265 acres would be protected under mineral withdrawals. 

2,143,223 acres available for minerals surface disturbances would have adverse impacts to visual resources. 

2,320,825 acres available for minerals leasing surface disturbances would have similar impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

2,376,920 acres available for minerals leasing surface disturbances would have similar impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same impacts as the Proposed RMP, buon 2,116,201 acres available for mineralsurface disturbances. 

Designation of 133,560 acres as SRMAs would have short-term and long-term beneficial impacts on visual resources by limiting surface-disturbing activities to ensure recreational opportunities. The mitigation of light pollution adjacent to Dinosaur NM would also be beneficial in the long term. 

Same impacts as the Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree, from designation of 499,620 acres as SRMAs and from light pollution mitigation. 

Same impacts as the Proposed RMP, but to a lesser degree, from designation of 86,454 acres as SRMAs and from light pollution mitigation. 

Same impacts as the Proposed RMP, buto a greater degree, from designation of 522,604 acres as SRMAs and from light pollution mitigation. 

Development/improvement of 800 miles of motorized trails would produce fugitive dust, erosional impacts, and surfacedisturbing contrasts that would be directly adverse to visual quality. Closing or limiting OHV travel on 1,719,320 acres would benefit scenic quality by limiting surface disturbances. 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP. Same impacts as Proposed RMP on 

1,720,088 closed or with limits on OHV travel. 

No motorized trails would be establishedClosing or limiting OHV travel on 1,720,088 acres would benefit visual quality. 

Designating 131,700 acres as ACECs would benefit visual resources through VRM management implementation and restricting surface disturbances. 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree from designation of 345,850 acres as ACECs. 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP from designation of 179,356 acres as ACECs. 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP, but to greater degree, from designation of 681,310 acres as ACECs. 

Management of 133,560 acres of SMRAs would have beneficial, short-term and long-term impacts on scenic quality by protecting these areas from surface disturbances. 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree from designation of 499,588 acres as SRMAs. 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP from designation of 86,454 acres as SRMAs. 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP, but to greater degree from designation of 522,604 acres as SRMAs. 

Managing 289,687 acres under VRM Class I and Class II objectives would 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP, except to a greater degree by managing 357,909 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP, but to a lesser degree, by managing 167,088 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP, excepto a substantially greater degree, by 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 2.2.18 Summary of Impacts – Visual Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

benefit scenic resources in the long term. acres under VRM Class I and II 

objectives. 

acres under VRM Class I and II objectives. 

managing 508,441 acres under VRM Class I and II objectives. 

546,152 acres of woodlands and forests would have treatments or be harvested; short-term impacts would be degradation of line, color, and texture contrasts created from woodland treatments, harvesting and salvage, and OHV surface disturbances in areas visible to the public; long-term impacts would include reducing the potential for wildland fires and creation of scenic variety through a mosaic of vegetation types. 

Same impacts as the Proposed RMP, but on 552,152 acres. 

Same impacts as the Proposed RMP, but on 544,108 acres. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Management of 106,178 acres under VRM Class II objectives within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have long-term, beneficial impacts on scenic quality. 

No management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

No management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

No management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.19 Summary of Impacts – Wild Horses 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

WILD HORSES 

No impacts to wild horses from fire treatments, as all horses would be removed from the VPA. 

Prescribed burning on 156,425 acres/decade would have short term, adverse impacts on forage and on access of horses to burned areas. Long term, beneficial impacts from improved forage resulting from vegetation treatments. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as Alternative A. 

All horses would be removed from VPA in the long term. Short-term, beneficial impacts from allocation of 2,340 AUMs allocated to wild horses because forage would be available until final gathering and removal. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from allocation of 2,940 AUMs in Winter Ridge HA and Hill Creek HMA to ensure sustainability and health of these herds. 

0 AUMs allocated to wild horses (horses would be removed from the VPA), with short-term, adverse impacts from lack of forage allocation until gathering and removal of wild horses. 

A total of 3,960 AUMs allocated to wild horses in Bonanza HMA, Winter Ridge HA, and Hill Creek HMA would have short-term and long-term, beneficial impacts on horses by providing for health and sustainability of these herds. Longterm adverse impacts from reduction of forage allocation if conflicts are identified between horse and wildlife. 

No impacts to wild horses from minerals decisions since they would be removed. 

Surface-disturbing mineral leasing within 89% of HMAs and HA (240,247 acres) would have adverse impacts to horse habitat by directly reducing forage productivity. Indirect, adverse impacts would be likely from human-caused harassment (noise, motion, lights, and human presence). 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same impacts as Alternative A, except 

that 79% of HMA and HA (213,908 acreswould be available for surface-disturbing mineral leasing 

Long-term, adverse impacts to wild horses from removal of all horses from the VPA 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from reestablishment of Winter Ridge herd and maintenance of Hill Creek herd. 

Same as Proposed RMP. Long-term, beneficial impacts to wild 

horses from re-establishment of a herd in the Bonanza HMA, with a minimum herd size of 40 horses; 50 horses minimum in the Winter Ridge HMA, and a Hill Creek HMA herd with a minimum herd size of 70 individuals. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.20 Summary of Impacts – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES 

Restrictions on OHV travel to designated routes and on oil and gas development (open subject to timing and controlled surface use or no surface occupancy) in areas with high cultural resource site density would beneficially preserve habitat for wildlife. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except in the Little/Devils Hole areas where only OHV travel limited to designated routes would be in place. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except in the Little/Devils Hole areas (same as Alternative A) and in the Four Mile Wash area which would include the OHV restrictions but allow oil and gas development subject to standard stipulations. 

High cultural site density areas would be closed to OHV travel and oil and gas development except in the Upper Willow Creek area of the Book Cliffs, which would be the same as the Proposed RMP. 

154,900 acres of fire treatments/decade would produce beneficial improvements in the health, biomass, age class, and diversity of forage for wildlife resources. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

104,865 AUMs allocated to wildlife and 2,340 AUMs (temporarily) allocated to wild horses would have more beneficial impacts for wildlife than Alternative D by providing more forage for wildlife. 

104,871 AUMs allocated to wildlife and 2,940 AUMs allocated to wild horses would have more beneficial impacts for wildlife than Alternative D by providing more forage for wildlife. 

104,871 AUMs allocated to wildlife would have impacts similar to the Proposed RMP by providing forage for wildlife. 

106,196 AUMs allocated to wildlife and 3,960 AMUs allocated to wild horses would have impacts similar to the Proposed RMP by providing forage for wildlife. 

Limiting upland vegetation utilization by livestock to 50%, and 30% riparian vegetation utilization would beneficially improve habitat for wildlife resources. 

Same as the Proposed RMP Limiting upland vegetation utilization by 

livestock to 60%, and 50% riparian vegetation utilization would benefit wildlife habitat, but less than The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Precluding mineral entry on withdrawn lands (22,814 acres) would have longterm beneficial impacts on habitat by protecting them from minerals surface disturbances. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP except that 

36,265 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

Construction activities associated with mineral development would cause reduction in the AUMs available to wildlife, loss of wildlife and fisheries habitats, and disruption and/or alteration of seasonal migration routes due to the additional construction facilities; indirect impacts include habitat fragmentation and changes in behavior, distribution, activity, and energy expenditure that are caused by human disturbance. Total area open to oil and gas development, mineral material disposal, and phosphate and gilsonite development would be 1,640,381 acres, 389,788 acres, 76,208 acres, and 172 miles, respectively. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that total area open to oil and gas development, mineral material disposal, and phosphate and gilsonite development would be 1,780,860 acres, 415,395 acres, 87,724 acres, and 172 miles, respectively. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that total area open to oil and gas development, mineral material disposal, and phosphate and gilsonite development would be 1,819,397 acres, 432,953 acres, 87,724 acres, and 172 miles, respectively. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that total area open to oil and gas development, mineral material disposal, and phosphate and gilsonite developmewould be 1,627,085 acres, 388,699 acres, 63,571 acres, and 172 miles, respectively. 

Rangeland improvements—34,640 acres of vegetation treatments, 69 miles of fencing, 812 guzzlers/reservoirs, 38 miles of pipeline, and 51 wells/springs–would have long-term beneficial impacts to 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP except that 

rangeland improvements would consist of 50,900 acres of vegetation treatments, 369 miles of fencing, 1,165 guzzlers/reservoirs, 51 miles of pipeline, 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that rangeland improvements would consist o45,860 acres of vegetation treatments, 129 miles of fencing, 811 guzzlers/reservoirs, 30 miles of pipeline, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.20 Summary of Impacts – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES 

wildlife habitat by improving existing habitat and providing water during highstress drought periods. 

and 78 wells/springs. and 87 wells/springs. 

Establishment of 3 backcountry byways and 7 SRMAs (133,560 total acres),would have long-term beneficial impacts on wildlife and fisheries by limiting surfacedisturbing activities; adverse impacts would be produced by increased visitor use and recreational activities. 

Establishment of 3 backcountry byways and 7 SRMAs (499,588 total acres) would have similar impacts to the Proposed RMP. 

Establishment of 3 backcountry byways and 4 SRMAs (86,454 total acres), would have similar impacts to the Proposed RMP. 

Establishment of 8 SRMAs (522,604 totaacres) would have similar impacts to the Proposed RMP. 

Stream habitat improvements, enhancements, and/or maintenance for Colorado River cutthroat trout on 9 streams would help reduce erosion and sedimentation, which would have direct beneficial impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources. Other measures to protect, enhance, or provide habitat for special status species would also have direct beneficial impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Wildlife management actions would have beneficial impacts by providing habitat and forage for wildlife, expanding wildlife reintroduction efforts, and protecting crucial winter ranges. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that there would be more protective measures provided for crucial winter ranges and BLM would provide habitat and forage for the emigration and/or reintroduction of bison in the Southern Book Cliffs. 

Same as the Proposed RMP, but with fewer beneficial impacts related to offering less protection for crucial winter ranges. Also, reintroductions of moose and bison would not be supported. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that there would be more protective measureprovided for crucial winter ranges and BLM would provide for the emigration and/or reintroduction of bison in the Southern Book Cliffs. This alternative would be more beneficial to wildlife and fisheries than the Proposed RMP and althe other alternatives. 

75,845 acres would be closed to OHV travel, which would have beneficial impacts by providing additional wildlife habitat protection from surface disturbances, noise, and human harassment. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP except that 

60,187 acres would be closed to OHV travel. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that 366,559 acres would be closed to OHV travel. 

546,152 acres of forest and woodlands harvested or treated would have longterm beneficial impacts to wildlife and fisheries by reducing fuel loading and the risks of wildland fire, and improving biggame habitat. Short-term impacts would include temporary loss of forage and cover. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that 552,152 acres of forest and woodland would have treatments or be harvested. 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that 554,108 acres of forest and woodland would have treatments or be harvested. 

Same as Alternative A. 

131,700 acres of ACEC designation, 53,058 acres of WSAs, and 72 miles of W&SR recommended designations would 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that there would be 345,850 acres of ACEC designation and 96 miles of W&SR 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that there would be 179,356 acres of ACEC designation, and 65 miles of W&SR 

Same as the Proposed RMP except that there would be 681,310acres of ACEC designation, and 216 miles of W&SR 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.20 Summary of Impacts – Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES 

benefit wildlife resources by reducing surface disturbance in these areas. 

recommended designation. recommended designations. recommended designations. 

Management of 106,178 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics to protect their wilderness characteristics would limit surface disturbances, providing protection of wildlife habitat in these areas. 

No specific actions are specifically prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.21 Summary of Impacts – Woodlands and Forest Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

WOODLANDS AND FOREST RESOURCES 

156,425 acres of fire treatments/decade would produce long-term, beneficial improvements in the health, biomass, age class, and diversity of woodlands and forest. Treatments would also reduce the long-term risks of stand-altering wildland fire. Short-term, adverse impacts would result from increased potential for soil erosion and soil loss on steep slopes. 

Same as Proposed RMP Same as Proposed RMP Same as Proposed RMP 

Impacts to 18,860 acres from mineral leasing surface disturbances would have potentially long-term, adverse impacts on woodlands and forest from loss of productivity and harvesting opportunities in disturbed areas. 

Same as Proposed RMP, but impacts would be on 18,971 acres. 

Same as Proposed RMP, but impacts would be on 19,033 acres. 

Same as Proposed RMP, but impacts would be on 18,757 acres. 

133,560 acres of area designated as SRMAs would have long-term beneficial impacts to woodlands and forest by restricting OHV use to designated routes and managing woodland harvesting. 

Same types of impacts as the Proposed RMP, but more beneficial through designation of 499,5880 acres as SRMAs 

Designation of 86,454 acres of SRMAs would result in the same types of impacts as the Proposed RMP, but to the lowest degree of long-term beneficial impacts to woodlands and forest of the action alternatives. 

Designation of 522,604 acres as SRMAs would have the same types of impacts athe Proposed RMP, but the most longterm beneficial impacts to woodlands anforest of the action alternatives. 

Managing browse in riparian areas would protect riparian woodland species in the short term and long term. Soils/water resource decisions to protect slopes would have short-term and long term, beneficial impacts on woodlands. 

Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. Same as the Proposed RMP. 

Designating 131,700 acres as ACECs would have long-term, beneficial, indirect impacts to woodlands and forest resources by protecting scenery, habitat, and cultural values in these areas. Protection of Upper and Lower Green River segments would benefit riparian woodland species. 

Designation of 345,850 acres as ACECs would have same impacts as the Proposed RMP, but increased in scope. The impacts would be the same as the Proposed RMP along designated river segments. 

Designation of 179,356 acres as ACECs would have same impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Designation of 681,310 acres as ACECs and protection of upper and lower Green River segments, segments along the White River, and tributaries would have long-term, beneficial impacts on upland and riparian woodland species. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 2.2.21 Summary of Impacts – Woodlands and Forest Resources 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

WOODLANDS AND FOREST RESOURCES 

Travel decisions to develop and manage up to 800 miles of motorized trails and 400 miles of non-motorized trails would have adverse impacts from surface disturbance, but would be beneficial by increasing opportunities for woodland harvesting opportunities. Developing 400 miles of trails along the Green River would jeopardize relict stands of riparian woodlands. 

Same impacts as the Proposed RMP. Same impacts as the Proposed RMP. 400 miles of non-motorized trails would 

have adverse impacts on riparian and relict woodlands. 

546,152 acres managed through treatment or be available for woodland harvest would have beneficial impacts to woodlands by either reducing fuel loading and/or providing opportunities for harvesting. 

552,152 acres managed for treatments and/or harvesting, with the same impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

554,108 acres managed for treatment and/or harvesting, with same impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same impacts as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.1. Introduction

Vernal RMP 3-1

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The Affected Environment chapter describes the present condition of the physical, biological, 

social, and economic environment within the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Vernal 

Planning Area (VPA) prior to the initiation of the Proposed RMP or any alternative. This chapter 

is organized by existing natural resources and describes the present uses of these resources, fire 

management, special land designations, and the present socioeconomic conditions. This 

information provides the basis for evaluating potential changes in the environment due to 

implementation of the Proposed RMP or any alternative. 

3.1.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The vast area of the VPA covered by this Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision is located 

in northeastern Utah and includes the Uinta Basin, the East and West Tavaputs Plateaus, the 

Eastern Uinta Mountains, the Book Cliffs, Diamond Mountain, Nine Mile Canyon, and Browns 

Park. The area is bounded on the west by the Wasatch Mountains and on the east by the Douglas 

Creek Arch in Colorado. The Wyoming/Utah state line forms the northern boundary of the VPA, 

and the Tavaputs Plateau and the Book Cliffs form the southern boundary. 

3.1.2 RESOURCE SETTING

Within the VPA, public lands administered by the BLM encompass 1,725,512 acres 

(approximately 30%) of the land area. Most of the land that the BLM manages is in the eastern 

and southern portions of the VPA and is generally characterized by habitats associated with the 

Colorado Plateau. Other government agencies that manage land in the area include the U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS), U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and Utah School and Institutional 

Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). Additional lands are held in private ownership or are 

located within the boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. 

The lands of the VPA are characterized by a variety of valuable natural resources, including oil, 

natural gas, minerals, livestock forage, and unique vistas and land formations that draw both 

developers and visitors to the area. These user groups place demands on the resources under the 

jurisdiction of the BLM that either directly or indirectly affect the management of associated 

resources. 

3.2 AIR QUALITY

Air quality within the VPA and its surrounding airshed has the potential to be affected by such 

activities as emissions from the construction and operation of oil and gas facilities, access roads, 

and other elements of management activities. This section describes the existing air quality 

resource of the VPA and the applicable air regulations that would apply to the alternatives.
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 3-2

3.2.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

The climate in the VPA is characterized as arid, with cold winters and hot summers. Annual 

precipitation (rainfall and snowfall) in the VPA ranges from 8 to 35 inches and is dependent 

largely on elevation and aspect. Temperature inversions, where air temperatures near the ground 

are colder than the temperatures above, are common in the basins and other lower elevational 

areas of the VPA. Inversions commonly occur in winter when snow accumulation on the ground 

combines with short daylight hours. In summer, inversions dissipate rapidly when early morning 

sunlight warms the air near the ground surface. Inversions can hinder air pollutant dispersion by 

preventing emissions from mixing with the ambient air in the vertical direction. On average, 

mean morning mixing heights in the area are approximately 1,000 feet; mean afternoon mixing 

heights are more than 7,800 feet (Holzworth 1972). Mean morning mixing heights tend to be 

lowest in summer and fall, and highest in winter. 

Air pollutant dispersion in the VPA is also dependent on wind direction and speed. Wind 

information available from the Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC) and the BLM as part 

of their remote automated weather stations (RAWS) project (http://raws.dri.edu/) for 1996 show 

that although wind direction is highly influenced by the local terrain, the wind direction in the 

northern portion of the VPA tends to be northwesterly, i.e. blowing from the northwest to the 

southeast (Kings Point – Dutch John RAWS station). The wind direction in the western and 

southern portions of the VPA tends to be southwesterly, i.e., blowing from the southwest to the 

northeast (Five Mile - Duchesne and Winter Ridge RAWS stations, respectively). Figure 3.2.1 

presents representative windroses for these locations in the VPA. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 3-3

Figure 3.2.1. Representative windroses for the VPA (RAWS data, 1996). 

3.2.2 BASELINE AIR QUALITY

The VPA is located in a region designated as unclassifiable for PM10 and 

unclassifiable/attainment for all other airborne pollutants [See 40 CFR Part 81] (L. Svoboda, 

EPA Region VIII, 2005). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 3-4

3.2.3 REGULATORY SETTING

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegates the authority to manage air 

resources to the state when a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is approved and implemented. The 

UDEQ currently has approved SIPs for air quality programs under its jurisdiction, and the EPA 

has delegated authority for all air quality issues in the State of Utah, excluding Uintah and Ouray 

Indian Reservation lands. The air quality in Utah is currently regulated by the Utah Division of 

Air Quality (UDAQ). All stationary sources of air pollution are subject to the air quality 

regulations and standards under the UDEQ administration. 

A portion of the VPA is located within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. The UDEQ 

does not have authority to administer air quality programs on Uintah and Ouray Indian 

Reservation lands. Sources located within Native American Indian Territory are not regulated by 

any SIP approved programs; and they are subject only to the federal air quality programs under 

the authority of EPA Region 8. 

The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) amendments of the 1990s require all states to control air 

pollution emission sources so that national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are met and 

maintained. 

In addition to these requirements, the National Park Service (NPS) Organic Act requires the NPS 

to protect the natural resources of the lands it manages from the adverse effects of air pollution. 

In 1978, the US Forest Service (USFS) Air Monitoring Program was established to protect all 

USFS managed lands from the adverse effects of air pollution. In 1988, the USFS became a 

primary participant in the national visibility monitoring program titled Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE). Starting with the enactment of the Regional Haze 

Rule, the USFS has provided regional haze monitoring representing all visibility-protected 

federal VRM Class I areas where practical. 

Air quality in a given location is defined by pollutant concentrations in the atmosphere and is 

generally expressed in units of parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

). 

One measure of a pollutant is its concentration in comparison to a national and/or state ambient 

air quality standard. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Utah Air 

Quality Standards are health-based criteria for the maximum acceptable concentrations of air 

pollutants (with a margin of safety) at all locations to which the public has access. The NAAQS 

are established by the EPA and are outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CRF 50). An 

area that does not meet the NAAQS is designated as a nonattainment area on a pollutant-bypollutant basis. The State of Utah has adopted the NAAQS as state air quality standards. In 2004, 

the EPA passed a suite of actions called the Clean Air Rules of 2004 aimed at improving 

America's air quality. Two of the rules, the Nonroad Diesel Rule and the Ozone Rules, will 

potentially improve the future air quality of the VPA. 

3.2.4 REGIONAL AIR EMISSIONS

The VPA covers Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties and part of Grand County. Currently, 

emission sources within the VPA consist of mostly oil and gas development facilities and mining 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 3-5

sites. There are also fugitive dust sources associated with these sites, construction activities and 

roadways. A detailed listing of emission sources in and around the VPA, along with information 

on how specific sources were addressed in the air quality modeling, is available the TSD (Trinity 

and Nicholls, 2006, tabular source information is found in Appendix C). 

3.2.4.1 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS) AND CRITERIA

The significant criteria for potential air quality impacts include NAAQS requirements for CO, 

PM10, PM2.5, SO2, O3, and NO2/NOx. Applicable federal and state criteria are presented in Table 

3.2.1. 

Table 3.2.1. Applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging 

Period 

National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

(μg/m3

) 

State Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

(μg/m3) 

CO 1-Hour a 40,000 μg/m3

 8-Hour a 10,000 μg/m3

PM10 24-Hour a 150 μg/m3

PM2.5 24-Hour c 35 μg/m3

 Annual b 15 μg/m3

SO2 3-Hour a 1,300 μg/m3 700 μg/m3 d

 24-Hour a 365 μg/m3 260 μg/m3 e

 Annual b 80 μg/m3 60 μg/m3 e

O3 8-Hour 0.075 ppm

NO2 Annual b 100 μg/m3

a

 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 

b

 The 3-year average of the weighted annual mean. PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple 

community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 ug/m3

. 

c

 The 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations must not exceed 35 μg/m3 

d

 Colorado standard, more stringent than the NAAQS. 

e

 Wyoming standard, more stringent than the NAAQS. 

3.2.4.2 CRITERIA FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) 

The applicable air quality criteria also include the PSD increments, which limit the incremental 

increase of PM10, SO2 and NO2 above the legally defined baseline levels. A PSD Increment is the 

maximum increase in ambient concentrations that is allowed to occur above a baseline 

concentration for a pollutant. The increments are evaluated for both the Class I and Class II 

areas. PSD Increments have not yet been established for PM2.5 and are not addressed in 

increments analysis. 

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Utah Air Quality Standards are 

health-based criteria for the maximum acceptable concentrations of air pollutants at tall locations 

to which the public has access. All NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD Class I and II 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 3-6

increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern for potential impacts, and do not 

represent a regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. The determination of PSD 

increment consumption is a regulatory agency responsibility conducted as part of the New 

Source Review process, which also includes a Federal Land Management Agency's evaluation of 

potential impacts to Air Quality Related Values (AQRV) such as visibility, aquatic ecosystems, 

flora, fauna, etc. 

Although the EPA has revised the PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in effective 

diameter) Ambient Air Quality Standard, this revised limit will not be enforceable until formally 

approved. However, due to public concern and possible impacts on human health and visibility, 

PM2.5 is being considered in this analysis. Current NAAQS and Utah Air Quality Standards, and 

PSD Class I and II increments are discussed below. The increment standards addressed in this 

study are listed in Table 3.2.2. 

Table 3.2.2. Increment Standards for Class I and Class II Areas 

Pollutant Averaging Period Class I Increment 

(μg/m3

) 

Class II Increment 

(μg/m3) 

24-Hour 8 30 PM10

Annual 4 17 

3-Hour 25 512 

SO2 24-Hour 5 91 

Annual 2 20 

NO2 Annual 2.5 25 

The PSD Class I Areas included in the analysis are listed in Table 3.2.3. Limitations on the 

additional amount of air pollution allowed in these areas from major emitting facilities are strict. 

The remainder of the project area is classified a PSD Class II, where similar but less stringent 

incremental pollution limits apply. These increments are shown in Table 3.2.2. 

Potential air quality impacts from the Proposed RMP and Alternatives are analyzed and reported 

in Chapter 4. However, the analysis is prepared solely under the requirements of NEPA, in order 

to assess and disclose "reasonably foreseeable" impacts to both the public and the Bureau 

decision maker before a Record of Decision is issued. Due to the preliminary nature of the 

NEPA air quality assessment, it should be considered a reasonable upper estimate of potential 

impacts. Actual impacts at the time of development may be lower. 

UDEQ is the air quality regulatory agency responsible for determining potential impacts once 

detailed development plans have been made, subject to applicable air quality laws, regulations, 

standards, control measures and management practices. Therefore, the State of Utah has the 

ultimate responsibility for reviewing and permitting air pollutant emission sources before they 

become operational. EPA has this responsibility on tribal lands. Representative background 

concentrations recommended by UDEQ and other appropriate sources were added to the 

modeled results for comparison to the appropriate ambient air quality standards as outline in 

Table 3.2.4. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 3-7

Table 3.2.3. Sensitive Areas to Be Considered in the Analysis

Mandatory Federal Class I Area 

(unless otherwise specified) a

Managing 

Agency b Class Category State 

Arches NP NPS Class I UT 

Browns Park NWR USFWS Class II UT 

Canyonlands NP NPS Class I UT 

Capitol Reef NP NPS Class I UT 

Dinosaur NM NPS Class IIc, d UT/CO 

Flaming Gorge NRA FS Class IIe UT/WY 

High Uintas WA FS Class IIc UT 

Ouray NWR USFWS Class II UT 

USFS Request (Areas near Mount Olympus, 

Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, Mount Timpanogos, 

and Mount Nebo) 

FS Class II UT 

a

 NP= National Park, WA=Wilderness Area, NWR=National Wildlife Refuge, NM=National Monument, NRA=National Recreation 

Area. 

b

 NPS= USDI - National Park Service. USFWS = US Fish & Wildlife Service, FS= USDA - Forest Service. 

c

 Sensitive Class II areas included in the analysis. (Archer, 2001a and Archer, 2002a) 

d

 SO2 increments in these Class II areas in Colorado have the same protection as Class I areas. 

e

 Sensitive Class II areas included in the analysis per CDPHE. (Machovec, 2002) 

Sensitive areas of the Ute Indian Tribe were also considered.

Table 3.2.4. Background Concentrations for Vernal RMP Area 

Pollutant 

Annual 

(μg/m3

 ) 

24-Hour 

(μg/m3) 

8-Hour 

(μg/m3) 

3-Hour 

(μg/m3) 

1-Hour 

(μg/m3) 

Monitoring Station 

Location Description 

NO2 10 - - - - Recommended by the Utah Dept. 

of Environmental Quality.a

SO2

b

 5 10 - 20 -

Estimates based on the 1993 

PSD application for Bonanza 

Power Plant, Deseret Generation 

and Transmission. 

PM10 10 28 - - -

Recommended by the Utah 

Department of Environmental 

Quality.a

COc - - 4,236 - 6,984

Grand Junction, Mesa County, 

Colorado. (Highest monitored 

concentration in 2001.)d

a

 Background concentrations recommended by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality in memorandum No. DAQP-003-

03, dated on January 17, 2003 from Richard W. Sprott to Yu Shan Huang. 

b

 The SO2 background concentrations are provided by Tom Orth, UDEQ. (Orth 2002) 

c

 The CO concentrations are reported in ppm: 8-hr, 3.7 ppm; 1-hr, 6.1 ppm. 

d

 Monitoring station was nearest to the Vernal RMP area. This background concentration is a conservatively high estimate for the

Vernal RMP area since it was measured in an urban area. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 3-8

3.2.4.3 VISIBILITY CRITERIA

Federal Class I areas, which include certain national wilderness areas, national memorial parks, 

and national parks, are afforded the highest level of protection. Ambient air increments that 

apply within Class I areas are more stringent than those that apply to other areas (i.e., Class II 

areas). In addition to more stringent ambient air increments, Class I areas are also protected by 

the regulation of AQRVs within their borders. Federal Land Managers (FLMs) are responsible 

for the management of Class I areas. Mandatory Federal Class I areas (sensitive areas) 

considered in the Air Quality modeling methodology for the Vernal and Roan Plateau air 

analysis were Dinosaur National Monument, Canyonlands National Park, Flaming Gorge NRA, 

Arches National Park, and Capitol Reef National Park. 

3.2.5 CONSISTENCY WITH NON-BUREAU PLANS

The Vernal Field Office manages its resources consistent with other plans not administered by 

the BLM. EPA Region 8 regulates all air quality related issues in the Uintah and Ouray Indian 

Reservation; while the UDEQ regulates the air quality related issues in the state of Utah, except 

on Indian lands. 

In addition to the federal and state air quality programs mentioned in the previous section, the 

BLM is also committed to manage the VPA consistent with the Utah Smoke Management Plan 

(SMP). The BLM, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the UDEQ currently have a signed Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) in place to regulate the prescribed burning activities in Utah (UDAQ 

1999). The MOU requires the BLM to report all prescribed fire activities to the SMP program 

coordinator. UDEQ has incorporated the SMP into UAC R307-204 in 2001. Each prescribed fire 

must first be approved by the SMP through issuance of a burn permit in order to assure that the 

burning activity will not cause dangerous air quality conditions. 

3.2.6 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 

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 3.2.2 demonstrates that northern latitudes (above 24° N ) have exhibited temperature 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 3-9

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 RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 3-10

Figure 3.2.2. Annual mean temperature change for northern latitudes (24–90° N). Source:

Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2007). 

3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The VPA has a wide array of environmental settings and resources long used by humans. 

Consequently, the VPA encompasses a large and diverse assemblage of prehistoric 

archaeological sites, historical archaeological sites and localities, and locations of traditional 

cultural value. For the purpose of this chapter, cultural resources are defined as both prehistoric 

and historical archaeological sites and structures, as well as non-archaeological and nonstructural sites (i.e., waterways, view sheds, and resource areas) that have been identified as 

important for traditional and/or ideological reasons by the various Native American groups with 

ancestral and/or present ties to the area. Many of these cultural resources have multiple 

associations and use values. These non-renewable resources provide a record of prehistoric and 

historical cultures and events and have use value for many contemporary groups including local 

residents, scientists, and Native Americans. 

3.3.1 PREVIOUS PROJECTS AND KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCE TYPES WITHIN THE 

VPA 

Various explorers, scholars, government institutions, academic institutions, and private cultural 

resource consulting firms have carried out anthropological and archaeological research within 

the VPA. The quality and quantity of research carried out by these different entities has, to date, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 3-11

proven highly variable. Previous research projects range from small surveys of a limited 

geographic area to large, linear projects spanning the entire VPA. 

Beginning as early as 1892 and extending to 1926, approximately seventeen significant 

archaeological projects were completed in the Uinta Basin. These projects recorded numerous 

sites and recovered many artifacts and data. As most of these projects were undertaken in a 

period when rigorous scientific standards were not the norm, much of the data is poorly 

recorded, reports are descriptive or speculative in nature, or data has been lost. Nonetheless, 

these early reports remain valuable as descriptive or comparative sources of data (Spangler 

1995:81). 

By the mid-1930s, the application of more rigorous and systematic archaeological standards was 

becoming more common. Beginning in this period, researchers focused on areas where high site 

frequencies were anticipated (i.e., in canyons, along drainages, near permanent water, etc.). As 

expected, research in these areas yielded high frequencies of sites with evidence of permanent 

settlement and horticulture. Areas that have been studied in this manner include the Dinosaur 

National Monument area, Nine Mile Canyon, and various areas along the Tavaputs Plateau and 

Uinta Basin foothills (Spangler 1995:181). Prior to the 1970s, archaeologists associated with 

universities or research institutions carried out archaeological research in these areas. The 

passage of several environmental protection laws during the 1960s and 1970s (the foremost 

being the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966) spurred cultural resource management 

archaeology across the country. In the Uinta Basin, the first significant cultural resource 

management projects were carried out in the 1950s and 1960s, with a quantitative jump noted in 

the early 1970s (Spangler 1995:190). Since the 1930s, more than 62 significant archaeological 

projects have been completed in the Uinta Basin (Spangler 1995). Numerous archaeological sites 

were recorded during these projects, with large numbers recommended eligible to and many 

actually nominated to the NRHP (Appendix D). 

3.3.2 PREHISTORIC AND ETHNOGRAPHIC SITE TYPES

The following section provides a basic description of the primary known prehistoric site types 

within the VPA. Some site types, such as artifact scatters, are included because they are common 

throughout the area and are a major component of the Section 106 compliance workload for 

BLM archaeologists. Others, such as burials, rock art, and ceremonial sites, may not occur in as 

large numbers as do artifact scatters but are included because they represent significant 

management challenges to the BLM due to their importance to Native American tribal groups. 

Rock Art – A large number of rock art sites have been identified in the Uinta Basin and more 

are likely to exist. Rock art sites identified in the Uinta Basin are highly variable and may range 

from one depiction to a panel or series of panels with numerous depictions. Some sites contain 

large, multiple, and interconnected rock art panels. In addition to variations in size, numerous 

different rock art styles have been recorded in the Uinta Basin. In some instances rock art is 

located near other types of sites; in other instances, rock art is isolated. As rock art is frequently 

located in difficult terrain, a comprehensive survey of existing rock art and its relationships to 

other sites has been difficult to complete. Finally, rock art sites have routinely been subjected to 

acts of vandalism and are susceptible to deterioration (Spangler 1995:140-145). Currently, there 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 3-12

remains much to be learned regarding known rock art sites with a high probability for further 

significant rock art discoveries. 

Well-preserved Open Camp and Village Sites – Open camp and village sites are similar large 

prehistoric occupations, distinguished primarily on the basis of the presence or absence of 

residential structures. Campsites located on plateaus, outcrops, and valley floors characterize 

open campsites. These sites typically have evidence of lithic scatters, ceramic scatters, and 

projectile points, and are often defined on the presence of remnants of hearths and other features. 

Many of the sites have been characterized as hunting and butchering activity areas. 

Platform Sites – Platform sites, or sites located on top of flattened knolls, are rare within the 

Uinta Basin. One site overlooking the Green River is an unusual site on a knoll that appears to 

have been leveled off, whether manually or by environmental processes is unknown. The leveled 

surface of the knoll has a circular structure made of flat sandstone slabs approximately 1.5 feet 

high with the interior filled with a light-colored clay material. This structure is unknown in 

function and, to date, it is the only known feature of its type within the Uinta Basin. Others could 

be present with the Uinta Basin, but have yet to be discovered. 

Rock Shelters and Caves – As their name implies, rock shelter sites contain evidence of human 

occupation located within existing rock overhangs or caves. The range of rock shelter sites 

includes relatively long-term single occupations, multiple reuse occupations through time, and 

ephemeral single-use episodes. Rock shelters and caves are generally located within canyons, 

near permanent water sources, such as rivers or streams. Most of these sites also tend to be 

located on the southern side of canyons (Spangler 1995:162), although they can be found within 

any portion of geologically suitable areas. 

Prehistoric Architectural Sites – A relatively wide range of site types is included in this 

category. Architectural sites have been recorded in open-air and sheltered settings, at nearly all 

elevations, and in virtually every environment within the Uinta Basin. However, some types of 

architecture are restricted to only certain regions or settings. To date, the range of architectural 

sites includes stone or masonry structures, pit structures, temporary brush structures, tipi rings, 

sweat lodges, storage structures or granaries, stone alignments or walls, cairns, and rubble 

mounds. Structures such as tipi rings, temporary brush structures, and perhaps sweat lodges are 

located in more open environments, on knolls, cliff edges, or terraces. Stone or masonry 

structures, granaries, and often walls are found in cliffside rock shelters, in canyons or on ledges. 

Other stone or masonry structures can also be found in open areas, stream and river terraces, 

upland ridges, small cliff openings, and butte or mesa faces. Typically, such structures are found 

within reasonable proximity of sandstone formations and outcrops, which provide much of the 

source material for building them. 

Prehistoric Artifact Scatters – Prehistoric artifact scatters may be encountered in open-air or 

sheltered settings and in nearly all environment types and elevations. These types of sites are 

located throughout the Uinta Basin and number from the hundreds to the thousands. Artifact 

scatters typically consist of lithic artifacts such as chipped stone debitage, tools, cores, and tool 

and core fragments. However, many artifact scatters may also contain ceramic artifacts, 

groundstone artifacts, or a combination of lithic, ceramic, and groundstone artifacts. Previously 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 3-13

recorded artifact scatters in the Uinta Basin range from only a few to hundreds (or even 

thousands) of artifacts. Artifact scatters do not typically contain evidence of architecture, 

although smaller features, such as hearths, may be present either on the surface or below the 

surface. The function of artifact scatters is highly variable and can be subject to differing 

interpretations. Minimally, artifact scatters are likely to have been involved in short-term landuse settlement systems. 

Prehistoric Resource Procurement Sites – Locations where prehistoric populations procured a 

specific resource are common within the Uinta Basin. A wide range of resources appear to have 

been exploited in a manner that left archaeological evidence, including game animals (hunting 

sites), chipped stone materials (lithic procurement sites), and floral materials (botanical 

processing sites). Several different hunting site types have been identified to date, including 

hunting blinds, game drives, game traps, and butchery sites. Hunting sites can be designed to 

either funnel game toward a desired goal or to hide the hunter in ambush-style hunting. In 

general, hunting sites are identifiable due to the strategic placement of rock or brush structures 

along game trails, water sources, near topographic features that restricted game movement, or in 

locales that provide an advantage in elevation. Butchery sites are typically identified by the 

presence of high numbers of animal bones that bear evidence of processing - such as cut marks 

or diagnostic breakage patterns. In many instances, the kill location and butchery location are the 

same. 

Prehistoric Ceremonial Sites – Ceremonial sites are usually located in areas with panoramic 

views, and are recognized by the presence of a stone circle or alignment that contains little or no 

artifacts. Ceremonial sites are interpreted as vision quest locations (Reed and Metcalf 1999:52). 

The vision quest interpretation has largely been inferred from ethnographic work among modern 

Native American groups. However, the actual nature of prehistoric ceremonial sites is currently 

not well understood. 

Prehistoric Isolated Features – Sites recorded as prehistoric isolated features typically consist 

of one isolated cultural feature that has few or no associated artifacts. In many instances the 

isolated feature is unidentified, while in other cases the feature is identified as a simple cultural 

feature (i.e., a cairn, etc.). 

Prehistoric Landscapes – Prehistoric landscapes are a type of cultural resource that 

encompasses a range of cultural resource sites within a given environment. The study of 

prehistoric landscapes is a relatively new endeavor in the New World. This approach has become 

more common in the Old World, namely Great Britain and Europe. The interaction of human 

sociopolitical and economic systems and the landscapes in which humans live and create 

environments is one main focus of research into landscape archaeology. In short, prehistoric 

landscape can be defined as including humans and their anthropogenic ecosystem. 

The types of landscapes that could be characterized within the Uinta Basin include canyons and 

plateaus. These encompassing landscapes are large in scale, but contain hundreds of smaller, 

more distinct units of residential dwellings, storage areas, resources scatters, etc., that make up 

the landscape. Individually, the sites within a given landscape may not be particularly 

noteworthy or significant. However, when each site is taken into consideration with other, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 3-14

geographically close sites, a landscape emerges that encompasses multiple types of past human 

uses of the landscape. These individual sites cluster together in a setting that sets it apart from the 

region as a whole. These landscapes could also have importance for extant Native American 

tribes as sacred or important places with cultural importance. 

Prehistoric Trails – Travel routes along river corridors and open drainages were common ways 

for prehistoric peoples to get from area to area. The White River was a traditional Ute travel 

route within the eastern Uinta Basin to western Colorado (Spangler 1995:872). Other trail areas 

have been formally identified to the east of the region (Reed and Metcalf 1999:51) as well as in 

the Book Cliffs (Blaine Phillips personal communication 2002), and additional unidentified 

prehistoric and protohistoric trails are likely to exist within the region. Prehistoric trails could 

potentially be identified through remote sensing and ground-truthing. 

3.3.3 HISTORICAL SITE TYPES

The following section provides a basic description of the primary known historical site types 

within the VPA. Undoubtedly, other site types do exist within the area, but those listed here 

comprise the bulk of historical sites currently managed by the BLM. 

Historical Architectural Sites – Historical architecture sites range from simple one-room cabins 

to multi-story and multi-room structures. Historical structure sites may contain abandoned 

structures or evidence of structures, while other sites might consist of a structure or structures 

that are still in use. To date, historical architecture sites include structures such as 

cabins/homesteads, forts or military posts, trading posts, private residences, line shacks, civic 

structures, stone or masonry walls, fences, corrals or pens (both Anglo and Ute), sheds, barns, or 

outhouses. Although typically located in desirable areas or near reliable water sources, historical 

architecture can be found in nearly every setting or environment. Among the more common 

structural sites with the VPA are those towns, such as Dragon, Watson, and Rainbow mines, and 

rail sidings associated with gilsonite mining in the region. 

Artifact Scatters/Middens – Historical artifact scatters and middens may consist of one or more 

of the following: glass, ceramics, cans, building materials, barbed wire, cartridge cases, faunal 

material, personal items, or miscellaneous artifacts. Artifact densities may range from relatively 

sparse to relatively dense scatters. Historical artifact scatters can represent light or intense land 

use, and can be encountered in nearly any environment or elevation. Artifact scatters may be 

associated with isolated residences, larger settlements, campsites, or, they may be the result of 

random dumping episodes. 

Aspen Art and Historical Inscriptions – Aspen art (i.e., dendroglyphs) and historical 

inscriptions are present on BLM lands within the VPA. These inscriptions have been found both 

on trees (primarily aspen) and on rock faces. Aspen art is considered to be any historical carving 

or engraving made on trees. Aspen art includes carvings related to activities such as settlement 

(e.g. as property markers) as well as random works found near roads or near historical campsites. 

The frequencies of aspen art range from a single mark, multiple markings on one tree, or a series 

of markings on multiple trees. Aspen art is often associated with particular ethnic groups, such as 

the Basque (primarily in Nevada), or with particular labor groups, such as sheepherders, timber 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 3-15

men, and others who spend time within aspen groves. Elsewhere in Utah, particular groves of 

trees became favorites for carvers, and dozens of inscriptions can be found which span long 

periods of time. These groves essentially became historical "message boards" for users of the 

area. 

Historical Burials/Cemeteries – Early historic period burials may consist of isolated burials of 

a few or one individual, while early cemeteries will contain numerous individuals. Currently, 

several cemeteries exist within the Uinta Basin. In addition, several isolated burials, located both 

on public and private land, have been recorded. Other isolated burials might yet be encountered. 

Irrigation Systems/Canals – The development of agriculture and ranching in the Uinta Basin 

often required the building of waterworks to bring water into relatively dry regions. In general, 

irrigation works are considered as improvements, which have been made on natural drainages, or 

as the construction of new waterways. Irrigation works can include ponds, dams, concrete, stonelined or earthen ditches or canals, headgates, culverts, diversion gates, or wells. 

Mining Sites – In many parts of the Uinta Basin, the mining industry has played an important 

economic role. Mining related sites are variable. Recorded examples include small-scale mining 

efforts at one locale, small-scale operations at multiple sites, and complex mining works at one 

or more locations carried out by large mining firms. The goals of Uinta Basin mining efforts are 

also varied, with several different kinds of precious metals (i.e., gold, silver, copper, and 

uranium), minerals, and hydrocarbons sought. Besides the actual mine or quarry, mining sites 

can have related architecture, temporary camps, ore piles, middens, artifact scatters, burials, or 

aspen art located nearby. Additionally, railroads constructed specifically to serve the mining 

industry may also be associated with mine sites. 

Oil and Gas Industry Sites – Oil and gas industry historical sites can consist of pipelines, wells, 

processing and transport facilities, and "prospects." The first well in the Uinta Basin was drilled 

on the East Tavaputs Plateau in 1900 (Spangler 1995:822). Although unsuccessful, the sinking of 

this first well foreshadowed the fervent activity that would occur in the area 40 years later. While 

more than 40 wells were drilled in the Uinta Basin between 1908 and 1913, most historical 

archaeological and structural sites associated with the industry date to the post-World War II era, 

when oil and gas exploration began in earnest. 

Privies/Outhouses – Prior to the installation of buried sewer lines, sanitation facilities often 

consisted of excavated pits designed to collect and contain waste. Although originally intended 

to serve as sanitation facilities, privies often served as secondary refuse dumping locales. Also 

during use, personal items were often accidentally dropped into privies. Through secondary 

dumping and accidental loss, many privies contain high frequencies of artifacts. As privies 

routinely contain high numbers of artifacts, in an often-undisturbed subsurface deposit, privies 

may serve as valuable sources of data. Privies are routinely found in association with campsites, 

private residences, public structures, military posts, and commercial buildings. Privy sites have 

been found on mining sites and other industrial sites as well. No clear indication of the frequency 

and/or distribution of such sites could be gleaned from Spangler (1995), thus it is unclear how 

many historical privies and outhouses are present on BLM lands within the VPA. However, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 3-16

given their general association with permanent and/or long-term occupation sites, few privies are 

likely to be found on BLM lands. 

Historical Transportation Sites – Establishing efficient transportation routes was one of the 

main goals of explorers and settlers during the settlement of the west. The Uinta Basin was no 

different. As Euroamericans settled the Uinta Basin, establishing efficient travel avenues was of 

vital importance in aiding the growth of settlements, the mining industry, and the agriculture and 

ranching businesses. To date, identified transportation related sites include trails, paths, paved or 

unpaved roads, bridges, railroads, wagon or stagecoach routes, stagecoach or railroad stops, 

railroad section stations, ferry sites, and airstrips or runways. Furthermore, as trappers and fur 

traders routinely used waterways for travel, the shores of various sections of waterways might 

contain evidence of early travel. Several East-West and North-South transportation routes used 

and developed by the Northern Ute bands in the 19th and early 20th centuries are known within 

the VPA. These include "Pony Trails" and "Wagon Trails". These routes gave access into and 

out of western Colorado and into and out of the San Rafael area of Utah. Burials, rockart and 

other site types are associated with these routes. 

3.3.4 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 historical artifacts assemblages and 

collections. Tribal representatives typically identify these sites during the government-togovernment consultation process that is required of federal agencies. However, Traditional 

Cultural Properties can also be identified by representatives of other culture groups, such as 

historical culture groups associated with the Euro-American migration to the western United 

States. Some common site types are lakes and springs, land features, and traditional gathering or 

collection areas. 

Lakes and Springs – Several tribes, including the Shoshone and Ute, claim places of water as 

places of traditional importance and have traditional stories about mythical beings, or water 

spirits that live in lakes, rivers, and springs (Spangler 1995). No specific places of this type have 

been identified in lands managed by the VFO. However, an ethnographic overview for the 

Flaming Gorge Dam Environmental Impact Statement prepared by SWCA for the USBR 

recorded several stories about "water babies" and other mythical beings seen in the Green River 

in historic times (Rhodenbaugh and Newton 2000). None of these areas were identified as 

Traditional Cultural Properties. 

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. Recently, 

Native Americans have also identified hunting areas as Traditional Cultural Properties (Newton 

and Hancock 2000). No specific places of this type have been recorded on lands managed by the 

VFO. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 3-17

Land Features – Large geographic regions, such as deserts, mountain ranges, and valleys are 

often identified as Traditional Cultural Places but few have been formally documented as such. 

According to Deloria and Stoffle (1998), the Oquirrh Mountains and Granite Mountain near Salt 

Lake contains various places that are considered to be traditionally important or sacred to the 

Goshute Indians. Deloria and Stoffle did not specify what these places were or precisely where 

they were located. Bull Lake, which is located on the Wind River reservation, is considered to be 

a place of traditional importance to the Eastern Shoshone (Shimkin 1986). It is said that Bull 

Lake is where monsters live and if eaten, the monsters will change into water buffalo and 

disappear. No specific places of this type have been recorded on lands managed by the VFO. 

3.3.5 GENERAL SITE LOCATIONS AND HIGH SITE DENSITY AREAS

Cultural resources are scattered throughout the VPA. Present knowledge of their locations is 

largely constrained by the nature of cultural resource investigations, most of which have been 

driven by the Section 106 compliance needs of development projects. As such, existing data on 

site types, locations, and significance (use values) consists of snapshots across the VPA rather 

than a comprehensive picture. Nevertheless, based on these data, as well as on a number of 

overview surveys, it is possible to define the types of environmental settings where prehistoric 

and historical sites are more or less likely to occur. Overview surveys and existing data provide a 

general picture of site location tendencies that can be used to describe the places where 

prehistoric and historical sites are likely to exist. 

During the late 1970s and early 1980s a number of surveys called "Class II" surveys were 

undertaken in order to attempt to determine if environmental variables could predict prehistoric 

archaeological site location in a way that would preclude the need to conduct formal surface 

inventories in particular environmental settings (Spangler 1995:226). Because the surveys found 

that prehistoric archaeological sites could be found across nearly all environmental zones, these 

surveys failed to meet their original goals. Furthermore, the surveys were unable to accurately 

predict specific site locations. However, the surveys were able to demonstrate good associations 

of prehistoric archaeological sites with general environmental zones. In other words, while 

specific site locations could not be predicted, and it appeared that there was potential for the 

presence of at least one or a few cultural resource sites in nearly all environmental zones of a 

given area, the Class II surveys were able to identify zones that had higher and lower frequencies 

of prehistoric archaeological sites. 

The association of prehistoric archaeological sites with particular environmental zones can serve 

as a useful management tool for identifying areas where anticipated activities would have greater 

or lesser potential for impacts on prehistoric cultural resources. The Class II surveys, 

summarized in Spangler (1995:226-242), identified that proximity to water and certain 

vegetation types tended to influence site density. Areas within approximately 1 km of permanent 

water or within immediate proximity of a semi permanent water source appear to have high 

probabilities for cultural resource site occurrence. Furthermore, vegetation zones dominated by 

juniper were also identified as areas with high potential for cultural resource site locations. 

Finally, areas of intermittent sand dunes also tended to have high densities of prehistoric 

archaeological sites. Areas lacking water, juniper trees, or sand dunes, and areas of relatively 

steep slope tended to have low site densities. Areas of high site density tended to have between 1 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 3-18

and 7 sites per square mile with an average of 4.87 sites/square mile while areas of low density 

had less than 1 site per square mile (Spangler 1995:226-242). 

The locations of historical cultural resource sites are more difficult to predict. Because historical 

populations have greater ease of transportation and different economic interests, historical site 

locations are not as constrained by availability of water and particular vegetative resources as 

were the locations of prehistoric occupations. Furthermore, linear historical sites such as roads, 

railroads, and canals, are likely to crosscut a wide variety of topographic settings and 

environmental zones. Nonetheless, two factors are likely to have conditioned the location of 

most historical cultural resource sites—proximity to watered/arable land for agriculture and 

proximity to mineral resources for extractive industries. 

For the purposes of analysis, these factors were utilized to develop zones of high and low 

probability for cultural resource site locations. All areas within approximately 1 km of permanent 

water, or within juniper vegetation zones, sand dunes, or general area of historical mining 

districts were considered high site probability zones. Areas with greater than 30% slope, or not 

having any of the high site probability factors were considered low site probability zones. 

In addition, four areas of high site density have been identified within the VPA through previous 

investigations. These areas, and the acreages they encompass, are identified in Table 3.3.1. To be 

certain, other areas of high site density exist within the planning area but have not yet been 

identified and verified through field studies. Areas of high site density, such as those listed in 

Table 3.3.1, have many significant use values. In particular, they have high scientific and 

conservation values, and in some cases, high traditional values as well. Such areas also tend to 

have high public use values, but these are outweighed by other use values that necessitate the 

restriction of activity within the areas. 

Table 3.3.1. Known High Site Density Areas within the VPA 

Site Name/Number Acreage 

Little/Devil's Hole 10,878 acres 

Uinta Foothills 33,059 acres 

Upper Willow Creek 4,304 acres 

Site 42Un1388 (Four Mile Wash) 560 acres 

3.3.6 KNOWN NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED SITES

Existing data do, however, identify several cultural sites of determined local, regional, or 

national significance and four areas of high site density. The sites of determined significance are 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Table 3.3.2). Although these sites 

have been listed on the NRHP, it should be remembered that sites which have been determined 

eligible for listing on the NRHP but are not currently listed are afforded the same level of 

protection and consideration in planning and land-use decisions as those that are listed. However, 

since the locations of every single eligible site within the planning area are not known, largely 

because of the dearth of investigative surveys that have been conducted, it is not possible to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.4. Environmental Justice

Vernal RMP 3-19

provide a comprehensive list or map of all such sites. Therefore, only those NRHP-listed sites 

are provided herein. 

Table 3.3.2. Known National Register Listed Sites within the VPA 

Site Name/Number Area 

Cockleburr Wash Petroglyphs Jensen 

Dr. John Parson Cabin Complex Browns Park 

John Jarvie Historic Ranch District Browns Park 

Little Brush Creek Petroglyph Panel Vernal 

McConkie Ranch Petroglyphs Dry Fork 

Nine Mile Canyon Nine Mile Canyon (East Portion) 

3.3.7 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resources within the Vernal area are numerous, diverse, and widely dispersed. The 

resources range from small, ancient artifact scatters associated with prehistoric populations to 

historical resources like cabins, homesteads, mines, and railroads. Although these resources have 

been documented over years of study, a comprehensive picture of the exact distribution of the 

resources is not possible due to the large area encompassed and the lack of region-wide 

systematic study. 

Nonetheless, previous data and investigations do provide a general picture of the types of sites 

present and their locations. Although it is not possible to provide exact data on the location of all 

types of cultural resources and to therefore gauge with precision the effects of particular 

management decisions on those resources, it is possible to derive general tendencies for site 

locations that can be use to gauge the relative probability and relative severity of the impacts of 

various management decisions on cultural resources in the overall area. For the purposes of 

subsequent analyses, areas within the VPA would be divided into zones with "High" and "Low" 

probabilities for cultural resources, based on the relationships between site location and 

environmental variables that have been established by previous research (Spangler 1995:226–

242). High probability zones would be considered those that are within 1 km of permanent water, 

a juniper zone, sand dune areas, and historical mining districts. Low probability zones would be 

all areas with greater than 20% slope and areas not meeting the criteria for definition as a high 

probability zone. These criteria provide replicable proxy data for site location, and can be used to 

gauge whether a management decision is more or less likely to impact cultural resources.

3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The Executive Order on Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations 

and low-income populations (Executive Order 12898, with explanatory memorandum) directs 

federal agencies to assess whether their actions have disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority communities and low-income communities. The Ute 

Tribe constitutes both a minority community and a low-income community. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 3-20

Federal minerals are located on 188,500 acres of the Hill Creek Extension, Uintah and Ouray 

Indian Reservation in Uintah County 113,684 acres within the Hill Creek Extension are Indian 

minerals. The Hill Creek Extension has important cultural and economic values for the Northern 

Ute Tribe. This area, as with other areas on the reservation, is economically important because of 

oil and gas royalties, rights-of-way fees and employment opportunities. 

The Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation has 3,725 Tribal members living on the reservation. 

The total potential labor force is approximately 1,600, of which about 42% are considered 

unemployed. Approximately 80% of those who are employed work for the Tribe. Eighty-three 

percent of those that are employed earn less than $14,000 annually. Mineral resources, 

particularly oil, gas, and oil shale, are the greatest economic assets of the Tribe. Other minerals 

on the reservation include tar sands, coal, gilsonite, bentonite, wurtzilite, phosphate, and sand 

and gravel. Raising cattle and the growing of livestock feed are other important economic 

activities that occur on the reservation (BLM 1999). 

The southern portion of the Hill Creek Extension, along the Book Cliffs divide, has important 

traditional life ways and religious values for the Tribe. This area has been distinguished as 

"wilderness" by the Tribe because of its relatively pristine condition. Big game hunting is an 

important traditional lifestyle for Tribal members. Some religious ceremonies of the Ute people 

require plants and other materials that are located here. Additionally, the Hill Creek Extension 

contains numerous archaeological sites, including rock art, camps and burials that have sacred 

meaning (Duncan 1992). 

3.5 FIRE MANAGEMENT

3.5.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Fire management planning policy requires that a Fire Management Plan, including fire 

prevention, preparedness, suppression, and use as well as subsequent restoration and 

rehabilitation, be conducted on an interagency basis. The Fire Management Plan conforms to the 

National Fire Plan and Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDI 1995). The Vernal 

Field Office is a major partner in the Uinta Basin Interagency Fire Center (Center). The Center 

conducts all initial and extended-attack dispatching for the BLM, Ashley National Forest, the 

Uintah-Ouray Indian Agency, the USFWS - Ouray and Browns Park National Wildlife Refuges, 

the Utah Division of State Lands and Forestry, and the Utah component of Dinosaur National 

Monument. An annual operating plan (AOP) has been developed by the Center to establish 

operating procedures for coordinated responses and cooperative sharing of resources throughout 

the VPA. Consolidation of dispatch services in the Center has improved coordination of 

interagency fire planning among the land management agencies in the area. 

Wildland fires are integral natural forces affecting public lands within the VPA. In the 10-year 

period from 1989 to 1998, 497 wildland fires burned a total of 8,540 acres in the VPA. Of these 

wildland fires, 445 were caused by lightning, and 52 were human-caused ignitions. During the 

period from 1999 through 2001, 24,294 acres were treated by prescribed burning in a total of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 3-21

nine treatment areas. Plans for the following five years included prescribed burns on 

approximately 11,000 acres annually (see Fire Management Plan for specific sites and acreage). 

Historically, a lack of funding from resources programs limited the fuels program to a few 

prescribed fires. The fire suppression program was funded at limited levels until the new Fire 

Management Plans (FMPs) were completed, and suppression of wildland fire was the only fire 

management tool used. The fire suppression policy did not take into account the long-term 

effects on the ecosystems of the area or the long-term costs associated with it. By restricting the 

natural role of fire in the ecosystem, fuel loads have increased over the years. Pinyon-juniper, 

sagebrush, and other shrub-type species have become the dominant vegetation communities. 

Other large conifer species (e.g., Douglas fir, Ponderosa pine) have become decadent, and the 

health of these stands has declined (see Woodlands and Forest section). 

More than one million acres have been designated as needing fire treatments within the VPA. 

Treatment goals are to reduce the potential for catastrophic stand-destroying wildland fire, 

enhance wildlife habitat, and increase vegetation diversity. These VPA fire treatment areas also 

include forage areas for livestock and wildlife, mineral resources including oil and gas fields, and 

popular hunting and fishing areas. The area is mainly rural, but has an increasing number of 

residences and population centers within four identified Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas. 

3.5.2 FIRE MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES

The VPA is divided into fire management categories, and the appropriate fire treatment response 

for the VPA would be managed using the Fire Management Polygons (A, B, C, and D) as 

described in BLM Handbook 1601 - land-use Planning, and as summarized below: 

Category A. Areas where unplanned fire is not desired at all. 

Category B. Areas where unplanned fire is not desired because of current 

conditions. Prescribed fire use is allowed to obtain resource management 

objectives. Mechanical/chemical treatments would be used where social and/or 

resource constraints preclude the use of prescribed fire. 

Category C. Areas where wildland fire is desired. Prescribed fire is allowed and 

may be extensive to obtain resource management objectives. Mechanical/ 

chemical treatments would be used where social and/or resource constraints 

preclude the use of prescribed fire. 

Category D. Areas where wildland fire is desired, and there are few or no 

constraints for its use. 

Fire suppression activities and the appropriate management response (AMR) would be 

implemented through the guidance developed in the fire management categories and developed 

for the Vernal Field Office. The criteria used in developing the categories were determined by an 

interdisciplinary team of resource specialists. Criteria for each category are described below: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 3-22

Category A. This category includes the salt desert shrub type where the risk of 

cheatgrass (a noxious weed) invasion is high after an area has been burned or 

treated. Also included are the major river corridors in the VPA where fire would 

destroy Fremont cottonwood, which is a keystone species that is presently 

declining. Constraints to fire management activities include cultural resource 

sites, high recreational use, highly developed oil and gas fields, high invasive 

weed potential, and threatened and endangered (T&E) species habitat. Wildland 

fire for resource use is not appropriate. 

Category B. This category includes identified crucial deer winter range and 

crucial sage grouse habitat. Within this habitat, Wyoming sagebrush is identified 

as a keystone species, which has been in a continual state of decline because of 

widespread drought and invasive species encroachment. Also included within this 

polygon are the four identified WUI areas, including cultural resource sites, 

adjacent urban interfaces, sage grouse and deer winter range habitat, moderate 

potential for invasive weeds, and T&E species habitat. Wildland fire for resource 

use is not appropriate. 

Category C. This category contains the pinyon-juniper type, along with the 

aspen/Douglas fir, mountain browse, and non-crucial areas of the sagebrush type. 

Fire is desired to achieve resource objectives. Constraints to fire management 

activities include a limited amount of oil and gas development, non-critical sage 

grouse habitat, a limited amount of T&E species habitat, and a limited amount of 

cultural resources. Wildland fire use for resource objectives is appropriate. 

Category D. This category contains all of the existing Wilderness Study Areas 

(WSAs) within the VPA. The role of fire would be widely incorporated, as there 

are few resource constraints within these polygons. Constraints to fire 

management activities would include WSA-designated areas, non-critical sage 

grouse habitat, a limited amount of T&E species habitat, and a limited amount of 

cultural resources. Wildland fire use for resource objectives is appropriate.

3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.6.1 BLM HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GOALS

Hazardous materials are defined as any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or 

physical or chemical characteristics, may pose a real hazard to human health or the environment. 

Hazardous materials include flammable or combustible material, toxic material, corrosive 

material, oxidizers, aerosols, and compressed gases. 

The Hazardous Materials Management Program, a program that provides guidance supplemental 

to the National Contingency Plan (EPA 1994), typically supports and guides other programs or 

agencies to ensure that they adhere to all federal and state environmental laws and regulations 

regarding hazardous materials. The Hazardous Materials Management Program would review 

this document, the VPA RMP EIS and would also review all National Environmental Policy Act 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 3-23

(NEPA) compliance documents produced for actions within the VPA for hazardous materials 

management environmental compliance. If the Hazardous Materials Management Program found 

within the VPA sites that contained hazardous substances, all surface and/or subsurface activities 

would be suspended until the VPA obtained direction from the appropriate federal and/or state 

regulatory agency. Monitoring would be carried out in response to assessment, cleanup, and 

restoration of a contaminated site. Monitoring would be coordinated with other programs to 

ensure that those program objectives were met. 

The owners and operators of oil, gas, and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) wells within the VPA are 

required to have emergency plans that cover potential emergencies including fires, employee 

injuries, chemical releases, and other potential hazards related to hazardous materials. 

Emergency plans typically contain phone numbers for all medical and emergency services and a 

list of responsible personnel to contact in the case of emergency. The plans would be posted at 

all emergency facilities, and employees would be trained in emergency response upon being 

hired by minerals exploration and development, and maintenance companies. 

There are no approved hazardous waste disposal facilities on public lands within the VPA. All 

hazardous wastes are transported out of the VPA to approved disposal facilities that are 

constructed and operated in accordance with state and federal regulations. Oil and gas operators 

are required to comply with a Hazardous Substance Management Plan, as directed by the 

regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which regulates 

transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. All private business and organizations that 

handle hazardous materials would be required to comply with EPA regulations pertaining to the 

storage, use, transportation, and disposal of these materials. The transportation of hazardous 

materials is subject to guidelines under the Utah Department of Transportation as well as the 

United States Department of Transportation. 

The current BLM, Vernal Field Office declaration statement regarding hazardous materials 

management within the VPA is as follows: 

Less than 10,000 pounds of any chemical(s) from EPA's Consolidated list of 

Chemicals Subject to Reporting Under Title III of the Superfund Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act [SARA] of 1986, and less than the Threshold Planning 

Quantity [TPQ] of any extremely hazardous substance(s), as defined in 40 CFR 

355, would be used, produced, transported, stored, disposed, or associated with 

the proposed operation annually. Vehicle and equipment fuel, lubricants, 

antifreeze and battery acid would be the only hazardous material used or 

associated with the proposed action. Risk of a release would be very low, and the 

adverse environmental affect of a release would be minimal because it would be 

cleaned up immediately and disposed of in an approved waste disposal facility 

(BLM 2001). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 3-24

3.6.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RISKS WITHIN THE VPA 

There are two types of hazardous materials risks: those risks associated with unauthorized 

releases, and other hazardous materials risks from controlled uses of materials listed under 

SARA and 40 CFR 355. 

The remote nature of VPA lands creates an opportunity for illegal dumping of hazardous 

materials. These unauthorized releases could include materials from illegal drug laboratories or 

the illegal dumping of hazardous materials by private companies or individuals. When these 

types of dumps are encountered, the dumpsite is secured to ensure public safety, appropriate 

agencies are contacted, and clean up is conducted in accordance with established BLM plans and 

procedures. If the source responsible for the dumping is identified, that information would be 

released to the appropriate authorities for prosecution. 

Controlled releases of hazardous materials could be the result of programs conducted by the 

Vernal Field Office, state or local governments, or operations of local businesses and industries. 

Authorized sources of hazardous materials could include oil and gas development, mineral 

extraction and processing operations, landfills and hazardous material disposal sites, 

aboveground and underground storage tanks, abandoned mine lands (AML), and small 

businesses. 

3.6.2.1 LANDFILLS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES

There are no approved hazardous materials waste facilities on public lands in the VPA. However, 

a hazardous materials disposal site is located on private land near Altamont, Utah. BLM policy 

has been to either close or transfer ownership of all landfills that were historically on Vernal 

Field Office-administered lands. The Vernal Field Office is currently in compliance with this 

policy. In order to meet compliance, Red Wash and Jensen landfills were closed; ownership of 

the Vernal City/County landfill was transferred from BLM ownership; and dumps at the White 

River oil shale facility were covered and revegetated. 

3.6.2.2 STORAGE TANKS

The use of aboveground storage tank (AST) and underground storage tank (UST) operations is 

regulated by the EPA and administered by the state of Utah. Operators are responsible for 

understanding and complying with the EPA regulations. Underground storage tanks within the 

VPA are concentrated primarily within the towns of Vernal and Naples, and along the Highway 

40 and 191 travel corridors (UDERR 2004). 

3.6.2.3 SMALL BUSINESSES

The types of small businesses and organizations that generate or use hazardous materials include 

(but are not limited to) automotive shops, dry cleaning businesses, print shops, and hospitals. 

These operations are regulated by the EPA and administered by the state of Utah. It is the 

responsibility of the business/organization owner to understand and comply with EPA 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 3-25

regulations pertaining to hazardous materials used or hazardous wastes that are generated by that 

business or organization. 

3.6.2.4 OIL AND GAS

An increased risk of hazardous materials is an indirect effect of oil, gas, and mineral 

development. As oil and gas development increases so does the use, generation, and 

transportation of hazardous materials (Table 3.6.1). For descriptions of areas that may be 

affected by particular kinds of development, see Section 3.9, Mineral Resources. 

3.6.2.5 TAR SAND

In the early 1980s, certain tar sand deposits in the Uinta Basin were divided into seven Special 

Tar Sand Areas (STSAs), as designated by the USGS under direction from Congress pursuant to 

the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981. These STSAs are: (1) Pariette, (2) Sunnyside, 

(3) Argyle Canyon - Willow Creek, (4) Asphalt Ridge - Whiterocks, (5) Hill Creek, (6) P.R. 

Spring, and (7) Raven Ridge - Rim Rock (BLM 2002). 

Tar sands may be extracted via in-situ methods or via surface mining, depending on the depth. 

In-situ extraction and processing may involve chemicals similar to those for conventional oil and 

gas (see Table 3.6.1). Hazardous materials associated with surface mining are those primarily 

used in vehicle and equipment operation, such as battery acid, fuels, lubricants, and antifreeze. 

3.6.2.6 GILSONITE

Gilsonite mining operations within the VPA do not conduct mineral processing on the mine site. 

Therefore, the only hazardous materials used for Gilsonite mining are those associated with 

vehicle and equipment operation. 

3.6.2.7 OIL SHALE

Currently one RD&D lease has been issued to OSEC to prove development potential of oil shale 

processes. In addition, on SITLA lands, northeast of Bonanza (Sections 10 and 15 of T9S, 

R25E), is an oil shale project owned by Oiltech. This project is a pilot plant running processing 

tests of White River Oil Shale. 

Table 3.6.1. Hazardous Constituents Potentially Used or Produced During Construction, 

Drilling, Production, and Reclamation Operations Associated with Oil and Gas 

Production 

Use Material Hazardous Constituents 

Barite Barium compounds, fine mineral fibers 

Bentonite Fine mineral fibers 

Caustic Soda Sodium hydroxide 

Glutaraldehyde Isopropyl alcohol 

Drilling Materials 

Lime Calcium hydroxide 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 3-26

Table 3.6.1. Hazardous Constituents Potentially Used or Produced During Construction, 

Drilling, Production, and Reclamation Operations Associated with Oil and Gas 

Production 

Use Material Hazardous Constituents 

Mica Fine material fibers 

Phophate Esters Methanol 

Polyacrylamides Acrylamide, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

Petroleum distillates, Polycyclic organic matter (POM), 

"Fine mineral fibers 

Retarders Fine mineral fibers 

Anionic 

Polyacrylamide 

Acrylamide 

Polyanionic Cellulose Fine mineral fibers 

Anti-foamer Glycol ethers 

Bentonite Fine mineral fibers 

Calcium Chloride 

Flake 

Fine mineral fibers 

Cellophane Flake Fine mineral fibers 

Cements Aluminum oxide, Fine mineral fibers 

Chemical Wash Ammonium oxide, Glycol ethers 

Diatomaceous Earth Fine mineral fibers 

Extenders Aluminum oxide, Fine mineral fibers 

Fluid Loss Additive Acrylamide, Fine mineral fibers, Naphthalene 

Friction Reducer Fine mineral fibers, Naphthalene, PAHs, POM 

Mud Flash Fine mineral fibers 

Retarder Fine mineral fibers 

Salt Fine mineral fibers 

Cement/Plug 

Silica Flour Fine mineral fibers 

Biocides Fine mineral fibers, PAHs, POM 

Breakers Ammonium persulphate, Ammonium sulphate, Copper 

compounds, Ethylene glycol, Fine mineral fibers, Glycol 

ethers 

Clay stabilizer Fine mineral fibers, Glycol ethers, Isopropyl alcohol, 

Methanol, PAHs, POM 

Crosslinkers Ammonium chloride, Methanol, Potassium hydroxide, 

Zirconium nitrate, Zirconium sulfate 

Foaming Agent Glycol ethers 

Gelling Agent Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), 

Naphthalene, PAHs, POM, Sodium hydroxide, m-Xylene, oXylene, p-Xylene 

PH buffers Acetic acid, Benzoic acid, Fumeric acid, Hydrochloric acid, 

Sodium hydroxide 

Fracturing 

Material 

Sands Fine mineral fibers 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 3-27

Table 3.6.1. Hazardous Constituents Potentially Used or Produced During Construction, 

Drilling, Production, and Reclamation Operations Associated with Oil and Gas 

Production 

Use Material Hazardous Constituents 

Solvents Glycol ethers 

Surfactants Glycol ethers, Isopropyl alcohol, Methanol, PAHs, POM 

Natural Gas n-Hexane, PAHs, POM 

Produced water/drill 

cuttings 

Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Manganese, Radium 

226, Uranium, Other radionuclides 

Production 

Product/Fuel 

Liquid hydrocarbons Benzene, Ethyl benzene, n-Hexane, PAHs, POM, Toluene, 

m-Xylene, o-Xylene, p-Xylene 

Diesel fuel Benzene, Cumene, Ethylbenzene, MTBE, Naphthalene, 

PAHs, POM, Toluene, m-Xylene, o-Xylene, p-Xylene 

Gasoline Benzene, Cumene, Cyclohexane, Ethylbenzene, n-Hexane, 

MTBE, Naphthalene, PAHs, POM, Tetraethyl lead, 

Toluene, m-Xylene, o-Xylene, p-Xylene 

Jet A Benzene, Cumene, Cyclohexane, Ethylbenzene, n-Hexane, 

MTBE, Naphthalene, PAHs, POM, Toluene, m-Xylene, oXylene, p-Xylene 

Fuel 

Propane Propylene 

Geophysical 

Survey 

Materials 

Explosives, fuses, 

detonators, boosters, 

fuels 

Aluminum, Ammonium nitrate, Benzene, Cumene, 

Ethylbenzene, Ethylene glycol, Lead compounds, MTBE, 

Naphthalene, Nitric acid, Nitroglycerine, PAHs, POM, 

Toluene, m-Xylene, o-Xylene, p-Xylene 

Coating Aluminum oxide 

Cupric sulfate 

solution 

Cupric sulfate, Sulfuric acid 

Diethanolamine Diethanolamine 

LP Gas Benzene, n-Hexane, Propylene 

Molecular sieves Aluminum oxide 

Pipeline primer Naphthalene, toluene 

Potassium hydroxide 

solution 

Potassium hydroxide 

Pipeline Material 

Rubber resin 

coatings 

Acetone, Coal tar pitch, Ethyl acetate, Methyl ethyl ketone 

(MEK), Toluene, Xylene 

Gases Formaldehyde, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Sulfur dioxide, 

sulfur trioxide 

Hydrocarbons Benzene, Ethylbenzene, n-Hexane, PAHs, Toluene, mXylene, o-Xylene, p-Xylene 

Emissions 

Particulate Matter Barium, Cadmium, Copper, Fine mineral fibers, Lead, 

Manganese, Nickel, POM, Zinc 

Miscellaneous Acids Acetic anhydride, Formic acid, sodium chromate, Sulfuric 

acid 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 3-28

Table 3.6.1. Hazardous Constituents Potentially Used or Produced During Construction, 

Drilling, Production, and Reclamation Operations Associated with Oil and Gas 

Production 

Use Material Hazardous Constituents 

Antifreeze, Heat 

Control, and 

Dehydration Agents 

Acrolein, Cupric sulfate, Ethylene glycol, Freon, Phosphoric 

acid, Potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, Triethylene 

glycol 

Batteries Cadmium, Cadmium oxide, Lead, Nickel hydroxide, 

Potassium hydroxide, Sulfuric acid 

Biocides Formaldehyde, Isopropyl alcohol, Methanol 

Cleaners Hydrochloric acid 

Corrosion Inhibitors 4-4' Methylene dianiline, Acetic acid, Ammonium bisulfite, 

Basic zinc carbonate, Diethylamine, 

Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, Ethylene glycol, Isobutyl 

alcohol, Isopropyl alcohol, Methanol, Naphthalene, Sodium 

nitrite, Toluene, Xylene 

Emulsion Breakers Acetic acid, Acetone, Ammonium chloride, Benzoic acid, 

Isopropyl Alcohol, Methanol, Naphthalene, Toluene, 

Xylene, Zinc chloride 

Fertilizers Unknown 

Herbicides Active and inert ingredients (including proprietary 

ingredients) of herbicides are addressed and described in 

the Final PEIS and ROD Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States, June 2007. 

Lead-free thread 

compound 

Copper, zinc 

Lubricants 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, Barium, Cadmium, Copper, nHexane, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, PAHs, POM, Zinc 

Methanol Methanol 

Motor Oil Zinc compounds 

Paints Aluminum, Barium, n-Butyl alcohol, Cobalt, Lead, 

Manganese, PAHs, POM, Sulfuric acid, Toluene, 

Triethylamine, Xylene 

Paraffin Control Carbon disulfide, Ethylbenzene, Methanol, Toluene, Xylene 

Photoreceptors Selenium 

Scale inhibitors Acetic acid, Ethylene diamine tetra, Ethylene glycol, 

Formaldehyde, Hydrochloric acid, Isopropyl alcohol, 

Methanol, Nitrilotriacetic acid 

Sealants 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, n-Hexane, PAHs, POM 

Solvents 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, Acetone, t-Butyl alcohol, 

Carbontetrachloride, Isopropyl alcohol, MEK, Methanol, 

PAHs, POM, Toluene, Xylene 

Starting Fluid Ethyl ether 

Surfactants Ethylene diamine, Isopropyl alcohol, Petroleum naphtha 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 3-29

3.6.2.8 PHOSPHATE

Phosphate deposits exist in the Uinta Basin within the Meade Peak Member of the Permian Park 

City Formation. Simplot Phosphate (formerly known as SF Phosphate) owns and mines a 

phosphate deposit that is located on private land within the VPA. 

The Utah Division of Water Quality regulates Simplot Phosphate's phosphate mining operation, 

including the large tailings pond disposal area. Samples of tailings water taken indicate 

concentrations of phosphate, fluoride, total dissolved solids (TDS), and chromium to have been 

higher than the Utah Water Quality Standards (UDDW 2003). These standards are the most 

stringent of the applicable numeric criteria for Big Brush Creek, the nearby creek. 

In 1996 Simplot (then SF Phosphate) performed a full-spectrum chemical analysis on a grab 

sample of the mine's tailings water. With the available data, it is not possible to know if the 

standards for cyanide, chromium, or zinc exceeded limits because the testing methods did not 

meet the accuracy levels for those determinations; however, the results indicate that TDS and 

phosphorus exceeded the limits. Although analyses of tailings solids show that the 1996 tailings 

solids are non-toxic, non-acid-forming, and non-saline, data showed higher levels of sulfates, 

hardness, calcium, and TDS in tailings water than those found in Big Brush Creek. This indicates 

that should tailings water migrate past the seepage collection system into Big Brush Creek, the 

creek's water would be degraded. 

Open plan of operation UTU76097 involves a planned phosphate mill tailings disposal from 

Simplot Phosphate's milling of phosphate from patented mining claims onto mill sites. 

3.6.2.9 MINERAL MATERIALS

Mineral materials include sand, gravel, and building stone. There is currently one open notice 

under the CFR 3809 BLM Surface Management regulations on public lands within the VPA. 

This notice, UTU66378, regulates a stone quarry that employs motorized vehicles to extract and 

haul the stone. Materials used for vehicle and equipment operation, such as battery acid, fuels, 

lubricants and antifreeze are the hazardous materials associated with surface mining.

3.7 LANDS AND REALTY

As provided by FLPMA, the BLM has the responsibility of planning for and managing public 

lands. Public lands, as defined by FLPMA, are lands and/or any interest in lands (e.g., mineral 

estate, reservations, etc.) that are owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary 

of the Interior, through the BLM. The land surface and mineral ownerships within the VPA are 

varied and intermingled; consequently, so are the administrative jurisdictions for land use and 

minerals. 

Land and realty program objectives are the following: 

• Manage the public lands to support goals and objectives of other resource programs, 

• Respond to public requests or applications for land-use authorizations, and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 3-30

• Acquire administrative and public access where necessary to enhance resource 

management objectives of the BLM. 

3.7.1 LAND OWNERSHIP ADJUSTMENT

As mandated by Sec. 106 (a)(1) of FLPMA (43 USC 1701), public lands are retained in federal 

ownership except for those public lands that have future potential for disposal (i.e., sale and 

exchange). 

3.7.2 DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION

As described under Sec. 203 (a) and Sec. 206 of FLPMA (43 USC 1713; 1716), public lands 

have potential for disposal when they are isolated and/or difficult to manage. Lands in the VPA 

identified for disposal must meet public objectives (as outlined in Sec. 203 (a) and Sec. 206 of 

FLPMA), such as community expansion and economic development. Exchanges are initiated in 

direct response to public requests or by the BLM to improve management of the public lands. 

The BLM will use both sales and exchange to accomplish disposals to meet plan goals. 

Public sales are managed under the disposal criteria set forth in Sec. 203 of FLPMA. Federal law 

requires lands 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 not available for sale. 

Public land cannot be effectively administered without legal and physical access. Methods used 

to acquire legal rights that meet resource management needs include negotiated purchase, 

donation, exchange, and condemnation. Acquisition alternatives include purchase of fee or lessthan-fee interest above, on, and below the surface; perpetual exclusive easements; and permanent 

or temporary nonexclusive easements. Acquisition of access rights supports one or more of these 

resources: lands, minerals, forestry, range, wildlife, recreation, and watershed. Acquisitions of 

road or trail easements are probably the most frequently encountered access needs. Such 

easements include: 

• road easements 

• scenic or conservation easements 

• sign locations 

• stream clearance projects 

• utility easements 

• hunting and fishing easements 

• range improvements 

In the case of a split-estate acquisition, courts have historically ruled that use of the mineral 

estate has precedence over use of the surface estate, regardless of consistency with long-term 

land-use planning decisions. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 3-31

3.7.3 WITHDRAWALS

Withdrawals are formal 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, although 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 specifically revoked. 

Withdrawals that no longer serve the purpose for which they were established or that lack 

sufficient justification of need would be revoked. Withdrawal review is mandated by FLPMA, 

which requires the BLM to eliminate all unnecessary withdrawals and classifications. Before 

recommending a withdrawal continuation, alternatives such as rights-of-way (ROWs) and 

interagency agreements must be explored. Appendix E describes the existing withdrawals within 

the VPA. 

3.7.4 RIGHTS-OF-WAY (ROWS) 

All public lands in the VPA are made available for ROW designation, permits, and leases, with 

the exception of defined exclusion and avoidance areas. Short segments of corridor, or windows, 

are designated when a full-length ROW corridor cannot be justified. Existing utility windows, 

ROW concentration areas, and communication sites are the preferred locations for future grants. 

Designated corridors are the preferred locations for placement of two or more linear or aerial 

ROWs that are similar, identical, or compatible. Corridors may be designated as Active or 

Contingency. 

3.7.5 UTILITY/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

ROWs are granted on a case-by-case basis. The majority of ROWs granted in the last 20 years 

have been for oil and gas gathering systems or roads. The majority of these ROWs did not follow 

designated corridors. Instead, routes were recommended that were the least environmentally 

damaging and followed de facto utility and transportation systems. Historically, pipeline ROWs 

granted within the VPA have been small surface pipelines, because they were determined to be 

the least environmentally damaging. Most of the larger diameter (10+ inches) pipelines (e.g., 

MAPCO, Northwest and Questar oil/gas transportation pipelines) were buried. The Western 

Regional Corridor Study Committee recommended that utility corridors cross the VPA. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 3-32

Exclusion areas prohibit ROWs and corridor/window designation. All WSAs are exclusion areas 

where new rights-of-ways are prohibited. Avoidance areas are areas where special environmental 

and/or management considerations exist. ROWs are either not granted in these areas, or, if 

granted, are subject to stringent terms and conditions. The following avoidance areas were 

described in the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs RMPs: 

• Red Mountain 

• Six Mile Draw roadless area 

• Red Fleet recreation area 

• Pariette Wetlands 

• Green River corridor 

• Development of inventoried recreation sites 

• Sage grouse strutting areas 

• Scenic corridors 

• Archaeological sites 

• Fragile watersheds 

• Threatened and endangered plant and wildlife habitat areas 

• Crucial winter range 

• ACECs (Diamond Mountain RMP) 

3.7.6 ACCESS

Access to public lands is provided throughout the VPA. Access should be closed or restricted, 

where necessary, to protect public health and safety and to protect significant resource values. 

Easements can be acquired to provide access to public lands for recreational, wildlife, range, 

cultural/historical, mineral, ACEC, special management areas, and other resource needs. Note 

that all valid existing leases and rights are acknowledged by the BLM, and management actions 

implemented through approval of the Final RMP and Record of Decision do not apply 

retroactively to these leases and rights. 

Throughout much of Utah, the state owns and manages four 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 National Park Service lands, are termed state inholdings. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.8. Livestock and Grazing

Vernal RMP 3-33

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 

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 

3.7.7 PERMITS AND LEASES

Sec. 302 of FLPMA states that public lands may be offered for permit or lease to state, local, or 

private citizens for use, occupation, or development. For example, the BLM may permit 

agricultural development, residential use (only under certain very limited conditions), 

commercial use, advertising, or National Guard use of public lands. Permits are usually shortterm authorizations not to exceed 3 years. Leases are long-term authorizations that usually 

require a significant economic investment in the land. Permits and leases generally require the 

permittee or lessee to pay rent to the U.S. for the use of federal property. 

3.7.8 TRESPASS

Trespass occurrences are known to exist but many have not been documented and pursued 

because of lack of personnel and higher priority work. Common trespass locations in the VPA 

are along drainages, oil fields, and other areas bordering public lands. The BLM is responsible 

for realty trespass abatement, which consists of trespass prevention, trespass detection, and 

trespass resolution. The method of trespass resolution depends on whether a trespass was 

intentional or not, the extent and duration of use, and the existence and extent of resource 

impacts. In the past, trespass resolution has involved the BLM collecting administrative costs 

from the trespassing party and then either issuing temporary land-use authorizations (such as 

ROW grants, leases, or permits to resolve unauthorized agricultural use or location of canals, 

fences, pipelines or other facilities) or requiring that the unauthorized use be discontinued or that 

the personal property be removed. 

3.8 LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT

The Vernal Field Office currently administers grazing on 167 allotments throughout the VPA. Of 

these, five grazing allotments (Dry Creek, Hoy Flat, Offield Mountain, South Pot Creek, and 

Wild Mountain–Colorado) are located entirely outside the VPA boundary and two allotments 

(Max Canyon and Blind Canyon) are located entirely on private land inholdings within the VPA. 

The 160 allotments within the VPA designated for livestock grazing encompass approximately 

1,691,116 acres of BLM land. An additional 545,887 acres of other lands (private, state, tribal, 

etc.) are included within these allotments. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 3-34

Livestock are regularly permitted to graze on 153 of the 160 allotments as follows: cattle (113), 

sheep (27), sheep and cattle (12), and horses (1). A few of the cattle and/or sheep allotments also 

permit some horses. Forty-five of the 153 allotments are currently grazed under a deferment 

rotation system, which involves delaying grazing in an allotment until the seed maturity of the 

key forage species. 

On the remaining 7 allotments (Red Creek Flat, Rye Grass, Marshall Draw, Taylor Flat, Warren 

Draw South, Watson-Diamond Mountain and Sears Canyon), cattle are permitted on a 

temporary, non-renewable basis; however, such use is discretionary. 

Within the VPA, 146,161 animal unit months (AUMs) are allocated for livestock, but active 

permitted use for the 160 allotments is currently 137,897 AUMs. However, the demand for 

forage resources by livestock (the total average actual use) for the past 10 years was only 78,500 

AUMs.1

 Suspended use for the 160 allotments is currently 26,364 AUMs. Comprehensive 

grazing allotment information is summarized in Appendix L. 

3.8.1 PAST GRAZING MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES AND CURRENT RANGE 

CONDITIONS, CARRYING CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT, AND FACILITIES

Ecological conditions of the two former RMAs (Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs) were 

assessed and identified using two different evaluation methods. In the 1994 Diamond Mountain 

RMP, allotments were evaluated according to seral stages, (Early, Mid or Late). In the 1985 

Book Cliffs RMP, allotments were evaluated as being in Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor 

ecological condition. 

In 1997, the BLM in Utah developed Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Management (see Appendix F). These standards are descriptions of the desired 

condition of the biological and physical components and characteristics of rangelands. 

Guidelines are management approaches, methods, and practices that are intended to achieve a 

standard. 

The BLM has defined four Fundamentals of Rangeland Health, which are the basic ecological 

principles underlying sustainable production of rangeland resources. These four fundamentals 

are embodied in the BLM's new Grazing Regulations (43 CFR Part 4100) and serve as the basis 

for standards and guidelines for grazing management on BLM-administered public lands in 

Utah. The Standards and guidelines developed by the Utah Resource Advisory Council provide 

for conformance with these fundamentals (43 CFR Part 4180.2(b)). The fundamentals are as 

follows: 

• Watersheds are in or making significant progress toward properly functioning physical 

condition. This condition includes their upland, riparian/wetland, and aquatic 

components. Soil and plant conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the 

release of water that are in balance with climate and landform, and maintain or improve 

water quality, and timing and duration of flow. 

 

1

 This information was compiled from the Actual Use records of each livestock operator. When actual use was not available, 

licensed-use figures were used. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 3-35

• Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are 

maintained, or there is significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities. 

• Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, or is making 

significant progress towards achieving, established BLM management objectives such as 

meeting wildlife needs. 

• Habitats are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for 

Federal Threatened and Endangered species, Federal proposed, Category 1 and 2, Federal 

candidate, and other special status species. 

3.8.2 CURRENT GRAZING MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES

Following the four fundamentals, the Vernal BLM has since re-evaluated each grazing allotment 

and designated each as being in one of three management categories: Maintain (M), Improve (I), 

or Custodial (C). The criteria used for categorizing the allotments were based on resource 

potential, resource use conflicts, opportunity for positive economic return on public investments, 

and the present management situation. Sixty allotments are in the I category, 47 are in the M 

category, and 53 are in the C category. 

3.8.2.1 CATEGORY M – MAINTAIN EXISTING RESOURCE CONDITIONS

• The present ecological condition and management are satisfactory. 

• Either: 

1. Late to climax seral stage condition will be maintained under present 

management, if desired; or 

2. Conditions are mid seral stage or improving, with improvement expected to 

continue under present management, if desired; or 

3. Opportunities for BLM management are limited, either because the percentage of 

public land is low or the acreage of public lands is small. 

• There are no major, land-use resource conflicts with livestock grazing. 

• Land ownership status may or may not limit grazing management opportunities. 

• Opportunities for positive economic return from public investment may exist. 

3.8.2.2 CATEGORY I – IMPROVE EXISTING RESOURCE CONDITIONS

• Present ecological condition is unsatisfactory. 

• Ecological condition is in early to mid seral stage. 

• Ecological condition is in mid to late seral stage. 

• Ecological succession is expected to regress further. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 3-36

• Allotment has a potential for medium to high vegetation production, but production is 

low to moderate. 

• Resource conflicts/controversy with livestock grazing are evident. 

• There is potential for positive economic return on public investment. 

3.8.2.3 CATEGORY C – CUSTODIAL MANAGEMENT

• Present ecological condition is not in a declining trend. 

• Allotment has a low vegetation production potential and is producing near this level. 

• There may be limited conflicts between livestock grazing and other resources. 

• Present management is satisfactory or is the only logical management under existing 

conditions. 

• Opportunities for positive economic return on public investments do not exist. 

3.9 MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES

3.9.1 OIL AND GAS

Oil and gas development are major resource development activities within the Uinta Basin, and 

intense oil and gas exploration and development are expected on BLM-administered lands within 

the VPA over the planning period of the Proposed RMP. These resources are located in an EPCA 

focus area. At present, approximately 2,800 oil and gas wells are active within the VPA. The 

Geologic and Engineering Team in the BLM Vernal Field Office has estimated the relative 

potential for oil and gas resources, including CBNG, in six exploration and development areas 

within the VPA. These areas, from north to south, are: Manila-Clay Basin, Tabiona-Ashley 

Valley, Altamont-Bluebell, Monument Butte-Red Wash, West Tavaputs Plateau, and East 

Tavaputs Plateau (See Figure 19 in the Maps section). 

The number of current leases (wells, developments, and explorations) existing within the VPA 

changes rapidly and frequently. As such, presenting such information would be without merit, 

since said information would be outdated immediately upon issuance of the document. 

Seismic surveys, both three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D), are expected to 

increase during the planning period, particularly in the East Tavaputs Plateau exploration and 

development area. Forty-five (45) to 75 Notices of Intent (NOIs) to perform surveys are 

anticipated, and the Geologic and Engineering Team has estimated that approximately 2,055 new 

oil wells, 4,345 new gas wells, and 130 new CBNG wells would be drilled during the planning 

period. The majority of the oil and gas development activity is anticipated to occur in the 

Monument Butte-Red Wash exploration and development area. Most CBNG activity is expected 

to occur in the East and West Tavaputs Plateau areas. 

3.9.1.1 OIL AND GAS LEASING, AND LOCATABLE AND SALEABLE MINERALS CATEGORIES

The exploration and development of oil and gas resources is accomplished in several stages of 

activity. The first stage (land categorization) involves determining which public domain lands 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 3-37

should be leased and under what conditions. The second stage is leasing. The third stage includes 

exploration, development, and production operations. 

The BLM has designated four categories that describe the conditions placed upon public domain 

lands in regard to their availability for fluid hydrocarbon leasing, and the entire VPA has been 

assigned one of the following leasing categories for oil and gas development: 

• Standard Stipulations 

• Timing and Controlled Surface Use 

• No Surface Occupancy 

• Closed to Leasing 

Standard Stipulations – This lease category identifies areas, which are open to exploration and 

development, subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. 

Timing and Controlled Surface Use – This category identifies areas that are open to 

exploration and development, subject to relatively minor constraints such as seasonal 

restrictions. These areas possess other land uses and/or resource values such as critical big game 

wildlife range or special status plant and wildlife species, which might conflict with fluid 

hydrocarbon exploration and development and, therefore, moderately restrictive lease 

stipulations may be required to mitigate these impacts. The stipulations are utilized where there 

are resource values, which may require specific protection, but the conflicts with fluid 

hydrocarbon exploration and development would not be of sufficient magnitude so as to preclude 

surface occupancy. 

No Surface Occupancy – This minerals lease category identifies areas that are open to 

exploration and development subject to highly restrictive lease stipulations, which includes no 

surface occupancy (NSO). These areas possess special resource values or land uses such as 

camping or picnic areas, scenic areas, Recreation and Public Purpose (R&PP) patents and leases, 

important historical and/or archaeological areas, and buffer zones along the boundaries of special 

use areas such as wild and scenic river corridors. This category is used for those areas where a 

number of seasonal or other minor constraints would severely restrict exploration and 

development. 

Closed to Leasing – This lease category identifies areas that are closed to leasing either by 

discretionary or non-discretionary decisions. These areas have other land uses or resource values, 

which cannot be adequately protected, even with the most restrictive lease stipulations. Closing 

these areas to leasing is the only way to ensure their appropriate protection. Discretionary 

closures involve lands where the BLM has determined that energy and/or mineral leasing, entry, 

or disposal, even with the most restrictive stipulations or conditions, would not be in the public 

interest. Non-discretionary closures involve lands that are specifically closed to energy and/or 

mineral leasing, entry, or disposal by law, regulation, Secretarial decision, or Executive Order. 

All WSAs are closed to leasing by law. 

Locatable and salable minerals areas are generally classified as either Open or Closed. Locatable 

minerals are usually the base and precious metal ores, ferrous metal ores, and certain classes of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 3-38

industrial minerals where acquisition is by staking a mining claim (location) over the deposit and 

then acquiring the necessary permits to explore or mine. Salable minerals are defined as mineral 

commodities sold by sales contract from the federal government. Salable minerals are generally 

common varieties of construction materials and aggregates, such as sand, gravel, cinders, 

roadbed, and ballast material. 

3.9.1.1.1 EPCA 

The Vernal Field Office Planning Area is located within the western portion of the 

Uinta/Piceance Basin area which covers a large amount of northeast Utah and northwest 

Colorado (approximately 18,945,000) acres and is known to have significant occurrences of oil 

and gas resources which have been depicted in a variety of studies. Based on the known 

quantities of oil and natural gas resources within the VPA, the Uinta Basin has been designated 

as an EPCA focus area for oil and gas exploration and development. Most recently, in 2003, 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." It is BLM policy to consider this information in its planning process. The 

information, commonly referred to as the EPCA data, portrays two kinds of basic energy related 

information relevant to the Unita/Piceance Basin, volumetric data and accessibility data (EPCA 

2003). 

The volumetric data on oil reserve estimates for the entire basin is predicted between 61–296 

million barrels of oil with a mean estimate of 149 million barrels of oil (EPCA 2003). 

Volumetric data on gas reserve estimates for the entire basin is predicted between 12-35 trillion 

cubic feet with a mean estimate of 22 trillion cubic feet. Most of the undiscovered natural gas is 

found widely dispersed in continuous deposits rather than distinct structural traps (EPCA 2003). 

Among the five study areas that were subject to the EPCA study, the Uinta/Piceance Basin has 

the highest percentage of oil (85%) available under standard lease terms (EPCA 2003). 

Another kind of data illustrated by EPCA is that of accessibility by industry to the estimated 

reserves. Accessibility by industry was based on the actual depiction of existing land-use plan 

stipulations that presently occur in the Vernal Field Office Planning Area. Careful review of this 

information shows many major inaccuracies of oil and gas stipulations as they presently occur 

with in the planning area. A more accurate portrayal of existing oil and gas stipulations which 

affect industry accessibility to oil and gas resources is shown in Chapter 2, Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives and is located in the Alternative Matrix under Alternative D (No Action) which 

depicts current leasing stipulations. 

In addition to the EPCA data, which is a very large-scale portrayal of energy information, the 

BLM prepared more site-specific data based on 14 conventional and unconventional oil and gas 

play areas within the Vernal Field Office. Numerous data sources including USGS, UGS, 

academic research, UDOGM, industry and government sources, were queried in order to depict 

specific information that was relevant to the potential for occurrence of oil and gas resources 

within Duchesne, Uintah and Daggett Counties. This information was then used to compile the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 3-39

Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Field Office. The mineral report also depicts the 

potential for reasonable foreseeable development for six different zones within the VPA. A brief 

summation of the six oil and gas producing zones is portrayed below. 

3.9.1.2 MANILA-CLAY BASIN EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT AREA

Historically, exploration activity for and production of oil and gas in this region have been 

relatively low, particularly over the last 15 years. All producing wells in the area were drilled 

prior to 1980. Historic gas well data indicate that only three gas wells have been drilled since 

1980, none of which are currently producing wells. New geologic data or an increase in the price 

of natural gas could create increased interest in this area. It is projected that a maximum of 45 

additional gas wells would be drilled in this area in the 5 years following the approval of the 

ROD for this plan. 

3.9.1.3 TABIONA-ASHLEY VALLEY EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT AREA

Past exploration for oil and gas resources in this region has been unproductive. Data indicate that 

there have been no gas wells and only one oil well drilled in this region since 1980, and that the 

lone well is not producing. It is projected that no more than 30 oil wells would be drilled within 

this area in the 5 years following the approval of the ROD for this plan. 

3.9.1.4 ALTAMONT-BLUEBELL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT AREA

This area has had major oil exploration and production in the past, but due to a combination of 

low oil prices and the depletion of the oil reservoir the number of oil wells drilled annually in 

this area has decreased since the early 1990s. It is projected that no more than 175 oil wells 

would be drilled within this area in the 5 years following the approval of the ROD for this plan. 

Past exploration does not indicate a high potential for gas development, but the presence of deep 

gas reserves in the southern portion of this area could be explored over the next 15 years. 

3.9.1.5 MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT AREA

The Monument Butte-Red Wash exploration and development area has been an area of extensive 

oil and gas development and production in the past. It is projected that the oil and gas 

development within Monument Butte-Red Wash will continue to be extensive in the 5 years 

following the approval of the ROD for this plan with 1,700 oil wells and 3,100 gas wells 

projected to be drilled in this area. 

3.9.1.6 WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT AREA

This is not to be confused with the West Tavaputs EIS analysis for full field oil and gas 

development currently being conducted out of the Price Field Office. The area in the VPA has 

not been extensively developed for oil and gas resources in the past 15 years. However, based on 

BLM discussions with oil and gas producers, there is major interest in this area for oil and gas 

exploration and development. The greatest interest is in gas development on the eastern side of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 3-40

this area. As many as 75 oil wells, 350 gas wells, and 50 CBNG wells could be drilled in the area 

in the 5 years following the approval of the ROD for this plan. 

3.9.1.7 EAST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT AREA

This area has had slightly more oil and gas exploration and development than the West Tavaputs 

Plateau area that falls in the VPA, and it is anticipated that major development, particularly 

within natural gas fields, will occur in the 5 years following the approval of the ROD for this 

plan. Increased seismic exploration is expected in the area, and a potential land exchange with 

the State of Utah (subject to congressional approval) is expected to lead to increasing additional 

drilling in the first five years. It is projected that 75 new oil wells, 600 new gas wells, and 80 

new CBNG wells could be drilled in this area in the 5 years following the approval of the ROD 

for this plan. 

3.9.2 TAR SAND

Tar sand contains heavy hydrocarbon residues such as bitumen, tar, or degraded oils that have 

lost their volatile components. Hydrocarbons can be liberated from tar sands by heating and 

other processes. Tar sand deposits in the VPA are generally located along the margins of the 

Uinta Basin. 

The bituminous substance in the sandstones of the Basin's geologic formations is tarry residuum 

of petroleum that fills the pore space in coarse sandstones or forms cement in loose 

unconsolidated sands (Pruitt 1961). The ore retrieved from tar sands is bitumen. Bitumen is a 

general name for various solid and semi-solid hydrocarbons that are fusible and are soluble in 

carbon bisulfide. Petroleum, asphalt, natural mineral wax, and asphaltite are all considered 

bitumen. 

In the early 1980s, certain tar sand deposits in the Uinta Basin were divided into seven Special 

Tar Sand Areas (STSAs) designated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) under direction from 

Congress pursuant to the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981. These STSAs are 

Pariette, Sunnyside, Argyle Canyon - Willow Creek, Asphalt Ridge - Whiterocks, Hill Creek, 

P.R. Spring, and Raven Ridge - Rim Rock (BLM 2002). Table 3.9.1 quantifies the estimated 

amount of bitumen that could potentially be recovered from each of the STSAs in the VPA. 

Table 3.9.1. Estimated Number of Barrels of Bitumen Contained within Each STSA 

STSA Geologic Formations Barrels of Bitumen 

Argyle Canyon-Willow Creek Green River Formation 60–90 million

Asphalt Ridge-Whiterocks Duchesne River/Uinta, Navajo Sandstone, 

and Mesa Verde Formations 

1.2–1.3 billion

Hill Creek Green River Formation 1.6 billion 

Pariette Uinta Formation 12–15 million

P.R. Spring Green River Formation 4–4.5 billion 

Raven Ridge-Rim Rock Green River Formation 100–130 million 

Sunnyside Wasatch Formation 3.5–4 billion 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 3-41

Table 3.9.1. Estimated Number of Barrels of Bitumen Contained within Each STSA 

STSA Geologic Formations Barrels of Bitumen 

Source: Blackett 1996 

Other minor tar sand deposits have also been delineated within the VPA. These deposits include 

Chapita Wells (7.5 to 8 million barrels of bitumen), Cow Wash (1 to 1.2 million barrels of 

bitumen), Upper Kane Hollow (unestimated), Spring Branch (1.5 to 2 million barrels of 

bitumen), Tabiona (1.3 million barrels of bitumen), Lake Fork (6.5 to 10 million barrels of 

bitumen), Split Mountain (unestimated), Nine Mile Canyon (unestimated), Minnie Maude Creek 

(10 to 15 million barrels of bitumen), Little Water Hills (10 to 12 million barrels of bitumen), 

and Spring Hollow (unestimated; Blackett 1996). 

Because tar sand development associated with a combined hydrocarbon lease could be more 

disruptive to environmental resources than oil and gas development, all combined hydrocarbon 

leases issued in STSAs are regulated by an amended leasing category system. 

• Open to leasing, with standard stipulations 

• Open to leasing, with standard and special stipulations 

• Open to leasing, with no right of surface occupancy 

• Closed to leasing 

As of October 2001, there were four permitted tar sand surface mining operations in the VPA, all 

located in Uintah County. The potential for development of this resource, other than for asphalt 

paving, is anticipated to remain low over the next 15 years. 

3.9.3 GILSONITE

Gilsonite is the purest solid bitumen found in nature. Gilsonite is the trade name for Uintaite, 

which is a black, pitch-like substance that occurs in pure form in vein-type deposits in the 

Tertiary sediments of the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. It is a petroleum substance of 

uniform composition and texture with a distinctive conchoidal fracture. In gilsonite, the surfaces 

exposed along fractures typically have a bright sheen and reflect bright light, in notable contrast 

to the jet-black color. A number of important uses for gilsonite have been found since its 

discovery in the late nineteenth century. These uses include high-grade varnishes, lacquers, 

paints, acid proofing, insulating plastics, inks, and mastic (Crawford 1960). For commercial 

purposes, it is graded and marketed by producers into "Selects" and "Standard." There is also a 

very high-grade variety with high luster and deep black color known as "Jet Black" (Stern 1960). 

Gilsonite is allocated by non-competitive and competitive leasing only. Leasing actions may be 

initiated by public interest or by the BLM. Allocation methods vary to suit different situations. 

There is high to moderate potential for gilsonite occurrence within the VPA. It is likely that there 

will be continued exploration and development of this resource within the next 15 years. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 3-42

3.9.4 OIL SHALE

Oil shale is a popular term for sedimentary rock (e.g., marlstone) from the Tertiary Green River 

Formation that contains kerogen. Kerogen is a fossilized organic material that can be converted 

to conventional oil via retorting or destructive distillation processes (Cashion 1967) characterizes 

oil shale as a marlstone that, when distilled, will yield 15 gallons or more of oil per ton of rock. 

Oil shale occurs within the lower part of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River 

Formation. The Mahogany Oil Shale Zone of the Parachute Creek Member is the most notable 

kerogen-bearing unit of the Green River Formation (Trudell et al. 1983). It outcrops in the 

southern part of the VPA and dips north towards the synclinal axis of the Uinta Basin. The 

Mahogany Zone varies in thickness throughout the Uinta Basin, generally thickening and 

becoming less defined from east to west (Cashion 1967). 

There is a high to moderate potential for occurrence of oil shale within the VPA. It is expected 

that a total of one or two small-scale projects may be active over the next 15 years. 

3.9.5 PHOSPHATE

Phosphate deposits exist in the Uinta Basin within the Meade Peak Member of the Permian Park 

City Formation. Phosphate ore is present in the form of P2O5 (Schillie 2002). Extensive, 

relatively high-grade deposits occur at or near the surface in the VPA, making phosphate mining 

in the VPA economical because the ore can be cheaply strip-mined. Deposits in the Flaming 

Gorge/Manila Field area are less economically attractive because of the area's more complex 

geologic setting. 

There is high to moderate potential for the occurrence of phosphate deposits within the VPA. 

Phosphate mining on private land is expected to continue over the next 15 years. There is some 

potential for exploration on BLM lands over the next 15 years. 

3.9.6 MINERAL MATERIALS

Other mineral materials include fine sand, gravel, and building stone. Fine sand deposits can be 

found on the northern edge of Ashley Valley, the portion of the Uinta Basin lying between 

Asphalt Ridge and the Utah-Colorado state line, Moon Lake Reservoir, and Yellowstone 

Reservoir. Moon Lake Reservoir and Yellowstone Reservoir are both on U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) land in the Uinta Mountains. 

Coarse sand and gravel deposits are found along the northern margin of the Uinta Basin, where it 

abuts the southern flank of the Uinta Mountains. More specifically, these deposits occur in the 

upper sandstone units of the Tertiary Duchesne River Formation, in the Uinta Piedmont, and in 

Quaternary terrace/alluvial deposits in streams draining the Uinta Mountains. Green River 

terrace deposits are a source of sand and gravel, and the Mississippian Madison Limestone that 

crops out along the south flank of the Uinta Mountains can be crushed and used as an aggregate. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

 3.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 3-43

Building stone resources exist in the Parachute Creek Member of the Tertiary Green River 

Formation. More specifically, the resource occurs as loose rock that has been eroded from 

outcrops along the south side of Duchesne County through southern Uintah County. 

There is a high to moderate potential for the occurrence of mineral materials, including sand, 

gravel, and building stone in the VPA. It is likely that exploration and development of these 

resources will continue to occur over the next 15 years. 

3.9.7 LOCATABLE MATERIALS

Minor deposits of locatable materials that are associated with hydrothermal alteration and 

secondary mineral precipitation (e.g., base metals, gold, gypsum, and uranium) are known to 

exist within the VPA (Johnson 1973). The Precambrian Red Creek Quartzite has yielded some 

lead, gold, copper, silver, iron, and barium between Mountain Home and the Owiyukuts Plateau. 

The Mississippian carbonate rocks along the south flank of the Uinta Mountains contain some 

small iron deposits (Pruitt 1961). The terrace deposits of the Green River also contain some finegrained placer gold (Pruitt 1961). Uranium is known to exist in some sections of the 

carboniferous units of the Mesa Verde and Uinta Formations (Chenoweth 1992). Gypsum is 

known to occur as an evaporative salt in the Jurassic Carmel and Triassic Moenkopi Formations. 

When mined for chemical-use purposes (e.g., for carbonate scrubber material), the Mississippian 

Madison Limestone that outcrops along the flanks of the Uinta Mountains may be subject to 

mining claim locatable mineral regulations, and may be removed pursuant to the Forest Service 

36 CFR 228 (A) or the BLM 43 CFR 3715, 3802, and 3809 mining regulations, as appropriate. 

There is moderate potential for the occurrence of locatable minerals within the VPA. Very little 

development activity for locatable minerals is anticipated over the next 15 years. 

3.9.8 COAL

Coal mining has not occurred on public lands in the VPA due to lack of demand and the poor 

quality of the deposits. However, coal of commercial value exists in the coal unit of the 

Cretaceous Frontier Sandstone and the Mesa Verde Group Formations (Pruitt 1961). The 

Frontier Sandstone is the most important coal-bearing unit in the VPA. The quality of these coal 

beds improves in an easterly direction (Doelling and Graham 1972). 

There is a moderate potential for the occurrence of economically valuable coal deposits within 

the VPA, but it is unlikely that coal exploration or development will occur over the next 15 years 

because of the generally low-grade quality of the coal. 

3.10 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

3.10.1 OVERVIEW

Since wilderness study areas (WSAs) were established in the 1980s, designation of 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 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

 3.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 3-44

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 (1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory). 

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 it preservation and use in an unimpaired condition". These 

are areas in a natural or undisturbed condition and provide outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or primitive forms of recreation (non-motorized and non-mechanized activities in undeveloped 

settings). 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. Refer to the definition of Wilderness 

Characteristics in the glossary in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. 

In April 2003 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 conduct inventories for characteristics associated with the concept of 

wilderness (FLPMA Section 201; 43 U.S.C. §1711) and to consider management of these values 

in its land-use planning process (FLPMA Section 202; 43 U.S.C. §1712). The BLM's land-use 

Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) states that decisions on whether or not to protect areas with 

wilderness characteristics are to be considered during planning. 

3.10.2 PLANNING AREA PROFILE

There are nine areas in the VPA (approximately 102,938 acres) outside of existing WSAs that 

were determined by the BLM in the 1999 inventory to have the wilderness characteristics of size, 

naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. In addition to the 

lands found to have wilderness characteristics in the 1999 inventory, other lands in the VPA have 

been proposed for wilderness as a part of legislation before Congress (America's Red Rocks 

Wilderness Act). A BLM interdisciplinary team evaluated a variety of sources of information, 

including information provided by the public about these areas, their on-the-ground knowledge 

of these areas, information in case files and field notes/files, master title plats, aerial photos, GIS 

data layers, and field inspections, and the team determined that all or parts of these areas have 

wilderness characteristics. Of the 34 areas evaluated, a total of 25 areas outside of existing 

WSAs totaling about 277,596 acres were found to have wilderness characteristics. These areas 

are identified in the table below (Table 3.10.1; See Figure 26 in the Maps section). These nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics have been carried through the land-use planning 

process to assess the impacts of management options on these lands and to determine how their 

wilderness characteristics will be managed. Many of the inventoried lands were found to lack 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

 3.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 3-45

wilderness characteristics, and these are also identified in the table below (Table 3.10.1; see 

Figure 26 in the Maps section). 

Detailed information about non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics is part of the 

administrative record for the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. The following records are available for 

public review at the Vernal Field Office: (1) 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory; (2) 1999 Utah 

Wilderness Inventory Revision Document for the Vernal Field Office; (3) 1999 Utah Wilderness 

Inventory case files for the Vernal Field Office; (4) Reasonable Probability Determinations for 

the Vernal Field Office; and (5) Documentation of Wilderness Characteristics Review for the 

Vernal Field Office. 

Table 3.10.1 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the VPA 

Name Acres with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(WC) 

Acres with No 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(NWC) 

Contiguous Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Beach Draw 898 9 Beach Draw is contiguous to 

Dinosaur National Monument lands 

recommended by the Park Service for 

wilderness designation. 

Bitter Creek 33,488 8,816 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Bourdette Draw 13,335 2,174 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Bull Canyon 2,483 32 Bull Canyon is contiguous to the 

BLM's Bull Canyon WSA, located in 

Utah and Colorado. 

Cliff Dweller Canyon 0 14,604 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

8,764 4,412 Cold Spring Mountain is contiguous to 

the BLM's West Cold Spring WSA, 

located in Utah and Colorado. 

Cripple Cowboy 13,603 0 Cripple Cowboy is contiguous to the 

BLM's 400-acre Book Cliffs Mountain 

Browse ISA. 

Daniels Canyon 3,045 0 Daniels Canyon is contiguous to the 

BLM's Daniels Canyon WSA and 

Dinosaur National Monument lands 

recommended by the Park Service for 

wilderness designation. 

Dead Horse Pass 6,994 1,124 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

 3.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 3-46

Table 3.10.1 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the VPA 

Name Acres with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(WC) 

Acres with No 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(NWC) 

Contiguous Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Desolation Canyon 63,118 6,993 Desolation Canyon is contiguous to 

the BLM's Desolation Canyon WSA. 

The non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are located in the 

BLM's Vernal, Price, and Moab Field 

Offices. This is the acreage with 

wilderness characteristics in the 

Vernal Field Office portion of the 

area. Total acreage of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics 

covering all three field offices is 

154,767. 

Diamond Breaks 4,539 186 Diamond Breaks is contiguous to the 

BLM's Diamond Breaks WSA, located 

in Utah and Colorado. 

Diamond Mountain 27,238 25 Diamond Mountain is contiguous to 

Dinosaur National Monument lands 

recommended by the Park Service for 

wilderness designation. 

Dragon Canyon 0 19,899 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Goslin Mountain 0 6,084 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Hells Hole Canyon 2,709 0 Hells Hole Canyon includes 7,000 

acres in Colorado. 

Hideout Canyon 1,113 0 Hideout Canyon includes 11,607 

acres of lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the Moab Field 

Office. 

Lower Bitter Creek 11,417 2,682 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Lower Flaming 

Gorge 

17,810 3,360 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Mexico Point 1,277 79 Mexico Point includes 12,837 acres of 

lands with wilderness characteristics 

in the Moab Field Office. 

Moonshine Draw 4,513 0 Moonshine Draw is contiguous to 

Dinosaur National Monument lands 

recommended by the Park Service for 

wilderness designation. 

Mountain Home 7,083 2,201 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

 3.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 3-47

Table 3.10.1 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the VPA 

Name Acres with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(WC) 

Acres with No 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(NWC) 

Contiguous Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Rat Hole Ridge 11,367 0 Rat Hole Ridge includes 1,200 acres 

of lands with wilderness 

characteristics in Colorado. 

Red Creek Badlands 0 4,656 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Seep Canyon 0 20,802 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Split Mountain 

Benches 

0 2,164 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Split Mountain 

Benches South 

0 355 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Stone Bridge Draw 0 3,638 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Stuntz Draw 1,992 0 Stuntz Draw is contiguous to 

Dinosaur National Monument lands 

recommended by the Park Service for 

wilderness designation. 

Sunday School 

Canyon 

0 18,069 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Sweetwater Canyon 6,994 0 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Vivas Cake Hill 277 0 Vivas Cake Hill is contiguous to 

Dinosaur National Monument lands 

recommended by the Park Service for 

wilderness designation. 

White River 21,210 8,564 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Wild Mountain 527 31 Wild Mountain is contiguous to 

Dinosaur National Monument lands 

recommended by the Park Service for 

wilderness designation. 

Wolf Point 11,802 2,764 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Total (34 areas) 277,596 133,723 No contiguous lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics analyzed in this document include 277,596 acres 

of BLM-administered public land. In addition to the acreage currently being managed to protect 

and preserve their wilderness characteristics, the BLM Utah is considering management options 

for 2,759,400 (5.3% of lands in Utah) additional acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics in six ongoing land-use planning efforts. This includes the 277,596 acres in the 

VPA. There are other federal lands with wilderness characteristics in Utah not administered by 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 3-48

the BLM that are currently being managed to protect those values. These are identified in Table 

3.10.2. 

Table 3.10.2. 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 6.10 

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 10.76 

*The percentage figures shown in this table are based on a total land area of 52,541,440 acres in Utah. 

3.11 PALEONTOLOGY

Fossils are the remains, traces, or imprints of ancient organisms preserved in or on the earth's 

crust that provide information about the history of life on earth. Paleontological resources do not 

include any materials associated with an archeological resource, which consist of material 

remains of past human life or activities that are over 100 years old (as defined in section 3(1) of 

the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470bb[1]). 

3.11.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

At approximately 125 miles in length, the Uinta Mountains are the largest east-west-trending 

mountain range in the western hemisphere (Hansen 1969). The Uinta Basin is an asymmetrical 

elongate basin. The Uinta Mountains flank the northern length of the basin and the Book 

Cliffs/Tavaputs Plateau flank the southern margin. The Uinta Basin, Uinta Mountains, and Book 

Cliffs/Tavaputs Plateau are the dominant physiographic provinces of northeastern Utah. The 

Uinta Mountains rise to elevations greater than 13,000 ft (nearly 4000 m). This mountain range 

includes many of the highest peaks in Utah. 

The Uinta Basin is situated in the central portion of the VPA. It has a geologic history of several 

orogenies (mountain building events) and a series sea level changes evidenced in the various 

rock formations and in the fossil record. The rock outcrops in the VPA are primarily sedimentary 

and span more than 2.8 billion years (Ga) of geologic history. These sedimentary deposits 

include Precambrian marine clastics, Paleozoic shelf deposits, Mesozoic terrestrial deposits, 

Tertiary basin fill and lake deposits, and Late Tertiary and Quaternary basin fill, glacial deposits, 

and alluvium (Diamond Mountain RMP 1990). In other words, the sedimentary rocks within the 

VPA formed and deposited in a variety of ancient environments more than 65 million years ago. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 3-49

3.11.2 EVALUATION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE AND CONDITIONS

The BLM has identified four 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 (BLM 1998:01). The 

BLM considers vertebrate fossils, as a group, to be scientifically significant; invertebrate and 

plant fossils may be determined to be significant on a case-by-case basis. Petrified wood is 

treated as a mineral material and may be collected or purchased under the Material Sales Act of 

1947 (as amended), but cannot be obtained under the General Mining Law of 1872. 

In 1998, the BLM released H-8270-1, General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological 

Resource Management. This handbook established a simple tri-level classification system 

(Condition I, II, and III) for the "ranking of [geographic] areas according to their potential to 

contain vertebrate fossils, or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils" (BLM 

1998:II-3). 

On October 15, 2007, the BLM Washington Office (WO) IM 2008-009 (BLM 2007) replaced 

the tri-level classification system with the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System 

for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands, and H-8270-1 was revised to include this new 

classification system. The new classification system is meant to provide baseline guidance for 

predicting, assessing, and mitigating paleontological resources. Table 3.11.1 below (from 

Attachment 2-2 of the IM) provides a correlation for the old and new classification systems. 

Table 3.11.1. Correlation between Condition and PFYC Classification Systems for 

Paleontological Resources 

Condition Classes PFYC Classes 

Condition 1 – Areas known to contain vertebrate 

fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or 

plant fossils. (Note: this refers to known localities or 

groups of localities) 

PFYC Class 4 (High) or Class 5 (Very High), based 

on geologic unit. 

Condition 2 – Areas with exposures of geologic 

units or settings that have high potential to contain 

vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate or plant fossils. 

PFYC Class 3 (Moderate), Class 4 (High), or Class 

5 (Very High), based on geologic unit. 

Condition 3 – Areas are very unlikely to produce 

vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate or plant fossils. 

PFYC Class 1 (Very Low) or Class 2 (Low) 

The descriptions for the classes below are written to serve as guidelines rather than as strict 

definitions: 

Class 1 – Very Low. Geologic units that are not likely to contain recognizable fossil remains. 

• Units that are igneous or metamorphic, excluding reworked volcanic ash units. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 3-50

• Units that are Precambrian in age or older. 

The probability for impacting any fossils is negligible. 

Class 2 – Low. Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or 

scientifically significant non-vertebrate fossils. 

• Vertebrate or significant invertebrate or plant fossils not present or very rare. 

• Units that are generally younger than 10,000 years before present. 

• Recent aeolian (wind-blown) deposits. 

• Sediments that exhibit significant physical and chemical changes (i.e., diagenetic 

alteration). 

Class 3 – Moderate or Unknown. Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where the fossil 

content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of 

unknown fossil potential. 

• Often marine in origin with sporadic known occurrences of vertebrate fossils. 

• Vertebrate fossils and scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils known to 

occur intermittently; predictability known to be low. 

• Poorly studied and/or poorly documented. Potential yield cannot be assigned without 

ground reconnaissance. 

Class 3a – Moderate Potential. Units are known to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically 

significant non-vertebrate fossils, but these occurrences are widely scattered. Common 

invertebrate or plant fossils may be found in the area, and opportunities may exist for hobby 

collecting. The potential for a project to be sited on or impact a significant fossil locality is low, 

but is somewhat higher for common fossils. 

Class 3b – Unknown Potential. Units exhibit geologic features and preservational conditions 

that suggest significant fossils could be present, but little information about the paleontological 

resources of the unit or the area is known. This may indicate the unit or area is poorly studied, 

and field surveys may uncover significant finds. The units in this Class may eventually be placed 

in another Class when sufficient survey and research is performed. The unknown potential of the 

units in this Class should be carefully considered when developing any mitigation or 

management actions. 

Class 4 – High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence of significant fossils. Vertebrate 

fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been 

documented, but may vary in occurrence and predictability. Surface-disturbing activities may 

adversely affect paleontological resources in many cases. 

Class 4a – Unit is exposed with little or no soil or vegetative cover. Outcrop areas are extensive 

with exposed bedrock areas often larger than two acres. Paleontological resources may be 

susceptible to adverse impacts from surface-disturbing actions. Illegal collecting activities may 

impact some areas. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 3-51

Class 4b – These are areas underlain by geologic units with high potential but have lowered risks 

of human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation due to moderating 

circumstances. The bedrock unit has high potential, but a protective layer of soil, thin alluvial 

material, or other conditions may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the bedrock resulting 

from the activity. 

• Extensive soil or vegetative cover; bedrock exposures are limited or not expected to be 

impacted. 

• Areas of exposed outcrop are smaller than two contiguous acres. 

• Outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by 

topographic conditions. 

• Other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability of both known and 

unidentified paleontological resources. 

Class 4 and Class 5 units may be combined as Class 5 for broad applications, such as planning 

efforts or preliminary assessments, when geologic mapping at an appropriate scale is not 

available. 

Class 5 – Very High. Highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably 

produce vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils, and that are at 

risk of human-caused adverse impacts or natural degradation. 

Class 5a – Unit is exposed with little or no soil or vegetative cover. Outcrop areas are extensive 

with exposed bedrock areas often larger than two contiguous acres. Paleontological resources are 

highly susceptible to adverse impacts from surface-disturbing actions. Unit is frequently the 

focus of illegal collecting activities. 

Class 5b – These are areas underlain by geologic units with very high potential but have lowered 

risks of human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation due to 

moderating circumstances. The bedrock unit has very high potential, but a protective layer of 

soil, thin alluvial material, or other conditions may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the 

bedrock resulting from the activity. 

• Extensive soil or vegetative cover; bedrock exposures are limited or not expected to be 

impacted. 

• Areas of exposed outcrop are smaller than two contiguous acres. 

• Outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by 

topographic conditions. 

• Other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability of both known and 

unidentified paleontological resources. 

Using data gathered from the Utah Geological Survey, this section identifies areas according to 

their potential to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant 

fossils.
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 3-52

3.11.2.1 CLASS 4 AND 5 AREAS

For the purpose of this management plan, all vertebrate fossil localities were identified as to 

section, township, and range. Any section that contained one or more (maximum of 36) 

vertebrate fossil localities was identified as a Class 4 and 5 area. The total area (the sum of all 

sections containing one or more vertebrate or trace fossil locality) for Class 4 and 5 areas is 

approximately 147,062 acres. Fossil localities that lack specific geographic information were not 

considered.

3.11.2.2 CLASS 3 AREAS

Areas where geological units that yield vertebrate fossils or significant invertebrate or plant 

fossils elsewhere are identified as Class 3 areas for the purposes of this management plan. 

Outcrops of units such as the Morrison, Mesa Verde, Mancos, Moenkopi, Green River, Uintah, 

Wasatch, Chinle, and Navajo/Nugget Formations should be considered as Class 3 areas in the 

VPA. All of these units contain vertebrate fossils in other locations and may require further 

assessment where they are exposed in the VPA. Areas where these units are covered or obscured 

are not Class 3 areas. The total acreage included in sections in which vertebrate or other 

scientifically significant fossils may be expected to occur is approximately 1,173,741 acres. 

Although significant fossils have not yet been found in these areas, there is a high potential for 

their discovery. Fossil localities that lack specific geographic information were not considered.

3.11.2.3 CLASS 1 AND 2 AREAS

Class 1 and Class 2 areas are not known to contain any paleontological localities and do not 

appear (at this time) to have geological units likely to produce vertebrate fossils or noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. Classes1 and 2 areas make up approximately 446,946 

acres of the VPA.2

3.12 RECREATION

3.12.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

The vast and varied landforms within the VPA accommodate many recreational uses. With two 

major rivers and several small mountain ranges, this area attracts recreational users from the 

Uinta Basin, as well as from western Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah's heavily populated 

Wasatch Front. The VPA is valued for its wide range of outdoor activities including hunting and 

fishing, rafting and canoeing, hiking and camping, OHV use, horseback riding and mountain 

biking, and general recreation. The rise in recreation's popularity has presented challenges to 

managing outdoor recreation to accommodate demand, while ensuring the health of the resources 

that are essential to its existence. 

The basic units of recreation management are the Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) 

and the Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). An SRMA is a designated area where 

 

2

 Calculations for condition areas acreages do not include State, Tribal, or Private lands. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 3-53

recreation is emphasized. Extensive Recreation Management Areas are areas where recreation is 

unstructured and dispersed, where minimal recreation-related investments are required, and have 

minimal regulatory constraints. 

3.12.1.1 SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMAS) 

3.12.1.1.1 BROWNS PARK SRMA 

The Browns Park SRMA encompasses the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam (from the 

Ashley National Forest boundary to the Utah-Colorado state line) and is approximately 23 miles 

in length and one mile wide, with line-of-sight up to one-quarter mile of the river centerline. 

River recreation, camping, fishing, and sightseeing are the primary recreational opportunities in 

Browns Park. There is an increasing interest in OHV, hiking, cycling, and equestrian use. The 

John Jarvie Historic Ranch is located within the Browns Park SRMA and provides a historic 

recreation resource for the area. The ranch accommodates approximately 15,000 visitors each 

year and is considered a major attraction within the Diamond Mountain ERMA. 

3.12.1.1.2 PELICAN LAKE SRMA 

Unlike many of the more remote recreation resources in the Diamond Mountain ERMA, Pelican 

Lake is in close proximity to Vernal and is heavily used by the semi-urban population of the 

Uinta Basin. The most popular activities on Pelican Lake are boating and fishing. Management 

of the SRMA has become more challenging as the population in Vernal continues to increase, 

bringing with it greater numbers of users and more conflicts between different recreational 

activities. 

3.12.1.1.3 RED MOUNTAIN-DRY FORK

The Red Mountain-Dry Fork SRMA lies approximately 12 miles northwest of Vernal and is 

open year-round. Access to the area is by paved road. The area is primarily used by OHV 

recreationists, hunters, campers, mountain bikers, and for general day use. Rock art is also 

present in the area. 

3.12.1.1.4 NINE MILE CANYON

The Nine Mile Canyon SRMA is located at the southwest boundary of the VPA, and is a popular 

tourist destination. Noted as having the highest concentration of rock art sites in the U.S., 

services are available, but limited, within the canyon and camping is not allowed. Travel through 

the canyon is along a narrow, unpaved road suitable for most passenger and small recreational 

vehicles. Nine Mile Canyon is protected by the Antiquities Act, which prohibits excavations or 

acts that may injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruins, dwellings, or other structures. 

3.12.1.2 EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT (ERMAS) 

The ERMAs are areas where dispersed recreation is encouraged and where visitors have 

recreational freedom-of-choice with minimal regulatory constraint. They are usually areas that 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 3-54

receive very little recreation use. These areas could include developed and primitive recreation 

sites with minimal facilities. Public recreation issues or management concerns are limited, and 

minimal management suffices in these areas. Detailed planning is not usually required for these 

areas. All areas within the VPA that are not part of a SRMA are included within the ERMA. 

3.12.2 RECREATION TYPES

3.12.2.1 TRAILS

In November 2001, the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism at Utah State University 

(USU) prepared an analysis of public sentiment towards trails with a statewide telephone survey. 

Results were compiled for the Uinta Basin sub-area. Results of the survey indicated the 

following: 

• Hiking was the most mentioned activity. 

• OHV riding was mentioned second. 

• Horseback riding was mentioned third. 

• Only 47% of trail users indicated they would support the use of additional public funds 

for motorized trails. 

• Over 79% of trail users support the use of additional public funds for non-motorized 

trails. 

• A clear majority of the general population believes that trails provide economic benefit 

for local communities. 

Using the data collected through USU, the Governor's Initiative on Trails established a goal to 

increase trail facilities throughout Utah. A working group to help establish priority areas for trail 

development focused on three major trails in the Uinta Basin: 

• Dry Fork Flume, a non-motorized trail approximately 19 miles long. 

• Outlaw Adventure OHV Trail, a motorized trail approximately 47 miles long. 

• Vernal Canals – several non-motorized trails constituting 47 miles of total trail length. 

3.12.2.2 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES (OHVS) 

The number of OHVs used in the VPA has grown in the last 10 years. According to Utah State 

Parks and Recreation, the number of statewide permits issued between 1988 and 1998 has grown 

from 20,000 to 70,000. There has been a 294% increase in registration since 1997, and annually, 

30% have been first-time buyers. As identified by the National Management Strategy for 

Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands, the growth of OHV use can be attributed 

to the following: 

• Greater public interest in unconfined outdoor recreation opportunities. 

• Rising disposable income, fostered by a healthy domestic economy, for use on 

recreational pursuits. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 3-55

• Advances in vehicle technology that enabled motorized OHV users to reach previously 

inaccessible areas. 

• The rapid growth of the West's cities and suburbs, whose expansion and population 

growth has brought Westerners closer to once-remote public lands. 

• A population with an increasing median age with changing outdoor recreational interests. 

Extensive research has been conducted over the last several years to attempt to designate certain 

areas as appropriate for OHV use. This process is a long-term, ongoing effort to ensure resource 

protection while allowing a variety of recreation opportunities. 

Areas that receive the most OHV use within the VPA are day-use areas accessible by the Vernal 

population. Presently, the areas of highest OHV use are: 1) Buckskin Hills, north of the town of 

Vernal; 2) Jensen Hills; 3) the Raven Ridge area, which is south of the east Highway 40 and east 

of the old Bonanza Highway; and 4) the Glen Bench ATV area north of Fantasy Canyon (an 

unofficial designated site, where people are directed to go to minimize intensive use of other 

more sensitive areas). Major visual, soils/watershed, and vegetation degradation is occurring in 

some areas. 

3.12.2.3 HUNTING AND WILDLIFE VIEWING

Hunting and wildlife viewing are widespread throughout the VPA. Concentrated areas occur in 

the Book Cliffs ERMA and Pariette Wetlands . Big game hunting in the Book Cliffs and on 

Diamond Mountain is generally an extended recreational activity (5-12 days) because of the 

limited number of tags and the excellent hunting opportunities that the area provides. Public 

access to the Diamond Mountain public lands is limited because of private ownership. 

3.12.2.4 SCENIC DRIVES

Four popular scenic drives, including Scenic Byways and Backways and one Federal Highway 

Administration National Scenic Byway, are within the VPA, typically promoted by the 

Dinosaurland Travel Board. The four routes are Nine Mile, Jones Hole, and Browns Park 

Backways and the Flaming Gorge Drive through the Ages National Scenic Byway. Other scenic 

routes would include the Dinosaur National Monument Park Highway, the state park roads into 

both Red Fleet and Steinaker Reservoirs, the Book Cliff Divide Road, and the day-use area 

accessing the Ashley National Forest up Dry Fork Canyon. 

3.12.2.5 RIVER RECREATION

Two major rivers provide the resource for river recreation- the Green River, and the White River. 

Since the last BLM planning efforts (in 1985 for the Book Cliffs, and 1994 for Diamond 

Mountain), commercial river recreation clients and river user days have remained relatively 

constant, while casual use has been increasing by approximately 5% annually. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 3-56

3.12.2.5.1 THE GREEN RIVER

Along the Green River, the BLM administers and collects fees for all of the commercial river 

permits in three major river sections: the Flaming Gorge Dam to Little Hole (Section A), Little 

Hole to Indian Crossing (Section B), and Indian Crossing to the Utah/Colorado state line 

(Section C). Permits are required for commercial boating, while boating for personal use from 

the Flaming Gorge Dam to the Dinosaur National Monument at Lodore Canyon does not require 

a permit. The bulk of commercial use, approximately 75 boats per day, occurs between the 

Flaming Gorge Dam and Little Hole (all of which is administered by the Ashley National 

Forest). 

The most apparent conflict on the Green is between different recreational activities. It is not 

uncommon to have commercial and private rafts, single kayaks, and drift boats on the same 

stretch of river simultaneously floating past shore fisherman. The noise from larger groups on the 

rafts can interfere with the peace and solitude sought by the fishermen. Use along the shore is 

primarily by fishermen. 

3.12.2.5.2 THE WHITE RIVER

The White River is also a major resource for commercial and non-commercial boating. 

Approximately 2,000 people visit this stretch of the White River each year. The most popular 

section of the White River is from the Bonanza Bridge to the Enron take-out, a distance of 32 

river miles. 

Several visual resources exist in this section of the White River, providing additional recreation 

opportunities. One of the recreational and visual resources along the river is the Goblin City 

Overlook, a lookout point approximately 800 feet above the White River. The view is primarily 

eastward through a series of high ridges, which have features resembling towers, spires, and 

turrets. 

The confluence of the Green River and White River occurs within the boundary of the Uintah 

and Ouray Indian Reservation. The Reservation requires a permit for river use and for take-out 

through any of their property. 

3.12.2.6 BOATING/SWIMMING

Although most reservoir recreation occurs on the state park facilities of Steinaker and Red Fleet 

Reservoirs, Pelican Lake also receives heavy use from boaters. Activities on Pelican Lake 

include motorized and non-motorized boating and picnicking. There is intense fishing for 

bluegill and bass, especially on spring weekends, and up to 70 boats may use the BLM boat ramp 

daily. Swimming in Pelican Lake is strongly discouraged due to the threat of bacterial and 

parasitic skin infections. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 3-57

3.12.3 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Within the VPA, and nationally, OHV areas are designated as open, limited, or closed. An open 

designation allows intensive OHV use where there are no compelling resource protection needs, 

user conflicts, or public safety issues. An area designated as limited restricts OHV use to meet 

specific resource management objectives. Limitations may occur on number or type of vehicles, 

time and season of use, or specific roads. An area is designated as closed to protect resources, 

ensure visitor safety, or reduce user conflicts. Within the VPA there are 787,859 acres open to 

OHV use, 887,275 acres that are limited, and 50,388 acres that are closed (see Figure 37 in the 

Maps section). 

3.13 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND RESOURCES

Riparian areas and wetlands are considered some of the most diverse and productive portions of 

the VPA, but on the landscape level riparian areas and wetlands typically compose less than 1% 

of the total land area. Benefits from these areas are essential to both human and wildlife values. 

The lifecycles of most mammals, birds, amphibians, and fishes rely partially or wholly on 

riparian and wetland areas. Sensitive species such as the Ute ladies'-tresses, Bald Eagles, and 

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoos have their primary habitat in riparian areas. Additionally, these 

areas provide recreational, scenic, livestock production, and hunting areas for humans. Often, 

riparian and wetland resources are among the first landscape features to show impacts from 

management activities and often reflect overall watershed condition. 

3.13.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

Approximately 16,000 acres of riparian zones are found along the Green and White Rivers and 

Bitter, Evacuation, Sweetwater, and Willow Creeks in the Book Cliffs portion of the VPA. As of 

1982, 470 acres of riparian zones in the Book Cliffs portion of the VPA were identified as being 

in poor ecological condition (BLM 1984). However, current riparian conditions within the Book 

Cliffs are being assessed, and riparian conditions could have changed since the 1984 

riparian/wetland assessment (see 3.11.2 below). The Diamond Mountain portion of the VPA 

contains 60,300 acres of riparian lands (2% of the inventoried lands), with 15,650 acres of the 

60,300 acres in public lands. There are 540 miles of perennial and intermittent streams in the 

VPA (BLM 1993b). The BLM manages its riparian zones for multiple uses, including recreation, 

grazing, wildlife habitat, and other uses. 

Wetlands in the study area are primarily adjacent to riparian zones and reservoirs. Additionally, 

several constructed water impoundments, the Pariette Wetlands, Bitter Creek Marsh, and springs 

are found in the VPA. The Pariette Wetlands have the largest contiguous area of wetlands in the 

VPA, and they are the largest waterfowl management area managed by the BLM in Utah. 

Specifically, the Pariette Wetlands area encompasses approximately 9,033 acres, 2,529 acres of 

which have riparian-wetland characteristics. The Pariette Wetlands riparian areas are situated 

along 7 miles of Pariette Draw, approximately 24 miles southwest of Vernal. Wetlands are 

divided between 20 ponds and impoundments that are regulated for waterfowl and migratory 

bird habitat. Bitter Creek contains vital riparian zones with box elders, aspens, willows, and 

sedges which support a variety of life including reptiles, amphibians, and waterfowl. The streams 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-58

and adjacent cliffs provide habitat for birds including Peregrine Falcons and Golden Eagles and 

provide prime calving grounds for elk and habitat for deer. 

3.13.2 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND INVENTORY

The Vernal Field Office has prepared a preliminary inventory of riparian and wetland resources 

within the VPA, although, as of October 2003, a comprehensive assessment of riparian condition 

has yet to be conducted by a full ID Team. As identified in the preliminary riparian inventory 

there are 295 miles and 3,674 acres of riparian areas currently in proper functioning condition, 

133 miles and 1,452 acres functioning at risk, and 79 miles and 1,213 acres that are not in 

properly functioning condition. These are preliminary numbers and they may change as the 

inventory is completed. Figure 5 Forage (see Maps section) displays the coverage of riparian and 

wetland inventory data within the VPA. Functioning condition is divided into three classes: 

properly functioning condition (PFC), functioning at risk (FAR), and non-functioning (NF). (See 

Glossary for definitions). 

3.14 SOCIOECONOMICS

3.14.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

This section describes the current social and economic setting, trends, conditions, and 

characteristics for Uintah, Duchesne, and Daggett Counties in northeastern Utah (Table 3.14.1). 

It will serve as a baseline for future resource management by the Vernal Field Office. 

Along with much of the rest of Utah, Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties have grown in 

population and economic vitality over the years. These counties are populated by citizens who 

place a high value on living in rural and small-town environments and want to keep that identity. 

However, they also want to be prosperous and to live in prosperous communities. As prosperity 

is a common desire among members of each community, it is predicted that the economies and 

populations of these three counties will continue to grow indefinitely. 

There are a number of similarities between Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties. The driving 

time from each of the three county seats to the political and economic capital of the state, Salt 

Lake City, is approximately 2-3 hours. Each of the counties has a distinctly rural culture and 

strong attitudes regarding the importance of farming and ranching in their culture. Each of the 

counties has an abundance of topographic scenic beauty that draws large numbers of visitors. All 

three counties have vast expanses of BLM and USFS land within them. 

State and federal land (including the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation) in the three counties, 

managed by state and federal officials and Reservation authorities, ranges from 72% in Duchesne 

to 81% in Uintah to 89% in Daggett. The leadership of all three counties regards most of this 

land as part of their economic base. 

Although the political leadership in each of the three counties knows and trusts the others, they 

are each highly independent. "One size" responses to the three counties from any government or 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-59

private entity seeking to engage in a region-wide project will not necessarily "fit all." There is 

only one all-weather road (SR 44 and US 191) from the Daggett County seat, Manila, to 

anywhere in Uintah and Duchesne Counties. (It is a 1.5-hour drive to Vernal and a 2.5-hour drive 

to the City of Duchesne.) In the winter, because that road goes over the Uinta Mountains, travel 

time and hazard can be increased considerably. Because of the road's location on the north slope 

of the Uinta Mountains and its limited access, in some ways, Daggett County residents feel more 

socially and economically connected to the Rock Springs, Wyoming area than they do to any 

area of Utah. 

Uintah and Duchesne Counties have large portions of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation 

within their boundaries, and they both work collaboratively with Reservation authorities on 

matters of mutual interest. Oil and natural gas is a significant portion of the economy in these 

two counties, particularly in Uintah County. Although Daggett County has no Native American 

lands and produces less oil and gas, it is the site for transportation and pipeline corridors that 

deliver gas and electricity to markets. Thus, the energy sector plays a different but equally 

important role. Daggett County also has the single largest tourist/recreation attraction of the three 

counties: Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, which draws more than a million visitors a 

year. Uintah County is much larger in population (25,224) and economy ($229.5 million total 

non-farm wages annually) than either Duchesne County (population 14,371; $113.3 million total 

non-farm wages annually) or Daggett County (population 921; $10.8 million total non-farm 

wages). Daggett County's tax base is so small that it has difficulty meeting all the responsibilities 

and expectations of a contemporary county. 

Table 3.14.1. County Comparisons 

County Population 

2000 Land Area 

Percent 

BLM 

Land 

Largest Industry 

Daggett 921 459,553 acres 80.6 Government Services/Tourism 

Duchesne 14,371 2.1 million acres 46.6 Government Services/Retail Trade 

Uintah 25,224 2.9 million acres 46.1 Oil Gas and Mining/Government Services 

To best understand the relationship between socioeconomics and planning for the Vernal Field 

Office, the social, economic, and governmental settings are discussed for each county. From 

these specific discussions, region-wide conclusions about the socioeconomic factors in the VPA 

can be drawn. 

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 finished as of February, 

2008. "Public lands," as described in the study, consist of all federal and state managed lands, 

and not only BLM lands. 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 planning area 

boundaries, as that was not the focus of the study. Nonetheless, the study provides current and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-60

interesting results not available elsewhere, and shows the dependence of local communities on 

public lands for a variety of economic and recreational pursuits. Appendix XX (USU Public 

Lands Study) contains initial summary results for Uintah, Duchesne and Daggett Counties lying 

within the Vernal 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. 

3.14.2 UINTAH COUNTY

3.14.2.1 SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Uintah County has experienced continuous population growth since the early 1900s (Table 

3.14.2). Moderate growth is anticipated to continue into the next decade, as shown in the table 

below. The major communities include the county seat Vernal, Naples, and Ballard. 

Approximately 7,700 (or 31%) of Uintah County residents live in Vernal and 1,300 (or 5%) live 

in Naples. The largest number 15,644 (or 62%) live in unincorporated areas of the county. Most 

Uintah County residents live on farms, ranches, and unincorporated communities, many of which 

are tribal communities. 

Table 3.14.2. Population Growth by Area, Past, Present, and Projected 

Area 1990 2000 2020 

Ballard Town 644 566 1,017 

Naples City 1,334 1,300 1,718 

Uintah County 22,211 25,224 29,058 

Unincorporated Uintah County 13,589 15,644 18,495 

Vernal City 6,644 7,714 8,341 

Source: Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB), 2000 Census, U.S. Census Bureau 

Uintah County covers a land area of 4,477 square miles and, at 5.6 residents per square mile, is 

one of the least densely populated counties in the state. Approximately 10.3% of Uintah County 

residents are American Indian. Eighty percent of the households in Uintah County are family 

households, and 44.5% have children less than 18 years of age. Average household size in 

Uintah County, at 3.05 persons per household, is slightly smaller than the state average, at 3.13 

persons per household. Approximately 65% of Uintah County residents are 18 years of age or 

older and 10% are 65 years plus (U.S. Census 2000). 

Schools are an important component of the social setting in a community, indicating trends of the 

youthful population. Approximately 5,940 children are in the Uintah School District, and 

enrollment in Uintah schools has been steadily declining. Between 1997 and 2002, student 

population dropped from 6,445 to 5,938. The Vernal campus of Utah State University and the 

Uintah Basin Applied Technology College provide higher education opportunities to Vernal and 

Uintah County. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-61

The residents of Uintah County value the rural character and quiet lifestyle that comprises their 

communities. The historical land-use practices including farming, ranching, and natural resource 

development that shaped the culture of the area serve as the foundation for today's rural 

community. While the initial Uinta Basin settlements were founded primarily upon agricultural 

practices, mining also helped establish communities in the basin. By the mid-1850s farmers and 

ranchers were growing wheat, vegetables, and fruit and grazing cattle in the basin and miners 

were extracting gold, copper, and gilsonite (Burton 1996). The agricultural and mining industries 

assisted in the formation of the local communities within the Uinta Basin and the historical 

practices still occur on the land today. 

Many local residents are intimately connected to the traditional land-use practices that shaped the 

culture of the Uinta Basin. Today, citizens identify with the rural, small town sense-of–place that 

has been present in their communities for over a century. While residents of the County support 

growth and development, it must complement the current quality of life and values held by the 

citizens. According to the Uintah County General Plan Update, residents value the County's 

progressive, diverse, friendly, safe, rural and comfortable atmosphere. 

3.14.2.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

3.14.2.2.1 EMPLOYMENT

Uintah County has experienced significant changes in its employment base in the past 50 years 

(Table 3.14.3). Initially, agriculture-related activities such as ranching and farming dominated 

the economy. Then, during the second half of the twentieth century, the development of oil and 

gas reserves provided a major contribution to growth. Now, retail trade, private services, and 

government services together provide a significant contribution to the county's economy. This 

evolution in employment base demonstrates Uintah County's shift from an agrarian economy to 

that of oil and gas, services to support oil and gas, and the boom in public land industries. 

Service-based employment contributes to the job base in the area. Almost two-thirds of Uintah 

County employees work in retail trade, private services, or government services. While the table 

below shows a high number of retail, service and government jobs, it should be noted that many 

of these jobs are in support of the oil, gas, and mining industry. A recent University of Utah 

Study commissioned by the Governor's Office concluded that 49.5% of all employment in the 

Uinta Basin (Uintah and Duchesne Counties) was directly or indirectly attributable to the oil and 

gas industry (page 21). This effect is presumably greater in Uintah than in Duchesne or Daggett 

Counties (State of Utah 2007). 

The average annual non-farm wage in Uintah County was $28,392 in 2003. Out of the top 35 

employers in Uintah County, 13 are related to oil, gas and mining, 10 are government service 

employers, and 7 are retail employers. Unemployment in Uintah County was 6.1% in 2003, 

slightly higher than the state rate (approximately 5.6%). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-62

Table 3.14.3. Uintah County Labor Force Statistics 

 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Construction 414 414 503 551 

Ed/Health/Soc Svs 654 678 763 821 

Financial Activities 283 274 309 323 

Government 2,526 2,531 2,587 2,590 

Information 104 115 120 133 

Labor Force 11,029 11,707 12,563 13,013 

Leisure/Hospitality 833 902 956 970 

Manufacturing 253 199 194 189 

Mining – Inc. oil & gas empl. 1,490 1,814 1,612 1,845 

Non Farm Jobs 9,261 9,868 9,957 10,323 

Other Services 240 269 258 282 

Profess/Business Svcs 504 508 483 466 

Trade/Trans/Utilities 2,010 2,182 2,172 2,190 

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services 

Per capita annual income in Uintah County was $ 19,396 in 2003, lower than the state average of 

$24,639. The median household income in Uintah County was $42,422 in 2003. The national 

threshold for poverty in 2000 was an annual household income of $14,269. Nationally, 11.3% of 

the population fell below the poverty line in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). Approximately 

14.5% of all residents of Uintah County fall below the federal poverty line; only San Juan 

County (26.4%) and Duchesne County (15%) have a higher percentage of the population below 

the poverty line. The average for the state of Utah is 8% (Utah Department of Workforce 

Services - Workforce Information, May 2001). 

3.14.2.2.2 AGRICULTURE

Agriculture has historically been a big part of the identity of the people of Uintah County. The 

Utah Department of Agriculture reports 908 farms in Uintah County in 2002. Livestock is the 

county's largest source of cash receipts, with $26.2 million in 2002 for livestock and livestock 

products. Crops produced $3.3 million in cash receipts. The total amount of land used for 

agriculture includes 33,136 acres of harvested cropland and 60,838 acres of irrigated land (Utah 

Agricultural Statistics 2002). Uintah County officials indicate that although agriculture is a major 

part of the economy, to survive, many farmers and ranchers have full-time jobs and use 

agriculture only to supplement their livelihood and to maintain a close family tradition. 

Agriculture is very dependant upon BLM land access for grazing rights and other use. Grazing is 

discussed in detail in the VPA Analysis of Management Situation and in numerous sections of 

the VPA RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-63

3.14.2.2.3 MINERAL RESOURCES

The Department of the Interior's Mineral Management Service identifies fluid and non-fluid 

mineral resources in Uintah County. The non-fluid mineral resources explored in Uintah County 

include phosphate, gilsonite, oil shale, and other minerals. Fluid mineral resource activities 

include oil production, natural gas exploration and related mineral exploration. Among the 

resources, the highest revenue generator in the county is natural gas; the industry in Uintah 

County generated over $30 million in federal Royalties in 2001. The most significant fluid 

mineral resource relative to contribution to state totals is oil production. Oil and gas production 

in 2001 represented 21% and 32% of the state totals, respectively. Table 3.14.4 shows the federal 

royalty values generated in 1998 and 2001 by Uintah County, and the following figure shows the 

amount of oil and gas production in Uintah County from 1991 to 2001. Note that number in 

parenthesis may reflect adjustments from the prior fiscal year. 

It is also important to note that the amount of revenue generated in Uintah and Duchesne 

Counties does not remain in the counties. The total revenue is allocated to the federal 

government (Minerals Management Service). Of the total 10% pays administrative fees, 45% is 

allocated to the federal government (into Reclamation and General Funds), 45% is paid to the 

state, and the state then redistributes 40% of the royalty back to the county of origin (BLM 

2005). The majority of the balance is used to fund other local projects, such as water projects of 

recreation facilities. Based on this formula, approximately $16 million of the total amount of 

royalties in 2001 was redistributed to the Uintah County (BLM 2005). 

Table 3.14.4. Federal Royalty Values Generated, 1998 and 2001 

 1998 2001 

Bonus $741,035.25 $132,170.00 

Gas 10,904,135.48 30,314,562.60 

Gas Plant Products (13,007.10) 15,561.81 

Gilsonite 179,696.71 254,742.99 

Oil 2,451,527.92 2,847,820.40 

Other Revenues 561,542.36 1,178,669.68 

Rent 722,936.93 854,674.40 

Total 15,547,867.55 35,598,183.88 

Source: Minerals Management Revenue Service, 2001 

Oil and gas production in the state of Utah is impacted by the U.S. and world prices of oil and 

gas. As those prices rise and fall, oil and gas production in Utah also rises and falls. According to 

the Energy Information Administration, the average wellhead price for gas in Utah was 

approximately $7.28 per MCF (thousand cubic feet). The average wellhead price for oil was 

$60.78 per barrel (Energy Information Administration 2006). 

In 2003 Uintah County Collected approximately $19.5 million in total, local, centrally assessed 

and fee in lieu property taxes and approximately $4.3 million or 22% of the total was oil and gas 

extraction property taxes (BLM 2005) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-64

Population growth rates in Uintah County have fluctuated with the boom and bust cycle of fluid 

and non-fluid mineral resources. For example, the population of the county grew by 64% 

between 1970 and 1980, following a boom in the industry. The growth rate fell to approximately 

9% between 1980 and 1990, as the industry declined. The boom and bust cycle is also evident in 

other sectors of the local economy. Typically during a boom cycle, retail trade and service 

industries are strong. These industries suffer when production is low. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Figure 3.14.1. Uintah County Oil and Gas Production, 1999–2004. Source: Utah State Division of Oil, Gas 

Department of Natural Resources 2004. 

Barrels 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

Oil 

0

20,000,00040,000,00060,000,00080,000,000

100,000,000120,000,000140,000,000

Gas

Mcf 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-66

3.14.2.2.4 TOURISM AND RECREATION

Recreation is an important component in the quality of life for Uinta Basin residents. In addition 

to providing recreation opportunity in close proximity to their homes, these residents enjoy a 

healthy tax base drawn from tourism. Visitors to the Uinta Basin participate in a variety of 

recreational opportunities including sightseeing, camping, hiking, hunting, mountain biking, 

fishing, boating, and OHV use. While some of these activities can be engaged in year-round, the 

busiest months for recreation in the Uinta Basin are the summer months. 

Several indicators help detect and explain the impact of the tourism and recreation industries on 

the local area: job base provided by the tourism industry, traveler spending, and regional 

visitation. According to the Utah Division of Travel Development, travel and tourism related 

jobs in Uintah County decreased 2.0% in 2003, down from 1,661 in 2002 to 1,628. Traveler 

spending in Uintah County was estimated to be $72.6 million per in 2003; a 40.7% increase from 

2002 (Table 3.14.5). Traveler spending grew steadily from the early 1990s to 2002 and then 

surged to over $72 million in 2003. The significant jump in travel-related spending is anticipated 

to be the result of increased oil and gas development in the Uinta Basin (Johnson 2006). This 

inference could be drawn from the fact that regional visitation counts to popular tourist 

destinations in the area did not show comparable increases. For example, visitation to Dinosaur 

National Monument, for which Vernal serves as a gateway has declined from over 360,000 visits 

in 2005 to approximately 230,000 visits in 2007. The 36% drop in visitation over a two year 

period could be partially attributed to the closing of the quarry within the Monument. In addition, 

visitation trends to the Flaming Gorge Area have also decreased in recent years (1999 - 2003) by 

29%. This data supports that the recent increases in "traveler spending" are less likely attributed 

to recreation and tourism and more likely to be from services related to the oil and gas industry. 

Estimated local tax revenues from traveler spending also increased significantly in 2003. Uintah 

County experienced a 40.7% increase in local tax revenues from traveler spending in comparison 

to 2002, up from $1.08 million to $1.5 million. In 2003, Uintah County also ranked eighth in the 

state from local tax revenues from traveler spending. The State of Utah saw a 19.4% increase in 

state and local tax revenues from traveler spending at $444 million up from $372 million in 

2002. However, local tax revenues decreased 1.0% in 2003. Spending by travelers for the State 

of Utah was $4.6 billion, down 1.3% from 2002 (Utah Division of Travel Development 2004). 

Table 3.14.5. Uintah County Travel-related Spending in 2003 

Traveler 

Spending 

% Change from 

2002 

Tax Revenue in 

Traveler Spending 

% Change 

from 2002 

State of Utah $4,631,000,000 -1.3 $444,000,000* 19.4 

Uintah County $72,600,000 40.7 $1,519,500 40.7 

*Represents state and local tax revenues from the entire state 

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004 

Traveler spending and tax revenue includes all visits to the area, whether for recreation, business, 

or other purposes. While it is a valuable measure for visitation to Uintah County, it does not only 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-67

reflect tourism visits. It should be noted that a portion of the tourism related tax dollars, such as 

transient room tax and restaurant tax, comes from oil and gas development related services 

(lodging, food, and other services for mining sector employees). While it is nearly impossible to 

extract whether a tourist dollar was generated from a tourist or a temporary mining employee, 

both are beneficial to the retail and service sectors of the local economy. A decrease in 

temporary oil and gas-related jobs may lead to a decrease in "tourism-related" revenue for the 

county. On the other hand, a decrease in oil and gas-related jobs could lead to an increase in 

actual tourism-related revenue. 

While travel related employment, spending, and local tax revenue do bring increased revenue to 

Uintah County, the county has indicated additional stress on infrastructure because of growing 

travelers. Visitors to the area may recreate on BLM property but also depend on the cities and 

counties for the provision of basic services, such as law enforcement and emergency fire and 

health services. The county has stated that the burden of infrastructure improvements should be 

shared with the BLM. 

3.14.2.3 GOVERNMENT SETTING

A community's ability to support and pay for necessary public services is based on both the tax 

base within the community and the portion of that tax base that may be subject to economic 

change. This analysis of county finance is intended to be used to evaluate public policy decisions 

as well as the county's future ability to support and pay for necessary public services. Public 

services are the single largest expense of the county (35%), with public welfare the second large 

expense (18%; Uintah County 2000). 

Uintah County draws its revenues from a wide range of sources, which would seem to protect it 

against a downturn in any one or a few areas. Because by law mineral lease payments cannot be 

reflected as county revenue, it is important to note the structure of these lease payments. These 

funds are not paid to the County directly and therefore do not show up in the general fund. 

Instead, a special service district administers these funds for use for transportation, roads, 

recreation and parks, and other items in Uintah County. This income is vital to the local 

economy. 

Local governments such as Uintah County are normally supported by taxes. However, when a 

local government (such as Uintah County) contains vast expanses of federally owned land, taxes 

are not collected on that land. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act (PILT) provides for payments 

to local units of government containing certain federally owned lands (such as Uintah County) to 

assist in financing operations of that local government. Payments may be used by the counties 

for any governmental purpose. The total PILT payment to Uintah County in 2000 was $685,850. 

In 2003, this value rose to a high of just under $1.2 million. (www.blm.gov/PILT). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-68

3.14.3 DUCHESNE COUNTY

3.14.3.1 SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

From 1995 to the present, the population of Duchesne County has grown steadily, along with the 

growth of Utah, to peak at 14,371. Moderate growth is anticipated to continue into the next 

decade. The Census Bureau predicts approximately 2,383 new residents by 2020 (U.S. Census 

2000). 

Approximately 4,300 (or 30%) of Duchesne County residents live in Roosevelt; 1,408 (or 10%) 

live in Duchesne; 539 live in Myton; 178 live in Altamont; and 149 live in Tabiona. The balance 

(54%) live in the unincorporated areas of the county (U.S. Census 2000). The majority of 

residents of Duchesne County live on farms and ranches and in unincorporated communities, 

many of which are Tribal communities on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. 

Table 3.14.6. Duchesne County Population, Past, Present, and Projected 

 1990 2000 2020 

Altamont 178 197 247 

Duchesne 1,408 1,497 1,878 

Myton 539 525 659 

Roosevelt 4,299 4,325 5,427 

Tabiona 149 138 174 

Unincorporated Duchesne County 6,027 7,831 9,832 

Total 12,600 14,518 18,216 

Source: 2000 Census, U.S. Census Bureau 

Average household size, at 3.11 persons per household, is virtually the same as the average for 

the state, at 3.13 persons per household. Only 7.3% of households have individuals aged 65 years 

and over, suggesting that the population of Duchesne County is young in comparison to the rest 

of Utah (U.S. Census 2000). 

Of the 6,988 housing units, 4,559, or 65.2%, are occupied. Over one quarter (26.4%) of the 

housing stock in Duchesne County is for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use, which is 

defined by the owners having a primary residence elsewhere. Most (81%) of occupied housing is 

owner occupied (U.S. 2000). 

The Duchesne County School District is a small rural school district with 4,100 students in 

thirteen schools, which are in six rural communities of the county. There are six elementary 

schools, three high schools, one junior high school, one K-12 school, and two special schools. 

The residents of Duchesne County value the rural character and quiet lifestyle that comprises 

their communities. The historical land-use practices including farming, ranching, and natural 

resource development that shaped the culture of the area serve as the foundation for today's rural 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-69

community. The practices still occur on the land today and many residents are intimately 

connected to the traditional agricultural lifestyle. County citizens identify with the rural, small 

town sense-of–place that has been ever-present throughout the area. While residents of the 

County support growth and development, it must complement the current quality of life and 

values held by the citizens. According to the Duchesne County General Plan, residents value the 

County's "small town" qualities, exiting moral climate, low crime rates, and "neighborly" 

atmosphere. 

3.14.3.1.1 UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION

The Uintah and Ouray Reservation is located within the Uinta Basin, covering a large portion of 

western Uintah and eastern Duchesne Counties. Ownership is a mixture of federal lands, fee 

lands, Indian Trust lands, and state of Utah lands. The Ute tribe has ownership of almost 1/4 of 

the total land area of the Uinta Basin. Oil and gas production from this land represents 1/4 of the 

oil and gas produced in Uintah County. 

According to the Tribe's Department of Vital Statistics, the enrolled membership in the Ute Tribe 

is 3,120 members, up from 2,500 members in 1980. The population is projected to reach 

approximately 4,600 by 2010. Approximately 85% of the members of the Ute Tribe live within 

the boundaries of the Reservation (Bureau of Indian Affairs 2002). The median household 

income within the Reservation is significantly lower than in the national, state, or county median 

household income. 

Table 3.14.7. Median Household Income 

Region Median Income 

Duchesne County 26,491 

State of Utah 31,417 

United States 35,989 

Ute Indian Tribe 14,500 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2002 

Over 30% of the Ute population falls into the very low-income category. The Housing Authority 

indicates that many families are awaiting affordable housing (Bureau of Indian Affairs 2002). 

3.14.3.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

3.14.3.2.1 EMPLOYMENT

Duchesne County has experienced significant changes in its employment base in the past 50 

years. Instead of the dominance of the traditional agrarian economy, trade, public employment, 

and private services together represent 55% of the jobs. The average annual non-farm wage in 

Duchesne County is $23,769. The average annual non-farm wage in Duchesne County is 

$28,392 in 2003. The table below shows the distribution of jobs in the county. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-70

Table 3.14.8. Duchesne County Labor Force Statistics 

 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Construction 311 383 367 374 

Ed/Health/Soc. Services 304 421 423 460 

Finance/Ins./Real Estate 120 132 129 138 

Government 1,538 1,533 1,585 1,658 

Information 111 141 166 170 

Labor Force 5,881 6,280 6,381 6,381 

Leisure /Hospitality 322 293 330 310 

Manufacturing 130 128 124 116 

Mining – Includes oil and gas 

employment 517 633 616 451 

Non Farm Jobs 4,764 5,126 5,192 5,049 

Other Services 120 134 159 150 

Prof./ Business Services 138 146 134 142 

Trade/Trans./Utilities 1,159 1,182 1,159 1,080 

Source: Department of Workforce Services 

Unemployment in Duchesne County is consistently higher than the state's, at 6.8% in 2003. 

Almost one third of Duchesne County employees receive unemployment compensation. This can 

be attributed to the high Native American population and the very low median income of this 

population. Although per capita annual income in Duchesne County has grown from $8,197 to 

$12,326 in the past ten years, it is still considerably less than that of the state ($18,185). The 

median household income for Duchesne County in 2000 was $21,298 (U.S. Census 2000). 

Poverty is determined as households below an annual income of $14,269 (U.S. Census 2000). 

Duchesne County has the second highest percentage of persons below the poverty line (the 

highest being San Juan County). Of the total Duchesne County population in 1999 (14,381), 

2,178 households (or 15%) reported an income below the poverty line. Nationally, only 11.3% of 

the population falls below the poverty line. 

3.14.3.2.2 AGRICULTURE

The Utah Department of Agriculture reports 932 farms in Duchesne County, with 1,304,716 

acres of land being farmed. Livestock is the county's largest source of cash receipts, with a 

contribution of $32.5 million for livestock and livestock products and $7.7 million for crops. 

Duchesne County has 50,093 acres of harvested cropland and 94,723 acres of irrigated land 

(Utah Agricultural Statistics 2001). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-71

3.14.3.2.3 MINERAL RESOURCES

The Department of the Interior's Mineral Management Service identifies gas and oil as mineral 

resources in Duchesne County. Fluid mineral resource activities include oil production, natural 

gas exploration, and related mineral exploration. The highest revenue-generator in the county of 

the resources is oil, generating over 2.8 million in federal royalties in 2001. Both oil and natural 

gas combined for 90% of the federal Royalty Values generated by Duchesne County in 2001.The 

following table shows the federal royalty values generated for 1998 and 2001 in Duchesne 

County. Note that numbers in parenthesis may represent prior fiscal year adjustments, or 

deductions from net receipts sharing. See Figure 3.14.2 for production amounts of oil and gas 

development in Duchesne County. The amount of royalty revenue redistributed to Duchesne 

County in 2001 was approximately $2 million (BLM, 2005). 

Table 3.14.9. Federal Royalty Values Generated, 1998 and 2001 

 1998 2001 

Bonus $196,264.25 $51,899.50 

Gas 890,672.63 1,290,578.68 

Oil 2,040,988.31 2,863,660.72 

Other Revenues (34,556.54) 46,386.40 

Rent 193,291.90 323,018.46 

Total 3,288,834.46 4,575,543.76 

Source: Minerals Management Revenue Service, 2001 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Figure 3.14.2 Duchesne County Oil and Gas Production 1994-2004. Source: Utah State Division of Oil, Ga

Department of Natural Resources 2004. 

0.00

1,000,000.00

2,000,000.003,000,000.004,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

7,000,000.00

Oil 

Barrels 

0.00

5,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

15,000,000.00

20,000,000.00

25,000,000.00

Gas

H

Mcf 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-73

Oil and gas production in the state of Utah is impacted by the U.S. and world prices of oil and 

gas. As those prices rise and fall, oil and gas production in Utah also rises and falls. According to 

the Energy Information Administration, the average wellhead price for gas in Utah was 

approximately $7.28 per MCF (thousand cubic feet). The average wellhead price for oil was 

$60.78 per barrel (Energy Information Administration 2006). In 2001, wells in Duchesne County 

produced approximately 5 million barrels of oil and approximately 14 million MCF (cubic 

thousand feet) of gas. These numbers were lower than in 1990, when approximately 7 million 

barrels of oil and 20 million MCF of gas were produced. Oil and gas production in 2001 

represented 32.65% and 4.60% of the state totals, respectively. 

3.14.3.2.4 TOURISM AND RECREATION

Recreation is an important component in the quality of life for Uinta Basin residents. In addition 

to providing recreation opportunity in close proximity to their homes, these residents enjoy a 

healthy tax base drawn from tourism. Visitors to the Uinta Basin participate in a variety of 

recreational opportunities including sightseeing, camping, hiking, hunting, mountain biking, 

fishing, boating, and OHV use. While some of these activities can be engaged in year-round, the 

busiest months for recreation in the Uinta Basin are the summer months. 

Several indicators help detect and explain the impact of the tourism and recreation industries on 

the local area: job base provided by the tourism industry, traveler spending, and regional 

visitation. According to the Utah Division of Travel Development, travel and tourism related 

jobs in Duchesne County decreased 3.1% in 2003 down from 717 in 2002 to 695. Traveler 

spending in Duchesne County was estimated to be $21.8 million per in 2003; a 0.9% decrease 

from 2002 (Table 3.14.10). Traveler spending has grown steadily since the early 1990s to 2000 

where it peaked at $26.3. Dollars spent by travelers in the County has since decreased to $21.8 in 

2003. In 2003, Duchesne County ranked 19th in the state for travel related spending and 

contributed 0.5% to statewide tourism spending. 

Estimated local tax revenues from traveler spending decreased slightly in 2003. Duchesne 

County experienced a 1.1% decrease in local tax revenues from traveler spending in comparison 

to 2002, down from $461,400 to $456,200. In 2003, Duchesne County also ranked 19th in the 

state from local tax revenues from traveler spending. The State of Utah saw a 19.4% increase in 

state and local tax revenues from traveler spending at $444 million up from $372 million in 

2002. However, local tax revenues decreased 1.0% in 2003. Spending by travelers for the State 

of Utah was $4.6 billion, down 1.3% from 2002 (Utah Division of Travel Development 2004). 

Although not traditionally an indicator of overall traveler spending, data on restaurant sales have 

been gathered for purposes of understanding cumulative effects of tourism spending. Restaurant 

sales are estimated at $6.0 million per year in Duchesne County. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-74

Table 3.14.10. Duchesne County Travel-related Spending in 2003 

Traveler 

Spending 

% Change from 

2002 

Tax Revenue in 

Traveler Spending 

% Change from 

2002 

Duchesne County $21,800,000 -0.9 $456,200 -1.1 

State of Utah $4,631,000,000 -1.3 $444,000,000* 19.4 

*Represents state and local tax revenues from the entire state 

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004 

Traveler spending includes all visits to the area, whether for recreation, business, or other 

purposes. While it is a valuable measure for visitation to Daggett County, it does not only reflect 

tourism visits. It should be noted that a portion of the tourism related tax dollars, such as 

transient room tax and restaurant tax, could come from oil and gas development related services 

(lodging, food, and other services for mining sector employees). While it is nearly impossible to 

extract whether a tourist dollar was generated from a tourist or a temporary mining employee, 

both are beneficial to the retail and service sectors of the local economy. A decrease in 

temporary oil and gas-related jobs may lead to a decrease in "tourism-related" revenue for the 

county. On the other hand, a decrease in oil and gas-related jobs could lead to an increase in 

actual tourism-related revenue. 

While travel related employment, spending, and local tax revenue do bring increased revenue to 

Duchesne County, the county has indicated additional stress on infrastructure because of 

growing travelers. Visitors to the area may recreate on BLM property but also depend on the 

cities and counties for the provision of basic services, such as law enforcement and emergency 

fire and health services. The county has stated that the burden of infrastructure improvements 

should be shared with the BLM. 

3.14.3.3 GOVERNMENT SETTING

The majority of revenue for Duchesne County comes from charges for services (26%), property 

taxes (21%) and intergovernmental agreements (18%). The remainder comes from federal and 

state grants (11%), general sales (9%), fee in lieu (7%), and interest (5%). Duchesne County 

spends the majority of its income on public safety (35%), streets and highways (22%), and 

general government (15%). Other expenses include land purchases (9%), community 

development (6%), and parks, recreation, and culture (3%). The total PILT payment to Duchesne 

County in 2000 was $425,557. This number rose to approximately $750,000 in 2003 

(www.blm.gov/PILT). 

3.14.4 DAGGETT COUNTY

3.14.4.1 SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Daggett County is the third smallest county in the state of Utah, with a land area of 698 square 

miles, or 459,553 acres. Of this land area, 88.8% is owned and managed by the federal and state 

governments. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-75

Daggett County is one of the least densely populated counties in the state, at 1.32 people per 

square mile. The Daggett County population in 2000 was 921. This is an increase of 231 persons 

over the 1990 population of 690 (or a 33.5% increase). Daggett County's population has 

fluctuated over the years but has shown overall growth from the time it was organized in a split 

from Uintah County in 1918. Its population varied from 400 in 1920 to a peak of 1,164 in 1960 

(related to dam construction). From 1970 to 1990 it was stable, at 600-700 persons. Although 

population spiked by 33% in 2000 due to construction, moderate growth is anticipated to 

continue into the next decade, as Daggett County adds approximately 170 new residents by 2020. 

Births have generally equaled deaths in the county, and all historic growth has come from net inmigration (U.S. Census 2000). 

Manila, the county seat and the only incorporated community in the county, has a residential 

population of 308 persons (or 33% of the county's population). The balance, well over half of all 

the residents of Daggett County, live on farms and ranches or in unincorporated communities. 

The 2000 Decennial Census divided Daggett County into two census districts, east and west. The 

East Census District had a residential population of 149 persons, including the recreational areas 

around Flaming Gorge and the newly privatized community of Dutch John (U.S. Census 2000). 

The West Census District, which includes Manila and its surrounds, had a residential population 

of 722. 

Seventy% of the households in Daggett County are family households, but only 27% have 

children younger than 18 years of age. Average household size in Daggett County, at 2.48 

persons per household (less than the state of Utah average of 3.13 persons and less than 

Wyoming and Colorado) is small and getting smaller. This means that fewer families are having 

children in Daggett County that will need to be educated and will be seeking jobs. It may also 

mean that more secondary wage earners will be or are entering the labor market. 

An unusually high number of Daggett County residents (60%) are in one- or two-person 

households. In the state of Utah, only 46.7% of households have two or fewer persons. In this 

respect, Daggett County households are more similar to Colorado and Wyoming households, at 

60.4% and 62.1%, respectively (U.S. Census 2000). 

The 2000 Census provides the following information about housing in Daggett County. Unlike 

Uintah and Duchesne Counties, in which 70-80% of housing units are occupied, only 31.4% of 

Daggett County's housing units are occupied. One explanation for this difference is that almost 

two-thirds (63.8%) of the housing stock in Daggett County is for seasonal, recreational, or 

occasional use, which means that the property owner's primary residence is elsewhere. 

Approximately 71% of the occupied housing units in Daggett County are owner-occupied (U.S. 

Census 2000). 

With a total of 150 students, the Daggett County School District is the smallest in the state. 

Enrollment is declining, which is consistent with the declining population and small average 

household size. The county's three schools include Manila Elementary, Flaming Gorge 

Elementary and Manila Junior-Senior High School. These schools also serve students from 

McKinnon and Washam, Wyoming, areas north of the state line. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-76

The residents of Daggett County value the rural character and quiet lifestyle that comprises their 

communities. The historical land-use practices including farming, ranching, and timber 

harvesting that shaped the culture of the area serve as the foundation for today's rural 

community. Today, County citizens identify with the rural, small town sense-of–place that has 

been ever-present throughout the area. While residents of the County support growth and 

development, it must complement the current quality of life and values held by the citizens. 

3.14.4.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Daggett County has experienced significant changes in its employment base in the past 50 years 

(Table 3.14.11). Initially, agriculture-related activities, such as ranching and farming, dominated 

the economy. The construction of the huge, hydroelectric, Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir in 

the 1960s, as well as the construction of an all-weather highway through the county, changed the 

local economy forever. Now, the Daggett County economy is dominated by government services 

associated with the operation of the dam and management of the National Recreation Area and 

Ashley National Forest. Service-based employment also has become a major contributor to 

economic vitality, as a result of the growth of tourism and recreational activities. Government 

services, primarily associated with the operation of Flaming Gorge and Ashley National Forest, 

provide 47% of Daggett County jobs (UDWS 2001). 

Table 3.14.11. Daggett County Labor Force Statistics 

 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Construction 46 17 14 16 

Government 213 223 244 253 

Labor Force 474 439 467 470 

Leisure Hospitality 164 148 151 136 

Mining 0 0 0 0 

Non-farm Jobs 467 427 461 445 

Trade/Trans/Utilities 30 25 22 25 

In 1995, the unemployment rate in Daggett County was significantly higher than the state's, but 

since then, the county's rates have closely mirrored those of the state. The 2003 unemployment 

rate in Daggett County was 5.0%, one of the lowest rates in the state. Almost 50% of Daggett 

County employees receive government subsidy (U.S. Census 2000). From 2000 to 2003, the per 

capita annual income in Daggett County has grown from $15,201 to $18,161(UDWFS 2003). 

Median household income in 2000 was $30,833 (U.S. Census 2000). 

Approximately 11.7% of the population of Daggett County is below the poverty level (annual 

household income being less than $14,269), which compares to the national rate of 11.3% (U.S. 

Census 2000). Daggett County's poverty rate is the sixth highest in the state, and among the 

counties without significant tribal populations, Daggett County's rate is the second highest in the 

state (second to Carbon County). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-77

3.14.4.2.1 AGRICULTURE

The Utah Department of Agriculture reports 28 farms in Daggett County in 2003., Livestock and 

the related ranch operations are the county's largest source of cash receipts, with a contribution of 

$1.6 million for livestock and livestock products and $500,000 for crops. Daggett County has 

3,979 acres of harvested cropland and 8,182 acres of irrigated land, which produce 12,000 tons 

of hay and alfalfa (Utah Agricultural Statistics 2001). 

3.14.4.2.2 MINERAL RESOURCES

Oil and gas production in Daggett County is not a significant contributor to the local economy. 

Oil and gas production in 2001 represented 0.01% and 0.4% of the state totals, respectively 

(Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 2002). 

3.14.4.2.3 TOURISM AND RECREATION

Recreation is an important component in the quality of life for Uinta Basin residents. In addition 

to providing recreation opportunity in close proximity to their homes, these residents enjoy a 

healthy tax base drawn from tourism. Visitors to the Uinta Basin participate in a variety of 

recreational opportunities including sightseeing, camping, hiking, hunting, mountain biking, 

fishing, boating, and OHV use. While some of these activities can be engaged in year-round, the 

busiest months for recreation in the Uinta Basin are the summer months. 

Several indicators help detect and explain the impact of the tourism and recreation industries on 

the local area: job base provided by the tourism industry, traveler spending, and regional 

visitation. According to the Utah Division of Travel Development, travel and tourism related 

jobs in Daggett County decreased 0.4% in 2003 down from 258 in 2002 to 257. Daggett County 

ranks number one in the state for percent of total employment dependant on tourism related jobs. 

With a total of 443 non-agricultural related jobs reported in 2003, 257 jobs or 58% of total jobs 

are related to recreation and tourism. Traveler spending in Daggett County was estimated to be 

$5.1 million per in 2003; a 23.9% decrease from $6.7 million in 2002 (Table 3.14.12). Traveler 

spending remained fairly steady throughout the 1990s and peaked at $11.7 million in 

2000.Traveler spending a decreased continuously since 2000. 

The Flaming Gorge National Recreational Area (NRA) is the sixth most popular Utah tourist 

attraction, generating over one million visitors each year. Flaming Gorge NRA was the only one 

of Utah's national monuments or recreation areas not to report visitor declines during 2000. 

Despite these visitation rates and the significance of the recreation economy to Daggett County, 

the county's tourism represents only 0.1% of traveler spending in the state of Utah and ranks 

twenty-eighth among counties in Utah. Tourism spending in Daggett County has been growing at 

less than one half the rate of the state. 

Estimated local tax revenues from traveler spending also decreased in 2003. Daggett County 

experienced a 23.6% decrease in local tax revenues from traveler spending in comparison to 

2002, down from $136,600 to $106,700. In 2003, Daggett County also ranked 28th in the state 

from local tax revenues from traveler spending. The State of Utah saw a 19.4% increase in state 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 3-78

and local tax revenues from traveler spending at $444 million up from $372 million in 2002. 

However, local tax revenues decreased 1.0% in 2003. Spending by travelers for the State of Utah 

was $4.6 billion, down 1.3% from 2002. 

In contrast to Uintah and Duchesne County where some of the "traveler spending" can be 

attributed to oil and gas development, it is unlikely that this is the case in Daggett County since 

less than 0.05% of the State's mineral development occurs here. In Daggett County it is safer to 

assume that "traveler spending" actually comes from tourists to the area. 

Table 3.14.12. Daggett County Travel-related Spending in 2003 

 Traveler Spending % Change from 

2002 

Tax Revenue 

from Traveler 

Spending 

% Change from 

2002 

Daggett County $5,100,000 -23.9 $106,700 -23.6 

State of Utah $4,631,000,000 -1.3 $444,000,000 19.4 

*Represents state and local tax revenues from the entire state 

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004 

3.14.4.3 GOVERNMENT SETTING

The government setting in Daggett County is different than in Uintah or Duchesne Counties. 

Parts of the county, specifically Dutch John and the surrounding area, were formerly federal 

lands associated with Flaming Gorge NRA. Some of those lands have recently been incorporated 

into the town of Dutch John, and others have been designated as county land. 

Charges for public services are an unusually large revenue item in Daggett County, partially due 

to the large public safety facility in Manila and the county's contracts to house state, federal, and 

county inmates there. The majority of Daggett County revenues come from charges for services 

(43%) and sale of property (25%). Federal and state grants, intergovernmental arrangements, 

transient room taxes, general sales and use, and fee in lieu generate the remainder of the income 

for the county. The total PILT payment to Daggett County in 2000 was $38,074. 

The same public services that generate revenue for the county are also apparently a high 

expenditure in Daggett County (53%). Other expenditures include general government (12%), 

streets and highways (10%), and community development (9%). 

Another unique characteristic of Daggett County government is the special service districts of 

the county. The Daggett County Road and Transportation Special Services District is a primary 

recipient of mineral lease monies administered through the Permanent Community Impact Fund. 

During 1999, it received $425,000 in mineral lease monies and an additional $166,349 from 

other state sources, for a total of $591,349. Approximately $373,240 of this was spent for 

construction, $8,316 was spent on salaries, and $12,750 was spent on debt reduction and interest 

on that debt. The Daggett County Mosquito Abatement District (MAD) received $18,217 in 

property taxes or in-lieu fees. Of this, $14,489 was spent on salaries, and $1,126 was spent on an 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.15. Soil and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 3-79

intergovernmental transfer. Finally, the district called Daggett County Service Area #1 had 

$1,720 in revenues, $1,000 from property taxes. The only expenses were $136 for salaries. 

3.14.5 REGION-WIDE CONCLUSIONS

This study has discussed the social, economic, and governmental settings of the three counties 

that compose the VPA. In addition to the statistics that help describe each county, conclusions 

can be drawn about the region's history, geography, and economics. 

The first conclusion drawn is that, due to the history and geography of the Uinta Basin, much of 

the population has a common lifestyle and identity. The fact that each of these counties is at least 

two hours from any major city sustains a rural/small town lifestyle. 

The second regional commonality among the counties is their economic dependency on physical 

resources within the VPA. From municipality to municipality in the region, lower-than-average 

wages and higher-than-average poverty rates are common. The economy of the region is based 

on agriculture, oil and gas exploration, and tourism. Major changes in the management of the 

land in any one of these sectors of the economy will have an effect an on the socioeconomics of 

the individual counties and the region overall. 

3.15 SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES

3.15.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

The VPA lies within portions of nine catalogued USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 

watersheds located within the Upper Colorado hydrologic region (Region 14). The majority of 

the VPA is contained within seven watersheds in the Lower Green River drainage, although 

portions also are associated with the Upper Green River and the Lower White River drainage. 

Watershed acreages are described in Table 3.15.1. 

Table 3.15.1. Watersheds Associated with the VPA 

8-Digit HUC Watershed Name Acres within 

VPA 

14040106 Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir 543,564 

14060001 Lower Green-Diamond 566,835 

14060002 Lower Green-Ashley-Brush 420,697 

14060003 Lower Green-Duchesne 1,649,897 

14060004 Lower Green-Strawberry 394,405 

14060005 Lower Green-Desolation Canyon 645,365 

14060007 Lower Green-Price 22,542 

14060006 Lower Green-Willow 461,197 

14050007 Lower White 797,137 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.15. Soil and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 3-80

Two municipal watersheds, Ashley Creek and Red Fleet, are also located within the VPA. The 

Ashley Creek municipal watershed occurs almost entirely upon lands administered by the USFS 

- Ashley National Forest; however, the BLM administers 670 acres, including Ashley Spring, the 

access point for the municipal supply. The Red Fleet municipal watershed contains 18,660 acres 

administered by the BLM, including lands surrounding Red Fleet Reservoir, which is the access 

point for the municipal supply. 

3.15.2 TOPOGRAPHY

The topography of the VPA is primarily defined along its northern portion by the Uinta 

Mountains. The Uinta Mountains are broad and massive and extend approximately 150 miles 

east to west. The Uinta Mountains consist of extensively glaciated, sedimentary and 

metamorphic rocks. Glacial deposition features have created numerous natural dams and small 

lakes on the slopes of the range. A portion of the VPA lies north of the Uinta Mountains and 

drains to the Green River below Flaming Gorge Reservoir. The Green River exits the VPA 

approximately 30 miles downstream of Flaming Gorge at the Utah/Colorado state boundary and 

reenters the VPA near Diamond Mountain, again along the Utah/Colorado state boundary. 

Portions of the south side of the Uinta Mountains drain to the Green River below Diamond 

Mountain through major tributaries such as Ashley Creek, Big Brush Creek, and the Whiterocks 

River. 

The western side of the VPA is drained by the Duchesne River and its major tributary, the 

Strawberry River. The Duchesne River drains a topographic basin composed of Mesozoic and 

Tertiary sedimentary rocks characterized by a gently rolling, dissected plateau with deeply cut 

ravines and alluvial valleys. The Duchesne River enters the Green River near Ouray, in the 

central part of the VPA. 

The eastern and southern part of the VPA, primarily consisting of the Book Cliffs portion of the 

VPA, is drained by Hill Creek, Bitter Creek, Evacuation Creek, Willow Creek, and the White 

River; these drainages also enter the Green River near Ouray. This area is part of the Tavaputs 

Plateau, composed of Tertiary sedimentary rocks and characterized by rugged terrain and deeply 

incised canyons (UDWaR 1999). 

3.15.3 SOIL RESOURCES

Soils in the VPA have developed from bedrock, from rocks/minerals deposited by rivers and 

glacial activity, and from windblown silt and sand. They were derived primarily from the 

sedimentary, metamorphic quartzite and volcanic rocks of the Uinta Mountains, Diamond 

Mountain Plateau, Avintaquin Mountains, East Tavaputs Plateau, West Tavaputs Plateau, Roan 

Cliffs, and Book Cliffs, which form the boundaries of the Uinta Basin and Browns Park. 

Soils in the VPA are composed of a wide variety of soil types and characteristics. Certain soil 

types have chemical features that limit restoration and make reclamation difficult; these include 

sodium, soluble salts, carbonates, and gypsum. Physical soil characteristics that may limit 

reclamation include sandy soils, clayey soils, large coarse fragments (e.g., stones and boulders), 

shallow depth to parent material, and low organic matter content. A shallow depth to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.15. Soil and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 3-81

groundwater limits reclamation in hydric soils. Soils in the VPA are composed of a wide variety 

of soil types and characteristics. Certain soil types have chemical features that limit restoration 

and make reclamation difficult; these include sodium, soluble salts, carbonates, and gypsum. 

Physical soil characteristics that may limit activities or reclamation include: low available water 

holding capacity, excessive drainage, hardpans, high amounts of rock fragments or large stones 

and boulders, shallow depth to parent material, high water table, and low organic matter content. 

Soils with these features are referred to as “limiting soils” in this document. 

3.15.3.1 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS) SOIL SURVEYS

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has conducted three soil surveys throughout 

the VPA, with second and third order delineation. The Uintah Area, Utah soil survey includes 

parts of Daggett, Grand, and Uintah Counties. Portions of Daggett County are also included in 

the Henrys Fork Area, Utah-Wyoming soil survey. The Duchesne County part of the VPA is 

covered by the Duchesne Area, Utah soil survey. 

3.15.3.1.1 HENRYS FORK AREA, UTAH-WYOMING SOIL SURVEY (USDA 1990) 

This soil survey covers the northern parts of Daggett County, as well as parts of Summit County, 

Utah and parts of Uinta and Sweetwater Counties in Wyoming. The survey, correlated in 

October 1990, is complete and available in digital and hardcopy formats. Information on soil 

features and use ratings can be obtained by using either the NRCS Soil Data Viewer or Microsoft 

Access software. Soil spatial data is available for use with standard GIS software. 

3.15.3.1.2 UINTAH AREA, UTAH SOIL SURVEY (USDA 1999) 

This soil survey covers Uintah County, part of northern Grand County, and the southern part of 

Daggett County. The survey, correlated in June 1999, is complete and available in digital format. 

Information on soil features and use ratings can be obtained by using either the NRCS Soil Data 

Viewer or Microsoft Access software. Soil spatial data is available for use with standard GIS 

software. 

This soil survey covers the largest portion of the VPA, with 2,477,734 acres of soils surveyed. It 

ranges from the Diamond Mountain area in the north to the Book Cliffs in the south and from the 

Duchesne County line in the west to the Colorado state line in the east. 

Taxonomic classifications of VPA soils within the boundaries of this survey include a wide 

variety of soil types. Diagnostic soil features include cryic soils, argillic horizons, mollic 

epipedons, calcic horizons, petrocalcics, gypsic horizons, psamments, and fluvents. Thirty 

taxonomic great groups and 151 soil series have been identified in the Uintah Area soil survey. 

3.15.3.1.3 DUCHESNE AREA, UTAH SOIL SURVEY

This soil survey includes VPA lands in southeastern Duchesne County, Utah. Most of the 

fieldwork has been completed for this survey, but final correlation has not been completed. 

Correlation and final publication of the soil survey data by the NRCS began in late 2005 and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.15. Soil and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 3-82

expected to be complete by 2010. Draft spatial soil data has been digitized and can be accessed 

with standard GIS software. Available information on soil features and use ratings can be 

obtained from official soil series descriptions and interpretation tables or local NRCS offices. 

Until final correlation and publication, this data is considered draft and is less accessible to the 

public than the published survey data from either the Henrys Fork or the Uintah Area soil 

surveys. Draft data is available by contacting the local NRCS office or BLM office. 

This soil survey includes VPA lands in southeastern Duchesne County, Utah. Most of the 

fieldwork has been completed for this survey, but final correlation has not been completed. 

Correlation and final publication of the soil survey data by the NRCS is began in late 2005 and 

expected to be complete by 2010. Draft spatial soil data has been digitized and can be accessed 

with standard GIS software. Available information on soil features and use ratings can be 

obtained from official soil series descriptions and interpretation tables or local NRCS offices. 

Until final correlation and publication, this data is considered draft and is less accessible to the 

public than the published survey data from either the Henrys Fork or the Uintah Area soil 

surveys. Draft data is available by contacting the local NRCS office or BLM office. 

3.15.3.2 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS OF GREATEST MANAGEMENT CONCERN

3.15.3.2.1 PRESENCE OF BIOLOGICAL CRUSTS

The presence of biological crusts in arid and semi-arid lands have a very significant influence on 

reducing soil erosion by both wind and water, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, retaining soil 

moisture, and providing a living organic surface mulch. "These crusts are a complex mosaic of 

cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses, microfungi, and other bacteria" (BLM 2001:1). 

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 type and abundance of biological crust can be used by a land manager to 

determine the ecological history and condition of a site. Biological crusts are generally found 

where there are openings in the vascular plant cover and protect open areas from wind and water 

erosion. 

Limited data exists for biological crusts specific to the VPA. However there is some baseline 

information for parts of the VPA from the early 1970’s and more recent information being 

collected as part of a National Science Foundation-funded project by Brigham Young University 

(personal communication, Diana Whittington, FWS – or better yet put in the correct and full 

citations.) There is also a growing body of literature and data, much of it based on the Colorado 

Plateau region that would be applicable to the soils and ecosystems of the VPA. 

3.15.3.2.2 SALINITY

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. 

Soils with electrical conductivity levels of 8 dS/m (deciSeimens/meter) or greater were 

considered saline in all soil surveys. Saline soils occur in more than 365,851 acres, or 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.15. Soil and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 3-83

approximately 20% of the BLM-administered lands in the VPA. Add soils data for salinity and 

other soils features are taken from the SSURGO database. 

Saline sediments that originate in the VPA eventually flow into the Colorado River. Salinity 

levels in the Colorado River are a regional, national, and international issue. Control of sediment 

discharged from public lands is mandated by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 

1974. Proper land use is the BLM's preferred method of achieving salinity control, with the 

planning process being the principal mechanism for implementation. Impacts are to be 

minimized in areas with saline soils, and revegetation of previously disturbed saline soils is to be 

promoted to the extent possible. 

3.15.3.2.3 SODIUM ABSORPTION RATIOS

Soils with sodium absorption ratios (ratio of sodium salts to other soluble salts) of 13 or greater 

are considered sodic. Infiltration of precipitation into these soils is reduced by the dispersion of 

soil particles caused by the higher levels of sodium. Reduced infiltration rates result in greater 

surface runoff rates and increased soil erosion and sediment yields. Many sodic soils have a thin 

layer of suitable soil above the sodic horizon, but when this layer is disturbed or removed, the 

resulting impact can be irreversible. Sodic soils occur in approximately 161,344 acres, or 

approximately 9% of the BLM-administered lands within the VPA. Management of sodic soils 

should include minimizing the impacts of grazing and other surface disturbances, such as road 

construction. 

3.15.3.2.4 GYPSUM LEVELS

Soils with gypsum levels equal to or greater than 10% are highly susceptible to water erosion and 

are difficult to reclaim. Gypsum is very soluble in water, which results in piping and other severe 

erosion features. Gypsic soils occur in approximately 132,706 acres, or 7% of the BLM 

administered lands within the VPA. The number of soil map units in the VPA with gypsic soils is 

relatively small, but nonetheless, these units require careful management to minimize impacts 

that may cause irreversible damage. Construction of roads and other facilities is difficult in these 

soils. 

3.15.3.2.5 RESPONSE TO DISTURBANCE

Decisions regarding management of a particular soil resource is dependent on the particular soil 

type's ability to recover from specific disturbances. Gypsum content, salinity level, and sodium 

content are soil characteristics that can severely limit recovery from a disturbance. Road 

construction and operation of OHVs commonly impact the soils in the VPA. Additionally, the 

presence of surface water or groundwater has an influence on the severity of a disturbance and 

on when the activity may be allowed. Surface disturbances can cause compaction and increased 

soil erosion by either wind or water. 

Use ratings and soil characteristics listed in the soil surveys are intended to be used as general 

guidelines for land-use planning, but site-specific investigations should be done to determine the 

suitability of soils at specific locations. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.15. Soil and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 3-84

3.15.3.2.6 EROSION

Water Erosion 

There is significant potential for severe soil erosion by water at several locations within the VPA. 

Erosion potential ratings were not available in the NRCS soil surveys at the time this analysis 

was conducted. The VPA area has determined the approximate locations of soils with potential 

for severe erosion by evaluating the k-factor, T factor, percent slope, and hydrologic group rating 

for each soil map unit. These are designations given to soils by the NRCS, which show the 

relative erodibility of each soil unit. Site specific and map unit specific determinations for 

erosion hazard ratings will continue to be developed and utilized within the VPA. Additionally, 

soil surface texture and the presence of surface or ground water have an influence on the severity 

of a disturbance and on when the activity may be allowed. Surface disturbances can cause 

compaction and increased soil erosion by either wind or water. 

In the interim, for preliminary delineation of water erodible soils, soil mapping units with a 

k-factor of 0.32 or greater and slopes greater than 10% were considered susceptible to water 

erosion. Using these factors, water erodible soils were determined to cover 232,042 acres, or 

approximately 13% of the VPA. Current management activities are designed to minimize 

impacts so that erosion and sediment yield are not accelerated. Additional mitigation measures 

are to be taken, as necessary, to minimize impacts on soils determined to have severe erosion 

hazard potential. 

Wind Erosion 

Many of the soils in the VPA are coarse-textured and very susceptible to wind erosion when the 

vegetative community is disturbed. The NRCS soil surveys classify each soil series into wind 

erodibility groups (1, 2, 3, 4L, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Soils that are in wind erodibility groups 1, 2, 3, 

or 4L have erosion potentials ranging from extremely erodible to erodible, respectively. Wind 

erosion increases when the vegetative community is disturbed by intense grazing, fire, road 

construction, and other events that reduce the amount of vegetative cover. Disturbance of 

biological crusts on coarse-textured soils will also increase the potential for wind erosion. Winderodible soils cover 1,361,645 acres, or 79% of the VPA. To preserve soil resources in these 

areas, disturbance of the vegetative community and biological crusts are managed and 

minimized. 

Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Areas 

Many of the soils within the VPA have limiting features that make reclamation and revegetation 

very difficult. These limiting features include salinity, sodium content, clayey and sandy 

textures, drought conditions, alkalinity, low organic matter content, shallow depth to bedrock, 

stones and cobbles, and wind erosion. Sometimes the soil limitations are so severe that areas 

cannot be reclaimed from disturbance. Preventing disturbance to such limited soil resources is 

the most effective way to reduce impacts of road construction, grazing, fire, and other activities 

that drastically disturb the soil surface. Whenever impacts are deemed necessary in an area, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.15. Soil and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 3-85

salvaging and stockpiling soil materials to replace the disturbed, limited soils is the most 

effective management decision regarding soils. 

Road Construction and Maintenance 

Construction and maintenance of roads within the VPA will continue to be a prominent aspect of 

management. Soil properties that are limiting to construction of roads within the VPA include 

soils with high sodium content, high gypsum content, high soluble salts, low strength, shrinkswell potential, and frost action. A soil's large-stone content, its depth to hard bedrock, and its 

slope are also important physical features that must be considered when determining a soil's 

suitability for road construction. 

Suitability ratings for construction of local roads assume that the roads will have an all-weather 

surface (commonly of asphalt or concrete) and are expected to carry automobile traffic yearround. Since the majority of roads constructed and maintained within the VPA do not have an 

all-weather surface, it should be assumed that site-specific evaluations would need to be 

conducted prior to construction of any new roads. Roads are graded to shed water, and 

conventional drainage measures are installed properly. With the exception of hard surface allweather roads, most of roads in the VPA are constructed from the local soils, which may or may 

not be suitable for road construction. 

3.15.4 WATER RESOURCES

3.15.4.1 SURFACE WATER SUPPLY AND USE

Surface water in the VPA is used for agricultural, municipal, industrial, power generation, and 

recreational purposes. Surface water is stored in several large and small reservoirs, both natural 

and human-made. The largest use of surface water is for agricultural irrigation, with almost 

800,000 acre-feet of water per year being diverted to irrigate more than 200,000 acres of land 

(UDWaR 1999). Water diversions for municipal and industrial purposes (including residential 

water use, industrial water use, power production, and irrigation of parks, golf courses, and other 

outdoor areas) average approximately 14,000 acre-feet per year (UDWaR 1999). The Diamond 

Mountain portion of the VPA also has 15 hydropower site withdrawals covering approximately 

93,900 acres along the Green River (BLM 1993). 

The hydrology of the VPA is primarily dominated by spring runoff and from brief, intense 

storms that generally occur in late summer. The several large reservoirs that have been 

constructed on the Green and Strawberry Rivers have altered the natural hydrology of these 

major rivers by reducing the annual spring peak and providing higher minimum flows during the 

summer and winter months. Water diversions for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses 

have also altered the natural hydrology of the VPA by reducing instream flows below diversion 

points. 

Surface water flow supports riparian vegetation along the floodplains of the rivers and streams in 

the VPA. Approximately 92,226 acres of the VPA occur within the 100-year floodplains of the 

major drainages in the VPA. While the preliminary status of the functioning condition of riparian 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.15. Soil and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 3-86

vegetation along major waterways has been documented in preparation for this RMP, the 

condition of the floodplain and the stability of stream banks have not yet been determined for all 

areas (Strong 2002b). Surface water flow also supports riparian vegetation associated with other 

water features such as Stewart Lake, Pelican Lake, and the Pariette Wetlands. 

3.15.4.2 GROUNDWATER SUPPLY AND USE

The primary use of groundwater in the VPA is for municipal and industrial purposes. 

Unconsolidated or alluvial aquifers are relatively limited within the VPA, with major use only in 

the Duchesne-Myton-Pleasant Valley area and east of Neola. Consolidated or bedrock aquifers 

form a major component of the groundwater system in the VPA. Major consolidated aquifers 

include sandstone beds within the Uinta Formation and the Bird's Nest and Douglass Creek 

aquifers within the Green River Formation. Total water withdrawal from all aquifers for 

municipal and industrial use is approximately 21,000 acre-feet, which is relatively minor 

compared to the estimated 350,000 acre-feet naturally discharged to streams and springs and the 

nearly 250,000 acre-feet lost to evapotranspiration (UDWaR 1999). 

3.15.4.3 WATER QUALITY

Surface water quality problems are detailed in Utah's 303(d) list of impaired waters, required 

under the Clean Water Act (Table 3.15.2). Lower Ashley Creek was listed due to total dissolved 

solids (TDS) and selenium concentrations, likely the result of irrigation return flows. Portions of 

the Duchesne River and tributaries were listed primarily due to TDS concentrations, also 

attributable to irrigation return flows. Several reservoirs within the VPA were also listed, mostly 

for phosphorous levels, dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, and high temperatures. 

Water bodies on Utah's 303(d) List of Impaired Waters are listed below in Table 3.15.2.

Table 3.15.2. Water Bodies on Utah's 303(d) List of Impaired Waters, 2000 

HUC Code Name Stressor 

 Calder Reservoir DO, Total Phosphorous 

14060001 Brough Reservoir DO, Temperature 

Lower Ashley Creek TDS, Selenium 

Red Fleet Reservoir DO, Temperature 

14060002 

Steinaker Reservoir Temperature 

Antelope Creek TDS 

Deep Creek TDS 

Duchesne River from confluence with Green River to 

Randlett TDS 

14060003 

Duchesne River from Randlett to Myton TDS 

14060005 Pariette Draw TDS, Boron 

Willow Creek from confluence with Green River to 

confluence with Meadow Creek TDS 

Source: UDEQ 2002 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 3-87

Excess salinity, the major surface water quality problem in the VPA, is of regional significance 

under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Salinity contributions come from 

naturally occurring groundwater during low flow periods and from erosion of saline soils. A 

large part of the saline soil contribution is attributable to poor road construction practices and 

management (Strong 2002a). Other factors in water quality are salt-loading from irrigated 

agriculture, water and land contamination due to oil/gas well drilling, and elevated levels of total 

phosphorous and TDS in several basin streams (UDEQ 2003). Watersheds of particular concern 

include the Pariette, Red Creek, and Buckskin Hills watersheds. 

The groundwater hydrology in the VPA is primarily dependent on rock structure. Concentrations 

of dissolved solids range from 19 to 112,000 mg/L and depend on changes in rock type and 

physical environments. 

Locally, the groundwater salinity in the VPA is caused by natural geologic sources. The Tertiary 

Green River, Wasatch, and Uinta Formations and the Mesozoic Mancos Shale range from very 

saline to briny at depth (>500 ft.) and generally less saline at shallow depths (<500 ft.). High 

selenium and boron concentrations are of particular concern and have been studied at Stewart 

Lake, Lower Ashley Creek, and the Pariette Wetlands. The salinity of water produced in oil, gas, 

and CBNG development may change significantly within a few months or years particularly if 

vertical movement of water in faults and fractures is induced by the production of hydrocarbons 

and water from oil and gas wells (USGS 1987). 

3.16 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

3.16.1 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) 

3.16.1.1 CURRENTLY DESIGNATED ACECS

The VFO manages seven ACECs (165,944 total acres) that were designated in 1994 in the record 

of decision (ROD) for the Diamond Mountain RMP (BLM 1994a). They are, in order of 

decreasing size, Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, Red Creek 

Watershed, Pariette Wetlands, Lower Green River Corridor, and Lears Canyon. Existing ACECs 

are subject to reconsideration when RMPs are revised. Based on a current analysis of the areas, 

the present designations have been effective in protecting the relevant values they exhibit, and 

these will, again, be considered as ACECs in the Vernal RMP. 

Table 3.16.1 provides a summary of the relevance and importance criteria for each currently 

designated ACEC. The management prescriptions for these areas are detailed in Chapter 3 of 

Diamond Mountain RMP and ROD (BLM 1994a). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 3-88

Table 3.16.1. Relevance and Importance Criteria of Currently Designated ACECs 

Relevance Importance 

Browns Park 

(52,721 acres) Significant diversity and density of cultural and 

historical sites, a nationally recognized Class I fishery; has special 

status plant and animal species habitat, cultural values, crucial 

deer winter habitat, high quality scenic values. 

Has qualities that make it fragile, 

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

unique, endangered, and 

threatened. 

Lears Canyon 

(1,375 acres) Contains a natural system, specifically relict plant 

and plant communities, serves as a scientific reference area. 

Has qualities that make it fragile, 

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

unique, endangered, and 

threatened. Has been recognized 

as warranting protection in order 

to carry out the mandates of the 

Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. 

Lower Green River Corridor 

(8,470 acres – lower) Riparian habitat, special status animal 

species habitat, and high-quality scenic values. 

Has more than locally significant 

qualities, which give it special 

worth, and distinctiveness. 

Nine Mile Canyon 

(44,181 acres) Nationally significant Fremont, Ute, and Archaic 

rock art and structures; regionally significant populations of special 

status plant species, and high quality scenery. 

Has more than locally significant 

qualities, which give it special 

worth, and distinctiveness. 

Pariette Wetlands 

(10,437 acres) Special status bird and plant species habitat, a 

wetlands ecosystem, significant population of the federally 

threatened plant species Sclerocactus glaucus.

Has qualities that make it fragile, 

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

unique, endangered, and 

threatened. 

Red Creek Watershed 

(24,475 acres) Regionally significant critical watershed; part of 

Green River drainage system and its Class I fishery values. 

Has more than locally significant 

qualities, which give it special 

worth, and distinctiveness. 

Red Mountain-Dry Fork 

(24,285 acres) Significant diversity and density of cultural sites, 

quality paleontological finds, and two relic vegetation 

communities. 

Has qualities that make it fragile, 

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

unique and distinctive. 

3.16.1.2 POTENTIAL ACECS

The eight potential ACECs and the expansion of two existing ACECs being considered for 

possible ACEC designation through this planning process are discussed below. Only those 

nominated areas determined to meet specific relevance and importance criteria are identified as 

potential ACECs. The following descriptions generally define the maximum acreage proposed in 

the alternatives although in some instances variations in the size and location of the proposed 

ACECs are described for clarification. See Table 4.16.1 in Chapter 4 for a description of the 

various acreage proposals, Figures 29–32 (in the Maps section) for geographic locations, and 

Appendix G for more information on ACEC evaluations. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 3-89

Table 3.16.2. Relevance and Importance Criteria of Potential ACECs 

Relevance Importance 

Bitter Creek 

(68,384 acres) Existence of an old growth forest, 

significant cultural and historic resources, important 

watershed, and critical ecosystem for wildlife and 

migratory birds. 

Has significance due to qualities that make it 

fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, and unique. Ancient (over 1,200 

years) pinyon forest; irreplaceable. Ancestral 

home of the Northern Ute Tribe after 

relocation in the late 1800s. Many features, 

including graves, but specific locations are 

not known. The most extensive wetland in 

the multi-state Book Cliffs due to uniquely 

perched water table; a critical ecosystem for 

migratory birds and a wide variety of wildlife. 

Bitter Creek-P.R. Springs 

(147,425 acres) Same as Bitter Creek. 

Same as Bitter Creek. 

Coyote Basin ACEC 

(87,743 acres) Important white-tailed prairie dog 

complex. Essential habitat for maintaining species 

diversity and includes one of the largest populations of 

white-tailed prairie dogs. The white-tailed prairie dog is 

essential to the survival of the endangered black-footed 

ferret in this area. 

A critical ecosystem for the white-tailed 

prairie dog, one of 25 complexes nominated 

for ACEC status in the western states. Has 

significance due to qualities that make it 

fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, and unique. This species 

occupies only an estimated 8% of the area it 

once occupied, and most of this is on public 

lands. The white-tailed prairie dog is 

particularly vulnerable to adverse change 

from a variety of current causes. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has been petitioned 

to list species. 

Coyote Basin Complex 

(124,161 acres) Same as Coyote Basin. 

Same as Coyote Basin. 

Four Mile Wash 

(50,280 acres) Existence of high value scenery, important 

riparian ecosystem, and special status fish. 

Has significance due to qualities that make it 

fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, and unique. Spectacular scenery 

viewed by increasing numbers of visitors 

from many states and countries. Lush 

riparian vegetation is rare in this desert 

ecosystem. 

Critical habitat for four endangered fish - 

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychochelius lucius), 

Bonytail (Gila elegans), Humpbacked chub 

(Gila cypha), and the Razorback sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus). 

Lower Green River Expansion 

(1,700 acres) Existence of significant riparian habitat and 

outstanding scenic values. 

Has significance due to qualities that make it 

fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, and unique. An extension of the 

Lower Green River Corridor ACEC, where 

the significance of these important resources 

has been recognized. See Table 3.16.1 

above. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 3-90

Table 3.16.2. Relevance and Importance Criteria of Potential ACECs 

Relevance Importance 

Main Canyon 

(100,915 acres) Existence of important cultural and 

historic resources, and natural systems. 

Has significance due to qualities that make it 

fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, and unique. Numerous sites 

associated with the historic Northern Ute 

migration route along Main Canyon. Historic 

inscription from early French fur trade era. 

Focus of past proposals to manage for 

exemplary natural systems. Part of the 

cooperative BLM/Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources Book Cliffs Conservation Initiative. 

Most of ACEC within the Winter Ridge WSA. 

Middle Green 

(6,768 acres) Existence of an important riparian 

ecosystem and high value scenery. 

Has significance due to qualities that make it 

fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, and unique. River and adjacent 

landscape provide spectacular scenery, 

viewed by increasing numbers of visitors 

from many states and countries. Lush 

riparian vegetation rare in this desert 

ecosystem. 

Nine Mile Canyon Expansion 

(36,987 acres) Existence of significant cultural resources, 

special status plant species, and high quality scenery. 

Has significance due to qualities that make it 

fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, and unique. An extension of the 

existing Nine Mile Canyon ACEC, where the 

significance of these important resources has 

been recognized. See Table 3.16.1 above. 

White River 

(47,130 acres) Existence of unique geological formations, 

high value scenery, significant historical events, and 

riparian ecosystem. 

Has significance due to qualities that make it 

fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, and unique. Unique, spectacular 

rock spires, named "Goblin City" by the John 

Wesley Powell 1869 expedition. A popular 

cottonwood grove campsite; place where the 

Powell Expedition camped and explored the 

nearby geological formations. Spectacular 

scenery viewed by increasing numbers of 

visitors from several states. Lush riparian 

vegetation is rare in this desert ecosystem. 

3.16.2 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

3.16.2.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act established 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. It contains policy for managing designated 

rivers and created processes for designating additional rivers into the NWSRS. Section 5(d) of 

the Act directs federal agencies to consider the potential for national wild, scenic, and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 3-91

recreational river areas in all planning, for the use and development of water and related land 

resources. Wild and scenic river considerations are being made in the Vernal RMP revision. 

To determine eligibility, the VFO inventoried all potentially eligible rivers. All rivers nominated 

during scoping or that appeared on national river lists were automatically considered. In addition, 

all rivers within the VPA were mapped and reviewed by agency and non-agency subject matter 

specialists and members of the interested public to identify any additional rivers that could be 

potentially eligible. 

All rivers determined to be eligible for congressional designation into the NWSRS are 

considered further for suitability in the planning process. Those determined suitable for 

congressional designation into the NWSRS are recommended to Congress for such designation. 

The Upper Green and Lower Green segments of the Green River were found suitable for 

congressional designation in the ROD for the Diamond Mountain RMP, and are currently 

managed to protect their free-flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative 

classifications. 

3.16.2.2 RIVER SEGMENTS DETERMINED ELIGIBLE FOR WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 

DESIGNATION

Of the 89 streams segments identified by the VFO as potentially eligible and inventoried, 11 

segments involving approximately 112 BLM shoreline miles and 216 total river miles were 

determined to be eligible for Congressional designation into the NWSRS (Table 3.16.3). 

Appendix C provides additional information regarding the eligibility review. It is BLM policy 

(8351 Manual, Section .32C) to manage eligible segments to protect their free-flowing nature, 

outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classifications to the extent that the BLM has the 

authority to do so through FLPMA, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and BLM policy. It should 

be noted that the BLM does not manage all lands through which the proposed wild and scenic 

river stretches pass, and thus cannot impose restrictions on other land owners and land managers 

in these areas. Until the ROD for the Vernal RMP is signed, such protection involves case-bycase review and mitigation of any actions proposed that might affect the eligible river. Protective 

management will continue for any segments determined suitable in the ROD for the Vernal 

RMP. For each suitable river, the ROD will identify specific management conditions that are in 

keeping with a suitability decision. Management that would apply, should any rivers be 

designated by Congress, is identified in the BLM's 8351 Manual, Section .51. 

Table 3.16.3. Summary Information for Eligible Rivers in the VPA 

Segment 

Name 

Segment 

Description 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values 

Tentative 

Classification 

BLM 

Shoreline 

Miles 

Total 

Miles 

Argyle Creek Headwaters to 

Carbon County 

line 

Scenic Recreational 4.0 22.0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 3-92

Table 3.16.3. Summary Information for Eligible Rivers in the VPA 

Segment 

Name 

Segment 

Description 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values 

Tentative 

Classification 

BLM 

Shoreline 

Miles 

Total 

Miles 

Bitter Creek Utah state line to 

where it enters 

private property 

Fish, 

Wildlife/habitat, 

Cultural, Historic, 

Recreational 

Scenic 7.0 22.0 

Evacuation 

Creek 

Utah state line to 

confluence with 

White River 

Historic Recreational 7.0 21.0 

Lower Green 

River 

Between public 

land boundary 

south of Ouray 

and the Carbon 

County line 

Recreational, Fish Scenic 27.0 30.0 

Middle Green 

River 

Between Dinosaur 

National 

Monument and 

the public land 

boundary north or 

Ouray 

Fish Recreational 20.0 36.0 

Nine Mile Creek 

(A) 

Within Duchesne 

County between 

the Carbon 

County line and 

the confluence 

with Gate Canyon 

Scenic, Cultural Recreational 7.0 13.0 

Nine Mile Creek 

(B) 

Within Duchesne 

County between 

Gate Canyon and 

the Green River 

Scenic, Cultural Scenic 0.0 6.0 

Upper Green 

River 

Between Little 

Hole and Utah 

state line 

Scenic, 

Recreational, Fish, 

Wildlife/habitat, 

Cultural 

Scenic 12.0 22.0 

White River (A) Between the 

Colorado state 

line and its 

confluence with 

Asphalt Wash 

Scenic, Fish, 

Wildlife/habitat 

Recreational, 

Historic 

Scenic 8.0 24.0 

White River (B) Between Asphalt 

Wash to where 

the river leaves 

Section 18, T10S. 

R23 E., SLBM 

Scenic, Fish, 

Wildlife/habitat 

Recreational, 

Historic 

Wild 10.0 10.0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 3-93

Table 3.16.3. Summary Information for Eligible Rivers in the VPA 

Segment 

Name 

Segment 

Description 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values 

Tentative 

Classification 

BLM 

Shoreline 

Miles 

Total 

Miles 

White River (C) From where the 

river leaves 

Section 18, T10S. 

R23 E., SLBM to 

the Indian Trust 

Land boundary 

Scenic, Fish, 

Wildlife/habitat 

Recreational, 

Historic 

Scenic 10.0 10.0 

Note: River mileage is approximate. 

3.16.3 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

3.16.3.1 OVERVIEW

In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, establishing a national system of lands for the 

purpose of preserving a representative sample of ecosystems in their natural condition for benefit 

of future generations. The Forest Service, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service 

managed most of the land designated as wilderness prior to 1976. With the passage of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, Congress directed the BLM to 

inventory, study, and recommend which public lands under its administration should be 

designated wilderness. 

In 1979, the BLM began a wilderness inventory of 22 million acres of public land in Utah. By 

1985, the BLM established 95 wilderness study areas (WSAs), totaling about 3.3 million acres, 

which have wilderness character. 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 provided the BLM's recommendation to the President. The 

President recommended that 69 areas, totaling approximately 1.9 million acres in Utah, be 

designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System by Congress. To date, with 

few exceptions, Congress has not acted on that recommendation. 

There is no designated wilderness on public lands in the VFO. 

3.16.3.2 PLANNING AREA PROFILE

WSAs are roadless, natural, 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).

There are six WSAs in the VFO (Table 3.16.4) (Figure 29 in the Maps section). The WSAs, 

established 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 Manual Handbook H-8550-1), to preserve their wilderness values until Congress either 

designates them wilderness or releases them for other uses. Only Congress can designate a WSA 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 3-94

as wilderness or release it from the protective mandate of FLPMA. The status of WSAs will not 

change as a result of this resource management planning process. In October 1991, the Secretary 

of Interior provided BLM’s recommendations to the President. The President recommended that 

69 WSAs, totaling approximately 1.9 million acres in Utah be designated as part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System by Congress. 

Table 3.16.4. Wilderness Study Areas 

Name Acreage 

Book Cliffs Mountain Browse ISA 400 acres 

Bull Canyon 600 acres 

Daniels Canyon 2,496 acres 

Diamond Breaks 3,900 acres 

West Cold Springs 3,200 acres 

Winter Ridge 42,462 acres 

Total: 6 areas 53,058 acres 

3.17 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

3.17.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

3.17.1.1 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

Special status species include those plant and animal species federally listed as threatened, 

endangered, proposed and/or candidate, as well as BLM and State of Utah sensitive plant and 

animal species. The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (Public Law 93 - 205, as 

amended), provides protection to federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species 

from actions that may jeopardize their existence. This could occur through direct harm, activities 

resulting in increased stress during critical life history stages such as nesting, migration or 

wintering, loss or degradation of critical habitat, or loss or degradation of occupied or potential 

habitat. 

Table 3.17.1 identifies all threatened, endangered, and candidate species occurring within the 

VPA area of influence which includes Daggett, Duchesne, Uintah, and the northern portion of 

Grand County, Utah as of February 26, 2004.3 The information regarding the status and habitats 

of federally listed species in Table 3.17.1 is from data provided by the BLM and FWS status data 

current as of February 26, 2004. Definitions of terms used in Table 3.17.1 are provided below. 

Endangered Species – Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Threatened Species – Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

 

3

 Only those species that have a known occurrence in the small portion of Grand County within the VPA are represented. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 3-95

Candidate Species – Any species for which substantial biological information exists to support 

the biological appropriateness of proposing to list the species as endangered or threatened. 

Critical Habitat – Specific areas that contain physical or biological features essential for the 

conservation of a listed species and that may require special management considerations or 

protection. 

Experimental Population – A population that has been reintroduced outside of its current range 

but within its historical range. 

Recovery Plan – A plan prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for threatened and 

endangered species that establishes objectives and methods to ensure the survival of the species 

and recover it sufficiently so that the species can be delisted or removed from the threatened and 

endangered species list. 

There are 13 listed and 2 candidate species within the VPA. All of these species are both known 

to occur and have additional potential habitat in the VPA. Of these 15 species, there are 4 

wildlife, 4 fish, and 7 plant species. Slightly more than half of the species are upland species, 

dependent on specific soil or geologic formations for suitable habitat, such as white calcareous 

shale or steep rocky canyons. These species include the Mexican spotted owl, horseshoe 

milkvetch, Barneby ridge-cress, White River beardtongue, clay reed-mustard, shrubby reedmustard, Pariette cactus and Uinta Basin hookless cactus. The black-footed ferret is an upland 

species that requires large contiguous blocks of active prairie dog colonies. The ferret is an 

endangered species that has been reintroduced to northeast Utah as an experimental population. 

The ferret reintroduction site was Coyote Basin, in Uintah County, a BLM-managed area within 

the VPA, but the FWS considers all of Uintah and Duchesne Counties to be within the 

experimental population area. The Canada lynx is an upland species that is dependent on a 

montane coniferous forest link in the Diamond Mountain area between lynx habitat in the Uinta 

Mountains to that in the Colorado Rockies. 

The remaining six listed species are species that rely predominantly on the Green River, its 

tributaries, and the associated riparian habitats up to 100-year floodplain limit. These species 

include the yellow-billed cuckoo, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback 

sucker, and the Ute ladies'-tresses. 

Draft or final recovery plans have been prepared for all threatened and endangered species 

except the Canada lynx. 

Critical habitat has been designated for the four Colorado River fish species (bonytail, Colorado 

pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker) and the Mexican spotted owl. Critical habitat 

for the Colorado River fish species occurs along portions of the Green River downstream of its 

junction with the Yampa River to the Colorado River, and including sections of the Green River 

in the VPA within Uintah and Grand Counties. Critical habitat has also been established along 

the lower portion of the Duchesne River. The critical habitat designation includes the 100-year 

floodplain. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 3-96

Critical habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl has been designated in portions of Carbon and 

Grand Counties, immediately adjacent to, but just outside of the VPA. Substantial suitable 

canyon habitat occurs in the adjacent Books Cliffs area. 

There are numerous activities (generally referred to as "threats") that have resulted in the listing 

of these species. These include grazing, oil and gas development, loss of prey bases, habitat 

fragmentation, agricultural development, forestry practices, changes in natural flow and sediment 

transport regimes as a result of dam operations, flow depletions from irrigation, loss of riparian 

and wetland habitat, introduction of non-native species, and loss of habitat within specific soil 

and geologic formation types. The potential continued threats to these species and how the 

alternative management strategies for the RMP could change these threats are described in 

Section 4.17. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 3.17.1.2 FEDERALLY ENDANGERED, THREATENED, CANDIDATE, AND PROPOSED SPECIES

Table 3.17.1. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Potentially Occurring in 

Common Name 

Scientific Name 

Protection 

(Federal/State) Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes

Endangered/ Experimental 

Grasslands with active prairie dog towns. 

Two hundred and fifteen (215) ferrets have reintroduced into the Coyote Basin since 19dog towns, or a complex of towns large eno(at least 100 acres) within Duchesne and Uiconsidered potential black-footed ferret hab

Canada lynx Lynx Canadensis

Threatened Montane coniferous forest. The range of the Canada lynx extends from 

south to Maine, the Rocky Mountains, and tAlthough sightings of the Canada lynx in Utatwenty years have been very rare, the Diamprovides a linkage area between lynx habitaMountains to that in the Colorado Rockies. 

Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida

Threatened Steep rocky canyons; substantial 

suitable habitat is present, though no critical habitat is present. 

The Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) ranges froColorado through the mountains of Arizona, West Texas into the mountains of Central Mprefer old growth mixed conifer ponderosa pforest, and associated deciduous riparian foare a permanent resident that nest in the desandstone or rocky canyons of the Green anbasins. Forested habitats (old growth mixed pine, or evergreen oak forest, and associateforests) are suitable for foraging and disperstwo reports of MSOs in the Book Cliffs. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

Candidate (State-listed threatened) 

Dense lowland riparian habitat at 2,500 to 6,000 feet elevation; usually found within 300 feet of water. 

The Yellow-billed Cuckoo is a neotropical mlocalized riparian valleys throughout Utah. TRefuge and other locations along the Green largest breeding population of Yellow-billed Utah with an estimated 10 to 20 pairs. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.1. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Potentially Occurring in 

Common Name 

Scientific Name 

Protection 

(Federal/State) Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Bonytail Gila elegans

Endangered The habitat requirements of the 

bonytail are not well known because the species was extirpated from most of its historic range prior to extensive fishery surveys. Critical habitat has been designated along the Green River in Uintah and Grand Counties. 

The bonytail was historically common to abureaches of larger rivers in the Colorado Riveto Wyoming. It is currently a very rare specieRiver Basin, with only a few individuals havilast decade. Very low numbers of bonytail sColorado River basin in Gray Canyon of the Black Rocks on the Colorado River and at thGreen and Yampa rivers and the Green and majority of bonytail are being held in culture reintroduction efforts are under way. Severareared bonytails have recently been reintrodRiver near Moab and in the Green River at tYampa River. 

Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius

Endangered Adult Colorado pikeminnow use a 

variety of habitat types, depending on time of year, but primarily use shoreline runs, eddies, backwater habitats, seasonally flooded bottoms, and side canyons. Critical habitat has been designated for Colorado pikeminnow along the Green River in Uintah, Carbon, Emery, and Grand counties. This critical habitat includes the 100-year floodplain. 

This species' range is restricted to the Uppebasin, upstream of Glen Canyon Dam. They the Upper Green River (between the mouth and head of Desolation Canyon) and Lower the Price and San Rafael rivers). Other concinclude the Yampa River, the lower 21 miles the Ruby and Horsethief Canyon area betwand Loma, Colorado, and in the San Juan RPowell and Shiprock, New Mexico. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.1. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Potentially Occurring in 

Common Name 

Scientific Name 

Protection 

(Federal/State) Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Humpback chub Gila cypha

Endangered Suitable habitat for this species is 

characterized by a wide variety of riverine habitats, especially canyon areas with fast currents, deep pools, and boulder habitat. Adults require eddies and sheltered shoreline habitats maintained by high spring flows. Young require low-velocity shoreline habitats, including eddies and backwaters, that are more prevalent under base-flow conditions. 

This species originally inhabited the mainsteRiver from what is now Lake Mead to the caGreen and Yampa River basins. Currently, ithe Upper Basin to the Colorado River at BlaWestwater and Cataract Canyons, in the YaCanyon, and in the Green River at Desolatiothe Lower Basin, humpback chub are only foColorado River in Marble and Grand CanyoColorado River. Critical habitat has been deGreen River in Uintah and Grand counties. 

Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus

Endangered Habitats required by adults include 

rivers with deep runs, eddies, backwaters, and flooded offchannel environments in the spring; runs and pools often in shallow water associated with submerged sandbars in summer; and lowvelocity runs, pools, and eddies in winter. Young require nursery environments with quiet, warm, shallow water such as tributary mouths, backwaters, or inundated floodplain habitats in rivers, and coves or shorelines in reservoirs. Critical habitat for this species is the same as that of the Colorado pikeminnow. 

Historically, the razorback sucker were widewater reaches of larger rivers of the ColoradMexico to Wyoming, but is currently found in Green River, upper Colorado River, and Sasubbasins; lower Colorado River between LDam; reservoirs of Lakes Mead and Mohavethe Gila River Subbasin (Verde River, Salt RCreek); and in local areas under intensive mCibola High Levee Pond, Achii Hanyo NativParker Strip. The largest population of razorUpper Basin is found in the low-gradient, flamiddle Green River between the Duchesne River. Known spawning sites are located in River and in the Green River near Escalante km 492 and 501. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.1. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Potentially Occurring in 

Common Name 

Scientific Name 

Protection 

(Federal/State) Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Barneby ridgecress Lepidium barnebyanum 

Endangered/NA This species requires shallow, finetextured soils intermixed with rock 

fragments. The Barneby ridgecress is found along semi-barren ridges in piñon-juniper woodlands, at elevations ranging from 6,100 ft to 6,550 ft (1,860 m to 1,965 m). 

There may be suitable habitat for this speciethere are no known populations (UDWR 200ridge-cress is located on the Uintah and OuThe VPA encompasses the total populationof Indian Creek south of Starvation ReservoDuchesne. Three separate stands make up ranging across approximately five miles (8 k

White River beardtongue Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis

Candidate/ NA Occurs in pinyon-juniper, desert 

shrub, and mixed desert shrub communities at elevations ranging 4,600 to 6,800 feet elevation. Found at the lower members of the Green River Formation, growing on sparsely vegetated shale slopes. 

White River beardtongue is currently known outcrops of oil shale on 714 acres in southesoutheast Duchesne County, Utah. 

Clay reedmustard Schoenocrambe argillacea

Threatened/ NA Found on the contact zone 

between the upper Uinta and lower Green River Formations, typically at elevations ranging from 4,800 to 5,800 feet elevation. It inhabits mixed desert shrub communities of Indian ricegrass and pygmy sagebrush on the shale slopes of the Evacuation Creek Member of the Green River Formation. Plants may be found growing on protected north-facing slopes. 

Three clay-reed-mustard populations of fewindividuals each are currently known to occuUintah County, Utah. The species is known slopes and cliffs overlooking the Green RiveWillow Creek. Currently known populations 8 mi area (24 km x 12 km; 1,541 acres) alonfrom Willow Creek to Sand Wash. Populatioabove Sand Wash and Nine Mile Canyon on problematic for population counts and surve

Shrubby reedmustard Schoenocrambe suffrutescens

Endangered/ NA 

Found on the Evacuation Creek Member of the Green River Shale Formation on calcareous shales in pygmy sagebrush, mountain mahogany, juniper, and mixed desert shrub communities (5,400–6,000 feet). 

The shrubby reed-mustard is currently knowacres in oil shale lenses in the Hill Creek dradrainage, and Badland Cliffs. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.1. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Potentially Occurring in 

Common Name 

Scientific Name 

Protection 

(Federal/State) Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Pariette cactus Sclerocactus brevispinus

Threatened/ NA (USFWS 2007) 

Occurs on fine soils forming desert pavement in clay badlands derived from the Uinta Formation in sparse salt desert shrubland from 4,600 to 4,900 feet elevation 

Occurs as a single population of approximatwithin a 50 square-mile (18,000 acre) area fDrainage south of Myton, Utah to the mouth south or Ouray, Utah (USFWS 2006). The tohabitat includes an estimated 15,000 acres 2007). 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus Sclerocactus wetlandicus

Threatened/ NA (USFWS 2007) 

Occurs on Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium soils overlain with cobbles and pebbles in cold desert shrub and pinyon-juniper communities on alluvial river terraces, valley slopes, and rolling hills of the Duchesne River, Green River, and Mancos Formations from 4,300 to 6,560 feet elevation. 

The current population is estimated at 13,00are patchily to densely distributed from the cGreen, White, and Duchesne Rivers near Othe Green River to the vicinity of Sand Washconcentrations near the mouth of Pariette Dbase of the Badlands Cliffs (USFWS 1990, 22007; Glisson 2007; UDWR 2007). 

Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis

Threatened/ NA Wet meadow and other riparian 

habitats that are subject to fluvial erosion and deposition. May also be found near springs, seeps, and lakeshores where there is sufficient ground water. This plant can be found on various substrates in riparian habitats between 4,265 and 6,800 feet elevation. 

Ute ladies'-tresses is found in sporadic locatinterior western United States. Within the Uiladies'-tresses occurs along the Green RiveBrowns' Park (CO), Dinosaur National Monuconfluence with the Yampa River. The specAshley Creek, within Ashley Valley, along Bupper Duchesne River, and tributaries to the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 3-102

3.17.1.3 STATE-LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES AND BLM-LISTED SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES

Both the BLM and State of Utah maintain lists of sensitive plant and animal species. The 

restricted distributions, specialized habitat requirements, and population pressures (human 

induced and natural) facing special status species contribute to a high potential for federal listing, 

thus, their populations are of conservation interest. The BLM Manual 6840 specifies that they 

will manage State-listed plants and animals "to the extent that they are consistent with other 

Federal laws". BLM policy for BLM-listed sensitive species is to manage the species as if they 

were candidate species for federal listing so that they do not become listed, while also fulfilling 

other federal law mandates. The BLM has a policy of entering into conservation agreements and 

other conservations measures to protect both State- and BLM-listed species. 

There are 28 other special status species in the VPA that are listed in Table 3.17.2. This includes 

14 wildlife, 4 fish, and 14 plant species. Of the 14 plant species, 13 species are soil endemics, 

which means that they are restricted to specific soil types. The dependence of these species on 

locally unique geological formations and soil parent materials make them particularly susceptible 

to habitat loss. 

There are four bird, four fish, and one plant species that are dependent upon streams, rivers and 

associated wetlands. The remaining species are primarily upland species that have a variety of 

habitat requirements including grasslands, desert shrub, woodland, mature forest, and caves 

within forested areas. 

Threats to sensitive species that could result in their listing as federally threatened or endangered 

species are similar to the threats experienced by listed species. These threats include sensitivity 

to human disturbance, poisoning, changes in flow regimes, loss of riparian wetlands, timber 

harvesting, restriction to unique soil or geologic formations, competition from non-native 

species, overgrazing, and habitat degradation or loss due to agricultural practices, oil and gas 

development, and/or urban encroachment. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the VPA. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name Protection* Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Mammal Species 

Townsend's bigeared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

SP/SD Forested areas; roosts and 

hibernates in caves, mines, and buildings. 

The Townsend's big-eared bat is found throuwestern North America including areas in the the Book Cliffs. It is a cave-roosting species made caves such as mines and buildings. Uthey are unable to crawl into crevices and usareas where they are vulnerable to disturbanbig-eared bat is quite sensitive to human disappears to be the primary cause of populatiospecies. This bat is colonial during the matecompact clusters of up to 200 individuals migroosts form in the spring and remain intact dfidelity is high, and if undisturbed, the bats wfor many generations. 

White-tailed prairie dog Cynomys leucurus

SP Grasslands White-tailed prairie dogs form colonies in pa

Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. Thdog is the main food source of the Utah popendangered black-footed ferret that were reinortheastern Utah. Major threats to the whiteinclude habitat loss, poisoning, and disease. 

State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Bird Species 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

SD Marshes, lakes, and rivers. American White Pelicans summer in the inte

around major water bodies and winter along Coast and Baja California. The species is exhuman disturbance on its nesting grounds aimpacted by loss of foraging habitat, environand water level fluctuations. As many as 200 pelicans can be found between Pariette, PelOuray National Wildlife Refuge during the sp
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the VPA. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name Protection* Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

CS Riparian areas with tall trees. Migratory Bald Eagles winter throughout the 

elevation forest, and desert habitats. There aroosts along the Duchesne, Green and Whiton the White River a few miles upstream of tborder. The species is recovering across its recently proposed that the species be delistenumber of nesting pairs in Utah has remaine

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

SP/SD Wet meadow, wet grassland, and 

irrigated agricultural areas. 

The Bobolink was historically common but is flooded grasslands and wet meadows of norsummers in the northern regions of North AmSouth America. Most of the birds migrate eaThe range of the Bobolink has decreased in entire range, because of habitat loss from drpractices such as early season hay cutting, gand overgrazing. Habitat for the Bobolink ocelevations of the VPA in the Uinta Mountains and has been observed at the Pariette Wetla

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia

SP Open grassland and prairies. Burrowing Owls are neotropical migrants, ne

burrows, and are typically found in open desshrubland areas that are level and well drainburrowing mammals for nest sites and are oprairie dog colonies. The decline of the owl's range appears to be due primarily to agricultpesticides, and the decline of prairie dog colburrowing owls occurs throughout the lower Basin. Many of the areas where Burrowing Obeen identified and mapped by VFO personn
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the VPA. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name Protection* Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis

Threatened Grasslands, agriculture lands, 

sagebrush/saltbush/greasewood shrub lands, and at the periphery of pinyon-juniper forests. Nests in juniper trees, cliffs, buttes, and creek banks. 

The Ferruginous Hawk is a neotropical migrasouthwestern Canada to central Arizona, Nenorthern Texas, and wintering in California to a year-round resident from Nevada through Utah, northern Arizona, and New Mexico, to South Dakota. In Utah, the Ferruginous Hawjuniper habitats and open, desert, and grasswestern, northeastern, and southeastern porFerruginous Hawks are highly sensitive to huare also threatened by habitat loss from oil aagricultural practices, and urban encroachmexperienced a decline across much of their rextirpated from some of their former breedinHabitat for Ferruginous Hawk occurs in the lelevations of the VPA in the Uinta Mountains and many of the active nest sites in the VPA and mapped. There are 271 known nesting swhich are currently active. Eighty-eight perceinactive nest sites have roads and pipelines buffer established for these nest sites meant disturbing activities in close proximity to thes

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

SP/SD Dry grasslands; characterized by 

short to mid-height clumps of grass with few to no shrubs. 

The Grasshopper Sparrow is a neotropical mto be historically abundant in the State of Utacurrently only a few known breeding sites in northern Utah. The Grasshopper Sparrow raUnited States during the summer and in the during the winter. Much of this species' formlost to agricultural and urban encroachment These birds nest in semi-colonial groups in dcharacterized by short to mid-height clumps shrubs. Habitat for Grasshopper Sparrow ocof the Uinta Basin although there has been noccurrences in the VPA. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the VPA. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name Protection* Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Greater Sagegrouse Centrocercus urophasianus

SP/SD Sagebrush plains, foothills, and 

mountain valleys. 

Greater Sage-grouse are found in the sagebplains of the Intermountain Region. Since 19male grouse on known breeding grounds in approximately 50%. Brood counts and harvedownward trend. Habitat loss and fragmentaencroachment, urbanization, and overgrazinthreats to the Greater Sage-grouse. Habitat grouse occurs in the mid elevations of the Vand the Book Cliffs. Many studies have been grouse in Utah and in the Uinta Basin. One opopulations in the State of Utah has been shDiamond Mountain. Many of the active leks athe VPA have been identified and mapped. 

Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

SP/SD 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 (cottonwood) forests. Dead trees and stumps are required for nesting. Wintering grounds are over a wide range of habitats, but oak woodlands are preferred. 

The Lewis' Woodpecker is a year-round resiAmerica and, in Utah, is occasionally found of the Uinta Basin and along the Duchesne aThey breed in open Ponderosa Pine forests dominated riparian bottoms and winter primaelevation cottonwood dominated riparian botbeen found on the Green River, Lake Fork RPonderosa Pine forests on the Uinta Mountain several areas of the state, the species disreduced, and the species is experiencing a rThis woodpecker usually feeds on flying inseinterspersed with trees in the spring and sumon fruits and nuts in the fall and winter. It is aloss of habitat from water development and aand may be increasingly affected by competfrom non-native bird species. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the VPA. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name Protection* Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus

SP/SD Uncultivated rangelands and 

pastures near water. 

The Long-billed Curlew is a neotropical migrthe upland meadows and rangelands of wesforages in moist meadow wetlands and uplacurlew is adversely affected by human disturloss from agricultural practices. Habitat for looccurs in the mid elevations of the Uinta MoCliffs and it has been observed in the VPA. 

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

CS Mature mountain forest and 

riparian zone habitats. 

The Northern Goshawk is a neotropical migrthe northern regions of North America in scaprimarily in mature mountain forest and valleThe species is adversely affected by loss of harvest and development in riparian areas. Boccur in low-density populations, they are pato population loss. Goshawk populations appacross their range, particularly in the ColoradAreas of potentially suitable nesting habitat fconsist of coniferous forest and mixed-aspen dominated by spruce, fir, pine, and aspen. PGoshawk have been identified in the mid elethe Uinta Mountains and the Book Cliffs. 

Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus

SD Coniferous forests, generally 

above 7,800 feet elevation. 

The Three-toed Woodpecker nests and wintconiferous forest and mixed-aspen forest typspruce, fir, pine, and aspen, usually above 7the northern regions of North America and thSmall populations have been located along tof the Book Cliffs and possibly Diamond Mounegatively affected by forest management pcutting and fire suppression. 

State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Reptile Species 

Smooth greensnake Opheodrys vernalis

SP/SD Moist grassy areas and meadows. The smooth greensnake typically inhabits m

marshes, and moist grassy fields along foresdistribution ranges from northeastern Utah inand northern New Mexico, and into the NorthCanadian border south to Kansas and Misso
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the VPA. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name Protection* Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Fish Species 

Bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus

SP Fast flowing water in high gradient 

reaches of mountain rivers. 

The bluehead sucker are typically associated rocky riffles in higher gradient reaches of smthe Colorado River drainage including the GDuchesne rivers and their tributaries as well and Snake River basins. Flow alteration, haband the introduction of non-native fish specieas significant causes of the decline of this sp

Colorado River cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus

CS Cool, clear water of high-elevation 

streams and lakes. 

There are 20 known populations of purestraicutthroat trout in northeastern Utah. Most exthis species are restricted to areas above 7,0These populations are being managed by tha multiagency conservation agreement aimeeliminating the threats to this species (CRCT Habitat alteration and the introduction of nonhave been identified as the primary threats tcurrently has plans to reestablish Colorado Rthe Bitter Creek and Upper Willow Creek areHabitat restoration activities have been ongowill be chemically treated prior to reintroductcutthroat trout to remove non-native fish spepopulation of Colorado River cutthroat trout oVPA is found in Sears Creek (water code: II 

Flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis

SP Large rivers, where they are often 

found in deep pools of slowflowing, low-gradient reaches. 

Flannelmouth sucker are typically associated slow flowing, low-gradient reaches in the largColorado River drainage including the GreenDuchesne rivers. Flow alteration, habitat lossintroduction of non-native fish species have significant causes of the decline of this spec
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the VPA. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name Protection* Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Roundtail chub Gila robusta

Threatened Large rivers, and is most often 

found in murky pools near strong currents. 

Roundtail chub are found in moderate-sized River drainage including the Green and Ducare generally associated with pools and eddcover, often congregating below rapids while inhabit shallower habitats than adults. Roundfound in large reservoirs in the drainage. Theopportunistic feeders, taking terrestrial and aespecially midges, mayflies, and caddis fliescrustaceans, fish, and sometimes-filamentouonce much more common throughout the Cothan it is today. Habitat modification (e.g., stdamming, removal of riparian vegetation) annon-native predators are probably the primato the decline of this species. 

State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Plant Species 

Park rockcress Arabis vivariensis

Sensitive Occurs on the Weber Formation 

sandstone and limestone outcrops in mixed desert shrub and pinyon-juniper communities at 5,000 to 6,000 feet elevation. 

The park rockcress is found in Dinosaur Naton 30 acres on Diamond Mountain and Cliff 

Hamilton milkvetch Astragalus hamiltonii

Sensitive Occurs on Asphalt Ridge, Mowry, 

Dakota and Wasatch Formations and Lapoint and Dry Gulch Members of the Duchesne Formation in pinyon-juniper and desert shrub communities at 5,240 to 5,800 feet elevation. 

The Hamilton milkvetch is currently known fracres) between Lapoint and Vernal, Utah. 

Owenby's thistle Cirsium owenbyii

Sensitive Occurs on the east flank of the 

Uinta Mountains in the sagebrush, juniper, and riparian communities at 5,500 to 6,200 feet elevation. 

The Owenby's thistle is currently known from Brown's Park (53 acres), Diamond Mountain 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the VPA. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name Protection* Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Goodrich stinkweed (Cleomella palmeriana var. goodrichii) 

Sensitive Typically occurs in heavy clay 

soils on eroded clay and shale slopes of the Mancos, Tropic and Morrison Formations in salt desert shrub communities from 4,000 to 6,000 feet elevation. 

Goodrich stinkweed is known only from RainCounty, Utah and from the Salmon-Baker arIdaho. The size and distribution of extant po

Untermann daisy Erigeron untermanii

Sensitive Occurs in the pinyon-juniper 

communities on calcareous shales and sandstones of the Uinta and Green River formations at 7,000 to 7,800 feet elevation. 

The Untermann daisy is an endemic to the Win Duchesne County, Utah. 

Alcove bogorchard Habenaria zothecina

Sensitive Occurs on moist stream banks, 

seeps, and hanging gardens of the Weber Sandstone Formation in mixed-desert shrub, pinyonjuniper, and oakbrush vegetation communities from 4,000 to 8,690 feet elevation. 

Potential alcove bog-orchid habitat occurs in Monument and elsewhere in Uintah County. confirmed populations within the VFO (persobetween J. H. Hornbeck, SWCA, and ClaytoJune 30, 2008). 

Rock hymenoxys Hymenoxys lapidicola

Sensitive Occurs on rock crevices in the 

pinyon-juniper woodland or ponderosa pine-manzanita woodland communities from 5,700 to 8,100 feet elevation. 

The rock hymenoxys is endemic to Cliff RidgUtah and adjacent regions of Dinosaur Natio

Huber's pepperweed Lepidium huberi

Sensitive Rock crevices, eroding parent 

material and alluvial soils of the Chinle, Park City and Weber Formations in the Uinta and Green River Formation in the Book Cliffs. 5,000-8,000 ft. 

Huber's pepperweed is known to occur in Biin the Uinta Mountains and has the potential side of the East Tavaputs Plateau. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the VPA. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name Protection* Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Goodrich blazingstar (Mentzelia goodrichii) 

Sensitive Occurs on steep, highly erosive, 

marly-calciferous shale escarpments of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation from 8,100 to 8,800 feet elevation. 

Goodrich blazingstar is a narrow endemic of Plateau in southern Duchesne County, Utahescarpments of Argyle, Indian, Sowers and W

margin of Avintaquin Canyon and Gray Head regions in the Badlands Cliffs. The size and populations is not known. 

Stemless penstemon Penstemon acaulis

Sensitive Occurs on semi-barren substrates 

in pinyon-juniper and sagebrushgrass communities at 5,840 to 7,285 feet elevation. 

The stemless penstemon is currently known Brown's Park, Daggett County, Utah. 

Gibbens penstemon (Gibbens beardtongue) Penstemon gibbensii

Sensitive Occurs on sandy and shaley 

(Green River Shale) bluffs and slopes with juniper, thistle, Eriogonum, Elymus, serviceberry, rabbitbrush, and Thermopsis at 5,500 to 6,400 feet elevation. 

Gibbons penstemon is currently known at onBrown's Park, Daggett County, Utah. 

Goodrich penstemon (Goodrich beardtongue) Penstemon goodrichii

Sensitive Occurs on the Duchesne River 

Formation on blue-gray to reddish bands of clay badlands at 5,590 to 6,215 feet elevation. 

Goodrich penstemon is currently known from Lapoint-Tridell-Whiterocks area. 

Graham's beardtongue Penstemon grahamii

Sensitive Occurs on gravelly clay soils in 

pinyon-juniper woodlands on semi-barren knolls of white calcareous shale in sparsely vegetated desert shrub and pinyon-juniper communities from 4,691 to 6,758 feet elevation. 

Graham's Beardtongue is currently known to in East Duchesne and Uintah Counties, Utah
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

3.1

Vernal RMP 

Table 3.17.2. State-listed and BLM-listed Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in the VPA. 

Common Name 

Scientific Name Protection* Preferred Habitat Potential for Occurring on BL

Uinta greenthread (Thelesperma caespitosum) 

Sensitive Occurs on dry, poorly developed 

soils on shale or marl slopes and benches and multicolored clay hills of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation or the Uinta Formation in mountain shrub/pinyon-juniper woodland communities from 5,900 to 8,860 feet elevation. 

Endemic to Sweetwater County, Wyoming aPlateau of the Uinta Basin, Duchesne Countdistribution of extant populations is not know

*Protection: CS: A species of concern being managed under a multi agency conservation agreement with the goal to keep the species from being federally listed. Sensitive: Listed by the State of Utah, or BLM for plants, as a species sensitive to disturbance. 

SD: Listed by the State of Utah as a species of special concern due to its limited distribution within the state. SP: Listed by the State of Utah as a species of special concern due to declining population sizes within the state. Threatened: Listed by the State of Utah as a species faced with substantial risk of extinction. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-113

3.18 VEGETATION

3.18.1 DOMINANT VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

The vegetation on lands administered by the BLM within the VPA was mapped in conjunction 

with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Lands within the VPA under other 

jurisdictions were not analyzed. Because the soil associations were mapped to a minimum size of 

50 acres, the designated vegetation associations only show changes in community types of a 

minimum of 50 acres as well, making the complex mosaic of natural vegetation not visible at this 

level of detail. The vegetation associations within the VPA were then classified using vegetation 

categories defined by the BLM and by GAP analysis (Edwards et al. 1996). 

Vegetation across the VPA ranges from desert shrub to boreal forest. The following seven 

vegetation types are identified in the VPA: plains grassland/herbaceous, desert shrub, 

sagebrush/perennial grass, pinyon-juniper, mountain shrub, and conifer, which includes 

aspen/forb. Other minor vegetation/cover types are riparian areas and wetlands, and badlands. 

Descriptions of the identified vegetation types, including their associated plant species and 

general locations within the VPA, are provided below. The following associations occur 

intermixed throughout the VPA. 

3.18.1.1 PLAINS GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS

This vegetation type is dominated by herbaceous species and includes a few solitary shrubs. The 

plains grassland/herbaceous type is found in only a small portion of the VPA, but many of the 

species that compose it are found in the understory of the other associations. Most wildlife 

species use this area at some time during the year. 

3.18.1.2 DESERT SHRUB

Vegetation of the desert shrub type typifies the cold desert environment. It composes 

approximately 20% of the VPA, mainly in the center of the planning area (e.g., Antelope Flat, 

Clay Basin, and half of the Myton Bench Area), and is located at the lower elevations from 4,800 

to 6,000 feet. This type is characterized by shrubs such as shadscale, winterfat, Mormon tea, 

Gardner's saltbush, mat saltbush, four-winged saltbush, rabbitbrush, and greasewood (Table 

3.18.1). The understory is sparse and may contain Indian ricegrass, galletta, scarlet globemallow, 

bud sagebrush, spring parsley, and textile onion. Soil salinity is relatively high. 

Vegetation treatments or manipulations are not very successful in this type of community, due to 

the shallow soils and low moisture availability. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-114

Table 3.18.1. Common Plants in the Desert Shrub Community in the VPA* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Shrubs 

Atriplex canescens Four-winged saltbush 

Atriplex confertifolia Shadscale 

Atriplex corrugata Mat saltbush 

Atriplex gardneri Gardner's saltbush 

Artemisia spinescens Bud sage 

Ceratoides lanata Winterfat 

Chrysothamnus spp. Rabbitbrush species 

Ephedra nevadensis Mormon tea 

Sarcobatus vermiculatus Greasewood 

Grasses and Forbs 

Agropyron dasystachyum var. dasystachyum Thickspike wheatgrass 

Allium textile Textile onion 

Arenaria spp. Sandwort 

Cymopterus spp. Spring parsley 

Eriogonum spp. Buckwheat 

Descurainia pinnata Tansy mustard 

Hilaria jamesii Galleta 

Phlox spp. Phlox 

Poa sandbergii Sandberg bluegrass 

Poa spp. Bluegrasses 

Sitanion hystrix Squirreltail 

Sphaeralcea spp. Globemallow 

Sporobolus airoides Alkali sacaton 

Stipa hymenoides Indian ricegrass 

*Plant names follow A Utah Flora (Welsh et al. 1993). 

3.18.1.3 SAGEBRUSH/PERENNIAL GRASS

The sagebrush association covers approximately 57% of the VPA. This association is composed 

mainly of black sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, and mountain big 

sagebrush (Table 3.18.2). Other important shrubs are rabbitbrush, Mormon tea, and bitterbrush. 

Basin big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush dominate the zone between 5,000 and 7,000 

feet. Typically, the basin big sagebrush is found in areas of well-drained soils that receive 10-16 

inches of annual precipitation, and Wyoming big sagebrush occupies drier, shallow soils that 

receive 8-12 inches of annual precipitation. Mountain big sagebrush is dominant in areas over 

7,000 feet in elevation that receive 14-20 inches of annual precipitation (Welsh et al. 1993). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-115

The herbaceous understory is typically composed of bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, 

western wheatgrass, Junegrass, Indian ricegrass, and many needlegrasses. Many forbs also occur 

in this area and are an important resource for Sage-grouse. Common forb species include 

balsamroot, mules ears, Indian paintbrush, sego lily, larkspur, phlox, and mustards (Edwards et 

al. 1994). 

Wyoming and mountain big sagebrush are declining throughout the VPA, as evidenced by the 

existing, decadent, even-aged stands. Beginning in the late 1990s, drought accelerated the 

decline, which resulted in a sage die off and die back. Some areas had sagebrush mortality while 

others had re-growth of sagebrush in subsequent years. Where sagebrush died and the understory 

was cheat grass, the density of cheat grass increased. The native perennial grassland understory 

has also been invaded by annual species such as cheatgrass; some invasions cover thousands of 

acres. Prescribed burning may be used to treat these areas, which would also benefit wildlife 

habitat and the wildland urban interface. The sagebrush association provides important wildlife 

habitat in the form of crucial winter range for deer and elk and essential habitat and forage for 

Sage-grouse. Domestic livestock grazing occurs in this association, as does recreation. 

Table 3.18.2. Species Commonly Associated with Sagebrush/ Perennial Grassland 

Communities in the VPA* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Shrubs 

Artemisia nova Black sagebrush 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata Basin big sagebrush 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Mountain big sagebrush 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis Wyoming big Sagebrush 

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Douglas rabbitbrush 

Ceratoides lanata Winterfat 

Ephedra nevadensis Mormon tea 

Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush 

Grasses and Forbs 

Astragalus spp. Milkvetch 

Balsamorhiza spp. Balsamroot species 

Brassica spp. Mustards species 

Calochortus nuttallii Sego lily 

Delphinium spp. Larkspur species 

Erigeron spp. Fleabane species 

Elymus cinereus var. cinereus Great Basin wildrye 

Elymus smithii Western wheatgrass 

Elymus spicatus Bluebunch wheatgrass 

Erysimum asperum Wallflower 

Festuca spp. Fescue species 

Koeleria macrantha Junegrass 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-116

Table 3.18.2. Species Commonly Associated with Sagebrush/ Perennial Grassland 

Communities in the VPA* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Lupinus spp. Lupine species 

Phlox spp. Phlox species 

Stipa spp. Needlegrass species 

Stipa hymenoides Indian ricegrass 

Wyethia amplexicaulis Mules ears 

*Plant names follow A Utah Flora (Welsh et al. 1993). 

3.18.1.4 PINYON-JUNIPER

This association occurs at slightly higher elevations than the sagebrush. Typically, there is a wide 

transition zone from juniper-sagebrush to juniper, so the boundaries between these associations 

are indistinct. 

In the juniper-dominated areas, the understory's percent cover generally decreases. Therefore, 

this association has many management challenges. Vegetation manipulation, in the form of 

chaining and prescribed burns, has been used in the past. (In the 1960s and 1970s, 11,600 acres 

in the VPA were chained and reseeded successfully, and in the 1980s, chaining occurred in 

Wood Canyon in the Nine Mile area and in Browns Park.) Through vegetation manipulation, 

openings that are beneficial to wildlife and ecosystem health can be created. Dense stands of 

juniper provide high-quality nesting habitat and thermal cover, but little forage value. Many 

more animal species can use this association if the juniper stands have a varied age class and 

structure. Common plant species in this association are shown in Table 3.18.3. 

Table 3.18.3. Species Commonly Associated with Pinyon-Juniper Communities in the 

VPA* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Trees 

Pinus edulis Pinyon pine 

Juniperus osteosperma Juniper 

Shrubs 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata Basin big sagebrush 

Chrysothamnus spp. Rabbitbrush species 

Ceratoides lanata Winterfat 

Ephedra nevadensis Mormon tea 

Grasses and Forbs 

Astragalus spp. Milkvetch species 

Erigeron spp. Fleabane species 

Elymus cinereus var. cinereus Great Basin wildrye 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-117

Table 3.18.3. Species Commonly Associated with Pinyon-Juniper Communities in the 

VPA* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Elymus smithii Western wheatgrass 

Erysimum asperum Wallflower 

Festuca spp. Fescue species 

Koeleria macrantha Junegrass 

Lupinus spp. Lupine species 

Phlox spp. Phlox species 

Stipa hymenoides Indian ricegrass 

*Plant names follow A Utah Flora (Welsh et al. 1993). 

3.18.1.5 MOUNTAIN SHRUB

This association is sometimes called browse, because a large proportion of the species in this 

association are of high forage and cover value for wildlife. Dominant shrub species include 

serviceberry, gamble oak, mountain mahogany, snowberry, squaw apple, antelope bitterbrush, 

and sagebrush (Table 3.18.4). The sagebrush may occasionally grow densely in areas, but 

generally, it is less than 50% of the overall composition in this association. Common herbaceous 

species include showy goldeneye, whorled buckwheat, hoary aster, sticky geranium, and a 

variety of native grasses. Mountain shrub occurs in more sheltered microclimates within the 

VPA than the sagebrush/perennial grass association. 

Table 3.18.4. Species Commonly Associated with Mountain Shrub Communities in the 

VPA* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Shrubs 

Artemisia tridentata Sagebrush 

Ceanothus spp. Buckbrush species 

Cercocarpus montanus Mountain mahogany 

Amelanchier spp. Serviceberry species 

Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush 

Quercus gambelii Gamble oak 

Ribes cereum Wax currant 

Symphoricarpos oreophilus Mountain snowberry 

Grasses and Forbs 

Agastache urticifolia Hyssop 

Delphinium spp. Larkspur species 

Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye 

Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass 

Eriogonum heracleoides Whorled buckwheat 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-118

Table 3.18.4. Species Commonly Associated with Mountain Shrub Communities in the 

VPA* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Eriogonum spp. Buckwheat species 

Erigeron spp. Fleabane species 

Festuca spp. Fescue species 

Geranium viscosissimum Sticky geranium 

Viguiera multiflora Showy goldeneye 

Mahonia repens Oregon grape 

Machaeranthera canescens Hoary aster 

Lupinus spp. Lupine species 

Phlox spp. Phlox species 

Poa spp. Bluegrass species 

Penstemon spp. Penstemon species 

Senecio spp. Groundsel species 

Stipa spp. Needlegrass species 

Trifolium spp. Clover species 

*Plant names follow A Utah Flora (Welsh et al. 1993) 

3.18.1.6 CONIFER FOREST: CONIFER/ASPEN, ASPEN/FORB, AND SPRUCE/FIR

These three smaller vegetation associations combine to form the conifer forest association. The 

conifer forest association occurs at the highest elevations, mostly at the outer fringes of the VPA, 

covering approximately 4% of the total land area within the VPA. Douglas fir, spruce, ponderosa 

pine, and aspen communities are scattered throughout the higher elevations (7,500–10,500 feet). 

Because of the elevation, cheatgrass is not a significant threat. Elk, deer, and grouse frequently 

use this association in the summer. Domestic livestock also use this association for its forage and 

cover resources. Common species are shown in Table 3.18.5. 

Table 3.18.5. Species Commonly Associated with Conifer Forest Community in the 

VPA* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Trees 

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir 

Abies spp. Fir species 

Picea spp. Spruce species 

Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine 

Pinus spp. Pine species 

Populous tremuloides Quaking aspen 

Shrubs 

Ribes spp. Currant species 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-119

Table 3.18.5. Species Commonly Associated with Conifer Forest Community in the 

VPA* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Rosa woodsii Wood rose 

Salix spp. Willow species 

Sambucus pubens Elderberry 

Symphoricarpos oreophilus Snowberry 

Grasses and Forbs 

Achillea millefolium Western yarrow 

Aquilegia coerulea Columbine 

Delphinium occidentale Tall larkspur 

Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass 

Frasera speciosa Green gentian 

Festuca spp. Fescue species 

Geranium spp. Geranium species 

Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip 

Melica bulbosa Oniongrass 

Lupinus spp. Lupine species 

Mertensia spp. Bluebell species 

Phleum alpinum Alpine timothy 

Stipa spp. Needlegrass species 

*Plant names follow A Utah Flora (Welsh et al. 1993). 

3.18.1.7 RIPARIAN AREAS AND WETLANDS

Approximately 16,000 acres of floodplains are found along the Green and White Rivers and 

Bitter, Evacuation, Sweetwater, and Willow Creeks in the Book Cliffs portion of the VPA. The 

Diamond Mountain portion of the VPA contains 15,650 acres of riparian areas as well as 

perennial and intermittent streams (BLM 1993b). 

The ecological condition of the wetland and riparian areas in the VPA is considered to be 

threatened by flow alterations, non-native plant species, and grazing. Whitetop and tall whitetop 

are firmly established in the Green River watershed and in moist places that receive high 

pressure from recreation. Tamarisk is also well established along the river corridors, and 

Phragmites stands are increasing in size and distribution. 

3.18.1.8 BADLANDS

In the Uinta Basin, badlands are characterized by Mancos shales, which occur as red and gray 

banded, eroded mudstones and sandstones and shale layers of the Uinta Formation. Mancos 

shales are high in selenium, and sometimes they have a sandstone cap layer. The badlands 

association is scattered throughout the resource area, but it comprises only 3% of the total area. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-120

Vegetation on the badlands is very sparse; extensive areas of bare ground occur. Vegetation 

generally grows in areas where water can collect and at the base of slopes. A few annuals are 

tolerant of the side slopes in wet years, but such seasons are short. Gardner's saltbush and mat 

saltbush are the dominant species. 

Antelope use these areas for forage and bedding, especially in the winter. Domestic sheep use the 

shrubs on the base slopes and in transition zones with other vegetation types. Some steeper, 

vertical slopes and knobs are used by raptors for nest sites. Wildlife use of this community is low 

in comparison to other communities, but it is relatively important to the wildlife that do use it. 

3.18.2 INVASIVE SPECIES AND NOXIOUS WEEDS

At least 23,000 acres of noxious and undesirable weeds are a management concern, spreading 

and becoming a common threat to many areas, within the VPA (BLM 2001). Many large 

infestations in the area also occur on private and Tribal lands adjacent to or near BLM lands. Of 

particular management concern are potential and existing populations of invasive species in the 

oil and gas fields that are receiving increased activity and interest. Human activities, OHV use 

and vehicles, construction activities, soil disturbance, wind, wildlife movement, and domestic 

livestock grazing activities can increase the spread and establishment of noxious weeds. 

Noxious weeds are identified and recognized by the federal government, the state, and local 

counties. Within the VPA, the BLM office would control all weeds designated as noxious, as per 

regulations. For a list of the noxious weeds for the VPA, refer to Table 3.18.6. 

The Upper Green River Cooperative Weed Management Area, which includes Daggett County 

in Utah and Sweetwater County in Wyoming, was formed to manage weeds across lands under 

various jurisdictions and to pool resources for weed control activities and education. The Uinta 

Basin Cooperative Weed Management Area was organized in 2003 to meet similar objectives. 

Current collaborative weed management agencies include the NPS, BLM, USFS, UDWR, Ute 

Tribe, and SITLA. One result of collaborative efforts is the Red Creek Tamarisk Project. The 

tamarisk is being controlled both in Wyoming and Utah on the Red Creek watershed. 

Russian knapweed, spotted knapweed, Canada thistle, tall whitetop, whitetop, musk thistle, 

Scotch thistle, and leafy spurge have been singled out as the most invasive species and have 

become the priority for management and control due to their expanding populations on BLM 

lands in the VPA. Russian knapweed occurs from Myton to Browns Park with large infestations 

on private and Tribal lands in the Roosevelt area and the Green River corridor. Also of concern 

are the increasing populations of Russian knapweed in the oil and gas fields. So far, two 

populations of spotted knapweed are known: one is located on Diamond Mountain, the other on 

Blue Mountain. An infestation of diffuse knapweed was located on Blue Mountain, resulting in a 

special emphasis area for control. One infestation of leafy spurge occurs on BLM lands; 

however, there are also populations on nearby private land. Canada thistle is a problem in moist 

areas, especially where livestock use is prevalent. Scotch thistle is coming in as patches scattered 

throughout the VPA. Whitetop is a problem scattered across the VPA and is increasing in the oil 

and gas fields. Tall whitetop has major infestations on all land ownerships in all three counties, 

especially in the Green River corridor. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-121

Henbane and houndstongue are undesirable plants that are targeted by the BLM for control on 

the VPA due to the increased infestations on native rangelands. These species are prevalent in 

the Argyle Ridge area, and Nine Mile Canyon. In the Book Cliff portion of the VPA they are 

prevalent on Seep Ridge and in the Willow Creek watershed. Henbane is a threat in the Browns 

Park area due to heavy infestations in Wyoming, where it is not controlled. 

Russian thistle, halogeton, and cheatgrass are undesirable weed species that occur throughout the 

Uinta Basin, Clay Basin, and Browns Park. These three plants are already heavily established 

along the roadsides, and the populations increase with oil field development. Cheatgrass has 

become so widespread that control efforts are focused on reducing its density through large-scale 

habitat manipulation programs, and not by individual sprayings. In 1992, a cheatgrass inventory 

identified 55,700 acres as having greater than 60% cheatgrass cover, and 162,000 acres were 

identified as having 10-60% cheatgrass cover. The cheatgrass infestation in the VPA has 

increased and is a major management concern. 

Tamarisk has effectively established itself along all the riparian ecosystems, as well as in patches 

where moisture accumulates in the desert shrub and sagebrush/grass communities. Some control 

has been gained over the tamarisk infestations via herbicide use in Red Creek and Browns Park. 

Some areas of tamarisk within Utah are currently protected as designated critical habitat for the 

federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, which further complicates its management. 

However, it should be noted that the VPA does not contain designated critical habitat for the 

southwestern willow flycatcher. Tamarisk was listed as a county noxious weed in Uintah County 

as of 2003. 

Table 3.18.6. Noxious Weeds and Undesired Plant Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Status Known Distribution 

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon State Noxious Weed No populations known at this 

time 

Dyer's woad Isatis tinctoria State Noxious Weed Found on private land in 

Duchesne and Uintah Counties 

Field bindweed 

(wild morning glory) 

Convolvulus 

arvensis 

State Noxious Weed Occasional. Heavy infestations 

in farm and city lands 

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense State Noxious Weed No populations known at this 

time 

Knapweed, diffuse Centaurea diffusa State Noxious Weed One population on Blue 

Mountain 

Knapweed, Russian Centaurea repens State Noxious Weed Heavy infestations especially in 

Pelican Lake area, Green River, 

Browns Park and adjacent lands 

to Myton, to Roosevelt. 

Increasing in the oil and gas 

fields 

Knapweed, spotted Centaurea maculosa State Noxious Weed Known populations on Diamond 

Mountain and Blue Mountain 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-122

Table 3.18.6. Noxious Weeds and Undesired Plant Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Status Known Distribution 

Knapweed, 

squarrose 

Centaurea 

squarrosa

or 

Centaurea virgata 

State Noxious Weed No populations known at this 

time 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula State Noxious Weed Small population on ditch area, 

some on private lands 

Medusahead Taeniatherum caputmedusae State Noxious Weed No populations known at this 

time 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria State Noxious Weed Coming into east Duchesne 

County. No populations known 

on BLM lands at this time 

Quackgrass Agropyron repens or

Elytrigia repens 

State Noxious Weed Occasional 

Tall whitetop 

(perennial 

pepperweed) 

Lepidium latifolium State Noxious Weed Very prevalent along all riparian 

areas and moist patches 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense State Noxious Weed Scattered along riparian areas 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans State Noxious Weed Scattered 

Scotch thistle 

(cotton thistle) 

Onopordum 

acanthium 

State Noxious Weed Scattered 

Whitetop 

(hoary cress) 

Cardaria draba State Noxious Weed Very prevalent along all riparian 

areas and moist patches 

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis State Noxious Weed No populations known at this 

time 

Russian olive Elaeagnus 

angustifolia 

Duchesne and 

Uintah County 

Noxious Weed 

Scattered along riparian areas 

Salt cedar Tamarix 

ramosissima 

State Noxious Weed Riparian areas, seeps, springs, 

wetlands, wash beds & wash 

banks, roadsides, stock ponds, 

occasionally in open areas with 

high water table 

Other Undesirable Plant Species 

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger Undesired Plant 

Species 

Very prevalent in Book Cliffs, 

Nine Mile Canyon, and Argyle 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Undesired Plant 

Species 

Occasional 

Buffalobur Solanum rostratum Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Camelthorn Alhagi camelorum Undesired Plant 

Species 

Occasional 

Common cocklebur Xanthium 

strumarium 

Undesired Plant 

Species 

Occasional 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 3-123

Table 3.18.6. Noxious Weeds and Undesired Plant Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Status Known Distribution 

Common crupina Crupina vulgaris Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Goat's rue Galega officinalis Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Low larkspur Delphinium 

nuttallianum 

Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations identified for 

control. Common native plant 

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Poverty weed Iva axillaris Undesired Plant 

Species 

Occasional 

Purple starthistle Centaurea calcitrapa Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Silverleaf 

nightshade 

Solanum 

elaeagnifolium 

Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

St. John's wort Hypericum 

perforatum 

Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Water hemlock Cicuta douglasii Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations identified for 

control. Common native plant 

Wild proso millet Panicum miliaceum Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Yellow nutsedge Cyperus esculentus Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Toadflax, Dalmatian Linaria dalmatica Undesired Plant 

Species 

No populations known at this 

time 

Toadflax, yellow Linaria vulgaris Undesired Plant 

Species 

One population known in Chipita 

Whorled or poison 

milkweed 

Asclepias 

subverticillata 

Undesired Plant 

Species 

Occasional 

Halogeton Halogeton 

glomeratus 

Undesired Plant 

Species 

Numerous infestations 

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Undesired Plant 

Species 

Numerous major infestations 

Houndstongue Cynoglossum 

officinale 

Undesired Plant 

Species 

Very prevalent in Book Cliffs, 

Nine Mile Canyon, and Argyle 

Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum Undesired Plant 

Species 

Becoming common along Upper 

Green River 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 3-124

3.19 VISUAL RESOURCES

The current management objective for visual resources is to manage the public lands in such a 

way as to preserve those scenic vistas that are deemed most important and to design or mitigate 

all visual intrusions so that the intrusions do not exceed the established Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) class objectives. Activities within the VPA that could potentially cause 

visual intrusions and have an impact on scenic quality are primarily surface-disturbing activities, 

including minerals exploration and development, OHV use, trail and/or road development, and 

fire management. 

3.19.1 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) CLASSES

The BLM uses the VRM system to inventory, manage, and set objectives for visual resources. 

The VRM system uses visual management classes (Class I through IV, Class I and Class II being 

the most protective) to designate permissible levels of landscape alteration, with the broad goal 

of protecting the visual quality of public lands. The assignment of VRM classes is based on the 

management decisions made in the RMP. All actions proposed during the RMP process that 

would result in surface disturbance must consider the importance of the visual values and the 

impacts that proposed actions could have on these values. The VRM class objectives are 

described in Appendix J. However, a brief summary of the VRM classes objectives are: VRM 

Class I: preserve the existing character of the landscape; VRM Class II: retain the existing 

character of the landscape with a low level of landscape change; VRM Class III: partially retain 

the existing character of the landscape with only moderate change to the landscape: VRM Class 

IV: major modifications are allowed to the existing character of the landscape, and the level of 

change can be high. 

An area is assigned a VRM class objective based on its scenic quality, the level of visual 

sensitivity of the area, and the viewing distance of the area. Once an area has been assigned a 

VRM class, the area classification can be used to determine the impacts of proposed activities on 

visual resources and to analyze the level of disturbance that an area can tolerate before the 

proposed activity exceeds the VRM objectives for the area (BLM 1992). 

3.19.2 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

The entire VPA has been visually inventoried and classified according to the VRM classification 

system. As the VPA is located in the Uinta Basin, its visual quality is diverse, ranging from areas 

that are visually homogeneous to areas with unique and spectacular visual quality. The areas of 

highest scenic quality are found along the Book Cliffs, in the Bitter Creek Drainage, along 

portions of the White and Green River corridors, within the Browns Park ACEC, in the vicinities 

of Red Mountain and Diamond Mountain, and areas that border Dinosaur National Monument 

(Bartel 2002; see Figure 32 in the Maps section). 

Areas being managed as VRM Class I include: Winter Ridge, Bull Canyon, West Cold Springs, 

Diamond Breaks, and Daniels Canyon WSAs, and the Book Cliffs Mountain Browse Natural 

Area/Instant Study Area (ISA). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 3-125

Areas being managed as VRM Class II are: Nine Mile Canyon, the Upper Book Cliffs, the White 

River Corridor, the Upper Green River and the Green River Corridor from Dinosaur National 

Monument to State Highway 40, and Red Mountain-Dry Fork ACEC. 

The remainder of the VPA is being managed as either VRM Class III or VRM Class IV. 

Throughout the VPA, unmanaged OHV use is visually evident which, although localized, is 

long-term. New roads and trails are being created by OHV use, and OHVs are cutting trails 

across and over highly visible ridgelines. At present, the only area managed for OHV use is near 

Fantasy Canyon (including Devils Playground). The areas of highest OHV use (and 

corresponding visual degradation) are: 

1. in the vicinity of Buckskin Hills, north of the town of Vernal; 

2. an area to the north of Red Wash, in the vicinity of Bourdette Draw; and 

3. an area south of the Bonanza Power Plant and north of the White River corridor. 

Throughout the VPA, the rapid increase of petroleum and natural gas exploration and extraction 

are also visually evident. However, through visual mitigation and careful placement of drilling 

well pads, this development is not presently exceeding VRM class objectives. 

The proximity of intense exploration and development near areas of high scenic quality and the 

increasing number of people seeking recreation in the VPA are creating resource-use conflicts, 

particularly in the White River corridor and the Book Cliffs Divide. 

3.20 WILD HORSES

This section describes the affected environment concerning wild horses in the Bonanza Herd 

Area (HA), the Hill Creek HMA, and the Winter Ridge Herd Area (HA). Approximately 2,340 

animal unit months (AUMs) are currently allocated to support 195 horses in the Hill Creek Herd 

Area. No forage has been allocated for horses in the Bonanza Herd Area and the Winter Ridge 

Herd Area. 

3.20.1 BONANZA HERD MANAGEMENT AREA

In 1984, the wild horse population in the Bonanza Herd Area was estimated at approximately 40 

horses (BLM 1985a). Prior to completion of the 1985 Book Cliffs RMP, plans were discussed to 

limit the herd to approximately 50 horses. However, the final decision was to remove all wild 

horses because of management conflicts. The rationale for the decision was based on unresolved 

conflicts associated with the manageability and protection of the horses. There was a perception 

that the horses could not be managed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological 

balance, as required by the Wild Horse and Burro Act (BLM 2001). 

In 1986, the BLM conducted a wild horse gather within the Bonanza HA. The Ute Tribe filed a 

complaint alleging ownership of the gathered horses. A national organization, Wild Horse 

Organized Assistance (WHOA), notified the BLM that if all of the horses were removed they 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 3-126

would bring suit against the BLM, citing as precedent an Interior Board of Land Appeals 

decision disallowing total removal from a herd area in Nevada. Consequently, the horses 

removed during the 1986 gather were returned to the Ute Tribe, based on Consent Decree 86-C0821G issued by the United States District Court, Central Division. In turn, the Ute Tribe 

relinquished all claims on 13 wild horses within the herd area that had not been gathered. As part 

of the court order, and at the intercession of WHOA, the Ute Tribe agreed to deliver 26 

unbranded wild horses to the BLM from the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation in Nevada. These 

horses were subsequently released into the Bonanza HA. 

In 1998, as a result of detection of equine infectious anemia (EIA) disease in horses gathered by 

the Ute Tribe from lands adjacent to the HA, the BLM, the Animal Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS), the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, and the Ute Tribe entered into 

an agreement to gather and test all horses in the Uinta Basin, including the Bonanza horses, for 

EIA. In 1999, the BLM gathered the Bonanza wild horses and tested them for EIA. Some wild 

horses tested positive for EIA, were subsequently disposed of, and in June 2000, 72 disease-free 

horses were returned to the HA. 

As mentioned above, in July 2001 the Book Cliffs RMP decision regarding the Bonanza HA was 

amended. The amended plan established the herd area as a herd management area (HMA) and 

provided guidelines for the long-term management of wild horses at an appropriate management 

level (AML) of 85 horses. However, the Bonanza herd (at a population of 92 individuals) was 

gathered in November 2001 to comply with a court order, which required the BLM to remove all 

of the wild horses from the HMA. The horses were placed either in the BLM's Adopt-A-Horse 

program or in sanctuaries. 

Approximately 16 miles of the western boundary of the Bonanza HA (fenced) abuts the Uintah 

and Ouray Indian Reservation. 

3.20.2 WINTER RIDGE HERD AREA

According to the 1985 Book Cliffs RMP, the Winter Ridge wild horses were to be gathered and 

removed; however, the decision has not been implemented. The rationale for the 1985 decision 

to remove this herd was that the area might not be suitable habitat for wild horses. Because of the 

high elevation of the area, deep snow (24-40 inches annually) can accumulate during the winter 

months, putting a wild horse herd in this area at risk. In 2003, 40 wild horses were gathered and 

removed from the Winter Ridge Herd Area to ease stress on native rangelands caused by grazing 

and to maintain the well-being of the wild horses remaining in the area. 

This herd area is bordered by state grazing allotments that permit domestic horses to graze. 

Currently, there is little or no fencing between the state and federal allotments. Should Winter 

Ridge be designated as an HMA, a fenceline agreement may need to be negotiated between the 

state, the permittee, and the BLM to minimize possible trespass situations between wild and 

domestic horses, or the BLM may need to negotiate with the state of Utah to eliminate domestic 

horses from those adjacent state allotments. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 3-127

3.20.3 HILL CREEK HERD MANAGEMENT AREA

The Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation separates the Hill Creek 

HMA into two parts: the northwestern and the southeastern. 

In 2001, lands within the northwestern part, known as Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 2 

(NOSR-2) lands, were transferred to the Ute Tribe. Until the date of transfer, the BLM managed 

the surface resources on these lands, including wild horses, but the transfer allowed the Ute Tribe 

to manage, protect, and assert control over any horse located or found within the boundary of this 

parcel. The northern boundary of the transferred parcel is unfenced, so wild horses and Tribal 

horses, particularly those on either side of the unfenced boundary have been intermingling. 

Tribal and wild horses can potentially intermingle even in areas where fences exist: most existing 

fences are in need of maintenance or replacement. 

As a result of the transfer of the NOSR-2 lands, the Hill Creek HMA can no longer be managed 

as one unit without greatly impacting Tribal lands. Thus, for the purposes of analysis in the VPA, 

the Hill Creek HMA will be considered as two herd areas: 1) Hill Creek Northwest/Wild Horse 

Bench and 2) Hill Creek Southeast/Agency Draw. 

3.20.3.1 HILL CREEK NORTHWEST/WILD HORSE BENCH

The transfer of the NOSR-2 lands to the Tribe resulted in the reduction of the HMA by 48,000 

acres, or approximately 35%. This part of the HMA was estimated to contain approximately 50-

60% of the total wild horse habitat. In the Wild Horse Bench portion of the Hill Creek Herd Area 

is a resident herd of approximately 100 horses, composed of several bands. 

Livestock grazing within the HMA has been permitted to the Ute Tribe, although the Tribe has 

not used this allotment for over twenty years. The livestock grazing allotment is called Lower 

Showalter. 

Wild horses are also currently using an area north of and adjacent to the HMA, bordered on the 

east by Tribal Lands and on the west by the Green River. Comprising approximately 30,347 

acres, the horses have established home ranges there. Up until now, the area has not been 

considered crucial to the long-term survival of the herd and was not included in the original 

delineation of the HMA (BLM 1983a). 

3.20.3.2 HILL CREEK SOUTHEAST/AGENCY DRAW

This portion of the Hill Creek HMA comprises approximately 55% private land (owned by Utah 

Oil Shale Corporation), 35% BLM land, and 10% state land. Maintaining wild horses in an area 

in which 65% of the land is in non-federal ownership could severely limit the ability of the BLM 

to manage them. If the BLM were requested to remove the wild horses from the private and state 

land, Southeast/Agency Draw would essentially be split into two parts. However, in the past, 

these two owners have not objected to wild horses grazing their land. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-128

The HMA is bordered on the south by Tribal lands. In this area, horses move freely between 

public and Tribal lands. As Tribal lands are higher in elevation, during the winter season, horses 

tend to move from Tribal lands in the south onto public lands to the north. As a result of this 

seasonal migration, winter census counts for the HMA are typically two to three times higher 

than late summer counts (150-170 horses in winter, compared to 40-50 in summer). During the 

summer, the few springs and ponds in the herd area provide only enough water to support a 

resident herd of 40-50 horses, and so the majority of the horses move back to the Tribal land at 

that time. The population estimate for BLM/Tribal horses that use this portion of the HMA is 

presently unknown. The BLM and the Tribe gathered over 510 horses from this general area in 

2002–2003 because drought conditions were negatively impacting the herds and range 

conditions. 

Similar to horses in the Wild Horse Bench area, horses in the Agency Draw area are also using 

land outside the herd area boundary. This 22,865-acre area, Big Pack Mountain, has not been 

considered crucial to the long-term survival of the herd and was not included in the original 

delineation of the HA (BLM 1983a). Big Pack Mountain is bordered on its other three sides by 

private or Tribal lands. 

3.21 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

The terrestrial wildlife species found in the VPA are typical of the intermountain region of the 

United States. These species include big game species such as mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, 

pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, moose, black bear, and mountain lion. Additional species of 

concern in the VPA fall within the general categories of upland game species, raptors, waterfowl 

and shorebirds, fish and aquatic species, neotropical migrants, and small mammals and reptiles. 

Wildlife resources in the VPA are currently managed as directed by the Diamond Mountain 

RMP and Book Cliff RMP. These RMPs focus on managing habitat conditions instead of 

wildlife populations. Management goals for most wildlife populations in the VPA are determined 

primarily by UDWR, with the exception of federally protected wildlife populations, which are 

determined by USFWS. The current VPA RMPs allocate forage for elk, deer, and antelope. 

Additionally the Diamond Mountain RMP allocates forage for moose and bighorn at the level 

identified by the UDWR's prior stable numbers and long-term wildlife population management 

goals. Resource allocations for raptors, reptiles, amphibians, and other non-game species in the 

VPA are limited to protecting individuals and the habitat of state and federally listed species, and 

designating spatial and temporal buffers for nesting raptors. 

The BLM's management of wildlife habitat in the VPA has had, and will continue to have, an 

impact on both local communities and those that exist outside of the Uinta Basin. There is 

considerable regional interest in the overall condition and management of the VPA. In the past, a 

majority of the local interest has been focused on big-game management and associated 

recreational activities. In recent years, however, non-consumptive uses in the VPA, such as 

tourism and wildlife viewing, have been increasing with the continued expansion of Utah's 

tourism industry. Because many of the wildlife species found in the VPA regularly cross public, 

private, and tribal lands, a collaborative effort between all land managers and owners has been 

essential for effective wildlife management in the VPA. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-129

The UDWR has designated five wildlife management units within the VPA to aid in the 

management of these wildlife species. Seventy-six percent of Unit 17 (Wasatch Mountains) is 

located outside of the VPA. Of the remaining lands within the VPA designated part of this unit, 

the BLM administers only 1,245 acres, therefore, the wildlife management goals and objectives 

relative to this unit were not included in this analysis. The remaining four wildlife management 

units, and their sub-units, are outlined in Table 3.21.1. UDWR has developed, or is presently 

developing, wildlife management plans for the aforementioned big game wildlife species as well 

as fisheries and upland game populations. 

Table 3.21.1. Wildlife Management Units within the VPA 

Unit/Sub-unit 

number Unit/Sub-unit name Acres of Unit in the VPA 

Acres of Unit in 

the VPA Managed 

by BLM 

8, 

8b 

8c 

North Slope Uinta Mountains 

West Daggett 

Three Corners 

365,651 62,528 

(17% of Unit) 

9 

9a 

9b 

9c 

9d 

South Slope Uinta Mountains 

Yellowstone 

Vernal 

Diamond Mountain 

Bonanza 

2,775,395 711,092 

(26% of Unit) 

10 

10a 

Book Cliffs 

Bitter Creek and Little Creek 

1,225,726 652,440 

(53% of Unit) 

11 

11a 

Nine Mile 

Anthro 

706,163 296,756 

(42% of Unit) 

3.21.1 WILDLIFE ASSOCIATED WITH THE VPA 

3.21.1.1 MULE DEER

Mule deer occupy most ecosystems in Utah but generally attain their greatest densities in 

shrublands in areas characterized by rough, broken terrain and abundant browse and cover. Many 

mule deer populations migrate between summer and winter ranges. Mule deer summer range 

habitat types on BLM-administered lands in the VPA consist primarily of oak, sagebrush, 

Douglas fir, and Utah juniper vegetation types. Winter range habitat primarily consists of Utah 

juniper, prickly pear, sagebrush, galleta, greasewood, and Fremont cottonwood vegetation types. 

Areas of high winter use in the Book Cliffs included areas of open pinyon/juniper woodland 

interspersed with four-wing saltbush and sagebrush in Lower McCook Ridge, Indian Ridge, and 

Big Park (Karpowitz 1984). 

The amount of overall crucial winter range and the migration corridor for mule deer that the 

BLM manages is outlined in Table 3.21.2. The target wintering mule deer herd size and annual 

harvest for these three wildlife management units are described in Table 3.21.3. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-130

Table 3.21.2. Mule Deer Habitat in the VPA 

Overall range Crucial winter range Migration corridor 

Unit Total Area 

(acres) 

Acres 

Managed 

by BLM 

Total Area 

(acres) 

Acres 

Managed 

by BLM 

Total Area 

(acres) 

Acres 

Managed 

by BLM 

Book Cliffs 1,203,853 651,819 355,992 58,361 58,361 47,091 

Nine Mile 667,440 262,357 39,959 0 0 0 

North Slope Uinta 

Mountains 349,738 61,526 105,949 0 0 0 

South Slope Uinta 

Mountains 2,774,731 0 479,253 0 0 0 

Total 4,995,762 975,702 981,153 58,361 58,361 47,091 

Table 3.21.3. Wildlife Management Goals for Mule Deer 

Unit 

Number 

Unit Name 

(subunit) 

Estimated 

Population 

Size*1

Population 

Objective1**

Buck-toDoe Ratio Buck Size Annual 

Harvest 

8b, 

8c 

North Slope 

(West Daggett and 

Three Corners) 

5,000 6,200 15:100

30% being 

3 point or 

better 

600 

9a South Slope 

(Yellowstone) 11,200 13,000 15:100

30% being 

3 point or 

better 

1,500 

9b, 

9c 

South Slope 

(Vernal and 

Bonanza) 

15:100

30% being 

3 point or 

better 

1,000 

9d South Slope 

(Diamond Mountain) 

10,100 13,000 

25:100

30% being 

3 point or 

better 

Limited 

Entry 

10a 

Book Cliffs 

(Bitter Creek and 

Little Creek) 

7,200 15,000 25:100

30% being 

3 point or 

better 

Limited 

Entry 

11a Nine Mile 

(Anthro) 2,950 8,500 15:100

30% being 

3 point or 

better 

250 

*Some of these units are estimated at about 1⁄2 of population objectives due to drought impacts and low productivity. 

** Population objectives are updated on an annual basis. 

1

 Hersey and Aoude 2006. 

3.21.1.2 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

The season and function of use of elk habitats help distinguish various types of winter ranges, 

production areas (calving grounds), and/or summer range. Production or calving areas are used 

from mid-May through June and typically occupy higher elevation sites than winter range. 

Calving grounds are usually characterized by aspen, montane coniferous forest, grassland/ 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-131

meadow, and mountain brush habitats, and are generally in locations where cover, forage, and 

water are in close proximity (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). In western Colorado, for instance, most 

females calve within 660 feet of water (Seidel 1977). Crucial winter range is considered to be the 

part of the local deer and elk range where approximately 90% of the local population is located 

during an average of five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up. 

The amount of crucial winter range for elk that the BLM manages is outlined in Table 3.21.4. 

The management goals for these four wildlife management subunits are described in Table 

3.21.5. 

Table 3.21.4. Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat in the VPA 

Overall range Crucial winter range 

Unit Total Area 

(acres) 

Acres managed 

by BLM 

Total Area 

(acres) 

Acres managed 

by BLM 

Book Cliffs 1,006,347 524,893 418,140 207,418 

Nine Mile 450,518 171,070 76,996 2,489 

North Slope Uinta 

Mountains 303,644 54,041 51,836 2,975 

South Slope Uinta 

Mountains 1,694,137 251,978 328,916 73,469 

Total 3,454,646 1,001,982 875,888 286,351 

Table 3.21.5. Wildlife Management Goals for Rocky Mountain Elk 

Subunit 

number Subunit Name 

Estimated 

population 

size1

Population 

objective1*

Bull/cow 

ratio Bull age 

8a, 

8b 

North Slope 

(Summit and West 

Daggett) 

1,295 1,600 8:100 50% of bulls 31⁄2 

years or older 

8c North Slope 

(Three Corners) 1,075 500 8:100 50% of bulls 31⁄2 years or older 

9a South Slope 

(Yellowstone) 5,600 5,500 8:100 50% of bulls 21⁄2 years or older 

9b, 

9c, 

9d 

South Slope 

(Vernal, Bonanza, and 

Diamond Mountain) 

3,030 2,500 8:100 50% of bulls 21⁄2 

years or older 

10a 

Book Cliffs 

(Bitter Creek and Little 

Creek) 

3,900 7,500 8:100 50% of bulls 21⁄2 

years or older 

11a Nine Mile 

(Anthro) 1,000 700 8:100 50% of bulls 21⁄2 years or older 

1

 Hersey and Aoude 2006. 

* Population objectives are updated on an annual basis. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-132

3.21.1.3 PRONGHORN

Pronghorn are common in Utah, where it primarily occurs in desert, grassland, and sagebrush 

habitats where they feed mainly on browse. Pronghorn are often found in small groups, and are 

usually most active during the day. 

The lower elevations of the VPA sustain several pronghorn herds, which are highly valued by 

local sportsmen and wildlife enthusiasts. The BLM and UDWR maintain several guzzler systems 

in these areas to provide a water source for pronghorn during summer months. The pronghorn 

populations in the VPA have been adversely affected by historic range degradation and habitat 

loss in the sagebrush steppe habitat type as well as periodic drought conditions. The management 

goals for the pronghorn herds in these wildlife management units have not been finalized 

(UDWR 2001). Locations and total acreage of pronghorn habitat managed by the BLM in the 

VPA are shown in Table 3.21.6. Current population trends are given in Table 3.21.7. Population 

objectives are not currently available. 

Table 3.21.6. Pronghorn Habitat in the VPA 

Unit Total Area (acres) Acres managed by BLM 

Book Cliffs 122,968 85,973 

Nine Mile 317,512 179,321 

North Slope Uinta Mountains 108,612 57,799 

South Slope Uinta Mountains 592,313 410,235 

Total 1,141,405 733,328 

Table 3.21.7. Pronghorn Population Trends in the VPA1

Subunit 

Number Subunit Name 

2006 

Estimated 

Population 

Size 

2007 

Buck/Doe 

Ratio 

2006 

Annual 

Harvest 

8b, 

8c 

North Slope 

(West Daggett and Three 

Corners) 

605 59:100 30 

9b, 

9c 

South Slope 

(Vernal and Bonanza) 205 

9d South Slope 

(Diamond Mountain) 589 

21-32:100 41 

10a Book Cliffs (Bitter Creek) 283 50:100 7 

11a Nine Mile (Anthro) 327 67:100 22 

1

 Hersey and Aoude 2006. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-133

3.21.1.4 BIGHORN SHEEP

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep can be found in small herds in northern-eastern Utah. Bighorn 

sheep have experienced significant declines in numbers in the early 1900s due to disease, habitat 

degradation, and hunting. Bighorn sheep require separation from domestic sheep to prevent the 

transmission of diseases, against which they have no natural defenses. Utah has been involved in 

an aggressive program for the past 30 years to restore bighorn sheep to their native habitat. 

Bighorn sheep currently exist in two areas in northern-eastern Utah, including areas adjacent to 

BLM-administered lands along the upper Green River, and in the Book Cliffs area. The current 

population estimate for bighorn sheep along the upper Green River (the West Daggett (8b) and 

Three Corners (8c) subunits of the North Slope wildlife management unit) is 182 individuals 

(Hersey and Aoude 2006). The total 2006 bighorn harvest from these management units was 4 

individuals. Occasional sightings have also been documented in the Book Cliffs. These herds are 

all the result of reintroduction efforts and will likely continue to be augmented with additional 

reintroductions. Additional bighorn sheep reintroductions are proposed in the Browns 

Park/Diamond Mountain area. Water and vegetation improvements have also benefited these 

bighorn sheep populations. A management plan for bighorn sheep in the state of Utah has been 

developed. Locations and acreage of bighorn sheep habitat in the VPA is shown in Table 3.21.8. 

Table 3.21.8. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat in the VPA 

Unit Total Area (acres) Acres managed by BLM 

Book Cliffs 633,271 228,002 

North Slope Uinta Mountains 95,751 14,740 

South Slope Uinta Mountains 405,481 38,805 

Total 1,134,503 281,547 

3.21.1.5 MOOSE

Moose occur in the Rocky Mountains and the northeastern portion of the Intermountain West 

(Zeveloff and Collett 1988). Prior to 1918, moose were not known to occur in Utah. Since that 

time, they have been recorded on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains where their numbers 

have slowly increased. This increase has been attributed to an increase in beaver populations and 

the subsequent proliferation of marsh areas with which moose are typically associated (Zeveloff 

and Collett 1988). From the Uinta population, moose have dispersed and/or been transplanted to 

a variety of locations throughout the state. Although they may range widely across habitat types, 

moose are primarily associated with boreal forests and riparian areas. Moose are predominantly 

browsers and rely on the stems, bark, and leaves of a variety of trees and shrubs for forage. Yearround forage includes willow, fir, and quaking aspen. During the summer, grasses, forbs, and 

aquatic vegetation typically compose a large portion of the moose diet (Zeveloff and Collett 

1988). 

There are resident populations of moose in the North Slope Uinta Mountains, South Slope Uinta 

Mountains, Book Cliffs, and Nine Mile wildlife management units. Acreage of habitat in these 

units is shown in Table 3.21.9. Moose habitat is generally associated with early stages of seral 

development and shrub growth. Annual flooding and habitat management techniques, such as 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-134

prescribed burnings, are thought to improve habitat for moose. Current population trends are 

given in Table 3.21.10. 

Table 3.21.9. Moose Habitat in the VPA 

Unit Total Area (acres) Acres managed by BLM 

Book Cliffs 0 0 

Nine Mile 98,090 19,893 

North Slope Uinta Mountains 217,029 21,381 

South Slope Uinta Mountains 1,095,295 71,342 

Total 1,410,414 112,616 

Table 3.21.10. Moose Population Trends in the VPA1

Subunit 

number Subunit Name 

2005 

Estimated 

population 

size 

Population 

Objective* 

2007 

Bull/cow 

ratio 

2006 Annual 

Harvest 

8a North Slope (Summit) 108:100 37 

8b, 

8c 

North Slope 

(West Daggett and Three 

Corners) 

200 400 

115:100 13 

9a South Slope (Yellowstone) 105:100 8 

9b, 

9d 

South Slope 

(Vernal and Diamond 

Mountain) 

200 225 

100:100 3 

10a Book Cliffs (Bitter Creek) - 100 - - 

11a Nine Mile (Anthro) - 40 - - 

1

 Hersey and Aoude 2006. 

* Population objectives are updated on an annual basis. 

3.21.1.6 BISON

The Ute Tribe maintains an introduced bison population on tribal lands in the Hill Creek portion 

of the Book Cliffs. These bison can be frequently found on BLM lands adjacent to Ute Tribal 

lands in the southern Book Cliffs where suitable bison habitat has been identified. 

3.21.1.7 BLACK BEAR

In the VPA, black bears are typically associated with forested or brushy mountain environments 

and wooded riparian corridors and seldom use open habitats (Zeveloff and Collett 1988). Black 

bears tend to be nocturnal and tend to shy away from human contact. They are generally 

omnivorous with preferred foods including 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 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-135

beneath the roots of large trees where they are kept nourished and insulated by a thick layer of fat 

(Zeveloff and Collett 1988). 

The VPA sustains several large populations of black bear, some of which are traditionally 

thought to be the highest density black bear population in the state of Utah. A long-term study 

being conducted by BYU has shown that the black bear population in the Book Cliffs area has 

local concentrations of individuals in the Horse Canyon, Main Canyon, and Trail Canyon areas. 

The factors that make these areas support such high bear populations are still being investigated, 

but initial studies have shown that good habitat conditions with respect to elevation, permanent 

water sources, cover, and diversity of food, as well as isolation from human disturbance has 

raised concerns about potential impact on resource development in these areas on these 

populations (Pers. Comm. Hal Black, 1/13/04). The amount of black bear habitat that the BLM 

manages in the VPA is outlined in Table 3.21.11. 

Table 3.21.11. Black Bear Habitat in the VPA 

Unit Total Area (acres) Acres managed by BLM 

Book Cliffs 232,792 108,291 

Nine Mile 156,051 32,144 

North Slope Uinta Mountains 155,511 0 

South Slope Uinta Mountains 1,044,332 56,304 

Total 1,588,686 196,739 

3.21.1.8 MOUNTAIN LION

The mountain lion 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). Mule deer is the mountain lion's preferred 

prey species. Consequently, mountain lion seasonal use ranges generally parallel those of mule 

deer. 

Mountain lions are widespread and occur frequently throughout middle and upper elevations of 

the VPA where populations are considered stable. The amount of winter range for mountain 

lions that the BLM manages is the same as the mule deer habitat outlined in Table 3.21.2. 

3.21.1.9 UPLAND SPECIES

Upland game in the VPA include populations of Blue Grouse, California Quail, Chukar 

Partridge, Greater Sage-grouse, Ruffed Grouse, Mourning Dove, Ring-necked Pheasant, Rio 

Grand Turkey, Merriam's Wild Turkey, and desert and mountain cottontail rabbit. Annual 

fluctuations for most upland game bird and small mammal populations closely correlate with 

annual climatic patterns. Mild winters and early spring precipitation during the months of March, 

April, and May are associated with increases in upland game populations. Warm, dry weather 

during the early summer, especially in June, is generally considered vital for the survival of 

newly born young of many upland game species. Ring-necked Pheasant and Greater Sage-grouse 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-136

are two upland game species that have experienced a long-term decline as a result of the 

degradation and loss of important sagebrush steppe and grassland habitat (UDWR 2000). The 

Greater Sage-grouse is discussed further in the sensitive species section (Section 3.17). 

3.21.1.10 WATERFOWL, SHOREBIRDS, AND WADING BIRDS

The VPA is associated with the western portion of the Central Flyway, which guides migrating 

birds along the Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains. Because of the arid climate of the VPA, 

migration routes are often associated with riparian corridors and wetland or lake stopover areas. 

There are several important waterfowl habitats in the VPA including the Pariette Wetlands, 

Pelican Lake, and the Green and White rivers. Waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading bird 

populations are primarily associated with the Pariette Wetlands, Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, 

and other wetland areas such as Browns Park waterfowl management area (WMA), Mallard 

Springs WMA, Stewart Lake WMA, and Pelican Lake. These wetlands are an oasis in the Uinta 

Basin, surrounded by the harsh, arid desert landscape of northeast Utah. Mallard, Gadwall, 

Cinnamon Teal, Pintail, and Canada Geese are the most common waterfowl species observed in 

these areas. Herons, egrets, Black-necked Stilts, and various sandpipers are the more common 

wading birds seen. Other kinds of birds less frequently seen are American White Pelican, 

Sandhill Crane, American Bittern, and White-faced Ibis. 

The Pariette Wetlands Refuge managed by the BLM includes over 9,000 acres (6,504 acres of 

desert uplands and 2,529 acres of open water, wetland, and riparian habitat) in Pariette Draw. 

The wetlands feature a perennial flowing stream, 23 man-made freshwater ponds with alkali 

bulrush, and other emergent vegetation. The marshes, wet meadows, grain fields, and irrigation 

structures in Pariette have been constructed to improve available habitat for waterfowl and other 

wildlife species in the area. 

The Ouray National Wildlife Refuge consists of approximately 19 square miles of bottomland 

and river surface along 12 linear miles of the Green River. The Ouray refuge was originally 

established to provide habitat for breeding and migrating waterfowl. More specifically, the 

primary objective was to provide food and cover for 14 species of nesting ducks. While the 

purpose for which the Refuge was established has not changed, the methods of achieving the 

purpose have changed. Management strategies today are focused on managing water to mimic 

the natural floodplains that existed before dams were erected along the Green River. Portions of 

protective levees throughout the Refuge have been removed to allow more frequent flooding. 

The river feeds five bottomlands within the river floodplain, including Johnson Bottom, Leota 

Bottom, Wyasket Lake, Sheppard Bottom, and Woods Bottom, as it winds through the Wildlife 

Refuge. In late May, as natural flooding occurs, ponds are formed, spurring the growth of semiaquatic plants which provide food and cover for ducks and other wildlife. In addition, these 

ponds serve as nurseries for the endangered fish species of the Colorado River system. 

3.21.1.11 RAPTORS

There are 20 species of raptors found in the VPA, all of which are federally protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, several raptor species are Utah State-protected. These 

raptor species are discussed further in the Special Status Species section (Section 3.17). Special 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-137

habitat needs for all of these raptor species include the protection of nest sites, foraging areas, 

and roosting or resting sites. Buffer zones are usually recommended around raptor nest sites 

during the early spring and summer when raptors are raising their young. The most utilized 

raptor nesting habitats in the VPA are generally found along riparian areas, juniper-desert shrub 

transition areas, and cliff faces. 

An inventory of raptors within the Vernal Field Office boundary was completed in August 2003 

by Utah State University – Uinta Basin. This study focused on determining the nesting 

requirements and the seasonally important raptor habitats located on public lands within the VPA 

boundary. GIS locations and the demographics of each raptor nest site identified during the 

inventory were recorded. This information was added to an expandable GIS database that will 

track nest site and other important raptor habitat locations. Special habitat needs relative to 

raptors are generally associated with limiting disturbance during the nesting season and 

maintaining small mammal populations as a prey base. Electrocution from power lines and 

environmental contaminants continue to be a threat to some raptor species in the VPA. 

3.21.1.12 OTHER NON-GAME SPECIES

Because of the variety of habitats found within the VPA, the VPA contains a high diversity of 

non-game species such as neotropical migrants and other birds, small mammals, amphibians, and 

reptiles. The VPA contains various riparian, marsh, talus slope, aspen-conifer, pinyon-juniper, 

and ridge top habitats used by these wildlife species. A list developed by the USFWS, UDWR, 

Partners in Flight of neotropical migrants, and other sensitive bird species found in the VPA is 

provided in Appendix H, Table 33. Other common neotropical migrants and other bird, small 

mammal, amphibian, and reptile species to the VPA include the American Crow, American 

Kestrel, Black-capped Chickadee, Common Raven, Green-tailed Towhee, Horned Lark, House 

Finch, Song Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, Western Kingbird, Western Meadowlark, black-tailed 

and white-tailed jackrabbits, golden-mantled ground squirrel, raccoon, red fox, coyote, common 

sagebrush lizard, common side-blotched lizard, gopher snake, and greater short-horned lizard. 

Several small mammal, amphibian, and reptile surveys have been conducted in the VPA. Many 

of these non-game species are also harder to study and monitor because of low population sizes 

and/or secretive behavior. However, the BLM is acquiring basic habitat and population 

information on non-game species listed by state and federal agencies as special status species. 

Neotropical migrants, small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles often have special habitat needs. 

Areas in the VPA with the highest concentrations and diversity of these species are generally 

associated with riparian areas. Amphibian populations have been shown to be particularly 

susceptible to disturbance activities and increases in chemical pollutants in their habitats. A study 

of the reptile, amphibian, and small mammal species found in the Book Cliffs area was 

conducted by Brigham Young University in 1995 and 1996. These studies concluded that a large 

proportion of small mammals and all amphibian species in the study area had the potential to be 

significantly impacted by grazing in riparian and wetland areas. Most of the reptile species were 

associated with talus slopes and rock faces and appeared to be at little risk from all conceivable 

management options. Additionally, the UDWR has identified that many neotropical migrants 

rely on riparian areas and corridors for nesting and migration purposes. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 3-138

3.21.1.13 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC SPECIES

The riparian and aquatic habitat in the VPA is generally associated with the Green and White 

river drainages. Aquatic species in the VPA include several special status fish species such as 

bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, roundtail chub, bluehead 

sucker, Colorado River cutthroat trout, and flannelmouth sucker, which are discussed further in 

the special status species section. The Green and White rivers provide critical habitat for several 

of these fish species. A primary concern with the riparian areas in the VPA is the effect of 

decreased regeneration of cottonwood and willow stands and the invasion of non-native plant 

species such as salt cedar (Tamarix sp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) on riparian 

and aquatic wildlife species. 

There are several important cold- and warm-water fisheries within the VPA, including Matt 

Warner, Calder, Crouse, Steinaker, Red Fleet, Cottonwood, and Brough reservoirs; Pelican Lake; 

and the White and Green rivers and their tributaries. Most of the reservoirs in the resource area 

are managed as cold-water fisheries and are stocked with salmonids by the UDWR. The Green 

River below Flaming Gorge Dam and Pelican Lake have been designated by the state of Utah as 

waters to be managed under the Blue Ribbon Fisheries Initiative because of the quality angling 

they provide. The Pariette Wetlands have also been identified as an important aquatic area in the 

VPA. However, maintenance of the nonnative fisheries associated with the VPA have adversely 

impacted the recovery of several special status fish species found in the VPA, including the 

Colorado River cutthroat trout, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback 

sucker (Hawkins and Nesler 1991). 

Aquatic species are often used as indicator species of ecosystem health. These species often need 

protection from resource utilization such as recreation, grazing, mineral extraction, and invasive 

non-native species. These species may be impacted by resource management decisions made 

outside the VPA (e.g., the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam on the Green River). 

3.21.2 HABITAT FRAGMENTATION

Habitat fragmentation is a process that causes the disruption and transition of once large 

continuous blocks of wildlife habitat into less continuous habitat, primarily through human 

disturbances such as land clearing and other surface disturbances, and the conversion of 

vegetation from one type to another. Wildlife habitats in the VPA include aquatic, riparian, 

grassland, desert shrub, badlands, sagebrush steppe, pinyon/juniper woodland, mountain shrub, 

and conifer forest. These vegetation types are also discussed further in the Vegetation Section. 

Fragmentation of these habitat types due to activities such as oil and gas development, road and 

pipeline construction, fence construction on rangelands and dam construction on waterways, or 

other resource development and land conversion can have a number of detrimental impacts on 

wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation generally results in some direct impact on wildlife from 

the initial loss of habitat associated with the alteration. Additional indirect impacts of this habitat 

loss may also affect the surrounding habitats by increasing the amount of transitional and 

avoidance space associated with the surrounding habitats. Increasing the edge habitats has been 

shown to accelerate ecological processes, increase the ability of invading plant or animal species 

to becoming established in the interior of the patch, and decrease functional habitat use for a 

variety of wildlife species. Interior species also become more vulnerable to decreasing chances 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 3-139

of successful dispersal from occupied patches and colonization to unoccupied patches because of 

the decreased size and connectivity of the patches. 

The VPA presently contains large areas of disturbed wildlife habitat. Fragmentation has become 

an issue in areas where mineral, agriculture, and other types of land development is currently 

occurring. Reducing the effects of habitat fragmentation on wildlife species include determining 

thresholds for disturbance, conserving existing habitats on an ecosystem level, providing usable 

corridors between neighboring patches, and controlling the invasion of undesirable species into 

these refuges. UDWR maintains a database that identifies important areas for many of the game 

and sensitive species in the VPA including intact riparian areas, important habitats for mule deer, 

Rocky Mountain elk, Greater Sage-grouse, Ferruginous Hawk, black-footed ferret, etc. The 

impacts on wintering mule deer and other big game animals from an increasing density of natural 

gas wells, roads, and associated human activities in the northern Book Cliffs area was analyzed 

in a four-year baseline study (1998–2002) by the UDWR. The UDWR identified that accelerated 

oil and gas development in the Book Cliffs area has the potential to further displace big game 

animals and increase habitat fragmentation during the winter period, thereby lowering the 

relative carrying capacity of the range. The UDWR recommended that this baseline study be 

continued for an additional three years to establish long-term distributional trends of wintering 

big game populations and to determine the potential impact that oil and gas development may 

have on these populations in the north Book Cliffs area. Efforts will continue to be made to 

identify and maintain existing important habitats and their interconnecting corridors. A 

description of the existing habitat fragmentation can be found in Tables 20 to 32 in Appendix H. 

3.22 WOODLANDS AND FOREST RESOURCES

3.22.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW

Woodland resources comprise lands producing forest tree species that may be used as nonsawtimber products and sold in units other than board feet. By contrast, forest resources are used 

for sawtimber products and may be sold in board feet. For management purposes in the VPA, 

forest resources have been grouped with woodland resources. 

Woodland resources within the VPA begin at mid-elevations, where sagebrush communities of 

the lower, more arid areas become dominated by pinyon pine and juniper (5,000 to 8,000 ft). 

Generally, woodland resources within the VPA consist of pinyon pine, Utah juniper, and Gambel 

oak. Forest species, the source of most forest resources, are found at higher elevations (Colorado 

Plateau 2002). Forest resources include ponderosa pine, aspen, Douglas fir, and minor quantities 

of spruce, white fir, limber pine, and subalpine fir. The stands with commercial value are located 

south of the town of Myton, in the Five Mile, Trail Canyon, and Big Wash areas; the south 

Diamond Mountain Rim; the northern slopes of Diamond Mountain; in Browns Park, near 

Diamond Mountain; in the drainages that flow into Argyle Canyon; and the southern portions of 

the Book Cliffs (BLM 1990, 2002). 

In the southern part of the VPA, in the vicinity of the Book Cliffs, the principal woodland 

species consist of pinyon pine, Utah juniper, and Rocky Mountain juniper. High-production 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 3-140

areas containing these species generally have slopes of less than 25% and have not been recently 

burned. In the higher elevations, Douglas fir and aspen generally grow on northern and eastern 

slopes (at 6,000–8,500 feet) and at the heads of canyons, where soil moisture is near the surface. 

Cottonwoods grow along the White and Green River bottoms and generally do not grow more 

than 100 yards from the rivers' edges. Stands also include Russian olive and tamarisk. Mature, 

single-storied stands of cottonwood grow along old river channels, oxbows, and sandbars. Some 

areas near Diamond Mountain in the northern portion of the VPA support forest species such as 

Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, and aspen. Douglas fir is the dominant species in these higher 

elevation areas, composing up to 70% of the canopy coverage (Diamond Mountain MSA 1990). 

Approximately 2,000 acres of ponderosa pine exist here as well, some as relict stands. 

3.22.2 WOODLAND AND FOREST PRODUCTS

The most desirable woodland and forest products, sought after by both commercial and private 

interests, include sawtimber, fuelwood, posts, and Christmas trees. Interest in biomass is 

increasing and is expected to continue to grow as new uses and technologies develop. There is 

also a limited demand for other woodland products such as shrubs, trees, and seeds. The demand 

for woodland products continues to increase; however, the ability to satisfy the demand for 

woodland products is limited by the available woodland resource. 

Commercial sales or commercial harvesting of forest resources are permitted by the BLM., 

Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, limber pine, aspen, and cottonwood trees may be sold in designated 

areas to protect forest stands from disease or to prevent wildland fires (BLM 1996). 

Historically, pinyon pine has been the preferred species for fuelwood, but juniper has become 

popular as well. In the past, both of these woodland species were harvested following chainings, 

but most of the wood within these areas has been removed. Cutting of green wood is now a more 

common practice for commercial woodcutters. 

Trees used as posts are generally found on the more productive, pinyon-juniper sites, where the 

soils are deep and well drained. Trees suitable for posts have become more difficult to find 

because they have been searched out and cut by local residents for many years. The areas where 

significant numbers of post-trees still grow are remote and not easily reached. 

The annual demand for cut Christmas trees remains high, but the quantity of good-quality pinyon 

pine, the Christmas tree of choice, is limited (BLM 2002). Demand for Christmas trees from the 

VPA is primarily local, but each year, enough trees are sold to only partially satisfy local 

demand. Past sales of Christmas trees for personal use have been limited to approximately 600-

800 trees. Live pinyon pine are also sold for landscaping. 

Current management of woodland resources focuses on prescribed burns, burning of slash piles, 

and commercial and personal greenwood sales of pinyon pine and juniper. The BLM monitors 

commercial woodcutting periodically to ensure that woodcutters remain in compliance with 

permit stipulations. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.1. Introduction

Vernal RMP 4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the environmental consequences of the management actions proposed 

under the five alternatives and the Proposed RMP described in Chapter 2. These management 

actions were developed as alternative ways of resolving the issues that pertain to current Vernal 

Field Office (VFO) management and allocation of public land resources, their use, and 

protection. Decisions by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) about resource use and 

management in the Vernal Planning Area (VPA) will be based on this issue analysis. 

Alternative A would protect important environmental values and sensitive resources while 

allowing the development of oil and gas resources, recreational facilities, and other human uses. 

Alternative B would emphasize direct human actions. Alternative C would minimize human 

activities within the VPA. Alternative D (No Action) would be a continuation of existing 

management practices defined in the Diamond Mountain Resource Management Plan (RMP) and 

in the Book Cliffs RMP. Alternative E would emphasize the protection of all non–Wilderness 

Study Area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics. The Proposed RMP is a combination of 

decisions pulled from the various alternatives that best meet the goals and objectives of the plan. 

This RMP/environmental impact statement (EIS) provides a landscape-scale, "big picture" level 

of analysis, and in most cases, the exact locations of projected development and other changes 

are not known at this time. Impacts for each specific resource or resource use presented in 

Chapter 3 are described under each alternative and by each issue that would affect that resource. 

Impacts are defined as modifications to the existing environment brought about by implementing 

an alternative. Impacts can be beneficial or detrimental, can result from the action directly or 

indirectly, and can be long-term, short-term, temporary, or cumulative in nature. 

For the analysis, BLM staff has used existing data, current methodologies, professional 

judgments, and projected actions and levels of use. The analysis takes into account the mitigation 

measures and stipulations described in Chapter 2. 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 and the Proposed RMP. This discussion then is referenced under the 

other pertinent alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

4.1.1. ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS

The following are the general assumptions used for issue assessment under all alternatives and 

the Proposed RMP. Assumptions associated with a single issue (e.g., wildlife habitat) are 

included within the alternative discussion for that issue. 

• All resource actions recognize valid existing rights. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.1. Introduction

Vernal RMP 4-2

• The entire planning area is assigned one of the following leasing constraints for oil and gas 

development: 

• Open to oil and gas leasing subject to standard lease terms 

• Open to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints (TL/CSU) 

• Open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO) 

• Administratively closed to oil and gas leasing 

• The BLM would have the funding and workforce to implement the selected alternative. 

• There would be no management decision-related restrictions in the RMP that apply to Utah's 

State Institutional and Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) lands. The BLM would continue 

to guarantee reasonable access to inholdings as required by law. Therefore, there should be 

negligible or minimal economic impact of BLM decisions on SITLA lands. 

• Additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis would be required to 

determine the impacts from site-specific actions (activity plans) and to identify additional 

mitigating measures. 

• All lands identified for disposal are free of encumbrances and can be disposed. This includes 

cultural resource clearances. 

• Demand for recreational activities (both dispersed and concentrated), energy production, 

vegetative resources and wildlife (non-consumptive and consumptive) use would increase. 

• Short-term impacts are those that would last for fewer than five years. 

• Long-term impacts are those that would last for five years or more. 

• State highways and county roads through the VPA will remain open for access. 

• All decisions, projects, activities, and mitigation for the alternatives would be completed as 

described in Chapter 2 and Appendix K (Surface Stipulations Applicable to all Surfacedisturbing Activities). 

• Acreages were calculated using GIS technology and there may be slight variations in total 

acres between disciplines. These variations are negligible and will not affect analysis. 

• The Hill Creek Extension (188,500 acres) was not leased in the Book Cliffs RMP and 

therefore is not included in the total acreage calculations of Alternative D (No Action). 

• Reasonable access to state lands, across BLM lands, would be provided under all 

alternatives. 

4.1.2. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR MINERALS DEVELOPMENT

In 2002, the BLM prepared a projected reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) scenario to 

project environmental impacts across a 15-year period; this RFD has been modified (2008) for 

oil and gas development only to project environmental impacts for up to 5 years. Development 

projections included in-depth reviews of potential for occurrence, past well production, current 

well production, and future potential for production. During the pendency of this planning effort 

(beginning with public meetings in 2001 and 2002 for scoping purposes through the notification 

in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005, of the availability of the Draft RMP/EIS), the RFD 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.1. Introduction

Vernal RMP 4-3

scenario, which is a planning tool and not a prediction or limit to development, did not track 

completely with the pace of development in the Uinta Basin. The BLM has carefully monitored 

industry trends and believes that the RFD used as an analytical tool in this Proposed RMP can be 

considered accurate up to approximately 5 years from the time the Record of Decision (ROD) is 

signed. Within the next five-year timeframe, the BLM will monitor the impacts to resources of 

continued development in the VPA and ensure that the impacts disclosed in this Proposed RMP 

are not exceeded by the pace of development. 

The potential for occurrence and future oil and gas activity is presented in Table 4.1.2. This 

activity includes potential mineral development on state, private, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

tribal, BLM, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administered lands within the 

planning area. Table 4.1.3 shows present and historic cumulative surface disturbance for all 

lands. Tables 4.1.4a and 4.1.4b describe the cumulative surface disturbance for the RFD. 

Predicted surface disturbance for oil and gas development by alternative and the Proposed RMP 

on BLM lands only was calculated by multiplying the percent of BLM lands open for 

development under each of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP by the total number of wells 

predicted for all lands. The resultant number of wells was multiplied by surface disturbance 

assumptions per well (Table 4.1.1) to arrive at total disturbance (See specific resource chapters 

for applicable calculations). 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 VPA 

during the life of the plan. The RFD well totals were developed for the purposes of assessing 

impacts for decision-making. The total number of wells permitted will be determined through 

site-specific NEPA analysis of field development projects. 

Table 4.1.1. Disturbance Assumptions 

Management Activity Disturbed Acres 

Access road construction 0.20 mile per well (0.73 acres surface disturbance per well) 

Well pad construction 

2.4 acres surface disturbance per well 

0.9 acre surface disturbance per well will be reclaimed within 1 year 

after completion of operations 

Existing pipeline systems 

Gathering/Injection Lines: 0.47 acre surface disturbance per well 

(producing, shut-in, temporarily abandoned, and service wells) 

Transmission Lines: 0.15 mile per well (producing, shut-in, temporarily 

abandoned, and service wells). 0.79 acre surface disturbance per well 

(producing, shut-in, temporarily abandoned, and service wells). 

Approximately 1/3 of pipeline surface disturbance will be reclaimed in 

short term. 

Power lines 

Ten (10) percent of wells (producing, shut-in, temporarily abandoned, 

and service wells) will have electrification. Where power lines are 

present, the length will approximate access road length. Existing 

activity accounts for approximately 73 miles of power lines. Future 

development activity will result in approximately 119 additional miles of 

power lines. There will be approximately 0.25 acre of surface 

disturbance per mile of power line. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.1. Introduction

Vernal RMP 4-4

Table 4.1.2. Potential for Occurrence and Future Oil and Gas Activity 

Development Area Predicted Gas 

Wells 

Predicted Oil 

Wells 

Predicted Coal-bed 

Natural Gas Wells 

Manila-Clay Basin 45 0 0 

Tabiona-Ashley Valley 0 30 0 

Altamont-Bluebell 250 175 0 

Monument Butte - Red Wash 3,100 1,700 0 

West Tavaputs 350 75 50 

East Tavaputs 600 75 80 

Totals 4,345 2,055 130 

Table 4.1.3. Related Oil and Gas Activity Surface Disturbance—Present and Historic 

Activity

Short-term Life of Activity Type of Disturbance Miles Acres Miles Acres 

Producing Oil Wells 1,146 1,718 

Producing Gas Wells 1,212 1,818 

Shut-In Oil Wells 198 296 

Shut-In Gas Wells 157 235 

Service Wells 336 504 

Shut-In Service Wells 30 44 

Temporarily Abandoned Wells 167 251 

Abandoned Wells 284 426 

Plugged and Abandoned Wells 1,080 1,621 

Access Roads 1,043 8,688 

Pipeline Gathering Systems 1,906 

Transportation Pipeline Systems 608 1,057 608 2,147 

Compressor Stations 66 

Power Lines 73 18 

Totals 608 5,667 1,724 19,738 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.1.4.a Related Oil and Gas Activity Surface Disturbance—Future Activity 

Manila-Clay Basin Tabiona-Ashley Valley Altam

Type of Disturbance Short-term Life of Activity Short-term Life of Activity Short-term 

Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Ac

Producing Oil Wells 27 45 1Producing Gas Wells 41 67 2Access Roads 9 33 6 22 Pipeline Gathering Systems 21 14 Transportation Pipeline Systems 7 12 7 24 5 8 5 16 64 1Compressor Stations 2 2 Power Lines 1 <1 1 <1 Totals 7 53 17 147 5 35 12 99 64 4Table 4.1.4.b Related Oil and Gas Activity Surface Disturbance—Future Activity, continued

Monument Butte - Red Wash West Tavaputs Plateau East T

Type of Disturbance Short-term Life of Activity Short-term Life of Activity Short-term 

Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Ac

Producing Oil Wells 1,530 2,550 67 113 Producing Gas Wells 2,790 4,650 360 600 6Access Roads 960 3,491 95 346 Pipeline Gathering Systems 2,256 223 Transportation Pipeline Systems 720 1,264 720 2,528 72 125 72 250 113 1Compressor Stations 118 13 Power Lines 86 22 9 2 Totals 720 5,584 1,766 15,615 72 552 176 1,547 113 8
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

1.1 Introduction 

Vernal RMP 4-6

4.1.3. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR AIR QUALITY MODELING

Air quality modeling for this document is based on the initial acreages proposed for Alternatives 

A, B, C, and D in June and July 2004. Alternative E was formulated later than the other 

Alternatives and was determined to be the same as C, but managing for non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. For the purposes of the air quality analysis, Alternative E is assumed 

to be the same as C. Similarly, the assumptions relevant to oil and gas development as they 

pertain to air quality are identical for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. Projected well 

numbers and road-related air quality impacts were based on these proposed acreages. The total 

acreages for potential mineral development for Alternatives A, B, C and D have changed 

somewhat over time as additional considerations and information has been brought forward 

through the assessment process. For Alternatives A, B and C/E, and the Proposed RMP, the 

changes are very small and represent less than 1% difference from the acreages and well 

numbers modeled for air quality impacts. In the case of Alternative D (No Action), the acreage 

used in the modeling assessment is approximately 6% greater than that currently available for 

leasing. This difference is specific to air quality modeling. When the air quality modeling was 

undertaken, the Hill Creek extension (encompassing approximately 188,500 acres in total) was 

included in the acreage totals for modeling. However, in the intervening timeframe, it was 

decided that because the Hill Creek Extension was not leased in the Book Cliffs RMP this 

acreage should have not been included in the modeling for Alternative D (No Action). Air 

quality modeling for Alternative D (No Action) does not reflect the withdrawal of the 188,500 

acres and therefore exhibits a slight overestimation of air quality impacts for this alternative. 

Given the conservative nature of the assumptions used and boundary conditions employed for 

the air quality modeling, these differences are considered to be minor at most and the modeled 

air quality impacts for these alternatives remain valid. 

4.1.4. TYPES OF IMPACTS TO BE ADDRESSED—DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE

Direct impacts are attributable to implementation of an alternative that affect 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 be later in 

time or removed in location, but are still RFD. Long-term impacts are those that would 

substantially remain for many years or for the life of the project. Temporary impacts are shortterm or ephemeral changes to the environment that return to the original condition once the 

activity is stopped, such as air pollutant emissions caused by earthmoving equipment during 

construction. Short-term impacts result in changes to the environment that are stabilized or 

mitigated rapidly and without long-term effects, 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 could 

also occur as the result of past, present, and RFD future actions by federal, state, and local 

governments, private individuals and entities in or near the VPA. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

1.1 Introduction 

Vernal RMP 4-7

4.1.5. IMPACTS TO CRITICAL ELEMENTS

4.1.5.1. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES ON PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS

All alternatives and the Proposed RMP in this Final EIS are consistent with the intent of the 

Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for prime land. The project does not include any 

use of prime farmland nor does it impact any prime farmland soils (NRCS 1990). 

4.1.5.2. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES ON INVASIVE AND/OR NOXIOUS NON-NATIVE PLANTS

Vegetation and surface-disturbing activities would occur under all alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP in this Final EIS. These disturbances all increase the risk of propagation of invasive or 

noxious non-native plants. However, effective implementation of management actions common 

to all of the alternatives would prevent the risk from becoming greater than at present and would 

help to reduce risk in the long-term. 

4.1.5.3. INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION

This analysis was done using the best-available information that is believed to be sufficient for a 

programmatic analysis of the impacts of multi-discipline decisions on management direction on a 

planning area-wide basis. This includes but is not limited to landscape level data such as GAPlevel vegetation data, State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) data, and field-office information on 

wildlife habitat boundaries. Additional site-specific data (including cultural resource surveys, 

TES surveys, etc.) will be required to complete site-specific NEPA analysis necessary prior to 

implementation of fire and fuel management activities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-175

4.10. 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 it 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 RMP 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 RMP, all or parts of 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

totaling 106,178 acres would be managed with emphasis on protection of the areas wilderness 

characteristics. All or parts of 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling 

171,418 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 25 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed with 

emphasis on protection of wilderness characteristics on 277,596 acres (see Table 2.1.10.) 

The analysis that follows will disclose the effects of the various actions prescribed under the 

Proposed RMP 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. 

4.10.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.10.1.1. FIRE MANAGEMENT

Prescribed fire would be used under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives to restore native 

vegetation communities; to maintain and enhance forage for livestock and wildlife; and to reduce 

fuel loading to prevent catastrophic wildfires. 

Prescribed fire treatments would restore vegetation communities and a more natural or desired 

composition of forbs, grasses, shrubs, and trees, enhancing a more natural landscape. In the short 

term, a burned landscape may reduce visitor attraction to non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and opportunities for primitive recreation. In the long-term, however, a more 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-176

natural landscape would benefit the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and enhance the setting and opportunities for primitive forms of recreation, 

including hiking, backpacking, hunting, wildlife viewing, and nature study. Enhancing forage for 

wildlife would support and enhance opportunities for primitive recreation, including hunting and 

wildlife viewing. Reducing fuel loading and the risk of catastrophic wildfire would protect the 

settings that support primitive recreation opportunities. 

In the short term, fire operations (e.g., aircraft over-flights and fire line construction) would 

adversely impact both the natural landscape and characteristics of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The noise and presence of the people, equipment, and operations 

would also reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation. In 

the long-term, however, surface disturbance associated with the fire treatment would be restored, 

with little to no net effect on natural characteristics of the land. The effects of fire operations on 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would cease, restoring those opportunities. 

When fencing and seeding are used to aid in restoration of the vegetation community, livestock 

exclosure fences would have a short-term, temporary impact on the natural characteristics of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Introducing a fence would add a human-made 

structure to the landscape, diminishing the natural characteristics in the short term, and until it is 

removed. 

Wildfire suppression would be permitted in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, with 

similar impacts as described for prescribed fire above. The suppression operation would result in 

the same physical disturbances to the land, and thus the natural characteristics of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. The scale or degree of impact, however, may vary 

depending on the size and severity of the fire and the resources at risk. The impacts of the noise 

and presence of people and equipment would also be the same as described for prescribed fire, 

with variation for size and severity of the wildland fire. 

The long-term effects of emergency site reclamation (ESR) on the wilderness characteristics of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, however, would vary, depending on the ESR 

objectives and methods employed to achieve those objectives. Restoration of healthy vegetation 

communities that protect watersheds and support wildlife would enhance the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and the settings needed for 

primitive recreational opportunities. 

The methods used to restore vegetation communities, however, would result in both short and 

long-term effects on the natural characteristics of an area. Revegetation methods that use aerial 

or broadcast seeding would leave less evidence of human intervention on the landscape, and little 

effect on the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. In 

pinyon-juniper communities it is often necessary to remove standing dead vegetation to facilitate 

seeding. This is done by chaining, cutting, and/or chipping. If these methods are used in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, as the evidence of human manipulation of the 

landscape would be readily apparent and remain for many years, reducing the apparent 

naturalness of the land. Except in emergency situations, methods used to restore wildland fires in 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are being managed for those characteristics 

would employ methods that are consistent with protection of wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-177

4.10.1.2. LANDS AND REALTY

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, lands would be recommended for withdrawal from 

entry under the mining laws for the protection of natural and cultural resource values. Closure of 

lands to mining (e.g., gold, silver, and uranium) would prevent surface disturbances to the 

landscape that would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Mineral withdrawals would also prevent the presence and noise of mining 

operations (people, vehicles, and equipment) that would diminish opportunities for solitude and 

conflict with primitive forms of recreation (e.g., hiking, backpacking, hunting, river floating, 

wildlife viewing, and nature study). 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, most of the public lands in the VPA would be 

retained in public ownership and managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained 

yield for the benefit of the American people. Retention of public lands would facilitate the 

BLM's ability to manage the various resource values and uses, including wilderness 

characteristics. Further, non-federal lands may be acquired to maintain or enhance public use and 

resource values, through exchange or from willing sellers. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, the identification of utility corridors for future 

placement of power lines and pipelines, and the identification of avoidance areas for corridors 

would both degrade and protect the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. If corridors were located through non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

the placement of utility lines would introduce human-made structures to the landscape and 

degrade the natural condition of the lands. The presence of these facilities would change the 

setting required to support primitive forms of recreation from an undeveloped landscape to a 

more developed and industrial landscape. The presence and operation of utility lines would also 

reduce opportunities for solitude. On the other hand, if non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics were identified as areas of avoidance for placement of utility corridors, the natural 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be protected. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, easements would be acquired to improve access to 

public lands. Acquisition of easements would improve access to some of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, providing additional opportunities for primitive recreational 

activities. 

4.10.1.3. LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, livestock (cattle and sheep) would continue to 

graze on public lands in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Levels of livestock use 

(AUMs) on public lands are set to ensure vegetation communities will meet standards for 

rangeland health, including proper functioning condition of riparian zones, and the BLM 

monitors the rangeland to ensure those standards and conditions are met. When a healthy 

vegetation condition is maintained, there would be no degradation of the natural characteristics 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Healthy vegetation communities would 

maintain and enhance wildlife habitat and populations, ensuring continued opportunities for 

primitive forms of recreation, including hunting, wildlife viewing, and nature study. Under the 

Proposed RMP and all alternatives, the health of vegetation communities would be protected, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-178

and, therefore, there would be no degradation to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. 

Often, it is necessary to construct fences and waters to support livestock grazing. In order to 

ensure proper distribution of livestock over an allotment and proper levels of forage utilization, 

fences and waters are constructed to manage livestock. The introduction of human-made 

structures on the landscape would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, to some degree. However, improved livestock distribution and forage 

utilization would protect and enhance the condition of the vegetation community and thus the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. If a minimal 

number of fences or waters could be constructed in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and still meet the objectives of protecting wilderness characteristics, they may be 

permitted. Livestock management facilities are proposed under the Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives. 

4.10.1.4. MINERALS

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, development of existing oil and gas leases would 

result in the loss of wilderness characteristics on between 14% and 100% of 11 different nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling between 117,470 acres and 171,412 acres. 

Construction of roads, well pads, compressors, pipelines, and power lines would disturb 

vegetation and soil and the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The presence of people, vehicles, and equipment, and the physical disturbance to 

the landscape would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of 

recreation. 

However, under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, lands would be proposed for withdrawal 

from entry under the mining laws in some of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Closure to mining would prevent surface disturbances that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and would exclude the 

presence and noise of people, vehicles, equipment, and structures that would diminish 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with opportunities for primitive recreation. 

4.10.1.5. RECREATION

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, portions of the VPA would be managed for 

primitive recreational opportunities and the settings needed to support those activities and 

desired experiences. Under the Proposed RMP and every alternative, management for primitive 

recreation would maintain and enhance the opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation 

and the experience of solitude in some of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, portions of the VPA would be managed for 

motorized recreation, including OHV use, back country driving, sightseeing, and vehiclesupported camping, picnicking, and hunting. Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, 

motorized uses would degrade opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in some of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-179

and D (No Action), motorized travel would be permitted on some of the vehicle routes in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The noise and presence of vehicles would degrade 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation. Under Alternative E, 

motorized use of routes would only be permitted on the boundaries of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. However, use of those boundary routes would degrade opportunities 

for solitude near the edges of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. As visitors move 

away from the boundary of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, further into the 

heart of the area(s), the impacts of the noise and presence of vehicles on solitude and primitive 

recreation would lessen. 

4.10.1.6. RIPARIAN AND WETLAND RESOURCES

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, riparian systems would be managed to achieve 

proper functioning condition. Protection and improvement of riparian vegetation communities in 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would enhance the natural characteristics of 

portions of some of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection and 

improvement of riparian areas would also enhance habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and 

would enhance opportunities for primitive recreation. 

Sometimes it is necessary to construct facilities to manage and improve riparian areas. 

Construction of exclosure fences, for example, would introduce human-made structures to the 

landscape and degrade the natural characteristics of the riparian portion of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, to some degree. Many of these structures would be temporary 

and would be removed upon achieving proper functioning condition. Rehabilitation of the 

riparian vegetation condition, however, would restore the natural characteristics of the riparian 

portion of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.1.7. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

Special designations are proposed under Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives. These areas 

include ACECs, suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers, and WSAs. Generally, ACECs and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers are established to protect water courses, wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources, 

scenic quality, and recreational opportunities, and management of them would limit surface 

disturbances and offer protection to the natural characteristics of some of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Protection of natural landscapes would protect and enhance the 

settings and opportunities for both solitude and primitive types of recreation. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, WSAs would be managed to protect their 

wilderness characteristics. Where WSAs are contiguous to non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, protection of the WSA would extend or expand opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation found in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to a 

larger area, enhancing the opportunity. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-180

4.10.1.8. VISUAL RESOURCES

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, visual resource management objectives would 

protect natural landscapes, and thus wilderness characteristics, but would also provide 

opportunities for landscape changes that would degrade the natural characteristics of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Management under VRM Class I (preservation of the 

characteristics landscape) and Class II (retention of the characteristics landscape) objectives 

would prevent and minimize disturbance to the landform and vegetation and would prevent the 

placement of structures that are apparent on the landscape, thus protecting the natural 

characteristics of some of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, 

management objectives under VRM Class III (partial retention of the characteristic landscape) 

and Class IV (management for landscape change) provide for more landscape change. With 

those objectives, surface disturbance to landform and vegetation and placement of structures that 

are apparent on the landscape would be permitted. This would degrade the natural characteristics 

of some of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and alter the setting needed to 

support opportunities for solitude and primitive types of recreation. 

4.10.1.9. WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, the BLM would implement a variety of actions to 

maintain, enhance, and protect habitats for a diversity of fish and wildlife species. Degraded 

habitats would be restored. Habitat would be managed for large blocks that provide for the life 

cycle requirements of fish and wildlife species. These actions would lead to healthy and diverse 

wildlife populations throughout the VPA. For example, under the Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives, the cottonwood vegetation community along the Green and White Rivers would be 

protected and restored, where needed, to maintain important winter habitat for Bald Eagles. The 

presence of a variety of wildlife would provide for primitive recreation activities (i.e., hunting, 

wildlife viewing, photography, and nature study) in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

There are no actions common to the Proposed RMP and all the alternatives for air quality, 

cultural resources, hazardous materials, paleontology, soil and water resources, or socioeconomics, which would impact non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. These 

resources are analyzed in the Alternatives Impacts Section (4.10.2). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-181

4.10.2. ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

4.10.2.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.10.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.10.2.1.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Under this the Proposed RMP, cultural resource sites and areas of high site density would be 

protected from surface disturbance caused by OHV use by limiting motorized travel to 

designated routes in the Little Hole/Devils Hole area. This action would have direct, short- and 

long-term benefits to the natural characteristics of the Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics by limiting surface disturbance cause by OHV use to the 

designated routes and by not expanding OHV use to other areas of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. However, while limiting OHV use to designated routes would prevent 

surface disturbance that would impact the naturalness of this non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, the noise and presence of OHVs on these routes would have an adverse impact on 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities when OHVs travel on these routes. 

4.10.2.1.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under the Proposed RMP, cultural resource sites and areas of high site density would be 

protected from surface disturbance caused by OHV use by limiting motorized travel to 

designated routes in the Upper Willow Creek area. This action would have direct, short- and 

long-term benefits to the natural characteristics of the Wolf Point non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics by limiting surface disturbance cause by OHV use to the designated 

routes and by not expanding OHV use to other areas of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Limiting OHV use to designated routes and offering portions of the Four Mile 

Wash area for oil and gas leasing subject to NSO would also protect areas of high cultural 

resource site density by limiting surface disturbance and vehicle use to designated routes. This 

action would also have direct, short- and long-term benefits to the natural characteristics of the 

Four Mile Wash portion of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. However, while limiting OHV use to designated routes would prevent surface 

disturbance that would impact the naturalness of these non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, the noise and presence of OHVs on these routes would have an adverse impact on 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities when OHVs travel on these routes. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-182

4.10.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.10.2.1.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, the benefits of limiting surface disturbance by OHV use to protect cultural 

resources, and thus wilderness characteristics, would be the same as described for the Proposed 

RMP. 

4.10.2.1.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.1.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, the benefits of limiting surface disturbance by OHV use to protect cultural 

resources, and thus wilderness characteristics, would be the same as described for the Proposed 

RMP. However, the benefits of offering oil and gas leases with an NSO stipulation in the Four 

Mile Wash area of Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not 

be realized. Under this alternative, leases would be issued with standard stipulations resulting in 

surface disturbance and impacts to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of oil and gas exploration and development 

would also adversely impact opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities. 

4.10.2.1.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.10.2.1.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, cultural sites and areas of high site density would be protected from 

surface disturbance caused by OHV use and oil and gas development by closing the Little 

Hole/Devils Hole and Four Mile Wash areas to OHV use and oil and gas leasing. These actions 

would have direct, short- and long-term benefits to the natural characteristics of the Lower 

Flaming Gorge and Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by 

preventing surface disturbance cause by OHV driving cross-country (as permitted in Alternative 

D, No Action) and oil and gas exploration and development. Further, closing these areas to OHV 

use and oil and gas development would provide short- and long-term benefits to opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation activities in these areas by excluding the presence and noise of 

OHVs and oil and gas development from these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

In Upper Willow Creek OHV travel would be permitted on designated routes. The effects of this 

action on the wilderness characteristics of Wolf Point non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as Proposed RMP. Under this alternative, oil and gas leases 

would be subject to timing and controlled surface use stipulations, resulting in surface 

disturbance and impacts to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The presence and noise of oil and gas exploration and development would also 

adversely impact opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-183

4.10.2.1.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.1.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Alternative D (No Action) would not limit OHV use near high-density cultural sites, and these 

sites would be open to oil and gas leasing. This alternative would have long-term, adverse 

impacts on the wilderness characteristics of Lower Flaming Gorge, Wolf Point, and Desolation 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by permitting surface-disturbing 

activities that would alter the landscape and natural characteristics of these areas. Further, the 

noise and presence of OHVs and oil and gas development would degrade opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities these areas offer. 

4.10.2.1.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.1.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative E would have the same impacts on cultural sites and areas of high site density and 

wilderness characteristics in the Lower Flaming Gorge, Wolf Point, and Desolation Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described in Alternative C, except Wolf Point 

would also be closed to OHV use and oil and gas leasing, preventing surface disturbance that 

would degrade the wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

4.10.2.1.7. SUMMARY

In summary, Alternatives C and E would provide the highest level of protection to cultural sites 

and areas of high site density and wilderness characteristics in the Lower Flaming Gorge, Wolf 

Point, and Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The Proposed 

RMP and Alternatives A and B would provide some protection but less than that provided by 

Alternatives C and E. Alternative D (No Action) would provide the least protection to cultural 

resources and wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS.

4.10.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP

4.10.2.2.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The Proposed RMP would provide for prescribed fire treatments on approximately 156,425 acres 

per decade. Where fire treatments occurred in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

being managed to protect their wilderness characteristics, the effects on wilderness values would 

be both short- and long-term. Further, the degree of impact would vary by vegetation community 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-184

and landform. For example, the effects of fire that burned in a pinyon-juniper community in 

mountainous terrain would remain longer and remain more visible to the visitor than a fire that 

burned on a sage brush flat. 

Prescribed fire treatments would restore native vegetation communities and a more natural 

composition of forbs, grasses, shrubs, and trees, enhancing a more natural landscape. In the 

short-term, a burned landscape may reduce opportunities for primitive recreation. In the longterm, however, a more natural landscape would benefit the natural characteristics of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and enhance the setting and opportunities for 

primitive forms of recreation. Restoration and maintenance of native vegetation communities 

would also support wildlife populations that continue to provide opportunities for primitive 

forms of recreation like hunting, wildlife viewing, photography, and nature study. 

In the short term, fire operations (i.e., aircraft over-flights and fire line construction) would 

adversely impact both 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 adversely impact opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation. In the 

long term, however, surface disturbance associated with the fire treatment would be restored, 

with little to no net effect on naturalness. And, the effects of fire operations on opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation would cease, restoring those opportunities. When fencing and 

seeding are used to aid in restoration of the vegetation community, the livestock exclosure fences 

would have a short-term, temporary impacts on the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Introducing a fence would add a human-made structure to the 

landscape, diminishing the natural characteristics in the short-term until it is removed. 

4.10.2.2.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Where prescribed fire treatments occurred in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

being managed for other resource values and uses, the effects of the fire and the burning 

operations would be generally the same as for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

being managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. However, in these non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics (not being managed to protect their wilderness characteristics), 

fire line construction could be more substantial. In forest and woodland vegetation communities, 

chain saws could be used to create fuel breaks for fire line construction, resulting in more 

substantial evidence of human manipulation of the land (cut logs, stumps, and cleared lines 

through vegetation). This type of surface disturbance would remain evident on the land for 

longer periods of time, reducing the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-185

4.10.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE A, B, AND C 

4.10.2.2.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

These alternatives would also provide for prescribed fire treatments on approximately 156,425 

acres per decade. The impacts to the wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be the same as described under the Proposed RMP for those 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed for resource values and uses other than 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.2.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Alternative D (No Action) would prescribe fire on up to 27,950 acres in the Book Cliffs area and 

22,950 acres in the Diamond Mountain area. The effects, whether adverse or beneficial, would 

be the same as those described under Proposed RMP for non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics being managed for other resource values and uses, but on a smaller scale than 

under the Proposed RMP. 

4.10.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.2.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

 The Proposed RMP would provide for prescribed fire treatments on approximately 156,425 

acres per decade, with impacts to the wilderness characteristics of all 25 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics (277,596 acres) the same as described for the Proposed RMP for the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect their values. 

4.10.2.2.5. SUMMARY

In summary, fire management would have long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation, and thus 

on the natural quality of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The Proposed RMP 

and Alternatives A, B, C, and E would have generally equivalent impacts on this resource. 

Alternative D (No Action) would have the least beneficial impacts on the natural quality because 

fewer acres would be treated with prescribed fire. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-186

4.10.2.3. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS 

WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.10.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.10.2.3.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The Proposed RMP proposes withdrawals to preclude locatable mineral entry into the Green 

River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park, the White River, Lears Canyon, and the Book Cliffs 

Natural Area. The proposed withdrawals, totaling 17,814 acres, would prohibit entry for 

locatable mining, protecting the existing characteristics of the landscape. Withdrawing lands 

from mineral entry in these areas would prevent surface disturbance and protect the natural 

characteristics of 1,779 acres of the Lower Flaming Gorge, 171 acres of the Cold Spring 

Mountain, and 6,720 acres of the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Further, prohibition of mining would preserve the opportunities for both solitude and primitive 

forms of recreation in each of these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under the Proposed RMP, BLM would pursue public access to the White River at the mouth of 

Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza Bridge, and the Wagon Hound Road. This action would enhance 

public access to the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting and 

enhancing opportunities to participate in primitive and unconfined forms of recreation in this 

area. 

Under the Proposed RMP, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect 

their wilderness characteristics would be managed as ROW avoidance areas. Avoidance from 

future ROW development for pipelines and power lines would prevent surface disturbance and 

the placement of human-made structures on the land. This action would protect the natural 

characteristics of the landscape and the setting needed to support opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation. 

4.10.2.3.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Withdrawing lands from mineral entry would prevent surface disturbance and protect the natural 

characteristics of 3 acres of the Cripple Cowboy non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Further, prohibition of mining would preserve the opportunities for both solitude and primitive 

forms of recreation in each of these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under the Proposed RMP, BLM would pursue acquisition of Indian Trust Lands in Bitter Creek 

and Willow Creek and near the confluence of South and Sweetwater Canyons. These actions 

would enhance public access to the Bitter Creek, Rat Hole, Cripple Cowboy, Hells Hole Canyon, 

Sweet Water, and Wolf Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting and 

enhancing opportunities to participate in primitive and unconfined forms of recreation in these 

areas. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-187

4.10.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.10.2.3.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

The effects of pursuing access to public lands and proposing mineral withdrawals would be the 

same as described under the Proposed RMP, except that none of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.3.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Alternative B also proposes withdrawals to preclude locatable mineral entry into the Green River 

Scenic Corridor in Browns Park, the White River, Lears Canyon, and the Book Cliffs Natural 

Area. The effects on the wilderness characteristics of Lower Flaming Gorge, Cold Spring 

Mountain, White River, and Cripple Cowboy non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be the same as described in Proposed RMP. 

Public access to the White River would not be pursued and acquisition of Indian Trust Lands 

would only be sought for BLM administrative purposes under this alternative. The actions would 

provide no enhancement of public access to participate in primitive recreation activities in a 

natural setting. 

4.10.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.10.2.3.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

The effects of pursuing access to public lands and proposing mineral withdrawals would be the 

same as described under the Proposed RMP, except that mineral withdrawal would also be 

proposed for lands in the Lower Green River ACEC on 17,063 acres. Withdrawing lands from 

mineral entry in this area would protect the natural characteristics on 8,572 acres of the 

Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Prohibition of mining would 

also preserve the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities in the Desolation 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.3.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, BLM would recommend mineral withdrawals in the Green River Scenic 

Corridor in Browns Park, relict vegetation areas, and the Lower Green River, totaling about 

30,900 acres. Mineral withdrawals under this alternative would prevent surface disturbance and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-188

protect the natural landscape and characteristics of the Cold Spring Mountain (171 acres), Lower 

Flaming Gorge (1,779 acres), and Desolation Canyon (8,572 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Without mining operations, there would be no presence and noise of 

people, equipment, and mining operations, and thus these would not impact opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation in these areas. 

4.10.2.3.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.3.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The effects of pursuing access to public lands would be the same as described under the 

Proposed RMP. Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed as ROW avoidance areas. Avoidance from future ROW development for pipelines and 

power lines would protect the wilderness characteristics of these areas, including the natural 

characteristics of the landscape of all the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Further, under Alternative E, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. Withdrawal from mining entry would have the 

same impacts as described in Proposed RMP, except on a much larger area (277,596 acres). 

Protection of the natural landscape would also preserve the setting needed to support primitive 

forms of recreation and experiences of solitude. 

4.10.2.3.7. SUMMARY

In summary, Alternative E would provide the greatest protection to the wilderness characteristics 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by proposing to withdraw all non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics from locatable mineral entry and by avoiding the areas as 

locations for future utility ROWs. The Proposed RMP and other alternatives provide comparable 

protection to the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

though Alternative B does not seek to secure as much access to public lands as the Proposed 

RMP and other alternatives. 

4.10.2.4. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.10.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A AND C 

4.10.2.4.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under the Proposed RMP and these alternatives, lands acquired in the Nine Mile area would not 

be grazed by livestock to enhance riparian and watershed values. The resulting improvement of 

riparian and watershed condition would enhance the wilderness characteristics of Desolation 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Without livestock grazing, the 

vegetation and soil condition of the watershed would improve, also improving the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, improved natural 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-189

condition would sustain the setting needed to support wilderness-related recreation opportunities 

(primitive and unconfined recreation) and the experience of solitude wilderness visitors seek. 

4.10.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.4.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative B, livestock grazing would be permitted on lands acquired in the Nine Mile 

area if use does not detract from riparian values and recreation objectives. At proper levels of 

use, grazing would not adversely impact the riparian conditions of Nine Mile Canyon. While 

there would be some visual evidence of livestock use in the canyon (presence of livestock, feces, 

trampling of soil, and consumption of vegetation), rangeland health and riparian condition would 

be maintained, and the natural characteristics of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be maintained to the average visitor. For some visitors, the 

presence of livestock would diminish the desired experience (connection with the natural world 

and experiences of solitude). However, this effect would be seasonal. Livestock would not graze 

in the canyon year long. At other times of the year, livestock would be gone, trampled soils 

would recover, and vegetation would re-grow, reducing the effect to the visitor. 

4.10.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.4.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative D (No Action), grazing management actions are unspecified on lands acquired 

in the Nine Mile area. Because grazing is guided by livestock objectives set in the Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management and the riparian areas are managed 

by objectives of Proper Functioning Condition, this alternative would have impacts on 

Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics like Alternative B. Proper 

levels of livestock use are guided by grazing and riparian objectives. These objectives would not 

permit degradation of the lands. However, because livestock would still be present during 

periods of the year, the effects on wilderness characteristics would be the same as described for 

Alternative B. 

4.10.2.4.4. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.4.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Under this alternative, lands acquired in the Nine Mile area would not be grazed by livestock to 

enhance riparian and watershed values. The resulting improvement of riparian and watershed 

condition would enhance the wilderness characteristics of Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics as described under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and C, 

except that under this alternative, Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed to protect its wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-190

4.10.2.4.5. SUMMARY

In summary, under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E there would be no impact of 

livestock grazing on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics from acquisition of lands in 

Nine Mile Canyon, because grazing would not be permitted on the acquired lands. Alternatives B 

and D (No Action), however, would allow for livestock grazing, with seasonal impacts on 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities due to the presence of livestock in 

the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.5. IMPACTS OF MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Given the resource development potential, past levels of production, presence of leases, and 

ongoing exploration and development, the following assumptions for oil and gas exploration and 

development were used in the analysis of impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

• The number of wells projected in each development area would not be evenly distributed 

throughout the development area. Greater densities of wells would cluster in areas of 

exploration interest and resource discovery and production. 

• Lessees would exercise rights on existing leases (valid existing rights) in areas of high and 

moderate potential with a past or current demonstration of interest in exploration and 

development. 

• 75% of the wells drilled would produce oil or gas. 

• 75% of the producing wells would be producing at any given time. 

• The average life of a well would be 25 years. 

• There would be 0.20 miles of new road construction per well and 0.73 acres of surface 

disturbance per well. 

• There would be 2.4 acres of surface disturbed per well; 0.9 acres would be reclaimed within 

1 year. 

• The number of miles of pipelines would equal the numbers of miles of new roads. 

• Average well spacing would be 80 acres. 

• 10% of the wells would have electrification. The length of power lines would approximately 

equal the miles of road. There would be approximately 0.25 miles of surface disturbance per 

mile of power line. 

The potential for oil and gas development in the VPA was derived from the Mineral Potential 

Report for the Vernal Planning Area (BLM 2004). Definitions of high ("H"), medium ("M"), and 

undetermined ("ND") oil and gas development potential can be found in that publication. For 

analysis purposes, high and medium potential are considered as reasonably foreseeable for 

development, while undetermined potential is considered to indicate that development is unlikely 

to occur. Areas are considered to have undetermined oil and gas potential because of a lack of 

useful data. Within the VPA, these areas typically lack data due to a dearth of current or 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-191

historical exploration, and they are therefore considered unlikely to be developed within the life 

of this plan. 

A number of variables would influence 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 5–10 

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 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 and density of spacing would change the 

natural landscape to an industrial landscape. 

The noise of 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 1/2 mile beyond 

the direct loss of natural characteristics. Given the number and spacing of industrial facilities, it 

would be difficult to escape the adverse effects on solitude and primitive recreation activities 

throughout the areas with wilderness characteristics. 

It can be expected that as a result of oil and gas development and production, entire non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would lose their natural characteristics and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation activities. Table 4.10.1 summarizes the impacts from the 

Proposed RMP and each of the alternatives to each of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics found in the VPA. 

Because the precise location of solid mineral development (Gilsonite, phosphate, mineral 

materials, and locatable minerals) is unknown, for analysis purposes the following assumptions 

for solid mineral exploration and development were used in the analysis of impacts to non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

• The assessment of potential effects is based on the overall acreage open to development. 

• The greater the surface disturbance, the greater the potential to impact the wilderness 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-192

4.10.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.10.2.5.1.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Under Proposed RMP, the 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect 

their wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, except for White River 

which would be open subject to an NSO stipulation. These leasing stipulations would prevent 

occupancy and surface disturbance that would degrade the natural characteristics of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Protection of the natural characteristics would also 

maintain the setting needed for support opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation 

activities. 

Under the Proposed RMP, parts (between 11% and 89%) of five of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics being managed to protect those characteristics (Bourdette Draw, Bull 

Canyon, Daniels Canyon, Diamond Mountain, and Mountain Home – See Table 4.10.1 below), 

totaling 18,286 acres, are currently leased for oil and gas production. However, given the mineral 

potential of the areas and past and current interest in exploration and production, it is not 

expected that these lands would be affected by oil and gas operation (exploration, development, 

and production) under the Proposed RMP. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

All or parts (between 54% and 100%) of 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

totaling up to 150,421 acres, would lose their natural characteristics and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation due to surface disturbance and the presence and noise of people 

and equipment during exploration for and development of oil and gas resources in the VPA. 

• Bitter Creek 

• Cripple Cowboy 

• Desolation Canyon 

• Hell's Hole Canyon 

• Hideout Canyon 

• Lower Bitter Creek 

• Mexico Point 

• Rat Hole 

• Sweet Water Canyon 

• White River 

• Wolf Point 

These areas are located in oil and gas development areas with moderate to high potential for 

further development. Given the resource potential, level of past production, existing leases, and 

ongoing exploration and development, it is anticipated these 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would lose all or most of their wilderness characteristics. The impacts to 

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities would be the same 

as described above. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-193

4.10.2.5.1.2. Other Mineral Resources 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Phosphate is present on 11,719 acres of lands in the Bourdette Draw, Daniels Canyon, 

Moonshine Draw, and Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under 

the Proposed RMP, these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to 

protect those characteristics and all 11,719 acres would be closed to phosphate leasing. Closure 

to leasing and development would prevent surface disturbance and protect the natural 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of these four non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

There is 1 mile of Gilsonite veins on about 5 acres located in the portion of White River nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics that would be managed to protect those 

characteristics. These lands would be closed to solid mineral leasing and no surface disturbance 

or impacts to wilderness characteristics would result. 

Mineral materials would be closed to leasing on 25,688 acres in Beach Draw, Bourdette Draw, 

Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, Diamond Breaks, 

Diamond Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, Stuntz Draw, 

White River, and Wild Mountain. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 8,670 acres in portions of three non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be proposed for withdrawal from entry under the mining laws: Cold Spring 

Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, and White River. Withdrawal from mineral entry would 

prevent surface disturbance that would reduce the natural characteristics of these areas, and 

prevent the presence and noise of people, equipment, and structures that would diminish solitude 

and conflict with opportunities for primitive recreation activities. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

There are 9 miles of Gilsonite on about 44 acres (determined based on an average width of 40 

feet for Gilsonite) in Desolation Canyon (1 mile) and White River (8 miles) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics that would not be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. 

These lands would be open for solid mineral leasing. 

Mineral materials (e.g., sand, gravel, and building stone) would be open to leasing on 30,490 

acres in 4 separate non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics: Bitter Creek, Desolation 

Canyon, Lower Bitter Creek, and Wolf Point. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 3 acres in a portion of the Cripple Cowboy non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be proposed for withdrawal from entry under the mining laws. 

Withdrawal from mineral entry would prevent surface disturbance that would degrade the natural 

characteristics. Closure to entry would also prevent the presence and noise of people, vehicles, 

and equipment that would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with opportunities for 

primitive recreation activities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-194

The impacts from projected development of Gilsonite, phosphate, mineral materials, and 

locatable minerals are difficult to quantify because specific locations for these operations have 

not been determined and development is dependent on market demand and technology. 

However, generally, it can be said that these types of operations typically result in small to 

medium-sized surface disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics of localized 

parts of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, if they were to occur in any of the 

areas listed above. Further, the presence and noise of people and equipment would degrade 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with opportunities for primitive forms of recreation. Road 

construction to new mine sites would reduce the roadless nature and natural characteristics of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristic. 

Development potential for Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials is moderate to high, and 

exploration and development is likely. Development potential for locatables is moderate. Very 

little development is expected. 

This assessment is based on acres open to development, as compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). The more acres open to mineral leasing, the more potential for surface disturbance and 

degradation of the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 10,531 fewer acres would be open to phosphate leasing as under 

Alternative D (No Action), and 1 less mile of Gilsonite would be available for leasing under the 

Proposed RMP than under Alternative D (No Action). And, 28,975 fewer acres would be open to 

disposal of mineral materials. Under the Proposed RMP, 13,086 more acres would be available 

for mineral entry than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.10.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVE A

4.10.2.5.2.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal-bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

All or parts (between 70% and 100%) of 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

totaling up to 153,768 acres, would lose their natural characteristics and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources 

in the VPA. 

• Bitter Creek 

• Cripple Cowboy 

• Desolation Canyon 

• Hell's Hole Canyon 

• Hideout Canyon 

• Lower Bitter Creek 

• Mexico Point 

• Rat Hole 

• Sweet Water Canyon 

• White River 

• Wolf Point 

These areas are located in oil and gas development areas with moderate to high potential for 

further development. Given the resource potential, level of past production, existing leases, and 

ongoing exploration and development, it is anticipated these 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would lose all or most of their wilderness characteristics. The impacts to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-195

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be the same as 

described above. 

4.10.2.5.2.2. Other Mineral Resources 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Phosphate would be available for leasing on 11,515 acres in Bourdette Draw, Daniels Canyon, 

Moonshine Draw, and Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and 

closed to leasing on 204 acres in Moonshine Draw and Mountain Home non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. In all, 10 miles of Gilsonite would be open to leasing on about 49 

acres (determined based on an average width of 40 feet for Gilsonite) in Desolation Canyon, and 

White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Mineral materials (e.g., sand, gravel, and building stone) would be open to leasing on 53,084 

acres in 17 separate non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics: Beach Draw, Bitter Creek, 

Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, 

Desolation Canyon, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, Moonshine 

Draw, Mountain Home, Stuntz Draw, White River, Wild Mountain, and Wolf Point. Mineral 

materials would be closed to leasing on 13,872 acres in Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold 

Spring Mountain, Desolation Canyon, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower Bitter 

Creek, Lower Flaming Gorge, Mountain Home, and White River. 

Under Alternative A, 8,673 acres in portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be proposed for withdrawal from entry under the mining laws: Cold Spring 

Mountain, Cripple Cowboy, Lower Flaming Gorge, and White River. This would leave 268,923 

acres open to entry under the mining laws in all or portions of each of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

The impacts from projected development of Gilsonite, phosphate, mineral materials, and 

locatable minerals are difficult to quantify because specific locations for these operations have 

not been determined and development is dependent on market demand and technology. 

However, generally, it can be said that these types of operations typically result in small to 

medium-sized surface disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics of localized 

parts of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, if they were to occur in any of the 

areas listed above. Further, the presence and noise of people and equipment would degrade 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with opportunities for primitive forms of recreation. Road 

construction to new mine sites would reduce the roadless nature of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristic. 

Development potential for Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials is moderate to high, and 

exploration and development is likely. Development potential for locatables is moderate. Very 

little development is expected. 

This assessment is based on acres open to development, as compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). The more acres open to mineral leasing, the more potential for surface disturbance and 

degradation of the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-196

Under Alternative A, 984 more acres would be open to phosphate leasing than under Alternative 

D (No Action), and 1 more mile of Gilsonite would be available for leasing under Alternative A 

than under Alternative D (No Action). However, 6,381 fewer acres would be open to disposal of 

mineral materials. Under Alternative A, 13,086 more acres would be available for mineral entry 

than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.10.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.5.3.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

The impacts of oil and gas development on the natural characteristics and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the 

same as described for Alternative A, for the same 11 areas, though more acres would lose their 

wilderness characteristics—up to 171,412 acres. 

4.10.2.5.3.2. Other Mineral Resources 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under Alternative B, phosphate would be available for leasing on 11,515 acres in Bourdette 

Draw, Daniels Canyon, Moonshine Draw, and Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, and closed to leasing on 204 acres in Moonshine Draw and Mountain Home nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. A total of 10 miles of Gilsonite would be open to 

leasing on about 48 acres (acres determined based on an average width of 40 feet of Gilsonite) in 

the Desolation Canyon and White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Mineral materials (i.e., sand, gravel, and building stone) would be open to leasing on 63,926 

acres in 18 separate non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics: Beach Draw, Bitter Creek, 

Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, 

Desolation Canyon, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower Bitter Creek, Lower Flaming 

Gorge, Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, Stuntz Draw, White River, Wild Mountain, and Wolf 

Point. Mineral materials would be closed to leasing on 13,872 acres in Bourdette Draw, Bull 

Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Desolation Canyon, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, 

Lower Flaming Gorge, Mountain Home, and White River. 

Under Alternative B, 8,673 acres in portions of four non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be proposed for withdrawal from entry under the mining laws: Cold Spring 

Mountain, Cripple Cowboy, Lower Flaming Gorge, and White River. This would leave 268,923 

acres open to entry under the mining laws in all or portions of each of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

The impacts from projected development of Gilsonite, phosphate, mineral materials, and 

locatable minerals are difficult to quantify because specific locations for these operations have 

not been determined and development is dependent on market demand and technology. 

However, generally, it can be said that these types of operations typically result in small to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-197

medium-sized surface disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics of localized 

parts of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, if they were to occur in any of the 

areas listed above. Further, the presence and noise of people and equipment would degrade 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with opportunities for primitive forms of recreation. Road 

construction to new mine sites would reduce the roadless nature of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristic. 

Development potential for Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials is moderate to high, and 

exploration and development is likely. Development potential for locatables is moderate. Very 

little development is expected. 

This assessment is based on acres open to development, as compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). The more acres open to mineral leasing, the more potential for surface disturbance and 

degradation of the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), 984 more acres would be open to phosphate leasing 

than under Alternative D (No Action), and 1 more mile of Gilsonite would available for leasing 

than under Alternative D (No Action). And, 4,461 more acres would be open to disposal of 

mineral materials. Under Alternative B, 13,086 more acres would be available for mineral entry 

than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.10.2.5.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.10.2.5.4.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under Alternative C the impacts of oil and gas development on the natural characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as those described for Alternative B, for the same areas, except 

that fewer acres would be affected. All or parts (between 51% and 100%) of the same 11 nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics discussed in Alternative B, totaling up to 123,571 

acres, would lose their natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation due to oil and gas development and production. 

4.10.2.5.4.2. Other Mineral Resources 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Under Alternative C, phosphate would be available for leasing on 11,509 acres in the Bourdette 

Draw, Daniels Canyon, Moonshine Draw, and Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, and closed to leasing on 210 acres in Moonshine Draw and Mountain Home nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. A total of 9 miles of Gilsonite would be open to 

leasing on about 44 acres (acres determined based on an average width of 40 feet for Gilsonite) 

in the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Mineral materials (e.g., sand and gravel and building stone) would be open to leasing on 34,106 

acres in 15 separate non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics: Bitter Creek, Bourdette 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-198

Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, Desolation 

Canyon, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower Bitter Creek, Lower Flaming Gorge, 

Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, White River, and Wild Mountain. Mineral materials would 

be closed to leasing on 32,850 acres in Beach Draw, Bitter Creek, Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, 

Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Diamond Breaks, Diamond 

Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, Stuntz Draw, White 

River, and Wolf Point. 

Under Alternative C, 17,245 acres in portions of five non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be proposed for withdrawal from entry under the mining laws: Cold Spring 

Mountain, Cripple Cowboy, Desolation Canyon, Lower Flaming Gorge, and White River. This 

would leave 260,351 acres open to entry under the mining laws in all or portions of each of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The impacts from projected development of Gilsonite, phosphate, mineral materials, and 

locatable minerals are difficult to quantify because specific locations for these operations have 

not been determined and development is dependent on market demand and technology. 

However, generally it can be said that these types of operations typically result in small to 

medium-sized surface disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics of localized 

parts of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, if they were to occur in any of the 

areas listed above. Further, the presence and noise of people and equipment would degrade 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with opportunities for primitive forms of recreation. Road 

construction to new mine sites would reduce the roadless nature of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristic. 

Development potential for Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials is moderate to high, and 

exploration and development is likely. Development potential for locatables is moderate. Very 

little development is expected. 

This assessment is based on acres open to development, as compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). The more acres open to mineral leasing, the more potential for surface disturbance and 

degradation of the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under Alternative C, 978 more acres would be open to phosphate leasing than under Alternative 

D (No Action), and the same number of miles of Gilsonite (9) would available for leasing as 

Alternative D (No Action). However, 25,359 fewer acres would be open to disposal of mineral 

materials. Under Alternative C, 365 fewer acres would be available for mineral entry than under 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.10.2.5.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.5.5.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

The impacts of oil and gas development on the natural characteristics and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-199

same as described for Alternative C, for the same areas, except that 22,200 more acres would be 

affected: up to 145,711 acres. 

4.10.2.5.5.2. Other Mineral Resources 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource Values and Uses

Phosphate would be available for leasing on 10,531 acres in the Bourdette Draw, Daniels 

Canyon, Moonshine Draw, and Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

and closed to leasing on 1,188 acres in Moonshine Draw and Mountain Home non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. A total of 9 miles of Gilsonite would be open to leasing on about 

44 acres (acres determined based on an average width of 40 feet for Gilsonite) in the Desolation 

Canyon, Lower Bitter Creek, and White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Mineral materials (e.g., sand and gravel and building stone) are open to leasing on 59,465 acres 

in 18 separate non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics: Beach Draw, Bitter Creek, 

Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, 

Desolation Canyon, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower Bitter Creek, Lower Flaming 

Gorge, Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, Stuntz Draw, White River, Wild Mountain, and Wolf 

Point. Mineral materials are closed to leasing on 7,490 acres in Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, 

Cold Spring Mountain, Desolation Canyon, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower 

Flaming Gorge, Mountain Home, and White River. 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 10,522 acres in portions of three non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be proposed for withdrawal from entry under the mining laws—

Cold Spring Mountain, Desolation Canyon, and Lower Flaming Gorge. This would leave 

267,074 acres open to entry under the mining laws in all or portions of each of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The impacts from projected development of Gilsonite, phosphate, mineral materials, and 

locatable minerals are difficult to quantify because specific locations for these operations have 

not been determined and development is dependent on market demand and technology. 

However, generally it can be said that these types of operations typically result in small to 

medium-sized surface disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics of localized 

parts of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, if they were to occur in any of the 

areas discussed above. Further, the presence and noise of people and equipment would degrade 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with opportunities for primitive forms of recreation. Road 

construction to new mine sites would reduce the roadless nature of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristic. 

Development potential for Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials is moderate to high, and 

exploration and development is likely. Development potential for locatables is moderate. Very 

little development is expected. 

This assessment is based on acres open to development. The more acres open to mineral leasing, 

the more potential for surface disturbance and degradation of the wilderness characteristics of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Alternative D (No Action) would open 10,531 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-200

acres to phosphate leasing, 984 fewer acres than under the Proposed RMP and Alternative B and 

978 fewer acres than under Alternative C. Alternative D (No Action) would make 9 miles of 

Gilsonite available for leasing, the same as under Alternative C, but 1 mile less than under the 

Proposed RMP and Alternative B. Under Alternative D (No Action), 59,465 acres would be open 

for mineral material disposal, more than the Proposed RMP and Alternative C, but 4,461 fewer 

acres than Alternative B. Under Alternative D (No Action), 35,900 acres would be recommended 

for withdrawal from entry under the mining laws, 13,086 more than under the Proposed RMP 

and Alternatives A and B, but 365 fewer acres than Alternative C. 

4.10.2.5.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.5.6.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Due to the presence of existing leases, parts (between 14% and 85%) of 11 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics totaling up to 117,470 acres would lose their natural characteristics 

and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration, development, and 

production of oil and gas resources in the VPA: 

• Bitter Creek 

• Cripple Cowboy 

• Desolation Canyon 

• Hell's Hole Canyon 

• Hideout Canyon 

• Lower Bitter Creek 

• Mexico Point 

• Rat Hole 

• Sweet Water Canyon 

• White River 

• Wolf Point

These areas are located in oil and gas development areas with moderate to high potential for 

further development. Given the resource potential, level of past production, existing leases 

(exercise of valid existing rights), and ongoing exploration and development, it is anticipated 

these 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would lose part of their natural 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The impacts to naturalness 

and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be the same as those described for 

Proposed RMP above. 

4.10.2.5.6.2. Other Mineral Resources 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

While phosphate occurs on 11,719 acres in the Bourdette Draw, Daniels Canyon, Moonshine 

Draw, and Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, it would be closed 

to leasing under this alternative. All 10 miles of Gilsonite found in Desolation Canyon, Lower 

Bitter Creek, and White River would be closed to leasing under Alternative E. Further, 66,956 

acres of mineral materials found in Beach Draw, Bitter Creek, Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, 

Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, Desolation Canyon, Diamond Breaks, 

Diamond Mountain, Lower Bitter Creek, Lower Flaming Gorge, Moonshine Draw, Mountain 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-201

Home, Stuntz Draw, White River, Wild Mountain, and Wolf Point would be closed to mineral 

material disposal. Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres in all 25 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be proposed for withdrawal from entry under the mining laws. 

The impacts from projected development of Gilsonite, phosphate, mineral materials, and 

locatable minerals are difficult to quantify because specific locations for these operations have 

not been determined and development is dependent on market demand and technology. 

However, generally it can be said that these types of operations typically result in small to 

medium-sized surface disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics of localized 

parts of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, if they were to occur in any of the 

areas listed above. Further, the presence and noise of people and equipment would degrade 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with opportunities for primitive forms of recreation. Road 

construction to new mine sites would reduce the roadless nature of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristic. 

Development potential for Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials is moderate to high, and 

exploration and development is likely. Development potential for locatables is moderate. Very 

little development is expected. 

This assessment is based on acres open to development, as compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). The more acres open to mineral leasing, the more potential for surface disturbance and 

degradation of the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Because the emphasis of Alternative E is to protect the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics, these lands would not be available for leasing for any of 

the solid mineral leasables. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), 10,531 fewer acres open to 

phosphate leasing, 9 fewer miles would be open to Gilsonite leasing, and 59,465 fewer acres 

would be open to mineral material disposal. All 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands would be 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry—241,696 more acres unavailable for hardrock 

mining than under Alternative D (No Action). As a result, there would be no impacts on the 

wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, subject to valid 

existing rights. 

4.10.2.5.6.3. Summary 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, portions (between 14% and 100%) of 11 of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would lose their wilderness characteristics due to 

the development of oil and gas resources (exercise of valid existing rights on existing leases). 

Construction of roads and well pads and ancillary facilities would degrade the natural landscape. 

The presence of people and equipment and the operation of the exploration and production 

facilities would diminish or eliminate opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Oil and 

gas development would degrade the wilderness characteristics of between 117,470 acres and 

171,412 acres, depending on the Proposed RMP or alternative, of the total 277,596 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the VPA. 

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and D (No Action), the anticipated development of some phosphate, 

Gilsonite, and mineral materials leases would have the same types of impacts on the wilderness 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-202

characteristics on up to 18 non-WSA lands where these resource values are located. Under the 

Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and D (No Action), most of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be open to entry under the mining laws. A few projects are 

anticipated that would have generally small to moderate, localized impacts on the wilderness 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative E, 

however, all 277,596 acres of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

recommended for mineral withdrawal, protecting the wilderness characteristics of these lands. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Beach Draw (898 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 898 0 0 0 

Alternative A X 40 858 0 0 0 Alternative B X 717 181 0 0 0 Alternative C X 3 16 879 0 0 0 Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 898 0 0 0 

Alternative E X 898 0 0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Bitter Creek (33,488 acres) Proposed RMP X 33,434 54 23,569 

(70%) 

33,399 33,399 

Alternative A X 2,419 30,980 89 23,569 

(70%) 

33,399 33,399 

Alternative B X 13,609 19,790 89 23,569 

(70%) 

33,399 33,399 

Alternative C X 32 1,073 32,383 23,569 

(70%) 

23,569 23,569 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X 25,509 7,239 740 23,569 

(70%) 

32,748 32,748 

Alternative E X 33,488 23,569 

(70%) 

23,569 23,569 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Bourdette Draw (13,335 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 13,335 5,744 

(43%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 3,224 10,036 75 5,744 

(43%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 6,828 6,432 75 5,744 

(43%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 13,258 77 5,744 

(43%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 13,094 22 239 5,744 

(43%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 13,335 5,744 

(43%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Bull Canyon (2,483 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 2,483 2,221 

(89%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 12 2,468 3 2,221 

(89%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 13 2,466 4 2,221 

(89%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 2,479 4 2,221 

(89%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 2,479 4 2,221 

(89%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 2,483 2,221 

(89%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Cold Spring Mountain (8,764 acres) 

Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X X 8,764 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X X 115 8,400 171 78 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X X 2,994 5,521 171 78 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X X 8,515 171 78 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X X 5,189 3,500 75 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X X 8,764 0 

(0%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Cripple Cowboy (13,603 acres) 

Proposed RMP X X 13,598 5 11,519 

(85%) 

13,599 13,599 

Alternative A X X 13,599 4 11,519 

(85%) 

13,599 13,599 

Alternative B X X 6,943 6,657 3 11,519 

(85%) 

13,600 13,600 

Alternative C X X 9 57 13,537 11,519 

(85%) 

11,519 11,519 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X X 3,640 9,525 435 3 11,519 

(85%) 

13,165 13,165 

Alternative E X X 13,603 11,519 

(85%) 

11,519 11,519 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Daniels Canyon (3,045 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 3,045 322 

(11%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 3,045 322 

(11%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 1,923 1,122 322 

(11%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 3,004 41 322 

(11%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 2,980 16 49 322 

(11%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 3,045 322 

(11%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Dead Horse Pass (6,994 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 6,994 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 3,594 3,400 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 5,727 1,267 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 3,594 3,400 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 3,261 2,086 1,647 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 6,994 0 

(0%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Desolation Canyon (63,118 acres) Proposed RMP X X 36,954 8,336 17,828 41,949 

(66%) 

45,337 45,337 

Alternative A X X 38,007 7,330 17,781 41,949 

(66%) 

45,337 45,337 

Alternative B X X 50,474 12,507 137 41,949 

(66%) 

62,981 62,981 

Alternative C X X 17,076 3,953 42,089 41,949 

(66%) 

41,949 41,949 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X X 19,652 25,669 17,763 41,949 

(66%) 

45,321 45,321 

Alternative E X X 63,118 41,949 

(66%) 

41,949 41,949 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Diamond Breaks (4,539 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 4,539 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 3,241 1,241 57 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 4,225 257 57 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 4,482 57 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 3,036 1,425 21 57 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 4,539 0 

(0%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Diamond Mountain (27,238 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 27,238 5,475 

(20%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 3,291 23,477 470 5,475 

(20%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 4,760 22,008 470 5,475 

(20%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 3,393 20,431 3,414 5,475 

(20%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 2,260 19,274 5,704 5,475 

(20%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 27,238 5,475 

(20%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Hell's Hole Canyon (2,709 acres) Proposed RMP X X 2,709 2,260 

(83%) 

2,709 2,709 

Alternative A X X 2,709 2,260 

(83%) 

2,709 2,709 

Alternative B X X 2,419 290 2,260 

(83%) 

2,709 2,709 

Alternative C X X 570 16 2,123 2,260 

(83%) 

2,260 2,260 

Alternative D X X 7 2,438 264 2,260 

(83%) 

2,445 2,445 

Alternative E X X 2,709 2,260 

(83%) 

2,260 2,260 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Hideout Canyon (1,113 acres) Proposed RMP X X 1,113 154 

(14%) 

1,113 1,113 

Alternative A X X 1,113 154 

(14%) 

1,113 1,113 

Alternative B X X 8 1,105 154 

(14%) 

1,113 1,113 

Alternative C X X 1,113 154 

(14%) 

1,113 1,113 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X X 42 1,071 154 

(14%) 

1,113 1,113 

Alternative E X X 1,113 154 

(14%) 

154 154 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Lower Bitter Creek (11,417 acres) Proposed RMP X 11,307 110 8,039 

(70%) 

11,417 11,417 

Alternative A X 4,761 6,656 8,039 

(70%) 

11,417 11,417 

Alternative B X 4,761 6,656 8,039 

(70%) 

11,417 11,417 

Alternative C X 4,761 6,656 8,039 

(70%) 

11,417 11,417 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X 10,398 1,019 8,039 

(70%) 

10,398 10,398 

Alternative E X 11,417 8,039 

(70%) 

8,039 8,039 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Lower Flaming Gorge (17,810 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 17,810 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 89 6,432 2 11,287 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 12,840 3,184 1,786 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 18 6,495 11,297 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 3,455 4,999 9,356 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 17,810 0 

(0%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Mexico Point (1,277 acres) Proposed RMP X X 1,277 635 

(50%) 

1,277 1,277 

Alternative A X X 1,277 635 

(50%) 

1,277 1,277 

Alternative B X X 10 1,267 635 

(50%) 

1,277 1,277 

Alternative C X X 1,277 635 

(50%) 

1,277 1,277 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X X 1 1,276 635 

(50%) 

1,277 1,277 

Alternative E X X 1,277 635 

(50%) 

635 635 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Moonshine Draw (4,513 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 4,513 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 12 4,377 120 4 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 2,197 2,192 120 4 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 3,043 1,466 4 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 4,509 4 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 4,513 0 

(0%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Mountain Home (7,083 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

X X 7,083 4,524 

(64%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X X 208 6,674 201 4,524 

(64%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X X 1,822 5,060 201 4,524 

(64%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X X 6,875 208 4,524 

(64%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X X 254 3,185 3,644 4,524 

(64%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X X 7,083 4,524 

(64%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Rat Hole (11,367 acres) Proposed RMP X X 11,367 8,288 

(73%) 

11,367 11,367 

Alternative A X X 11,367 8,288 

(73%) 

11,367 11,367 

Alternative B X X 11,367 8,288 

(73%) 

11,367 11,367 

Alternative C X X 164 11,203 8,288 

(73%) 

8,288 8,288 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X X 3,864 7,023 480 8,288 

(73%) 

10,887 10,887 

Alternative E X X 11,367 8,288 

(73%) 

8,288 8,288 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Stuntz Draw (1,992 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 1,992 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 1,992 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 636 1,356 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 983 1,009 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 1,992 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 1,992 0 

(0%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Sweet Water Canyon (6,994 acres) Proposed RMP X X 6,994 5,143 

(74%) 

6,994 6,994 

Alternative A X X 6,994 5,143 

(74%) 

6,994 6,994 

Alternative B X X 723 6,271 5,143 

(74%) 

6,994 6,994 

Alternative C X X 34 6,960 5,143 

(74%) 

5,143 5,143 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X X 6,387 583 5,143 

(74%) 

6,387 6,387 

Alternative E X X 6,994 5,143 

(74%) 

5,143 5,143 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Vivas Cake Hill (277 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 277 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 9 268 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 277 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 27 250 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 277 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 277 0 

(0%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

White River (21,210 acres) Proposed RMP (6,680 acres managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

X 7,042 4,394 9,774 9,626 

(45%) 

11,436 11,436 

Alternative A X 8,812 5,971 6,367 9,626 

(45%) 

14,783 14,783 

Alternative B X 8,812 5,971 6,367 9,626 

(45%) 

14,783 14,783 

Alternative C X 7,644 3,140 3,538 6,888 9,626 

(45%) 

10,784 10,784 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X 10,911 10,299 9,626 

(45%) 

10,911 10,911 

Alternative E X 21,210 9,626 

(45%) 

9,626 9,626 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Wild Mountain (527 acres) Proposed RMP (Managed for wilderness characteristics.) 

 X 527 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative A X 427 100 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative B X 439 88 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative C X 428 52 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative D (No Action) 

 X 348 179 0 

(0%) 

0 0 

Alternative E X 527 0 

(0%) 

0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wil

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.10.1 Proposed RMP and Alternative Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Area Oil & Gas as 

Development 

Potential 

Proposed Lease Stipulations 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Chara

(Acres

 H M U Standard 

Stipulations

Timing 

and 

Controlled

Surface 

Use 

NSO Closed to

Leasing

Currently 

under 

Lease 

(Acres) Direct loss of 

natural 

characteristics

during life of 

the Plan 

(acres) 

Reducti

(directly 

indirectly

quality of 

opportun

for solitud

primitive 

unconfin

recreation 

to sights 

sounds 

developm

(acres

Wolf Point (11,802 acres) Proposed RMP X X 4,782 6,940 71 9 6,288 

(53%) 

11,733 11,722 

Alternative A X X 11,733 65 4 6,288 

(53%) 

11,733 11,733 

Alternative B X X 11,733 65 4 6,288 

(53%) 

11,733 11,733 

Alternative C X X 3 29 11,770 6,288 

(53%) 

6,288 6,288 

Alternative D (No Action) 

X X 9,483 1,636 679 4 6,288 

(53%) 

11,119 11,119 

Alternative E X X 11,802 6,288 

(53%) 

6,288 6,288 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-228

4.10.2.6. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

There are 25 areas outside of existing WSAs totaling 277,596 acres that were inventoried and 

found to have wilderness characteristics. See Table 3.10.1 for a list of areas by name and acreage 

with wilderness characteristics (Figure 26). 

4.10.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Under Proposed RMP, 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling 106,178 acres

(see Table 2.1.10, Proposed RMP and Alternatives), would be managed with the following 

prescription to ensure the presence of their wilderness characteristics: 

• Visual resource management (VRM) Class II objectives 

• OHV use limited to designated routes 

• Closed to oil and gas leasing, except in White River non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. There leases would be offered with a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation 

• No geophysical exploration permitted except with hand-carried geophone lines 

• Closed to solid mineral leasing 

• Closed to disposal of mineral materials 

• Open to mineral entry under the mining laws 

• Public lands retained in federal ownership 

• Avoidance for location of utility ROWs 

• Closed to woodland products (firewood, posts/poles, Christmas trees) harvest 

• No cross country travel (up to 300 feet) to access camp sites 

• When compatible with the goals and objectives for management of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics: 

 Vegetation and fuel treatments permitted using prescribed fire and mechanical and 

chemical methods 

 Construction of wildlife waters, livestock facilities, and minimal recreation facilities 

permitted 

 Excavation of cultural resources sites permitted 

 Excavation of fossils permitted 

• Wildfire suppression permitted. Fire lines and other disturbances would be reclaimed 

following suppression activities. 

Many elements of the prescription to protect the wilderness characteristics of the 15 non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would prevent surface disturbances that would degrade the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-229

natural characteristics of these areas. Closure of the 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics to oil and gas leasing (except in White River, which would be leased with an NSO 

stipulation), closure to solid mineral leasing, closure to mineral material sales, and closure to 

harvest of woodland products would all 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. 

Other elements of the prescription to protect the wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would permit, when compatible with the management objectives 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, limited or minimal degrees of surface 

disturbance and construction of human-made facilities. Management to visual resource 

management Class II objectives, ROW avoidance objectives, and allowance for construction of 

minimal livestock, wildlife, and recreation facilities would result in some small amount of 

surface disturbance and placement of minimal structures in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, but not to the degree that these changes would be readily apparent on the land. 

Other permitted actions in the 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics being managed 

to protect those characteristics would result in temporary surface disturbance and degradation of 

the natural characteristics for the benefit of resource management, science, and education. 

Excavation of cultural resource sites and fossil sites would yield important information about the 

cultural and natural resources of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Upon 

completion of excavations, sites would be rehabilitated, and the natural characteristics of the 

lands restored. The presence and noise of these excavation operations would diminish 

opportunities for solitude, and depending on methods, conflict with primitive forms of 

recreation. These impacts, however, would end upon completion of excavation and restoration of 

the sites. 

While limiting motorized (OHV) travel to designated routes in the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would prevent expansion of OHV use and surface disturbance that 

degrade the natural characteristics of these lands, 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. 

Use of prescribe fire to maintain and restore vegetation communities, reduce fuel loading, 

rehabilitate watershed condition, and maintain or restore forage for wildlife and livestock would 

result, primarily, in naturally appearing disturbances to the land (fire). In the long term, 

restoration of desired vegetation communities would benefit the natural characteristics of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The prescribed burning operation, however, 

would also temporarily reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation 

opportunities, caused by the presence and noise of personnel, vehicles, and equipment needed to 

manage the fire. Fire lines and other surface disturbances would be rehabilitated following the 

burning operation, restoring the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-230

Retaining public lands in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in public ownership 

would ensure BLM would have the continued ability to manage these lands to protect their 

wilderness characteristics. 

Under the Proposed RMP, the 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to 

protect those characteristics, however, would remain open to entry (mining claim staking, 

exploration, and production) under the 1872 Mining Law. This action would result in an 

occasional small to moderate sized surface mining operation that would degrade the natural 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource 

Values and Uses 

Under the Proposed RMP, no specific actions are prescribed to directly protect or enhance the 

wilderness characteristics of all or portions of 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Thus, there would be no effect on the wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND D (NO ACTION) 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other Resource 

Values and Uses 

Under these alternatives, there would be no specific actions prescribed to directly protect or 

enhance the wilderness characteristics of all 25 of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that have those values (277,596 acres). Thus, there would be no effect on the 

wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.6.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Under Alternative E, all 25 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, totaling 277,596 

acres (see Table 2.1.10 Proposed RMP and Alternatives), would be managed by the following 

prescription to protect their wilderness characteristics: 

• Visual resource management (VRM) Class I objectives 

• Closed to OHV use 

• Closed to oil and gas leasing 

• Closed to solid mineral leasing 

• Closed to disposal of mineral materials 

• Proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry 

• Public lands retained in federal ownership 

• Avoidance from location of utility ROWs 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-231

• Closed to permitted commercial and personal-use wood cutting and seed collecting 

• Closed to new road construction 

• Maintenance of existing facilities permitted 

• When compatible with the goals and objectives for management of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics: 

 Vegetation and fuel treatments permitted using prescribed fire 

 Construction of wildlife waters, livestock facilities, and minimal recreation facilities 

permitted 

 Excavation of cultural resources sites permitted 

 Excavation of paleontological resources permitted 

• No actions would be allowed that would degrade the wilderness characteristics of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under Alternative E, the management prescription prescribed to protect the wilderness 

characteristics of the 25 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have the same 

effect on those characteristics as described under the Proposed RMP, with the following 

exceptions. 

The visual resource management objective would be Class I. The objective of Class I is to 

preserve the characteristic landscape. This objective would strictly limit, or even prohibit, actions 

that cause surface disturbances and result in the degradation of the natural characteristics of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Closure of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to motorized vehicle (OHV) use 

would protect not only the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, but also opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation. Closure to 

OHV use would prevent surface disturbance caused by motor vehicles. Closure to OHV use 

would also prevent the noise and presence of people and vehicles that degrade opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with other primitive forms of recreation. 

Under Alternative E, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be recommended 

for withdrawal from mineral entry under the mining laws. Under withdrawal, no mining would 

be permitted and there would be no resultant surface that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics or opportunities for solitude 

or primitive forms of recreation. 

Under this alternative, no road construction would be permitted. This would maintain roadless 

and natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, prevent surface 

disturbance that degrades the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, prevent degradation of opportunities for solitude, and prevent conflicts with 

primitive forms of recreation. 

This management prescription would protect the wilderness characteristics of all of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics with those values. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-232

4.10.2.7. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

4.10.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.10.2.7.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The Proposed RMP would manage 2,831 acres along the White River as an SRMA for riverrelated recreation opportunities, including float boating, camping, and hiking. The SRMA 

includes portions of the White River immediately downstream the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Coupled with the lands managed for their wilderness characteristics, 

the SRMA would generally retain the natural characteristics of the landscape, allowing minor 

development consistent with VRM Class II objectives. Retaining the natural characteristics of 

the setting would support opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation. 

Under the Proposed RMP, Blue Mountain (42,729 acres) would be managed as a SRMA with 

recreation focus on hang-gliding, rock climbing, historic interpretation, and OHV use of 

designated routes. The SRMA includes 13,335 acres of the Bourdette Draw non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The management prescription for that portion of the SRMA that 

includes the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would limit OHV use to designated 

routes, manage landscapes as VRM Class II, and close the area to oil and gas leasing. 

Management to VRM Class II objectives (to retain the landscape character) would limit surface 

disturbance that would impact the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. While parts of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are leased, oil 

and gas occurrence potential is undetermined, and development is not anticipated. Limiting OHV 

use to designated routes (about 4 miles) would prevent further surface disturbance of the 

landscape, and thus its natural characteristics, but the noise and presence of motorized vehicles 

would degrade opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities found in 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The Proposed RMP would manage 18,490 acres in Browns Park as an SRMA with recreation 

focus on outstanding scenic vistas and enhancement of resources, including riparian, fish, special 

status species, and water quality, and the associated recreation uses, including water-based 

recreation, hunting, hiking, biking, horseback riding, OHV driving, camping, and cultural 

interpretation; as well as the construction of facilities needed to support these activities. The 

SRMA includes all or portions of the Mountain Home (507 acres), Cold Springs Mountain 

(3,225 acres), and Lower Flaming Gorge (4,318 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The management prescription for that portion of the SRMA that includes the 

three non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would close the area to leasing. The 

prescription for OHV travel in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the 

SRMA would limit travel to designated routes. And, the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the SRMA would be managed by VRM Class II objectives. In the northern 

portion of the SRMA (that includes part of Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics), mineral occurrence potential is moderate to high, but interest in exploration and 

production has not been demonstrated. No surface disturbance connected with exploration and 

production is anticipated that would alter the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-233

wilderness characteristics. Limiting motorized travel to about 3 miles of designated routes in the 

Mountain Home and Cold Spring Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would prevent expansion of surface disturbance that would degrade the natural landscape. 

However, the noise and presence of vehicles would temporarily diminish opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation. 

4.10.2.7.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

The Proposed RMP would manage 44,168 acres in Nine Mile Canyon as a SRMA to protect 

high-value cultural resources and scenic vistas. The SRMA includes a portion (23,058 acres) of 

the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. OHV travel in the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics portion of the SRMA would be limited to designated 

routes and the area would be managed with VRM Class II objectives (retention of the 

characteristic landscape) in the canyon bottom and Class III objectives (partial retention) on the 

table lands above the canyon. Mineral resources would be leased with a no surface occupancy 

stipulation for the canyon bottom and standard stipulation on the table lands. Portions of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics are already leased, the potential for mineral 

occurrence is moderate to high, and development is anticipated. No surface occupancy on future 

leases in the canyon bottom would prevent further landscape modifications that would degrade 

the natural characteristics of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. But, exploration and development on existing leases and new leases with 

standard stipulations would result in surface disturbance that would alter the natural 

characteristics of the table lands above the canyon. Limiting motorized travel to designated 

routes (19 miles) would prevent surface disturbance from expansion of OHV use that would 

adversely impact the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The noise and presence of vehicles on these routes, however, would degrade 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive, non-motorized recreation uses of the area. 

While management of the area for VRM Class II objectives would minimize surface disturbance 

and impacts to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

it would not prevent that disturbance. 

4.10.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.10.2.7.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Alternative A would manage 24,183 acres along the White River as an SRMA for river-related 

recreation opportunities, including float boating, camping, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, 

hiking, and historic interpretation. The SRMA includes portions of the White River non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. In the canyon, the SRMA prescription would generally 

retain the natural characteristics of the landscape, allowing minor development consistent with 

VRM Class II objectives, except where the ROW corridor crosses the river canyon. Generally, 

retaining a natural setting would support opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation. Location of a utility line in the proposed corridor would change that portion of the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-234

landscape to a more developed character, and would not be conducive to opportunities for 

solitude or primitive recreation activities. 

Under this alternative, Blue Mountain (42,758 acres) would be managed as a SRMA with 

recreation focus on hang-gliding, wildlife viewing, hunting, sight seeing, photography, 

horseback riding, camping, hiking, rock climbing, historic interpretation, and OHV use of 

designated routes. The SRMA includes Bourdette Draw non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The management prescription for that portion of the SRMA that includes the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would limit OHV use to designated routes, manage 

landscapes as VRM Classes I, II, and IV, and allow for oil and gas leasing with timing and 

controlled surface use stipulations. Management to VRM Class I (preservation of the 

characteristic landscape) and II (retain the landscape) would limit surface disturbance that would 

degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Areas 

along the Miners Draw Road would be managed VRM Class IV and would permit development 

that would alter the landscape and natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Oil and gas leasing with timing and controlled surface use would allow 

exploration and development that would alter the landscape. However, while parts of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics are leased, oil and gas occurrence potential is 

undetermined, so development is not anticipated. Limiting OHV use to designated routes (about 

4 miles) would prevent further surface disturbance of the landscape, and thus its natural 

characteristics, but the noise and presence of motorized vehicles would degrade opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities found in the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative A would manage 273,486 acres in the Book Cliffs as a SRMA with emphasis on a 

frontier mystique of adventure and discovery; opportunities for unconfined recreation with 

limited facilities. Activities would include wildlife viewing, hunting, hiking, backpacking, OHV 

driving, camping, viewing cultural sites, picnicking, mountain biking, photography, and 

horseback riding. This SRMA includes all or portions of the Bitter Creek, Rat Hole Ridge, 

Cripple Cowboy, Hells Hole Canyon, Sweet Water Canyon, and Wolf Point non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. The management prescription for that portion of the SRMA that 

includes the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would limit OHV use to 

approximately 34 miles of designated routes, manage landscapes as VRM Classes II and III, and 

allow for oil and gas leasing with timing and controlled surface use stipulations (also a small area 

of standard stipulations in Bitter Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics). 

Management to VRM Class II would limit surface disturbance that would generally protect the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Management to 

VRM Class III would allow for surface disturbance and development that would alter the 

landscape and natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Wolf 

Point, Sweetwater Canyon, Cripple Cowboy, Hells Hole Canyon, and Rat Hole Ridge would be 

managed by VRM Class II objectives. Bitter Creek would be managed under both Class II and 

III objectives. Oil and gas leasing with timing and controlled surface use stipulations would 

allow exploration and development that would alter the landscape. Because the SRMA is located 

in an area with moderate and high potential for oil and gas occurrence, development is likely. 

Limiting OHV use to designated routes would prevent further surface disturbance of the 

landscape and thus degradation of the natural characteristics, but the noise and presence of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-235

motorized vehicles would degrade opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive 

recreation activities found in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative A would manage 52,720 acres in Browns Park as an SRMA with recreation focus on 

outstanding scenic vistas and enhancement of resources and associated activities including 

riparian, fish, special status species, water quality, water-based recreation, hunting, hiking, 

biking, horseback riding, OHV driving, camping, and cultural interpretation, as well as the 

construction of facilities needed to support these activities. The SRMA includes all or portions of 

the Mountain Home, Cold Springs Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, and Dead Horse Pass nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The management prescription for that portion of the 

SRMA that includes Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would close the area to leasing, while the other non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would allow leasing with timing and controlled surface use stipulations in the SRMA. The 

prescription for OHV travel in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the 

SRMA would limit travel to designated routes, except Lower Flaming Gorge, which would be 

closed to OHV use. And, the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the SRMA 

would be managed by VRM Class II objectives. The area south of the Green River between 

Little Hole and Fire Flat, extending around the Taylor Flat subdivision to Rye Grass Draw, 

would be managed for primitive recreation opportunities, closed to OHV use, and closed to 

surface-disturbing activities. This prescription would protect the wilderness characteristics 

(natural characteristics, and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation) in the Lower 

Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. In the northern portion of the 

SRMA (that includes parts of Mountain Home and Cold Spring Mountain non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics), mineral occurrence potential is moderate. Interest in exploration and 

development, however, has not been demonstrated and surface disturbance that would alter the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics is not anticipated. 

Limiting motorized travel to about 3 miles of designated routes in the Mountain Home and Cold 

Spring Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would prevent expansion of 

surface disturbance that would degrade the natural landscape. However, the noise and presence 

of vehicles would temporarily impact opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms 

of recreation. There are no routes designated for OHV travel in the Dead Horse Pass non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative A would manage 81,168 acres in Nine Mile Canyon as a SRMA to protect highvalue cultural resources and scenic vistas. The SRMA includes a portion (20,989 acres) of the 

Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. OHV travel in the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics portion of the SRMA would be limited to designated routes 

and the area would be managed with VRM Class II objectives in the canyon bottom and Class III 

objectives on the table lands above the canyon. Mineral resources would be leased with a no 

surface occupancy stipulation for the canyon bottom and standard stipulation on the table lands. 

Portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are already leased, and potential 

for mineral occurrence is moderate to high. So, development is anticipated. No surface 

occupancy on future leases in the canyon bottom would prevent further landscape modifications 

that would degrade the natural characteristics of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. But, exploration and development on existing leases and new leases 

with standard stipulations would result in surface disturbance that would alter the natural 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-236

characteristics of the table lands above the canyon. Limiting motorized travel to designated 

routes (19 miles) would prevent surface disturbance from expansion of OHV use that would 

adversely impact the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The noise and presence of vehicles on these routes, however, would degrade 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive, non-motorized recreation uses of the area. 

While management of the area for VRM Class II objectives would minimize surface disturbance 

and impacts to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

it would not prevent that disturbance. 

4.10.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.7.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative B, the White River would be managed for recreation use with minimal 

management oversight. OHV use would be closed along the river and limited to routes 

elsewhere. As a result, the river itself would provide opportunities for non-motorized recreation 

like floating, fishing, camping, hunting, and wildlife viewing. Motor vehicles, however, would 

have point access to the river on existing routes, providing for OHV driving and vehiclesupported camping, fishing, and picnicking, but this would also create some conflict with nonmotorized river users. Motorized recreation uses and unlimited visitor group sizes would detract 

from opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive and unconfined recreation uses. 

Under this alternative, Blue Mountain would not be managed as a SRMA, but the area would be 

managed as part of the field office Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). Dispersed 

motorized and non-motorized recreation uses would continue with minimal facility construction. 

Non-motorized, undeveloped forms of recreation would enhance opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation and would not create surface disturbances that would 

degrade the natural characteristics of the Bourdette Draw non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. However, where motorized recreation uses occurred in the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, and if even minimal facilities were constructed to support recreation 

activities, the resulting surface disturbance of construction of facilities would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, the noise and 

presence of vehicles and facilities would impact opportunities for solitude and conflict with 

primitive and unconfined forms of recreation. 

Under this alternative, like Blue Mountain, the Book Cliffs region would not be managed as a 

SRMA, but the area would be managed as part of the field office ERMA. Dispersed motorized 

and non-motorized recreation uses would continue with minimal facility construction. Nonmotorized, undeveloped forms of recreation would enhance opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation and would not create surface disturbances that would 

degrade the natural characteristics of the Bitter Creek, Rat Hole Ridge, Hells Hole Canyon, 

Sweetwater, Cripple Cowboy, and Wolf Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

However, where motorized recreation uses occurred in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, and if even minimal facilities were constructed to support recreation activities, 

the resulting surface disturbance of construction of facilities would degrade the natural 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-237

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, the noise and 

presence of vehicles and facilities would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with 

primitive and unconfined forms of recreation. 

Under Alternative B, Browns Park would be managed as an 17,000-acre SRMA with recreation 

focus on outstanding scenery, riparian, fisheries, special status species, and water quality, and the 

associated recreation uses, including water-based recreation, hunting, hiking, biking, horseback 

riding, OHV driving, camping, and cultural interpretation; and construction of facilities would be 

needed to support these activities. The SRMA includes portions of the Mountain Home (507 

acres), Cold Springs Mountain (3,226 acres), and Lower Flaming Gorge (4,312 acres) non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. The impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as those described for Alternative A, for those non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics located in the slightly smaller SRMA. 

Under this alternative, Nine Mile Canyon would be managed as a 44,181-acre SRMA to protect 

areas of high cultural resource site density and scenic vistas. The SRMA would include part of 

the Desolation Canyon non-WSA with wilderness characteristics (23,053 acres), with impacts to 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described under the Proposed RMP. 

4.10.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.10.2.7.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values 

Alternative C would manage 47,130 acres along the White River as an SRMA, with impacts that 

same as described for Alternative A, but include all of the White River non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Under this alternative, Blue Mountain would be managed as a 42,758-acre SRMA, with impacts 

that are the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Alternative C would manage 273,486 acres within the Book Cliffs as a SRMA. The impacts 

would be the same as those described for Alternative A, except the Wolf Creek and Bitter Creek 

drainages and the head of Sweetwater Canyon would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Closure to 

leasing would prevent surface disturbance from exploration and development, protecting the 

natural characteristics of the Wolf Point, Cripple Cowboy, Bitter Creek, Rat Hole Ridge, and 

Sweetwater non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, portions of these nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics are already leased, and given the moderate to high 

potential for mineral occurrence, impacts to their roadless character, natural characteristics, and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be the same as those described under 

Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C, Browns Park would be managed as a 52,720-acre SRMA, with impacts to 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics being the same as those described for Alternative 

A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-238

Under this alternative, Nine Mile Canyon would be managed as an 81,168-acre SRMA, with 

impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics being the same as those described for 

Alternative A. 

4.10.2.7.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.7.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Designation of Browns Park and Nine Mile Canyon SRMAs under Alternative D (No Action) 

would be very similar to that proposed under Proposed RMP, with impacts being the same as 

those described for Proposed RMP. No SRMAs would be designated for the Book Cliffs, White 

River, or Blue Mountain under this alternative. Recreation use in the non-WSA lands in these 

areas would be managed as part of the VFO Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMA) 

with impacts that same as described under Alternative B above. 

4.10.2.7.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.7.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Designation of SRMAs under Alternative E would be the same as that proposed under 

Alternative A, with impacts being the same as those described for Alternative A. Designation of 

the White River SRMA, however, would be the same as proposed under Alternative C, with 

impacts that same as described for Alternative C. Under this alternative, however, non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics located in any of the SRMAs would be managed to protect 

their wilderness characteristics and to provide for primitive and non-motorized/non-mechanized 

forms of recreation, and the settings needed to support those types of activities (undeveloped and 

unmodified landscapes) and experiences. As a result, the roadless and natural characteristics of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be preserved, as would the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation it provides. 

4.10.2.7.7. SUMMARY

In summary, management of SRMAs under Alternative E would provide the greatest level of 

protection to the wilderness characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, followed by the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and C. Management of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics portions of the SRMAs for natural landscapes, 

non-motorized uses, and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would protect the 

wilderness characteristics of these areas under the Proposed RMP and Alternative E. Alternatives 

B and D (No Action) would provide less protection of wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-239

4.10.2.8. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL, ROADS, AND TRAILS DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.10.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.10.2.8.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The Proposed RMP would improve and develop up to 400 miles of trails for non-motorized uses. 

Mechanized use (mountain bikes) would also be permitted. Developing additional trails for 

hiking and horseback riding would provide added opportunities for primitive forms of recreation, 

where the trails are located in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Trails are planned 

in many non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed for protection of those 

characteristics, including Daniels Canyon, Lower Flaming Gorge, Mountain Home, and others. 

Development of trails for mountain bikes would be in conflict with the primitive forms of 

recreation typically found, and managed for, in lands with wilderness characteristics. If there 

were substantial levels of use on the trails (by 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. Construction of new trails would create surface disturbance that would detract from the 

natural characteristics of the landscape and non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

depending on the type of landform and vegetation cover. The change to the natural landscape, 

however, would be expected to be minimal, and new trails would provide added opportunities for 

primitive recreation activities. 

The Proposed RMP would not allow motorized use off roads or trails to retrieve big game taken 

while hunting. Where this activity might occur in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, this management action would reduce surface disturbance cause by OHV use that 

directly reduces the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Further, this action would reduce the presence and noise of vehicles and the impacts to 

opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation uses. 

Under Proposed RMP, 6,202 acres would be designated as "open" to cross-country OHV travel. 

None of these open areas are located in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, so there 

would be no impact of motor vehicles or use on wilderness characteristics. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 1,643,475 acres would be designated "limited" to OHV travel. The 

limitation would require vehicles to travel on designated routes (4,860 miles). Except for 

portions of the Lower Flaming Gorge and White River non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, OHV use in most of the other non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

(258,074 acres) would be limited to designated routes. This limitation would confine disturbance 

to soils and vegetation caused by motor vehicle use to the existing 113 miles of routes and result 

in no additional degradation of 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 of visitors to find solitude in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

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. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-240

Under the Proposed RMP, 75,845 acres would be closed to OHV use, including portions of the 

Lower Flaming Gorge (11,245 acres) and White River (6,833 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. This closure would prevent surface disturbance caused by motorized 

travel and the resultant impacts to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Further, closure to OHV use would protect opportunities for solitude 

and prevent motorized uses that conflict with primitive forms of recreation in these areas. The 

wilderness characteristics of these two non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

unaffected by OHV travel. 

4.10.2.8.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Development of 400 miles of additional trails for hiking and horseback riding would provide 

added opportunities for primitive forms of recreation, where the trails are located in non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Trails are planned in many non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, including Bitter Creek, Cripple Cowboy, and others. Development of 

trails for mountain bikes would be in conflict with the primitive forms of recreation typically 

found, and managed for, in lands with wilderness characteristics. Substantial levels of use on the 

trails (by foot, horse, and/or bike) would reduce the visitor's ability to find and experience 

solitude. Construction of new trails would create surface disturbance that would detract from the 

natural characteristics of the landscape and non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

depending on the type of landform and vegetation cover. The change to the natural landscape, 

however, would be expected to be minimal. 

Under the Proposed RMP, new permitted roads would be rehabilitated after serving their 

intended purposes. In the short-term, new roads constructed in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would reduce the roadless character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Depending on the location of the road, it may even reduce the size of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, as lands with wilderness characteristics are roadless. 

Motor vehicle use of these newly constructed roads would also reduce a visitor's ability to find 

solitude and conflict with primitive, non-motorized forms of recreation. Depending on the 

purpose of the road, the impacts would be long-term, as well. For example, a newly constructed 

road to a producing oil or gas well would remain in place for an average of 25 years (Mineral 

Report, June 2004). However, upon successful reclamation, the natural characteristics of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would return. The nature of the landform and 

vegetation would affect the success of the reclamation efforts (partial or total). Cuts and fills for 

road construction on steep slopes and removal of old growth forest vegetation would be more 

difficult to restore and would take longer to return to a natural condition than a road constructed 

through a grassland or sage brush flat. 

The Proposed RMP would also allow for the improvement or development of 800 miles of 

motorized trails. Trail improvement or construction would create surface disturbance that would 

have direct, adverse impacts on the landscape and natural quality of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, if any of the trails were developed in the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics (that decision would be made at the activity-level stage of planning 

following completion of the RMP). Development of motorized trails would conflict with the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-241

primitive forms of recreation typically found, and managed for, in lands with wilderness 

characteristics. And, the presence and noise of dirt bikes or ATVs would reduce opportunities for 

solitude visitors seek in areas with wilderness characteristics. Construction of new trails would 

create surface disturbance that would detract from the natural characteristics of the landscape and 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, depending on the type of landform and 

vegetation cover. Indirect, long-term, adverse impacts would be produced by soil erosion, trail 

widening, and unmanaged extension of the trail system by OHVs. 

The Proposed RMP would not allow motorized use off roads or trails to retrieve big game taken 

while hunting. Where this activity might occur in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, this management action would reduce surface disturbance cause by OHV use that 

directly reduces the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Further, this action would reduce the presence and noise of vehicles and the impacts to 

opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation uses. 

Under Proposed RMP, 6,202 acres would be designated as "open" to cross-country OHV travel. 

None of these open areas are located in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, so there 

would be no impact of motor vehicles or use on wilderness characteristics. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 1,643,475 acres would be designated "limited" to OHV travel. The 

limitation would require vehicles to travel on designated routes (4,860 miles). Use in most all of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (258,074 acres) would be limited to 

designated routes. This limitation would confine disturbance to soils and vegetation caused by 

motor vehicle use to the existing 113 miles of routes and result in no additional degradation of 

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 of visitors to 

find solitude in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 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. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 75,845 acres would be closed to OHV use. This closure would 

prevent surface disturbance caused by motorized travel and the resultant impacts to the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, closure to OHV 

use would protect opportunities for solitude and prevent motorized uses that conflict with 

primitive forms of recreation in these areas. 

4.10.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.10.2.8.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative A, the impact of travel, roads, and trails decision on the wilderness 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as described 

for the Proposed RMP, except that no non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed with emphasis on protection of wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-242

4.10.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.8.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative B, hiking, horseback riding, and mechanized (non-motorized) trails would not 

be improved or developed. Thus, there would be no benefit to primitive and unconfined forms of 

recreation (hiking and horseback riding) sought by visitors to areas with wilderness 

characteristics. However, there would also be no conflict between mountain bike users of trails 

and hikers and horseback riders. 

Under this alternative, new permitted roads would not be rehabilitated after serving their 

intended purposes. They would be left as parts of the transportation system on public lands. If 

these roads were constructed in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, they would 

reduce the roadless character of the affected non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and 

reduce the size of the area with wilderness characteristics because lands with wilderness 

characteristics are roadless. The presence and noise of continued motor vehicle use of these 

newly constructed roads would also reduce a visitor's ability to find solitude and conflict with 

primitive, non-motorized forms of recreation. 

This alternative, like the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, would also allow the improvement or 

development of 800 miles of motorized trails. If these trails were developed in non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, the impacts would be the same as described under the Proposed 

RMP and Alternative A. 

Alternative B would allow motorized use off roads or trails to retrieve big game taken while 

hunting. Where this activity occurs in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, it would 

result in a one-time pass, in and out of the area, and generally minor amounts of surface 

disturbance cause by motor vehicles that would reduce the natural characteristics of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Because the use would be a one-time event, depending on 

the terrain and vegetation type, surface disturbance should be temporary and naturally 

rehabilitate. The presence and noise of vehicles, however, would diminish opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive and unconfined recreation uses of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Under Alternative B, 5,434 acres in the VPA would be designated as "open" to cross country 

OHV travel. None of these open areas are located in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, so there would be no impacts of motor vehicles on wilderness characteristics. 

Under this alternative, 1,659,901 acres would be designated "limited" to OHV travel. The 

limitation would require vehicles to travel on designated routes (4,861 miles). Except for 

portions of the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, OHV use in most all 

of the other non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (274,022 acres) would be limited to 

114 miles of designated routes, with impacts the same as those described under the Proposed 

RMP and Alternative A for areas designated limited to OHV travel. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-243

Under this alternative, 60,187 acres would be closed to OHV use, including portions of the 

White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (2,948 acres), with impacts the same 

as those described under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, for areas closed to OHV travel. 

4.10.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.10.2.8.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Alternative C proposes to improve and develop up to 400 miles of trail for non-motorized uses, 

including hiking, horseback riding, and mountain biking. The impacts of this action on the 

wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same 

as those described for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, new permitted roads would be rehabilitated after serving their intended 

purposes. The impacts to the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics of this action would be the same as described under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, motorized trails would not be developed, and consequently this decision 

would result in no impacts to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, nor opportunities for solitude or primitive recreational activities. 

Alternative C would not allow motorized use off road or trail to retrieve big game taken while 

hunting. The impacts to the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as those described under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C, 5,434 acres in the VPA would be designated as "open" to cross-country 

OHV travel. None of these open areas are located in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, so there would be no impacts of motor vehicles on wilderness characteristics. 

Under this alternative, 1,353,529 acres would be designated "limited" to OHV travel. The 

limitation would require vehicles to travel on designated routes (4,707 miles), including the 

Bitter Creek, Bourdette Draw, Desolation Canyon, Diamond Mountain, Hells Hole Canyon, and 

Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The impacts of limiting 

motorized travel on 26,266 acres to 57 miles of designated routes on the wilderness 

characteristics of these areas would be the same as those described for the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A. 

Under Alternative C, 366,559 acres would be closed to OHV use, including most of the Lower 

Flaming Gorge, Cold Spring Mountain, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Wild Mountain, 

Moonshine Draw, Bourdette Draw, Daniels Canyon, Bull Canyon, White River, Bitter Creek, 

Lower Bitter Creek, Bitter Creek, Rat Hole Ridge, Cripple Cowboy, Sweetwater Canyon, Wolf 

Point, and Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The effect of 

OHV closure of 250,716 acres on the wilderness characteristics of these non-WSA lands with 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-244

wilderness characteristics would be the same as those described for Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A, but would include more lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.8.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.8.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Alternative D (No Action) proposes 55 miles of hiking and horseback riding trails and 2 miles of 

mountain bike trails. If these trails are located in any non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, the impacts to wilderness characteristics would be the same as those described for 

the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. As with the Proposed RMP and other alternatives, offroad or off-trail use of OHVs to retrieve game taken while hunting would not be permitted, with 

impacts as described for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. 

This alternative would maintain a total of 787,859 acres as open to cross country OHV travel, 

including all, or portions of the Beach Draw, Bourdette Draw, Cold Spring Mountain, Desolation 

Canyon, Wolf Point, Cripple Cowboy, Bitter Creek, Rat Hole Ridge, Lower Bitter Creek, Sweet 

Water, Hideout Canyon, White River, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower Flaming 

Gorge, Dead Horse Pass, Mountain Home, and Wild Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Cross-country motorized travel in these 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 these non-WSA 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, 887,275 acres would be limited to OHV use, including small to 

substantial parts of every non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Limiting OHV use on 

143,887 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to 228 miles of existing routes 

would confine soil and vegetation disturbance caused by motor vehicles to those routes and 

would 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 of visitors to find solitude in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, 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. 

Alternative D (No Action) would close 50,388 acres to OHV use, including parts of every nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics (34,331 acres), except Hideout Canyon. This closure 

would prevent surface disturbance caused by motorized travel and would protect the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, closure to OHV 

use would eliminate the presence and noise of OHV travel and preserve opportunities for 

solitude and primitive forms of recreation in these areas. The wilderness characteristics of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be unaffected by OHV travel. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-245

4.10.2.8.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.8.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative E proposes to improve and develop up to 400 miles of trails for non-motorized uses, 

including hiking and horseback riding. The impacts of this action on the wilderness 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as those 

described for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, except that mountain biking would not be 

permitted, and thus, the conflicts with primitive forms of recreation would not occur. 

Under this alternative, new permitted roads would be rehabilitated after serving their intended 

purposes. The impacts to the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as those described under Alternative A. 

No motorized routes would be improved or developed under Alternative E. This decision, 

therefore, would result in no impacts to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics nor opportunities for solitude or primitive recreational opportunities. 

This alternative would not allow motorized use off-road or off-trail to retrieve big game taken 

while hunting. The impacts to the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as those described under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. 

Under Alternative E, 5,434 acres in the VPA would be designated as "open" to cross-country 

OHV travel. None of these open areas are located in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, so there would be no impacts of motor vehicles on wilderness characteristics. 

Under this alternative, 1,326,024 acres would be designated "limited" to OHV travel. The 

limitation would require vehicles to travel on designated routes (4,654 miles). None of the areas 

limited to motorized travel include non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, so there 

would be no impacts of limited motor vehicle use on wilderness characteristics. 

Under Alternative E, 392,818 acres would be closed to OHV use, including all of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics (277,596 acres). The effect of OHV closure on the 

wilderness characteristics of these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the 

same as those described for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, but it would affect more acres, 

including all of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.8.7. SUMMARY

In summary, the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, C, and E travel decisions would have the 

greatest benefit to the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Alternative D (No Action) would have greater OHV impacts on wilderness 

characteristics than the Proposed RMP and other alternatives because more acres would be 

designated open to cross-country OHV travel. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-246

4.10.2.9. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN/SOILS/WATERSHED DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.10.2.9.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.10.2.9.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Surface-disturbing activities on slopes between 21% and 40% would not be approved without an 

approved erosion-control strategy. While the strategy would prevent unnecessary and undue 

degradation of the environment, it would not prevent soil and vegetation disturbance that would 

degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Further, the presence and noise of people and equipment connected with the proposed project 

would diminish opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined types of recreation 

typically sought in areas with wilderness characteristics. 

The prohibition of surface disturbance on slopes greater than 40% would prevent surface 

disturbance that would degrade the natural condition of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The prohibition on disturbance would also protect opportunities for both solitude 

and primitive forms of recreation. 

Restrictions on surface disturbance in active flood plains or within 100 meters of riparian zones 

would reduce surface disturbance that would degrade the natural characteristics of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics that contain floodplains and riparian zones, including 

Lower Flaming Gorge, Cold Spring Mountain, Mountain Home, White River, and others. 

4.10.2.9.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Surface-disturbing activities on slopes between 21% and 40% would not be approved without an 

approved erosion-control strategy. This strategy would prevent unnecessary and undue 

degradation of the environment, but it would not prevent soil and vegetation disturbance that 

would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The presence and noise of people and equipment connected with a surface-disturbing project 

would diminish opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined types of recreation 

typically sought in areas with wilderness characteristics. 

The prohibition of surface disturbance on slopes greater than 40% would prevent surface 

disturbance that would degrade the natural condition of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, and protect opportunities for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation. 

Restrictions on surface disturbance in active flood plains or within 100 meters of riparian zones 

would reduce surface disturbance in flood plains and riparian zones that would degrade the 

natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, including Desolation 

Canyon, Bitter Creek, and others. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-247

4.10.2.9.2. ALTERNATIVES A AND C 

4.10.2.9.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under these alternatives, the effects of limiting surface disturbance on steep slopes and in 

floodplains and riparian zones would have the same effects on the wilderness characteristics of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as under the Proposed RMP. 

4.10.2.9.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.9.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Surface-disturbing activities on slopes greater than 20% would not be approved without an 

approved erosion control strategy, resulting in impacts the same as those described for the 

Proposed RMP on slopes between 21% and 40%. Restrictions on surface disturbance in active 

flood plains or within 100 meters of riparian zones would have the same effects on the 

wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described for the 

Proposed RMP. 

4.10.2.9.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.9.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under this alternative, no surface disturbance or occupancy for mineral development would be 

allowed on slopes greater than 40%. The effects of this action on non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be the same as those described for the Proposed RMP. 

Restrictions on surface disturbance in active flood plains or within 100 meters of riparian zones 

would have the same effects on the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics as the Proposed RMP. 

4.10.2.9.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.9.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 

As with the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and C, no surface disturbance would be permitted 

on slopes between 21% and 40% without an approved erosion-control strategy. Further, surface 

disturbance would not be allowed on slopes over 40%. However, under this alternative, no 

surface disturbance would be permitted that would impact the natural characteristics of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The effects of these actions would preserve the 

wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, restrictions 

on surface disturbance in active flood plains or within 100 meters of riparian zones would have 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-248

the same effects on the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics as the Proposed RMP. 

4.10.2.9.6. SUMMARY 

Alternative E would provide the most protection of the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics because surface disturbance would not be permitted in these 

areas. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and C would mitigate the effects of soil erosion on 

slopes greater than 20%, but the mitigation would not prevent surface disturbance that degrades 

the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.10. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

For the purposes of this analysis, "Special Designations" include ACECs established under the 

Proposed RMP and each alternative, rivers suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System under the Proposed RMP and each alternative, and WSAs being managed to protect their 

wilderness characteristics under the Proposed RMP and each alternative. 

Tables 4.10.2 through 4.10.4 show which special designations would be established or 

recommended under the Proposed RMP and each alternative, their acreage or length, and the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are wholly or partially located in the special 

designations. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-249 

Table 4.10.2 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Located in Special 

Designations 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

ACEC Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

(No Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Bitter Creek – PR Spring 

Acres 0 68,834 0 147,425 0 147,425 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

Bitter Creek, 

Rat Hole 

Ridge, and 

Cripple 

Cowboy 

Bitter Creek, 

Rat Hole 

Ridge, 

Cripple 

Cowboy, 

and Sweet 

Water 

Canyon 

Bitter Creek, 

Rat Hole 

Ridge, 

Cripple 

Cowboy, 

and Sweet 

Water 

Canyon 

Four Mile Wash 

Acres 0 0 0 50,280 0 50,280 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

 Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Lower Green River 

Acres 8,470 10,170 8,470 10,170 8,470 10,170 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

White River 

Acres 0 17,810 0 47,130 0 47,130 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

White River White River White River 

Browns Park 

Acres 18,490 52,721 18,474 52,721 52,721 52,721 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-250 

Table 4.10.2 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Located in Special 

Designations 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

ACEC Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

(No Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge, 

Mountain 

Home, and 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge, 

Mountain 

Home, Cold 

Spring 

Mountain, 

and Dead 

Horse Pass 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge, 

Mountain 

Home, and 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge, 

Mountain 

Home, Cold 

Spring 

Mountain, 

and Dead 

Horse Pass 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge, 

Mountain 

Home, Cold 

Spring 

Mountain, 

and Dead 

Horse Pass 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge, 

Mountain 

Home, Cold 

Spring 

Mountain, 

and Dead 

Horse Pass 

Nine Mile Canyon 

Acres 44,168 48,000 44,181 81,168 44,181 81,168 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Main Canyon 

Acres 0 0 0 100,915 0 100,915 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

 Wolf Point Wolf Point 

Red Creek Watershed 

Acres 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

and 

Mountain 

Home 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

and 

Mountain 

Home 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

and 

Mountain 

Home 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

and 

Mountain 

Home 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

and 

Mountain 

Home 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

and 

Mountain 

Home 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-251 

Table 4.10.3 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Located in Special 

Designations 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

River Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

(No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

White River 

Miles/Classification 0 34 / Scenic 

and Wild 

0 44 / Scenic, 

Wild, and 

Scenic 

0 0 

Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

 White River White River 

Nine Mile Creek 

Miles/Classification 0 0 0 19 / Scenic 

and 

Recreational 

0 19 / Scenic 

and 

Recreational 

Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

 Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Bitter Creek 

Miles/Classification 0 0 0 22 / Scenic 0 22 / Scenic 

Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

 Bitter Creek, 

Cripple 

Cowboy, 

Rat Hole 

Ridge, and 

Hells Hole 

Canyon 

Bitter Creek, 

Cripple 

Cowboy, 

Rat Hole 

Ridge, and 

Hells Hole 

Canyon 

Upper Green River 

Miles/Classification 22 / 

Scenic 

22 / Scenic 22 / Scenic 22 / Scenic 22 / Scenic 22 / Scenic 

Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge and 

Cold 

Spring 

Mountain 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge and 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge and 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge and 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge and 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

Lower 

Flaming 

Gorge and 

Cold Spring 

Mountain 

Lower Green River 

Miles/Classification 30 / 

Scenic 

30 / Scenic 30 / Scenic 30 / Scenic 30 / Scenic 30 / Scenic 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-252 

Table 4.10.3 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Located in Special 

Designations 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

River Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

(No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Located in the 

Special 

Designations 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Table 4.10.4 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Located in Special 

Designations 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

WSA Acres Contiguous Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics 

Book Cliffs Mountain Browse 

ISA 

 400 Cripple Cowboy 

Bull Canyon 600 Bull Canyon 

Daniels Canyon 2,496 Daniels Canyon 

Diamond Breaks 3,900 Diamond Breaks 

West Cold Springs 3,200 Cold Spring Mountain 

Winter Ridge 42,462 None 

4.10.2.10.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.10.2.10.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

Under the Proposed RMP, two existing ACECs that include non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be carried forward to protect a variety of relevant and important values. 

Those ACECs are Red Creek Watershed and Browns Park. The management prescriptions for 

these ACECs would protect wilderness characteristics in portions of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

The Red Creek Watershed ACEC (24,475 acres) would be managed to protect high-value 

wetland and wildlife habitat, including the regionally significant watershed (part of the Green 

River drainage system) and a Class 1 fishery. Protection of this watershed would help preserve 

the natural characteristics of those portions of the Cold Spring Mountain (76 acres) and 

Mountain Home (4,976 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that lie within the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-253 

ACEC. Protection of the fishery would enhance the natural values of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and ensure opportunities for primitive recreational activities (fishing). 

In the 18,490-acre Browns Park ACEC, part of the Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be closed to leasing and OHV use. The Green River through 

Browns Park would be open to leasing but with an NSO stipulation. The area of NSO includes a 

small part of the south end of the Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Otherwise, most of the ACEC would be open to leasing with timing and 

controlled surface use; OHV use would be limited to designated routes; and visual resource 

objectives would be Class II. This prescription would limit surface disturbance and would protect 

the natural characteristics of the Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. It would also preclude the noise and presence of motorized vehicles and 

equipment that would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with the primitive forms of 

recreation sought by visitors to lands with wilderness characteristics. The NSO leasing 

stipulation along the Green River would prevent surface disturbance in small parts of the 

Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Otherwise, this ACEC 

prescription would allow for surface disturbances that would alter the landscape and natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, the ACEC is 

located in an area of undetermined mineral potential, and mineral development is not expected to 

be substantial. Further, compliance with VRM Class II objectives would minimize surface 

disturbances and impacts to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Motorized use of designated routes, however, would adversely impact 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The presence and noise of vehicles would 

detract from the experience of solitude and conflict with primitive recreational uses. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 22 miles of the Upper Green River would be recommended for 

designation as a Wild and Scenic River with a classification of "scenic." Protection of the river 

(until Congress acts) would preserve the wilderness characteristics of the Lower Flaming Gorge 

and Cold Spring Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Managing the wilderness study areas (WSAs) under the BLM's Interim Management Policy to 

protect their wilderness values would expand opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation found in the Bull Canyon, Daniels Canyon, Diamond Breaks, and Cold Spring 

Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to larger land areas, including both the 

WSAs and contiguous non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This would enhance the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.10.2.10.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under the Proposed RMP, two ACECs that include non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be established to protect a variety of relevant and important values. Those 

ACECs are Nine Mile Canyon and the Lower Green River. The management prescriptions for 

these ACECs would protect wilderness characteristics in portions of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-254 

In the 44,168-acre Nine Mile Canyon ACEC, the canyon would be open to oil and gas leasing 

with an NSO stipulation, while the table lands above the canyon would be open with timing and 

controlled surface use stipulations. The ACEC prescription would limit OHV travel in the entire 

ACEC to designated routes, and visual resources management objectives would be Class II in the 

lower canyon and Class III in the upper canyon and on the tablelands. This prescription would 

generally prevent surface disturbance to the canyon bottom, protecting its natural characteristics. 

Given the mineral potential, current industry interest, and production history, however, surface 

disturbances would be expected in much of the rest of the ACEC and would detract from the 

natural characteristics of this portion of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The presence and noise of OHV travel and oil and gas development would 

diminish the opportunities for solitude on the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and 

would conflict with primitive forms of recreation typically found in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

The 8,470-acre Lower Green River Corridor ACEC would be available for oil and gas leasing 

with timing and controlled surface use stipulations and an NSO stipulation, managed by VRM 

Class II objectives, and limited to OHV use on designated routes. This prescription would 

prevent large-scale landscape modifications from oil and gas development in an area of high 

potential and industry interest, but would allow some developments within VRM objectives, 

generally protecting the natural characteristics of this portion of the Desolation Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of OHV use on designated 

routes would temporarily reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with opportunities for 

primitive forms of recreation sought in areas with wilderness characteristics, when vehicles were 

traveling the routes. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 30 miles of the Lower Green River would be recommended for 

designation as a wild and scenic river with a classification of "scenic." Protection of river values 

(until Congress acts) would preserve the wilderness characteristics of a portion of the Desolation 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Managing the wilderness study areas (WSAs) under the BLM's Interim Management Policy to 

protect their wilderness values would expand opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation found in the Cripple Cowboy non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to larger 

land areas, including both the WSAs and contiguous non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. This would enhance the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.10.2.10.2. ALTERNATIVE A

4.10.2.10.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative A, six ACECs that include non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be established to protect a variety of relevant and important values. Those ACECs are 

Bitter Creek-PR Spring, Lower Green River, White River, Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, and 

Red Creek Watershed. The management prescriptions for these ACECs would protect wilderness 

characteristics in portions of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-255 

In the 68,834-acre Bitter Creek-PR Spring ACEC, the 160-acre parcel around the old growth 

pinyon forest and the Book Cliffs Mountain Browse Natural Areas (400 acres) would be NSO 

and closed to oil and gas leasing, closed to wood cutting and OHV use, and would be managed 

by VRM Class I objectives. This prescription would prevent surface disturbances and motorized 

uses and would protect the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Most of the ACEC, 

however, would be available for leasing, forest treatments, firewood cutting, and OHV use on 

designated routes. These actions would result in surface disturbances that alter the landscape and 

natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise 

of vehicles and equipment would diminish opportunities for solitude and would conflict with 

more primitive forms of recreation. 

The 10,170-acre Lower Green River ACEC would be open for oil and gas leasing with an NSO 

stipulation, managed by VRM Class II objectives, and limited to OHV use on designated routes. 

This prescription would prevent large-scale landscape modifications from oil and gas 

development in an area of high potential and industry interest, but would allow some 

developments within VRM objectives, generally protecting the natural characteristics of this 

portion of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence 

and noise of OHV use on designated routes would temporarily reduce opportunities for solitude 

and conflict with opportunities for primitive forms of recreation sought in areas with wilderness 

characteristics, when vehicles were traveling the routes. 

Most of the 17,810-acre White River ACEC would be closed to oil and gas leasing or available 

only with an NSO stipulation. The uplands of the eastern half of the ACEC would be open to 

leasing with timing and controlled surface use stipulations. The western half of the ACEC would 

be closed to OHV use, while OHV use in the eastern half of the ACEC would be limited to 

designated routes. The interior river canyon in the western half of the ACEC would be managed 

by VRM Class I objectives, while the remainder of the ACEC would be managed VRM Class II. 

This prescription would generally prevent surface disturbances that reduce the natural 

characteristics of the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, except in the 

uplands of the eastern half of the ACEC. Here oil and gas leasing is permitted and would lead to 

surface disturbance due to the high potential for and industry interest in developing oil and gas 

resources. VRM Class II objectives in the eastern half of the ACEC would permit some surface 

disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of OHV use on designated routes in the 

eastern half of the ACEC would reduce opportunities for solitude and would conflict with 

primitive forms of recreation when vehicles were traveling the designated routes. 

In the 52,721-acre Browns Park ACEC, much of the Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be closed to leasing and OHV use. The Green River through 

Browns Park would be open to leasing but with an NSO stipulation. The area of NSO includes a 

very small part of the north end of the Dead Horse Pass non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and a very small part of the south end of the Mountain Home non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Otherwise, most of the ACEC would be open to leasing with 

timing and controlled surface use; OHV use would be limited to designated routes; and visual 

resource objectives would be Class II. This prescription would prevent surface disturbance and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-256 

would protect the natural characteristics of the Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. It would also preclude the noise and presence of motorized vehicles 

and equipment that would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with the primitive forms 

of recreation sought by visitors to lands with wilderness characteristics. The NSO leasing 

stipulation along the Green River would prevent surface disturbance in very small parts of the 

Mountain Home and Dead Horse Pass non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Otherwise, this ACEC prescription would allow for surface disturbances that would alter the 

landscape and natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

However, the ACEC is located in an area of undetermined mineral potential, and mineral 

development is not expected to be substantial. Further, compliance with VRM Class II objectives 

would minimize surface disturbances and impacts to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Motorized use of designated routes, however, would 

adversely impact opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The presence and noise of 

vehicles would detract from the experience of solitude and conflict with primitive recreational 

uses. 

In the 48,000-acre Nine Mile Canyon ACEC, the canyon would be open to oil and gas leasing 

with an NSO stipulation, while the table lands above the canyon would be open with timing and 

controlled surface use stipulations. The ACEC prescription would limit OHV travel in the entire 

ACEC to designated routes, and visual resources management objectives would be Class II in the 

lower canyon and Class III in the upper canyon and on the tablelands. This prescription would 

generally prevent surface disturbance to the canyon bottom, protecting its natural characteristics. 

Given the mineral potential, current industry interest, and production history, however, surface 

disturbances would be expected in much of the rest of the ACEC and would detract from the 

natural characteristics of this portion of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The presence and noise of OHV travel and oil and gas development would 

diminish the opportunities for solitude on the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and 

would conflict with primitive forms of recreation typically found in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

The Red Creek Watershed ACEC (24,475 acres) would be managed to protect high-value 

wetland and wildlife habitat, including the regionally significant watershed (part of the Green 

River drainage system) and a Class 1 fishery. Protection of this watershed would help preserve 

the natural characteristics of those portions of the Cold Spring Mountain (76 acres) and 

Mountain Home (4,976 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that lie within the 

ACEC. Protection of the fishery would enhance the natural values of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and ensure opportunities for primitive recreational activities (fishing). 

Under Alternative A, 22 miles of the White River would be recommended suitable for Wild and 

Scenic River designation with a classification of "wild" in the upper end of the river canyon and 

"scenic" in the lower end. Protection of river values (until Congress acts on BLM's 

recommendation) would prevent uses and surface disturbances that would detract from the 

natural characteristics of 22 miles of the recommended river canyon in the White River nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics or that would impact opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation in the river canyon. Under this alternative, 22 miles of the Upper Green 

River would be recommended for designation as a Wild and Scenic River with a classification of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-257 

"scenic." As in the case of the White River, protection of the river (until Congress acts) would 

preserve the wilderness characteristics of the Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Further, 30 miles of the Lower Green River would be recommended 

for designation as a wild and scenic river with a classification of "scenic." Protection of river 

values (until Congress acts) would preserve the wilderness characteristics of a portion of the 

Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Managing the wilderness study areas (WSAs) under the BLM's Interim Management Policy to 

protect their wilderness values would expand opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation found in the Cripple Cowboy, Bull Canyon, Daniels Canyon, Diamond Breaks, and 

Cold Spring Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to larger land areas, 

including both the WSAs and contiguous non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This 

would enhance the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.10.2.10.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.10.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative B, four ACECs that include non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be established to protect a variety of relevant and important values. Those ACECs are Red 

Creek Watershed, Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, and the Lower Green River. The 

management prescriptions for these ACECs would protect wilderness characteristics in portions 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The effects of ACEC management in the Red Creek Watershed ACEC on the wilderness 

characteristics of Cold Spring Mountain and Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as described under the Proposed RMP. 

In the 18,474-acre Browns Park ACEC, part of the Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to an NSO stipulation. 

The Green River through Browns Park would be open to leasing, also with an NSO stipulation. 

In Browns Park, the NSO area would include a small part of the south end of the Mountain 

Home non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Otherwise, most of the ACEC would be 

open to leasing with timing and controlled surface use, OHV use would be limited to designated 

routes, and visual resource objectives would be VRM Class I, II, III, and IV. 

This prescription would generally prevent surface disturbance and protect the natural 

characteristics of the riverine parts of the Lower Flaming Gorge, Mountain Home, and Cold 

Spring Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. However, the noise and 

presence of motorized vehicles and equipment would reduce opportunities for solitude and 

would conflict with the primitive forms of recreation sought by visitors to lands with wilderness 

characteristics. This ACEC prescription would allow for surface disturbances that would alter the 

landscape and natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

However, the ACEC is located in an area of undetermined mineral potential, and mineral 

development is not expected to be substantial. Motorized use of designated routes would 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-258 

adversely impact opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The presence and noise of 

vehicles would detract from the experience of solitude and would conflict with primitive 

recreational uses, both opportunities sought by visitors to lands with wilderness characteristics. 

In the 44,181-acre Nine Mile Canyon ACEC, the canyon would be open to oil and gas leasing 

with timing and controlled surface use stipulations and NSO, whereas the table lands above the 

canyon would be open with standard stipulations. The ACEC prescription would limit OHV 

travel in the entire ACEC to designated routes, and visual resources management objectives 

would be VRM Class II in the canyon and VRM Class III and IV on the tablelands. This 

prescription would generally prevent surface disturbance to the canyon bottom, protecting its 

natural characteristics. Given the mineral potential, current industry interest, and production 

history, however, surface disturbances would be expected in much of the rest of the ACEC, 

detracting from the natural characteristics of this portion of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of OHV travel and oil and gas 

development would diminish the opportunities for solitude on the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, and conflict with primitive forms of recreation typically found in 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The impacts of the Lower Green River ACEC on Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be the same as described under the Proposed RMP. 

Under this alternative, 22 miles of the Upper Green River would be recommended for 

designation as a Wild and Scenic River with a classification of "scenic." Protection of river 

values (until Congress acts on BLM's recommendation) would prevent uses and surface 

disturbances that would detract from the natural characteristics of the Lower Flaming Gorge and 

Cold Spring Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics or impact opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation in the river canyon. In addition, 30 miles of the Lower 

Green River would be recommended for designation as a wild and scenic river with a 

classification of "scenic." Protection of river values (until Congress acts) would preserve the 

wilderness characteristics of a portion of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Managing the wilderness study areas (WSAs) under BLM's Interim Management Policy to 

protect their wilderness values would expand opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation found in the Cripple Cowboy, Bull Canyon, Daniels Canyon Diamond Breaks, and 

Cold Spring Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to larger land areas, 

including both the WSAs and contiguous non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This 

would enhance the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.10.2.10.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.10.2.10.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative C, eight ACECs that include non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be established to protect a variety of relevant and important values. Those ACECs are 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-259 

Bitter Creek-PR Spring, Four Mile Wash, Lower Green River, White River, Browns Park, Nine 

Mile Canyon, Main Canyon, and Red Creek Watershed. The management prescriptions for these 

ACECs would protect wilderness characteristics in portions of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

In the 147,425-acre Bitter Creek-PR Spring ACEC, the 160-acre parcel around the old growth 

pinyon forest and the Bitter Creek, Rat Hole Ridge, Hells Hole Canyon, Cripple Cowboy, and 

Sweet Water Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and 

gas leasing, closed to OHV use (except Hells Hole Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics), and managed by VRM Class I objectives. This prescription would prevent 

surface disturbances and motorized uses and would protect the natural characteristics of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. The rest of the ACEC would be available for leasing, forest treatments, firewood 

cutting, and OHV use on designated routes, but there are no lands with wilderness characteristics 

in the remainder of the ACEC, so the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would not be affected by these uses. 

The 50,280-acre Four Mile Wash ACEC would be closed to oil and gas leasing. The visual 

resources of the ACEC would be managed for VRM Class II, Class III, and Class IV objectives. 

The ACEC prescription would limit off-highway vehicles to designated routes. This prescription 

would generally limit surface disturbance and would maintain the natural characteristics of this 

portion of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence 

and noise of vehicle use on designated routes would diminish opportunities for solitude, and 

conflict with opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation sought by visitors to lands 

with wilderness characteristics. 

Under this alternative, the 10,170-acre Lower Green River ACEC would be the same area as that 

described in Alternative A and would be managed by the same prescription. The effect on nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, therefore, would be the same as that described under 

Alternative A. 

The river canyon of the 47,130-acre White River ACEC would be closed to oil and gas leasing or 

available with an NSO stipulation. The uplands would be open to leasing with timing and 

controlled surface use and standard stipulations. The western half of the ACEC would be closed 

to OHV use, whereas OHV use in the eastern half of the ACEC would be limited to designated 

routes. The river canyon in the western half of the ACEC would be managed by VRM Class I 

objectives, whereas the river canyon in the eastern half of the ACEC would be managed by 

VRM Class II objectives. The uplands would be managed under VRM Class III and IV 

objectives. This prescription would generally prevent surface disturbances that reduce the natural 

characteristics along the river corridor of the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, but not in the uplands of the ACEC. Here oil and gas leasing would be permitted 

and would lead to surface disturbance due to the high potential, industry interest, and production 

history. VRM Class II objectives in the eastern half of the ACEC would permit some surface 

disturbances that would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of OHV use of designated routes in the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-260 

eastern half of the ACEC would reduce opportunities for solitude and would conflict with 

primitive forms of recreation when vehicles were traveling the designated routes. 

Under this alternative, the 52,721-acre Browns Park ACEC would be the same area as that 

described in Alternative A and would be managed by the same prescription. The effect on nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, therefore, would be the same as that described under 

Alternative A. 

In the 81,168-acre Nine Mile Canyon ACEC, the lower canyon in the Desolation Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, while the 

remainder of the canyon would be open to leasing subject to NSO or timing and controlled 

surface use stipulations. The table lands above the canyon would generally be open subject to 

standard stipulations. OHV use in the ACEC would be limited to designated routes. Visual 

resources in the canyon portion of the ACEC would be managed under VRM Class II, whereas 

the uplands would be managed under VRM Class III and IV objectives. This prescription would 

generally prevent surface disturbance to the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics because the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil 

and gas leasing. OHV use, however, would be limited to designated routes. Use of those routes 

would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreational activities. 

The Main Canyon ACEC (100,915 acres) would be managed to protect important cultural and 

historic resources and natural systems. Protection of natural systems would help preserve the 

natural characteristics of those portions of the Wolf Point non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (11,783 acres) that lie within the ACEC. Protection of prehistoric and historic 

cultural resources would enhance the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and provide opportunities for primitive recreational activities (study 

and viewing cultural resources). 

Under this alternative, the Red Creek Watershed ACEC would be open to oil and gas leasing 

subject to an NSO stipulation. OHV use would be permitted, but only on designated routes. This 

prescription would prevent surface disturbance associated with oil and gas production that would 

degrade the natural characteristics of the Cold Spring Mountain and Mountain Home non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. While limiting motor vehicle use to designated routes 

would prevent expansion of surface disturbance in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, allowing use on designated routes would result in the noise and presence of 

motor vehicles that would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms 

of recreation. 

Under Alternative C, 44 miles of the White River would be recommended suitable for Wild and 

Scenic River designation with segment classifications of "scenic," "wild,′′ and "scenic" in the 

upper, middle, and lower portions of the river canyon, respectively. Further, under this 

alternative, 19 miles of Nine Mile Creek would be recommended suitable for designation as 

"scenic" and "recreational." Twenty-two miles of Bitter Creek would be recommended suitable 

for designation as a "scenic" river. Twenty-two miles of the Upper Green River would be 

recommended suitable for designation as a "scenic" river. Thirty miles of the Lower Green River 

would be recommended suitable for designation as a "scenic" river. Protection of river values 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-261 

(until Congress acts on BLM's recommendation) would prevent uses and surface disturbances 

that would detract from the natural characteristics of the White River, Desolation Canyon, Bitter 

Creek, Rat Hole Ridge, Cripple Cowboy, Hells Hole Canyon, Lower Flaming Gorge, and Cold 

Spring Mountain non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of 

motor vehicle use of designated routes in the recommended "scenic" and "recreational" segments 

would reduce opportunities for solitude and would conflict with primitive recreation in these 

river segments. The impacts would be temporary, however, occurring only when vehicles were 

present. 

Managing the WSAs under BLM's Interim Management Policy to protect their wilderness values 

would expand opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation found in the Cripple 

Cowboy, Bull Canyon, Daniels Canyon, Diamond Breaks, and Cold Spring Mountain non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics to larger land areas, including both the WSAs and 

contiguous non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This would enhance the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.10.2.10.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.10.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative D (No Action), four ACECs that include non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be established to protect a variety of relevant and important values. Those 

ACECs are the Lower Green River Corridor, Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, and Red Creek 

Watershed. The management prescriptions for these ACECs would protect wilderness 

characteristics in portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The 8,470-acre Lower Green River Corridor ACEC would be available for oil and gas leasing 

with timing and controlled surface use and NSO stipulations, managed by VRM Class II 

objectives, and OHV use would be closed or limited to designated routes. Most of the ACEC 

would be available for leasing with NSO, and this prescription would prevent large-scale 

landscape modifications from oil and gas development in an area of high potential, industry 

interest, and production history, generally protecting the natural characteristics of this portion of 

the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. VRM Class II objective 

would generally retain the existing character of the landscape, protecting the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence and noise of 

OHV use on designated routes would temporarily reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict 

with opportunities for primitive forms of recreation sought in areas with wilderness 

characteristics, when vehicles were traveling the routes. This effect would not occur in areas 

closed to OHV use. 

In the 52,721-acre Browns Park ACEC, lands along the Green River would be generally open to 

oil and gas leasing subject to NSO stipulations, closed to OHV use, and managed under VRM 

Class II objectives. Outside the river, the ACEC would be open to leasing subject to timing and 

controlled surface use stipulations; OHV use would be limited to designated routes; and visual 

resources would be managed for partial retention of the landscape and for landscape 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-262 

modification. This prescription would generally protect the natural characteristics of the Lower 

Flaming Gorge non-WSA with wilderness characteristics, a small portion of the Mountain Home 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and a portion of the Cold Spring Mountain nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics in proximity to the river. The portions of the Lower 

Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics closed to OHV use would 

preserve opportunities for solitude because there would be no noise or presence of motorized 

vehicles. In those parts of the Mountain Home and Cold Spring Mountain non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics where OHV use is limited to designated routes, the presence and noise 

of motor vehicles would reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation. 

Under this alternative, the 44,181-acre Nine Mile Canyon ACEC would be the same area as that 

described in Alternative B and would be managed by the same prescription. The effect on nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, therefore, would be the same as that described under 

Alternative B. 

The effects of ACEC management in the Red Creek Watershed ACEC on the wilderness 

characteristics of Cold Spring Mountain and Mountain Home non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as described under Proposed RMP. 

Under this alternative, 22 miles of the Upper Green River would be recommended for 

designation as a Wild and Scenic River with a classification of "scenic." Thirty miles of the 

Lower Green River would be recommended as a "scenic" river. Protection of river values (until 

Congress acts on BLM's recommendation) would prevent uses and surface disturbances that 

would detract from the natural characteristics of the Lower Flaming Gorge, Cold Spring 

Mountain, and Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The presence 

and noise of motor vehicle use of designated routes in the recommended "scenic" segment would 

reduce opportunities for solitude and would conflict with primitive recreation in these river 

segments. The impacts would be temporary, however, lasting only when vehicles were present. 

Managing the WSAs under BLM's Interim Management Policy to protect their wilderness values 

would expand opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation found in the Cripple 

Cowboy, Bull Canyon, Daniels Canyon, Diamond Breaks, and Cold Spring Mountain non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics to larger land areas, including both the WSAs and 

contiguous non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This would enhance the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.10.2.10.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.10.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

Under this alternative, the Bitter Creek-PR Spring, Four Mile Wash, Lower Green River, White 

River, Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, Main Canyon, and Red Creek Watershed ACECs would 

be the same areas as that described in Alternative C and would be managed by essentially the 

same prescription. In the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics portions of the ACECs, 

the natural characteristics, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive recreation 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-263 

would be protected by the management actions prescribed for the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The effect would be protection of the wilderness characteristics of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under this alternative, the segments of the White River, Nine Mile Creek, Bitter Creek, Upper 

Green River, and Lower Green River recommended suitable for Wild and Scenic River 

designation would be the same area as that described in Alternative C and would be managed by 

the same prescription, except in White River. The segments of the White River would not be 

recommended suitable for wild and scenic river designation, but would be managed as eligible 

pending review of a dam construction permit. The effect on non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, however, would be the same as that described under Alternative C. 

Managing the WSAs under BLM's Interim Management Policy to protect their wilderness values 

would expand opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation found in the Cripple 

Cowboy, Bull Canyon, Daniels Canyon, Diamond Breaks, and Cold Spring Mountain non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics to larger land areas, including both the WSAs and 

contiguous non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This would enhance the 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.10.2.10.7. SUMMARY

Alternatives C and E would provide the most long-term protection of wilderness characteristics 

of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by designating the most acres as ACECs and 

by recommending the longest stretches of waterways for protection in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System, followed by Alternative A. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives B and D 

would provide some protection of wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics but less than that provided by Alternative C or E, because they designate a smaller 

number of ACEC acres and recommend protecting fewer waterways under the Wild and Scenic 

River System. 

4.10.2.11. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

Vegetation treatments are proposed under the Proposed RMP and each alternative in both the 

Fire Management and Rangeland Improvements Sections of Chapter 2 (see Table 2.1.5 and 

Table 2.1.12 Proposed RMP and Alternatives). For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed 

that the acreages proposed for treatment in the Rangeland Improvement section are in addition to 

the acreages proposed in the Fire Management section. 

4.10.2.11.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.10.2.11.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

Under the Proposed RMP, 156,425 acres of vegetation would be treated by prescribed fire per 

decade. The purpose of these treatments would be to reduce fuel loads, restore fire to the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-264 

ecosystem, restore native vegetation communities, and enhance livestock and wildlife forage 

conditions. In the long term, vegetation treatments with fire would restore native vegetation 

communities and a more natural composition of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and/or trees in those 

communities. If these treatments occurred in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

managed to protect those characteristics, this objective would enhance the natural characteristics 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. In the short term, however, operation of a 

prescribed burning operation would result in disturbance of the landform and vegetation through 

fire line construction and other activities (e.g., staging areas) 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 prescribed burning operation and reclamation. When the fire and reclamation operations are 

complete, these opportunities would return. Soil and vegetation disturbance from fire line 

construction and other activities (e.g. staging areas) would diminish the natural characteristics of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, but reclamation would restore those 

characteristics in a relatively short period of time. 

Also under the Proposed RMP, 34,460 acres of vegetation would be treated to enhance forage 

condition for livestock grazing. The methods of treatment for this purpose would vary but would 

most often include fire and/or mechanical treatments (heavy equipment and chainsaws). If these 

treatments were planned for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the effects of 

treatment with fire would be the same as described above. Mechanical treatments, however, 

would have long-term impacts on the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, 

and would likely not be permitted on a large scale on 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics managed to protect those characteristics under the Proposed RMP. 

While restoration of native vegetation communities would be beneficial to the natural 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the presence and noise of 

people and equipment would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive 

recreation activities in proximity to the treatment area, in the short-term. In the long term, the 

noise and presence of people and equipment would be removed and opportunities for both 

solitude and primitive recreation would return. 

4.10.2.11.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

The effects of vegetation treatments in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are 

managed for resource values and uses other than wilderness characteristics would be the same as 

described above (for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect those 

characteristics), except that more surface-disturbing fire line construction could be permitted. 

Chain saws could be used to create fuel breaks for fire line construction, resulting in more 

substantial evidence of human manipulation of the land (cut logs, stumps, and cleared lines 

through vegetation). This type of surface disturbance would remain evident on the land for 

longer periods of time, reducing the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-265 

Also, in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are managed for other resource 

values and uses, mechanical treatments (heavy equipment and chainsaws) would be used to meet 

vegetation objectives. Mechanical treatments (chaining or chipping) would have long-term 

impacts on the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. While restoration of native 

vegetation communities would be beneficial to the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, the use of chainsaws, bull dozers, and brush hogs to accomplish the 

objective would leave an obvious imprint of human activity on the land, an adverse effect on the 

natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 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 diminish the opportunities for both solitude and primitive 

recreation. 

4.10.2.11.2. ALTERNATIVE A

4.10.2.11.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative A, 156,425 acres of vegetation would be treated by prescribed fire per decade. 

The impacts to the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be the same as described under the Proposed RMP for non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that are managed for resource values and uses others than wilderness 

characteristics. 

Also under this alternative, 34,460 acres of vegetation would be treated to enhance forage 

condition for livestock grazing. The methods of treatment for this purpose would vary but would 

often include fire and/or mechanical treatments (heavy equipment and chainsaws). The effect of 

these treatment methods on the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as described under the Proposed RMP for non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics that are managed for resource values and uses others than 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.11.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.11.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

The effects of vegetation treatments with prescribed fire would be the same as those described 

under Alternative A. The effects of vegetation treatments to enhance livestock forage would also 

be the same as those described under Alternative A, except under this alternative 50,900 acres 

would be treated (16,260 more acres than under Alternative A). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-266 

4.10.2.11.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.10.2.11.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

The effects of vegetation treatments with prescribed fire would be the same as those described 

under Alternative A. The effects of vegetation treatments to enhance livestock forage would also 

be the same as those described under Alternative A, except that under this alternative 45,860 

acres would be treated (11,220 more acres than under Alternative A). 

4.10.2.11.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.11.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 50,900 acres of pinyon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush 

communities would be treated with prescribed fire with effects matching those described under 

Alternative A. The effects of vegetation treatments to enhance livestock forage would also be the 

same as those described under Alternative A, except that under this alternative 40,390 acres 

would be treated (5,750 more acres than under Alternative A). 

4.10.2.11.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.11.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

The effects of vegetation treatments with prescribed fire would be the same as those described 

under the Proposed RMP for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect 

those characteristics. The effects of vegetation treatments to enhance livestock forage would also 

be the same as those described under the Proposed RMP for non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics managed to protect those characteristics, but on all 277,596 acres of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.11.7. SUMMARY

The Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives would have similar effects of vegetation treatments 

on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The difference would be the number of acres 

treated, and the method of treatment. Mechanical treatment methods typically would not be used 

in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect those characteristics. 

Alternatives B and C would treat the same number of acres with prescribed fire and comparable 

numbers of acres to enhance livestock forage. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and E 

would treat the same number of acres with prescribed fire, but would treat the fewest acres to 

enhance livestock forage, due to limitations required to protect wilderness characteristics. 

Alternative D (No Action) treats the fewest acres with prescribed fire but comparable acreages 

for livestock forage improvement. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-267 

4.10.2.12. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS 

WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

There are four objectives for visual resource management (VRM Classes I–IV) that provide for 

various levels of landscape protection and change. The objective of Class I is to preserve the 

characteristic landscape whereas the objective of Class IV provides for landscape modifications 

(see Chapter 3 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, Section 3.19, Visual Resources). Land use 

planning decisions to manage areas by VRM Class I objectives would preserve the 

characteristics of the landscape. In non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, this objective 

would preserve the natural characteristics of the area. VRM Class II objectives would retain the 

characteristics landscape, allowing for minor changes to the landform and vegetation. This 

objective would generally protect the natural characteristics of the land in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. VRM Class III objectives provide for partial retention of 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, and 

this is incompatible with preservation of the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

Table 4.10.5 shows the VRM Class I–IV objectives by non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, in acres, by the Proposed RMP and alternative. 

Table 4.10.5 Visual Resource Management Objectives by Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics Areas 

Non-WSA 

Lands 

with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Proposed 

RMP 

(Acres) 

Alternative 

A (Acres) 

Alternative 

B (Acres) 

Alternative 

C (Acres) 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

(Acres) 

Alternative 

E (Acres) 

Beach Draw 

 Class I 898

 Class II 898 898 208 898 208 

 Class III 

 Class IV 690 690 

Bitter Creek 

 Class I 32,363 33,488

 Class II 12,764 68 

 Class III 33,488 20,724 1,057 

 Class IV 33,488 33,488 

Bourdette Draw 

 Class I 4,342 13,335

 Class II 13,335 7,170 13,335 

 Class III 1,798 4,365 4,365 

 Class IV 25 8,970 8,970 

Bull Canyon 

 Class I 1 4 1 4 2,483
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-268 

Table 4.10.5 Visual Resource Management Objectives by Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics Areas 

Non-WSA 

Lands 

with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Proposed 

RMP 

(Acres) 

Alternative 

A (Acres) 

Alternative 

B (Acres) 

Alternative 

C (Acres) 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

(Acres) 

Alternative 

E (Acres) 

 Class II 2,483 2,482 2,482 

 Class III 

 Class IV 2,479 2,479 

Cold Spring Mountain 

 Class I 75 75 75 75 8,764

 Class II 8,764 8,574 367 8,689 367 

 Class III 115 4,580 4,580 

 Class IV 3,742 3,742 

Cripple Cowboy 

 Class I 4 4 3 13,537 3 13,603

 Class II 13,599 6,687 66 6,657 

 Class III 13,599 1,720 1,720 

 Class IV 5,193 5,223 

Daniels Canyon 

 Class I 3,045

 Class II 3,045 3,045 3,045 

 Class III 

 Class IV 3,045 3,045 

Dead Horse Pass 

 Class I 6,994

 Class II 6,994 3,042 676 3,402 676 

 Class III 2,965 2,111 2,965 2,111 

 Class IV 627 4,207 627 4,207 

Desolation Canyon 

 Class I 1,311 63,118

 Class II 20,632 23,903 12,273 24,321 12,273 

 Class III 16,477 14,510 20,475 14,101 20,475 

 Class IV 24,698 24,705 30,370 24,696 30,370 

Diamond Breaks 

 Class I 72 57 59 59 4,539

 Class II 4,467 1,160 4,536 

 Class III 3,322 2,652 3 2,652 

 Class IV 1,828 1,828 

Diamond Mountain 

 Class I 1,042 27,238

 Class II 27,238 3,300 6,399 5,131 6,399 

 Class III 23,938 1,051 21,039 1,051 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-269 

Table 4.10.5 Visual Resource Management Objectives by Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics Areas 

Non-WSA 

Lands 

with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Proposed 

RMP 

(Acres) 

Alternative 

A (Acres) 

Alternative 

B (Acres) 

Alternative 

C (Acres) 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

(Acres) 

Alternative 

E (Acres) 

 Class IV 19,778 19,778 

Hells Hole Canyon 

 Class I 

 Class II 2,709 2,119 2,709

 Class III 289 590 289 

 Class IV 2,709 2,420 2,420 

Hideout Canyon 

 Class I 1,113

 Class II 1,113 1,103 1,113 1,103 

 Class III 1,113 

 Class IV 10 10 

Lower Bitter Creek 

 Class I 11,417

 Class II 

 Class III 58 26 

 Class IV 11,360 11,391 11,417 11,417 11,417 

Lower Flaming Gorge 

 Class I 17,810

 Class II 17,810 17,700 1,257 17,770 1,257 

 Class III 33 1,875 33 1,875 

 Class IV 77 14,678 77 14,678 

Mexico Point 

 Class I 1,277

 Class II 1,277 1,277 1,277 

 Class III 1,277 1,277 

 Class IV 

Moonshine Draw

 Class I 4 4 4,513

 Class II 4,513 4,513 1,735 4,513 1,735 

 Class III 

 Class IV 2,774 2,774 

Mountain Home 

 Class I 7,083

 Class II 7,083 4,875 117 4,875 117 

 Class III 2,208 1,354 2,208 1,354 

 Class IV 5,612 5,612 

Rat Hole Ridge 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-270 

Table 4.10.5 Visual Resource Management Objectives by Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics Areas 

Non-WSA 

Lands 

with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Proposed 

RMP 

(Acres) 

Alternative 

A (Acres) 

Alternative 

B (Acres) 

Alternative 

C (Acres) 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

(Acres) 

Alternative 

E (Acres) 

 Class I 11,175 11,367

 Class II 11,367 11,367 192 

 Class III 3,240 3,240 

 Class IV 8,127 8,127 

Stuntz Draw 

 Class I 1,992

 Class II 1,992 1,992 1,362 1,992 1,362 

 Class III 

 Class IV 630 630 

Sweet Water Canyon 

 Class I 6,950 6,994

 Class II 6,994 6,272 44 6,272 

 Class III 6,994 

 Class IV 722 722 

Vivas Cake Hill 

 Class I 277

 Class II 277 277 277 277 277 

 Class III 

 Class IV 

White River 

 Class I 4,980 9,027 21,210

 Class II 11,930 7,360 12,339 4,528 12,219 

 Class III 2,481 464 464 3,210 464 

 Class IV 6,799 8,406 8,406 4,445 8,527 

Wild Mountain 

 Class I 515 527

 Class II 527 58 42 6 42 

 Class III 469 16 6 16 

 Class IV 469 469 

Wolf Point 

 Class I 10 10 9 11,746 9 11,802

 Class II 56 

 Class III 11,792 11,792 242 242 

 Class IV 11,551 11,551 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-271 

4.10.2.12.1. PROPOSED RMP

4.10.2.12.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres of 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed with visual resource management Class II objectives (see Table 4.10.5 

above). The objective of this class is to retain the characteristic landscape, while allowing for 

some minor level of development or change to the landscape. This landscape objective would 

generally protect the undeveloped (natural) characteristics of the 15 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics managed to protect those characteristics. 

4.10.2.12.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under the Proposed RMP, 132,845 acres of 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed by VRM Class III and IV objectives. These objectives would allow for 

activities that would alter the landscape, and diminish the natural characteristics of these nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics (see Table 4.10.5 above). However, in four of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are proposed for management of resources 

and uses other than wilderness characteristics (Cripple Cowboy, Desolation Canyon, Rat Hole 

Ridge, and Wolf Point), 33,324 acres would be managed by Class I and II objectives. These 

objectives would limit surface disturbance and protect the natural characteristics of these nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.12.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.10.2.12.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative A, 148,364 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and II objectives in all 

or parts of 23 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, limiting surface disturbance and 

protecting the natural characteristics of those lands in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. However, 127,595 acres would be managed by Class III and IV objectives in all 

or parts of 13 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics with impacts as described under 

the Proposed RMP. 

4.10.2.12.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.12.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative B, 52,777 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and II objectives in all or 

parts of 20 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, limiting surface disturbance and 

protecting the natural characteristics of those lands in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. However, 224,819 acres would be managed by Class III and IV objectives in all 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-272 

or parts of 23 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics with impacts as described under 

the Proposed RMP. 

4.10.2.12.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.10.2.12.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative C, 191,657 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and II objectives in all 

or parts of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, limiting surface disturbance and 

protecting the natural characteristics of those lands in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. However, 85,939 acres would be managed by Class III and IV objectives in all or 

parts of 10 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics with impacts as described under the 

Proposed RMP. 

4.10.2.12.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.12.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 52,626 acres would be managed by VRM Class I and II 

objectives in all or parts of 20 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, limiting surface 

disturbance and protecting the natural characteristics of those lands in the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. However, 224,970 acres would be managed by Class III and IV 

objectives in all or parts of 23 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics with impacts as 

described under the Proposed RMP. 

4.10.2.12.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.12.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres would be managed by VRM Class I objectives in all of the 

25 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, limiting surface disturbance and protecting 

the natural characteristics of those lands in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.2.12.7. SUMMARY

The visual resource management objectives proposed in Alternative E would provide protection 

of the natural characteristics of all the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. VRM 

objectives in Alternative C would provide protection to the natural characteristics of the 191,657 

acres in 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, followed by Alternative A with 

148,364 acres protected in 23 areas. The Proposed RMP would provide protection to natural 

characteristics on 106,178 acres of 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Visual 

resource objectives in Alternatives B and D (No Action) provide the least protection to the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-273 

4.10.2.13. IMPACTS OF WILD HORSE DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

There are three wild horse herd management/herd areas in the VPA: Bonanza, Winter Ridge, and 

Hill Creek. A portion of the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (7,449 

acres) is located in the Bonanza herd management area. The Wolf Point non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics is located in the Winter Ridge herd area and a portion of the 

Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (16,396 acres) is located in 

the Hill Creek herd management area. 

4.10.2.13.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.10.2.13.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

Under the Proposed RMP, no horse herd would be maintained in the Bonanza Herd Area. Any 

wild or feral horses present would be gathered and removed. An area with wilderness 

characteristics is natural and provides opportunities for either solitude or primitive recreation. 

Areas with wilderness characteristics may also possess supplemental values (interesting, special, 

or unique natural or cultural resource values) in addition to the requisite wilderness 

characteristics. Wild horses, for example, would be considered a supplemental value. The 

presence of this resource value would supplement the wilderness characteristics of the White 

River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Because a herd would not be maintained 

in this area, there would be no supplemental benefit to the wilderness characteristics of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, the primitive recreational activity of viewing 

wild horses would also be lost. 

Because wild horses would be gathered and removed under the Proposed RMP, there would be 

no need for facilities (fences and water developments) to manage the herd. Thus, there would be 

no introduction of human-made facilities on the landscape that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, there would be no 

temporary disruption of opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation activities resulting from 

the noise and presence of people and equipment used during construction of these facilities. 

However, there would be temporary disruption of opportunities for solitude or primitive 

recreation from gathering operations due to the noise and presence of people, structures (fences, 

corrals, or pens), vehicles, and aircraft. 

4.10.2.13.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under the Proposed RMP, no wild horse herd would be established in the Hill Creek or Winter 

Ridge herd areas. Any wild or feral horses present would be gathered and removed. The presence 

of this resource value would supplement the wilderness characteristics of the Desolation Canyon 

and Wolf Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Because herds would not be 

maintained in these herd areas, there would be no supplemental benefit to the wilderness 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-274 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, the primitive 

recreational activity of viewing wild horses would also be lost. 

Because wild horses would be gathered and removed under the Proposed RMP, there would be 

no need for facilities (fences and water developments) to manage the herds. Thus, there would be 

no introduction of human-made facilities on the landscape that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, there would be no 

temporary disruption of opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation activities resulting from 

the noise and presence of people and equipment used during construction of these facilities. 

However, there would be a temporary disruption of opportunities for solitude or primitive 

recreation from gathering operations due to the noise and presence of people, structures (fences, 

corrals, or pens), vehicles, and aircraft. 

4.10.2.13.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.10.2.13.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative A, a horse herd would not be re-established in the Bonanza herd management 

area. Thus, there would be no impacts (beneficial or adverse) on the wilderness characteristics of 

the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

In the Winter Ridge herd area, a horse herd of 50 to 100 animals would be re-established. An 

area with wilderness characteristics is natural and provides opportunities for either solitude or 

primitive recreation. Areas with wilderness characteristics may also possess supplemental values 

(interesting, special, or unique natural or cultural resource values) in addition to the requisite 

wilderness characteristics. Wild horses, for example, would be considered a supplemental value. 

The presence of this resource value would supplement the wilderness characteristics of the Wolf 

Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

In the Hill Creek herd management area, a 70- to 145-animal horse herd would be re-established. 

Again, the presence of this resource value would supplement the wilderness characteristics of the 

Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. In order to re-establish the 

herd, however, fences would have to be constructed to mange the herds. Construction of fences 

in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (if that location was necessary) would add 

further development of humans to the landscape and degrade the natural characteristics of the 

land. During construction, the presence and noise of people and equipment building the fences 

would detract from opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. When construction ended, 

the adverse impact on opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would improve, but the 

long-term presence of human-made structures on the land would detract from the undeveloped 

setting needed to support these opportunities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-275 

4.10.2.13.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.13.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of wild horse management on the wilderness characteristics of 

Wolf Point and White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same 

as described under Alternative A. In the Hill Creek herd management area, including the 

Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, all horses would be removed 

and permits would be offered to the Northern Ute Tribe for up to 100 wild and feral horses. 

Under Alternative B, it would be necessary to build fences to manage the herd. The introduction 

of human-made structures on the land would diminish the natural characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, if the fences were located in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. There would also be a temporary disruption of opportunities for solitude or 

primitive recreation from gathering operations due to the noise and presence of people, structures 

(fences, corrals, or pens), vehicles, and aircraft. The presence of wild horses, however, would 

supplement the wilderness characteristics of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and provide opportunities to view wild horses, a primitive recreation 

activity. 

4.10.2.13.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.10.2.13.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative C, a horse herd of 40 – 85 animals would be re-established in the Bonanza 

herd management area. The presence of this resource value would supplement the wilderness 

characteristics of the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. With the herd, 

however, it would necessary to construct fences and water facilities to manage the horses. 

Construction of the facilities would further modify the landscape and detract from the natural 

characteristics of the landscape and would adversely impact opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation. If the facilities were located in the White River non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, they would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. 

In the Winter Ridge herd area, a 50- to 100-animal horse herd would be established. The effects 

to wilderness characteristics of the Wolf Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be the same as those described for the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics above, but no fences or waters would be constructed. 

In the Hill Creek herd management area, a 70- to 145-animal horse herd would be re-established 

with impacts to the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics the same 

as that described for the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics above. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-276 

4.10.2.13.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.13.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

The effects of Alternative D (No Action) in the Bonanza herd management area would be the 

same as those described for Alternative A—a horse herd would not be re-established. The effects 

on the natural characteristics of the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be the same as those described for 

Alternative A. 

In the Winter Ridge herd area, no herd would be established, with effects on the wilderness 

characteristics being the same as those described for Alternative B. 

The Hill Creek herd management area would support a herd of 195 horses under Alternative D 

(No Action). The presence of wild horses would supplement the wilderness characteristics of the 

Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. No facilities are proposed 

for management of the herd, so no adverse impacts to the natural characteristics of the 

Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be anticipated. 

4.10.2.13.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.13.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

The impacts of wild and feral horses and horse management on the wilderness characteristics of 

the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as described 

for Alternative C. The impacts of wild and feral horse management on the wilderness 

characteristics of the Wolf Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the 

same as Alternative A. The impacts on Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be the same as those described for Alternative A. 

4.10.2.13.7. SUMMARY

Under the Proposed RMP, BLM would no longer manage for wild and feral horses. While there 

would be no adverse impacts to the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, there would also be no benefit to opportunities for primitive recreation (viewing 

wild horses) or supplemental benefit to wilderness characteristics. 

Under Alternatives A, C, D, and E, the BLM would manage for wild and feral horses with the 

benefits that the presence of wild horses would have on wilderness characteristics and the 

adverse impacts fence and water construction would have on the natural landscape and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Under Alternative B, the BLM would not 

manage for wild horses but would offer permits to the Northern Ute Tribe for up to 100 horses. 

The presence of Tribal horses would have the same benefits to the wilderness characteristics of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-277 

the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the Hill Creek herd 

management area as described under Alternatives A, C, D, and E. 

4.10.2.14. IMPACTS OF WOODLAND AND FOREST DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.10.2.14.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under Proposed RMP, actions would be implemented to maintain and restore forest and 

woodlands ecosystems to a condition in which biodiversity is preserved, insects and disease are 

controlled to normal levels, relict stands are maintained, fuel loads are reduced, historic fire 

regimes are beginning to be restored, salvage is permitted, forests and woodlands are managed 

for multiple-use, and sustained yield is allowed through fire and mechanical treatments. Up to 

546,152 acres would be treated or harvested. Salvage of forest and woodland products that are 

dead or dying due to fire, disease, insect kill, or other disturbance would be permitted throughout 

the VPA. 

4.10.2.14.1.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

Forest and woodland treatments with fire would restore native vegetation communities and a 

more natural composition of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and/or trees in those communities. 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 

short term, however, prescribed burning 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 prescribed 

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. 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics being managed to protect those characteristics 

would be closed to woodland products harvesting. 

4.10.2.14.1.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Forest and woodland treatments with fire would restore native vegetation communities and a 

more natural composition of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and/or trees in those communities. 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 

short term, however, prescribed burning would result in disturbance of the landform and 

vegetation through fire line construction needed to manage the fire. Further, the presence and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-278 

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 prescribed 

burning operation and reclamation. When the fire and reclamation operations are complete, these 

opportunities would return. 

Forest and woodland treatment using mechanical methods (heavy equipment and chainsaws) 

would be allowed in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that would not be managed 

to protect those characteristics under the Proposed RMP. If mechanical treatments were 

conducted, the surface disturbance would have long-term impacts on the natural characteristics 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation. While restoration of native vegetation communities would 

be beneficial to the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the 

use of chainsaws, bull dozers, and brush hogs to accomplish the forest and woodland objectives 

would leave an obvious imprint of human activity on the land, having an adverse effect on the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 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 also diminish the opportunities for both solitude and 

primitive recreation. 

In the other non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (not managed for their wilderness 

characteristics), salvage of forest and woodland products would be done by mechanical means 

with the same impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described above. 

4.10.2.14.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.10.2.14.2.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative A, actions would be implemented to maintain and restore forest and 

woodlands ecosystems to a condition in which biodiversity is preserved, insects and disease are 

controlled to normal levels, relict stands are maintained, fuel loads are reduced, historic fire 

regimes are beginning to be restored, salvage is permitted, forests and woodlands are managed 

for multiple-use, and sustained yield is allowed through fire and mechanical treatments. Up to 

552,152 acres would be treated or harvested. Salvage of forest and woodland products that are 

dead or dying due to fire, disease, insect kill, or other disturbance would be permitted throughout 

the VPA. 

Forest and woodland treatments with fire would restore native vegetation communities and a 

more natural composition of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and/or trees in those communities. 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 

short term, however, prescribed burning 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 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-279 

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 prescribed 

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. The use of 

chainsaws to clear vegetation for fire line construction, however, would result in more extensive 

surface disturbance that would degrade the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and require a much longer period of time to rehabilitate. 

If mechanical treatments (heavy equipment and chainsaws) were conducted for non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, the surface disturbance would have long-term impacts on the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities 

for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. While restoration of native vegetation 

communities would be beneficial to the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, the use of chainsaws, bull dozers, and brush hogs to accomplish the 

forest and woodland objectives would leave an obvious imprint of human activity on the land, 

having an adverse effect on the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

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 also diminish 

the opportunities for both solitude and primitive recreation. 

Salvage of forest and woodland products would be done by mechanical means with the same 

impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described above. 

4.10.2.14.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.10.2.14.3.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative B, public use of forest and woodland products would be permitted to achieve 

desired future conditions (e.g., vegetation treatments). Harvest of forest and woodland species 

would be permitted by the public with emphasis on achieving the greatest output of products. Up 

to 554,108 acres would be treated or harvested. The emphasis of this alternative is on the 

production of forest and woodland products for public use. Under this alternative none of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect their wilderness 

characteristics. Thus, the effects of mechanical treatment of up to 554,108 acres on the 

wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, that are not being 

managed to protect their wilderness characteristics, would be the same as those described under 

Alternative A. The effects of forest and woodland salvage on non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would also be the same as those described in Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-280 

4.10.2.14.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.10.2.14.4.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Alternative C would have the same effects from forest and woodland treatments and harvest on 

wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as those described 

in Alternative A. The effects of forest and woodland salvage by mechanical means would be the 

same as those described for Alternative A, except that salvage would only be allowed in ACECs 

when forest and woodland resources were threatened. Otherwise, 242,760 acres of ACECs 

would not be affected by salvage. Because there are several areas of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics located in proposed ACECs, the exclusion of salvage from ACECs 

would prevent surface disturbance that would diminish the wilderness characteristics of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics (see Table 4.10.3, Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics Located in Special designations). 

4.10.2.14.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.10.2.14.5.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed for Other 

Resource Values and Uses 

Under Alternative D (No Action), up to 88,200 acres of forest and 200,100 acres of woodlands 

would be treated or be harvested. If any of those treatments (fire or mechanical) occurred in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the effects would be the same as those described 

under Alternative A. 

4.10.2.14.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.10.2.14.6.1. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Managed to 

Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

Under Alternative E, forest and woodland treatment and harvests as well as salvage would not be 

permitted with mechanical means (e.g., chainsaws or bulldozers) in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Forest and woodland treatments, however, could be performed with 

prescribed fire if consistent with the objectives for management of the wilderness characteristics 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. As a result, there would be no surface 

disturbance from mechanical treatments, harvests, or salvage operations and no effects on the 

natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. With prescribed 

fire treatments, the presence and noise of people, vehicles, or equipment would temporarily 

reduce opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation during the fire operation. When the 

operation was complete and rehabilitated as needed, those opportunities would return. Forest and 

woodland treatments would restore native vegetation communities and composition that would 

benefit the natural characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-281 

4.10.2.14.7. SUMMARY

Forest and woodland management under the Proposed RMP and Alternative E would provide the 

greatest protection of wilderness characteristics in the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. On the other hand, without treatments, in some cases there would be no benefit 

from the restoration of native plant communities or the composition of plants in those 

communities. The Proposed RMP and other alternatives would prescribe different areas of land 

for treatment, harvest, and salvage with similar beneficial effects to non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics from restoration of native plant communities and similar adverse 

effects from surface disturbance. 

4.10.2.14.8. SUMMARY

Alternatives A, B, C, and D (No Action) prescribe no specific actions that would affect 

(adversely or beneficially) the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The Proposed RMP, however, prescribes a management scheme that would 

protect the wilderness characteristics of 15 of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

with those values (106,178 acres) and Alternative E would prescribe measures to protect all of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (277,596 acres). 

4.10.2.15. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES

4.10.2.15.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP provides for management of natural landscapes and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive forms of recreation by: 

• establishing cultural resource protection areas; 

• proposing large acreages for protection in special designations (ACECs and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers); 

• limiting surface disturbance on steep slopes; 

• establishing a large number of acres for protection of landscapes (scenery) through VRM 

Class I and II objectives; 

• using prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to restore vegetation communities and 

reduce wildfire hazard; and 

• managing 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for protection of their 

wilderness characteristics. 

Under the Proposed RMP, however, protection of wilderness characteristics would be less than 

under Alternatives E. 

4.10.2.15.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A provides for management of natural landscapes and opportunities for solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation by: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-282 

• establishing cultural resource protection areas; 

• proposing large acreages for protection in special designations (ACECs and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers); 

• limiting surface disturbance on steep slopes; 

• establishing a large number of acres for protection of landscapes (scenery) through VRM 

Class I and II objectives; and 

• using prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to restore vegetation communities and 

reduce wildfire hazard. 

Under Alternative A, however, protection of wilderness characteristics would be less than under 

the Proposed RMP and Alternatives C and E. 

4.10.2.15.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B provides less emphasis on management of natural landscapes and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive forms of recreation by: 

• using prescribed fire and mechanical treatment to restore vegetation communities and reduce 

wildfire hazard and 

• managing more acres for landscape change through VRM Class III and IV objectives. 

4.10.2.15.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C places emphasis on management of natural landscapes and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive forms of recreation by: 

• establishing cultural resource protection areas; 

• leasing fewer acres for mineral and hydrocarbon development; 

• using prescribed fire and mechanical treatment to restore vegetation communities and reduce 

wildfire hazard; 

• proposing larger acreages for special designations (ACECs and Wild and Scenic Rivers); and 

• managing large acreages for landscape protection through VRM Class I and II objectives (the 

most protective VRM classes). 

4.10.2.15.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) provides the least emphasis on management of natural characteristics 

and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation by: 

• establishing no cultural resource protection areas; 

• using prescribed fire and mechanical treatment to restore vegetation communities and reduce 

wildfire hazard; 

• managing the fewest acres for special designations (ACECs and Wild and Scenic Rivers); 

and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-283 

• managing the most acres for VRM Class III and IV objectives (the least protective VRM 

classes), the same as Alternative B. 

4.10.2.15.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E focuses on protection to the natural characteristics and opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation activities of all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by: 

• closing the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to OHV use; 

• closing the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to oil and gas leasing, solid 

mineral leasing, and mineral material sales; 

• proposing the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for withdrawal from mineral 

entry; 

• avoiding the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for ROW development; 

• closing the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to permitted commercial and 

personal-use wood cutting; 

• managing the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for landscape protection 

through VRM Class I objectives; 

• closing the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to road construction; and 

• allowing vegetation and fuel treatments with prescribed fire, when compatible with the goals 

and objectives for management of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

There are a number of actions proposed under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives that would 

limit surface disturbance, focus on primitive forms of recreation, and maintain or restore 

vegetation condition, all of which would maintain and enhance the wilderness characteristics of 

portions of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives A, B, C, and E, withdrawals from entry under the mining laws would prevent 

surface disturbance along parts of the Green and White Rivers and would protect the natural 

condition of the landscape in the Lower Flaming Gorge, White River, and Desolation Canyon 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative D (No Action), mineral 

withdrawals are also proposed for portions of the Green River through Browns Park and the 

lower Green River, again, protecting the natural condition of the river canyon parts of Lower 

Flaming Gorge and Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Protecting the natural characteristics of the river canyons would enhance the setting required to 

support opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, actions to prohibit surface disturbance within 

floodplains and within 100 meters 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 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-284 

characteristics and settings that support primitive forms of recreation like floating, hiking, and 

wildlife viewing. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, prescribed burning to restore vegetation 

communities would maintain and enhance the natural characteristics of non-WSA 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 RMP, 15 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to VRM 

Class II standards. Managing areas by VRM Class II objectives would 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 RMP and other alternatives, portions of the 

non-WSA lands would continue to be managed to that standard, preserving the natural 

characteristics of the lands. All surface-disturbing activities, regardless of the Proposed RMP and 

alternative or management action, would be subject to the VRM objectives of the area within 

which the activity takes place. The visual resource contrast rating system would be used as a tool 

to analyze the potential site-specific impacts of surface disturbance as well as facility design and 

placement. Surface-disturbing activities and facilities would then be designed to mitigate their 

visual impacts and conform to the area's VRM objective. Mitigation would include painting, 

facility design, and placement/location. 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E, recreation management objectives for 

portions of the White River, Blue Mountain, Book Cliffs, Browns Park, and Nine Mile Canyon 

SRMAs 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 the White River, Bourdette Draw, Lower 

Flaming Gorge, Desolation Canyon, and the Bitter Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. These objectives would provide the same benefits to wilderness characteristics 

for the Desolation Canyon and Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics under Alternative D (No Action). Further, actions to construct up to 400 miles of 

non-motorized trails under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E and 55 miles of trails 

under Alternative D (No Action) would provide further opportunities for primitive forms of 

recreation. 

Management of ACEC or wild and scenic river values in Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, and 

the Lower Green River under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives would maintain and 

enhance wilderness characteristics in portions of the Lower Flaming Gorge and Desolation 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Management of the ACEC and wild and 

scenic river values in White River under Alternatives A, C, and E would have the same effect on 

the wilderness characteristics of portions of the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-285 

4.10.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and D (No Action), minerals exploration and 

development, power line and pipeline construction, road and trail construction, and vegetation 

treatment with mechanical methods would result in surface disturbances and placement of 

human-made structures on the landscape that would cause unavoidable adverse impacts on the 

natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, the noise and 

presence of people and equipment to implement these treatments and construct these facilities 

would diminish opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation activities. The 

human presence on the landscape would also alter the setting needed to support these 

opportunities. These impacts to wilderness characteristics would not be mitigated through project 

location and design. 

Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

closed to OHV travel and surface disturbances that would degrade or diminish the wilderness 

characteristics of these lands. However, even under this alternative and these prescriptions to 

protect wilderness characteristics, 117,470 acres would lose their natural characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration, development, and 

production of oil and gas resources in the VPA. Existing oil and gas leases and the exercise of 

valid existing rights under those leases would eliminate the wilderness characteristics in portions 

of 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (see Section 4.10.2.5.6.1 above). 

4.10.5. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, construction of oil and gas exploration access 

roads and well pads would produce a long-term loss of naturalness and opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation in portions of up to 11 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Similarly, under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and D (No Action), OHV driving, 

woodcutting, and seismic exploration would cause long-term losses of natural characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, the use of prescribed fire for vegetation treatments 

would, in the long term, enhance vegetation condition and the natural characteristics of nonWSA 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 

would be removed. 

Protection of ACEC or wild and scenic river values in Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, and the 

Lower Green River under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives would maintain and enhance 

wilderness characteristics in portions of the Lower Flaming Gorge and Desolation Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the long term. Management of the ACEC and wild 

and scenic river values in White River under Alternatives A, C, and E would have the same long-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

 4.10. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Vernal RMP 4-286 

term effect on the wilderness characteristics of portions of the White River non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.10.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, oil and gas wells and well fields that are currently producing; 

above-ground pipeline and power line corridors and communication sites; forest and woodland 

treatments by mechanical means (bull dozers 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., timber production and fire wood) would all result in irretrievable 

degradation of the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Further, implementation of these structures, land treatments, and uses would change the natural, 

undeveloped setting to a more developed and industrial 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. 

Under the Proposed RMP, however, 106,178 acres in 15 separate non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and under Alternative E, 277,596 acres in 25 separate non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect natural characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities. These areas would be limited and 

closed to motorized uses and surface-disturbing activities that would degrade or diminish 

wilderness characteristics. Despite this long-term commitment to protecting undeveloped 

landscapes, opportunities for solitude, and primitive recreational activities, there would still be 

an irretrievable loss of wilderness characteristics on 117,740 acres in portions of 11 of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics under Alternative E (see Section 4.10.2.5.6.1 above). 

Although currently undeveloped, portions of these non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics have been leased for oil and gas production. Because it is anticipated that the lease 

holders will exercise their rights under their leases and develop these areas for oil and gas 

production, the wilderness characteristics of portions of these 11 areas would be irretrievably 

lost. No irreversible impacts are anticipated. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-287 

4.11. PALEONTOLOGY

The BLM has identified four 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 (BLM 1998:01). 

Actions proposed in the Proposed RMP and each of the alternatives for other resources are 

analyzed here and the possible effects of these actions on paleontological resources are 

discussed. Because the total number of acres affected by other resource management decisions is 

not known, qualitative analysis is used to determine which alternative best meets the four goals 

and objectives identified in the BLM Manual and Handbook H-8270-1 (1998). 

In situations where qualitative analyses are used to determine which alternative best meets the 

BLM's four goals and objectives identified above, a reasonably foreseeable action (RFA) may be 

used to help predict impacts. The RFAs are potential future actions, such as oil and gas well 

placement or any other surface-disturbing activity, where specific decisions (e.g., actual location 

of oil and gas wells) cannot be determined at the programmatic level of this RMP/EIS. The 

RFAs are not specified allocations or decisions, but a best estimate or a guideline for what 

actions might be taken in the future. Predictions of potential projects are based on professional 

judgment regarding approximate project locations, general locality conditions, and design 

features commonly applied to such projects. These predictions do not definitively determine the 

outcome of site-specific analysis required prior to implementation of any project. 

For the purpose of this RMP, all vertebrate and vertebrate trace fossil (tracks, trails, or other 

indicators of vertebrate activity) localities were identified as to section, township, and range. The 

total area included in sections containing one or more vertebrate or vertebrate trace fossil 

localities within the VPA is approximately 147,062 acres (Class 4 and 5 areas). 

Outcrops of geologic units such as the Morrison, Mesaverde, Mancos, Moenkopi, Green River, 

Uinta, Wasatch, Chinle, Cedar Mountain, and Navajo/Nugget Formations should be considered 

as Class 3 areas in the VPA. All of these units contain vertebrate fossils in other locations and 

may require further assessment where they are exposed in the VPA. Areas where these units are 

covered or obscured are not Class 3 areas. The total area in which vertebrate or other 

scientifically significant fossils would be expected to occur is approximately 1,173,741 acres. 

Class 1 and 2 areas make up approximately 446,946 acres of the VPA.12

Within the VPA, paleontological resources are most often found where there are outcrops of the 

Morrison, Mesaverde, Mancos, Moenkopi, Green River, Uinta, Wasatch, Chinle, and 

Navajo/Nugget Formations. Impacts to paleontological resources result from natural weathering 

and erosion and from surface disturbance caused by people or animals. Adverse impacts to the 

resource would be mitigated or avoided through the careful application of mitigation measures 

prior to surface disturbance. Where mitigation is necessary, fossils are collected and taken to 

12 Calculations for PFYC Class acreages do not include state, tribal, or private lands. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-288 

secure repositories, along with contextual data, which preserves the paleontological record. The 

beneficial impacts of mitigation include the potential for advances in scientific understanding 

and regional perspectives that would not be known otherwise. Other beneficial impacts result 

from public education about the resource and involvement in its protection, from partnerships 

and from the efforts of permitted researchers. 

4.11.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Management decisions related to air quality, cultural resources, human health and safety, soils 

and watersheds, riparian, special status species, special designations, vegetation, wild horses, and 

wildlife and fisheries would have negligible impacts on paleontological resources, and therefore 

these decisions will not be further analyzed. The impacts of these actions 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, protecting sensitive soils 

and water resources, protecting federally listed species and their habitat, restoring and 

maintaining native vegetation communities, and protecting non-listed wildlife and fish habitats 

would neither inhibit nor enhance opportunities for the scientific study of important fossil 

resources nor the opportunities for recreational collection of fossils. 

4.11.1.1. FIRE MANAGEMENT AND WOODLAND/FOREST 

Actions related to fire management and woodland/forest management could have long-term 

direct adverse impacts on paleontological resources due to surface-disturbing activities such as 

creating fire lines and road building. 

4.11.1.2. LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING

Livestock can have dispersed long-term direct adverse impacts on paleontological resources. 

Trampling damages and destroys fossils where animals range across outcrops of fossiliferous 

formations. Livestock could adversely affect paleontological resources in areas of concentration 

around stock ponds, salt blocks, bedding areas, and along animal trails. Where livestock are 

eliminated from certain areas, adverse impacts to paleontological resources could occur due to 

changes in movement patterns. 

4.11.1.3. MINERALS

Exploration for and development of mineral resources can have short-term and long-term 

adverse effects on paleontological resources. Surface disturbance that results from mineral 

exploration (including seismic surveys) and development can affect paleontological resources by 

damaging or destroying them. Adverse effects include physical damage to or destruction of 

fossils, as well as increased vandalism and theft that result from improved access to fossil 

localities. However, following the procedures for assessment and mitigation found in the BLM 

Manual H-8270-1, Chapter III (1998) would reduce or remove the potential for most of these 

adverse impacts. Public education and, where necessary, law-enforcement actions would reduce 

unauthorized fossil collecting. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-289 

Exploration for and development of mineral resources would also have a potentially beneficial 

impact on paleontological resources by alerting paleontologist to discoveries in areas that are not 

currently being researched, potentially resulting in the collection of specimens and data that 

would not otherwise be recovered. 

4.11.1.4. PALEONTOLOGY

The Proposed RMP and the range of alternatives proposed for managing paleontological 

resources would have both long- and short-term beneficial effects. The Proposed RMP and all of 

the alternatives propose appropriate assessment to facilitate scientific research, to encourage 

partnerships, to manage access to significant fossils, to reduce unauthorized collection of 

paleontological resources, and to mitigate potential adverse impacts, where necessary, to protect 

the resources. They also beneficially propose management for recreational collection and use of 

common invertebrate and plant fossils, with public education on and interpretation of 

paleontological resources. 

4.11.1.5. RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS

Management decisions that allow the concentration of livestock in areas where there are 

significant fossils would cause long-term adverse impacts to paleontological resources. Fences 

and water sources where animals congregate, if they are placed on or near areas where there are 

significant fossils, would result in damage or destruction of fossils. However, through required 

assessment of rangeland improvement projects, paleontological resources would be identified 

and improvements would be mitigated where the potential for resource damage exists. 

4.11.1.6. RECREATION

The management goals and objectives for recreation would have both adverse and beneficial 

long-term impacts on paleontological resources. For example, allowing motorized vehicles up to 

300 feet from a designated route increases the likelihood that important or major fossil localities 

in Classes 4 and 5 or Class 3 areas would be inadvertently damaged or vandalized, if discovered. 

The management goals and objectives for recreation also have the potential to benefit 

paleontological resources. By implementing public education and environmental awareness 

programs, such as the BLM's Tread Lightly and Leave No Trace programs, added recreational 

activities in the VPA would reduce illegal fossil collection, vandalism, or accidental destruction 

of the resource. Developed recreation sites are closed to recreational fossil collection (see 43 

CFR 8365.1-5[b]), and closing developed recreation sites to surface-disturbing activities would 

reduce the adverse impacts to paleontological resources. 

4.11.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

This section summarizes the effects of the management actions (Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives) proposed in Chapter 2 for paleontological resources. Because the analyses of the 

management decisions presented in this chapter do not reflect specific projects or actions, some 

effects can only be expressed qualitatively. Quantitative analysis has been included when 

possible, based on specific decisions proposed in Chapter 2, as well as estimates of RFAs 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-290 

described below. In most cases, site-specific analyses would be required to implement resource 

management decisions affecting paleontological resources. More detailed or locality-specific 

studies and appropriate environmental documents would be prepared in compliance with NEPA 

and its implementing regulations, as needed. 

Effects analyzed in this chapter include direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed 

management decisions to the extent that they were identifiable for analysis. Where applicable, 

the short-term or long-term nature of these effects is described. Direct effects result from 

activities planned or authorized by the BLM and occur at the same time and place. Indirect 

effects are caused by these decisions and occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Cumulative effects occur when there are multiple effects on the same resources. They are 

incremental effects of proposed activities or projects when combined with past, present, and 

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 nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." The 

cumulative effects discussed in this chapter address resources for which direct and indirect 

impacts have been described earlier. 

Where surface disturbance occurs within the VPA, the effects on paleontological resources can 

be beneficial or adverse. Beneficial impacts to paleontological resources would be due to 

advances in scientific understanding and knowledge of the spatial distribution of significant 

fossil resources. Adverse impacts would be due to disturbances that are uncontrolled or that 

increase public access to areas containing important or valuable fossils. Subsurface disturbance 

would also be detrimental to paleontological resources. 

4.11.2.1. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.11.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

Under the Proposed RMP and all of the action alternatives prescribed, fire would be allowed on 

approximately 156,425 acres per decade. Because a far greater number of acres are proposed for 

prescribed fire under the Proposed RMP and the action alternatives relative to Alternative D (No 

Action), the Proposed RMP and all of the action alternatives are likely to have greater adverse 

direct impact on paleontological resources relative to the current management situation. 

4.11.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under the current management situation, Alternative D (No Action); 27,950 acres in the Book 

Cliffs RMP; and 22,950 acres in the Diamond Mountain RMP would be treated with prescribed 

fire and related activities for a total of 50,900 acres. This alternative is likely to have less adverse 

direct impact on paleontological resources as compared to the Proposed RMP and the action 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-291 

alternatives, because fewer acres are proposed for treatment that could surface disturbances to 

the resource. 

4.11.2.2. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.11.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, the BLM would pursue assess to the White River at Cowboy Canyon, 

Bonanza Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. It would also pursue the acquisition of Indian Trust 

Lands near the confluence of South and Sweetwater Canyons and in the Bitter Creek and Willow 

Creek areas. These actions would have potential direct, long- and short-term beneficial effects on 

paleontological resources as compared to Alternative D (No Action), if resources were present 

and significant paleontological resources were thus brought under BLM management. Easements 

such as that proposed at the mouth of Cowboy Canyon would affect paleontological resources by 

increasing public access to areas that contain geological units that are very rich in fossil 

localities. Public access to these areas could result in increased unauthorized use or vandalism, 

which would have more adverse impacts than Alternative D (No Action). 

Land withdrawal decisions would preclude mineral entry on 22,814 acres under the Proposed 

RMP. This would provide some resource protection from minerals-related surface disturbances, 

but less than Alternative D (No Action) because Alternative D (No Action) would withdraw 

more acreage (35,900 acres). 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be closed to oil and gas leasing and designated as avoidance areas for ROWs. This would 

have more long-term, beneficial impacts on paleontological resources by reducing surface 

disturbance-related impacts to the resource as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.11.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts to paleontological resources would be the same as discussed under the Proposed 

RMP because the management decisions would be the same. 

4.11.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under this alternative, the BLM would pursue only administrative access across Indian trust 

lands in Bitter Creek, and near the confluence of South and Sweetwater Canyon. Land 

withdrawal decisions would be the same as under the Proposed RMP. 

Under Alternative B, there would be no direct, long- or short-term impacts to paleontological 

resources within Indian trust lands because public access to potential paleontological resources 

would not be allowed. Mineral entry land withdrawal decisions would have the same impacts as 

the Proposed RMP because the decisions are the same. This would provide some resource 

protection, but less than Alternative D (No Action) because Alternative D (No Action) would 

withdraw more acreage. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-292 

4.11.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Lands and realty decisions under Alternative C would be the same as under the Proposed RMP, 

except that the BLM would also pursue an easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed from the 

Utah/Colorado line to Watson in Evacuation Wash. Potential long- and short-term direct impacts 

to paleontological resources from land acquisition decisions under Alternative C would be 

similar to those described under the Proposed RMP, but with additional beneficial and adverse 

impacts discussed under the Proposed RMP that includes the railroad bed easement. 

Land withdrawal decisions would be similar to the Proposed RMP, except that additional acres 

in the Lower Green River ACEC and along the White River would also be precluded from 

mineral entry. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the short-term and long-term indirect 

impacts of Alternative C would be more beneficial by providing greater resource protection than 

Alternative D (No Action) because more acreage would be withdrawn from mineral entry (a total 

of 36,265 acres). 

4.11.2.2.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Lands and realty decisions under Alternative D (No Action) are unspecified in the current 

management plan. Any proposal to acquire or dispose of land would be reviewed to determine its 

potential to effect paleontological resources. 

Land withdrawal decisions would preclude mineral entry on 35,900 acres. This would provide 

the paleontological resource protection from minerals-related surface disturbances. 

4.11.2.2.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Proposed lands and realty decisions under Alternative E would be similar to Alternative C, with 

potential long- and short-term direct impacts to paleontological resources from land acquisition 

decisions similar to those described under the Proposed RMP, except that approximately 277,596 

acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the VPA would be designated as 

ROW exclusion areas to protect the wilderness characteristics values in these areas. This would 

have more long-term, beneficial impacts on paleontological resources by reducing surface 

disturbance-related impacts to the resource as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Land withdrawal decisions and impacts on paleontology under Alternative E would be the same 

as discussed under Alternative C. The short-term and long-term indirect impacts of Alternative E 

would be beneficial by providing greater resource protection than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.11.2.3. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Minerals decisions under the Proposed RMP and each of the alternatives have the potential to 

have both beneficial and adverse impacts on paleontological resources within the VPA, as all 

decisions would involve surface-disturbing activities. The difference between the Proposed RMP 

and alternatives is in the numbers of acres open to minerals development. For the Proposed RMP 

and each alternative the number of acres open to surface-disturbing activities is less important 

than the total size of Class 4 and 5 and Class 3 areas actually disturbed. All proposed actions and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-293 

projects related to minerals development would be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis and 

documentation, as well as agency guidance (i.e., BLM Handbook H-8270-1). Assessment of 

possible impacts to paleontological resources and recommendations for any necessary mitigation 

would be required. Because paleontological resources must be assessed and any required 

mitigation performed by a permitted paleontologist, specimens and data could be collected in 

areas of mineral development that would otherwise have gone unnoticed, which would be a 

beneficial impact of minerals development. 

4.11.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP 

In general, the direct effects to paleontological resources resulting from minerals decisions 

would be related to the level of surface disturbances in Class 4 and 5 or Class 3 areas that occur 

under the decisions. The greater the level of permitted surface disturbance, the greater would be 

the potential for encountering paleontological resources in these areas. Under the Proposed RMP, 

1,640,569 acres of BLM administered land would be open for oil and gas development and 

surface disturbances within the VPA under Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface Use 

leasing stipulations. Potential indirect adverse effects on paleontological resources under the 

Proposed RMP would include vandalism and unauthorized fossil collection that result from 

increased human activity within areas of mineral development in Class 4 and 5 and Class 3 areas. 

Compared to the other alternatives, the Proposed RMP has the third highest number of acres 

open to surface disturbance related to oil and gas development and the third lowest number of 

acres closed to surface occupancy or development (273,706). As such, the Proposed RMP has a 

greater potential for impacts to paleontological resources within the VPA than Alternative D (No 

Action) and Alternatives C and E, but lower than Alternatives A and B, but only if this 

disturbance takes place in Class 4 and 5 or Class 3 areas. 

4.11.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The types of direct and indirect impacts of minerals leasing within the VPA on paleontological 

resources would be the same as discussed above under the Proposed RMP, but to a greater 

degree. This is because Alternative A would permit 1,776,782 acres under Standard and Timing 

and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations for oil and gas development. Compared to the 

other alternatives, Alternative A has the second highest number of acres open to surface 

disturbances related to minerals oil and gas development and the fifth lowest number of acres 

closed to surface occupancy or development. So, Alternative A has a greater potential for 

impacts to paleontological resources within the VPA than Alternative D (No Action), the 

Proposed RMP alternative, and Alternatives C and E; it would have a lower potential impact than 

Alternative B, but only if this disturbance takes place in Class 4 and 5 or Class 3 areas. 

4.11.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

The types of long- and short-term direct effects under Alternative B would be the same as those 

described under the Proposed RMP but of greater magnitude, because management decisions 

under this alternative would open the largest area for oil and gas minerals leasing (1,819,435 

acres). This alternative would manage for the smallest area that would be closed to surface 

occupancy or any form of minerals development (94,603 acres), as compared to the other action 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-294 

alternatives and to Alternative D (No Action). So, Alternative B would have a greater potential 

for adverse impacts to paleontological resources than Alternative D (No Action) and the other 

action alternatives. 

4.11.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Direct effects to paleontological resources resulting from mineral decisions under Alternative C 

are related to the level of surface disturbance in Class 4 and 5 and Class 3 areas that is permitted 

under the decisions. The greater the level of permitted surface disturbance in these areas, the 

greater the potential for impact to paleontological resources. Under Alternative C, 1,627,197 

acres of BLM administered lands would be open to minerals development. Compared to the 

Proposed RMP and the other action alternatives, Alternative C would have the third smallest area 

open to surface disturbance related to oil and gas development and the second highest number of 

acres closed to surface occupancy or development (286,916). The types of long term and short 

term direct and indirect impacts to paleontological resources would be the same as discussed 

above under the Proposed RMP, but to a lesser degree, because a smaller area would potentially 

be affected. However, the impacts would be greater than Alternative D (No Action). The impacts 

to the resource, either adverse or beneficial, would depend on the number of Class 4 and 5 and 

Class 3 acres that would be developed under this alternative. 

4.11.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

The direct impacts to paleontological resources resulting from mineral decisions under 

Alternative D (No Action) are related to the level of surface disturbances in Class 4 and 5 and 

Class 3 areas that are permitted by minerals decisions. Under Alternative D (No Action), 

1,535,974 acres within the VPA would be open to oil and gas development. Alternative D (No 

Action) would have the second lowest number of acres open to surface disturbance related to oil 

and gas development and the fourth lowest number of acres closed to surface occupancy or 

development (189,470). 

The types of long- and short-term direct and indirect impacts from minerals surface disturbances 

under Alternative D (No Action) would be the same as those described under the Proposed RMP. 

Indirect impacts to paleontological resources based upon minerals decisions under Alternative D 

(No Action) are similar to those described for Alternative A but would be of smaller magnitude 

owing to the lower number of acres available for use and the higher number of acres closed to 

surface occupancy for oil and gas development (except for Alternative C). 

4.11.2.3.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 1,385,454 acres of BLM administered lands would be open to oil and gas 

minerals development under Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing 

stipulations. The types of impacts would be the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP 

above, but would be of lesser magnitude than the other alternatives because this alternative 

would allow the development of the smallest area for minerals development and the largest area 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-295 

as closed to surface occupancy or any form of minerals development and subsequent surface 

disturbances. 

Compared to the Proposed RMP and the other action alternatives, Alternative E minerals 

decisions would manage for the smallest area as open to surface disturbance related to oil and 

gas development and the largest area closed to surface occupancy or minerals surface occupancy 

or development (414,666 acres).The impacts to the resource, either adverse or beneficial, would 

depend on the number of Class 4 and 5 and Class 3 acres that would be developed under this 

alternative. 

In summary, the highest adverse impacts to paleontological resources would occur under 

Alternative B, due to the greatest number of acres open to surface disturbance. Alternative A 

would have the second highest degree of adverse impacts, followed by Alternatives C and the 

Proposed RMP. Alternatives D and E would have the lowest levels of adverse impacts to 

paleontological resources. 

4.11.2.4. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.11.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed under VRM II class objectives, closed to oil and gas leasing and mineral 

materials disposal, closed to woodland harvesting, and OHV use would be limited to designated 

routes. All of these decisions would either prohibit or restrict surface disturbances to 

paleontological resources, which would have long-term, beneficial impacts on the resource. The 

Proposed RMP would have more beneficial impacts on the resource than Alternative D (No 

Action) because these non-WSA areas would not be managed to protect their wilderness values 

under Alternative D (No Action). However, the reduction in potential surface disturbances from 

other resource uses may also reduce the likelihood that fossils would be discovered and 

collected, adversely affecting paleontological resources. 

4.11.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND D 

There are no proposed management decisions and no acres would be managed as non-WSA 

areas with wilderness characteristics under any of these alternatives, so there would be no 

impacts to paleontological resources from these decisions. 

4.11.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed under 

VRM I class objectives, closed to OHV use, closed to oil and gas leasing and mineral materials 

disposal, closed to woodland harvesting, and excluded from ROWs designation. All of these 

decisions would either prohibit or restrict surface disturbances to paleontological resources, 

which would have long-term, preservation-related, beneficial impacts on the resource. This 

alternative would have more beneficial impacts on the resource than Alternative D (No Action) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-296 

because approximately 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be managed to protect their wilderness values within the VPA, which would also preserve 

paleontological resources. However, the reduction in potential surface disturbances would also 

reduce the likelihood that fossils would be discovered and collected, adversely affecting 

paleontological resources. 

4.11.2.5. IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGICAL DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.11.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP, AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D (NO ACTION), AND E 

Paleontological resource decisions for each of the alternatives would have direct, beneficial 

impacts on paleontological resources within the VPA. Alternatives C and E would provide the 

greatest protection for paleontological resources through predictive modeling and broad-scale 

sampling, also requiring assessment (and where needed, mitigation) in all Class 4 and 5 areas, 

and in Class 3 areas as needed. Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, the use of predictive 

modeling and broad-scale sampling would streamline the process of assessment and the 

mitigation of potentially adverse impacts caused by surface disturbance and would make it more 

effective. The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would provide the second highest degree of 

protection to paleontological resources. The management decisions under Alternatives B and D 

are similar, with mitigation of impacts as fossils are found. These alternatives would provide the 

least protection for paleontological resources. 

Paleontological Resource Use Permits administered by the BLM Utah State Office for scientific 

study would provide important information to the VPA about the location and kinds of 

significant paleontological resources. Providing websites, local interpretive sites, and written 

information to the public about fossils and hobby collection has the potential to directly increase 

the public knowledge of the earth sciences and encourage good stewardship, reduce illegal 

collection, and increase the likelihood that important discoveries would be reported to the BLM. 

4.11.2.6. IMPACTS OF RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

Paleontological resources would be affected by rangeland improvements if they were placed in 

areas with fossiliferous units. Generally, the areas proposed for rangeland improvements would 

be evaluated for significant fossils if they were in areas likely to contain fossils (those areas 

designated as Class 4 and 5 and Class 3). Those areas containing significant paleontological 

resources would be protected from damage by placing rangeland fences and other proposed 

improvements away from fossil localities. In those areas with known fossiliferous units, 

rangeland improvements structures or projects that would not or could not be moved, such as 

reservoirs, would be assessed and the potential impacts mitigated, which could beneficially lead 

to new discoveries and increase scientific knowledge. 

4.11.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 34,640 acres of vegetation treatment, 69 miles of fencing, 38 miles of 

water pipeline, 51 spring developments, and 812 guzzler or reservoir projects would be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-297 

completed. These proposed improvements would cause surface disturbances, therefore 

beneficially increasing the probability of new discoveries. These acreages, miles and numbers of 

facilities are roughly comparable to those proposed under Alternative D (No Action). It is 

anticipated that the primary indirect impact would be to increase the potential for adverse, 

concentrated trampling of paleontological localities located in areas adjacent to fencing or 

reservoirs on barren bedrock. Where cattle, sheep, or other grazers gather, they could damage or 

destroy fossils in Class 4 and 5 or Class 3 areas. 

4.11.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts of rangeland improvements on paleontological resources would be the same as 

discussed under the Proposed RMP because the management decisions are the same. 

4.11.2.6.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

The overall direct adverse impacts from rangeland improvement decisions on paleontological 

resources under Alternative B would be greater than those described for the Proposed RMP. 

Under Alternative B, 50,900 acres of would be subject to vegetation treatment, 369 miles of 

fencing would be installed, 51 miles of water pipeline would be installed, 78 well/spring 

developments would be undertaken, and 1,165 guzzler or reservoir projects would be completed. 

These improvements would likely impact more surface area than D (No Action), therefore 

creating a greater probability that paleontological resources would be beneficially discovered and 

studied, if improvements are in Class 4 and 5 and Class 3 localities. Long- and short-term direct 

and indirect impacts to paleontological resources from rangeland improvement decisions would 

be similar to those described for direct impacts under the Proposed RMP, but would be greater 

under Alternative B if the increased surface disturbance takes place in Class 4 and 5 or Class 3 

areas. 

4.11.2.6.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C a total of 45,860 acres would be subject to vegetation treatment, 129 miles 

of fencing would be installed, 30 miles of water pipeline would be installed, 87 well/spring 

developments would be undertaken, and 811 guzzler or reservoir projects would be completed. 

The direct and indirect, short term and long term impacts of rangeland improvement decisions on 

paleontological resources under Alternative C would be similar to that described for the 

Proposed RMP, but would be increased slightly in magnitude under Alternative C owing to the 

overall greater potential for impacts to the resource from range improvement surface 

disturbances. As Alternative C would affect more area, it also would beneficially increase the 

probability of new discoveries, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.11.2.6.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

The impacts of rangeland improvement decisions on paleontological resources under Alternative 

D (No Action) would be similar to that described for the Proposed RMP and the other 

alternatives. Under Alternative D (No Action) a total of 40,390 acres of would be subject to 

vegetation treatment, 65 miles of fencing would be installed, 35 miles of water pipeline would be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-298 

installed, 74 well/spring developments would be undertaken and 775 guzzler or reservoir 

projects would be completed. 

The types of long- and short-term direct and indirect impacts to paleontological resources from 

rangeland improvement decisions would be the same as to those described under the Proposed 

RMP, but would be slightly greater under Alternative D (No Action), because more area would 

be disturbed from vegetation treatments, if Class 4 and 5 and Class 3 areas are affected. 

4.11.2.6.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts would be the same as Alternative C because the proposed rangeland improvements 

would be the same. 

In summary, the greatest short-term direct, adverse impacts to paleontological resources due to 

surface disturbance from rangeland improvements and indirect adverse impacts from livestock 

trampling would be from Alternative B because the largest area would potentially be disturbed 

by rangeland improvements. The next greatest adverse impacts would be from Alternatives C 

and E, followed by Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would 

have the least impact on paleontological resources because these alternatives proposed the 

smallest area for vegetation treatments, the shortest miles of rangeland fencing, and the fewest 

wells/springs for development. 

4.11.2.7. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Recreation management decisions under the Proposed RMP and each of the alternatives would 

affect paleontological resources by either increasing visitor use or changing development. 

Increasing visitor use would affect resources by creating a greater level of surface disturbance, 

therefore increasing the probability that fossils would be discovered. Conversely, the greater the 

level of human activity, the greater would be the potential for paleontological resources within a 

recreational area to be adversely impacted by the number of individuals walking over or visiting 

paleontological localities. Increased human activity in areas where paleontological resources are 

present also tends to correspond with increased levels of vandalism, unauthorized collection, and 

inadvertent damage or destruction of the resource. The beneficial impacts of increased 

recreational use would be that people might find and report discoveries of important and valuable 

fossils. 

The differing use levels of BLM land designated as SRMAs would affect the paleontological 

resources in areas known to have these resources. The designation of SRMAs generally increases 

recreational activity in given areas, but the only areas known to have important fossil localities at 

present are Blue Mountain, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, Browns Park, and the White River 

Corridor. Activity plans created for SRMA management would include stipulations to protect 

unique paleontological resources, which would minimize impacts to the resource. 

Direct effects on paleontological resources resulting from recreation decisions under the 

Proposed RMP and all alternatives would be related to the level of surface disturbance associated 

with recreational development and with the degree of increased human activity in Class 4 and 5 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-299 

and Class 3 areas. Potential short- and long-term direct impacts would include increases in levels 

of unauthorized use and associated vandalism that would accompany increased human activity. It 

should be noted and it is assumed, however, that regulated recreational use would likely provide 

better protection to paleontological resources than 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 appreciation for paleontological resources. 

Indirect effects of recreation decisions on paleontological resources would include benefits such 

as increased public enjoyment of hobby collecting, increased interest in the science of 

paleontology, and generally more public awareness of these resources and how to preserve them. 

Potential adverse impacts would be the increased unauthorized collection, inadvertent damage, 

or vandalism in Class 4 and 5 and Class 3 areas adjacent to developed recreation areas. 

4.11.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, seven SRMAs would be managed within the VPA, totaling 133,560 

acres: 2,831 acres along the White River Corridor, 44,168 acres in Nine Mile Canyon, 18,490 

acres in Browns Park, 1,014 acres in Pelican Lake, 24,259 acres on Red Mountain-Dry Fork, 69 

acres in Fantasy Canyon, and 42,729 acres on Blue Mountain. Additionally, 400 miles of nonmotorized trails would be improved and/or developed, and restrictions would be placed on the 

use of OHVs for retrieval of big game off of designated routes. A total of 800 miles of motorized 

OHV trails would be developed or improved under this alternative. New cabin construction for 

permitted/administrative use would be allowed within the VPA but an attempt would be made to 

consolidate construction in specific areas at or near existing cabins. Also, under the Proposed 

RMP 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be protected from 

cross-country OHV travel and closed to oil and gas mineral leasing and woodland harvesting. 

These decisions would have long term, beneficial impacts on the resource by protecting them 

from surface disturbances, unmanaged collection, and vandalism. However, the likelihood for 

discovery of significant paleontological resources would be reduced. Compared to Alternative D 

(No Action), the Proposed RMP would likely have fewer adverse impacts to paleontological 

resources and a reduced potential for damage of paleontological resources because more area 

would be beneficially protected under SRMA management from surface disturbances through 

SRMA integrated activity plans. 

4.11.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, 499,588 acres of the VPA would be managed within SRMAs: 24,183 acres 

along the White River Corridor, 52,720 acres in Browns Park, 24,259 acres on Red MountainDry Fork, 1014 acres around Pelican Lake, 273,486 acres in the Book Cliffs, 81,168 acres in 

Nine Mile Canyon, and 42,758 acres on Blue Mountain would be managed as SRMAs. 

Additionally, 400 miles of non-motorized trails would be improved and/or developed, and 

restrictions would be placed on the use of OHVs for retrieval of big game off of designated 

routes. A total of 800 miles of motorized OHV trails would be developed or improved under this 

alternative. New cabin construction for permitted/administrative use would be allowed within the 

VPA but an attempt would be made to consolidate construction in specific areas at or near 

existing cabins. The types of direct and indirect beneficial impacts of recreation management 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-300 

decisions under this alternative to paleontological resources would be the same as discussed 

under the Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree because more area would be protected from 

surface disturbances under increased SRMA management. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would provide fewer adverse impacts to 

paleontological resources and more beneficial impacts because more area would be protected 

from surface disturbances. 

4.11.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Direct effects to paleontological resources resulting from recreation decisions under Alternative 

B are related to the lack of designation and protection of resources associated with recreational 

development and use. Under this alternative SRMA management decisions would be the same as 

Alternative D (No Action): no SRMAs would be designated in the White River Corridor or on 

Blue Mountain, but Brown's Park (17,000 acres), Pelican Lake (1,014 acres), Nine Mile Canyon 

(44,181 acres) and Red Mountain-Dry Fork (24,259 acres) would continue to be managed as 

SRMAs. A total of 86,454 acres would be managed within SRMAs. Additionally, under 

Alternative B, 800 miles of motorized trails would be improved or developed, and OHV use off 

of designated trails would be allowed for big game retrieval. Under Alternative B, recreational 

use in the White River Canyon with minimal supervision would continue; unrestricted and 

unconfined recreational use of the Book Cliffs would also continue as currently managed and 

new cabin construction would be allowed within the VPA, but an attempt would be made to 

consolidate construction in specific areas. Alternative B generally allows and would manage for 

unrestricted and unconfined use of BLM lands for recreation. 

Potential long- and short-term direct and indirect impacts on paleontological resources under 

Alternative B are similar to those described for the Proposed RMP with the exception that the 

increased acreage available for unrestricted and unconfined recreational use under Alternative B 

would result in the increased potential for damage of paleontological resources. 

4.11.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would designate a total of 522,604 acres within SRMAs: 47,130 acres in the White 

River Corridor, 273,486 acres in the Book Cliffs, 69 acres in Fantasy Canyon, and 42,758 acres 

on Blue Mountain as new SRMAs. It would maintain 52,720 acres in Browns Park, 81,168 in 

Nine Mile Canyon, 1,014 acres at Pelican Lake and 24,259 acres on Red Mountain-Dry Fork as 

existing SRMAs. Additionally, under Alternative C, 400 miles of non-motorized trails would be 

improved and/or developed, and restrictions would be placed on the use of OHVs for retrieval of 

big game off of designated routes. No motorized OHV trails would be developed or improved 

under this alternative. Alternative C would have similar direct adverse effects as discussed under 

the Proposed RMP, except that the lack of OHV trail development or improvement would reduce 

the probability of new discoveries of paleontological resources. 

Long- and short-term direct and indirect adverse effects on paleontological resources under 

Alternative C are less than those described for Alternative D (No Action) because more area 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-301 

would be protected from surface disturbances within SRMAs than under Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.11.2.7.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

As discussed above under Alternative B, Alternative D (No Action) would manage the same 

number and acreages of SRMAs as that alternative, with the same impacts to paleontological 

resources. Minimal oversight or lack of designation of new SRMAs would lead to resource 

degradation due to limited management of these areas. Additionally, 55 miles of non-motorized 

trails would be improved or developed and the Red Mountain trail would be managed as a 

motorized OHV trail. No management decisions are specified for OHV use off designated trails 

for the retrieval of big game. In general, Alternative D (No Action) would manage for 

unrestricted and unconfined recreational use of most areas within the VPA, which would have 

adverse impacts on the resource because of the increased likelihood of surface disturbances from 

OHV use, and from minimal management of front country and back country recreational 

activities. The potential long- and short-term direct and indirect effects on paleontological 

resources under Alternative D (No Action) are comparable to those described for Alternative B. 

4.11.2.7.6. ALTERNATIVE E

The impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative C, except that 157,018 acres of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the proposed SRMAs would be managed 

for primitive, non-mechanized recreational opportunities rather than developed recreation. This 

would result in somewhat less surface disturbance and less adverse, direct impacts on 

paleontological resources. 

4.11.2.7.7. SUMMARY

In relative terms, Alternatives C and E would manage more areas as SRMAs with fewer trail 

development miles than Alternative A and the Proposed RMP. Alternatives B and D do not 

designate new areas as SRMAs and generally allow for unrestricted and unconfined use of BLM 

lands for recreation. The greatest protection of paleontological resources would be provided by 

Alternatives C and E, followed by Alternative A and the Proposed RMP, based on the total area 

protected and managed for resource preservation within SRMAs. Alternatives B and D would 

provide the least protection for paleontological resources. 

4.11.2.8. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.11.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Direct impacts on paleontological resources within the VPA resulting from travel decisions 

under the Proposed RMP would be expected to be long-term and beneficial as compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Travel decisions under the Proposed RMP provide for the opening, 

closing, or restricting of areas for OHV travel and for the repair, maintenance, upgrade, or 

realignment of roads causing resource damage. The Proposed RMP also provides for the closure 

of roads if repair, maintenance, upgrade, or realignment is not possible or feasible to reduce 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-302 

damage to resources. All of these management decisions would have a potentially direct, 

beneficial impact on paleontological resources in Class 4 and 5 and Class 3 areas by reducing 

and/or controlling surface-disturbing, travel-related activities. Under the Proposed RMP, 6,202 

acres would be open to unrestricted OHV travel; OHV travel on 1,643,475 acres would be to 

limited to designated routes, and 75,845 acres would be closed to OHV travel. 

Both short-term and long-term indirect effects from travel decisions under the Proposed RMP are 

anticipated to be negligible. Long- and short-term direct impacts on paleontological resources 

from travel decisions would include increased protection of paleontological resources through 

the substantial reduction of surface-disturbing activities associated with general travel and open, 

cross-country OHV use. Paleontological resources in Class 4 and 5 and Class 3 areas that are 

closed to OHV use or where restrictions are placed on OHV use would receive the greatest 

benefit. Thus, with the specific controls and restrictions placed on travel activities under the 

Proposed RMP, the long-term net effect would be an overall decrease in the numbers of localities 

subject to adverse impacts, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.11.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts of travel decisions on paleontological resources would be the same as discussed 

under the Proposed RMP because the management decisions are the same. 

4.11.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, 5,434 acres would be open to unrestricted OHV travel; OHV travel on 

1,659,901 acres would be limited to designated routes, and 60,187 acres would be closed to 

OHV travel. 

Long- and short-term direct and indirect adverse impacts to paleontological resources from travel 

decisions under Alternative B are less than those described for Alternative D (No Action), due to 

the substantially lower acreage open to unrestricted, cross-country OHV use (and thus the 

reduced potential for surface disturbances to paleontological resources). 

4.11.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would provide the second greatest benefit to paleontological resources in Class 4 

and 5 and Class 3 areas within the VPA by closing a substantially large area to OHV use, 

managing OHV travel, and improving roadways. Under Alternative C, 5,434 acres would be 

open to unrestricted, cross-country OHV travel; OHV use on 1,353,529 acres would be limited to 

designated routes, and 366,559 acres would be closed to OHV travel. 

Long- and short-term direct and indirect impacts on paleontological resources from travel 

decisions under Alternative C are similar to those described under the Proposed RMP, but would 

be of greater magnitude owing to the increased numbers of acres under Alternative C that would 

be closed to OHV use. This alternative would have fewer adverse impacts to paleontological 

resources than Alternative D (No Action) because of the smaller area designated as open to OHV 

use. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-303 

4.11.2.8.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Current travel management decisions under Alternative D (No Action) are largely unspecified. 

No specific decisions are specified for the repair, maintenance, upgrade, or realignment of 

roadways causing damage to resources. Travel designations are specified, however, for OHV use 

within the VPA, and. these designations provide the least protection to paleontological resources 

from potential travel-related surface disturbances. Under Alternative D (No Action), 787,859 

acres are designated as open to unrestricted, cross-country OHV use, largely in Class 4 and 5 and 

Class 3 areas. There are 887,275 acres that restrict OHV use to designated routes, and 50,388 

acres are closed to OHV use. 

The large area designated as open to unrestricted OHV use would likely contribute to greater 

numbers of paleontological localities being subjected to direct impacts resulting from OHV 

traffic and surface disturbances. 

4.11.2.8.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would provide the greatest benefit to paleontological resources in Class 4 and 5 

and Class 3 areas within the VPA by closing a substantially large to OHV use (the most acreage 

of all the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP), managing OHV travel, and improving 

roadways. Under Alternative E, 5,434 acres would be open to unrestricted cross-country OHV 

travel, 1,326,024 acres would be designated to restrict OHV travel to designated routes, and 

392,818 acres would be closed to OHV travel. Approximately 53 miles of OHV routes would be 

closed in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to protect their wilderness values. 

The beneficial long- and short-term direct and indirect impacts on paleontological resources from 

travel decisions under Alternative E would be similar to those described for the Proposed RMP 

but would be of greater magnitude owing to the increased acreage and miles of routes under 

Alternative E that would be closed to OHV use. This alternative would have fewer potentially 

adverse impacts to paleontological resources than Alternative D (No Action) because of the 

substantially reduced area open to OHV use and the increased area closed to OHV travel. 

In summary, the greatest adverse impacts to paleontological resources would be due to 

Alternative D (No Action). The second highest degree of adverse impacts would come from 

Alternative B, followed by the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. Alternatives E and C would 

have the least adverse impacts to paleontological resources due to travel decisions, based on area 

open to cross-country OHV travel and areas where OHV travel is limited to designated routes. 

4.11.2.9. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

Short- and long-term direct and indirect impacts on paleontological resources could result from 

visual resource management decisions if surface disturbance is controlled and limited, and 

collection of fossils is not allowed in some VRM class areas. If paleontological resources occur 

where visual resource management reduce, control, or eliminate surface-disturbing activities, 

beneficial direct impacts of management decisions would include a reduction in physical damage 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-304 

to or destruction of fossils. Indirect beneficial impacts would include a reduction in vandalism 

and theft that result from improved access to fossil localities. Conversely, because increases in 

surface disturbance also increase the probability that fossils would be discovered, reduction in 

surface-disturbing activities could also adversely affect paleontological resources. Visual 

resource management decisions that reduce fossil collection would directly and adversely affect 

paleontological resources In all cases, these conclusions are based on the assumption that 

significant paleontological resources would occur in VRM Class I and Class II areas. 

4.11.2.9.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 57,776 acres within the VPA would be designated as VRM Class I 

and managed under VRM objectives to preserve visual resources and scenic quality. This VRM 

class would impose the greatest limitations on surface-disturbing activities. Another 231,911 

acres would be managed under VRM Class II objectives, 786,612 acres would be managed VRM 

Class III objectives, and 643,641 acres would be managed under VRM Class IV with the least 

restrictions on surface disturbances. The Proposed RMP would designate a total of 289,687 acres 

within VRM Class I and II, 122,915 more acres within the two highest VRM classifications than 

Alternative D (No Action) (see Table 4.19.3 Visual Resources). 

Long- and short-term indirect impacts on paleontological resources from visual resource 

management decisions under the Proposed RMP would include beneficial impacts due to the 

overall reduction of allowed surface-disturbing activities within the areas managed under VRM 

Class I and II objectives, and an overall decrease in the numbers of localities subject to surface 

disturbance, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Visual resource management decisions under the Proposed RMP would have a direct beneficial 

impact to paleontological resources, as compared to Alternative D (No Action), because there 

would be less surface disturbance and therefore less physical damage to or destruction of fossils. 

Indirect beneficial impacts would include a reduction in vandalism and theft that result from 

improved access to fossil localities. However, the reduction in surface disturbance may also 

reduce the probability that fossils would be discovered and collected, adversely affecting 

paleontological resources. If fossil collection was not allowed in some areas in order to meet 

VRM Class I and Class II resource objectives, this would directly adversely affect 

paleontological resources as well because the likelihood for significant paleontological resource 

discoveries would be reduced. 

4.11.2.9.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, 63,136 acres within the VPA would be managed under VRM Class I 

objectives, 294,773 acres would be managed under VRM Class II objectives, 716,186 acres 

would be managed under VRM Class III, and 645,845 acres would be managed under VRM 

Class IV. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative A would provide a high degree of 

direct, adverse impacts to paleontological resources because a total of 357,909 acres would be 

managed under the two highest VRM classifications where the likelihood of significant resource 

discovery would be reduced by restrictions on surface disturbances. Visual resource management 

decisions under Alternative A would have less short term and long term direct and indirect 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-305 

beneficial impact to paleontological resources than do those under Alternative D (No Action) 

because more area would be protected under the higher VRM classes. However, the same 

specific controls and restrictions placed on surface-disturbing activities in areas managed as the 

two highest VRM classes would also result in an overall beneficial decrease in the numbers of 

localities subject to surface disturbances, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.11.2.9.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

The overall indirect effect of visual resource management decisions on paleontological resources 

under Alternative B would be roughly comparable to but slightly greater degree than that 

described for Alternative D. Under Alternative B, 52,764 acres would be managed under VRM 

Class I objectives, and 114,030 acres would be managed under VRM Class II objectives. 

Another 199,179 acres would be managed under VRM Class III objectives, and 1,353,967 acres 

would be managed under VRM Class IV objectives. The VRM designations under this 

alternative are similar to those currently designated under Alternative D (No Action), and this 

alternative would designate practically the same acreage under VRM Class I and II as 

Alternative D (No Action) (166,794 acres), with impacts on paleontological resources similar to 

those discussed under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.11.2.9.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

The direct and indirect, long- and short-term adverse effects of visual resource management 

decisions on paleontological resources under Alternative C would be greater than that described 

for any other alternative except Alternative E. Under this alternative, 145,781 acres would be 

managed under VRM Class I objectives, and 362,660 acres would be managed under VRM Class 

II objectives. VRM Class III would be designated on 580,846 acres, with VRM Class IV 

designation on 630,653 acres. Alternative C would manage a total of 508,441 acres under VRM 

Class I and II objectives, with impacts on paleontological resources as discussed under the 

Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree because more area would be protected from disturbances 

(a beneficial impact), but also closed to surface disturbances that could identify localities with 

significant resources (an adverse impact). Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this 

alternative would protect 341,669 more acres under VRM Class I and Class II designations, so 

there would be more adverse and beneficial impacts than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.11.2.9.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 53,086 acres would be designated as VRM Class I and 

113,686 acres as VRM Class II; 199,192 acres would be designated as VRM Class III and 

1,353,976 acres would be designated as VRM Class IV. Under Alternative D (No Action), a total 

of 166,772 acres would be managed under VRM Class I and II objectives, the smallest area of all 

the alternatives. 

Alternative D (No Action) would have the least beneficial impact to paleontological resources, 

when compared to the other alternatives, because there would potentially be more surface 

disturbance and therefore more physical damage to or destruction of fossils. Indirect adverse 

impacts would include the likelihood of increased vandalism and theft that result from improved 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.11. Paleontology

Vernal RMP 4-306 

access to fossil localities. However, the increase in surface disturbance would also increase the 

likelihood that significant sources of fossils would be discovered and collected, beneficially 

affecting paleontological resources 

4.11.2.9.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The direct and indirect, long- and short-term beneficial effects of visual resource management 

decisions on paleontological resources under Alternative E would be greater than for any other 

alternative. Under Alternative E, 334,516 acres would be designated as VRM Class I, and 

259,694 acres would be designated as VRM Class II. Approximately 535,586 acres would be 

designated as VRM Class III, and 590,144 acres as VRM Class IV. With the highest number of 

acres designated as VRM I and II classes (approximately 594,210 acres) and managed under 

VRM objectives to restrict or minimize surface disturbances, Alternative E would manage 

427,438 more acres within the two highest VRM classifications than Alternative D (No Action). 

However, if fossil collection was not allowed in some areas in order to maintain VRM I and II 

management goals, this would directly and adversely affect paleontological resources to a greater 

extent than the other alternatives. 

4.11.3. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Loss due to non-recognition, lack of information and documentation, erosion, casual collection, 

and inadvertent destruction or use would cause resource losses. The rate, extent, intensity, and 

duration cannot be quantified at this time due to lack of data. As a part of natural environmental 

processes, paleontological localities will be exposed, remain for a time, and become lost to 

history if not recorded or studied. The management decisions caused by the action alternatives 

and Alternative D (No Action) would cause losses over and above the natural attrition rate but 

cannot be quantified at this time. However, the broad-scale sampling and classification of areas 

with a high likelihood of containing paleontological resources is expected to greatly reduce the 

probability of unavoidable adverse impacts to the resource. 

4.11.4. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The short-term uses of BLM lands for activities involving surface-disturbance would have longterm impacts on paleontological resources. The surface-disturbing activities affecting 

paleontological resources would include mineral development, livestock trampling, and 

constructing fire lines and roads during wildland fire management. Travel decisions involving 

maintenance, upgrade, and realignment of roads and OHV use would also have long-term 

adverse impacts on these resources. Providing access for the public through Lands and Realty 

decisions and OHV use would also increase the potential for vandalism and the inadvertent 

destruction of paleontological resources. 

4.11.5. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Irreversible impacts to paleontological resources would occur where unavoidable adverse 

impacts destroy or disturb paleontological resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-307 

4.12. RECREATION

4.12.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Impacts to recreation resources that are common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives would 

come from new management direction as described in the Proposed RMP and each alternative 

and include abandoned mine lands, cultural resource protection, fire management, construction 

and/or designation of roads and trails, mineral resources development, protection of 

paleontological resources, changes in recreational opportunities, and designation of ACECs. 

In conformance to the BLM's policy on abandoned mine lands, the Proposed RMP and all of the 

alternatives would establish safety and hazardous conditions priorities to remediate and/or 

reclaim abandoned mine sites that pose high health and safety risks to the public, and in 

instances where high-risk sites are located near developed recreation sites. The direct effects 

would be to beneficially improve recreational opportunities in the long term by enhancing 

recreation resources adjacent to these sites. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, the current federal laws and agency 

guidelines in place to protect cultural resources would have long-term beneficial and adverse 

effects on the recreational resources in the VPA. Long-term beneficial effects would be produced 

through the preservation of cultural resources. In addition to preserving sites of historic 

importance, the identification, stabilization and protection of cultural resources would expand 

recreational and educational opportunities (e.g. sightseeing and interpretive study) within the 

VPA by preserving cultural sites of recreational interest to visitors. Limiting recreational 

opportunities in order to minimize cultural resource disturbances would potentially have longterm adverse effects on other recreational opportunities, such as OHV use. Also, specific plans 

developed for the protection of cultural resources, such as site monitoring, identification, 

stabilization, and/or restoration plans, would restrict recreational activities in specific areas, in 

the short-term. 

Fire management has the potential to have short-term adverse impacts and long-term beneficial 

impacts on recreation resources and opportunities within the VPA. Direct short-term, adverse 

impacts from wildland fire management would cause the closing of developed recreation areas 

and remote, undeveloped recreation areas in the short-term, producing short-term losses of 

recreational opportunities in the affected areas. Visual quality, often a component of recreational 

activities, would be degraded in the short-term as well. In the long-term, by reducing fuel loads, 

moving the present fire regime toward historic, ecologically sustainable fire conditions, reducing 

the potential for wildland fire, and creating a visual mosaic of vegetation, wildlife habitat, visual 

quality would improve; subsequently, recreational opportunities for viewing wildlife and for big 

game hunting would improve. With these measures, as well as the implementation of emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR) treatments as needed, vegetation communities would be 

improved, which would provide long-term beneficial impacts by enhancing recreational 

opportunities and improving scenic quality. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-308 

Road and trail construction and maintenance, exchanges or acquisition of lands for the purposes 

of easing access to public lands and resources and/or contributing to a more efficient and 

manageable land ownership pattern, would have beneficial impacts on some forms of 

recreational uses in the long term by improving access to recreation areas and expanding trailrelated recreational opportunities (e.g., motorized and non-motorized vehicle use, horseback 

riding). Acquisition of easements proposed for high-, mid-, and low-priority recreation areas 

would have a long-term, beneficial effect on the availability and accessibility of recreation areas 

throughout the VPA. Designation of new motorized trails would serve to increase awareness of 

the trail system and create an increase in motorized activity in the VPA. This would threaten the 

integrity of cultural resource and paleontological sites in the vicinity of the trail system, and 

threaten the recreational and educational values of such sites. Recreational overuse of the trail 

system would have the potential to damage other natural resource values within areas served by 

these trails including long-term, adverse impacts to soils, vegetation, riparian areas, and wildlife 

habitat (and the recreational values that require that these resources remain undisturbed). 

Long-term, indirect effects common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives would include the 

potential for degradation of recreation resources by off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. This use 

would also have long-term, indirect adverse effects under all of the alternatives, with varying 

degrees of adverse resource degradation by the Proposed RMP and each alternative: 

• Existing trails would be degraded by OHV overuse. 

• Known user conflicts between motorized users and non-motorized users would continue. 

• Fewer OHV-designated routes under the Proposed RMP and any alternative would create 

an increase in cross-country travel, thus increasing the direct, adverse effects of OHV 

travel. 

• OHV use would degrade water resources, soils, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat and, 

thus, degrade the recreational experiences associated with these resources. Degradation of 

these resources would intensify with cross-country travel. Resource degradation would be 

less intense where OHV trails were designated. 

• OHV use would increase the risk of wildland fire, which would reduce recreational 

opportunities in areas affected by fire, or cause closure of areas disturbed by wildland 

fire. 

• Increasing the opportunity for OHV use and fulfilling demand would increase visitation 

to the area. 

• Allowing OHV use in areas where OHV use is not currently allowed would decrease 

visitation for other forms of recreation, such as mountain biking, hiking, sightseeing, and 

hunting. 

OHV trail designation, under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, would have longterm direct beneficial impacts on recreation by increasing the opportunities for OHV travel, limit 

resource degradation, and reduce resource use conflicts, and adequately respond to the 

recreational demand for this particular activity. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-309 

The development of mineral resources within the VPA would have direct, adverse impacts on 

recreational resources in the short- and long-term. Surface disturbances caused by mineral 

exploration and development, such as the construction of oil and natural gas wells, access roads, 

pipelines, cross-country seismic exploration; noise; night lighting; and locatable minerals 

prospects and mines, have the potential to affect vegetation, wildlife, and scenic quality within 

the VPA and thus, degrade some recreational opportunities within the VPA. However, mineralsrelated access roads would provide access to portions of the VPA that are currently inaccessible 

to certain types of recreation uses, such as hunting and OHV use, and this would have long-term 

beneficial impacts on these recreational activities. 

Paleontology management actions to foster public awareness, public appreciation, recreation, 

and educational opportunities; to encourage recreational collection according to guidelines; and 

to reduce threats to paleontological resources would have long term, beneficial impacts on 

recreation, related to the appreciation of and education about paleontology. However, 

establishment of scientifically significant paleontological sites requiring protection would restrict 

some forms of recreational opportunities within affected areas. This would have minor adverse 

impacts on recreation in these restricted areas by reducing recreational opportunities. 

Management decisions that provide for a wide range of developed and dispersed recreational 

activities, while continuing to implement public education and environmental awareness 

programs to protect and preserve areas within the VPA, would have direct, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on recreational opportunities and the quality of recreational experiences. Continued 

management of Pelican Lake and Red Mountain-Dry Fork as SRMAs under the Proposed RMP 

and all of the alternatives, and continued implementation of management plans to protect historic 

landmarks within the VPA would allow appropriate recreational use levels while protecting 

resources, benefiting both traditional and interpretive recreation uses. Comprehensive activity 

plans for Blue Mountain, Fantasy Canyon, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, and Pelican Lake, which 

would address appropriate recreational uses and facility development, would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on recreation resources by resolving user conflicts and maintaining resource 

integrity. The BLM would maintain or expand the infrastructure at all recreation sites within the 

VPA, including (but not limited to) stabilizing and preserving Chipeta, Trujillo, Moonshine, and 

Rat Hole Cabins; and would ensure the safety of all sites for public use. The following 

recreational management guidelines, intended to help achieve and maintain healthy public lands 

as defined by the Standards of Rangeland Health, would have long-term, indirect beneficial 

impacts on recreation: 

• Designating OHV use on BLM-administered lands in order to minimize the impacts on 

natural resources, would help to reduce conflicts among various users, and would 

promote public safety. Implementation of a continuous monitoring program and 

subsequent adaptive management strategies would also reduce indirect impacts of OHV 

use, such as the degradation of water quality, soil quality, and wildlife habitat. 

• Establishing wildlife viewing areas along the Book Cliffs Divide Ridge Road would have 

a long-term, beneficial effect on recreational wildlife viewing and would potentially 

increase visitation in the area. 

• Designating Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) would protect recreational 

resources, but also increase awareness of these areas for recreation, and increase 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-310 

recreational activity in the area. However, there could be adverse impacts if increasing 

numbers of visitors threaten the integrity of cultural resource and paleontological sites 

and the recreational and educational value of such sites. Recreational overuse has the 

potential to adversely impact other resources within these SRMAs. 

• Designating some SRMAs as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) areas for oil and gas 

development and as Closed to mineral leasing would have direct, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on recreation resources by preserving the natural, undisturbed qualities of these 

recreation areas. Each SRMA would have a management plan that would specify the 

limits of mineral resources development. 

The designation and management of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) to 

protect important historic, cultural, scenic, and wildlife values would have long-term beneficial 

impacts on most recreational activities. Considering OHV use, this designation would limit use 

to designated routes in certain ACECs, with such use closed in other ACECs. Identification of 

segments of river corridors considered suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic River 

System would beneficially impact these river segments by preserving the recreational 

opportunities in these areas. All of the proposed ACECs would also remain open to oil and gas 

leasing, and subject to valid existing mineral leasing rights, which would have long-term adverse 

impacts on recreational opportunities and the quality of recreational experiences. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, segments of the Upper Green and Lower 

Green River that have already been recommended to Congress as suitable for designation as part 

of the Wild and Scenic River System would continue to be managed under their suitability status. 

These areas would continue to be protected for their outstanding and remarkable values, and 

free-flowing nature, subject to valid existing mineral rights. This would have long-term 

beneficial protection-related impacts on recreation, as these river segments would continue to 

provide recreational opportunities. 

4.12.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

4.12.2.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON RECREATION

4.12.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The development of on- and off-site interpretive facilities at appropriate archaeological and 

historic sites would broaden the scope of recreation opportunities available to visitors and serve 

as a draw for additional visitation to the VPA. Off-highway vehicle use in the Uinta Foothills 

would be limited to designated routes. Off-highway vehicle use in Little/Devils Hole area, Upper 

Willow Creek areas and Four Mile Wash would be limited to designated routes to protect areas 

with high densities of cultural sites. These restrictions would have long-term direct, adverse 

impacts to OHV use by reducing the areas of cross-country travel that OHV users are currently 

allowed. However, when compared to Alternative D (No Action), the activity restriction 

described above would have direct, long-term beneficial effects on other recreational 

opportunities within the VPA by enhancing the opportunities for educational and other 

recreational activities, and potentially improving the recreational experience of those not 

participating in motorized (OHV) recreational activities. The OHV restrictions would also 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-311 

improve visitor safety in those areas where mechanized and non-mechanized users (e.g., hiking, 

mountain biking, backpacking, and horseback riding potentially mingle, and would reduce 

resource use conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users. 

4.12.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under this alternative, the proposed management decisions would be the same as the Proposed 

RMP. Therefore, the impacts of cultural resource decisions on recreation would be the same as 

discussed above. 

4.12.2.1.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

The impacts of Alternative B on recreation resources would be similar to the Proposed RMP, and 

the impacts compared to Alternative D (No Action) for the Uinta Foothills, Little/Devils Hole 

area, and Upper Willow Creek would be similar to those described under the Proposed RMP. 

Interpretive facilities would only be developed as mitigation for permitted activities, therefore 

this alternative would have fewer long-term beneficial impacts than the other action alternatives. 

4.12.2.1.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under this alternative, the development of interpretive facilities for all appropriate archeological, 

historical, and cultural resources would have the same effect as described under the Proposed 

RMP. Closing the Uinta Foothills, Little/Devils Hole area, Four Mile Wash, and Upper Willow 

Creek area to OHV use would have long-term, adverse effects on OHV recreational 

opportunities, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). This action would potentially 

intensify OHV overuse because additional trail development for motorized uses is not a 

component of Alternative C. The restrictions on OHV use and on oil and gas leasing would have 

indirect, long-term beneficial impacts to non-motorized recreation by increasing solitude and 

wildlife viewing opportunities in these areas, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.12.2.1.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

This alternative would have no adverse impacts on motorized recreational activities, but a lack of 

resource protection could have direct, long-term, adverse impacts on these sites and on 

sightseeing or interpretive/educational activities at these sites. Development of interpretative 

facilities at Old Rock Saloon and Nine Mile Canyon archeological sites and construction of a 

facility in Nine Mile Canyon to help manage cultural use in the area would have beneficial 

effects on recreation by increasing the opportunities for regional cultural interpretation and 

nature study. 

4.12.2.1.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, the development of on- and off-site interpretive facilities at archaeological 

and historic sites would broaden the range of recreation opportunities available to visitors and 

serve as a draw for additional visitation to the VPA. Closing the Uinta Foothills, Little/Devils 

Hole area, Four Mile Wash, and Upper Willow Creek area to OHV use would have long-term, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-312 

adverse effects on OHV motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities, when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). This action would potentially intensify OHV use in 

other areas of the VPA because additional trail development for motorized uses is not a 

component of Alternative E. The restrictions on OHV use and on oil and gas leasing would have 

indirect, long-term beneficial impacts to non-motorized recreation by increasing solitude and 

wildlife viewing opportunities in these areas, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.12.2.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RECREATION

4.12.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

Permitting prescribed fire on 156,425 acres per decade would limit the number of acres available 

for recreational activities in a prescribed burn area, during and after burning. These areas would 

most likely be less desirable for recreation in the short-term until vegetation re-growth occurs. 

Long-term benefits would result in these areas because of reduced fuel loads, improved wildlife 

habitat, more diverse landscape variety (scenic quality), and the decreased probability of 

wildland fire damage to recreation areas, which would enhance opportunities (settings, activities, 

and experiences) for hunting, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and similar activities. The Proposed 

RMP and the action alternatives would have a greater likelihood of adverse short-term impacts 

and beneficial long-term impacts, when compared to Alternative D (No Action) because of the 

larger area planned for prescribed burning. 

4.12.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

The beneficial and adverse impacts of fire management decisions on recreation under Alternative 

D (No Action) would be the same as the Proposed RMP and the action alternatives (Alternatives 

A, B, C, and E) except that the impacts would be reduced in scope and intensity. This is because 

a total of 50,900 acres would be designated for prescribed burning or other treatments within the 

VPA as compared to the 156,425 acres/decade designated for prescribed burning under the 

action alternatives. 

4.12.2.3. IMPACTS OF LAND AND REALTY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RECREATION

4.12.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Pursuing public access or easements to the White River at the mouth of Cowboy Canyon, 

Evacuation Creek (from the state line to the creek along the Uintah Railroad bed), Bonanza 

Ridge and Wagon Hound Road would increase the amount of land accessible for a variety of 

recreational opportunities, thereby having direct long-term beneficial impacts on recreation 

resources availability. This alternative would have more beneficial impacts than Alternative D 

(No Action), which would not specify these areas for public access. The pursued acquisition of 

Indian Trust Lands in Bitter Creek and near the confluence of the South and Sweetwater 

Canyons would also have long-term beneficial impacts on recreation by increasing recreational 

opportunities in these areas. All of these areas would be managed under ERMA or SRMA 

stipulations, which would have beneficial, protection-related impacts on recreation resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-313 

Locatable mineral withdrawal or other protective measures that would preclude mineral entry on 

a total of 24,202 acres including the Green River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park (8,208 acres), 

along the White River (9,218 acres), in Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), in developed and potential 

recreation sites (5,000 acres), and the Book Cliffs Natural Area (401 acres) would have longterm beneficial impacts on recreation by protecting natural features and scenic quality in these 

areas. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP would have more beneficial 

impacts in some areas: Alternative D (No Action) would not preclude mineral entry along the 

White River and within the Book Cliffs Natural Area; however, Alternative D (No Action) 

would be more beneficial if total acreage is considered, as Alternative D (No Action) would 

propose withdrawal of 35,900 acres compared to 24,202 under the Proposed RMP. 

Retention of public lands in federal ownership in the 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics managed under this alternative would ensure protection of non-WSA 

wilderness characteristics values and the setting needed to support non-mechanized, primitive 

forms of recreation, including hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, wildlife observation, and 

river floating. Excluding non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics from the issuance of 

new of rights-of-way (ROWs) would beneficially retain the undeveloped character of these 

landscapes and the primitive forms of recreation dependent on those settings. The exclusion of 

ROWs, however, would potentially limit (and adversely impact) mechanized recreational 

opportunities (i.e., motorized OHV use, mountain biking) commonly available along the access 

roads to and within the ROWs by limiting the opportunities for these forms of recreation. 

4.12.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts of proposed pursuance of public access would be the same as discussed above under 

the Proposed RMP except that the easement from Evacuation Creek (from the state line to the 

creek along the Uintah Railroad bed) would not be pursued. 

Locatable mineral withdrawal or other protective measures that would preclude mineral entry in 

the Green River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park, the White River, Lears Canyon, the Book 

Cliffs Natural Area, and developed and potential recreation sites would have long-term 

beneficial impacts on recreation as discussed above under the Proposed RMP because the 

management decisions would be the same. 

4.12.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Administrative access only would be pursued across Indian trust lands in Bitter Creek, and South 

and Sweetwater Canyons, but recreation-related public access would not be pursued for any area 

under Alternative B. The impact on recreational opportunities would be the same as Alternative 

D (No Action). 

Locatable mineral withdrawal impacts would be the same as those described under the Proposed 

RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-314 

4.12.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

The impacts of pursuing public access through easements and acquisitions under Alternative C 

would be the same as those described under the Proposed RMP alternative because the 

management decisions would be the same. 

Under this alternative, locatable mineral withdrawal management decisions to preclude mineral 

entry would be the same as those described under the Proposed RMP, except that the 5,000 acres 

of developed and potential recreation sites would not be considered for withdrawal and an 

additional 17,063 acres would be proposed for withdrawal within the Lower Green River ACEC. 

This would increase the beneficial, protection-related impacts on recreation resources to 41,265 

acres. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would be more beneficial in the 

long term because more acreage would be proposed for recreation resource protection. 

4.12.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

The pursuit of public access would be unspecified under Alternative D (No Action). Therefore 

current management would not improve recreational access or opportunities. Mineral withdrawal 

would occur on 19,400 acres along the Green River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park, on 3,600 

acres of relict vegetation, 7,900 acres within the Lower Green River ACEC, and 5,000 acres of 

developed and potential recreation sites, totaling 35,900 acres. This would have beneficial 

preservation-related impacts on recreation resources. 

4.12.2.3.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Securing public access to White River and in Evacuation Creek would provide additional 

opportunities for mechanized, and primitive non-mechanized recreational activities, as would 

acquiring Indian Trust Lands in Bitter Creek and at the confluence of South and Sweet Water 

Canyons. Pursuing mineral withdrawals (on the same number of acres as Alternative A) in the 

Green River Scenic Corridor (Browns Park), the White River, Lears Canyon, and the Book Cliffs 

Natural Area would reduce the potential for surface disturbances and maintain the settings 

needed to support opportunities for non-mechanized forms of recreation (e.g., hiking, 

backpacking, river floating, wildlife viewing, and hunting). 

Retention of public lands in federal ownership in 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would ensure protection of wilderness values and the settings needed 

to support the non-mechanized recreational opportunities discussed above. The exclusion of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics from the issuance of new of rights-of-way (ROWs) 

would retain the undeveloped character of these landscapes and the primitive forms of recreation 

dependent on those settings. Exclusion of ROWs, however, would not provide additional 

mechanized recreational opportunities commonly available along the access roads to and within 

the ROWs. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative E would have more beneficial impacts on 

non-mechanized recreation by providing opportunities for these types of activities. The impacts 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-315 

on mechanized (motorized and non-motorized OHV activities) would be more adverse than 

Alternative D (No Action) because 277,596 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas. 

4.12.2.4. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON RECREATION

As discussed above under subsection 4.10.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives, mineralsrelated exploration, development, access road, and infrastructure construction on BLM 

administered land within the VPA would create surface disturbances, noise, and light pollution 

that would adversely and beneficially affect recreation resources in the long-term. The proposed 

acreages available for minerals leasing are tabulated below in Table 4.12.1. 

Table 4.12.1. Mineral Leasing Acreages 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative A Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Oil and Gas – Standard 

Stipulations, Timing and 

Controlled Surface Use 

1,640,381 1,780,860 1,819,397 1,627,085 1,536,030 1,499,641 

Mineral Materials, Open 389,788 415,395 432,953 388,699 387,700 344,682 

Phosphate, Open 76,208 87,724 87,724 63,571 84,600 52,063 

Gilsonite (miles/acres) 172 / 

36,846 172 / 36,846 172 / 36,846 

172 / 

36,846 

168 / 

36,009 

163 / 

34,967 

4.12.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would allow minerals development (including oil, gas, mineral materials, 

and phosphate) with Open, Standard Stipulations, or Timing and Controlled Surface Use on 

2,143,223 acres of BLM administered lands within the VPA. Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 

acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to leasing for oil, gas, 

mineral materials, and phosphate and Gilsonite. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the 

Proposed RMP would allow 27,022 more acres of BLM land potentially open to minerals 

development. The estimated total short-term and long-term surface disturbance would be 8,796 

acres (for oil and gas development). As described in subsection 4.10.1, the leasing of areas for 

oil, gas, CBNG, and other mineral uses would have direct long-term adverse impacts on most 

recreational opportunities by potentially degrading the natural characteristics of the landscape, 

and degrading scenic quality and wildlife habitat. Off-highway vehicle access would improve in 

areas where new minerals-related access and spur roads were built, thus having indirect longterm beneficial impacts on this type of recreational activity by creating more opportunities for 

OHV recreational travel. 

Closure to mineral leasing of 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

under this alternative would place recreational emphasis on opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined activities (e.g., hiking, backpacking, river floating, hunting, wildlife viewing, and 

nature study) and opportunities for solitude, as well as the undeveloped settings needed to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-316 

support these non-motorized activities and experiences. Opportunities for motorized forms of 

recreation activities such as backcountry driving and vehicle-supported camping at developed 

recreation sites such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and interpretive exhibits would be reduced 

with OHV vehicle travel restricted to designated routes. In those portions of the VPA where 

mineral leasing continues, exploration and development would contribute to an expanded road 

system for motorized forms of recreation (e.g., backcountry driving, vehicle-supported camping, 

and hunting). Proposed withdrawals from mineral entry in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would prevent mining-related disturbances that impact opportunities for primitive 

forms of recreation, the undeveloped settings needed to support those activities, and the 

experience people seek while participating in those activities. In those areas open to mineral 

entry, future exploration and development would likely provide additional recreational 

opportunities for motorized forms of recreation. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP would have more beneficial impacts 

on recreation resources and opportunities. This is because, though potentially more area would 

be available for surface disturbance leasing, the proposed non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would have prohibitions on minerals disturbances and would provide recreational 

opportunities for non-mechanized and mechanized activities. 

4.12.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would allow minerals development (including oil, gas, mineral materials, and 

phosphate) with Open, Standard Stipulations, or Timing and Controlled Surface Use on 

approximately 2,320,825 acres of BLM administered lands within the VPA. Compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), Alternative A would allow 204,624 more acres of BLM land 

potentially open to minerals development. The estimated total short-term and long-term surface 

disturbance would be 8,760 acres (for oil and gas development). As described in Section 4.10.1, 

the leasing of areas for oil, gas, natural gas CBNG, and other mineral uses would have direct 

long-term adverse impacts on most recreational opportunities by degrading the natural 

characteristics of the landscape, and degrading scenic quality and wildlife habitat. Off-highway 

vehicle access would improve in areas where new minerals-related access and spur roads were 

built, thus having indirect long-term beneficial impacts on this type of recreational activity by 

providing more opportunities for OHV use. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative A would have impacts on recreation 

resources and opportunities as described above under the Proposed RMP. 

4.12.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would allow mineral development with Open, Standard Stipulations or Timing and 

Controlled Surface Use on approximately 2,340,112 acres of BLM administered lands within the 

VPA. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative B would allow 332,581 more acres of 

BLM land open to minerals development. The estimated acres of short-term and long-term 

surface disturbance under this alternative would be 8,909 (for oil and gas development). The 

impacts would be similar to those discussed under the Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree, 

because more area within the VPA would be open to minerals disturbances. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-317 

4.12.2.4.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would have fewer adverse impacts to recreation than any of the other alternatives, 

as it would designate the fewest acres to minerals leasing and development. Alternative C would 

allow mineral development with Open, Standard Stipulations or Timing and Controlled Surface 

Use on approximately 2,116,201 acres of BLM administered land within the VPA. The estimated 

total short-term and long-term surface disturbance would be 8,728 acres (for oil and gas 

development). Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative C would allow 71,862 acres 

more of BLM lands to be open to minerals development. The impacts would be similar to 

Alternative A, but to a lesser degree. 

4.12.2.4.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), the estimated minerals-related surface disturbance, both shortterm and long-term, would be 8,371 acres (for oil and gas development), with a total area open to 

mineral development of 2,044,339 acres. The scope and type of impacts to recreation would be 

similar to the impacts described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives (Section 4.12.1). 

4.12.2.4.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to leasing 

for oil, gas, mineral materials, phosphate and Gilsonite. This alternative would allow leasing for 

oil, gas, phosphate, and mineral materials on 1,931,353 acres. For oil and gas development only, 

this represents a reduction of 112,986 acres in the total acreage available for leasing when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). Thus, Alternative E would have the smallest area open 

to oil and gas development of all of the alternatives, with impacts to recreation resources and 

opportunities similar to those discussed under the Proposed RMP but to a lesser degree. 

Closure to mineral leasing of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would place 

recreation emphasis on opportunities for primitive and unconfined activities (as discussed above 

under the Proposed RMP) and opportunities for solitude, as well as the undeveloped settings 

needed to support these non-motorized activities and experiences. Opportunities for motorized 

and/or mechanized forms of recreation activities would be reduced with the closure of 228 miles 

of vehicle routes and restrictions on recreation developments in the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. In those portions of the VPA where mineral leasing is permitted, 

exploration and development would beneficially contribute to an expanded road system (and 

increased recreational opportunities) for motorized forms of recreation (e.g., backcountry 

driving, vehicle-supported camping, and hunting). 

Under Alternative E, proposed withdrawals from mineral entry in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would prevent mining-related disturbances that would impact 

opportunities for primitive forms of recreation, the undeveloped settings needed to support those 

activities, and the experience people seek while participating in those activities. In those areas 

open to mineral entry, future exploration and development would likely (and beneficially) create 

the opportunities for motorized and mechanized forms of recreation. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-318 

In comparing this alternative to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative E would have more 

beneficial impacts on non-mechanized recreation and fewer beneficial impacts on mechanized 

recreation. This is because, as discussed above, the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to mechanized use (motorized and non-motorized OHV use), but 

available for non-mechanized recreational activities that do not degrade wilderness values. 

4.12.2.5. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

RECREATION

4.12.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres would be managed to protect non-WSA wilderness 

characteristics that include naturalness, solitude, and opportunities for primitive, remote, 

backcountry recreation (e.g., hiking, backpacking, river floating, hunting, wildlife viewing). 

Opportunities for motorized and non-motorized OHV use on designated routes would also be 

available. This would have long term, beneficial impacts on both non-mechanized and 

mechanized recreational activities because opportunities for a range of recreation resource users 

would be available within the proposed non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas. Compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP would have the same impacts because these 

recreational opportunities would be provided outside non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

4.12.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND D 

Under these alternatives, no actions would be prescribed to specifically protect the wilderness 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and therefore there would be 

no direct impacts to recreation opportunities. 

4.12.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres in 25 areas would be managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics of size, naturalness, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive 

forms of recreation. As discussed under the Proposed RMP alternative, this form of management 

would provide opportunities for primitive forms of recreation (e.g., hiking, backpacking, river 

floating, hunting, wildlife viewing, and nature study) and experiences of solitude in natural, 

undeveloped settings. Under this alternative, opportunities for motorized recreation (e.g., 

backcountry driving and OHV use) and developed facilities (e.g., campgrounds, picnic areas, and 

interpretive and wayside exhibits) would not be provided in these areas because OHV travel 

routes would not be allowed. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more 

beneficial long-term impacts on non-mechanized forms of recreation because management of 

these areas would be more compatible with primitive, remote, and backcountry opportunities. As 

this alternative would not allow OHV use, the impacts on mechanized forms of recreation would 

be less beneficial than Alternative D (No Action); however opportunities would be provided 

outside non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-319 

4.12.2.6. IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGY DECISIONS ON RECREATION

4.12.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would provide information on paleontology, local paleontological sites, 

amateur fossil collecting, and fossil collection rules to the public via websites, publications, and 

personal contacts. Management decisions would allow the collection of common invertebrate 

and plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use; issue Paleontological Resources Use Permits 

for scientific study; and promote or support paleontological investigations in poorly known 

areas. These management decisions would enhance and beneficially impact paleontology-related 

recreational opportunities within the VPA by improving information access on known fossil sites 

for collectors. Under the Proposed RMP, fossil excavations would be limited within the proposed 

106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to those actions that meet the 

goals and objectives for management of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Limitations on excavations in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would limit the 

growth (number of sites) of these potential recreation opportunities. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the increase in recreational opportunity (and activity) 

under the Proposed RMP would be more beneficial to recreation resources because opportunities 

for allowed fossil collecting would be improved. 

4.12.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVES A AND C 

By providing information on paleontology, local paleontological sites, amateur fossil collecting, 

and fossil collection rules to the public via websites, publications, and personal contacts; 

allowing collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use; 

issuing Paleontological Resources Use Permits for scientific study; and promoting or supporting 

paleontological investigations in poorly known areas, Alternatives A and C would increase and 

beneficially impact the recreational opportunities related to paleontology similar to those 

discussed above under the Proposed RMP. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the increase 

in recreational opportunity (and activity) under these alternatives would be more beneficial to 

recreation resources for the same reasons as discussed under the Proposed RMP. 

4.12.2.6.3. ALTERNATIVES B AND D (NO ACTION) 

These alternatives would have negligible impacts on recreation due to the lack of any specific 

improvements supporting the scientific study and dissemination of paleontological information. 

4.12.2.6.4. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, the following activities would increase and provide additional, long-term 

recreational opportunities related to paleontology: providing information on paleontology, local 

sites, fossil collecting, and the rules of fossil collecting to the public via websites, publications, 

and personal contacts; allowing collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils for personal, 

non-commercial use; issuing Paleontological Resources Use Permits for scientific study; and 

promoting or supporting paleontological investigations in poorly known areas. The increased 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-320 

recreational opportunity provided under Alternative E would be more beneficial than that 

provided under Alternative D (No Action). Fossil excavations would be limited in non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics to those actions that meet the goals and objectives for 

management of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Limitations on excavations 

in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would limit the growth (number of sites) of 

these potential recreation opportunities. 

4.12.2.7. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON RECREATION

Impacts to recreation from recreation decisions are analyzed through alternative comparisons of 

Backcountry Byways, Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), trails, mitigation of 

noise and light, and recreational cabin development. 

4.12.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Recreation management decisions under the Proposed RMP would provide for a range of 

recreational opportunities within the VPA. A number of existing recreation opportunities would 

be expanded and improved under this alternative, whereas other opportunities would be limited. 

New recreation activities would also be established that would expand the range of recreational 

opportunities. The effects of these changes on existing resources and activities in both the shortterm and long-term are discussed below. 

4.12.2.7.1.1. Backcountry Byways 

The designation of the Seep Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, and Atchee Ridge Roads as BLM 

Backcountry Byways under Alternative A would have long-term beneficial impacts on recreation 

by educating the public about recreational opportunities for backcountry sightseeing and scenic 

driving. The designation of roads as Utah State Highway Scenic Backcountry Byways would 

increase awareness of the scenic opportunities associated with these byways, which would 

increase traffic volume and encourage recreational visitation to the region. These designations 

would have greater beneficial impacts on recreation resources when compared to Alternative D 

(No Action), which would not designate Backcountry Byways. 

Designation of Backcountry Byways would have long-term, indirect, adverse impacts on airquality, in the form of increased fugitive dust caused by vehicle traffic. More vehicle traffic 

would also adversely increase the potential risk of wildland fire and increase the potential for 

vehicle/wildlife collisions. Designating Backcountry Byways would increase the potential for 

automobile conflicts with livestock and with minerals resource-related traffic. As increasing 

numbers of visitors enter more remote areas of the VPA some travelers could experience a 

reduction in the expectation of semi-primitive, isolated conditions, with some loss of this 

recreational opportunity. 

4.12.2.7.1.2. SRMAs 

The designation of SRMAs on BLM administered land within the VPA would provide 

recreational opportunities for experiencing outstanding scenic vistas, and enhance recreation-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-321 

related resources (e.g., riparian areas, fisheries, special status species, water quality) and 

associated activities (e.g., water-based recreation; hunting; a comprehensive trail system offering 

opportunities for hiking, biking, horse riding, and OHV use; camping; and facilities offering 

cultural and historical resource learning opportunities). The Proposed RMP would beneficially 

increase the combined acreage of SRMAs from 87,931 acres under current management to 

133,560 acres. Each of the SRMAs would manage for the type and range of recreational 

activities and opportunities that lie within a given SRMA: the proposed Blue Mountain SRMA 

(42,729 acres) would be managed for OHV use, special recreational activities (e.g., hang gliding, 

rock climbing), and competitive events; Nine Mile SRMA (44,168 acres) would be managed to 

protect high-value cultural values and scenic quality. Browns Park SRMA (18,490 acres) would 

offer a wide variety of land and water opportunities, whereas the White River SRMA (2,831 

acres) and Pelican Lake SRMA (1,014 acres) would offer water-based recreational opportunities, 

in addition to other recreational opportunities. Red Mountain-Dry Fork SRMA (24,259 acres) 

would continue to provide opportunities for OHV and non-motorized trail activities. The 

proposed Fantasy Canyon SRMA (69 acres) would offer opportunities for self-guided touring 

and hiking. In comparison, there would be no expansion of existing SRMAs or proposed new 

SRMA designations under Alternative D (No Action); thus, the Proposed RMP would have more 

beneficial impacts on recreational than Alternative D (No Action) because more area within the 

VPA would be managed under SRMAs to provide recreational opportunities. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would shift the focus of recreation to primitive and unconfined activities (e.g., hiking, 

backpacking, river floating, hunting, and wildlife viewing), opportunities for solitude, and the 

settings needed to achieve these opportunities. Proposed management stipulations for non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would limit OHV use to designated routes, which would 

adversely reduce the recreational opportunities for motorized and mechanized recreation within 

these areas. 

4.12.2.7.1.3. Trails 

Signing and/or improvement of existing trails and the development of new hiking, horseback and 

mechanized/non-motorized (i.e., mountain biking) trails would increase the total miles of hiking 

trails to 400 miles, compared to 55 miles under Alternative D (No Action). The increased 

number of trail miles would also reduce user densities on the trails, potentially alleviating user 

conflicts and improving individual users' experiences. Increased development of trails could 

cause increased adverse impacts to cultural and paleontological sites (and impacts to the 

recreational and educational value of such sites), and the ensuing increase in human activity 

would increase the potential for wildland fire (which would cause temporary closures of 

recreational areas or diminish the scenic quality in recreational areas). Because new areas for 

mountain biking are currently being sought, increasing non-motorized trails would beneficially 

impact recreation in the VPA by acting as an attraction to mountain bikers seeking new 

opportunities outside of existing, and often overcrowded, areas elsewhere in the state. 

The improvement/development/signing of 800 miles of motorized trails represents a direct, longterm beneficial impact relative to current conditions under Alternative D (No Action) for OHV 

use (under Alternative D, No Action, the development of new motorized trails is unspecified). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-322 

Currently, the Red Mountain Trail is the only designated motorized trail. The additional number 

of trail miles would reduce the density of OHV users, increase user safety, and reduce user 

conflicts. The designation would also alleviate strains on trails currently used for a variety of 

recreational activities and would potentially reduce overland OHV use. 

Prohibiting the use of OHVs for big game retrieval off designated OHV routes would minimize 

the amount of overland travel by OHV users, thereby minimizing surface disturbances caused by 

this activity. The ban would have a direct beneficial impact on recreation resources by preserving 

vegetation, habitat, waterways, and scenic quality within the VPA. 

4.12.2.7.1.4. Mitigation of Noise and Light 

The BLM would work in conjunction with the National Park Service and the energy industry to 

mitigate noise and light pollution adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument. Currently, there are 

no mitigation procedures in place. Mitigation would have long-term beneficial effects on 

recreation by limiting noise and light pollution, with corresponding enhancements in the visitor 

experience. 

4.12.2.7.1.5. Cabins 

Proposed would increase the total number of cabins (there are currently five), based on an 

assessment of needs. Cabins would be constructed near the existing Chipeta, Trujillo, 

Moonshine, Rat Hole and Wolf Den cabins and at West Water Point, Dick Canyon, and other 

locations. Increasing the number of cabins would have a long-term, beneficial effect on 

recreation opportunities, potentially enhancing hunting, mountain biking, hiking, equestrian, and 

OHV experiences. Increased visitation with longer periods of use extended into historically lessactive seasons could adversely affect wildlife and thus, the recreational activity of wildlife 

viewing, particularly if the activity is extended into crucial wildlife winter ranges. 

4.12.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.12.2.7.2.1. Back Country Byways 

The designation of the Seep Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, and Atchee Ridge Roads as BLM 

Backcountry Byways under Alternative A would have the same long-term beneficial impacts on 

recreation as discussed under the Proposed RMP because the management decisions are the 

same. 

4.12.2.7.2.2. SRMAs 

Alternative A would beneficially increase the combined acreage of SRMAs from 87,960 acres 

under current management to 499,588 acres, an increase of 568% when compared to Alternative 

D (No Action). The increase of 411,660 SRMA-managed acres within the VPA would be the 

result of expand the existing Browns Park and Nine Mile SRMAs by 71,233 acres (the 24,259-

acre Red Mountain-Dry Fork SRMA would remain the same size), with the remaining acreage 

encompassing the proposed White River, Blue Mountain and Book Cliffs SRMAs. Special 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-323 

Recreation Management Area-designated acreage would comprise 29% of the 1,725,512 acres of 

BLM administered lands within the VPA. Each of the five SRMAs would manage for a range of 

recreational opportunities and activities: Nine Mile SRMA (81,168 acres) would be managed to 

protect high-value cultural values and scenic quality; Browns Park SRMA (52,720 acres), White 

River SRMA (24,183 acres) and Pelican Lake SRMA (1,014 acres) would offer water-based 

recreational opportunities. The western portion of the White River SRMA would be managed 

under No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations, thus beneficially protecting the area from 

minerals development and surface disturbances. 

The Blue Mountain SRMA (42,758 acres) would also offer a beneficially broad range of 

recreational opportunities with an emphasis on activities such as hang gliding, hunting, 

equestrian use, camping, hiking, and rock climbing. Designating 273,486 acres in the Book 

Cliffs as an SRMA would have long-term beneficial impacts on recreational resources. The 

SRMA would offer opportunities for unconfined, dispersed, and primitive recreational activities. 

It should be noted that the Book Cliffs is currently leased for mineral development on 

approximately 90% of the area proposed as an SRMA, and this existing condition would have 

long-term adverse impacts on recreational opportunities in the SRMA. 

Establishing a comprehensive integrated activity level plan for the 69-acre Fantasy Canyon area 

would have beneficial protection-related impacts on the area by increase protection of the unique 

geological formations in the area, and address health and safety considerations. An activity plan 

would help reduce conflicts between users in Fantasy Canyon, which would have beneficial 

impacts on recreation resources. 

In comparison to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have more beneficial impacts 

on recreational opportunities because more area would be managed under SRMAs to protect 

recreation resources and provide opportunities for a range of recreational activities. 

4.12.2.7.2.3. Trails 

Signing and/or improvement of existing trails and the development of new hiking, horseback and 

mechanized/non-motorized (mountain biking) trails would increase the total miles of hiking 

trails to 400 miles, a total increase of 727% when compared to Alternative D (No Action). The 

increased number of trail miles would also reduce user densities on the trails, potentially 

alleviating user conflicts and improving individual users' experiences. Increased development of 

trails could cause increased adverse impacts to cultural and paleontological sites (and impacts to 

the recreational and educational value of such sites), and the ensuing increase in human activity 

would increase the potential for wildland fire (which would cause temporary closures of 

recreational areas or diminish the scenic quality in recreational areas). Because new areas for 

mountain biking are currently being sought, increasing non-motorized trails would beneficially 

impact recreation in the VPA by acting as an attraction to mountain bikers seeking new 

opportunities outside of existing, and often overcrowded, areas elsewhere in the state. 

The improvement/development/signing of 800 miles of motorized trails represents a direct, longterm beneficial impact relative to current conditions under Alternative D (No Action) for OHV 

use. Currently, the Red Mountain Trail is the only designated motorized OHV trail. The 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-324 

additional number of trail miles would reduce the density of OHV users, increase user safety, 

and reduce user conflicts. The designation would also alleviate strains on trails currently used for 

a variety of recreational activities and would potentially reduce overland OHV use. 

Prohibiting the use of OHVs for big game retrieval off designated routes would minimize the 

level of overland travel by OHV users, thereby minimizing surface disturbances caused by this 

activity. The ban would have a direct beneficial impact on recreation resources by preserving 

vegetation, habitat, waterways, and scenic quality within the VPA. 

The reduction of OHV use in Browns Park would have beneficial protection-related impacts on 

vegetation, riparian areas, water and soil quality, and wildlife habitat and, thus, would help 

maintain those resource values important to many other recreationists. 

4.12.2.7.2.4. Mitigation of Light and Noise 

Under this alternative, mitigation would be applied (in cooperation with the NPS) to reduce light 

pollution and sound impacts adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument, which would be 

beneficial in the short term and long term to recreation users in and adjacent to the Monument. 

4.12.2.7.2.5. Cabins 

Alternative A would increase the total number of cabins (there are currently five), based on an 

assessment of needs. Cabins would be constructed near the existing Chipeta, Trujillo, 

Moonshine, Rat Hole and Wolf Den cabins and at West Water Point, Dick Canyon, and other 

locations. Increasing the number of cabins would have a long-term, beneficial effect on 

recreation opportunities, potentially enhancing hunting, mountain biking, hiking, equestrian, and 

OHV experiences. Increased visitation with longer periods of use extended into historically lessactive seasons could adversely affect wildlife and thus, the recreational activity of wildlife 

viewing, particularly if the activity is extended into crucial wildlife winter ranges. 

4.12.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.12.2.7.3.1. Backcountry Byways 

The impacts would be the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP because the management 

decisions are the same. 

4.12.2.7.3.2. SRMAs 

Management of SRMAs would be the same as Alternative D (No Action). The following 

existing SRMAs (totaling 86,454 acres or 5% of the BLM-administered VPA) would continue to 

be managed for their scenic, cultural, wildlife, and/or recreation values: 

• Browns Park: continued management of 17,000 acres 

• Red Mountain-Dry Fork: continued management of 24,259 acres 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-325 

• Nine Mile Canyon: continued management of 44,181 acres 

• Pelican Lake: continued management of 1,014 acres 

The remaining land within the VPA would be managed under ERMA guidelines. With 5% of the 

BLM-administered area of the VPA managed as SRMAs , the educational and recreational 

opportunities within the VPA would remain relatively undeveloped. Accessibility and 

availability of facilities would be difficult and safety would be an issue. As the majority of the 

land within the VPA would be managed without recreation resources protection, mineral 

exploration and development, and OHV use would have adverse impacts on non-motorized and 

non-mechanized recreational resources and opportunities within the VPA. This would maintain 

resource protection and management at current levels (the same management as Alternative D, 

No Action). 

4.12.2.7.3.3. Trails 

No hiking, horseback riding, or mountain biking (non-motorized/mechanized) trails would be 

developed under this alternative. However, 800 miles of motorized trails would be improved or 

developed, with impacts similar to those described under the Proposed RMP. Under this 

alternative, OHV use for big game retrieval would be allowed, with long term and short term, 

adverse impacts to soils, vegetation, and scenic quality from off-route surface disturbances. 

4.12.2.7.3.4. Mitigation of Noise and Light 

The impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative A because the management 

decisions are the same. 

4.12.2.7.3.5. Cabins 

The impacts would be the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP because the management 

actions are the same. 

4.12.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.12.2.7.4.1. Backcountry Byways 

No Back Country Byways would be designated under this alternative (the same as Alternative 

D). The management decision to not designate the Seep Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, and Atchee 

Ridge Routes as Back Country Byways would adversely limit recreational scenic driving 

opportunities within the VPA. 

4.12.2.7.4.2. SRMAs 

SRMA designations and impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternative A for Blue 

Mountain, the Book Cliffs, Pelican Lake, Nine Mile Canyon, Browns Park, and Red MountainDry Fork. The 69-acre Fantasy Canyon SRMA and 47,130-acre White River SRMA would be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-326 

proposed under this alternative. Proposed SRMA designations would have greater direct, longterm beneficial impacts on recreation, when compared to Alternative D (No Action) because 

more area would be managed to provide recreational opportunities and protect recreation 

resources. This alternative would manage a total of 522,604 acres as SRMAs compared to 

86,454 acres under Alternative D, an increase of 594% when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.12.2.7.4.3. Trails 

Trails for hiking, horseback riding, and mechanized (non-motorized) recreation would be 

developed under this alternative with the same management actions and impacts as discussed 

under the Proposed RMP. Alternative C would not develop or improve motorized trails, which 

would be the same management decisions as Alternative D (No Action). By not developing and 

improving motorized trails, the opportunities for those participating in OHV recreation would be 

adversely limited. Red Mountain Trail is the only trail currently managed and maintained for 

motorized use, and the lack of established trails could produce an increase in cross-country 

travel, thereby increasing the adverse impacts to vegetation, soil and water, wildlife habitat, and 

scenic quality within the VPA. Without further management or designation of OHV trails, crosscountry travel, recreation resource user conflicts, user densities, and safety would remain as 

OHV-related adverse impacts within the VPA. These adverse impacts would likely intensify in 

the long term as OHV use increases within the VPA. 

Limiting OHV recreation would also have a long-term, beneficial effect on soils, vegetation, 

riparian health, and wildlife habitat (and the recreational experiences that require that these 

resources remain undisturbed) by reducing surface-disturbing impacts to resources. Reducing the 

opportunity for motorized OHV use would also have long-term beneficial impacts on other 

forms of recreation, such as non-motorized use (e.g., hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, 

dispersed camping), by decreasing user conflicts on trails. See Section 4.12.2.8 for a further 

analysis of OHV management decisions and impacts. 

4.12.2.7.4.4. Noise and Light Mitigation 

Noise and light near Dinosaur National Park would be mitigated to levels similar to those 

described under the Proposed RMP with the same impacts. 

4.12.2.7.4.5. Cabins 

Under Alternative C no new cabins would be developed, thus having the same impacts as 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.12.2.7.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.12.2.7.5.1. Back Country Byways 

The designation of Back Country Byways are unspecified for this alternative. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-327 

4.12.2.7.5.2. SRMAs 

Special Recreation Management Areas, activity plans, and non-motorized trail management 

would be managed as described for Alternative B, with the impacts to recreation as discussed 

under that alternative. 

4.12.2.7.5.3. Trails 

Additional motorized trails would not be developed, with impacts similar to those described 

under Alternative C, but the existing Red Mountain Trail would continue to be managed under 

current conditions for motorized OHV use, with impacts as described under Alternative C. 

Alternative D (No Action) would add 55 miles of non-motorized hiking and/or horseback trails 

along the Green River, in the Dry Fork, Ashley Creek, Beaver Creek, Willow Creek, Nine Mile 

areas, and in other places within the VPA. It would add 2 miles of mountain bicycle trails along 

existing rural roads and trails as well as a non-motorized trail in Sears Canyon. The addition of 

55 miles of hiking and horse trails and 2 miles of mountain bike trails would have long-term 

beneficial impacts on recreation, and the recreational opportunities would be enhanced. 

However, the trail lengths would be limited, potentially creating direct long-term adverse 

impacts related to user-density, safety, and resource-use conflicts. 

4.12.2.7.5.4. Noise and Light Mitigation 

Under Alternative D (No Action), management of potential noise and light pollution adjacent to 

Dinosaur Nation Monument is currently unspecified. Minerals development operations (drilling 

well pads, infrastructure construction and operation, and lighting of these structures) would 

continue to adversely affect recreation settings and experiences. Based on the reasonably 

foreseeable development of fluid minerals within the VPA, it is likely that these impacts would 

intensify in the long term with increasingly adverse impacts to recreation opportunities and 

experiences adjacent to the Monument. 

4.12.2.7.5.5. Cabins 

Under this alternative, management for the construction and operation of additional cabins at or 

near existing cabins within the VPA is unspecified. Under the current RMP, it is unlikely that 

there would be beneficial impacts on recreational opportunities nor would there be the likelihood 

of adverse impacts to wildlife from an additional human presence in or near existing areas with 

cabins. 

4.12.2.7.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.12.2.7.6.1. Backcountry Byways 

No backcountry byways would be designated under this alternative, providing no added 

backcountry driving or OHV opportunities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-328 

4.12.2.7.6.2. SRMAs 

Eight SRMAs (Book Cliffs, Nine Mile, White River, Fantasy Canyon, Pelican Lake, Blue 

Mountain, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, and Browns Park) would be designated under Alternative E 

(with the same impacts and acreages as discussed under Alternative C), focusing recreation 

management on a variety of opportunities. However, management of 277,596 acres of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics to protect their wilderness characteristics would shift the 

focus of recreation to primitive and unconfined activities (e.g., hiking, backpacking, river 

floating, hunting, and wildlife viewing), opportunities for solitude, and the settings needed to 

achieve these opportunities. Within the Blue Mountain, Book Cliffs, Browns Park, Nine Mile, 

and White River SRMAs, there are one or more areas considered to be non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics; the protection of these areas' wilderness characteristics would enhance 

opportunities for primitive recreation (see Table 4.12.2 below). 

Table 4.12.2. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness characteristics in SRMAs —Alternative E 

SRMA 

(acres) 

Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics 

in SRMA (acres) 

Blue Mountain 

(42,729 acres) 

Bourdette Draw 13,328 

Book Cliffs 

(273,486 acres) 

Bitter Creek 

Cripple Cowboy 

Hells Hole Canyon 

Rat Hole 

Sweet Water 

Wolf Point 

33,484 

13,603 

2,125 

11,367 

6,994 

10,461 

Browns Park 

(52,720 acres) 

Cold Spring Mountain 

Dead Horse Pass 

Lower Flaming Gorge 

Mountain Home 

8,649 

1,666 

11,296 

2,102 

Nine Mile 

(81,168 acres) 

Desolation Canyon 20,989 

White River 

(47,130 acres) 

White River 21,167 

With the shift in focus to primitive forms of recreation in portions of these SRMAs, however, 

opportunities for motorized recreation (e.g., backcountry driving, vehicle-supported camping) 

and activities at developed recreation sites (campgrounds, interpretive exhibits) would be 

reduced with the closure of 57 miles of vehicle routes and restrictions on recreation 

developments to maintain a natural landscape. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-329 

4.12.2.7.6.3. Trails 

Signing and improving existing trails and developing new hiking, horseback, and mountain 

biking trails would increase the total number of trail miles to 400, with impacts as discussed 

under Proposed. The increased number of trail miles would reduce user densities on the trails, 

potentially alleviating user conflicts and improving individual users' experiences. Increased 

development of trails and the ensuing increase in human activity could cause increased adverse 

impacts to cultural and paleontological sites and the recreational and educational value of such 

sites. Increased visitation would also increase the potential for wildland fire and could lead to 

temporary closure of affected recreational areas and the temporary reduction of scenic quality in 

the affected area. New areas for mountain biking are currently being sought. Additional nonmotorized trails would provide additional mountain biking opportunities outside of existing and 

often overcrowded areas elsewhere in the VPA and the state. 

Alternative E would not develop or improve motorized trails as is prescribed in Alternative D 

(No Action). Thus, opportunities for backcountry driving and OHV recreation would be limited 

to the road and trail system that currently exists. Red Mountain Trail is the only trail currently 

managed and maintained for motorized use. The lack of additional trails could produce an 

increase in cross-country travel, thereby increasing the adverse impacts to vegetation, soil, water, 

wildlife habitat, and scenic quality within the VPA. Without further OHV opportunities, 

overland riding, user conflicts, elevated user densities, and the decline in visitor safety would 

continue within the VPA. 

Limiting OHV recreation, however, would have a long-term, beneficial effect on soils, riparian 

and upland vegetation, and wildlife habitat (and the recreational experiences dependent on these 

resources), by reducing surface disturbance to these resources. Reducing the opportunity for 

OHV use would also have long-term beneficial impacts on non-motorized forms of recreation 

(e.g., hiking, mountain biking, backpacking) by decreasing user conflicts on trails. Please refer to 

Section 4.12.2.8 of the DEIS for a further analysis of OHV management decisions and impacts. 

4.12.2.7.6.4. Mitigation of Lights and Noise 

The BLM would work in conjunction with the National Park Service and the energy industry to 

mitigate noise and light pollution adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument. Currently, there are 

no mitigation procedures in place. Mitigation would have long-term beneficial effects on 

recreation opportunities by limiting noise and light pollution and the corresponding 

enhancements in the recreation setting and desired visitor experience. 

4.12.2.7.6.5. Cabins 

Under Alternative E, no new cabins would be developed, providing no additional support for 

hunting, mountain biking, hiking, horse back riding/packing, or backcountry driving and OHV 

use. Without additional cabins for visitor to use, use seasons would not be extended. The impacts 

would be the same as discussed under Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-330 

4.12.2.8. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON RECREATION

Under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, WSAs would be managed to maintain their 

suitability for designation as Wilderness (according to and as directed in the IMP) until Congress 

either designates an area as Wilderness or releases an area from wilderness consideration. 

Wilderness Study Areas within the VPA encompass 53,058 acres (see Special Designation 

Section 4.16 for a detailed discussion of these areas). The IMP stipulates that these special 

designation areas would exclude OHV use except on prior, existing "ways," prohibit construction 

of permanent structures, and preserve wilderness values. The impacts to non-mechanized 

recreational use would be beneficial in the long term because opportunities would continue to be 

available for these activities. The impacts to mechanized and motorized users would continue to 

be adverse in the long term because the opportunities for these activities would be very limited or 

prohibited. 

4.12.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The effects of special designations management decisions under the Proposed RMP would have 

impacts on recreation throughout the VPA. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

totaling 131,700 acres would be established or maintained in the following locations: 

• Browns Park: 18,490 acres 

• Lower Green River: 8,470 acres 

• Red Mountain-Dry Fork: 24,285 acres 

• Nine Mile Canyon: 44,168 acres 

• Lears Canyon: 1,375 

• Pariette: 10,437 

• Red Creek: 24,475 

While managed as ACECs, Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, and Red Mountain-Dry Fork 

would receive comprehensive integrated activity plans, with direct long-term beneficial 

protection-related impacts that would address SRMA values. Both sites have a broad range of 

valuable resources including high scenic quality, wildlife habitat, cultural, historic, and 

recreational opportunities. Each of the above ACEC designations would impact OHV use as such 

use would either be closed or limited to designated routes. Restrictions on motorized use would 

be balanced by new trails under the Proposed RMP (see Section 4.12.2.8). 

As noted in Section 4.12.1, all proposed ACECs would be available for oil and gas leasing, and 

subject to valid existing mineral leasing rights. These potential mineral leasings would have 

long-term adverse impacts on the range of recreational opportunities and the quality of recreation 

experiences. 

The Proposed RMP would have fewer beneficial impacts to recreation due to the decreased acres 

of special designation areas when compared to Alternative D (No Action). While Alternative D 

(No Action) would not designate any new ACECs nor expand any currently designated areas, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-331 

Alternative D (No Action) would maintain a total of 165,944 ACEC acres within Pariette 

Wetlands, Red Creek Watershed, Lears Canyon, Browns Park, the Lower Green River, Nine 

Mile Canyon, and Red Mountain-Dry Fork (34,247 acres more than the Proposed RMP). 

The Proposed RMP would continue to protect eligible WSR segments along the Upper and 

Lower Green River, but this would be less protective than Alternative D (No Action). Under 

Alternative D (No Action), suitability findings would not be made on either the White or Green 

rivers, but would maintain and continue to protect eligible segments along the White River, and 

Upper and Lower Green River. Under the Proposed RMP, segments along Evacuation Creek, 

Bitter Creek, and Argyle Creek would also not be identified as suitable for Wild or Scenic 

designation. 

4.12.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, ACECs totaling 345,850 acres would be established or maintained in the 

following locations: 

• Bitter Creek: 68,834 acres 

• Browns Park: 52,721 acres 

• Coyote Basin: 87,743 acres 

• Lower Green River: 10,170 acres 

• Nine Mile Canyon: 48,000 acres 

• Red Mountain-Dry Fork: 24,285 acres 

• White River: 17,810 acres 

• Lears Canyon: 1,375 

• Pariette: 10,437 

• Red Creek: 24,475 

The Bitter Creek ACEC would be designated as an ACEC/Research Natural Area (RNA) due to 

its high-value, old growth pinyon pines, cultural resources, historic features, and high-quality 

watersheds. This would have long-term protection-related beneficial impacts on the area, and 

visitors to this ACEC would benefit from the special protection given to its unique ecosystem. 

Coyote Basin would also be designated as an ACEC/RNA due to the white-tailed prairie dog, 

numerous special status wildlife species, and the high-value ecosystems that support this 

wildlife. Wildlife viewing opportunities would be enhanced within this ACEC. 

While managed as ACECs, Browns Park and Nine Mile Canyon would receive comprehensive 

integrated activity plans, with direct long-term beneficial protection-related impacts that would 

address SRMA values. Both sites have a broad range of valuable resources including high scenic 

quality, wildlife habitat, cultural, historic, and recreational opportunities. Each of the above 

ACEC designations would impact OHV use as such use would either be closed or limited to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-332 

designated routes. Loss of these areas for motorized use would be balanced by new trails 

proposed under Alternative A (see Section 4.12.2.8). 

Managing Red Mountain-Dry Fork as an ACEC for recreational purposes, specifically for OHV 

use, would enhance the recreation experience, diminish the adverse impacts from OHVs in this 

area, reduce direct, adverse resource-use conflicts between OHV and non-OHV users, and 

improve health and human safety. 

As noted in Section 4.12.1, with the exception of portions of the White River and the Browns 

Park ACECs, all of the proposed ACECs would be available for oil and gas leasing, and subject 

to valid existing mineral leasing rights. These potential mineral leasings would have long-term 

adverse impacts on the range of recreational opportunities and the quality of recreation 

experiences from surface disturbances that would affect scenic quality and setting. 

This alternative would have more beneficial impacts to recreation due to the increased number of 

special designation areas than Alternative D (No Action), which would not designate any new 

ACECs nor expand any currently designated areas. 

Alternative A would identify Wild and Scenic River suitability designations along segments of the 

White River, which would increase the number of free-flowing river miles and preserve cultural and 

scenic natural resources along the rivers (and thus, the recreational opportunities that are supported 

by cultural and scenic resources) within the suitability designation areas. These suitability designated 

river segments would have greater long-term protection-related beneficial impacts on recreation 

resources than Alternative D (No Action), under which suitability findings would not be made on 

either the White or Green rivers. Under Alternative A, segments along Evacuation Creek, Bitter 

Creek, and Argyle Creek would not be identified for Wild or Scenic designation.

4.12.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, ACECs totaling 170,886 acres would be established or maintained in the 

following locations: 

• Browns Park: 18,474 acres 

• Coyote Basin: 47,659 acres 

• Nine Mile Canyon: 44,181 acres 

• Red Mountain-Dry Fork: 24,285 acres 

• Lears Canyon: 1,375 

• Pariette: 10,437 

• Red Creek: 24,475 

Under Alternative B there would be one new ACEC designated or expanded in the VPA (within 

Coyote Basin). Coyote Basin would be established as an ACEC/Research Natural Area for 

protection of the black-footed ferret and associated prey. This ACEC designation would have 

minor beneficial impacts on recreation, as the area would be designated for the protection and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-333 

enhancement of ferret habitat, and recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing would be 

possible. The total acreage proposed for designation as ACECs under this alternative would be 

29,290 acres more than the 141,596 ACEC acres that would be maintained under Alternative D 

(No Action). Therefore the impacts on recreation under Alternative B would be more beneficial 

to recreation than Alternative D (No Action). 

There would be no new Wild and Scenic River suitability designations under Alternative B but 

this alternative would maintain previously recommended segments along the Upper and Lower 

Green River, which would have the same impacts on this recreation resource as Alternative D 

(No Action). 

4.12.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, the greatest number of acres within the BLM-administered VPA would be 

designated as ACECs, when compared to Alternative D (No Action), which would not expand or 

designate any new ACECs. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) totaling 681,310 

acres would be established or maintained in the following locations: 

• Bitter Creek and Bitter Creek/PR Spring: 147,425 acres 

• Browns Park: 52,721 acres 

• Coyote Basin Complex: 124,161 acres 

• Four Mile Wash: 50,280 acres 

• Lower Green River: 10,170 acres 

• Main Canyon: 100,915 acres 

• Middle Green River: 6,768 acres 

• Nine Mile Canyon: 81,168 acres 

• Red Mountain-Dry Fork: 24,285 acres 

• White River: 47,130 acres 

• Lears Canyon: 1,375 

• Pariette: 10,437 

• Red Creek: 24,475 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), acreages for ACEC designation would be designated or 

increased in Bitter Creek, in the Coyote Basin-Snake John- Kennedy Wash sub-complexes, Four 

Mile Wash, along the Lower and Middle Green River, in Main Canyon, Nine Mile Canyon, and 

Red Mountain-Dry Fork. These new ACECS or enlarged, existing ACECS, would directly 

benefit recreation resources as described under Alternative A. The Coyote Basin, Snake John, 

and Kennedy Wash ACEC would include the Myton Bench and Shiner areas that would also 

offer protection to reintroduced black-footed ferrets, but would have beneficial impacts on 

recreation within the VPA, as described under Alternative A. These increases in acreage would 

beneficially improve and enhance non-motorized recreation opportunities in the long-term as 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-334 

described in the Proposed RMP, although adverse impacts to recreation from oil and gas leasing 

could still occur. An ACEC designation for Four Mile Wash would be unique to this alternative 

and, further, would classify the area as an Outstanding Natural Area because of its high scenic 

quality, primitive recreational opportunities, riparian ecosystems, and special status fish species. 

This would have long-term beneficial protection-related impacts on recreation resources. An 

integrated activity level plan would provide additional site-specific management prescriptions 

and resource protection. The area would be closed to oil and gas leasing and OHV use would be 

limited to designated routes, which would have direct, long-term beneficial impacts on the area's 

recreation resources. 

Alternative C would add 164 miles of Wild and Scenic River suitability designations for 

segments of the White River, Nine Mile Creek, Middle Green River, Evacuation Creek, Bitter 

Creek, and Argyle Creek, increasing the number of free-flowing river miles and preserving the 

cultural- and scenic-resource-based recreational opportunities within the designated areas. This 

alternative would have the greatest number of river miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers designated, 

having greater long-term direct beneficial impacts on recreation resources when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.12.2.8.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would maintain ACECs (totaling 165,944 acres) in the following 

locations: 

• Browns Park: 52,721 acres 

• Lower Green River: 8,470 acres 

• Nine Mile Canyon: 44,181 acres 

• Red Mountain-Dry Fork: 24,285 acres 

• Lears Canyon: 1,375 

• Pariette: 10,437 

• Red Creek: 24,475 

The ACECs currently established for the Lower Green River, Lears Canyon, Red Creek, Pariette, 

Browns Park, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, and Nine Mile Canyon (totaling 141,596 acres) would 

continue to have long-term beneficial protection-related impacts on recreation within these areas, 

with impacts to recreation as described under the Proposed RMP. 

The Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, and Red Mountain-Dry Fork ACECs would continue to be 

managed as noted in the Proposed RMP, however, management under this alternative would also 

be less restrictive. Comprehensive integrated activity plans would not be developed and there 

would be fewer restrictions on oil and gas leasing. Off-highway vehicle use and VRM 

classifications would be unspecified. Alternative D (No Action) would provide protection to deer 

winter range, special status species, outstanding scenic, cultural, riparian, and fisheries resources, 

which would have beneficial, indirect impacts on recreational opportunities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-335 

4.12.2.8.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Fourteen ACECs totaling 681,310 acres would be designated under Alternative E (the same as 

Alternative C): 

• Bitter Creek and Bitter Creek/PR Spring: 147,425 acres 

• Browns Park: 52,721 acres 

• Coyote Basin Complex: 124,161 acres 

• Four Mile Wash: 50,280 acres 

• Lower Green River: 10,170 acres 

• Middle Green River: 6,768 acres 

• White River: 47,130 acres 

• Main Canyon: 100,915 acres 

• Red Mountain-Dry Fork: 24,285 acres 

• Nine Mile Canyon: 81,168 acres 

• Lears Canyon: 1,375 

• Pariette Wetlands: 10,437 

• Red Creek Watershed: 24,475 

These ACECs would be designated and managed for a variety of relevant and important values, 

including natural landscapes and scenery, wildlife, critical wildlife habitat, riparian and wetland 

ecosystems, old growth forests, cultural and historic properties, and relict vegetation 

communities. These values provide for a wide variety of recreation opportunities, from 

motorized to non-motorized activities and developed to dispersed activities in a variety of 

settings. Management of these values varies from protection of unmodified landscapes and 

special status wildlife species to development of oil and gas and vegetation manipulation. 

Ten of the ACECs designated under this alternative include non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (see Table 4.12.3). Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed to protect their wilderness characteristics and to provide opportunities for primitive 

forms of recreation (e.g., hiking, backpacking, river floating, hunting, wildlife viewing, and 

nature study) and experiences of solitude in natural, undeveloped settings. Opportunities for 

motorized recreation (e.g., OHV and backcountry driving) and developed facilities (e.g., 

interpretive and wayside exhibits) would be provided outside non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

The impacts of these ACEC designations under this alternative would be more beneficial to 

recreation when compared to Alternative D (No Action) because more acreage would be 

protected from surface disturbances caused by mineral leasing, mineral materials disposal, new 

road construction, and ROWs that could otherwise adversely impact recreational opportunities 

and experiences. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-336 

Table 4.12.3. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in ACECs—Alternative E 

ACEC Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Acreage of Non-WSA Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Bitter Creek Bitter Creek 

Cripple Cowboy 

Hells Hole Canyon 

Rat Hole 

Sweet Water 

33,433 

13,579 

38 

11,337 

4 

Bitter Creek/P.R. Spring Bitter Creek 

Cripple Cowboy 

Hells Hole Canyon 

Sweet Water 

7 

15 

2,087 

6,982 

Browns Park Cold Spring Mountain 

Diamond Breaks 

Dead Horse Pass 

Lower Flaming Gorge 

Mountain Home 

8,649 

1 

1,665 

11,274 

2,089 

Coyote Basin–Snake John Bourdette Draw 13 

Four Mile Wash Desolation Canyon 43,014 

Lower Green River Desolation Canyon 5,242 

Main Canyon Wolf Point 11,783 

Nine Mile Canyon Desolation Canyon 19,470 

Red Creek Watershed Cold Spring Mountain 

Mountain Home 

76 

4,976 

White River White River 21,167 

4.12.2.9. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL/ROADS AND TRAILS DECISIONS ON RECREATION

4.12.2.9.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, areas within the VPA designated as Open to OHV cross-country 

travel would be limited to approximately 6,202 acres (a decrease of approximately 781,657 acres 

when compared to Alternative D, No Action). The impacts of limiting the number of opendesignated 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 crosscountry recreation-related travel. This loss would be offset by the 800 miles of trails proposed for 

OHV use in Alternative A. However, the long-term, beneficial effects of increased protection of 

soil, water, and wildlife habitat (which would preserve the quality of recreational activities 

associated with these resources) would counter the adverse effects of travel decisions. The 

reduction in noise, surface disturbances, visual quality degradation, and resource-use conflicts 

with other recreational activities would have direct long-term beneficial impacts on recreation. 

Indirect beneficial impacts to recreational activities that require high visual quality would result 

from the reduction in soil erosion and fugitive dust produced by OHV activities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-337 

Areas designated as Limited to Designated Routes for OHV travel would be increased to 

1,643,475 acres (an increase of 756,200 acres from current management as discussed in 

Alternative D, No Action), which would have direct long-term beneficial impacts on recreation 

by increasing the level of OHV management within the VPA. This would have direct beneficial 

impacts on recreation by reducing recreational resource-use conflicts. Under the Proposed RMP, 

OHV travel limited to designated routes would include the 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. 

Designating areas as Closed to OHV travel would be increased from 50,388 acres (under 

Alternative D, No Action) to 75,845 acres (an increase of 25,457 acres) and the miles of 

designated routes would increase from zero miles under existing conditions (Alternative D, No 

Action) to 4,860 miles. This increase in designated closed OHV routes would have direct, longterm beneficial impacts on other non-motorized recreational opportunities activities by reducing 

recreation resource-use conflicts, and by reducing the OHV-related disturbances to soil, water, 

and wildlife habitat resources. Increasing the number of OHV closed acres within the VPA 

would have minor restriction-related adverse impacts on OHV use, but the long-term direct and 

indirect benefits of reduced surface disturbances and reduced resource-use conflicts with other 

recreational activities would counter the adverse effects on OHV use. 

4.12.2.9.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts of travel decisions on recreation would be the same as discussed above under the 

Proposed RMP because the management decisions are the same. 

4.12.2.9.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Areas open to OHV travel would decrease to 5,434 acres (a decrease of 782,425 acres when 

compared to current management as described in Alternative D, No Action). 

Areas limited to OHV travel would increase to 1,659,901 acres (an increase of 772,626 acres 

from current management as described in Alternative D, No Action). 

Areas closed to OHV travel would increase to a total of 60,187 acres (an increase of 9,799 acres 

compared to Alternative D, No Action), the least amount of all the alternatives. 

The number of miles of routes designated would increase from zero miles under existing 

conditions (Alternative D, No Action) to 4,860 miles. 

The effects of Alternative B would be similar to those described under the Proposed RMP, for 

areas open to OHV travel. Areas designated as closed to OHV use would be reduced, which 

would reduce surface disturbances caused by overland OHV travel. Alternative B would have 

long-term beneficial impacts on other recreation resources similar to those described under the 

Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-338 

4.12.2.9.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

The impacts of road, trail, and OHV management decisions would be similar to those described 

under the Proposed RMP. There would be 5,434 acres open to cross-country OHV travel (the 

same as Alternative B), and the impacts of open OHV areas would be similar to those described 

under the Proposed RMP. 

Areas designated as limited to designated routes for OHV travel would be increased to 1,353,529 

acres (an increase of 466,254 acres from current management as described in Alternative D, No 

Action), allowing for increased use in a more managed setting, and potentially sustaining the 

existing levels of OHV use. 

Areas closed to OHV travel would be increased from 50,388 acres (under Alternative D, No 

Action) to 366,559 acres, which would have direct long-term beneficial impacts on soil, water, 

and wildlife habitat resources. 

The number of miles of routes designated would increase from zero miles under existing 

conditions to 4,707 miles. 

Alternative C would be the most restrictive on OHV use. A decrease in the number of acres 

available for OHV use would have long-term beneficial impacts on other non-motorized forms 

of recreation by reducing resource-user conflicts and by enhancing and/or protecting recreation 

resources as described under the Proposed RMP. 

Alternative C would also provide the highest degree of protection for natural resources, and 

create the lowest potential damage to natural resources from OHV-caused surface disturbances. 

This would have direct and indirect long-term beneficial impacts on all recreational activities 

within the VPA. 

4.12.2.9.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION)

Current management practices designate a total of 787,859 acres as open to cross-country OHV 

travel, 887,275 acres as limited to designated routes, and 50,388 acres as closed to OHV use. No 

OHV routes would be designated under this alternative. Travel management under current 

conditions would be less restrictive to OHV users when compared to the action alternatives, but 

would maintain the current adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources and to nonmotorized users, as discussed above. The adverse impacts of OHV-caused surface disturbances 

to soil, water, visual quality, and wildlife habitat would continue, as would recreational resourceuse conflicts between motorized, non-motorized, and non-mechanized recreation resource users. 

4.12.2.9.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 5,434 acres would be open to cross-country OHV travel, the same as under 

Alternatives B and C and a reduction of 782,425 acres from Alternative D (No Action). Under 

this alternative, motorized travel would be focused on designated routes, not cross-country. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-339 

While the experience of cross-country driving would be limited to 5,434 acres, motorized travel 

for access and recreation would still be available on 4,654 miles of road and trails. 

The area limited to designated routes for OHV travel would increase to 1,326,024 acres (an 

increase of 438,749 acres) from current management described in Alternative D (No Action). 

Limiting motorized travel to designated routes would emphasize an "on-road/trail" experience of 

varying degrees of challenge and risk, depending on the quality of the route traveled. Further 

limiting motorized travel to designated routes would place more management controls on the 

traveler, but sustaining the existing levels of OHV use is anticipated. The number of miles of 

routes formally designated for motorized use would increase from 0 miles under existing 

conditions (Alternative D, No Action) to 4,654 miles under Alternative E, although these routes 

would still be driven under Alternative D (No Action). 

Areas closed to OHV travel would increase to 392,818 acres (an increase of 342,430 acres) from 

current management in Alternative D (No Action). Closure to cross-country travel would have 

direct long-term beneficial impacts on soils, water, and wildlife habitat and on the primitive and 

non-motorized forms of recreation dependent on those resources and settings. In the areas closed 

to OHV travel, the focus would be placed on primitive and non-motorized forms of recreation, 

including hiking, backpacking, river floating, hunting, wildlife viewing, nature study, 

sightseeing, and others. Included in the areas closed to OHV travel would be the 24 non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics (277,596 acres). Here, recreation emphasis would be placed 

on primitive forms of recreation, experiences of solitude, and the undeveloped settings that 

support those activities and experiences. 

There are 228 miles of routes that exist in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under this alternative, these routes would be closed to motorized travel, foreclosing the 

opportunity for backcountry driving, vehicle-supported camping, and other motorized forms of 

recreation. 

4.12.2.10. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RECREATION

The following activities are dependent on visual resources and would be affected more by 

decisions related to visual resources: 

• Sight-seeing (the primary reason for current visitation to the VPA) 

• Scenic driving 

• Wildlife viewing 

• Nature study 

Many recreational activities in the VPA are related, in some way, to scenic quality. The degree to 

which scenic quality would be maintained is directly related to the degree to which the 

recreational experience would be maintained. Because VRM Classes I and II are most desirable 

for the recreation experience, the long-term beneficial effects of VRM upon recreation under the 

Proposed RMP and each alternative are represented as acreages categorized as VRM Class I or 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-340 

Class II. Table 4.12.4 below summarized the VRM class designations within the BLMadministered portion of the VPA. 

Table 4.12.4. VRM Class Acreages for the Proposed RMP and each Alternative 

VRM 

Class 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

VRM I 57,776 63,136 52,764 145,781 53,086 334,516 

VRM II 231,911 294,773 114,030 362,660 113,686 259,694 

VRM III 786,612 716,186 199,179 580,846 199,192 535,586 

VRM IV 643,641 645,845 1,353,967 630,653 1,353,976 590,144 

Total 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 

VRM I 

and II 

289,687 357,909 166,794 508,441 166,772 594,210 

VRM III 

and IV 

1,430,253 1,362,031 1,553,146 1,211,499 1,553,168 1,125,730 

4.12.2.10.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would increase the current acreage of VRM Classes I and II by 122,915 

acres (from 166,772 acres under Alternative D (No Action) to 289,687 acres under the Proposed 

RMP). This increase would more have long-term beneficial effect on recreation throughout the 

VPA, when compared with Alternative D (No Action). 

4.12.2.10.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would increase the current acreage of VRM Classes I and II by 191,137 acres to a 

total of 357,909 acres. This increase would have more long-term beneficial effect on recreation 

throughout the VPA, when compared with Alternative D (No Action). 

4.12.2.10.3. ALTERNATIVES B AND D (NO ACTION) 

Maintaining 166,794 acres as VRM Classes I and II under Alternative B (very similar to 

acreages designated under Alternative D, No Action) would have the same low protectionrelated beneficial impacts on the scenic quality component of recreation resources as Alternative 

D (No Action). 

4.12.2.10.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

The management actions under Alternative C would increase VRM Class I and Class II 

designated areas by 341,669 acres to 508,441 acres throughout the BLM administered VPA. 

When compared to current conditions under Alternative D (No Action), this large increase in 

area for the preservation of scenic quality would have greater long-term beneficial effects on 

recreational opportunities and activities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-341 

4.12.2.10.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under this alternative, there would be approximately 594,210 acres managed by VRM Class I 

(preserve the landscape character) and Class II (retain the landscape character) objectives. Class 

III (partially retain the landscape character) and Class IV (provide for landscape modification) 

objectives would be prescribed for 1,125,730 acres. Class I and II objectives would limit 

landscape change but would provide for dispersed and undeveloped recreation opportunities. The 

opportunities would include a variety of motorized and non-motorized activities like camping, 

hiking, backpacking, river floating, wildlife viewing, hunting, nature study, and picnicking. 

Backcountry driving and OHV use would be permitted on designated roads and trails. However, 

recreation requiring developed sites like campgrounds, picnic areas, or interpretive sites would 

not be permitted in Class I areas. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (277,596 

acres) would be managed by VRM Class I objectives and provide the same recreation 

opportunities as described above, except backcountry driving or OHV use. Routes in non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to motorized use in these areas. 

4.12.2.11. SUMMARY

4.12.2.11.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would have a moderate degree of adverse impacts when compared to the 

action alternatives and major beneficial impacts when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

• Increases in oil and gas production would have major adverse impacts on recreational 

opportunities. 

• Increases in OHV management would have adverse impacts on mechanized recreation, 

by restricting OHV recreational opportunities in the VPA. 

• Increases in OHV management would have beneficial impacts on non-mechanized 

recreation through protection of wildlife, wilderness values, and the reduction of user 

conflicts. 

• Protection of areas as ACECs and management of SRMAs would have a major beneficial 

impact on recreation. SRMA acreages would be increased from 87,931 to 133,560. 

4.12.2.11.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

This alternative would have impacts from minerals development similar to the Proposed RMP 

alternative, with a moderate degree of adverse impacts when compared to the other action 

alternatives and major beneficial impacts to recreation when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

• The acreages designated for OHV management would be the same as the Proposed RMP. 

• SRMA acreages would be increased to 499,620, and ACEC designation would be 

increased to 345,850 acres. 

• Designation of 357,909 acres of the VPA under VRM Classes I and II for protection of 

scenic quality. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-342 

• Minerals leasing acreage greater than all of the alternatives except Alternative B. 

4.12.2.11.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

This alternative would have the most adverse impacts to recreation resources due to the large 

number of acres available for oil and gas leasing. This alternative would permit the most acres 

within the VPA for surface-disturbing minerals development. 

• Protection of wildlife and special status species would be the least under this alternative, 

with the greatest adverse impacts to recreation values and opportunities that are related to 

these resources. 

• No new ACECs would be designated under this alternative, with 123,227 acres 

maintained as ACECS (less than Alternative D) so there would be fewer resource 

protection-related beneficial impacts to recreation from these designations than under the 

current RMP. SRMA acreages would be the same as Alternative D (No Action) (87,931) 

• Limited protection of visual resources would have major adverse impacts on recreational 

opportunities in which scenic quality is an important component. 

4.12.2.11.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

This alternative would have the most beneficial impacts on recreation. 

• Designation of additional ACECs and eligibility designations of Wild and Scenic River 

segments would have beneficial impacts or recreation. Designation of the most acreage 

for SRMA management (522,604) would have major beneficial impacts on all forms of 

recreation. 

• Limits on OHV travel would be greatest under this alternative, producing adverse 

impacts on mechanized recreational opportunities and beneficial impacts on nonmechanized recreation. 

• Limits on oil and gas leasing and increased protection of wildlife and special status 

species would produce the most beneficial impacts and the least adverse impacts on 

recreation. 

• Designation of the most acreage of the VPA under VRM Classes I and II would provide 

the most protection to visual resources, and therefore would provide the greatest 

beneficial impacts to those recreational opportunities in which scenic quality is an 

important recreational component. 

4.12.2.11.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Oil and gas leasing would have a major adverse impact on recreation. 

• Lack of limits on OHV use would have major beneficial impacts on motorized recreation, 

and major adverse impacts on all other types of non-motorized recreation. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-343 

• Protecting 141,596 acres currently designated as ACECs) with no eligible Wild and 

Scenic River segments (but with maintained protection of segments along the Upper and 

Lower Green River) would provide protection-related beneficial impacts to recreation. 

• Limited protection of visual resources would have major adverse impacts on recreational 

opportunities in which scenic quality is an important component. 

4.12.2.11.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The focus of this alternative would be the protection of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. That protection would have substantial beneficial impacts on primitive and nonmechanized recreation activities, but it would exclude OHV use on 228 miles of routes and 

activities dependent on developed sites (e.g., campground and interpretive facilities). 

• Designation of ACECs and protection of suitable Wild and Scenic River segments would 

benefit undeveloped forms of recreation dependent on those settings. Designation of 

SRMA acreages the same as Alternative C (522,604 acres) would have major beneficial 

impacts on recreational opportunities within the VPA. 

• OHV travel would be limited under this alternative, reducing opportunities for crosscountry driving, focusing motorized travel to designated routes, and creating added 

opportunities for non-motorized recreation. 

• Management for preservation and retention of the existing landscape character (VRM 

Classes I and II objectives) would provide the most opportunity for activities and 

experiences dependent on natural and undeveloped settings. 

4.12.2.12. MITIGATION MEASURES

All of the alternatives would affect recreation resources to varying degrees and so would require 

varying forms of mitigation measures. 

Mitigation measures would include: 

• Where prescribed fire treatments overlap recreation areas, promoting recreational use of 

other areas with similar recreational opportunities. 

• Maintaining wildlife viewing opportunities by following mitigation recommendations in 

the Wildlife and Minerals portions of this RMP. 

• Controlling fugitive dust with dust suppressants along scenic byways, oil and gas 

development areas, and major recreational access routes. 

• Separating recreational uses and opportunities, temporally or spatially, to mitigate 

conflict between user groups. 

• Educating the users of recreation resources on the impacts that their activities have on the 

natural environment, in an effort to reduce the adverse impacts on natural resources, 

especially by OHV users. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12. Recreation

Vernal RMP 4-344 

4.12.3. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Some mineral development activities associated with the management actions of the Proposed 

RMP and the alternatives would have unavoidable, adverse impacts on recreation resources. 

Exploration and development would fragment hunting areas and impact OHV and non-motorized 

trails. 

4.12.4. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short-term use of recreation resources in the VPA would result in negligible impacts on the longterm productivity of the resource. 

4.12.5. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

No irreversible impacts to recreation resources or activities are anticipated. There would likely 

be irretrievable impacts to recreation resources (from a loss of vegetation and from surface 

disturbances directly and indirectly causing a reduction in scenic quality) produced by crosscountry OHV use, and by minerals development in areas formerly used for solitary, remote, and 

unconfined recreation. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-345 

4.13. RIPARIAN AND WETLAND RESOURCES

Impacts to riparian areas in the VPA would be a result of surface-disturbing activities and forage 

use both within and outside of the riparian zones and are subject to restrictions to insure 

conditions are improved or at least not degraded. The Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland 

Health apply to riparian resources in the VPA. The Proposed RMP and all alternatives must 

adhere to Standard 2 of these standards, "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). 

As identified in the preliminary riparian inventory, the VFO would maintain 295 miles and 3,674 

acres of riparian areas currently in proper functioning condition. Also, the VFO would improve 

133 miles and 1,452 acres functioning at risk and 79 miles and 1,213 acres not in properly 

functioning condition. These are preliminary numbers and will change as the inventory is 

completed. Monitoring by the permittee and the BLM would be used to determine the trend and 

condition of riparian areas (considering the soil type, climate, and land form). Site-specific 

conditions would need to be documented before modifying any prescriptions. 

There are several potential impacts that would adversely affect riparian resources: 

• Upland surface disturbance could cause a loss of vegetation that could accelerate soil 

erosion, which would in turn cause sedimentation in adjacent streams. 

• Loss of riparian vegetation would lead to reduced riparian condition and loss of PFC. 

• Degradation of riparian-wetland soils would lead to reduced riparian condition and loss of 

PFC. 

• Drawdown of groundwater levels from oil, gas, and CBNG leasing could lead to 

dewatering of riparian areas. 

• Roads would result in an indefinite to permanent loss of vegetation that can increase soil 

erosion and sedimentation. This can potentially result in channel instability and changes in 

channel types and/or less stable to instable channel cross sections in certain watersheds. 

Decisions making lands unavailable for upland surface disturbance and riparian corridor 

disturbance may benefit riparian resources. Beneficial impacts may result from stubble height 

requirements, utilization levels, reduced use, and season of use changes that are proposed in 

some of the alternatives. 

4.13.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, management actions for the following resources 

would result in negligible impacts to riparian resources: air quality, cultural resources, hazardous 

materials, human health and safety, and paleontological resources. This is because protecting air 

quality, maintaining safety around AML sites and reducing the risks of hazardous materials spills 

and spill-site cleanup, protecting cultural resources under Section 106, protecting known fossil 

areas for fossil scientific study and recreational fossil collection, and would neither degrade nor 

improve the water, soil and vegetation components that comprise riparian resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-346 

Accordingly, the impacts of management actions for each of these resources are not analyzed 

further in this section. 

The BLM would take measures to ensure riparian area productivity and sustainability in the 

event of wildland fire, drought, or other natural disasters, by reducing or eliminating livestock, 

wild horses, and/or wildlife forage allocations, reducing or eliminating recreational activities 

(camping and campfires, OHV use, etc.), and reducing or eliminating mineral exploration and 

acquisition until riparian conditions are properly functioning. Cultural and paleontological 

resource management would not have any effect on riparian resources. 

Fire Management practices would have short-term, direct adverse impacts to riparian resources 

through practices such as prescribed burning or fuels reduction by increasing erosion rates, 

which could result in stream sedimentation. However, these fire management activities would 

reintroduce the natural fire return interval in the long term, decreasing or eliminating the 

occurrence of catastrophic rangeland fires, and promoting more productive rangelands, resulting 

in less soil degradation and subsequent stream sedimentation. 

Effects to riparian resources specified under forage and wild horse management decisions would 

be short-term, direct, and potentially beneficial, depending on season of use and duration. These 

decisions would also have long-term direct beneficial impacts to riparian resources by improving 

riparian conditions. AUMs would be adjusted for livestock, wild horses, and/or wildlife when 

monitoring shows that riparian condition is not at PFC. 

Effects from lands and realty decisions would be direct and long-term. Land withdrawals would 

have a beneficial effect on riparian resources by precluding areas from mineral entry and would 

result in riparian resource protection. Increasing visitor access to river segments would have 

long-term, indirect adverse impacts to riparian resources by increasing visitor traffic, bank 

trampling, and spread of noxious weeds. With respect to right of ways, the BLM has strict 

riparian area reclamation and restoration guidelines regarding linear projects such as pipelines; 

therefore, no impacts are expected. 

Long-duration grazing would impact riparian areas through loss of vegetative cover and 

trampling of soils, potentially leading to riparian area degradation. Limited livestock grazing, 

when properly managed, would benefit riparian areas by stimulating new growth in riparian 

vegetation. Effects on riparian vegetation vary between seasons of use. For example, grazing 

riparian areas in late spring allows vegetation to grow through summer and into the fall, where it 

can protect banks during critical spring runoff and late summer thunderstorms. Any changes to 

season of use or AUMs would need to be in compliance with Standard 2 (and all other standards) 

of the Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Effects of minerals decisions on riparian resources would be adverse, long-term, and direct, 

resulting in upland erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation through surface-disturbing 

activities. The impacts analysis represents relative risks of adverse impacts to riparian resources 

for the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, due to the incomplete riparian inventory data. Sitespecific analyses would need to be undertaken on a case-by-case basis to establish quantitative 

impacts. Reclamation and restoration of oil and gas, locatable minerals, surface minerals, and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-347 

alternative energy sites would be required upon abandonment of the site, resulting in less stream 

sedimentation. The risks of accidental release of hazardous materials and petroleum products 

from oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) sites would also have an indirect, long-term, 

adverse impact on riparian resources. Drawdown of groundwater due to techniques used to 

extract oil, gas, and CBNG could lead to dewatering of riparian areas, increasing the risks of 

invasive species introduction and reducing water available for riparian ecosystems. Additionally, 

road development providing access to oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) would 

increase risks sediment runoff and noxious weed infestation into previously undeveloped areas. 

More roads would also increase access for illegal OHV use in remote riparian areas. Surface 

mineral developments would not be placed in wetlands and would be at least 100 m from 

riparian zones, and must occur outside the 100-year floodplain. These stipulations on surface 

disturbance are discussed in Appendix K, and would be used unless there are no practical 

alternatives or impacts would be fully mitigated. The limits placed on surface disturbance from 

locatable minerals would limit the adverse impacts from these activities and there is no 

measurable difference between alternatives. 

Depending on the construction methods and materials used, roads built across riparian areas 

would result in a direct loss of riparian habitat at the crossing site. The loss of habitat would 

continue until the reclamation of the road occurs and traffic diminishes to a point that riparian 

habitat can re-establish itself. 

The effects of rangeland improvements on riparian areas would be beneficial, long-term, 

indirect, and direct. Vegetation treatments would ultimately reduce stream sedimentation and 

improve riparian vegetative cover. Fencing of riparian areas would reduce impacts from grazing 

in these areas and development of other water sources away from riparian areas would limit 

grazing use of river corridors. 

The effects of recreation decisions on soils would generally be long-term, indirect, and 

beneficial, by limiting OHV use to designated areas and by providing management for areas as 

SRMAs. Adverse effects would occur from increased visitor traffic, development of trails, and 

OHV use. Adverse impacts would include trampling of banks, compaction of soils, and spread of 

noxious weeds. Where limits are place on OHV travel off designated routes for big-game 

retrieval, beneficial effects would occur. The "Tread Lightly" program is invaluable in educating 

OHV users to stay on existing trails, thereby decreasing impacts to riparian areas. "Sacrifice" 

areas would be designated for OHV users in areas that are not ecologically sensitive and present 

little or no risk to riparian condition and other components identified in the Utah BLM Standards 

for Rangeland Health. 

Riparian management would be designed to improve riparian conditions. The effects of 

maintaining minimum vegetation stubble height thresholds on riparian vegetation would be 

beneficial, long-term, and direct. Maintaining plant stubble along the banks traps sediment and 

reduces stream bank erosion, thereby maintaining or enhancing riparian condition. Managing 

herbaceous and woody vegetation in riparian areas would have long-term direct beneficial effects 

by trapping sediment, attenuating floods, and providing stability for banks during periods of high 

flow. Proper functioning condition is the minimum acceptable goal for riparian areas. Riparian-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-348 

wetland areas would be maintained, restored, protected, and/or expanded to achieve PFC with 

respect to soils, vegetation, and hydrology/water quality. 

Soils and watershed management would be beneficial to riparian areas by limiting surface 

disturbance and requiring erosion control on slopes steeper than 20%. Note: The percent varies 

by alternative and the Proposed RMP, but they all call for restrictions on slopes greater than 

20%. Slopes below 20% would not be required to have erosion control plans and would have 

short-term adverse impacts to riparian areas through increased sedimentation and runoff. The 

BLM would reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants and sediment into surface waters 

with stipulations on surface disturbance, providing protection for fish, amphibians, wildlife, and 

water recreation. Oil and gas well pads would not be permitted in active floodplains, protecting 

watersheds and riparian areas from sedimentation as well. The BLM would examine the effects 

of prescribed fire, post fire management, invasive weed control, energy development, grazing, 

OHV use, and range improvement projects prior to taking action. 

Special designation areas would have long-term direct beneficial effects to riparian areas, where 

management plans are designed to protect riparian ecosystems or limit surface disturbance by 

designating VRM Class I and II areas. WSR designations would have direct, long-term 

beneficial impacts to riparian resources by limiting development along river corridors. Increased 

visitor traffic would have long-term indirect adverse impacts due to increases in bank trampling 

and recreational use of these river segments. Wilderness study areas would be managed in a 

manner that does not impair riparian condition, as per Standard 2 of the Utah BLM Standards for 

Rangeland Health. These designations would not allow surface disturbance, thereby providing 

direct protection for riparian areas. 

The effects of special status species on riparian resources would be beneficial, long-term, and 

direct by limiting surface development. The Proposed RMP and each of the alternatives offers 

varying level of protection to special status species and their habitats by placing no-disturbance 

buffers around critical habitat (e.g., raptor nests). Habitat protection indirectly equates to reduced 

soil disturbance and stream sedimentation. Inventories of these plant and animal resources would 

provide well-defined protection areas. Ute ladies'-tresses is the only TES plant that occurs in 

riparian areas within the VPA. The protection of this species' habitat would provide beneficial, 

long-term effects to riparian areas through limitation of surface-disturbing activities under all 

alternatives. 

Travel decisions would have direct and indirect, short- and long-term beneficial impacts to 

riparian resources where newly permitted roads and trails are obliterated or returned to their 

original condition. Repair by maintenance, upgrade, or realignment of roads causing resource 

damage, and installation of water crossings designed to allow the free passage of aquatic life 

would be beneficial to riparian resources as well. Direct and indirect, long- and short-term 

adverse impacts would occur where riparian areas on BLM land are within areas open to OHV 

use with no limits on travel. 

VRM decisions would be beneficial and long term, and would directly affect riparian resources 

by precluding some areas from surface disturbance due to their proximity to highways, scenic 

areas, and special designations. However, adverse, short-term, indirect impacts would occur if 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-349 

vegetation treatments could not be implemented in VRM-sensitive areas. VRM classes range 

from I to IV; Class I lands are not open to surface disturbance (full retention), and Class IV lands 

are available for full development. 

Wildlife and fisheries management would have limited direct effects on riparian resources. 

Introduction of moose populations would have long-term, indirect beneficial impacts on riparian 

resources by increasing biodiversity in these areas. The BLM would provide habitat for a 

diversity of wildlife and fish species by limiting fragmentation, resulting in less surface 

disturbance and stream sedimentation. The effects of wildlife management decisions on riparian 

resources would be beneficial, long term, and indirect, by limiting surface development within 

specified wildlife buffer zones. Most of the wildlife and fisheries management decisions involve 

seasonal constraints and would not necessarily preclude surface-disturbing activities. The only 

measurable component of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on riparian resources 

would be the preservation of crucial deer winter range and the enhancement of winter range to 

mitigate surface disturbance. The Proposed RMP and all alternatives are similar with respect to 

their effects on riparian resources. 

Woodlands and Forest management would generally have long-term indirect, beneficial impacts 

to riparian resources. The BLM would follow national BLM Forest Health and Forest 

Management Standards and Guidelines to achieve desired future conditions, and minimize 

impacts to riparian resources, while providing for multiple forest product use. Adverse, shortterm, direct impacts to riparian resources would occur with treatments and harvesting in the form 

of sedimentation. However, in the long term, treatments and harvesting would have the potential 

to reintroduce natural fire return intervals, reducing stream sedimentation through fewer 

catastrophic fires. 

4.13.2. THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

Surface-disturbing activities for the Proposed RMP and all alternatives and all effects would 

generally be adverse to riparian resources through sedimentation. Surface stipulations in 

Appendix K would be applied to all surface-disturbing activities, and would limit disturbance of 

riparian areas. Exceptions to these stipulations could be authorized if: a) there are no practical 

alternatives; b) impacts could be fully mitigated; or c) the action is designed to enhance the 

riparian resources. Additionally, mineral developments require a network of access roads, which 

typically require some form of water crossing. The duration of these impacts is dependent on the 

action. 

4.13.2.1. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.1.1. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, E, AND THE PROPOSED RMP 

Alternatives A, B, C, E, and the Proposed RMP would allow approximately 3 times more 

acreage of prescribed burning in the short term than Alternative D (No Action) (156,425 acres 

versus 50,900 acres). However, in the long term, these fire management activities would 

reintroduce the natural fire return interval to an area 3 times greater than that proposed in 

Alternative D (No Action). This would decrease or eliminate the occurrence of catastrophic 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-350 

wildland fires, which often require aggressive suppression, promoting more productive 

rangelands with less soil erosion and stream sedimentation. 

4.13.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Long-term benefits to riparian resources from prescribed fire would be three times less under 

Alternative D (No Action) than under other alternatives because the area for proposed fire 

treatments would be smaller. 

4.13.2.2. IMPACTS OF FORAGE AND WILD HORSE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN 

RESOURCES

4.13.2.2.1. ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND THE PROPOSED RMP 

Total AUMs for Alternatives A, B, and the Proposed RMP would be similar; however, 

Alternative B would have 10% greater forage utilization than Alternative A and the Proposed 

RMP. Greater forage utilization and more AUMs would put greater stress on riparian areas 

through loss of cover and trampling. This could potentially result in loss of PFC. The Proposed 

RMP and these alternatives provide more beneficial impacts to riparian resources than 

Alternative D (No Action), which has unspecified forage utilization. 

4.13.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C has the most beneficial impacts to riparian resources relative to Alternative D (No 

Action) through reductions in livestock use and retention of AUMs for watershed in many 

localities. 

4.13.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) generally provides no specifications for forage utilization and has the 

highest allocation of AUMs; therefore, it would provide the least beneficial impacts to riparian 

resources. 

4.13.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts would be the same as Alternative C because the decisions are the same. 

4.13.2.3. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.3.1. ALTERNATIVE A AND THE PROPOSED RMP 

Alternative A and the Proposed RMP would pursue public access to the White River at the 

mouth of Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. Additionally, Alternative 

A and the Proposed RMP would pursue acquisition of Indian Trust lands in Bitter Creek and near 

the confluence of South and Sweetwater Canyons. These actions would have greater long-term, 

indirect adverse impacts to riparian resources than Alternative D (No Action), by increasing 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-351 

visitor use, thereby increasing trampling of banks and spread of noxious weeds. The Proposed 

RMP and Alternative A would preclude mineral entry on 22,814 acres of land withdrawals, and 

would therefore have less indirect beneficial impacts to riparian resources than Alternative D 

(No Action), which would preclude mineral and agricultural entry on 35,900 acres of withdrawal 

lands. 

4.13.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would not pursue public access to any new lands nor acquisition of Indian Trust 

lands, therefore would have similar impacts to Alternative D (No Action). This alternative would 

preclude mineral entry on 19,202 acres of withdrawal lands, therefore having similar impacts to 

Alternative A. 

4.13.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Lands and realty decisions and impacts under Alternative C are similar to Alternatives A and the 

Proposed RMP, except more protective of riparian resources because the BLM would also 

pursue an easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed from the Utah/Colorado line to Watson in 

Evacuation Wash. Land withdrawal decisions would be similar to Alternative A and the 

Proposed RMP, except that 13,451 additional acres would be precluded from mineral entry. 

Alternative C would have slightly greater indirect beneficial impacts to riparian resources than 

Alternative D (No Action), because 365 more acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

4.13.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) precludes mineral and agricultural entry on 35,900 acres of land. Land 

access decisions are unspecified under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.13.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would have similar impacts to Alternative C with the exception that the 277,597 

acres determined to have non-WSA wilderness characteristics would not be available for 

disposal or exchange. Riparian areas that lie within non-WSA areas with wilderness 

characteristics would remain in public ownership and be managed as ROW exclusion areas, 

which would have additional long-term, beneficial protection-related impacts on riparian 

resources. 

4.13.2.4. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.4.1. ALTERNATIVE A AND THE PROPOSED RMP 

Alternative A and the Proposed RMP would use a phenology-based system for timing livestock 

use. This system would use timing of vegetation growth to determine proper grazing limits. Due 

to limits on grazing time, the Proposed RMP and Alternative A would provide an intermediate 

amount of direct, long-term beneficial impacts to riparian resources, as compared to Alternatives 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-352 

B and C. The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would provide greater direct, long-term 

beneficial impacts than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.13.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would use a billed use-based system for timing livestock use. This system would 

generally allow more time for grazing than all other alternatives, therefore having more direct, 

long-term adverse impacts to riparian resources than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.13.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would use an adjudicated system for timing livestock use. This system would 

allow the least time for grazing, compared to all alternatives. The direct, long-term beneficial 

impacts to riparian resources would be the highest, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.13.2.4.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would use a permitted system for timing livestock use. This system is 

currently in use and provides an intermediate amount of impacts between other alternatives. 

4.13.2.4.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts on riparian resources would be the same as Alternative C because the resource 

decisions are the same. 

4.13.2.5. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would potentially develop approximately 6,283 oil, gas, and CBNG wells, 

which is 535 more than Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP would have a higher risk 

of more indirect, short- and long-term adverse impacts to riparian resources, due to a higher 

number of wells, more roads, and more acreage of surface disturbance, as compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.13.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would potentially develop approximately 6,391 oil, gas, and CBNG wells, which 

is 428 more than Alternative D (No Action). This alternative would have a higher risk of more 

indirect, short- and long-term adverse impacts to riparian resources, due to a higher number of 

wells, more roads, and more acreage of surface disturbance, as compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-353 

4.13.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would potentially develop approximately 6,391 oil, gas, and CBNG wells, which is 

535 more than Alternative D (No Action). This alternative would have the highest risk of 

indirect, short- and long-term adverse impacts to riparian resources due to a higher number of 

wells, more roads, and more acreage of surface disturbance, as compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.13.2.5.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would potentially develop approximately 6,224 oil, gas, and CBNG wells, which is 

368 more than Alternative D (No Action). Compared to Alternatives A and B, this alternative 

would have the lowest risk of indirect, short- and long-term adverse impacts to riparian resources 

due a lower number of wells, fewer roads, and fewer acres of surface disturbance. Compared to 

Alternatives D (No Action), and E adverse impacts to riparian resources would be greater. 

4.13.2.5.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would potentially develop approximately 5,856 oil, gas, and CBNG 

wells in the VPA. 

4.13.2.5.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would potentially develop approximately 6,118 oil, gas, and CBNG wells, which 

would be 262 more wells than Alternative D (No Action). Compared to Alternatives A, B, and C, 

this alternative would have the lowest risk of indirect short- and long-term adverse impacts to 

riparian resources due a relatively lower number of RFD-predicted wells, fewer miles of access 

roads, and fewer acres of minerals-related surface disturbances. Compared to Alternative D (No 

Action), the impacts to riparian resources would be more beneficial in the long term because of 

the greater protection afforded to riparian resources. 

4.13.2.6. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA AREAS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, approximately 106,178 acres with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed with VRM Class II objectives, closed to oil and gas leasing and closed to woodland 

product harvest. OHV use would be limited to designated routes. The impacts would be 

beneficial in the long term because these potential surface disturbances to riparian resources 

within non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas would not be allowed; however, the impacts 

would be minor, as the affected area would be comparatively small. Compared to Alternative D 

(No Action), the Proposed RMP would be more beneficial because it would indirectly protect 

riparian areas that lie within non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-354 

4.13.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND D 

Under these alternatives, areas with non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics would not be 

managed for protection of their wilderness values. 

4.13.2.6.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under this alternative, 277,596 acres with wilderness characteristics (including 1,753 acres of 

riparian area) would be managed as exclusion areas for ROW realty actions, managed under 

VRM Class I objectives, close to OHV cross-country travel, closed to mineral material disposal 

and closed to oil and gas and other mineral leasing. The impacts would be beneficial in the long 

term because these potential surface disturbances to riparian resources within non-WSA 

wilderness characteristics areas would not be allowed; however, the impacts would be minor, as 

the affected area would be comparatively small. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this 

alternative would be more beneficial because it would indirectly protect riparian areas that lie 

within non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas. 

4.13.2.7. IMPACTS OF RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.7.1. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, E, THE PROPOSED RMP, AND D (NO ACTION) 

Vegetation treatments for rangeland improvement would total 34,640 acres, 50,900 acres, 45,860 

acres, 40,390 for Alternatives A/the Proposed RMP, B, C/E, and D (No Action), respectively. 

Therefore, Alternative B would be the most beneficial to riparian resources, and Alternative 

A/the Proposed RMP would be the least beneficial, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

The Proposed RMP fencing and water development projects would have beneficial impacts by 

improving conditions for timed livestock grazing and would have indirect beneficial impacts on 

riparian areas. There may be some trampling effects along fence lines, but water developments 

would provide water to upland range sites, keeping livestock and other ungulates out of riparian 

areas. Guzzlers, reservoirs, wells, and springs would attract livestock away from riparian areas 

and would decrease soil disturbance and sedimentation around riparian areas. 

4.13.2.8. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The effects of recreation decisions on riparian resources would generally be long-term, indirect, 

and beneficial, by limiting OHV use to designated areas and by providing management for areas 

as SRMAs. Adverse effects would occur from increased visitor traffic, development of trails, and 

OHV use. Adverse impacts would include trampling of banks, compaction of soils, and spread of 

noxious weeds. Where limits are placed on OHV travel off designated routes for big-game 

retrieval, beneficial effects would occur. 

The Proposed RMP would manage the 4 existing SRMAs: Browns Park (18,490 acres), Nine 

Mile Canyon (44,168 acres), Red Mountain-Dry Fork (24, 259 acres), and Pelican Lake (1,014 

acres). The Proposed RMP would establish 3 new SRMAs: Blue Mountain (42,729 acres), White 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-355 

River (2,831 acres), and Fantasy Canyon (69 acres). The Proposed RMP would have direct and 

indirect short- and long-term beneficial impacts to riparian resources (as compared to Alternative 

D, No Action) by designating the White River SRMA, which would be managed as VRM Class 

II, limiting surface disturbance within line of sight or up to 0.5 mile either side of the river. The 

designation of Blue Mountain and Fantasy Park would provide management of OHV use, which 

would not be managed in these areas under Alternative D (No Action). Under the Proposed 

RMP, non-WSA lands within SRMAs would be managed for non-motorized recreation, which 

would have long-term beneficial impacts to riparian areas by limiting the effects of motor 

vehicles. 

Development of up to 400 miles of non-motorized trails would have long-term indirect adverse 

impacts due to increasing visitor traffic in riparian zones. This would be 345 more miles of trails 

developed than under Alternative D (No Action) and the same as under Alternative C. Not 

allowing OHV use for big-game retrieval off designated routes would have long-term indirect 

beneficial impacts to riparian resources by limiting trampling of riparian vegetation and spread 

of noxious weeds. OHV use off designated trails for big-game retrieval is unspecified under 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.13.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The effects of recreation decisions on riparian resources would generally be long-term indirect 

and beneficial, by limiting OHV use to designated areas and by providing management for areas 

as SRMAs. Adverse effects would occur from increased visitor traffic, development of trails, and 

OHV use. Adverse impacts would include trampling of banks, compaction of soils, and spread of 

noxious weeds. Where limits are placed on OHV travel off designated routes for big-game 

retrieval, beneficial effects would occur. 

Alternative A would manage (and in some cases expand) the 4 existing SRMAs—Browns Park 

(52,720 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 acres), Red Mountain-Dry Fork (24,259 acres), and 

Pelican Lake (1, 014 acres). Alternative A would establish 3 new SRMAs: Blue Mountain 

(42,758 acres), Book Cliffs (273,486), and White River (24,183 acres). Alternative A would 

have direct and indirect short- and long-term beneficial impacts to riparian resources as 

compared to Alternative D (No Action) by designating the White River SRMA, which would be 

managed as VRM Class II, limiting surface disturbance within line of sight or up to 0.5 mile 

either side of the river. The designation of Blue Mountain and Fantasy Park would provide 

management of OHV use, which would not be managed in these areas under Alternative D (No 

Action). Long-term indirect adverse impacts would occur to these areas due to increase in visitor 

traffic. 

Development of up to 400 miles of non-motorized trails would have long-term indirect adverse 

impacts due to increasing visitor traffic in riparian zones. This would be 345 more miles of trails 

developed than under Alternative D (No Action) and the same as under Alternative C. Not 

allowing OHV use for big-game retrieval off designated routes would have long-term indirect 

beneficial impacts to riparian resources by limiting trampling of riparian vegetation and spread 

of noxious weeds. OHV use off designated trails for big-game retrieval is unspecified under 

Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-356 

4.13.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would not designate any new nor expand current SRMAs (with SRMA designation 

the same as Alternative D, No Action). Long-term indirect adverse impacts would be the same as 

Alternative D (No Action), because the SRMA designations are the same. Alternative B and D 

(No Action) would have the least long-term, indirect, and beneficial impacts resulting from 

SRMA management and limiting OHV use to designated routes. Alternative B would have 

beneficial impacts as compared to Alternative D (No Action) as no miles of non-motorized trails 

would be developed and OHV use off route for big-game retrieval would not be allowed. 

4.13.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

In addition to the acreages listed under Alternative A, Alternative C would establish an SRMA 

for 273,486 acres in the Book Cliffs and would expand Brown's Park SRMA to 52,720 acres, 

White River SRMA to 47,130 acres and Nine Mile Canyon SRMA to 81,168 acres. Long-term, 

indirect, adverse impacts would occur to these areas due to increases in visitor traffic. In addition 

to the beneficial impacts listed in Alternative A, the expansion of Browns Park SRMA (52,720 

versus 18,474 acres) would further protect riparian resources in this area, as compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), by managing parts of the SRMA as closed to OHV use; for VRM 

Class I landscape objectives; and for primitive, non-motorized, and undeveloped types of 

recreation. Additionally, under Alternative C, the Bitter Creek drainages and the head of Sweet 

Water Canyon would be closed to leasing. 

4.13.2.8.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would designate no new SRMAs, but would continue managing 

Browns Park (18,474 acres) and Nine Mile Canyon (44,181 acres). Long-term indirect adverse 

impacts due to increases in visitor traffic, trampling of bank and spread of noxious weeds would 

be lower than Alternatives A, C, and E. With fewer acres managed as an SRMA than the other 

alternatives (except for Alternative B, with the same acreage), Alternative D (No Action) would 

have fewer long-term indirect and beneficial impacts resulting from limiting OHV use to 

designated areas and by providing management for areas as SRMAs. Management regarding 

OHV use off designated routes for big-game retrieval is unspecified. 

4.13.2.8.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts would be the same as Alternative C because the recreation decisions are the same. 

4.13.2.9. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.9.1. ALTERNATIVES A, C, AND THE PROPOSED RMP 

Alternatives A, C, and the Proposed RMP would offer the most protection for riparian resources, 

where key streamside herbaceous vegetation, non-streamside herbaceous vegetation, and woody 

riparian vegetation utilization would be managed. The Proposed RMP and these alternatives 

would have more long-term direct beneficial impacts to riparian resources than Alternative D 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-357 

(No Action), which specifies lower stubble heights, does not specify about woody riparian 

vegetation, and has no utilization requirements. 

4.13.2.9.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would also protect key streamside herbaceous vegetation, but would graze key 

non-streambank, herbaceous and woody vegetation more than Alternatives A and C. This 

alternative would have more direct, long-term beneficial impacts to riparian resources than 

Alternative D (No Action), but fewer beneficial impacts than Alternatives A and C. 

4.13.2.9.3. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) offers the least protection to riparian resources, because the minimum 

stubble height is less (3 inches versus 4 inches in Alternatives A, B, and C) and percent 

utilization is not specified. 

4.13.2.9.4. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts would be the same as Alternatives A, C, and the Proposed RMP because the 

decisions are the same. 

4.13.2.10. IMPACTS OF SOILS AND WATERSHED DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.10.1. ALTERNATIVE A AND THE PROPOSED RMP 

Alternative A and the Proposed RMP would use oil and gas industry slope disturbance guidelines 

(Gold Book) to limit surface disturbances from oil and gas activities, which would provide 

indirect, long-term beneficial impacts to riparian resources by reducing soil erosion on steep 

hillsides, and thus reducing the potential for increased stream sedimentation. Under Alternative 

A and the Proposed RMP, surface disturbances on slopes between 21%–40% would require 

erosion control, GIS modeling, and surveying, and slopes greater than 40% would not be 

disturbed unless other proposed construction alternatives would cause unnecessary degradation. 

These actions would also provide indirect, long-term beneficial impacts to riparian and wetland 

areas by reducing surface disturbances that cause soil erosion and subsequent stream and wetland 

sedimentation. These management actions would provide more indirect long-term beneficial 

impacts to riparian and wetland resources than Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP 

would be slightly more beneficial than Alternative A, because it would adopt UDEQ BMPs that 

would limit surface discharges into waters. 

4.13.2.10.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would use oil and gas industry slope disturbance guidelines (Gold Book) to limit 

surface disturbances from oil and gas activities, and would require erosion control, GIS 

modeling, and surveying on slopes greater than 20% for unavoidable surface disturbances, with 

similar indirect beneficial impacts to riparian and wetland areas as described for Alternative A 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-358 

and the Proposed RMP, but slightly less beneficial because disturbance would not be limited on 

slopes greater than 40%. 

4.13.2.10.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would have greater indirect beneficial impacts on riparian and wetland resources 

than the other alternatives by applying the same management actions (with similar impacts as 

Alternative A) on 21%–40% slopes and by prohibiting surface disturbances, and thus reducing 

the risk of increased stream sedimentation, on slopes greater than 40%. 

4.13.2.10.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D proposes restrictions on slopes greater than 40% for mineral production only, and 

actions on slopes less than 40% are unspecified. Allowing other activities with no restrictions for 

slopes over 40% and not specifying slope restrictions on slopes less than 40% would have more 

indirect long-term adverse impacts to riparian and wetland resources, as compared to other 

alternatives. 

4.13.2.10.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts would be the same as Alternative C because the management decisions would be 

the same. 

4.13.2.11. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.11.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would have the least beneficial impacts on riparian resources due to ACEC 

decisions of any alternative. A total of 131,700 acres of ACECs would be designated, 42,654 

fewer acres than under Alternative D (No Action). The effects of WSR designations under the 

Proposed RMP would be the same as described for Alternative A and C, except that the 

Proposed RMP would be slightly less beneficial because the White River below Asphalt Wash 

would not be identified as suitable for WSR designation. 

4.13.2.11.2. ALTERNATIVES A AND C 

Alternative C would offer the greatest protection to riparian resources through ACEC 

designations, protecting approximately 481,182 acres more than Alternative D (No Action). 

Alternative A offers the next best level of protection to riparian resources with approximately 

180,069 more acres than Alternative D (No Action). Alternative C has the most miles of riparian 

corridor recommended for designation as either wild or scenic. Alternatives A, B, and D (No 

Action) would recommend for designation less miles of wild and scenic rivers than Alternative 

C. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-359 

4.13.2.11.3. ALTERNATIVES B AND D (NO ACTION) 

Alternatives B and D (No Action) far less protection to riparian resources than Alternatives A 

and C, and would protect only half of the area that Alternative A would protect. Alternatives B 

and D would recommend for designation only the Lower and Upper Green River as Wild and 

Scenic; other streams, such as the White River, middle Green River, Bitter Creek, Argyle Creek, 

and Evacuation Creek would not be recommended as suitable for Wild and Scenic designation. 

Alternatives B and D (No Action) would not recommend for designation any new ACECs or 

wild and scenic river segments. 

4.13.2.11.4. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts on riparian resources would be the same as Alternative C because the decisions are 

the same. 

4.13.2.12. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.12.1. ALTERNATIVES A ,C, AND THE PROPOSED RMP 

Alternatives A, C, and the Proposed RMP offer the best protection to riparian resources when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action) and are similar with respect to raptors; however, 

Alternative C and the Proposed RMP offer slightly more protection (particularly with respect to 

sage-grouse) than Alternative A. 

4.13.2.12.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would offer more habitat protection than Alternative D (No Action), providing 

more direct riparian resource protection, though the level of protection would be less than 

Alternatives A and C. 

4.13.2.12.3. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) offers the least direct protection of riparian resources because raptor 

buffers for surface disturbance are unspecified in the Book Cliffs Resource Area. 

4.13.2.12.4. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impact would be the same as Alternative C because the management decisions are the same. 

4.13.2.12.5. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.13.2.12.6. ALTERNATIVE A AND THE PROPOSED RMP 

Alternative A and the Proposed RMP would obliterate and/or return roads to their original 

condition when they no longer serve their permitted purpose or public interest. Additionally, 

roads causing resource damage would be repaired or closed, and water crossings would be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-360 

designed and built to allow for the free passage of aquatic life. These actions would provide 

more long-term direct, and indirect beneficial impacts to riparian resources by limiting sediment 

input into riparian systems, as compared to Alternative D (No Action), which is unspecified 

about roads and trails. With respect to OHV use, the Proposed RMP and Alternative A would 

have 781,657 fewer acres open, 756,200 more acres limited, and 25,457 more acres closed, as 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, 4,860 

miles of routes would be designated to OHV travel, where none would be designated under 

Alternative D (No Action). Alternative A and the Proposed RMP are second to Alternatives C 

and E with respect to riparian protection and would have more acreage of limited OHV use areas 

than Alternative C. 

4.13.2.12.7. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would not obliterate roads or trails if they serve a public interest. Roads causing 

resource damage would be repaired, but not closed if they are causing resource damage. These 

actions would be similar to Alternative D (No Action), with direct and indirect, short- and longterm adverse impacts to riparian resources. With respect to OHV travel, this alternative would 

have 782,425 fewer acres open, 772,626 more acres limited, and 9,799 more acres closed, as 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). Under Alternative B, 4,861 miles of routes would be 

designated to OHV travel. 

4.13.2.12.8. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would have similar impacts to Alternative A and the Proposed RMP. With respect 

to OHV travel, this alternative would have 782,425 fewer acres open, 466,254 more acres 

limited, and 316,171 more acres closed, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). Under 

Alternative C, 4,707 miles of routes would be designated to OHV travel. Alternative C would 

provide the second most protection to riparian areas of any alternative, by having the least 

acreage accessible to OHV use after Alternative E. 

4.13.2.12.9. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would be unspecified about road and trail closure, obliteration, and 

repair. With respect to OHV travel, this alternative would have 787,859 acres open, 887,275 

acres limited, and 50,388 acres closed. These actions would have direct and indirect, short- and 

long-term adverse impacts to riparian resources through increased sedimentation in riparian 

areas. 

4.13.2.12.10. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would have similar impacts to Alternative C. except that this alternative would 

manage 782,425 fewer acres as open to cross-country OHV travel, 438,749 more acres as limited 

to designated routes, and 342,430 more acres closed to OHV travel, when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Under Alternative E, 44,654 miles of routes would be designated to 

OHV travel (53 fewer miles of OHV routes than Alternative C in order to protect areas with nonWSA wilderness characteristics). Alternative E would provide the most protection to riparian 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-361 

areas of any alternative, by having the least acreage accessible to OHV use and potential riparian 

surface disturbances. 

4.13.2.13. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Vegetation management decisions that affect riparian resources are a combination of fire 

management, forage allocation, livestock use, and range management. The direct and indirect 

impacts are discussed in the sections above. 

4.13.2.13.1. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D (NO ACTION), E, AND THE PROPOSED RMP 

Generally Alternatives A and the Proposed RMP provide more protection for riparian resources 

than does Alternative B and less protection than Alternatives C and E. Alternative D (No Action) 

provides less protection for riparian resources than any other alternative. 

4.13.2.14. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN 

RESOURCES

4.13.2.14.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would designate 57,776 and 231,911 acres as VRM Classes I and II 

respectively, which is 4,690 and 118,225 more acres with limits on surface disturbance than 

Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP would provide more long-term indirect 

beneficial impacts, when compared to Alternative D (No Action), due lower levels of 

sedimentation and fragmentation of riparian areas. 

4.13.2.14.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would designate 63,136 and 294,773 acres as VRM Classes I and II respectively, 

which is 10,050 and 181,087 more acres with limits on surface disturbance than Alternative D 

(No Action). This alternative would provide more long-term indirect beneficial impacts, when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action), due lower levels of sedimentation and fragmentation of 

riparian areas. 

4.13.2.14.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would designate 52,764 and 114,030 acres as VRM Classes I and II, respectively, 

which is 322 fewer acres than Alternative D (No Action) under VRM Class I, and 344 more 

acres more under VRM Class II. This alternative would thus have similar impacts to riparian 

resources, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.13.2.14.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would designate 145,781 and 362,660 acres as VRM Classes I and II respectively, 

which is 95,695 and 248,974 more acres with limits on surface disturbance. This alternative 

would provide the second most long-term indirect beneficial impacts to riparian resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-362 

4.13.2.14.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would designate 53,086 and 113,686 acres as VRM Classes I and II 

respectively. This alternative would have long-term indirect beneficial impacts to riparian 

resources by restricting surface disturbances under the class objectives. 

4.13.2.14.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would designate 334,516 and 259,694 acres as VRM Classes I and II respectively, 

which is 281,430 more acres of VRM Class I and 146,008 more acres of VRM Class II, when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action), with greater limitations on surface disturbance. This 

alternative would have the most long-term indirect beneficial impacts to riparian resources by 

managing the most acreage under the VRM Class I objectives that would impose the most 

restrictions on surface disturbances to riparian resources. 

4.13.2.15. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS AND FOREST MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN 

RESOURCES

4.13.2.15.1. ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C, AND THE PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and C would respectively have 546,152; 552,663; 

554,108; and 552,152 acres of woodlands treated or harvested. This would be more than 250,000 

more acres of harvesting and/or treatments than Alternative D (No Action), which would have 

long-term adverse impacts on riparian resources caused by soil erosion. Ecologically sound 

treatments and harvesting would occur under Alternatives A and C to ensure adequate 

biodiversity and reintroduce the natural fire return interval. Treatments and harvesting under 

Alternative B would be conducted with wood products production in mind. The goals of 

treatments and harvesting are unspecified under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.13.2.15.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would have 288,300 acres of harvesting and/or treatments, with the 

least adverse impacts to riparian resources from soil erosion. 

4.13.2.15.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, there would be fewer impacts than those discussed under the Proposed 

RMP and Alternatives A, B, and C, but more impacts than under (Alternative D, No Action). Up 

to 421,133 acres would have treatments or be harvested. However, this would be partially offset 

by increased protection on 330,573 acres of non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics that 

would be managed to prohibit woodland harvesting and wood gathering (primarily willow and 

cottonwood), with long-term, beneficial preservation-related impacts on riparian resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.13. Riparian and Wetland Resources

Vernal RMP 4-363 

4.13.2.16. SUMMARY

In general, the greatest adverse impacts would be due to livestock and grazing, oil and gas 

leasing (which includes CBNG), and OHV use. Therefore the alternatives with higher open areas 

and fewer restrictions on activities would be least beneficial and most adverse to riparian areas. 

Alternative D (No Action) would have the greatest direct adverse impacts due to unmanaged 

OHV use and lack of limits on riparian grazing. Alternative B would have the greatest indirect 

adverse impacts due to oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG). Alternative A and the 

Proposed RMP would have a moderate amount of direct and indirect adverse impacts, and 

Alternatives C and E would have the least direct and indirect adverse impacts of any alternative. 

4.13.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

Riparian and wetland areas are protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Mitigation 

measures are required for development activities affecting these areas. Administrative actions 

can be undertaken where riparian resources are being degraded. 

4.13.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Any proposed road water crossings would result in the loss of riparian habitat. 

4.13.5. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Construction of well pad access roads would provide a short-term mineral use that would 

eventually result in long-term loss of riparian vegetation due to sedimentation, unless new roads 

are effectively maintained and restored after use. 

4.13.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There would be no irreversible and irretrievable impacts to riparian habitat from RMP decisions. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-364 

4.14. SOCIOECONOMICS

4.14.1. SUMMARY AND GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS

This analysis of impacts to socioeconomics is based on BLM-related management changes that 

would occur under the Proposed RMP and each of the alternatives. If impacts to some aspect of 

the socioeconomic situation are not mentioned in this analysis, then a negligible effect should be 

assumed. This analysis focuses on the socioeconomic aspects of several key resources: lands and 

realty, minerals, recreation, livestock and grazing, paleontology, VRM, wild horses, wildlife and 

fisheries, and woodlands. 

4.14.1.1. PROPORTIONAL IMPACTS

Based on the information presented in Chapter 3, certain counties rely more heavily on various 

market sectors of the economy. Counties with a higher proportion of oil, gas, and mineral leases 

on BLM-administered lands would experience impacts to minerals of proportionally greater 

magnitude than the rest of the VPA. Similarly, counties with a higher proportion of BLMadministered lands dedicated to recreation, and thus to tourism, would experience more impacts 

to recreation/tourism than other counties in that market sector. Based on this concept, the 

following is assumed about the counties within the study area: 

• Effects of minerals management will be greater in Uintah and Duchesne Counties, where the 

economy is largely driven by this industry. 

• Effects of recreation management will be greater in Daggett County, where recreation and 

tourism are the driving forces in the economy. 

4.14.1.2. QUALITATIVE VERSUS QUANTITATIVE DATA

Economic impacts are considered with respect to each major sector of the economy in the VPA. 

Where quantitative data is available, a more detailed analysis is shown. Where quantitative data 

is not available, a qualitative analysis is performed based on the best available data. 

Many human, community impacts cannot be measured in economic terms. Such impacts are 

analyzed here as social impacts and include detractions from existing lifestyles, quality of life, 

sense of place, community values, and unjust or unfair impacts or burdens on minority and lowincome populations (i.e., environmental justice). 

4.14.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

The following sections discuss, by resource, the impacts common to the Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives that may have a measurable effect on socioeconomics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-365 

4.14.2.1. LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT

As noted in Section 3.8 in Chapter 3, demand for animal unit months (AUMs) for livestock 

grazing has never outpaced the allocation of AUMs. Within the VPA, 146,220 animal unit 

months (AUMs) are allocated for livestock, but active permitted use for the 160 allotments is 

currently 137,897 AUMs. The demand for forage resources by livestock (the total average actual 

use) for the past 10 years was only 78,500 AUMs. Comprehensive grazing allotment information 

is summarized in Appendix L. Because the Proposed RMP and each of the alternatives exceeds 

the recent demand for AUMs (except for Alternatives C and E which propose slightly less than 

the 78,500 AUMs average actual use with 77,294 proposed AUMs), the socioeconomic impact 

would be similar across alternatives and the Proposed RMP. See Section 4.14.3.1 for more 

details. 

According to comments received during the scoping process and the Utah Public Lands Study 

conducted in 2007 by Utah State University (See Appendix J), Uintah and Duchesne Counties 

have expressed the desire to remain largely agricultural, specifically in the grazing industry. 

Preserving the agricultural lifestyle is made possible by the Proposed RMPs and each of the 

alternatives' forage decisions; the allocation of AUMs under the Proposed RMP and each of the 

alternatives would allow ranchers to maintain current practices and to maintain the agricultural 

lifestyle that characterizes the communities in Uintah and Duchesne Counties. Under the 

Proposed RMP and all alternatives, the ranching communities, which possess a rich culture and 

history in the planning area, would not be adversely impacted by livestock and grazing 

management decisions. 

4.14.2.2. LANDS AND REALTY

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, actions involving acquisition, use, disposal, and 

adjustment of land resources, as well as land exchanges, have the potential to impact the 

planning area's social and economic conditions. Management decisions pertaining to lands and 

realty would result in a long-term, beneficial effect on the social and economic goals of the 

communities in the VPA because such decisions would be made in an attempt to maximize the 

use of the land in the vicinity of these communities. The growth and development of lands 

resulting from realty actions within the VPA would be in compliance with other goals and 

objectives in this RMP and other guiding documents (see Section 1.5 and Section 4.06). The 

BLM would continue to grant reasonable access to SITLA lands and other inholdings as required 

by law. 

4.14.2.3. MINERALS

The following analysis is based on the assumption that the demand for oil and gas resources will 

remain high over the next 20 years, and that private industry will continue to respond to demand. 

Should the demand for oil, gas and minerals subside, it is possible that the wells proposed in the 

Proposed RMP and each of the alternatives would not be developed. Based on the trend of well 

development outlined in the Mineral Potential Report, a maximum of 6,530 wells is predicted for 

development over the next 15-20 years (BLM, 2002). Given the amount of predicted wells to be 

developed over the life of the plan and the subsequent revenues, it is likely that minerals 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-366 

development would have the greatest impact on local revenues when compared to other BLM 

management areas such as recreation or forage. 

While minerals development would be restricted by the management actions under the Proposed 

RMP and each alternative, market demand, and industry trends, major development is still 

projected. Assuming the continuation of the trend in well development, the number of jobs 

available in this industry would increase, which in turn would increase overall prosperity in the 

region, because wages in this sector of the economy are typically higher than service or 

government-related jobs. Increasing jobs would also likely increase the population in the region 

and create an in-migration to the communities near these jobs. Increased population, in turn, 

increases the need for social services and infrastructure. 

Throughout the VPA, the development of oil shale is speculative at this time and is not 

susceptible to analysis in this EIS/RMP. If such development should occur the actions would 

require site-specific NEPA analysis. 

Developing alternative sources of energy (i.e., wind, solar, and geothermal energy) would have 

both short-term and long-term, beneficial effects on local economies. Short-term benefits would 

take the form of jobs necessary for the construction phases of these energy projects whereas 

long-term benefits would take the form of job necessary to for the maintenance and operation of 

the project facilities. Development of alternative sources of energy would further benefit local 

communities by augmenting the supply of electrical power in the area. 

4.14.2.4. RECREATION

Expanding infrastructure for recreational activities would provide a long-term, beneficial impact 

by creating a better environment for recreation and drawing more visitors to the area, and 

consequently increasing traveler spending. Increasing recreational opportunities in the VPA 

would also increase jobs and potentially population, as the demand for retail services would 

likely increase with greater opportunities for recreation and tourism. In general, therefore, 

growth in the recreation industry would be a socioeconomic benefit, as it would contribute to the 

overall prosperity in the communities impacted by BLM management decisions. However, some 

of the recreation-based employment is not year round, as tourism rates decline in the winter 

months. 

An increase in population resulting from recreation-based employment in the area would 

increase the need for infrastructure and social services in the communities of the VPA. Impacts 

resulting from an increase in recreation and the need for additional infrastructure would be minor 

and short-term. 

Tourism generates tax revenue that is used to support the local community, which would 

potentially decrease if visitation decreases. If tourism and recreation decreased due to the loss of 

land to other uses (such as mineral development), the tax revenue from tourism in the local 

community would likely decrease. A decrease in recreation activities would cause a decrease in 

visitor spending in the region, thus decreasing the tourism economy and the number of dollars 

spent on local goods and services. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-367 

4.14.3. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

4.14.3.1. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON SOCIOECONOMICS

4.14.3.1.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Because the amount of AUMs under the Proposed RMP (138,402 AUMs) differ less than 5% 

from Alternative D (No Action) (146,220 AUMs) socioeconomic impacts would be similar to 

current conditions. 

4.14.3.1.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Impacts to socioeconomic conditions would be nearly identical to the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative D (No Action) as the amount of available AUMs differs by less than 1% with 

137,383 AUMs allocated for livestock grazing under Alternative A. 

4.14.3.1.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B 139,163 AUMs would be available for permitted use. Because this is just a 

5% decrease in AUMs from Alternative D (No Action), socioeconomic impacts to the ranching 

community would be similar to current conditions. 

4.14.3.1.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Under Alternatives C and E 77,294 AUMs would be available for permitted use. This is a 47% 

decrease in AUMs from Alternative D (No Action). However, a 47% decrease in AUMs is likely 

to have a negligible adverse impact on the social and economic conditions related to livestock 

grazing. As noted in Section 3.8 the total average actual use of the AUMs over the past 10 years 

has been around 78,500 in contrast to the 146,161 total AUMs currently allocated for livestock. 

Under Alternatives C and E the 77,294 AUMs fall just slightly below the total average actual 

use. 

4.14.3.1.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 146,220 AUMs are available for permitted use. Under this 

alternative impacts to the social and economic conditions of the ranching communities in the 

VPA would be identical to current conditions. Because the demand for AUMs is not anticipated 

to exceed the supply under current conditions, a loss of income and decline in social well being 

is not anticipated for ranchers and their families resulting from a loss of available AUMs on 

public land.

4.14.3.2. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DEVELOPMENT ON ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

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. Where available, separate data is used for the development 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-368 

and completion of oil wells, in contrast to natural gas wells. Otherwise, data from the Utah 

Energy Office (UEO) on the drilling of a natural gas well is used. The direct and indirect effects 

of the Proposed RMP and each alternative are based on the following assumptions (in addition to 

the assumptions described in the Minerals section of this chapter): 

Development Costs – A single natural gas well in the Mesaverde Group would have a total 

drilling and completion cost of approximately $2,035,891, according to the UEO (UEO 2004).

Much of this cost is determined by how easily the commodity can be extracted from the geologic 

formation. In this case, the Mesaverde Group hosting the natural gas is several thousand feet 

thick and is composed of interbedded shales, sands, and coals. Throughout Uintah and Duchesne 

Counties, the subsurface top of the group ranges between 7,500 feet and 9,200 feet, and the base 

of the group ranges between 10,200 feet and 12,500 feet. A well depth of 12,000 feet was used 

the by UEO to calculate well costs. Of the total drilling and completion costs, approximately 

$1,647,000 (or 80% of the total cost of the well) is assumed to be spent in Uintah and Duchesne 

Counties, allocated to various local and regional industries and economic sectors, including retail 

and wholesale trade, construction, services, transportation, and public utilities. 

Employment – Using recent data from the State of Utah, it is possible to project the numbers of 

jobs likely to be created by drilling and completing a well in the Uinta Basin. A study done by 

the Utah Energy Office (UEO, 2004) estimated the number of jobs in all sectors that drilling and 

completing a single well in the Basin would create, which UEO estimated at 14.8. The study 

cautions that the projection is for a single well; additional wells would likely use the most of 

these same employees. Table 4.14.1 confirms this likelihood. As of 2006, for example (the most 

recent year for which complete data is available), the number of employees per well in Uintah 

County was 0.67. For the five years prior to this, the ratio varied from a low of 0.463 to the 0.67 

reported for 2006. Similarly, one can compute the number of additional employees in the 

industry in Uintah County in relationship to the number of new wells drilled. Although the 

numbers vary somewhat from year to year, Table 4.14.1 shows that the highest multiple was in 

2006 at 1.267 additional employees per new producing well brought on-line; the average for all 

positive years was 1.03. This data is not inconsistent with the UEO study, which estimated that 

most of the new job creation would be in the services, retail and wholesale trades, with only 1.7 

of the 14.8 projected new jobs in the oil and gas industry. The recent lower numbers are likely 

due to economies of scale resulting from large-scale development. If all wells, including dry 

holes, were included, the ratio would be less. These results should not be surprising, in that the 

industry can quickly relocate crews to new drilling platforms as wells are drilled and completed. 

Once completed, relatively few employees can oversee the operation of numerous wells and 

associated infrastructure. 

As stated above, the UEO study projected an additional non-oil and gas jobs that a single well 

would create at 13.1 jobs (14.8 total minus 1.7 specific to oil and gas). The information from 

UEO assumes that employment for 14.8 individuals is required for one well and it would require 

14.8 employees for each well thereafter. The numbers used from report do not take into account 

that one employee may be able to complete the tasks required for numerous wells, for example a 

clerk in a retail store could accommodate the needs of several oil and gas employees. In other 

words, one cannot assume a strictly multiplicative increase for additional wells. This is borne out 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-369 

by a recent study done for the State of Utah by the University of Utah13. This study estimated 

total employment in the Uinta Basin at 19,852 employees. Of this total, the study estimates that 

9,835 jobs were directly or indirectly related to the oil and gas industry, with direct employment 

of 3,959. This suggests a multiplier effect of 2.48 (9835/3959). Although a significant economic 

impact in itself, this is considerable less than the multiplier suggested by the earlier UEO study. 

Once again, this can be explained by the fact that the UEO study estimated the impact of a single 

well, which misses the economies of scale which result from large-scale development of the type 

currently experienced in the Uinta Basin. Given this recent State-provided data, subsequent 

analysis in this section will assume 1.26 direct and 2.48 indirect jobs created per additional well 

drilled over the life of the plan (2006 data). Wage data from the same study, average wages for 

employees in the oil and gas industry in the Uinta Basin were $65,482 in 2006; average wages 

for all other jobs were $30,607. Combining this data, the analysis which follows will assume that 

each new well could create 3.74 jobs, generating $158, 412 wage income annually. These 

numbers are based on producing wells, rather than wells drilled. Given that not all exploration 

efforts are successful, the actual economic impact per well drilled, based on the RFD, will 

probably be lower. 

Table 4.14.1. Producing Wells and Employment in the Oil and Gas Industry-Uintah 

County, 2001-2006 

Year Producing 

Wells14

Employment 15

Oil and Gas 

Employment 

per Well 

Change in 

Well 

Numbers 

Change in 

Employment 

Ratio of 

Change in 

Employment 

to Change in 

Wells 

2001 2650 1376 0.519

2002 2867 1327 0.463 217 -49 -0.226

2003 3119 1564 0.501 252 237 0.940

2004 3471 1830 0.527 352 266 0.756

2005 3875 2254 0.582 404 424 1.050

2006 4452 2985 0.670 577 731 1.267

Production – The average value of oil, gas, and CBNG in the region is multiplied by that 

region's production (based on the potential for well development under the Proposed RMP and 

each alternative) to achieve a long-term sales figure for the region. 

As stated in Chapter 3, the Geologic and Engineering Team in the BLM VFO estimated that 

6,530 wells could be drilled in the VPA during the planning period. Of these wells, 

approximately 31% (or 2,055) would be oil, 67% (or 4,345) would be gas, and 2% (or 130) 

would be CBNG. Given the total number of wells under the Proposed RMP and each alternative, 

13 Source: The Structure and Economic Impact of Utah's Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry Phase I - 

The Uinta Basin, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, November, 2007) 

14Source: State of Utah, Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 15 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages ( as reported in The 

Structure and Economic Impact of Utah's Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry Phase I - The Uinta 

Basin, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, November, 2007) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-370 

the percentages have been used to estimate the different types of wells that could be developed 

(Table 4.14.2). 

Table 4.14.2. Estimated Number of Wells under the Proposed RMP and Each 

Alternative, by Resource Type 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action)16

Alternative 

E 

Oil 1,655 1,655 2,015 1,979 1,858 1,957

Gas 4,216 4,216 4,250 4,130 3,886 4,037

CBNG 124 124 126 116 112 114

Total 6,342 6,342 6,391 6,224 5,856 6,118

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the current-day oil price is $60.78 

per 42-gallon barrel of oil (EIA 2006). In 2004, the average yearly production per oil well in 

Utah was 7,141 barrels of oil. Therefore, assuming that 7,141 barrels are recovered, potential 

recovery value per oil well is $434,030 (7,141 × $60.78). 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 year. Therefore, recovery value per well would begin at $434,030 and decrease 10% per 

year throughout the life of the well. 

According to the EIA, the current-day natural gas price is $7.28 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) 

(EIA 2006). The UEO report assumes 200 million cubic feet of gas will be produced from a 

single well over a 1-year period. Therefore, assuming that 200 million cubic feet of natural gas is 

recovered, potential recovery value per natural gas well is $1.46 million per year (200,000,000 × 

$7.28/1,000). The life of each well is estimated to be 25 years. The rate of production declines 

approximately 10% per year after the initial year, according to the UEO. Therefore, the recovery 

value per well would begin at $1.46 million and decline 10% per year throughout the life of the 

well. 

The natural gas derived from CBNG development accounts for approximately 7% of total natural 

gas production in the U.S. (MSU 2003). In the VPA, the anticipated production of natural gas 

from CBNG is approximately 2% of all natural gas (Table 4.14.2). Given the low number of 

CBNG wells predicted for the area, a detailed socioeconomic analysis of the well production is 

not provided. 

Fiscal Impacts - The drilling and completion of wells in the VPA would have an impact on local 

and state governments due to services provided and tax and other revenue received. According to 

the UEO report, the drilling and completion of a single well in the Uinta Basin would result in 

gross state revenue growth of $74,134. Approximately 26% (or $19,352) of the state revenue is 

estimated to come from general sales tax. Sales tax in Uintah, Duchesne, and Daggett Counties is 

6.5, 6.0 and 6.0 respectively. Oil and gas development generates sales tax for local economies by 

16 Alternative D does not include the split-estate lands within the Hill Creek Extension. Therefore, less wells would 

be predicted for development when compared to the action alternatives. See Section 4.8.1.1 for more detail on splitestate lands. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-371 

purchasing local goods and services. The industry workers spend their earnings in local 

communities, thereby adding to the sales tax revenue. Other tax revenues contributing to the state 

and local economy would come from general sales tax, as well as individual income tax, 

education charges, motor fuel sales tax, and corporate income tax (UEO 2004). 

Individual income tax and employee retirement are also large components of gross state 

revenues. Other charges and revenue, such as education charges, motor fuel sales tax, and 

corporate income tax, would contribute to smaller portions of gross state revenue. Local gross 

revenues would grow by $45,974 per well including other charges and revenue, utility and liquor 

store revenue, and general sales tax. Local governments also receive property tax revenues (ad 

valorem tax) of $3,216 per well (UEO 2004). 

The estimated ad valorem taxes for each commodity type are based on productions, assessed 

values, and current tax rates. Ad valorem taxes assessed on property associated with oil and gas 

operations generate tax revenue for the counties in which production takes place; with respect to 

this RMP, the greater number of producing wells in the VPA, the greater the generation of 

property taxes associated with oil and gas extraction assets. The projected ad valorem tax 

revenue for the Proposed RMP and each alternative is provided in the sections below. 

Tax and royalty revenue would be realized for the life of the well, with diminishing returns after 

maximum production is reached in the first year. The severance tax and royalty revenue 

generated from natural resource development depends on the amount of the commodity 

produced. Given the uncertainty of both the geology and the market, the quantification of 

revenue here is somewhat speculative. 

The total revenue is allocated to the federal government (Minerals Management Service). Of the 

total 10% pays administrative fees, 45% is allocated to the federal government (into Reclamation 

and General Funds), 45% is paid to the state, and the state then redistributes 40% of the royalty 

back to the county of origin (BLM 2005). The majority of the balance is used to fund other local 

projects, such as water projects of recreation facilities. 

Royalty revenue to the federal, state, and county governments equals approximately 12.5% of 

production revenue. Assuming the recovery value for one oil well is $434,030 per year, royalty 

revenues would be $54,253.75 per well at maximum production ($434,030 × 0.125). If the 

recovery value for one natural gas well is $1.46 million per year, royalty revenues would be 

$182,500 per well at maximum production ($1.46 million × 0.125). Because the number of 

natural gas wells to be drilled in the planning area is more than double the amount of oil wells 

across all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the following analysis will use recovery value of 

natural gas wells only. As the reader can see from the revenues listed above, natural gas revenues 

are higher per well than oil, thus suggesting that overall recovery and revenues would be lower if 

oil wells were substituted for gas wells. The analysis also assumes that all of the wells under the 

Proposed RMP and each alternative would be producing at maximum production and operating 

at the same time. 

The severance taxes collected on minerals production are distributed within the state according 

to a formula published in the Utah State statutes. Severance tax revenues are distributed to a 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-372 

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 VPA would benefit from only a 

percentage of severance taxes collected on production within the VPA. However, these entities 

would also benefit from severance taxes collected on minerals production occurring in other 

parts of the state (BLM 2003). 

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 of oil and $1.50 per MCF of natural gas, and 5% of 

the value above these prices. In Utah, it is estimated that two-thirds of the oil and gas severance 

tax is due to natural gas production (University of Utah 2003). 

It is assumed that the greatest amount of oil and gas activity within the planning area would 

generate the greatest amount of sales tax revenue for counties and local communities. Because it 

not possible to accurately distinguish, in most cases, between sales tax revenue from oil and gasrelated versus tourism the analysis of sales tax contributions is qualitative. Sales tax revenues are 

included in the analysis below under state and local revenues based on development costs. 

4.14.3.2.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 1,916,936 acres would be open to CBNG, oil, and gas development 

under Standard Stipulations, Timing and Controlled Surface Use, and No Surface Occupancy 

categories of CBNG and oil and gas development. The total predicted number of wells 

developed would be 6,342. Of the 6,342 total predicted wells, 1,655 would be oil, 4,216 would 

be gas, and 124 would be CBNG. 

Assuming that the drilling and completion of one well would create 3.74 jobs (see section 

4.14.3.1), under the Proposed RMP, there would be 23,719 jobs resulting from 6,342 wells (14.8 

× 6,342), or 1,185 jobs annually if distributed evenly over 20 years (assuming that all 6,342 

wells were in operation at the same time). Increases in the number of potential wells that could 

be developed under the Proposed RMP would have a long-term direct, beneficial effect on jobs, 

with an increase of approximately 1,817 jobs throughout the life of the RMP in comparison to 

Alternative D (No Action). However, increasing jobs in this sector may increase the region's 

dependency on this industry, which consequently increases the risk of economic downturn due to 

a bust cycle in oil and gas development. 

With an annual estimated wage income at $158,412 per well (see section 4.14.3.1, Proposed 

RMP would result in $1 billion dollars in wage income over the life of the plan or approximately 

$50.2 million annually. 

Minerals decisions under the Proposed RMP would increase the costs of developing the total 

predicted oil and gas wells by $0.1 billion, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). Such 

development would potentially create a total cost of development of $12.9 billion over 20 years 

(2,035,891 × 6,342 wells), or approximately $645.6 million over one year ((2,035,891 × 6,342) ÷ 

20).Increases in the total number of potential wells from current management practices would 

have a long-term, beneficial effect on state and local revenues. Gross state revenue generated as 

a result of development costs is estimated to be $470.2 million with the drilling and completion 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-373 

of all wells under the Proposed RMP ($74,134 × 6,342 wells). Local revenue is estimated to be 

$291.6 million with the completion of all wells ($45,974 × 6,342). Sales tax contributions from 

oil and gas developers and their employees would be slightly less (49 less predicted wells) than 

Alternative B, which has the greatest number of potential wells and greater than Alternative D 

(No Action), which has 486 less wells than the Proposed RMP. Ad valorem tax revenues for the 

Proposed RMP would total $20,395, 872 (6,342 × 3,216). 

In comparison to Alternative D (No Action), royalties paid to the state and counties from oil and 

gas sales on federal lands (including mineral lease revenue, and severance taxes) would increase 

in proportion to the increase in production, which would be a long-term beneficial effect on 

economics in the region. Royalty and tax revenue paid to the state and local governments 

resulting from oil and gas development would increase by 7.6% compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Annual recovery value for 6,342 wells under the Proposed RMP is 1.157 billion dollars (182,500 

× 6,342), of this 45% or 520.8 million dollars (1,157,415,000 × .45) would be royalty revenue 

for the federal government and 40% or 462.9 million dollars (1,157,415,000 × .40) in royalty 

revenue would be distributed back to the counties. An increased number of wells could have a 

long-term direct adverse impact on the tourism sector of the economy by reducing contiguous 

areas available for outdoor recreation, and affecting the quality of recreational experiences from 

visual intrusion and fragmented areas and trails. Tourism generates tax revenue that is used to 

support the local community, which would decrease if visitation decreases. Reducing outdoor 

recreation opportunity and quality could also effect employment in this sector. 

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 public lands bordering these state 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 50% bounded by BLM acreage closed to new oil and gas leasing, as a result of 

implementing the Proposed RMP, would be unavailable for development, and using the 

projections of the RFD, one can project that less than one well (0.27) would not be drilled over 

the life of the plan. 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 that would not be 

drilled, the fiscal loss to the state would total $15,361 in royalties and $2,513 in severance taxes 

in any one year that such wells were not in operation. The more years a well was in operation 

over the life of the plan, the economic impacts would be proportionately greater 

4.14.3.2.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A the amount of wells is identical to the Proposed RMP (6,342); therefore, 

impacts to socioeconomics would be the same as discussed above in Section 4.14.3.2.1 Proposed 

RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-374 

4.14.3.2.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would open 1,914,000 acres in the Standard Stipulations, Timing and Controlled 

Surface Use, and No Surface Occupancy categories for CBNG and oil and gas development. The 

total number of predicted wells would be 6,391. Of the 6,391 total predicted wells, 2,015 would 

be oil, 4,205 would be gas, and 126 would be CBNG. 

Assuming that the drilling and completion of one well would create 3.74 jobs, under Alternative 

B, there would be 23,902 jobs resulting from 6,391 wells, or 1,195 jobs annually if distributed 

evenly over 20 years (assuming that all 6,391 wells were in operation at the same time). 

Increases in the number of potential wells under Alternative B would have a long-term direct 

beneficial effect on jobs. An increase of 369 potential wells over Alternative D (No Action) 

would result in an increase of approximately 2,000 jobs in this industry over 20 years, or 

approximately 100 jobs in one year. However, increasing jobs in this sector may increase the 

region's dependency on this industry, which consequently increases the risk of economic 

downturn due to a bust cycle in oil and gas development. 

With an annual estimated wage income at $158,412 per well, Alternative B would result in $1.01 

billion dollars in wage income over the life of the plan or approximately $50.6 million annually. 

Minerals decisions under Alternative B would increase the costs of developing the total predicted 

oil and gas wells by $1.1 billion, compared to Alternative D (No Action). Such development 

would potentially create a total cost of development of $13.0 billion over 20 years, or 

approximately $650.9 million over one year. 

An increase in the total number of potential wells from current management practices would 

have a long-term, beneficial effect on state and local revenue. Gross state revenue generated as a 

result of development costs is estimated to be $473.8 million with the drilling and completion of 

6,391 wells under Alternative B. Local revenue is estimated to be $293.8 million with the 

completion of all wells under Alternative B. Ad valorem tax revenues for the Alternative B 

would total $20,553,456. Sales tax contributions from oil and gas developers and their 

employees would be greatest under Alternative B because the greatest amount of wells and 

employees needed to operate these wells would be anticipated under this alternative. 

In comparison to Alternative D (No Action), royalties paid to the state and counties from oil and 

gas sales on federal lands (including mineral lease revenue and severance taxes) would increase 

in proportion to the increase in production, which would be a long-term, beneficial effect on 

economics in the region. Royalty and tax revenue paid to the state and local governments 

resulting from oil and gas development would increase by 8.3% compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Annual recovery value for 6,391 wells under Alternative B would be $1.166 billion, of this 45% 

or $524.8 million would be royalty revenue for the federal government and 40% or $466.5 

million in royalty revenue would be distributed back to the counties. Federal and local royalty 

revenues would be greatest under Alternative B, thus having the most substantial beneficial 

impact on effected economies when compared to the other alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-375 

An increased number of wells could have a long-term direct adverse impact on the tourism sector 

of the economy by reducing contiguous areas available for outdoor recreation, and affecting the 

quality of recreational experiences from visual intrusion and fragmented areas and trails. 

Tourism generates tax revenue that is used to support the local community, which would 

decrease if visitation decreases. Reducing outdoor recreation opportunity and quality could also 

effect employment in this sector. 

4.14.3.2.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would open 1,914,000 acres in the Standard Stipulations, Timing and Controlled 

Surface Use, and No Surface Occupancy categories for CBNG and oil and gas development. The 

total number of predicted wells under Alternative C would be 6,225. Of the 6,225 total predicted 

wells, 1,979 would be oil, 4,130 would be gas, and 116 would be CBNG. 

Assuming that the drilling and completion of one well would create 3.74 jobs, under Alternative 

C, there would be 23,277 jobs resulting from 6,225 wells, or 1,163 jobs annually if distributed 

evenly over 20 years (assuming that all 6,225 wells were in operation at the same time). 

Increases in the number of potential wells under Alternative C would have a long-term direct 

beneficial effect on jobs compared to Alternative D (No Action), as Alternative C would 

potentially increase the jobs in this industry by approximately 1,376 over 20 years, and 

approximately 68 jobs in one year. However, increasing jobs in this sector may increase the 

region's dependency on this industry, which consequently increases the risk of economic 

downturn due to a bust cycle in oil and gas development. 

With an annual estimated wage income at $158,412 per well, Alternative C would result in $986 

million dollars in wage income over the life of the plan or approximately $49.3 million annually. 

Minerals decisions under Alternative C would increase the costs of developing the total predicted 

oil and gas wells by $0.8 billion, compared to Alternative D (No Action). Such development 

would potentially create a total cost of development of $12.7 billion over 20 years, or 

approximately $633.7 million over one year. 

An increase in the total number of potential wells from current management practices would 

have a long-term, beneficial effect on state and local revenue. Gross state revenue generated as a 

result of development costs is estimated to be $461.5 million with the drilling and completion of 

6,225 wells under Alternative C. Local revenue is estimated to be $286.2 million with the 

completion of all wells under Alternative C. Ad valorem tax revenues for the Alternative C 

would total $20,016,384. Sales tax contributions from oil and gas developers and their 

employees would be slightly than Alternatives A and B because the total amount of predicted 

wells is 117 less than Proposed RMP and 166 less than Alternative B. With 369 more wells 

proposed than Alternative D (No Action), sales tax revenues would be greater under Alternative 

C. 

In comparison to Alternative D (No Action), royalties paid to the state and counties from oil and 

gas sales on federal lands (including mineral lease revenue and severance taxes) would increase 

in proportion to the increase in production, which would be a long-term, beneficial effect on 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-376 

economics in the region. Royalty and tax revenue paid to the state and local governments 

resulting from oil and gas development would increase by 5.9% compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Annual recovery value for 6,225 wells under the Proposed RMP is $1.136 billion, of this 45% or 

$511.2 million would be royalty revenue for the federal government and 40% or $454.4 million 

in royalty revenue would be distributed back to the counties. The overall contributions from 

royalty revenues under Alternative C would be greater than Alternative D (No Action), but 

slightly less than Alternatives A and B. 

4.14.3.2.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would open 1,725,500 acres in the Standard Stipulations, Timing and 

Controlled Surface Use, and No Surface Occupancy categories for CBNG and oil and gas 

development.17 A total of 5,856 wells is predicted under this alternative. The total number of 

newly created jobs would be approximately 19,910 over 20 years, or 995 if distributed evenly 

over a 20-year period (assuming that all 5,856 wells were in operation at the same time). With an 

annual estimated wage income at $158,412 per well, Alternative D (No Action) would result in 

$927.6 million dollars in wage income over the life of the plan or approximately $46.4 million 

annually. 

Of the 5,856 total predicted wells, 1,858 would be oil, 3,886 would be gas, and 112 would be 

CBNG. Total development costs under Alternative D (No Action) would be $11.9 billion over a 

20-year period, or approximately $596.1 million over one year. Gross state revenue from oil and 

gas development costs would be estimated to be $434.1 million with the drilling and completion 

of the 5,856 wells predicted under Alternative D (No Action), and local revenue is estimated to 

be $269.2 million. Ad valorem tax revenues for the Alternative D (No Action) would total 

$18,832,896. Sales tax contributions from oil and gas developers and their employees would be 

substantially less under Alternative D (No Action), compared to Alternative B (maximum 

amount of wells) , because 535 less wells would require fewer employees and overall 

development costs within the planning area. 

Annual recovery value for 5,856 wells under Alternative D (No Action) is $1.068 billion, of this 

45% or $480.9 million would be royalty revenue for the federal government and 40% or $427.4 

million in royalty revenue would be distributed back to the counties. This alternative would 

generate the least amount of royalty revenues compared to all of the alternatives. Under 

Alternative D (No Action), royalties paid to the state and counties from oil and gas sales on 

federal lands (including mineral lease revenue and severance taxes) would be the least of the five 

alternatives (this is because the Hill Creek Extension [188,500 acres] is not included in the total 

acreage calculations of Alternative D, No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-377 

4.14.3.2.6. ALTERNATIVE E

Alternative E would open 1,914,000 acres in the Standard Stipulations, Timing and Controlled 

Surface Use, and No Surface Occupancy categories for CBNG and oil and gas development. The 

total number of predicted wells under Alternative E would be 6,118. Of the 6,118 total predicted 

wells, 1,957 would be oil, 4,037 would be gas, and 114 would be CBNG. 

Assuming that the drilling and completion of one well would create 3.74 jobs; under Alternative 

E, there would be 22,881 jobs resulting from 6,118 wells, or 1,144 jobs annually if distributed 

evenly over 20 years (assuming that all 6,118 wells were in operation at the same time). 

Increases in the number of potential wells under Alternative E would have a long-term direct 

beneficial effect on jobs compared to Alternative D (No Action), as Alternative E would 

potentially increase the jobs in this industry by approximately 979 over 20 years, and 

approximately 49 jobs in one year. However, increasing jobs in this sector may increase the 

region's dependency on this industry, which consequently increases the risk of economic 

downturn due to a bust cycle in oil and gas development. 

With an annual estimated wage income at $158,412 per well, Alternative E would result in 

$969.1 million dollars in wage income over the life of the plan or approximately $48.4 million 

annually. 

Minerals decisions under Alternative E would increase the costs of developing the total predicted 

oil and gas wells by $0.6 billion, compared to Alternative D (No Action). Such development 

would potentially create a total cost of development of $12.5 billion over 20 years, or 

approximately $623 million over one year. 

An increase in the total number of potential wells from current management practices would 

have a long-term, beneficial effect on state and local revenue. Gross state revenue generated as a 

result of development costs is estimated to be $453.6 million with the drilling and completion of 

6,118 wells under Alternative E. Local revenue is estimated to be $281.3 million with the 

completion of all wells under Alternative E. Ad valorem tax revenues for the Alternative E 

would total $19,675,488. Sales tax contributions from oil and gas developers and their 

employees would be slightly less than Alternative C because the total amount of predicted wells 

is 106 less than Alternative C. With 262 more wells proposed than Alternative D (No Action), 

sales tax revenues would be greater under Alternative E. 

In comparison to Alternative D (No Action), royalties paid to the state and counties from oil and 

gas sales on federal lands (including mineral lease revenue and severance taxes) would increase 

in proportion to the increase in production, which would be a long-term, beneficial effect on 

economics in the region. Royalty and tax revenue paid to the state and local governments 

resulting from oil and gas development would increase by 4.5% compared to Alternative (No 

Action). 

Annual recovery value for 6,118 wells under Alternative E is $1.116 billion, of this 45% or 

$502.4 million would be royalty revenue for the federal government and 40% or $446.6 million 

in royalty revenue would be distributed back to the counties. The overall contributions from 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-378 

royalty revenues under Alternative E would be greater than Alternative D (No Action), but 

slightly less than Alternative C. 

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 public lands bordering these state 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 50% bounded by BLM acreage closed to new oil and gas leasing, as a result of 

implementing Alternative E, would be unavailable for development, and using the projections of 

the RFD, one can project that over twenty-four wells (24.49) would not be drilled over the life of 

the plan. 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 that would not be drilled, the 

fiscal loss to the state would total $1,425,379 in royalties and $233,171 in severance taxes in any 

year in which all 24.49 wells would have been in operation. This amount could increase over the 

life of the plan, as it is likely that some fraction of these wells would be in operation in several 

(or even all) years of the plan. 

The following table summarizes the effects of oil and gas development on the regional economy. 

Table 4.14.3. Summary of the Impacts of Oil and Gas Development in the VPA 

 Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action)* 

Alternative 

E 

Predicted Wells 

Total Acreage 1,916,936 1,914,000 1,914,000 1,914,000 1,725,500 1,914,000

Acreage Open 1,727,194 1,850,162 1,861,450 1,685,754 1,672,960 1,358,454

% of Total 

Acreage Open 

90% 96% 97% 88% 97% 71%

Total Well 

Potential 

6,342 6,342 6,391 6,224 5,856 6,118

Jobs (Based on 3.74 jobs per Well) 

Total Jobs over 

20 Years 

23,719 23,719 23,902 23,277 19,910 22,881

Jobs per Year (if 

distributed 

evenly over 20 

years) 

1,185 1,185 1,195 1,163 995 1,144

Annual Wage Income (Based on $158,412) 

Total Income 

Over 20 Years 

1.00 billion 1.00 billion 1.01 billion 986.0 

million

969.1 million 969.1
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-379 

Table 4.14.3. Summary of the Impacts of Oil and Gas Development in the VPA 

 Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action)* 

Alternative 

E 

Total Income 

Per Year (if 

distributed 

evenly over 20 

years; millions of 

dollars) 

50.2 50.2 50.6 49.3 46.4 48.4

Development Costs (Based on Average $2,035,891 Development Cost per Well)** 

Development 

Cost over 20 

Years (billions of 

dollars) 

12.9 12.9 13.0 12.7 11.9 12.5

Development 

Cost per Year (if 

distributed 

evenly over 20 

years; millions of 

dollars) 

645.6 645.6 650.6 633.7 596.1 623

Ad Valorem Tax Revenue 

Total Ad 

Valorem Tax per 

well over 20 

years (millions of 

dollars) 

20.4 20.4 20.5 20.0 18.8 19.6

Total Recovery Value Annually*** 

Recovery Value 

based on wells 

per alternative 

and the 

Proposed RMP 

(billions) 

1.157 1.157 1.166 1.136 1.068 1.116

Gross Annual Royalty Revenue *** 

Federal 

Revenue 

(millions of 

dollars) 

520.8 520.8 524.8 511.2 480.9 502.4 

County Revenue 

(millions of 

dollars) 

462.9 462.9 466.5 454.4 427.4 446.6 

*The Hill Creek Extension (188,500 acres) was not leased in the Book Cliffs RMP and therefore is not included in the total 

acreage calculations of Alternative D (No Action). 

** Development costs do include a portion of the income effects from employment, as such this leads to some double-counting 

***Assuming wells are producing at maximum production. 

Data for development costs, ad valorem taxes, and projected gross revenue from UEO 2004 Final Report. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-380 

4.14.3.3. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DEVELOPMENT ON SOCIAL CONDITIONS

Social well-being in communities is often disrupted during boom periods, characterized by 

extreme growth rates that can double population in a decade or less. Studies in natural resource 

driven communities—including in Utah—have found that disruptive social effects may not last 

once stability is re-established (Smith et al. 2001). The rapid population growth that can fuel 

these disruptive social effects, however, has not occurred to date in the planning area. State of 

Utah population estimates put the overall population growth for the three counties comprising 

the planning area at approximately 10% from 2000–2006. Conversely, the State of Utah as a 

whole grew 14.1% in the same period, a rate of growth 40% higher than the planning area. The 

rate of population growth in the planning area may be understated, as it does not include 

transient workers. Even if all employees in the minerals industry in Uinta Basin were transient 

(an unlikely scenario), population growth would still not approach the levels cited in the Smith et 

al study. 

Another negative social impact often mentioned as a consequence of a boom environment is an 

increase in crime, presumably due to a more transient workforce which may not share many local 

values. This, however, has not occurred within the planning area. Table 4.14.4 shows crime 

indices as reported by the State of Utah for the State as a whole and for Uintah County and 

Vernal City, areas which presumably feel most of the impact from any increase in crime 

resulting from a boom in minerals development. 

As Table 4.14.4 indicates, Uintah County as a whole has consistently reported lower crime than 

the State of Utah as a whole. Vernal City reported higher crime rates than both the state and the 

county up to 1985. Since 2000, however, Vernal City's reported crime rate has been very similar 

to the State of Utah, and lower from 2003-2005. This data suggests that an increase in crime, 

although not outside the realm of possibility in the future, has not yet occurred. 

Table 4.14.4. Reported Crime Indices for 

State of Utah, Uintah County and 

Vernal City, 1980-2005 

Year State Uintah Vernal 

1980 5,880.6 1,974.6 10,177.2 

1985 5,317.3 1,843.4 8,505.8 

1990 5,659.9 231.9 9,738.1 

1995 6,090.8 2,523.3 8,383.7 

2000 4,476.1 1,758.2 4,491.3 

2001 4,243.0 1,832.8 5,561.2 

2002 4,452.4 1,558.4 5,986.8 

2003 6,640.4 1,527.3 5,113.1 

2004 9,831.7 2,149.0 7,682.7 

2005 6,054.9 2,070.5 3,984.4 

Data sources: 

http://www.justice.utah.gov/Research/Crime/CrimeRate.pdf; 

http://bci.utah.gov/Stats/StatsHome.html 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-381 

A major factor that could alleviate or even mask a decline in social well-being is the recognition 

that the area has come to depend more on oil and gas development over the recent past .The 

Smith et al study concludes that even communities which suffer social disruptions due to 

minerals booms tend to recover quickly once the boom has ended. 

4.14.3.4. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

SOCIOECONOMICS

4.14.3.4.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres lands would be managed for the protection of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Managing the 106,178 acres (15 areas) to maintain 

their wilderness characteristics could have potential beneficial or adverse impacts on 

socioeconomics depending on the resource impacted. Impacts to resources as a result of 

management prescriptions for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics not listed in the 

sections below are anticipated to have negligible impacts to socioeconomics. 

4.14.3.4.1.1. Livestock Grazing 

Under the Proposed RMP livestock grazing would not be permitted in Desolation Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The absence of grazing would likely improve 

riparian conditions and watershed values over time. Improving the natural condition of the area 

would sustain the setting necessary to support wilderness-related recreation opportunities (e.g., 

hiking, backpacking, river floating, hunting, and wildlife viewing). Improving the recreation 

opportunities (and overall quality of the visitor experience) within the Nine Mile area could lead 

to an increase in tourism and subsequent tourist related spending in the surrounding 

communities, thus having a beneficial impact on the local economies. 

Because the amount of AUMs area identical under Alternative D (No Action) and the Proposed 

RMP, regardless of the designation of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, adverse 

impacts to the ranching community would not be likely. 

4.14.3.4.1.2. Minerals 

All or parts (between 70% and 100%) of 13 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

totaling up to 162,844 acres, would lose their natural characteristics and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation due to surface disturbance and the presence and noise of people 

and equipment during exploration for and development of oil and gas resources in the VPA. See 

Section 4.10.2.5.1.1 for which areas would be impacted. Given the existing leases in the area, 

resource potential, and past production it is likely that all of these areas would loose their 

wilderness potential. This could have an adverse effect on visitors to the area who are seeking 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation activities. 

Under the Proposed RMP 106,178 acres (15 areas) of lands non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed to maintain their primitive nature. As such, these areas would 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-382 

be closed to future mineral leasing and minerals disposal. Because the desired location of future 

oil and gas wells is not known, it is not possible to quantify the amount of wells and subsequent 

revenue that would not be generated as a result of the closure. However, with a total of 1,640,569 

acres open to mineral development under the Proposed RMP only 6% would be closed to 

development as a result of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics management 

restrictions. The loss of revenue based on a 6% decrease in the number of wells drilled over the 

life of the RMP would likely be negligible to the local economies. 

4.14.3.4.1.3. Lands and Realty 

Under the Proposed RMP, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect 

their wilderness characteristics would be managed as ROW avoidance areas. Avoidance from 

future ROW development for pipelines and power lines would prevent surface disturbance and 

the placement of human-made structures on the land and protect the natural characteristics of the 

landscape. The protection and enhancement of opportunities to participate in unconfined and 

primitive recreation would likely contribute to a positive visitor experience, should the visitor be 

seeking these types of opportunities. 

Section 4.9.2 states that lands and realty decisions would have minor to negligible impacts on 

mineral development (a potential revenue-generating resource for the VPA) regardless of 

alternative selected. Consequently, an adverse impact to socioeconomics from the management 

of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics is not anticipated. 

4.14.3.4.1.4. Recreation 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would shift the focus of recreation to primitive and unconfined activities (e.g., hiking, 

backpacking, river floating, hunting, and wildlife viewing), opportunities for solitude, and the 

settings needed to achieve these opportunities. Coupled with the lands managed for their 

wilderness characteristics, SRMAs would generally retain the natural characteristics of the 

landscape, allowing minor development consistent with VRM Class II objectives. Retaining a 

natural setting would support opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation. The 

long-term management of lands to retain their natural characteristics would likely have beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience, tourist-related revenues to local communities, and increase the 

likelihood that visitors would return to the area for a similar experience. See Section 4.12.2.6.1 

for details on recreation management decisions. 

Proposed management stipulations for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

limit OHV use to designated routes, which would adversely reduce the recreational opportunities 

for motorized and mechanized recreation within these areas. Visitors to the area seeking 

motorized experiences would have fewer opportunities for these types of experiences as 75,845 

acres would be closed to OHV use. However, with 6,202 acres designated as "open" for crosscountry travel and 1,643,475 designated as "limited" to OHV travel, less than 4% of the VPA 

would be closed to OHV travel as a result of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

management practices. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-383 

Managing lands for wilderness characteristics may have some positive economic benefits to the 

local economy, above and beyond recreation benefits to individual users of these areas. There is 

an extensive body of literature which argues that protecting lands as wilderness provides local, 

regional and national economic benefits. A paper prepared by the United State Forest Service 

(Bowker et al. 2005) summarizes some of the more relevant research on this topic. For example, 

some research suggests that private property located next to or near protected lands increases in 

value due to this proximity. Other research suggests that areas with protected lands are more 

likely to attract higher income individuals, as well as businesses, who value the types of 

recreation activities provided in protected areas. Still other research argues that certain types of 

high-dollar recreation, such as hunting, are enhanced by wilderness protection. Whereas most of 

these studies have focused on the benefits accruing to designated wilderness, it is possible that 

the same arguments may be applicable to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.14.3.4.2. ALTERNATIVES A- D 

In these alternatives, it is not proposed to protect wilderness characteristics outside of designated 

WSAs. There would be a beneficial impact to socioeconomics by allowing a greater area to be 

developed for oil and gas and other resource extractions. This benefit would be somewhat offset 

by loss of recreational opportunities and the resulting economic benefits. 

4.14.3.4.2.1. Alternative E 

The impacts to socioeconomics from management of lands to maintain the wilderness 

characteristics of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as those 

described for the Proposed RMP, but it would affect more acres, including all of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative E, all 25 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, totaling 277,596 acres would be managed to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics. See Section 4.01.2.14.3 for management prescription details. 

Protecting wilderness characteristics limits activities that would impair them. Specifically, 

mineral development and extraction would be limited as a result of protecting wilderness 

characteristics. Oil and gas development would be limited to that which could be accomplished 

with no surface occupancy (i.e., directional drilling). The areas would also be closed to mineral 

material disposal, although locatable mineral entry and development would still be allowed. 

Protection of wilderness characteristics would have minor to substantial, negative impacts upon 

extraction and development, as 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 speculate because desired future locations of development in 

proposed non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics is unknown. However, with a total 

1,499,491 acres open for mineral development under Alternative E, 15% of the land in the VPA 

would be closed to mineral development. In general, and with specific regard to management of 

lands for wilderness characteristics, Alternative E would have the greatest potential for a 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-384 

decrease in federal, state, and local revenues compared to the other Action Alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. 

4.14.3.5. EFFECT OF PALEONTOLOGY ON SOCIOECONOMICS

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 for the 

Proposed RMP and across all alternatives. Personal collection of invertebrate and plant fossils 

would be allowed throughout the VPA. The recreational collection of vertebrate fossils, as well 

as of noteworthy invertebrate and plant fossils, is already prohibited within the VPA. Therefore, 

the recreational collection of fossils from BLM-administered lands would have minimal impacts 

on the local economy. The economic contributions, including sales and hotel tax revenue, from 

scientific collection would also be negligible under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. 

Additional information on fossils and collecting rules would be provided to the public through 

websites, publications, and personal contacts would occur under the Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives. Educational information regarding the paleontological resources could attract 

tourists to the local area. 

Areas found rare and significant invertebrate and plant fossils would be closed to hobby 

collection under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. This management decision could 

adversely impact those hobbyists currently allowed to pursue such collection. 

4.14.3.6. IMPACTS OF RECREATION ON SOCIOECONOMICS

The relationship between changes in decisions pertaining to recreation use and the economic 

impacts associated with those changes is difficult to quantify. In this analysis, assumptions 

regarding this relationship include: 

• Increasing recreation opportunities could positively affect visitation, which in turn could 

affect traveler spending at local businesses and overall spending in the region. 

• Improving the recreation experience would have a beneficial effect on the social aspects of 

recreation and potentially increase visitation. 

• From a social perspective, improving the quality of the recreation experience could also 

improve quality-of-life factors for local residents by providing greater recreational 

opportunity. 

• A portion of the tourism related tax dollars, such as transient room tax and restaurant tax, 

comes from oil and gas development related services (lodging, food, and other services for 

mining sector employees). Although it is nearly impossible to extract whether a tourist dollar 

was generated from a tourist or a temporary mining employee, both are beneficial to the retail 

and service sectors of the local economy. A decrease in temporary oil and gas-related jobs 

may lead to a decrease in "tourism-related" revenue for the county. On the other hand, a 

decrease in oil and gas-related jobs could lead to an increase in actual tourism-related 

revenue. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-385 

• Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) are also 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 impacts 

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. 

See Section 4.12.2.6.1.2 for the focus of each SRMA. 

4.14.3.6.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Recreation decisions under the Proposed RMP would have long-term, indirect, beneficial effects 

to socioeconomics, as they would establish new recreational activities, expand and improve 

current recreational facilities, and limit other uses above and beyond recreation decisions under 

Alternative D (No Action). The effects would potentially include increased visitation, which 

would translate into an increase in overall tourist spending in surrounding communities. 

The Proposed RMP is most likely to provide an increase in the demand for a range of 

recreation/tourism-associated goods and services and the number of jobs related to the tourism 

industry when compared to the all alternatives. Long-term, indirect beneficial effects to local 

residents would also occur: local residents would have the opportunity to enjoy a larger number 

of recreational sites, and they would have a higher quality recreational experience in those 

recreational areas. 

4.14.3.6.1.1. Backcountry Byways 

Under the Proposed RMP three existing roads would be proposed as backcountry byways. Seep 

Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, and Atachee Ridge would provide opportunities for backcountry 

sightseeing, scenic driving, and educational interpretation of the area. Expanding the range of 

recreation and educational opportunities for visitors to the area would likely contribute to in 

increase in positive visitor experience. A positive recreational experience could contribute to an 

increase in the amount of recreationists to the area, potential return visitors, and increases in 

tourism-related spending in the local communities. Thus, the designation of Backcountry 

Byways under the Proposed RMP could have beneficial impacts to the social and economic 

conditions. 

4.14.3.6.1.2. SRMAs 

The Proposed RMP would beneficially increase the combined acreage of SRMAs from 87,931 

acres under current management to 133,560 acres. Each of the SRMAs would manage for the 

type and range of recreational activities and opportunities that lie within a given SRMA. Under 

the Proposed RMP seven SRMAs would be designated and a range of opportunities would be 

emphasized within the SRMAs. For example, the Blue Mountain SRMA (42,729 acres) would be 

managed with an emphasis on OHV use, special recreation activities, and competitive events. 

Fantasy Canyon (69 acres) would be managed to emphasize self-guided touring and hiking. See 

Section 4.12.2.6.1.2 for details on SRMAs management emphases. SRMAs in the VPA would 

emphasize recreation opportunities for a range of user groups. Because it is assumed that the 

SRMAs are managed to reduce user conflict, it is likely that the diverse range of recreationists 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-386 

would have positive visitor experiences. The positive experiences could lead to an increase in 

tourism over the area in the short and long-term and therefore increased spending in the local 

communities. Also, local outfitters specializing to recreation activities could benefit from the 

designation of SRMAs as their services would be needed to serve the recreational visitor. 

4.14.3.6.1.3. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

The Proposed RMP would manage 15 areas totaling 106,178 acres to ensure their wilderness 

characteristics. The protection of these areas provides opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

recreation. These additional opportunities may produce both social benefits for the recreationists 

who desire such opportunities. An increase in recreationists seeking this type of experience or 

return recreationists to the area could have positive economic impacts on local economies with 

regard to tourist-generated sales and tax revenues. Local recreation outfitters may also benefit 

from recreationists seeking guided excursions in the 15 areas. 

Conversely, those recreationists enjoying unlimited motorized access may suffer negative social 

impacts as they would not be able to recreate in the 15 areas with wilderness characteristics. This 

could have an adverse impact on local sales and tax revenues generated from tourists visiting the 

planning area. 

4.14.3.6.1.4. Trails 

Up to 400 miles of non-motorized trails used for hiking, horseback riding, and mountain biking 

would be signed, improved or developed under the Proposed RMP, compared to 50 miles under 

Alternative D (No Action). With a substantial increase in trails, compared to Alternative D (No 

Action), those seeking hiking, and/or riding opportunities would have numerous opportunities 

for recreation. Drawing more hiker, bikers, and horseback riders to the area could have positive 

impact on the local economy as more recreation-related spending would take place. 

Under the Proposed RMP, up to 800 miles of motorized routes would be signed, improved, 

and/or developed. In contrast, Alternative D (No Action) does not specify the development of 

any new motorized trails and the Red Mountain Trail is currently the only designated motorized 

trail. The additional number of trail miles would reduce the density of OHV users, increase user 

safety, and reduce user conflicts. The designation would also alleviate strains on trails currently 

used for a variety of recreational activities and would potentially reduce overland OHV use. It is 

anticipated that the overall reduction on user conflicts and increased trail-riding opportunities for 

OHV users would lead to improved visitor experiences for OHV users as well as those 

individuals who choose non-motorized travel on existing trails. Positive visitor experiences for 

all groups could lead to an increase in tourist-related revenues for the local communities. 

4.14.3.6.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Many recreation decisions under Alternative A closely resemble the recreational opportunities 

provided in the Proposed RMP. The amount of Backcountry Byways, trails, and cabins proposed 

under Alternative A are identical to the Proposed RMP, therefore impacts to socioeconomics 

would be identical. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-387 

Under Alternative A 499,588 acres would be designated as SRMAs. This is a 568% increase 

from Alternative D (No Action). The increase of 411,660 SRMA-managed acres within the VPA 

would be the result of expand the existing Browns Park and Nine Mile SRMAs by 71,233 acres 

(the 24,259-acre Red Mountain-Dry Fork SRMA would remain the same size), with the 

remaining acreage encompassing the proposed White River, Blue Mountain and Book Cliffs 

SRMAs. Special Recreation Management Area-designated acreage would comprise 29% of the 

1,725,512 acres of BLM administered lands within the VPA. Each of the 6 SRMAs would be 

managed for range of recreational opportunities and activities. See Section 4.12.2.6 for recreation 

emphasis per SRMA. 

In comparison to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have more beneficial impacts 

on recreational opportunities because more area would be managed under SRMAs to protect 

recreation resources and provide opportunities for a range of recreational activities. In addition, 

user conflict would likely be substantially reduced when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

The reduction in user conflict would result in increases in visitor satisfaction. Increases in visitor 

satisfaction could lead to an increase in tourists seeking a specific recreation experiences and 

repeat visitors to the area. Tourist-related business and a range of recreation outfitters could 

experience long-term beneficial impacts under Alternative A. 

4.14.3.6.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Recreation decisions under Alternative B closely match the recreational opportunities provided 

in Alternative D (No Action), the current trend in the economics associated with tourism would 

continue (described below under Alternative D). However, Alternative B would establish 

Backcountry Byways similar to the Proposed RMP. Alternative B would provide slightly fewer 

opportunities for recreation than the Proposed RMP, therefore having slightly less beneficial 

long-term direct and indirect social and economic impacts. Identical to Alternative D (No 

Action), four SRMAs would continue to be managed for their cultural, scenic, cultural, wildlife 

and/or recreational values. Alternative B, similar to Alternative D (No Action), would provide 

less of a demand for recreation/tourism associated goods and services in the local economies, 

compared to the Proposed RMP. Local residents would have less of an opportunity to enjoy the 

increased recreational sites and thus, possibly providing a lesser-quality recreational experience 

to the Proposed RMP. 

Under Alternative B 400 miles of non-motorized trails would not be developed under this 

alternative. This could lead to increases in user conflicts between user groups and a decrease in 

visitor satisfaction which could, in turn, adversely impact tourist-spending at the local level. 

4.14.3.6.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Recreation decisions under Alternative C are similar to the Proposed RMP and would have 

similar long-term, beneficial effects to socioeconomics. However, under Alternative C 

Backcountry Byways would not be designated, thus adversely limiting recreational scenic 

driving in the VPA. Alternative C would provide more potential for increased, tourism-related 

visitation and contribution to the economic conditions of the region than Alternatives B and D, 

but less than the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-388 

4.14.3.6.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

The long-term direct effects of Alternative D (No Action) would be the continuation of current 

visitation patterns and trends and a continuation of the existing contribution of tourism to the 

local economy. Current recreation opportunities in the three counties support over 2.5 million 

visitors annually (based on regional visitation counts), total traveler spending of $99.5 million 

annually, and a total tax benefit to the three counties of approximately $2.08 million per year. A 

total of 2,580 jobs are attributable to the recreation/tourism sector within the three counties (Utah 

Department of Travel Development 2004). 

Given the increase in OHV use in the VPA and across the state, conflicts between user groups 

would like increase over time. An increase in user conflicts would like result in a degradation of 

visitor experience. Dissatisfaction with recreation opportunities could lead to adverse long-term 

impacts to the tourism-based revenues generated in local communities. 

4.14.3.6.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

With 277,596 acres in 25 areas of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to be managed 

to protect wilderness characteristics, Alternative E would provide the greatest amount of 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. These recreation opportunities would have 

the potential to produce the greatest amount of social benefits to those seeking solitude and quiet 

travel. In addition, under Alternative E local outfitters and local economies could benefit from 

recreation patrons visiting the planning area. 

On the other hand, those enjoying unlimited motorized access would be most adversely impacted 

under Alternative E. The inability to access an additional 277,596 acres may negatively impact 

their recreation experience and discourage visitation to the area. Potential sales and tax revenues 

from motorized users in local communities could decrease under Alternative E. 

Eight SRMAs focusing on a range of recreational opportunities would be designated under 

Alternative E. However, with an emphasis on 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics the focus would shift to recreation to primitive and unconfined activities (e.g., 

hiking, backpacking, river floating, hunting, and wildlife viewing), opportunities for solitude, 

and the settings needed to achieve these opportunities. 

Similar to the Proposed RMP, 400 miles of non-motorized trails would be signed, improved or 

developed. Providing additional opportunities for hiking, biking, and horseback riding would 

accommodate demand and reduce user densities on current trails. Increasing trail-usage 

opportunities has the potential to increase tourism-related spending by drawing additional and 

repeat trail-users to communities in or near the VPA. 

Under Alternative E, no motorized trails would be improved or developed. The lack of trails 

produced under this alternative could lead in increases in user conflicts on existing trails, 

potentially decreasing visitor safety and satisfaction. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-389 

4.14.3.7. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ON SOCIOECONOMICS

4.14.3.7.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A–E 

4.14.3.7.1.1. 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 is permitted in areas that do not compromise the values or 

resources of concern. Mineral development with no surface occupancy (i.e., directional drilling) 

is also permitted within ACECs. Table 4.14.4 shows the number of acres under NSO and Closed 

leasing categories within the proposed ACECs for the Proposed RMP and each alternative. 

The designations of ACECs would have minor to substantial, negative impacts upon minerals 

resource extraction and development. The designation would exclude lands from minerals 

development and lower the number of locations where potential wells could be drilled, especially 

under Alternatives C and E which would designate 681,310 acres. Alternative A proposes 

345,400 acres designated as ACECs. The Proposed RMP would have the least amount of 

acres(131,700) designated as ACECs and therefore greatest potential of minerals development. 

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 ACECs sites are unknown. 

Table 4.14.5. Minerals Leasing Restrictions Acreages within Proposed ACECs, for the 

Proposed RMP and each Alternative 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Total 83,539 83,539 23,390 257,006 47,167 261,602 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A–D OHV use would be allowed in ACECs on 

designated routes. Alternative E would close OHV use in those portions of ACECs in which 

wilderness characteristics would be protected. Allowing OHV access within ACEC designations 

would be beneficial in the long-term for socioeconomics because opportunities would remain 

available for recreational access. Revenue generated in local communities by OHV users would 

be similar to current conditions. 

When compared to Alternatives A–E, visitors to the area seeking opportunities for primitive 

travel and solitude would have fewest opportunities under the Proposed RMP. Fewer 

opportunities for primitive travel may mean visitors would choose not to visit the area and 

patronize local businesses. Local outfitters who specialize in backcountry, non-motorized travel 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-390 

could be adversely impacted with the designation of fewer ACECs. See Section 4.16.1 for areas 

and acres of ACECs designated by the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. 

4.14.3.7.1.2. Wild and Scenic River Designation

The Proposed RMP recommends 52 river miles of Wild and Scenic River (WSR) designations. 

Alternative B and D also recommend 52 miles to be designated as WSR. Alternative A 

recommends 86 total river miles and Alternatives C and E recommends 216 river miles be 

designated as WSRs. See Section 4.16.2 for locations of proposed WSR designations. 

Management prescriptions for mineral activities in riparian and floodplains within WSR 

designations do not allow surface occupancy. Therefore, Alternative E would most adversely 

impact mineral resource extraction and development, as it proposes 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 the Proposed RMP and all alternatives could potentially lead to 

an increase in tourism revenue to the BLM and local communities, thus having 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 

communities. Alternatives A, C, and E would have the greatest potential to increase tourism 

revenue for river-based recreation based on the amount of river miles determined suitable for 

WSR designation. 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E 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. Under Alternative D (No Action) 

river corridors remain in an open category for OHV use, which could exacerbate user conflicts 

and decrease wilderness experience for river runners and other who prefer non-motorized 

recreation along river corridors. Alternative D would provide OHV users with the greatest 

amount of access to river corridors. 

4.14.3.8. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON SOCIOECONOMICS

4.14.3.8.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, areas within the VPA designated as Open to OHV cross-country 

travel would be limited to approximately 6,202 acres (a decrease of approximately 781,657 acres 

when compared to Alternative D, No Action). The impacts of limiting the number of opendesignated 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 crosscountry recreation-related travel. However, this loss would be offset by the 800 miles of trails 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-391 

proposed for OHV use in the Proposed RMP. 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. 

Areas designated as Limited to Designated Routes for OHV travel would be increased to 

1,643,475 acres (an increase of 756,200 acres compared to current management in Alternative D, 

No Action), which would have direct long-term beneficial impacts on recreation by increasing 

the level of OHV management within the VPA. This would have direct beneficial impacts on 

recreation by reducing recreational resource-use conflicts. Under the Proposed RMP, OHV travel 

limited to designated routes would include the 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Reducing user conflicts will likely result in more positive visitor experiences in 

the long and short-term. 

Designating areas as Closed to OHV travel would be increased from 50,388 acres (under 

Alternative D) to 75,845 acres (an increase of 25,457 acres) and the miles of designated routes 

would increase from zero miles under existing conditions (Alternative D, No Action) to 4,860 

miles. This increase in designated closed OHV routes would have direct long-term beneficial 

impacts on other non-motorized recreational opportunities activities by reducing recreation 

resource-use conflicts, and by reducing the OHV-related disturbances to soil, water, and wildlife 

habitat resources. Visitation by recreationists preferring non-motorized travel may increase 

within the VPA under the Proposed RMP. 

4.14.3.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Impacts under Alternative A would be identical to the Proposed RMP as the designation of 

routes and closed areas are the same. 

4.14.3.8.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

The effects of Alternative B would be similar to those described under the Proposed RMP, for 

areas open to OHV travel. Areas closed to OHV travel would increase to a total of 60,187 acres 

(an increase of 9,799 acres compared to Alternative D, No Action). However, it is the least 

amount of all the action alternatives which would give OHV users the greatest opportunity for 

OHV travel on designated routes. Alternative B would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

other recreation resources similar to those described under the Proposed RMP. 

4.14.3.8.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would be the most restrictive to OHV use and provide the greatest amount of 

opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Areas closed to OHV travel would be increased from 

50,388 acres (under Alternative D, No Action) to 366,559 acres. Areas designated as limited to 

designated routes for OHV travel would be increased to 1,353,529 acres, allowing for increased 

use in a more managed setting, and potentially sustaining the existing levels of OHV use. 

A decrease in the number of acres available for OHV use would have long-term beneficial 

impacts on other non-motorized forms of recreation by reducing resource-user conflicts and by 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-392 

enhancing and/or protecting recreation resources as described under the Proposed RMP. 

However, those recreationists who enjoy the OHV experience would have fewer opportunities 

for recreation and may reduce their visitation and patronization to the area. 

4.14.3.8.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Current management practices designate a total of 787,859 acres as open to cross-country OHV 

travel, 887,275 acres as limited to designated routes, and 50,388 acres as closed to OHV use. No 

OHV routes would be designated under this alternative. Travel management under current 

conditions would be less restrictive to OHV users when compared to the action alternatives, but 

would maintain the current adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources and to nonmotorized users, as discussed above. Continued adverse impacts to non-motorized users, as well 

as the natural and cultural resources could have long-term adverse impacts to tourism and touristrelated spending the area. 

4.14.3.8.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 5,434 acres would be open to cross-country OHV travel, the same as under 

Alternatives B and C and a reduction of 782,425 acres from Alternative D (No Action). Under 

this alternative, motorized travel would be focused on designated routes, not cross-country. 

Although the experience of cross-country driving would be limited to 5,434 acres, motorized 

travel for access and recreation would still be available on 4,654 miles of road and trails. 

There are 228 miles of routes that exist in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under this alternative, these routes would be closed to motorized travel, foreclosing the 

opportunity for backcountry driving, vehicle-supported camping, and other motorized forms of 

recreation. 

OHV users would be most adversely impacted by the travel limitations of Alternative E. 

Although they may reduce visitation to the area, recreationists who enjoy non-motorized travel 

may increase visitation to the area over the short and long-term.

4.14.3.9. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SOCIOECONOMICS

The demand for a range of recreation opportunities would not be limited as a result of VRM 

(Visual Resource Management) classifications; therefore, impacts to socioeconomics from 

recreational visitation would be minor under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. 

Opportunities for recreation with high levels of scenic quality (VRM Class I and Class II) would 

remain throughout Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs), Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), and along eligible Wild and Scenic 

river segments. See Section 4.14.3.6 for more details on recreation impacts to socioeconomics. 

The proposed designation of VRM Class acreages for the Proposed RMP and each of the 

alternatives are tabulated below in Table 4.14.6. Alternatives C and E provide the most benefit to 

tourists to the area who value scenic vistas. These alternatives could lead to a greater potential 

for increased and repeat tourists to the area who enjoy high levels of scenic quality. The large 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-393 

amounts of VRM Class I and II could have adverse impacts to local industries that would have to 

spend more money mitigating for scenic quality disturbances. 

Under the Proposed RMP, approximately 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed under VRM Class II objectives in order to preserve their 

wilderness characteristics and values, which would have long term, preservation-related, 

beneficial impacts on scenic quality and visual resources. 

Alternatives B and D would provide the least amount of VRM Class I and II acreages. Tourists 

enjoying high levels of visual quality would be most adversely impacted by these alternatives. 

Adverse impacts to industries resulting from visual mitigation would be least under these 

Alternatives. 

Under Alternative E, approximately 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed under VRM Class I objectives in order to preserve their 

wilderness characteristics and values (see Table 4.19.3). Based on these visual management 

objectives, Alternative E would provide the highest degree of protection to scenic quality under 

VRM I and II, followed by Alternative C, then Alternatives A and the Proposed RMP. 

Alternatives B and Alternative D (No Action) would provide the least protection to scenic 

quality under combined VRM I and II acreages. 

Table 4.14.6. VRM Class Acreages for the Proposed RMP and all Alternatives 

VRM 

Class 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

VRM I 

and 

57,776 63,136 52,764 145,781 53,086 334,516 

VRM II 231,911 294,773 114,030 362,660 113,686 259,694 

VRM III 786,612 716,186 199,179 580,846 199,192 535,586 

VRM IV 643,641 645,845 1,353,967 630,653 1,353,976 590,144 

Total 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 

VRM I 

and II 

289,687 357,909 166,794 508,441 166,772 594,210 

VRM III 

and IV 

1,430,253 1,362,031 1,553,146 1,211,499 1,553,168 1,125,730 

4.14.3.10. IMPACTS OF WILD HORSES ON SOCIOECONOMICS

4.14.3.10.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE B 

No wild horses would be maintained within the VPA under the Proposed RMP and Alternative 

B. The national constituency for the wild horse and burro program would be adversely impacted 

under the Proposed RMP and Alternative B. It is possible that the group's sense of "well-being" will 

be harmed by this decision. In addition, those who enjoy the sight of these animals may be less likely to 

visit the planning area.
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-394 

4.14.3.10.2. ALTERNATIVES A, C, AND E 

Those who enjoy the presence of the wild horse and burros in the VPA would benefit most under 

these alternatives. The greatest amount of protection to their habitat would be protected under 

these alternatives. Those who enjoy the sight of the animals may be more likely to visit the 

planning area and contribute to the local economy. 

4.14.3.10.3. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would maintain current levels of adverse indirect, long-term impacts 

on wild horses in the HA and HMAs. Sense of well-being to those who support the animals 

would be maintained at current levels. Current contributions to the local economy from related 

tourists would remain the same. 

4.14.3.11. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES ON SOCIOECONOMICS

To the extent that habitat and forage would be protected for the emigration and/or reintroduction 

of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep and moose populations, those who enjoy hunting and wildlife 

viewing would be beneficially impacted. Alternatives A, C, and E that implement the greatest 

amount of habitat and forage protection would be the most beneficial to hunting guides and 

outfitters in the VPA. 

4.14.3.12. IMPACTS OF WOODLAND AND FORESTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS

Woodland management actions common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives would have 

negligible impacts on the social and economic conditions of communities in Uintah, Duchesne, 

and Daggett counties, because the private and commercial use of woodland products is not a 

substantial contributor to the local economy. However, the forest and woodland could have 

potential beneficial impacts to public health and safety as the risk of catastrophic fire would be 

reduced. Also, to the extent the woodland and timber harvesting contributes to the overall health 

of local forests, benefits to wildlife and corresponding benefits to those who enjoy viewing or 

hunting could benefit. 

4.14.4. SUMMARY

4.14.4.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP provides the second greatest opportunities for minerals development and the 

subsequent generation of royalties and revenues when compared to the alternatives. Although the 

potential increase in revenues related to minerals development would have beneficial impacts on 

the local economy, adverse impacts to recreation may occur with user conflicts and a decrease in 

visitor satisfaction. 

However, with 15 areas of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (106,178 acres) to be 

managed to preserve wilderness qualities, recreationists seeking solitude and opportunities for 

primitive recreation would have areas available to meet their needs. In addition, the increase in 

SRMA acreage would also recreationists focused recreation areas. The increase in SRMAs and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-395 

management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have long-term beneficial 

impacts on socioeconomics as SRMA and non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

likely reduce user conflicts and increase visitor satisfaction. 

A decrease in areas designated as "open" to OHV travel and an increase in the areas designated 

as "closed," compared to Alternative D (No Action), could have adverse impacts on motorized 

recreationists. Decreases in opportunities for "cross-country" travel and increase in closed areas 

may result in decreases in visitor satisfaction for the user group and a potential loss of revenue 

generated by this group. 

Impacts to socioeconomics from other resources including livestock, wood harvest, 

paleontology, visual resource management, lands and realty would likely have negligible impacts 

to socioeconomic conditions under the Proposed RMP as well as the other alternatives given that 

the resource is not a substantial contributor to the local economy or changes resulting from the 

Proposed RMP or any of the alternatives would not likely have measurable beneficial or adverse 

impacts. 

4.14.4.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

This alternative would permit the most acres within the VPA for minerals development which 

would provide the greatest potential related revenue and royalties. This alternative would have 

the most adverse impacts to recreation resources due to the large number of acres available for 

oil and gas leasing. For visitors seeking opportunities for primitive travel and solitude, this 

alternative would have the greatest amount of long-term adverse effects. This could result in 

long-term decreases in tourist-based revenue for local communities. Impacts to OHV users 

would be similar to those under the Proposed RMP. 

4.14.4.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would have the least amount of acreage open for mineral development among the 

action alternatives. Consequently, the amount of revenues and royalties would be less under 

Alternative C. Limits of OHV travel would be greatest under this alternative, producing adverse 

impacts on mechanized recreational opportunities. 

This alternative would have the most beneficial impacts on recreation. Designation of additional 

ACECs and eligibility designations of Wild and Scenic River segments would have beneficial 

impacts on recreation. Designation of the most acreage for SRMA management (522,604) would 

have major beneficial impacts on all forms of recreation. Long-term positive impacts on 

recreation users would likely result in increases to the local economy in terms of tourist-related 

spending. 

4.14.4.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Because Alternative (No Action) does not include the Hill Creek Extension (more than 180,000 

acres), the total amount of wells to be developed over the life of the plan, and subsequent 

revenue generated from the wells, would be the least of all the alternatives. Resource decisions 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.14. Socioeconomics

Vernal RMP 4-396 

regarding minerals development would be less restrictive than those made for Alternatives C and 

E, more restrictive than Alternative A, and only slightly more restrictive than Alternative B. 

 Recreation decisions under Alternative B closely match the recreational opportunities provided 

in Alternative D (No Action), the current trend in the economics associated with tourism would 

continue. However, it is likely the due to an increase in OHV use, user conflicts will escalate and 

visitor experiences would be degraded. Thus, a reduction in tourist-related spending could 

decrease. 

4.14.4.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

The focus of this alternative would be the protection of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. That protection would have substantial beneficial impacts on primitive and nonmechanized recreation activities, but it would exclude OHV use on 228 miles of routes and 

activities dependent on developed sites (e.g., campground and interpretive facilities). 

Recreationists seeking primitive recreation activities would benefit most from this alternative, 

which may result in long-term increases in visitor spending as overall visitation would increase 

and visitors would return to the area for similar experiences. Conversely, those seeking 

motorized recreation opportunities would have fewer opportunities for recreation. A potential for 

a decrease in revenues from this group would be greatest under Alternative E. 

Minerals development and the revenue generated from them would be most adversely impacted 

under this alternative as the percentage of land open for development is nearly 30% less. 

4.14.5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

There would be no unavoidable, adverse impacts to socioeconomics. 

4.14.6. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

There are no foreseeable impacts for short-term use versus long-term productivity. 

4.14.7. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There are no foreseeable irreversible or irretrievable impacts to socioeconomics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-397 

4.15. SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES

All of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP would impact soil and water resources within the 

VPA, as all of them contain plans for surface disturbance of some kind. Activities involving 

surface disturbance would disturb soils and water resources to varying degrees, due to the 

amount, placement, and type of surface disturbance; the disturbed soil's characteristics; and the 

surface hydrology. 

The BLM manages 1,725,522 acres within the VPA. Many of the soils are derived from shale 

formations and are, therefore, highly erodible. Many of the soils also have limitations on 

rehabilitation after disturbance, which is one of the primary factors in evaluating the effects of 

other resource management decisions on soil and water resources. Table 4.15.1 displays acreage 

of soils with chemical or physical limitations and their percentage of the VPA. Some soil 

limitation areas overlap; therefore, the numbers listed in this table add up to a higher number 

than the total number of acres in the VPA. 

For the purposes of this programmatic-level analysis, the acreages disclosed in Table 4.15.1 are 

assumed to be evenly distributed across the smallest nominal geographic area represented in each 

table. The analyses are done for all of the VPA, but Table 4.15.1 lists limiting soils by RFD area 

so specific analysis can be done for future projects. Limiting soils have specific chemical or 

physical properties that affect normal use and management. These limiting features (as defined 

by NRCS in soil interpretation tables) include but are not limited to high sodium or gypsum 

content, high erosion hazard, steep slopes, high rock content, high water table, high wind erosion 

hazard. The limitations of this type of broad scale analysis are best seen in cases when surface 

disturbance is concentrated in areas that are either highly erodible or highly non-erodible. 

Fortunately, limitations in analysis have been anticipated and will be compensated for by the 

surface stipulations found in Appendix K and site-specific analyses of water quality and soil 

stability. Approximate soil loss from water erosion due to oil and gas leasing (which includes 

CBNG) was analyzed by RFD area based on soil erosion potential (k-factor) and percent slope. 

Soils with a k-factor of ≥0.32 and a slope of greater than 10% were classified as erodible. 

Table 4.15.1. Vernal Soils with Limitations by RFD Area 

Limitation 

AltamontBluebell East 

Tavaputs 

Plateau 

ManilaClay 

Basin 

Monument 

Butte-Red 

Wash 

TabionaAshley 

Valley 

West 

Tavaputs 

Plateau 

Total %

of 

VPA

Water Erodible 513 27,947 4,144 45,612 66,959 17,640 162,815 9%

Wind Erodible 15,997 410,494 34,760 560,157 267,055 73,191 1,361,654 79%

Sodic (sodium 

rich) 35 11,719 133 130,047 6,318 13,093 161,345 9%

Saline (high salt 

content) 6,679 40,006 1,816 219,781 83,096 14,473 365,851 21%

Gypsic (gypsum 

rich) 0 41,877 0 89,358 1,471 0 132,706 8%
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-398 

4.15.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Surface-disturbing activities that are currently occurring and are expected to continue include 

grazing, access to and maintenance of existing oil and gas wells and access roads, recreation and 

OHV use, and woodland harvest/vegetation removal. As a result of surface-disturbing activities 

in areas having soils with limitations, impacts common to the Proposed RMP and 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 the Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives, as per Utah's Non-Point Source Management Plan (UDEQ 2000). Careful planning 

of development to ensure impacts to soil and water are limited is important in protecting water 

quality and soil productivity. BLM will work towards compliance with water quality standards 

currently not in compliance at Pariette Draw Creek [TDS, selenium, and boron for 54.1 stream 

miles], Willow Creek, excluding Hill Creek, [TDS for 57.2 stream miles] and Nine Mile Creek 

[stream temperature on the VFO portion of 119.1 miles] where the BLM-administered lands 

make up a large percentage of the total acreage at these sub-basins. Efforts towards compliance 

can include limiting the concentrations of sediments. In general, TDS levels can often be 

proportional to sediment levels. 

The Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health (Appendix F) apply to soil resources in the 

VPA. The Proposed RMP and all alternatives must adhere to 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. 

• Site-specific conditions would need to be documented before modifying any prescriptions. 

Activities that would not comply with Standards 1 and 4 in the short term would require 

reclamation and rehabilitation to ensure water quality, soil productivity and sustainability. 

Additionally, the BLM would take measures to protect water quality, ensure soil productivity 

and sustainability in the event of wildland fire, drought, or other natural disasters, by 

reducing or eliminating livestock, wild horses, and/or wildlife forage allocations, recreational 

activities (e.g., camping and campfires, OHV use, etc.), and mineral exploration and 

acquisition until soils are stabilized. Monitoring would be used to determine the condition of 

water and soils and determine if water quality or soil productivity trends tended upward, 

downward, or static (considering the soil type, climate, and landform). 

4.15.1.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Fire management would have short-term, adverse impacts to soils and water via prescribed 

burning or fuels reduction, which would increase erosion rates. Some areas would be difficult to 

reclaim because of the soil's physical and chemical limitations (e.g., soils with high sodium, salt, 

or gypsum content). Additional post-fire erosion (i.e., a short-term, direct, adverse impact) would 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-399 

occur from fire suppression activities such as the digging of fire lines and the bulldozing of 

roads. 

However, in the long term, these fire management activities would reintroduce the natural fire 

return interval, thereby decreasing or eliminating the occurrence of catastrophic rangeland fires 

and promoting more productive rangelands with less water and soil degradation. The reduction 

of catastrophic fires would limit the aggressive fire suppression activities necessary for wildfire 

control, thereby minimizing indirect impacts to soil and water resources. As well, proper 

oversight for fire suppression activities would further reduce the potential for adverse impacts. 

4.15.1.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Lands and realty management decisions would have beneficial, long-term impacts to soils and 

water resources by pursuing locatable mineral withdrawals in specified areas within the VPA. 

Mineral withdrawals would provide indirect, long-term benefits to water quality by reducing soil 

erosion and sedimentation in streams. 

On the other hand, pursuing public access under the Proposed RMP and various action 

alternatives would open specified areas up to recreation, potentially resulting in soil degradation 

along proposed travel routes and water quality degradation in stream corridors. Long-term direct 

adverse impacts would also occur where new ROWs are designated for development of roads or 

utility corridors. 

4.15.1.3. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING, FORAGE, AND WILD HORSE 

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

The effects of livestock and grazing, forage and wild horse decisions on soils would generally be 

short-term and direct. Through monitoring and changes in range use, soils should not become 

degraded to the point where they lose productivity; therefore no long-term impacts should occur. 

Management decisions for livestock and grazing, forage, and wild horse resources could 

potentially result in loss of vegetative cover and subsequent wind and water erosion, and loss of 

biological soil crusts, where they occur. However, these potentially adverse impacts on soils 

would depend on a number of factors, such as grazing season of use, timing, and grazing 

intensity. 

Forage and wild horse management decisions would affect soils and water resources when 

AUMs for livestock, wild horses, and/or wildlife are adjusted in response to evidence from 

monitoring that water quality or soil degradation is eminent or occurring. Depending on season 

of use and duration, adjusting AUMs would be a short-term, direct, and potentially beneficial 

impact, as it would slow the loss of ground cover. On the other hand, greater forage utilization 

and more AUMs in a given area put greater stress on the soils via trampling and loss of cover. 

The loss of vegetation would have direct, long-term, adverse impacts to water quality and soil 

productivity, especially in areas with soil limitations. 

With respect to livestock grazing, the Proposed RMP and all alternatives vary between season of 

use and duration of use. Due to growing seasons, effects on vegetation (and subsequently, on 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-400 

water and soils) vary depending on the season of use. For example, limiting grazing before 

periods of high runoff (generally due to spring runoff and late summer thunderstorms) reduces 

adverse impacts: banks that retain their vegetation are protected from erosion caused by high 

flows. A longer duration of use would result in greater impacts to vegetation, soils, and water in 

a given area. 

The Proposed RMP and all alternatives contain restrictions to livestock grazing during seasons of 

use as well. If all areas are grazed equally, the Proposed RMP and all alternatives should help 

retain watershed health and provide indirect, long-term benefits to water quality by reducing soil 

disturbance during critical periods of vegetation establishment and soil vulnerability. 

4.15.1.4. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL MINERALS MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

The Proposed RMP and all alternatives would result in surface disturbance, minerals exploration 

and development, and road building. With more land available for leasing and higher levels of 

development, the risk of adverse impacts to soil and water resources (both surface and 

groundwater) would increase. Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, the effects of 

minerals decisions on water and soils would be direct, short- and long-term, and adverse. 

General impacts to soil and water resources would be erosion, loss of soil productivity, increased 

runoff, landslides, flooding, and water quality degradation. 

Direct, long-term, adverse impacts to surface water quality, in the form of increased sediment 

levels due to erosion and increased flows from runoff, would increase as the number of well sites 

increases. 

Water quality may be affected by hazardous materials leaks or disposal of wastewater from 

wells. 

Groundwater may become contaminated if drilling fluids and chemicals from the well bore 

escape into underground reserves or if minerals migrate between geological formations during 

drilling. 

Groundwater impacts may also take the form of changes in total dissolved solids (TDS) or 

salinity; pollution from pipeline or storage tank leaks; leaks from mud pits; and disposal of water 

by injection wells. 

If streambeds are altered during development, changes in volume or location of flows that feed 

streams would result from alterations. 

Water channelization and runoff could result from improper road building and maintenance. 

Due to the explosives used and the digging, leveling, and scraping required, mixing of soils and 

loss of vegetative cover may occur during exploration activities; construction of roads and well 

pads; and installation of pipelines. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-401 

Soils would be compacted due to the use of trucks and other heavy equipment. 

Oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) under No Surface Occupancy or Closed to Leasing 

categories would result in no surface disturbance, and would have no impact on surface water 

quality. However, No Surface Occupancy areas could still impact groundwater quality. The 

CBNG development process removes large amounts of groundwater and, in the VPA, reinjects it 

into the ground via injection wells. This can create changes in groundwater movement and has 

the potential to adversely affect groundwater. This results in a consumptive use of water, where 

wastewater is injected into deep areas to minimize adverse effects on water quality. 

Gilsonite, phosphate, and disposal of mineral materials, all with Standard Lease Terms, would 

result in indirect, long-term, adverse impacts to water quality in the form of increased soil 

erosion and sedimentation in streams (see Table 2.1.9 in Chapter 2, Minerals and Energy 

Resources). 

Reclamation and restoration of oil and gas, locatable minerals, surface minerals, and alternative 

energy sites would be required upon abandonment of sites to reduce long-term impacts. 

4.15.1.5. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT DECISIONS

The effects of rangeland improvements on soils and water would be generally beneficial, longterm, and direct. 

Vegetation treatments, in the form of increased vegetative cover, would ultimately improve soil 

quality and would have indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity through 

reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. 

Fencing of riparian areas would improve soil conditions within exclosures and protect water 

quality. 

Water developments would provide water to upland range sites and keep livestock and other 

ungulates from seeking out water in sensitive riparian areas; riparian water quality would thus 

receive indirect, long-term benefits. 

On the other hand, localized soils around the guzzlers, reservoirs, wells, and springs would be 

increasingly disturbed, as the water sources would attract ungulate traffic. Short-term adverse 

impacts would also occur due to surface disturbance during the building of guzzlers/reservoirs 

and pipelines and the improvement of wells/springs. These adverse impacts could be mitigated 

through proper placement and limitations on surface disturbance in areas with fragile soils or in 

floodplains. Fragile soils have a high erosion hazard, are difficult to reclaim or restore due to 

physical and chemical properties e.g. high salt concentration, high rock content, or low available 

water, or soils that are more susceptible to impacts and damage due to high water tables (hydric 

or wetland/riparian soils). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-402 

4.15.1.6. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL RECREATION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Recreational activities would have limitations in place that would reduce adverse impacts to 

soils. Limiting OHV use to designated trails would provide short- and long-term, beneficial 

impacts to soils and water resources. "Sacrifice" areas would be designated for OHV users in 

areas that are not ecologically sensitive and present little or no risk to soils, watersheds, and other 

components identified in the Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health (Appendix F). Some 

areas may need to be entirely closed to OHV use and planned travel routes. 

Increasing visitor access to certain areas would have long-term, adverse impacts to soils and 

water; stream banks would be increasingly trampled, and more trails would likely be developed. 

Proper management and public education would reduce adverse impacts to soils and water 

resources. The Tread Lightly Program is invaluable for encouraging OHV users to stay on 

existing trails, thereby decreasing impacts to soil. 

4.15.1.7. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Proper functioning condition (PFC) is the minimum acceptable goal for riparian areas. Riparianwetland areas would be maintained, restored, and managed to achieve PFC with respect to soils, 

vegetation, and hydrology/water quality. Thus, riparian management would have short- and longterm direct beneficial impacts to soils and water where use of streamside vegetation is reduced. 

Maintaining plant stubble along the banks traps sediment and reduces stream bank erosion. 

Managing key riparian woody vegetation maintains bank stability by providing root structure, 

holding banks together, and reducing sediment transport. Maintaining riparian vegetation would 

also attenuate floodwaters and, therefore, lower runoff amounts and flooding levels. 

4.15.1.8. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Soil and watershed decisions would reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants and sediment 

into surface waters, providing protection for fish, amphibians, wildlife, and water recreation. 

Decisions to limit development on steep slopes would have short- and long-term direct beneficial 

impacts to soils and water resources. Oil and gas well pads would not be permitted in active 

floodplains, protecting watersheds from sedimentation. With respect to biological soil crusts, the 

BLM would take measures to protect or restore soil crust functions and avoid soil crust areas 

where possible. The BLM would examine the effects of prescribed fire, post fire management, 

invasive weed control, energy development, grazing, OHV use, and range improvement projects 

prior to taking action. 

Erodible soils on slopes between 20% and 40% are required to have an erosion control plan, as 

outlined in Appendix K. These stipulations would limit the soil loss from these areas and thus 

limit adverse impacts to soils and water resources in the VPA. Slopes less than 20% are not 

required to have an erosion control plan and would likely experience more soil loss than areas in 

the high and very high erodibility categories. This analysis did not take into account road 

densities, which are a factor in soil loss. Erosion from roads that do not have an all-weather 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-403 

surface also would likely contribute sediment to total soil loss, but proper engineering design 

would limit or reduce these losses. 

4.15.1.9. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

Designating new ACECs and expanding current ACECs would have long-term direct and 

indirect, beneficial impacts to soils and water by protecting relevant and important values and 

limiting OHV travel to designated routes (although designation would not preclude oil and gas 

development within these areas). Specific management guidelines would be created for each 

ACEC and would require further analysis of impacts to soils and water resources. Special 

designations of ACECs would continue in Browns Park, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, Lears Canyon, 

Pariette Wetlands, Nine Mile Canyon, and Red Creek Watershed; therefore, these designations 

will not be analyzed by individual alternative. 

The designation of segments of the Upper and Lower Green River as Wild and Scenic Rivers 

also provides long-term direct and indirect beneficial impacts to soils and water, as it limits 

development along the river segments. 

 WSAs would limit development in these areas resulting in short- and long-term direct and 

indirect, beneficial impacts to soils and water. 

4.15.1.10. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

The effects of special status species decisions on water and soils would be beneficial, long-term, 

and direct, as they would limit development. The Proposed RMP and all alternatives are similar: 

implementation of spatial and seasonal, no-disturbance buffers around critical habitat (e.g., 

raptor nests) would likely result in less development and surface disturbance and would thus 

cause indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced 

soil erosion and sedimentation in streams and fewer salinity increases. Inventories of these plant 

and animal resources would provide well-defined protection areas. 

4.15.1.11. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

The effects of travel decisions on water and soils generally would be beneficial, long-term, and 

direct, primarily by limiting OHV activities to open areas and restricted travel routes. Soil and 

water resources are greatly affected by runoff from roads and trails; therefore, these travel limits 

would have indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity in the form of 

reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams, and thus, fewer salinity increases. 

Leaving newly permitted roads open would have an indirect, long-term, adverse impact on water 

quality, manifest as increased soil disturbance. Under the Proposed RMP and all action 

alternatives, roads and trails currently causing resource damage would be maintained, upgraded 

and/or realigned. Roads and trails would be designed and built with water crossings that would 

allow for free passage of aquatic life. All action alternatives (A, B, C, and E) would have fewer 

long-term direct adverse impacts to soils and water resources than Alternative D (No Action), 

which is unspecified with respect to roads and trails causing resource damage. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-404 

4.15.1.12. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Vegetation management including prescribed burns, mechanical and chemical treatments, and 

rangeland improvements would have short-term direct adverse impacts to soils and water 

resources by increasing surface disturbance. Long-term indirect impacts would be beneficial due 

to increased ground cover. The impacts due to these management decisions are discussed under 

fire management and rangeland improvements. 

4.15.1.13. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Visual resource management (VRM) decisions would be beneficial and long term. They would 

directly affect water and soil resources by precluding some areas from surface disturbance due to 

their proximity to highways, scenic areas, and special designation areas. However, adverse, 

short-term, indirect impacts would occur if vegetation treatments were not implemented in 

VRM-sensitive areas. 

4.15.1.14. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

The effects of wildlife management decisions on water and soils would be beneficial, long-term, 

and indirect, by limiting surface development. Most of the wildlife and fisheries management 

decisions involve seasonal constraints but would not necessarily preclude surface-disturbing 

activities. 

The only impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions upon water and soils that can 

be measured are the preservation of crucial deer winter range and the reclamation of disturbance 

within sagebrush habitat. Reclamation of disturbance within sagebrush habitat would stabilize 

soils and increase vegetation, thereby benefiting soil productivity by reducing soil erosion and 

sedimentation in streams. The allowance of new surface disturbance within crucial winter range 

would result in indirect, long-term, adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity. The 

BLM would provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife and fish species by limiting fragmentation, 

thereby keeping soils intact and sediment out of streams. 

4.15.1.15. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL WOODLANDS AND FOREST MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Salvage operations and permitted use of certain vegetation products in specified areas would 

result in indirect, short-term, adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity in the form of 

increased soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. Adverse, short-term, direct impacts to water 

and soils would occur as soil erosion during treatments and harvesting. 

However, in the long term, treatments and harvesting have the potential to reintroduce the natural 

fire return interval, indirectly reducing soil erosion through fewer catastrophic fires. 

The effects of woodlands and forest management on soils and water would be reduced by 

following National BLM Forest Health and Forest Management Standards and Guidelines (BLM 

2004) to achieve desired future conditions and minimize impacts to water and soils while 

providing for multiple uses of forest products. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-405 

4.15.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

Surface disturbance activities for the Proposed RMP and all alternatives and all effects would 

generally increase risks of adverse effects on water and soil resources by increasing erosion 

potential, sedimentation, soil compaction, loss of soil productivity, and impacts to biological soil 

crusts. Water quality would be impacted due to rises in salinity, sediment load, and increases in 

Selenium and Boron concentrations. The duration of these impacts would depend on the action. 

Mitigation outlined in Appendix K contains stipulations on surface disturbance that could be 

implemented to reduce impacts to soils and water resources; therefore some of the impacts 

discussed below would be reduced or eliminated. 

4.15.2.1. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

4.15.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C and E, prescribed burns on 156,425 acres of 

the VPA would result in 3 times more surface disturbance than Alternative D (No Action). In the 

short term, 13% (20,335 acres) of the burned area would occur on water erodible soils, 79% 

(123,575 acres) would occur on wind erodible soils, 9% (14,078 acres) would occur on sodic 

soils, 20% (31,285 acres) would occur on saline soils, and 7% (10,949 acres) would occur on 

gypsic soils. Proper location of prescribed burns would limit adverse effects due to fire 

management. 

4.15.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Continuing current management would have fewer short-term adverse impacts and long-term 

benefits to water and soils from prescribed fire. Surface disturbance would be 3 times less under 

Alternative D (No Action) than under Alternatives A, B, and C. 

4.15.2.2. IMPACTS OF FORAGE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

4.15.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

Utilization under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A would be 50%, which would provide 

more beneficial impacts to soils and water by limiting utilization, than Alternative D (No 

Action), which does not specify forage utilization. Approximately 245,607 and 245,649 AUMs 

are allocated under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, respectively. 

4.15.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Utilization under Alternative B is 60%, which provides more beneficial impacts to soils and 

water by limiting utilization, than Alternative D (No Action). Approximately 244,034 AUMs are 

allocated under this alternative. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-406 

4.15.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Utilization under Alternatives C and E is the same as the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. 

Approximately 187,450 AUMs are allocated under these alternatives, which is 58,678 fewer than 

Alternative D (No Action). These alternatives would cause the fewest adverse impacts from 

forage utilization. 

4.15.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Forage utilization under Alternative D (No Action) is not specified, which would result in longterm, adverse impacts to soils and water due to overutilization of forage and loss of cover. 

Approximately 245,108 AUMs are allocated under this alternative. 

4.15.2.3. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

4.15.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, C, AND E 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E would pursue public access to the White River 

and acquisition of Indian Trust Lands in Bitter Creek, Willow Creek, and near the confluence of 

South and Sweetwater Canyons. The Proposed RMP and these alternatives would result in 

increased, adverse impacts to soil and water resources, due to increased public access as 

compared to Alternative D (No Action), where increased access would not specifically be 

pursued and agricultural entry would be precluded in withdrawal areas. 

4.15.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would not pursue access to the White River and would only pursue administrative 

access across Indian Trust Lands in Bitter Creek and near the confluence of South and 

Sweetwater Canyons. With respect to access, this alternative would have similar effects to soils 

and water as Alternative D (No Action). 

4.15.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) precludes agricultural entry on 35,900 acres of land. Mineral and 

agricultural withdrawals under Alternative D (No Action) would provide fewer indirect, longterm adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity than the Proposed RMP and other 

alternatives by reducing soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. Alternative D (No Action) 

would not pursue public access to any new land. 

4.15.2.4. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

Table 4.15.2 shows the acreages of erodible soils by RFD area for oil and gas leasing (which 

includes CBNG). The areas with No Surface Occupancy or No Leasing were removed from the 

acreages analyzed. The largest source of sediment input to waters is expected from slopes 0-

20%, with ≥0.32 k-factor. These acreages have been highlighted in the table. Impacts to soils 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-407 

would have indirect, short- and long-term adverse impacts to water quality through subsequent 

sedimentation and salinity rises. 

The RFD area with the highest amount of water erodible soils not subject to surface stipulations 

is Monument Butte-Red Wash. This area also has the greatest number of potential wells, with 

1,700 oil and 3,100 gas wells identified for reasonably foreseeable development. The location of 

wells within the RFD areas may or may not be on BLM lands; therefore, the analysis may 

overstate the amount of water erodible areas that would be impacted on BLM lands. 

Table 4.15.2. Acres of VPA Erodible Soils Open to Oil and Gas Development, by RFD 

Area 

Erodible Soil AltamontBluebell 

East 

Tavaputs 

Plateau 

Manila-Clay 

Basin 

Monument 

Butte-Red 

Wash 

TabionaAshley 

Valley 

West 

Tavaputs 

Plateau 

Proposed RMP 

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 6,217 20,021 1,937 94,799 16,394 11,886

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 0 725 0 1,242 0

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 5,266 0 7,999 24,470 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 1,732 7,288 4,010 58,008 16,697 1,696

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 854 0 3,618 5,072 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 0 3,397 24,954 35,005 0

Total 7,949 33,429 10,069 189,378 98,880 13,582

Alternative A 

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 6,217 20,142 3,147 102,581 17,001 11,886

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 0 1,097 0 1,687 0

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 5,574 780,30 7,999 34,935 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 1,732 7,320 4,153 58,008 19,548 1,696

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 854 0 3,618 5,480 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 0 5,419 24,954 45,570 0
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-408 

Table 4.15.2. Acres of VPA Erodible Soils Open to Oil and Gas Development, by RFD 

Area 

Erodible Soil AltamontBluebell 

East 

Tavaputs 

Plateau 

Manila-Clay 

Basin 

Monument 

Butte-Red 

Wash 

TabionaAshley 

Valley 

West 

Tavaputs 

Plateau 

Total 7,949 33,890 13,816 189,600 124,221 13,582

Alternative B 

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 6,217 20,200 3,173 102,813 17,001 12,406

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 0 1,097 0 1,687 0

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 5,574 0 7,999 35,061 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 1,732 7,680 4,153 59,846 19,548 2,405

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 854 0 3,618 5,480 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 0 5,418 24,954 45,570 0

Total 7,949 34,308 13,841 191,630 124,347 14,811

Alternative C 

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 6,217 13,160 3,139 102,450 14,769 11,621

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 0 1,097 0 1,687 0

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 5,570 0 7,999 31,877 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 1,730 6,400 4,153 57,758 17,262 1,681

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 854 0 3,618 5,195 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 0 5,419 24,954 34,937 0

Total 7,947 25,984 13,808 189,180 105,727 13,302

Alternative D (No Action) 

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 6,054 20,409 3,244 99,575 16,900 10,923

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 0 1,092 0 1,652 0

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 5,685 6,685 7,038 35,689 0
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-409 

Table 4.15.2. Acres of VPA Erodible Soils Open to Oil and Gas Development, by RFD 

Area 

Erodible Soil AltamontBluebell 

East 

Tavaputs 

Plateau 

Manila-Clay 

Basin 

Monument 

Butte-Red 

Wash 

TabionaAshley 

Valley 

West 

Tavaputs 

Plateau 

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 1,855 5,941 4,153 48,919 17,290 1,921

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 753 0 3,505 4,793 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 0 5,375 24,954 42,486 0

Total 7,909 32,788 20,549 183,991 118,810 12,844

Alternative E 

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 6,217 13,103 1,937 101,408 14,347 11,053

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 0 725 0 1,242 0

KFACT < 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 5,300 0 7,999 22,457 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 0-10% 1,730 6,141 4,010 50,159 15,778 1,610

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 11-20% 0 854 0 3,618 4,793 0

KFACT ≥ 0.32, 

Slope = 21-40% 0 0 3,868 24,954 26,743 0

Total 7,947 25,398 10,540 188,138 85,360 12,663

Table 4.15.3 is provided to compare acreages, well numbers, and short- and long-term impacts 

due to the Proposed RMP and the alternatives. 

Table 4.15.3. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison for Minerals Decisions 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action)2 

Alternative 

E 

Oil, Gas and CBNG 

Standard Lease 

Terms 860,651 982,904 1,113,116 858,619 918,315 818,891 

Controlled 

Surface Use 779,730 793,878 706,281 768,466 617,715 680,570 

No Surface 

Occupancy 86,789 66,483 42,053 58,670 136,930 47,629 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-410 

Table 4.15.3. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison for Minerals Decisions 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action)2 

Alternative 

E 

No Leasing 190,434 70,734 52,550 228,246 52,540 367,037 

Total short-term 

impacts 5,045 5,066 5,088 5,020 4,886 4,703 

Total long-term 

impacts 13,815 13,879 13,945 13,737 13,326 12,765 

Other Minerals 

Phosphate 76,208 87,724 87,724 63,571 84,600 52,063 

Gilsonite1

172 / 

36,846 

172 

36,846 

172 / 

36,846 

172 / 

36,846 

168 / 

36,009 

163 / 

34,967 

Mineral Disposal 

- Open 389,788 415,395 430,172 378,785 387,700 344,682

Total Projected 

Wells3 3,665 3,688 3,712 3,637 3,488 3,285

1

Gilsonite data are represented in miles / acres. 

2

The decrease in leasing in Alternative D (No Action) is due to the closure to leasing of the 188,500-acre Hill Creek Extension.

3

Total Projected Wells data are represented in numbers of wells. All other data is represented in acres. 

4.15.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would have more direct and indirect adverse impacts to water quality and 

soil productivity due to oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG), as compared to Alternative 

C and Alternative D (No Action). Approximately 1,640,535 acres would be administratively 

available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) subject to Standard Lease Terms or 

Controlled Surface Use, which is approximately 104,560 acres more than Alternative D (No 

Action). Total disturbance from oil and gas development would occur on 18,826 acres of soils, 

with adverse impacts to soils, which is 759 more acres more than for Alternative D (No Action). 

Total wells under the Proposed RMP would be approximately 3,665 which are approximately 

177 more than Alternative D (No Action); therefore more direct, long-term impacts to water due 

to drawdown would be expected for water resources. With respect to hydrocarbon leasing, and 

mineral materials, the Proposed RMP impacts more acreage than Alternatives C and D, and 

therefore would have greater direct adverse impacts to soil and water resources. 

4.15.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would have more direct and indirect adverse impacts to water quality and soil 

productivity due to oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG), as compared to Alternative C 

and Alternative D (No Action). Approximately 1,780,879 acres would be administratively 

available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) subject to Standard Lease Terms or 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-411 

Controlled Surface Use, which is approximately 244,905 acres more than Alternative D (No 

Action). Total disturbance from oil and gas development would occur on 18,945 acres of soils, 

with adverse impacts to soils, which is 732 more acres more than for Alternative D (No Action). 

Total wells under this alternative would be approximately 3,688 which are approximately 200 

more than Alternative D (No Action), therefore more direct, long-term impacts to water due to 

drawdown would be expected for water resources. With respect to hydrocarbon leasing, and 

mineral materials, Alternative A impacts more acreage than Alternatives C and D (No Action), 

and therefore would have greater direct adverse impacts to soil and water resources. 

4.15.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would have the greatest adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity due 

to oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG), as compared to the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative D (No Action). Approximately 1,819,397 acres would be administratively available 

for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) subject to Standard Lease Terms or Controlled 

Surface Use, which is approximately 283,367 acres more than Alternative D (No Action). Total 

disturbance would occur on 19,033 acres, causing direct adverse impacts to soils, and affecting 

821 more acres than Alternative D (No Action). 

Total wells under this alternative would be approximately 3,712, which is approximately 224 

more than alternative D (No Action), therefore more direct, long-term impacts to water due to 

drawdown would be expected for water resources. With respect to hydrocarbon leasing, and 

mineral materials, Alternative B impacts more acreage than Alternatives A, C, D and E, and 

therefore would have greater direct adverse impacts to soil and water resources. 

4.15.2.4.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would have the second least adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity, 

as compared to other action alternatives and Alternative D (No Action). Approximately 

1,627,085 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes 

CBNG) subject to Standard Lease Terms or Controlled Surface Use, which is approximately 

91,055 acres more than Alternative D (No Action). Total disturbance from oil and gas 

development would adversely affect 18,757 acres of soils, which is 545 acres more than 

Alternative D (No Action). This alternative also designates the second largest number of acres 

classified as no surface occupancy or as closed to leasing. 

Total wells under this alternative would be approximately 3,637, which is approximately 149 

more wells than Alternative D (No Action); therefore greater direct, long-term impacts to water 

due to drawdown would be expected for water resources. With respect to hydrocarbon leasing, 

and mineral material disposal Alternative C would adversely impact fewer acres than 

Alternatives A and B, but more than Alternatives D (No Action) and E. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-412 

4.15.2.4.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would have approximately 1,536,030 acres administratively available 

for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) subject to Standard Lease Terms or Controlled 

Surface Use. Total disturbance from oil and gas development would occur on 18,212 acres. The 

number of wells projected under this alternative would be approximately 3,488. 

4.15.2.4.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would have the least adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity, as 

compared to other action alternatives and Alternative D (No Action). Approximately 1,499,461 

acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) subject 

to Standard Lease Terms or Controlled Surface Use, which is approximately 36,569 fewer acres 

than under Alternative D (No Action). Total disturbance from oil and gas development would 

adversely affect 17,468 acres of soils, which is 744 fewer acres than (No Action). This 

alternative also designates the largest number of acres classified as no surface occupancy or as 

closed to leasing. 

Total wells under this alternative would be approximately 3,285, which is approximately 203 

fewer wells than Alternative D (No Action); therefore the least direct, long-term impacts to water 

due to drawdown would be expected for water resources. With respect to hydrocarbon leasing 

and mineral material disposal, Alternative E would adversely impact fewer acres than any other 

alternative. 

4.15.2.5. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS ON WATER 

AND SOILS

4.15.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed with special 

protections to maintain their wilderness characteristics. This area would be managed as VRM 

Class II, closed to mineral disposal, managed for avoidance of new ROWs, closed to road 

construction, closed to wood cutting and seed collecting, and retained for federal ownership. This 

management would result in less surface disturbance and would therefore have the beneficial 

impacts to water and soils, as described elsewhere in this section (4.15). Compared to Alternative 

A–D, the Proposed RMP would have indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil 

productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation and salinity in streams. 

4.15.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVES A–D 

Under these alternatives, lands with wilderness characteristics outside of designated WSAs 

would not be subject to protective management to maintain those characteristics. Depending on 

management decision for other resources, there would be varying levels of development and 

surface disturbance within these areas, which would have indirect, long-term, adverse impacts to 

water quality and soil productivity. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-413 

4.15.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed with special 

protections to maintain their wilderness characteristics. This area would be managed as VRM 

Class I, closed to OHV use, closed to mineral disposal, managed for avoidance of new ROWs, 

closed to road construction, closed to wood cutting and seed collecting, and retained for federal 

ownership. This management would result in less surface disturbance than under any other 

alternative and would therefore have the greatest beneficial impacts to water and soils, as 

described elsewhere in this section (4.13). Compared to the Proposed RMP and Alternatives AD, Alternative E would have indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity in 

the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation and salinity in streams. 

4.15.2.6. IMPACTS OF RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

4.15.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would provide 34,640 acres of vegetation treatment, 

which would be 5,750 fewer acres than Alternative D (No Action). Thus, Alternative A would 

result in fewer indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts to soil and water resources. The miles of 

fencing, number of guzzlers/reservoirs, number of wells/springs, and miles of pipeline planned 

under Alternative A would have similar impacts to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.15.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would provide 50,900 acres of vegetation treatments, 368.5 miles of fencing, 1,165 

guzzlers/reservoirs, and 51 miles of pipelines. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this 

alternative would have 10,510 more acres of vegetation treatment and 303.5 more miles of 

fencing, which would result in more indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts to soil and water 

resources. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would also implement 390 more 

guzzlers/reservoirs and 16 more miles of pipeline, which would result in more direct, short-term 

adverse impacts to soil and water than Alternative D (No Action). 

Development of wells/springs and the associated impacts would be similar to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.15.2.6.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Alternatives C and E would provide 45,860 acres of vegetation treatments and 129 miles of 

fencing would be developed. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), these alternatives would 

have 5,470 more acres and 64 more miles of fencing, thereby providing more long-term 

beneficial impacts to soil and water resources. Water developments would have similar impacts 

to Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-414 

4.15.2.6.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would result in 40,390 acres of vegetation treatments, 65 miles of 

fencing, 775 guzzlers/reservoirs, 74 wells/springs, and 35 miles of pipeline. 

4.15.2.7. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

4.15.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

Designating Seep Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, and Atchee Ridge Roads as BLM Backcountry 

Byways would have more long-term, indirect, adverse impacts to soil and water resources 

compared to Alternative D (No Action) in the form of increased public visitation and use of these 

roads. Alternative D (No Action) does not specify these Backcountry Byways. 

Management of the White River area as an SRMA under Alternative A would provide more 

long-term, beneficial impacts to water and soil than Alternative D (No Action). 

Management of the Blue Mountain, Fantasy Canyon (Proposed RMP only, not Alternative A), 

Browns Park, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, and Nine Mile Canyon areas as SRMAs would limit 

OHV use to trails and therefore provide greater direct long-term beneficial impacts to soils and 

water, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). Although increased public visitation would 

have greater indirect, long-term adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity than 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Under Alternative A, development or improvement of up to 400 miles of trails for non-motorized 

use and up to 800 miles of motorized trails would result in increased public visitation and would 

have indirect, long-term adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity. Proper placement 

of trails would reduce the adverse impacts to soils and water resources. 

Not allowing OHV use off designated trails for big game retrieval would limit adverse impacts to 

soils and water resources, compared to Alternative D (No Action), which places far fewer 

restrictions on OHV travel. 

Cabin improvement and construction proposed under Alternative A would result in surface 

disturbance (a more indirect, long-term, adverse impact to water quality and soil productivity) 

compared to Alternative D (No Action), which does not specify cabin improvements. 

4.15.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Designation of Backcountry Byways and improvement of up to 800 miles of motorized trails 

would have essentially the same impacts as Alternative A and the Proposed RMP. 

Providing minimal or no management of the White River, Blue Mountain, Fantasy Canyon, 

Book Cliffs, Browns Park, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, and Nine Mile Canyon would have no 

beneficial impacts to soils and water resources due to minimal management of OHV use, which 

would be the same as Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-415 

OHV travel off of designated trails for big-game retrieval would be allowed under this 

alternative, which would result in long-term, adverse impacts to soil and water resources. 

4.15.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Alternatives C and E would have the same impacts as Alternative A for SRMA designation, 

except that Fantasy Canyon (69 acres) would be designated as an SRMA and the White River 

SRMA would increase in size from 24,183 acres to 47,130 acres. Backcountry Byways, 

motorized trails and cabins would not be developed under these alternatives. Therefore, these 

alternatives would generally have less adverse impacts and greater beneficial impacts than under 

other alternatives, including Alternative D (No Action). 

4.15.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would result in more direct and indirect, short- and long-term, adverse 

impacts than any other alternative due to lack of limits on OHV use. Other impacts from 

Alternative D (No Action) are similar to those under Alternative B. 

4.15.2.8. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

4.15.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, C, AND E 

The Proposed RMP, along with Alternatives A, C, and E, would implement the same 

management of riparian resources. The Proposed RMP and these alternatives propose stubble 

heights of 4 inches (30% utilization) where conditions are to be maintained and 6 inches (less 

than 20% utilization) if conditions are to be improved. Compared with Alternative D (No 

Action), the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E would foster improved riparian 

conditions and more beneficial impacts on water quality and soil productivity. Key herbaceous 

riparian species would provide more trapping and retention of sediment during high water events 

than Alternative D (No Action) provides. Key riparian woody vegetation would be managed 

more under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E, providing both direct and indirect, 

long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity via reduced soil erosion and 

sedimentation in streams. By contrast, no management of woody species is specified under 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.15.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Key herbaceous riparian vegetation, other than the stream banks, under Alternative B would not 

be grazed more than 50% during the growing season and not more than 60% during the dormant 

season. In this respect, Alternative B provides more beneficial impacts than Alternative D (No 

Action), which does not specify percent utilization. Key riparian woody vegetation would not be 

used more than 50%. Thus, Alternative B provides more protection to woody vegetation than 

Alternative D (No Action), which has no parameters specified for woody vegetation. Alternative 

B would implement the same management of key streamside herbaceous vegetation as 

Alternatives A and C. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-416 

4.15.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) has fewer beneficial impacts to soils and water than any other 

alternative, as it has a lower minimum stubble height after livestock grazing (Diamond 

Mountain: 3 inches, Book Cliffs: unspecified) and unspecified percent utilization. As well, key 

riparian woody vegetation use is not specified under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.15.2.9. IMPACTS OF SOILS AND WATER RESOURCES DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

4.15.2.9.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would use oil and gas industry slope disturbance 

guidelines (Gold Book) to limit surface disturbances from oil and gas activities, which would 

provide indirect, long-term beneficial impacts to soil and water quality by reducing soil erosion 

on steep hillsides, and thus reducing the potential for increased stream sedimentation. Under the 

Proposed RMP and Alternative A, surface disturbances on slopes between 21%–40% would 

require erosion control, GIS modeling, and surveying, and slopes greater than 40% would not be 

disturbed unless other proposed construction alternatives would cause unnecessary degradation. 

These actions would also provide indirect, long-term beneficial impacts to soils and water by 

reducing surface disturbances that cause soil erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation. The 

Proposed RMP would be slightly more protective of water quality than Alternative A because 

UDEQ BMPs would be implemented to prevent surface runoff. 

4.15.2.9.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Similar to the Proposed RMP, Alternative B would use oil and gas industry slope disturbance 

guidelines (Gold Book) to limit surface disturbances from oil and gas activities, and would 

require erosion control, GIS modeling, and surveying on slopes greater than 20% for 

unavoidable surface disturbances, with similar indirect beneficial impacts to soils and water 

quality as described for the Proposed RMP. This alternative would not restrict surface 

disturbances to slopes greater than 40%, and thus would not provide indirect beneficial impacts 

to soils and water quality, and would not protect steep slopes from surface-disturbance-caused 

erosion. 

4.15.2.9.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Alternatives C and E would have greater indirect beneficial impacts on soils and water quality 

than the other alternatives by applying the same management actions (with similar impacts) on 

21%–40% slopes as the Proposed RMP and by prohibiting surface disturbances (and thus 

reducing the risk of increased stream sedimentation) on slopes greater than 40%. 

4.15.2.9.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) proposes restrictions on slopes greater than 40% for mineral 

production only. Allowing other activities with no restrictions for slopes over 40% and not 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-417 

specifying slope restrictions on slopes less than 40% would have more indirect long-term 

adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity, as compared to other alternatives. 

4.15.2.10. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

4.15.2.10.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), Pariette (10,437 acres), Red MountainDry Fork (24,285 acres), Red Creek (24,475 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (44,168 acres), Lower 

Green River (8,470 acres), and Browns Park (18,490 acres) would continue to be managed as 

ACECs. These actions would have indirect long-term benefits to water quality and soil 

productivity, in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. 

The Proposed RMP would manage for continued recommendation for designation of river 

segments on the Upper and Lower Green River. This action may increase visitation but would 

prevent surface disturbance in the immediate vicinity and would overall have indirect, long-term 

benefits to water quality and soil productivity. 

4.15.2.10.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

In addition to existing ACECs, Alternative A proposes ACEC designation of Bitter Creek 

(68,834 acres), Coyote Basin (87,743 acres), and the White River corridor (17,810 acres), as well 

as slight expansion of Nine Mile Canyon (48,000 acres) ACEC. This alternative would result in 

less surface disturbance and would have indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil 

productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. By contrast, 

Alternative D (No Action) does not designate any of these ACECs except the Lower Green 

River, Browns Park, and Nine Mile Canyon. 

Alternative A recommends designation of new river segments on the White River (44 miles), as 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. This action may increase visitation, but would prevent surface 

disturbance in the immediate vicinity and would overall have more direct and indirect, long-term 

benefits to water quality and soil productivity, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.15.2.10.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would propose designation of 47,659 acres in Coyote Basin as a new ACEC, 

which would provide more beneficial impacts to soils and water resources than Alternative D 

(No Action), which would not designate this area. This alternative would not designate any other 

new ACECs nor Wild and Scenic Rivers and therefore would have similar impacts to soil and 

water resources, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.15.2.10.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Alternatives C and E would offer the greatest protection to soil and water resources through 

proposed ACEC designations. In addition to existing ACECs, Alternatives C and E propose 

ACEC designation of Bitter Creek (147,425 acres), Coyote Basin, which would include Kennedy 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-418 

Wash, Snake John, Shiner, and Myton Bench (124,161 acres), Middle Green River (6,768 acres), 

White River corridor (47,130 acres), Four Mile Wash (50,280 acres), and Main Canyon (100,915 

acres) and expansion of the lower Green River (10,170 acres) and Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 

acres) as ACECs. These alternatives would result in less surface disturbance and would have 

indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil 

erosion and sedimentation in streams. By contrast, Alternative D (No Action) does not designate 

any of these ACECs except the Lower Green River and Nine Mile Canyon. 

Alternatives C and E recommend designation of new river segments on the White River (44 

miles), Nine Mile Creek (2 segments: 19 miles), middle Green River (36 miles), Evacuation 

Creek (21 miles), Bitter Creek (22 miles), and Argyle Creek (22 miles) as Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. This action may increase visitation, but would prevent surface disturbance in the 

immediate vicinity and would overall have more direct and indirect long-term benefits to water 

quality and soil productivity, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.15.2.10.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) proposes no new designation of ACECs or WSRs This alternative 

would result in the greatest amount of surface disturbance, and would have indirect, long-term, 

adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity. 

4.15.2.11. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and C would result in the most beneficial, indirect 

impacts to water and soils and are similar with respect to raptors; however, the Proposed RMP 

offers the most protection and Alternative C offers slightly more protection than Alternative A. 

Alternative B would offer some habitat protection (and thus, soil protection), but the level of 

protection would be less than Alternatives A and C and the Proposed RMP. Alternative D (No 

Action) offers the least indirect protection of water and soil resources because raptor buffers for 

surface disturbance are unspecified in the Book Cliffs area. 

Improvement and maintenance of stream habitat in Bitter, Upper Willow, Beaver, Sears, Crouse, 

Tolivers, Davenport, Jackson, and Sweetwater Creeks, or others as found applicable, including 

tributaries, would have direct, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity by 

stabilizing stream banks and reducing erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation and salinity 

increases. 

4.15.2.12. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

4.15.2.12.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, newly permitted roads or trails would be obliterated 

and/or returned to their original condition when they no longer serve their permitted purpose or 

public interest. Roads causing resource damage would be closed if maintenance, upgrade or 

realignment is not feasible. In contrast, Alternative D (No Action) is unspecified with respect to 

roads and trails. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-419 

With respect to OHV travel, the Proposed RMP and Alternative A would allow open travel on 

6,202 acres, limited travel on 1,643,475 acres and no travel on 75,845 acres and would designate 

4,860 miles of routes. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A would allow unlimited travel on 781,657 fewer acres, would allow limited travel 

on 756,200 more acres, and would allow no travel on 25,457 more acres, and would designate 

4,860 more miles of routes for OHV travel. Alternative A would cause fewer adverse and more 

beneficial impacts to soils and water by limiting OHV use; thus, it would likely reduce soil 

erosion and sedimentation in streams. 

4.15.2.12.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, newly permitted roads or trails and roads adversely impacting water and 

soils would not be obliterated if the road or trail serves a public interest. This alternative would 

have the same impacts as Alternative D (No Action), with respect to obliteration and closing 

roads and trails. 

With respect to OHV travel, Alternative B would allow unlimited travel on 5,434 acres, limited 

travel on 1,659,901 acres and no travel on 60,187 acres and would designate 4,861 miles of 

routes. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative B would allow unlimited travel on 

782,425 fewer acres, would allow limited travel on 772,626 more acres, would allow no travel 

on 9,799 more acres, and would designate 4,861 more miles of routes for OHV travel. 

4.15.2.12.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, newly permitted roads or trails would be obliterated, and roads and trails 

causing resource damage would be closed if maintenance, upgrade or realignment would not 

protect resources. 

With respect to OHV travel, Alternative C would allow unlimited travel on 5,434 acres, limited 

travel on 1,353,529 acres and no travel on 366,559 acres and would designate 4,707 miles of 

routes. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative C would allow unlimited travel on 

782,425 fewer acres, allow limited travel on 466,254 more acres, allow no travel on 316,171 

more acres, and would designate 4,707 more miles of routes for OHV travel. This alternative 

would result in more beneficial and less adverse impacts to soils and water resources than all 

other alternatives except Alternative E. 

4.15.2.12.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), actions related to resource damage and newly created roads 

and trails are unspecified. With respect to OHV travel, Alternative D (No Action) would allow 

unlimited travel on 787,859 acres, would allow limited travel on 887,275 acres, and would allow 

no travel on 50,388 acres. Alternative D (No Action) provides relatively unrestricted OHV 

access, which would have an indirect long-term, adverse impact to water quality and soil 

productivity in the form of increased soil erosion and sedimentation in streams, which, in turn, 

would cause increases of salinity and loss of soil productivity. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-420 

4.15.2.12.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, newly permitted roads or trails would be obliterated, and roads and trails 

causing resource damage would be closed if maintenance, upgrade or realignment would not 

protect resources. 

With respect to OHV travel, Alternative E would allow unlimited travel on 5,434 acres, limited 

travel on 1,326,024 acres and no travel on 392,818 acres and would designate 4,654 miles of 

routes. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative E would allow unlimited travel on 

782,425 fewer acres, allow limited travel on 438,749 more acres, allow no travel on 342,430 

more acres, and would designate 4,654 more miles of routes for OHV travel. This alternative 

would provide the most beneficial and least adverse impacts to soils and water resources 

compared to all other alternatives. 

4.15.2.13. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WATER AND SOILS

4.15.2.13.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would designate approximately 289,687 acres as VRM Class I and II. This 

designation would generally result in less development and surface disturbance than Alternative 

D (No Action) and, thus, would result in fewer indirect, long-term adverse impacts to water 

quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. 

4.15.2.13.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

This alternative would designate 357,909 acres for management under VRM Class I and Class II. 

This designation would generally result in less development and surface disturbance than 

Alternative D (No Action) and, thus, would result in fewer indirect, long-term adverse impacts to 

water quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in 

streams. 

4.15.2.13.3. ALTERNATIVES B AND D 

Alternatives B and D propose designation of approximately 166,794 and 166,772 acres 

respectively as VRM Class I and II. This designation would result in the lowest limitations of 

development and surface disturbance and, thus, would result in fewer indirect, long-term benefits 

to water quality and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in 

streams. 

4.15.2.13.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C proposes designation of approximately 508,441 acres as VRM Class I and II. This 

designation would generally result in less development and surface disturbance than Alternative 

D (No Action) and would result in the second most indirect, long-term benefits to water quality 

and soil productivity in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in streams (following 

Alternative E). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-421 

4.15.2.13.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E proposes designation of approximately 594,210 acres as VRM Class I and II. This 

designation would generally result in less development and surface disturbance than Alternative 

D (No Action) and would result in the most indirect long-term benefits to water quality and soil 

productivity (following Alternative C) in the form of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation in 

streams. 

4.15.2.14. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WATER AND 

SOILS

4.15.2.14.1. THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C AND E 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E propose restriction of surface-disturbing 

activities. Qualitatively, the Proposed RMP and these alternatives would likely result in less 

development and surface disturbance and would have indirect, long-term benefits to water 

quality and soil productivity by reducing soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. 

4.15.2.14.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) proposes restriction of surface-disturbing activities to mineral 

exploration. This alternative would have more indirect, long-term adverse impacts to water 

quality and soil productivity than any action alternative by reducing soil erosion and 

sedimentation in streams. 

4.15.2.15. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS AND FOREST MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WATER AND 

SOILS

4.15.2.15.1. THE PROPOSED RMP ALTERNATIVE A 

The Proposed RMP would manage up to 552,152546,152 acres for treatments or be harvested to 

reduce fuel loadings and to provide salvage of products that are dying due to fire, disease, insectkill, and/or other disturbance, with the management intent of promoting healthy forest and 

woodlands. In addition, no vegetation removal would occur in WSAs. These management 

actions would have short-term, indirect adverse impacts on soil and water quality by increasing 

soil erosion and increasing stream sedimentation from surface disturbances during harvesting or 

treatments. The long-term impacts would be beneficial to soils and water by reducing the risks of 

wildland fire, and thus, reducing the risks of large-scale soil erosion and subsequent degradation 

of stream water quality. In comparison, management actions are unspecified under Alternative D 

(No Action) and would have more adverse impacts to water quality than under the Proposed 

RMP, due to increased erosion and stream sedimentation. 

4.15.2.15.2. ALTERNATIVE BA 

Alternative A would manage up to 552,152 acres for treatments or be harvested to reduce fuel 

loadings and to provide salvage of products that are dying due to fire, disease, insect-kill, and/or 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-422 

other disturbance, with the management intent of promoting healthy forest and woodlands. In 

addition, no vegetation removal would occur on 13,606 acres within WSAs. These management 

actions would have short-term, indirect adverse impacts on soil and water quality by increasing 

soil erosion and increasing stream sedimentation from surface disturbances during harvesting or 

treatments. The long-term impacts would be beneficial to soils and water by reducing the risks of 

wildland fire, and thus, reducing the risks of large-scale soil erosion and subsequent degradation 

of stream water quality. In comparison, management actions are unspecified under Alternative D 

(No Action) and would have more adverse impacts to water quality than under the Alternative A, 

due to increased erosion and stream sedimentation. 

4.15.2.15.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

The impacts of Alternative B would be similar to those described under Alternative A, except 

that 554,108 acres would be treated or harvested. 

4.15.2.15.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

The impacts under this alternative would have the same number of acres managed for treatments 

and harvesting as Alternative A (552,152), with similar impacts to soils and water as described 

for Alternative A. Woodland and forest species salvaging, under Alternative C, would not be 

allowed except when woodland, forest, or other resources are threatened in proposed ACECs, 

which would result in fewer indirect, long-term adverse impacts to soil and water resources 

through reduced surface disturbance; thus limiting soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. 

4.15.2.15.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) provides for treatment or harvesting of up to 88,200 acres of forest 

and 200,100 acres of woodlands. This alternative would likely reduce the risk of catastrophic 

wildfire, providing indirect, long-term benefits to water quality and soil productivity. Depending 

on management restrictions, treatment and harvest activities would also result in short-term and 

long-term, indirect, adverse impacts to water quality and soil productivity due to soil erosion and 

sedimentation. 

4.15.2.15.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under this alternative 421,133 acres would be managed for treatments and harvesting, with 

similar impacts to soils and water as described for Alternative C. Woodland and forest species 

salvaging, under Alternative E, would not be allowed in areas proposed for protection of 

wilderness characteristics, which would result in fewer indirect, long-term adverse impacts to 

soil and water resources through reduced surface disturbance; thus limiting soil erosion and 

sedimentation in streams. 

4.15.2.16. SUMMARY

The primary impacts to soil and water resources from the proposed alternatives are surface 

disturbance and vegetation loss, which would affect soil erosion, stream salinity, and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-423 

sedimentation. Other impacts are loss of soil productivity, increased road-bank erosion, localized 

headcutting in drainage channels from adjacent streams, and increased bank erosion from 

development within active channels of drainages. These processes have major impact on surface 

water quality and soil productivity. For this reason, almost all resource management decisions 

have some effect on soil and water resources. 

4.15.2.16.1. THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, fire management, vegetation treatment, oil and gas 

leasing, and land withdrawals have the greatest impact on soil and water resources because they 

encompass large areas of land. These activities result in long-term indirect impacts to surface and 

ground water quality and long-term direct impacts to soil productivity. Riparian management 

will have the most direct benefit to water quality, though it encompasses a smaller area. Mineral 

extraction also has adverse effects, including direct impacts to soil productivity and surface water 

quality, indirect impacts through surface disturbance, as well as potential impacts to groundwater 

quality. 

Overall, for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, compared to current management conditions 

there will be direct and indirect benefits to soil productivity, watershed health, and water quality. 

Because the Proposed RMP designated more areas as ACECs and has somewhat more protective 

management restrictions for Special Status Species, it would have slightly greater beneficial 

effects on water and soils than Alternative A. 

4.15.2.16.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B will generally result in more surface disturbance and indirect, long-term adverse 

impacts to soil productivity and surface water quality as compared to Alternative A. However, 

compared to current conditions, there will likely be little overall improvement or decline in soil 

productivity, watershed health, and water quality. 

4.15.2.16.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C will generally result in slightly less surface disturbance than the Proposed RMP, 

and will result in slightly greater benefit to soil and watershed health and water quality. 

Compared to current conditions, there will be an overall benefit to soil productivity, watershed 

health, and water quality from Alternative C. 

4.15.2.16.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) will result in no improvement or decline in soil productivity, 

watershed health, or surface water quality compared to current conditions. 

4.15.2.16.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would generally result in less surface disturbance than the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D. It would, thus result in the greatest benefits to soil and watershed 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-424 

health and water quality. Compared to current conditions, there would be an overall benefit to 

soil productivity, watershed health, and water quality from Alternative E. 

4.15.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation for impacts to water and soil resources would generally take the form of avoidance of 

activities likely to cause major resource degradation. Under standard Non-Point Source 

Management policies (UDEQ 2000), activities within the VPA are required to take into account 

storm-water runoff controls. Best Management Practices would be used in areas where runoff, 

erosion, or range management could affect water quality and soil productivity. Reduction of 

surface-disturbing activities in and near streams and rivers would also mitigate adverse effects. 

Administrative actions such as halting surface-disturbing activities, changes in grazing 

management, and increased enforcement of travel restrictions can be taken where water and soil 

resources are being degraded. 

4.15.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts from the Proposed RMP include short-term, increased erosion and 

sedimentation and short-term nutrient release to surface waters due to prescribed burning and 

vegetation management; increases to surface water temperature due to vegetation treatment and 

woodland harvesting immediately adjacent to streams; and loss of soil productivity and water 

quality degradation due to proposed oil and gas facilities and infrastructure. 

4.15.5. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Construction of oil and gas facilities and infrastructure would provide a short-term mineral use 

that would eventually result in long-term loss of soil productivity unless well pads are effectively 

restored. Long-term impacts to surface water quality and soil productivity are primarily the result 

of vegetation removal or prevention of revegetation, which allows continued erosion of soil and 

its resulting impact on surface waters. All activities described are surface-disturbing in nature 

and can result in long-term impacts due to short-term land uses. Impacts will persist as long as 

surface disturbance and vegetation loss continue. As oil and gas areas increase towards full field 

development, water quality degradation would shift from a short-term impact to one that is more 

long-term. 

4.15.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

All activities discussed result in short-term or long-term changes to soil productivity and surface 

water quality due to surface disturbance or loss of vegetation. However, almost all activities 

discussed are reversible with respect to surface water quality with appropriate revegetative or 

mitigation measures. 

Soil is a finite resource, and soil productivity would experience localized irreversible impacts if 

excessive erosion were to occur without mitigative control structures or practices. These 

irreversible impacts would be applicable to all activities described above. Sedimentation in 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.15. Soils and Water Resources

Vernal RMP 4-425 

surface waters resulting from excessive soil erosion and loss would also be an irreversible 

impact. 

Impacts to groundwater quality resulting from improper well construction and accidental releases 

of contaminated production water during oil and gas drilling would be considered to be 

irreversible on a reasonable time scale. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-426 

4.16. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

In general, management of specially designated areas (such as ACECs, WSRs, and WSAs) is 

focused on protection of their special values, while allowing those uses and activities that are 

considered compatible with the specific, special resources of concern, and restricting those uses 

and activities that would impact those identified value(s). In the case of ACECs, the management 

focuses on protecting and preventing irreparable damage to specific, identified relevant and 

important values. For river segments that are eligible / suitable for congressional designation into 

the National Wild and Scenic River System, the management focuses on protecting the 

identified, outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing water, and tentative classifications for 

eligible river segments. For WSAs, the management focuses on maintaining the wilderness 

setting, characteristics and experience. 

Some of the actions proposed in this plan would have no adverse impacts on existing or potential 

ACECs, eligible river segments, or wilderness characteristics regardless of the alternative 

chosen. Only decisions that may affect the values of these areas are analyzed further. 

4.16.1. ACECS

4.16.1.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

With the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, seven currently designated ACECs (Browns Park, 

Nine Mile Canyon, Lears Canyon, Lower Green River Corridor, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, Red 

Creek Watershed, and Pariette Wetlands) would be designated and continue to be managed as 

ACECs, and their relevant and important values, including historic, cultural, scenic, and fish and 

wildlife resources, would continue to be protected, subject to valid existing rights. See Table 

4.16.1 that follows for acreages under the Proposed RMP and each alternative. 

With the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, relevant and important values of existing and 

potential ACECs would benefit from the special management attention they would receive if 

designated, including development of comprehensive, integrated activity plans in some cases. 

The plans would address the maintenance and development of OHV or non-motorized trails, 

minimal facilities necessary for human health and safety, and other surface-disturbing activities 

that would be complementary to the goals and objectives of each ACEC. 

In the Proposed RMP and alternatives where some potential ACECs would not be designated or 

where surface disturbance would occur, the relevance and importance of these areas may be at 

some risk of irreparable damage during the life of the plan, depending upon the specific resource 

use or other actions proposed by the Proposed RMP or alternative. 

Decisions that would generally have a positive impact on existing and potential ACECs, 

regardless of whether the Proposed RMP or other alternative are chosen, include those involving 

fire management, soil and watershed, and vegetation (including riparian and upland vegetation) 

management. Vegetation treatments would, in the long-term, restore vegetative communities to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-427 

resemble more natural ecosystems, which are important to protecting the identified relevant and 

important values in some of the ACECs. 

In general, the more acres where mineral development is likely within existing and potential 

ACECs, the fewer acres there would be that would retain relevant and important values. In cases 

where mineral development would be allowed, the likelihood of surface disturbance affecting 

relevant and important values would be much greater in areas where standard stipulations or 

timing and controlled surface use stipulations would be applied. Also, some areas are at risk 

where cross country OHV travel ("open" areas) would continue under the Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.16.1.2. ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

The following table summarizes the acres proposed for ACEC designation by the Proposed RMP 

and alternatives. 

Table 4.16.1. Areas and Acres of ACECs That Would Be Designated by Alternative 

Area Proposed 

RMP 

(acres) 

Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative 

B (acres) 

Alternative 

C (acres) 

Alternative D 

(No Action) 

(acres) 

Alternative E 

(acres) 

Bitter Creek 0 68,834 0 68,834 0 68,834 

Bitter Creek – 

P.R. Spring 

0 0 0 78,591 0 78,591 

Browns Park 18,490 52,721 18,474 52,721 52,721 52,721 

Coyote Basin 0 87,743 47,659 0 0 0 

Coyote Basin – 

Coyote Basin 

0 0 0 26,590 0 26,590 

Coyote Basin – 

Kennedy Wash 

0 0 0 10,670 0 10,670 

Coyote Basin – 

Myton Bench 

0 0 0 36,670 0 36,670 

Coyote Basin – 

Shiner 

0 0 0 21,957 0 21,957 

Coyote Basin – 

Snake John 

0 0 0 28,274 0 28,274 

Four Mile Wash 0 0 0 50,280 0 50,280 

Lears Canyon 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 

Lower Green 

River 

8,470 10,170 8,470 10,170 8,470 10,170 

Main Canyon 0 0 0 100,915 0 100,915 

Middle Green 

River 

0 0 0 6,768 0 6,768 

Nine Mile 

Canyon 

44,168 48,000 44,181 81,168 44,181 81,168 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-428 

Table 4.16.1. Areas and Acres of ACECs That Would Be Designated by Alternative 

Area Proposed 

RMP 

(acres) 

Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative 

B (acres) 

Alternative 

C (acres) 

Alternative D 

(No Action) 

(acres) 

Alternative E 

(acres) 

Red Creek 

Watershed 

24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 

Red MountainDry Fork 

24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285 

Pariette 

Wetlands 

10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 

White River 

Corridor 

0 17,810 0 47,130 0 47,130 

Totals 131,700 345,850 179,356 681,310 165,944 681,310 

4.16.1.2.1. BITTER CREEK AND BITTER CREEK-P.R. SPRING ACECS

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives B and D (No Action) would not designate Bitter Creek or 

Bitter Creek-P.R. Springs as ACECs and would not afford special management protection. 

However, other resource decisions would continue to protect some of the relevance and 

importance values. Leasing for oil and gas development would be limited to NSO for the old 

growth pinyon pine area (160 acres). These management actions would preserve pinyon pine 

habitat, with indirect positive benefits to wildlife that use that type of habitat (See Wildlife 

Section). These management actions would also result in decreased fire risk and improved water 

quality in streams in the Bitter Creek Watershed. 

Under Alternative A, 68,834 acres would be designated as the Bitter Creek ACEC/Research 

Natural Area to protect high-value old-growth pinyon pine, cultural resources, historic features, 

and watersheds. Special management actions would include establishing a research/monitoring 

program, enhancing habitat using forest treatments, and restricting wood-cutting around the old 

growth pinyon. Leasing for oil and gas development would be limited to NSO for the old growth 

pinyon pine area (160 acres). These management actions would preserve pinyon pine habitat, 

with indirect positive benefits to wildlife that use that type of habitat (See Wildlife Section). 

These management actions would also result in decreased fire risk and improved water quality in 

streams in the Bitter Creek Watershed. 

Under Alternatives C and E, 68,834 acres would be designated as the Bitter Creek ACEC and 

78,591 acres would be designated as the Bitter Creek/P.R. Spring ACEC. The ACECs are 

adjoining, and together would be managed as a contiguous polygon of 147,425 acres. For either 

alternative the management would be the same. The area would be managed to protect oldgrowth pinyon pine, cultural resources, historical features, and watersheds. Special management 

actions would include the following: establishing a research/monitoring program, enhancing 

habitat through forest manipulation, and restricting wood cutting around old-growth pinyon 

forests. These management actions would preserve pinyon pine habitat, with indirect positive 

benefits to wildlife that use that type of habitat. These management actions would also result in 

decreased fire risk and improved water quality in streams in the Bitter Creek Watershed. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-429 

Alternatives C and E would designate both ACECs, and there would be more than double the 

acreage protected, compared with Alternative A. This would result in roughly twice the 

protection to existing habitat and watershed health in the area. 

Alternatives C and E would also place similar restrictions on OHV use and mineral development 

in the area. These two alternatives would require somewhat more area to be closed to leasing or 

leased with an NSO stipulation. Based on the acres designated under each alternative and these 

increased restrictions, Alternative C and E would result in greater restrictions to mineral 

development in the ACEC, followed by Alternatives A and the Proposed RMP and Alternatives 

B and D (No Action), respectively. 

Under Alternative E, parts of the ACECs would be managed to protect non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, including Bitter Creek (33,488 acres), Rat Hole Ridge (11,367 acres), 

Cripple Cowboy (13,603 acres), and Sweet Water Canyon (6,994 acres). To protect those values, 

management of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would limit surface 

disturbance, including avoidance from rights-of-way location; management to VRM Class I 

objectives; and closure to OHV use, oil and gas leasing, fire wood cutting, mineral material 

sales, and road construction (see Table 2.1.10). These measures would limit the vegetation 

manipulation needed to enhance the relevant and important watershed values of the ACEC to the 

use of prescribed fire. On the other hand, limitations on surface disturbance would protect the 

relevant and important old growth pinyon, cultural resources, and historic values of the ACEC. 

4.16.1.2.2. COYOTE BASIN ACEC AND THE COYOTE BASIN COMPLEX ACEC18

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative D (No Action), Coyote Basin would not be designated 

as an ACEC, affording no special management attention or protection to the identified relevant 

and important values. However, other resource decisions would continue to protect some of the 

relevance and importance values. The VRM Class II objectives, limiting OHV travel to 

designated routes, and oil and gas leasing with controlled surface use would limit surface 

disturbance that would protect habitat for the white-tailed prairie dogs. 

Alternative A would designate 87,743 acres as a Research Natural Area ACEC for protection of 

critical ecosystem for the white-tailed prairie dog and other special status species associated with 

the ecosystem. Under Alternative B, the Coyote Basin ACEC would include 47,659 acres of 

critical ecosystem for the black-footed ferret. Under Alternatives C and E, the Coyote Basin 

Complex ACEC would include the sub-complexes of Coyote Basin, Snake John, Shiner, 

Kennedy Wash, and Myton Bench for a total of 124,161 acres. These areas are proposed as 

ACECs because they contain populations of white-tailed prairie dogs and/or habitat. Plague has 

resulted in adverse impacts to white-tailed prairie dog in Utah. Designation of the Coyote Basin 

ACEC and the Coyote Basin Complex ACEC would not prevent the continued adverse impacts 

from the plague, but it would preserve essential habitat for remaining prairie dog populations in 

the planning area. 

18 There are two different polygons under the title Coyote Basin ACEC. One is proposed in Alternatives A and B 

and comprises 87,743 acres and 47,659 acres, respectively. In addition, there is a Coyote Basin sub-complex called 

Coyote Basin under Alternatives C and E that comprises 26,590 acres. They are all somewhat inclusive of one 

another regarding geographic location. Refer to Figures 29–32. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-430 

Alternatives C and E would provide the greatest amount of habitat and, therefore, the greatest 

potential protection to prairie dogs. Alternative A would provide the next greatest benefit 

followed by Alternative B. The Proposed RMP and Alternative D (No Action) would not 

designate either ACEC, offering no additional protection of the white-tailed prairie dog or blackfooted ferret. 

Each of the areas under Alternatives A, B, C, and E would be designated as a Research Natural 

Area, which would provide additional opportunities for research to identify the potential vectors 

for transmission of plague. This, in turn, could provide some long-term information for the 

treatment of this disease. However, designation of these ACECs does not guarantee the 

continued population viability of the white-tailed prairie dog in view of the potential mortality 

from continued spread of the disease. 

Designation of the Coyote Basin ACEC or the Coyote Basin Complex ACEC would impact 

other resources found within the ACECs. These ACECs would provide essential habitat for the 

potential reintroduction of black-footed ferret. The white-tailed prairie dog provides forage for 

the black-footed ferret and is considered necessary for its successful recovery in the project area. 

Accordingly, Alternatives C and E would provide the greatest potential positive benefit to the 

black-footed ferret, followed by Alternatives A and B. Under Alternatives A, B, C, and E, habitat 

in the ACEC would also be managed to protect critical habitat for other wildlife species that use 

the Coyote Basin ACEC. These species include the pronghorn, and sensitive species such as 

Bobolink, Ferruginous Hawk, Peregrine Falcon, Sage Grouse, Long-billed Curlew, Grasshopper 

Sparrow, Short-eared Owl, big free-tailed bat, black-footed ferret, ringtail cat, and dwarf shrew. 

Accordingly, Alternatives C and E would have the greatest potential benefits to these species and 

their habitat, followed by Alternatives A and B. 

Under Alternatives C and E, the area would be subject primarily to standard lease terms, but 

would include areas managed with timing and controlled surface use and NSO for oil and gas 

leasing. Alternatives A and B would be subject primarily to standard lease terms and timing and 

controlled surface use. OHV use would be limited to designated routes and closed under all 

alternatives. These stipulations, combined with the size of the proposed Coyote Basin ACEC or 

Coyote Basin Complex ACEC, would manage oil and gas development and OHV use to ensure 

protection of the species and their habitat under Alternatives A, B, C, and E. These surface 

management stipulations would also apply to the development of other solid mineral resources in 

the ACEC. 

4.16.1.2.3. FOUR MILE WASH ACEC 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and D, Four Mile Wash would not be 

designated as an ACEC. Alternatives C and E would designate 50,280 acres in the Four Mile 

Wash area as an Outstanding Natural Area ACEC to protect high-value scenery, riparian 

ecosystems, and special status fish species. Management actions include closing the area to oil 

and gas leasing. Visual resources would be managed as Class II, III, and IV. OHV use would be 

limited to designated routes. However, under the Proposed RMP, other resource decisions would 

continue to protect some of the relevance and importance values. The VRM Class II objectives, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-431 

limiting OHV travel to designated routes, and oil and gas leasing with NSO in the river corridor 

and controlled surface use would limit surface disturbance that impact T&E species in the Green 

River. 

Under Alternative E, much of the ACEC would be managed to preserve the wilderness 

characteristics on 43,013 acres of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics that lie within the ACEC. Protection of wilderness characteristics would limit 

surface disturbance in the ACEC by closing the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

to OHV use and oil and gas leasing and by managing for little or no change to the landscape 

under VRM Class I objectives. Alternative E would limit surface disturbances, offering more 

protection to the relevant and important scenery, riparian ecosystem, and fisheries than offered 

by Alternative C. These limits on surface disturbance and motorized vehicle use would 

emphasize primitive and non-motorized recreation activities and experiences by preserving a 

natural setting and prohibiting motorized recreation that intrudes upon primitive activities. 

Accordingly, Alternatives C and E would provide the greatest protection to wildlife and their 

habitat, scenery, and recreation opportunities in the area. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, 

B, and D (No Action) would have greater impacts to these resources, as they would impose the 

fewest restrictions to oil and gas development. 

4.16.1.2.4. MIDDLE GREEN RIVER ACEC 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and D would not designate this area as an ACEC. 

Currently, this section of the river is used for recreational use (hunting and fishing), as well as 

some OHV use. However, other resource decisions would continue to protect some of the 

relevance and importance values. The VRM Class II objectives, limiting OHV travel to 

designated routes, and oil and gas leasing with controlled surface use would limit surface 

disturbance that would protect riparian resources, water quality, as well as T&E species. 

Under Alternatives C and E, 6,768 acres of the Middle Green River (line of sight from the 

centerline of the river up to one-half mile along both sides) between Dinosaur National 

Monument and the boundary of the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge would be designated as an 

ACEC to protect the riparian ecosystem. Special management attention would include permitting 

only surface-disturbing activities found complimentary to the goals and objectives of the ACEC. 

The area would be open to oil and gas leasing subject mostly to standard lease terms and 

managed with timing and controlled surface use stipulations. Visual resources would be 

managed as Class II (115 acres), III (3,492 acres) or IV (3,161 acres). OHV use would be limited 

to designated routes. 

ACEC designation would result in some protection to riparian resources. Impacts to riparian 

resources under Alternative C would be protective in the form of reduced potential disturbance to 

riparian resources with associated improvements in riparian wildlife habitat and water quality. 

This section of the Green River provides habitat for Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. 

Accordingly, designation of this section as an ACEC would have some positive impact on these 

species. However, the management actions associated with this ACEC would not extensively 

change the use of the area, therefore, these benefits are unlikely to be substantial in relation to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-432 

the other existing threats to these species (i.e., exotic fish introductions and existing dams on the 

Green River). This section of the Green River is used for recreational boaters. Limiting 

development along this corridor to activities complimentary to maintaining the riparian area 

would improve the recreational experience for these users. 

4.16.1.2.5. LOWER GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR AND EXPANSION ACECS

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives B and D (No Action) would designate 8,470 acres of the 

Lower Green River Corridor as an ACEC to provide special management attention to scenery 

and the riparian ecosystem, extending only west from the centerline of the river. Oil and gas 

leases would be issued primarily with an NSO stipulation. Visual resources would be managed 

as Class II. OHV would be limited to designated routes. These restrictions would limit surface 

disturbance and protect both riparian and upland habitat along the corridor. This would have a 

protective effect on resident and migrating birds and other wildlife. It would also protect critical 

habitat for such sensitive species as the American White Pelican, Bald Eagle, Long-billed 

Curlew, Black Tern, Mountain Plover, Caspian Tern, Common Yellow Throat, Ferruginous 

Hawk, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, Grasshopper Sparrow, Lewis' Woodpecker, Short-eared Owl, 

black-footed ferret, Townsend's big-eared bat, Utah milk snake, Colorado pikeminnow, 

razorback sucker, roundtail chub, and the Uinta Basin hookless cactus. The river corridor is a 

prime location for prehistoric and historical cultural sites as well. Therefore, this alternative 

would result in reduced potential surface disturbance and impacts to these resources, and 

enhance recreational opportunities. The Proposed RMP as well as Alternatives B and D would 

not designate 1,700 acres of the Lower Green River Expansion as an ACEC. However, other 

resource decisions would continue to protect some of the relevance and importance values. The 

VRM Class II objectives, limiting OHV travel to designated routes, and oil and gas leasing 

(NSO) would limit surface disturbance that would protect riparian resources, water quality, as 

well as T&E species. Alternatives A, C, and E would designate 10,170 acres of the Lower Green 

River between the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge and the Carbon County line as an ACEC. 

This is an expansion of the existing Lower Green River ACEC as described in the Proposed 

RMP and Alternatives B and D (No Action). The 1,700-acre increase adds the eastern portion of 

the river (line of sight from the center line of the river up to 0.5 mile). The impacts of ACEC 

management on other resource values and uses under Alternatives A, C, and E would be similar 

to those under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives B and D (No Action), affecting a larger area 

of land. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives B and D (No Action) would have benefits similar to those 

described above for Alternatives A, C, and E but to a lesser degree because fewer acres would be 

designated for special management protection. Alternative E would have the same impacts of 

ACEC designation and management as Alternatives A and C, except that under Alternative E a 

portion of the ACEC would be managed to preserve the wilderness characteristics on 5,329 acres 

of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that lie within the 

ACEC. Protection of wilderness characteristics would limit surface disturbance in a portion of 

the ACEC by closing the area to OHV use and to oil and gas leasing and by managing the 

landscape under VRM Class I objectives. This prescription would limit surface disturbances, 

offering protection to the relevant and important scenery and riparian ecosystem. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-433 

4.16.1.2.6. WHITE RIVER ACEC 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives B and D (No Action) would not designate the White River 

as an ACEC. Accordingly, the Proposed RMP and these alternatives would not afford special 

management attention to the relevant and important geologic formations, scenery, and riparian 

ecosystems, and result in greater adverse impacts to these values from other resource uses along 

the river corridor. However, other resource decisions would limit surface disturbance and 

continue to protect some of the relevance and importance values. The central portion of the river 

canyon would be managed with emphasis on protection of its wilderness characteristics. Most of 

the public lands along the river canyon would be closed to oil and gas leasing or would be 

available for leasing with an NSO stipulations. The river downstream of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would be managed as a special recreation management area 

(SMRA) providing primitive recreation activities such a floating, primitive camping, fishing, 

hiking, and wildlife viewing. Much of the river corridor would be closed to disposal of sand, 

gravel, and building stone. Most of the river canyon would be managed VRM Class II for 

retention of the characteristic landscape. Surface disturbance would be prohibited within 

floodplains and 100 meters of riparian zones. OHV use would be limited to designated routes. 

Furthermore, compliance with endangered species and cultural resource protection laws would 

continue to afford protection of those elements of the ACEC relevant and important values. 

Under Alternatives C and E, 47,130 acres along the White River would be managed as an ACEC 

to protect unique geologic formations with spectacular vistas and the high-value river riparian 

ecosystem. The ACEC would be managed as VRM Class I, II, III, and IV and would be closed 

and limited to designated routes for OHV use to meet the management objectives of the ACEC. 

Oil and gas leasing would be permitted with an NSO stipulation within line of sight from the 

centerline, up to one-half mile either side of the river. Areas beyond the 0.5-mile buffer would be 

open to oil and gas leasing subject to standard lease terms and timing and controlled surface use 

stipulations, or closed to leasing. This larger ACEC would result in an associated increase in the 

protections to geological formations, riparian and upland habitat, and the recreational experience. 

A portion of the ACEC under Alternative E would include the White River non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics (21,167 acres) and would be managed to preserve those characteristics. 

Protection of wilderness characteristics would limit surface disturbance by closing the area to 

OHV use and oil and gas leasing and by managing the landscape for little or no change 

according to VRM Class I objectives. Protection of wilderness characteristics in part of the 

ACEC would offer further protection to the relevant and important geology, scenery, and 

riparian values. 

The White River provides critical habitat for the endangered Colorado pikeminnow, as well as 

habitat for other threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, including the razorback sucker, 

flannel mouth sucker, roundtail chub, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Peregrine Falcon, and Bald Eagle. 

Alternatives C and E would benefit these species through the preservation of riparian habitat and 

the associated improvements to water quality. These alternatives, in particular, close OHV use in 

the western portion of the ACEC. This management prescription would limit surface disturbance 

and provide have additional benefits for the species. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-434 

Alternative A would designate 17,810 acres of the river corridor as an ACEC to provide special 

management attention to the identified values of the area. The management prescription would 

be very similar to that described for Alternatives C and E, but applicable to a smaller area. The 

resultant impacts, thus, would be similar on a smaller portion of the river corridor. 

4.16.1.2.7. NINE MILE CANYON ACEC 

The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would designate an ACEC to provide special management 

attention to the relevant and important values, to 44,168 acres and 48,000 acres, respectively. 

The management prescription under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A would be very similar 

to that of Alternatives B, C, D, and E, and thus so would the resultant impacts to the relevant and 

important values of the ACEC. The designation of 44,168 acres from upper rim to upper rim of 

the canyon as an ACEC would protect identified relevant and important values. See the analysis 

of Alternatives of B, C, D and E below. This designation is consistent with the ACEC 

designation in the Price Field Office Proposed RMP. The relevant and important values of 

historic properties would be protected through cultural laws, rules and regulations. 

Alternatives C and E would designate 81,168 acres in Nine Mile Canyon as an ACEC. Each 

alternative would require the development and implementation of a comprehensive integrated 

activity plan. Under these alternatives, the ACEC would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to 

standard lease terms, timing and controlled surface use, and NSO stipulations. Visual resources 

would be managed, in part, as Class II and III to meet different management objectives in 

different parts of the ACEC. OHV use would be limited to designated routes or closed. These 

actions would manage surface disturbance to ensure the protection of relevant and important 

values. 

These alternatives would provide protection to existing cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, 

including nationally significant Fremont, Ute, and Archaic rock art and structures. Additionally, 

this ACEC would protect wildlife habitat, vegetation (including special status species), and 

visual resources. Protection of the cultural resources and wildlife values would enhance 

recreational opportunities in the ACEC. 

Alternative E would have the same impacts as those described for Alternative C except that 

20,963 acres of the Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics located in 

the ACEC would be managed to preserve the area's wilderness values. In the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, the area would be closed to oil and gas leasing and OHV use, and 

an avoidance area for ROWs. The landscape would be managed for little to no change according 

to VRM Class I objectives. This prescription for the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics is more restrictive than the prescription for the remainder of the ACEC and would 

allow little surface disturbance or intrusion by motorized vehicles. These limitations would 

protect cultural resources in place, preserve the natural landscapes (scenery), protect sensitive 

plants, and limit disturbance to wildlife utilizing the area, all relevant and important ACEC 

values. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-435 

Alternatives B, and D would designate 44,181 acres in Nine Mile Canyon as an ACEC, with 

effects on the relevant and important values similar to those described under Alternatives C and 

E, but affecting a smaller ACEC. 

Based on the acres that would be designated and the management prescriptions, Alternatives C 

and E would provide the greatest protection to relevant and important ACEC values, followed by 

Alternatives A, B, and D (No Action), then the Proposed RMP. 

4.16.1.2.8. MAIN CANYON ACEC 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and D (No Action) would not designate the Main 

Canyon ACEC or prescribe special management attention to protect the relevant and important 

values of the area. However, other resource decisions would continue to protect some of the 

relevant and important values. Nearly half of the Main Canyon acreage is within the Winter 

Ridge WSA. This area would be protected under the IMP with VRM Class I objectives, closed to 

oil and gas leasing, and closed to OHV travel. Lands outside of the Winter Ridge WSA would be 

limited to OHV travel; open to oil and gas leasing with moderate constraints; avoidance of steep 

slopes; timing limitations for crucial deer and elk winter range; habitat improvement with 

vegetation treatment; and protection of historic properties through cultural laws, rules and 

regulations. 

Alternative C would designate 100,915 acres in Main Canyon as an ACEC to protect relevant 

and important cultural and historic resources and natural systems. Special management attention 

would include permitting only surface-disturbing activities found to be complementary or 

compatible with the goals and objectives of the ACEC. The area would be closed and managed 

with timing and controlled surface use for oil and gas leasing. Visual resources would be 

managed as VRM Class I and Class II. OHV use would be closed and limited to designated 

routes. These management actions would limit surface disturbance and protect numerous cultural 

sites, including sites associated with the historical Northern Ute migration route along Main 

Canyon. Management of the visual resources according to Class I and II objectives would limit 

landscape modifications, preserve the visual aesthetics of the area, and enhance the recreational 

experience. 

Alternative E would also designate a 100,915-acre ACEC with impacts similar to those described 

for Alternative C. However, under this alternative, the ACEC includes portions of the Wolf Point 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (11,802 acres within the ACEC), which would be 

managed to preserve its wilderness characteristics. To protect the wilderness characteristics of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, Wolf Point would be closed to OHV use and 

oil and gas leasing, and a ROW avoidance area. To preserve the natural characteristics of the 

area, the landscape would be managed according to VRM Class I objectives. This prescription 

would limit or prohibit surface disturbance, protecting the relevant and important cultural, 

historic, and natural system values of the ACEC. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-436 

4.16.1.2.9. BROWNS PARK ACEC 

The Proposed RMP would designate an 18,490-acre ACEC for the same values, following a very 

similar management prescription to Alternative B. Under Alternative B, 18,475 acres would be 

designated as an ACEC to provide special management attention to the protection of scenery, 

wildlife habitat, and cultural resources. The area would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to 

standard lease terms, timing and controlled surface use, and NSO; and some parts of the ACEC 

would be closed to leasing. OHV use would be closed and limited to designated routes. The 

effect on the relevant and important scenery, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources would be the 

same as described for Alternative B. Under the Proposed RMP, Lower Flaming Gorge, Cold 

Spring Mountain and Mountain Home would also be managed to protect their wilderness 

characteristics, with a similar management prescription to Alternative E. The resultant impacts 

on ACEC values in Brown's Park would be similar to Alternative E. 

The remaining 34,231 that would not be designated as an ACEC under the Proposed RMP would 

continue to protect the relevant and important values through VRM Class II objectives, OHVs 

limited to designated roads, and oil and gas leasing would be opened with moderate and major 

constraints such as timing limitations for crucial deer and elk winter range and NSO. 

Alternatives A, C, and E would designate 52,721 acres in Browns Park as an ACEC. Under these 

alternatives, the BLM would develop a comprehensive integrated activity plan that would 

address protection of the relevant and important scenery, wildlife habitat, and cultural and 

historic resources. 

The area would be closed to oil and gas leasing or leased primarily with NSO or timing and 

controlled surface use stipulations. Visual resources would be managed as according to VRM 

Class I or Class II objectives under Alternative E. OHV use would be closed or limited to 

designated routes. This prescription would limit surface disturbance and preserve wildlife habitat 

and cultural resources. It would also afford protection to visual resources and would 

consequently improve the recreational setting and experience in the area. Closing the area to 

OHV use and restricting OHV use to existing routes would decrease surface disturbance. 

Because the ACEC would be larger and would have greater restrictions on minerals development 

and landscape modification under Alternatives A, C and E, there would be greater protection of 

wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and recreation opportunities, in comparison with the effects 

under Alternatives B. 

Under Alternative E portions of Lower Flaming Gorge (11,274 acres), Dead Horse Pass (1,665 

acres), Cold Spring Mountain (8,649 acres), and Mountain Home (2,089 acres) non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics are located in the ACEC, and they would be managed to protect 

their wilderness characteristics. To protect their wilderness characteristics, these non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would be closed to OHV use, oil and gas leasing, mineral 

material sales, wood cutting, and road construction. The non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would also be managed for avoidance from location of ROWs. The landscape 

would be managed according to VRM Class I objectives to preserve its undeveloped character. 

This prescription would limit activities that disturb the landform and vegetation, protecting 

scenery, wildlife habitat, and cultural and historic resources values of the ACEC. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-437 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 52,721 acres of Browns Park would continue to be managed 

as an ACEC. The area would have similar restriction on oil and gas development. OHV use 

would be open, closed, and limited to designated routes in different parts of the ACEC. The 

effects on the relevant and important scenery, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources would be 

similar to Alternatives A, C, and E. 

4.16.1.3. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts to relevant and important ACEC values would occur from surface 

disturbance associated with mineral development and OHV activity, depending upon the ACEC 

values and Proposed RMP or alternative. 

4.16.1.4. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Any loss of ACEC values due to surface disturbances would remain throughout the life of the 

plan. 

4.16.1.5. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

In those potential ACECs, not proposed for management of their relevant and important values 

under any of the alternatives, any loss of identified ACEC values that would result from surface 

disturbance caused by mineral development, OHV use, or other development, would be 

irretrievable. It is not anticipated that any impacts would be irreversible. 

4.16.2. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

4.16.2.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, segments of the Upper Green and Lower 

Green River would continue to be recommended to Congress as suitable and managed to protect 

the outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing water, and tentative classifications of these 

segments, subject to valid existing rights. 

In the Proposed RMP and all alternatives where eligible rivers would be determined suitable, the 

BLM would protect the outstandingly remarkable values, tentative classification, and freeflowing water of these rivers 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. 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. Unless public land is somehow involved in a proposed land use, 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 this factor, there would be no 

affect on the Colorado River Compact from protective management of eligible/suitable 

segments. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-438 

Under the Alternative D (No Action), a suitability determination would not be made, and BLM 

would continue to manage some of the eligible river segments to protect their outstandingly 

remarkable values, free-flowing water, and tentative classification to the extent of its authority as 

identified above, consistent with existing land use plan decisions and subject to valid existing 

rights. In the case of those river segments that were reviewed and determined unsuitable in the 

Diamond Mountain RMP, that decision would remain in effect. 

For those river segments that would not be recommended suitable for wild and scenic river 

designation under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, many other prescriptions of the 

Proposed RMP and alternatives would still afford protection to the river corridor, free-flowing 

water, and river values. For example, surface disturbance restrictions in riparian zones and 

floodplains would protect river shoreline and water quality. Actions proposed to protect riparian 

obligate and aquatic wildlife species and their habitat would protect river values. Vegetation 

treatments implemented to restore riparian and upland vegetation communities would enhance 

watershed health, water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, and recreation settings and 

experiences. However, varying degrees of construction, development, and use would be allowed 

in these river corridors, including recreation development, motorized travel, and placement of 

utility lines and facilities. These actions would result in some level of surface disturbance and 

development that could alter "wild" or "scenic" classifications. 

Refer to Table 4.16.2 for a listing of river segments and total river miles that would be 

determined suitable by alternative. 

Table 4.16.2. River Segments That Would Be Determined Suitable and Total River Miles 

by Alternative 

River/River 

Segment 

Proposed 

RMP 

(river 

miles) 

 

Alternative

A (river 

miles) 

Alternative 

B (river 

miles) 

 

Alternative 

C (river 

miles) 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

(river 

miles)1

Alternative

E (river 

miles) 

White River 

"scenic" between 

the state line and 

its confluence with 

Asphalt Wash 

(Segment 1) 

0 24 0 24 0 2 

White River "wild" 

between Asphalt 

Wash to where 

the river leaves 

Section 18 T10S 

R23E SLBM 

(Segment 2) 

0 10 0 10 0 10 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-439 

Table 4.16.2. River Segments That Would Be Determined Suitable and Total River Miles 

by Alternative 

River/River 

Segment 

Proposed 

RMP 

(river 

miles) 

 

Alternative

A (river 

miles) 

Alternative 

B (river 

miles) 

 

Alternative 

C (river 

miles) 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

(river 

miles)1

Alternative

E (river 

miles) 

White River 

"scenic" from 

where the river 

leaves Section 18 

T10S R23E SLBM, 

and the Indian 

Trust land 

boundary 

(Segment 3) 

0 0 0 10 0 10 

Nine Mile Creek 

"scenic" within 

Duchesne County 

between the 

Green River and 

the Duchesne 

County Line 

(Segment A) 

0 0 0 13 0 13 

Nine Mile Creek 

"recreational" 

within Duchesne 

County, between 

the Carbon county 

line and its 

confluence with 

Gate Canyon 

(Segment B) 

0 0 0 6 0 6 

Upper Green 

River 

22 22 22 22 22 22 

Lower Green 

River 

30 30 30 30 30 30 

Middle Green 

River 

0 0 0 36 0 36 

Evacuation Creek 0 0 0 21 0 21 

Bitter Creek 0 0 0 22 0 22 

Argyle Creek 0 0 0 22 0 22 

Total River Miles 52 86 52 216 52 192 

Total BLM 

Shoreline Miles 

39 57 39 112 39 104 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-440 

Table 4.16.2. River Segments That Would Be Determined Suitable and Total River Miles 

by Alternative 

River/River 

Segment 

Proposed 

RMP 

(river 

miles) 

 

Alternative

A (river 

miles) 

Alternative 

B (river 

miles) 

 

Alternative 

C (river 

miles) 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

(river 

miles)1

Alternative

E (river 

miles) 

1 In addition, 87 miles of river involving the White River (Segments 1, 2, and 3), Evacuation Creek, and Bitter Creek would remain 

eligible with this alternative. 

2 Alternative E would not recommend Segment A suitable, but would manage and protect the segment as eligible pending 

completion of a review of the permit for dam construction. 

 Note: Mileage is approximate. 

4.16.2.2. ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

4.16.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE B 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative B, 52 river miles (39 miles of BLM shoreline) would 

be recommended suitable for designation into the National Wild an Scenic River System. The 

Green River (Upper and Lower Segments) would be determined suitable for designation into the 

National Wild and Scenic River System (see Table 4.16.2) with a tentative classification of 

"Scenic" for both river segments. Where BLM manages the shoreline or other lands within the 

river corridors, BLM would protect the outstandingly remarkable values (unique natural, scenic, 

recreational, fish and wildlife and cultural values), tentative classification, and free-flowing 

nature of these rivers. Because other resource allocations would be consistent with management 

of the rivers' suitability, the Proposed RMP and Alternative B would provide greater protection 

to outstanding remarkable values than would the Alternative D (No Action). Under the Proposed 

RMP and Alternative B, a mineral withdrawal would be pursued to prevent mineral entry and 

related surface disturbance, and therefore protect the outstandingly remarkable values and 

tentative classification of the Upper Green River and the Lower Green River. 

The Upper and Lower Green River would largely be protected from disturbance related to 

mineral development by either being closed to mineral leasing or by no surface occupancy 

stipulations. 

Both suitable river segments would be in a limited or closed OHV category, with most of the 

segments limited to designated routes. 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 life of the plan. 

4.16.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE C 

With Alternative C, 216 river miles (112 miles of BLM shoreline) including all 11 eligible river 

segments would be recommended suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic 

River System (see Table 4.16.2). Where BLM manages the shoreline or other lands within the 

river corridors, BLM would protect the outstandingly remarkable values (unique natural, scenic, 

recreational, fish and wildlife and cultural values), tentative classification, and free-flowing 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-441 

nature of these rivers. Overall, this alternative would provide the greatest protection to the 

outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature and tentative classification of these 

segments. However, where mineral development would be allowed (on valid existing leases) 

with standard stipulations or timing and controlled surface use, or where other mineral 

development would be allowed within the corridor of Evacuation Creek, White River (Segments 

1 and 3), Middle Green River, and Nine Mile Creek, segment B (on valid existing leases), the 

outstandingly remarkable values of these rivers would be at risk. The White River and 

Evacuation Creek segments are most at risk as they are within an area of foreseeable mineral 

development. 

The proposed locatable mineral withdrawals would also be protective of the outstandingly 

remarkable values of the Upper Green River, the White River (Segment 2), and the Lower Green 

River. With this alternative, public access (which may involve easement or exchange and 

improvement of existing routes) would be pursued for Segment 1 of the White River at the 

mouth of Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. This would enhance 

access to the river corridor and 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. 

The suitability recommendation for Segment 1 of the White River would result in the 

discontinuance of the existing permit for the dam site. Accordingly, the free-flowing nature of 

Segment 1 would be maintained. 

Not grazing the lands acquired along Nine Mile Creek would limit surface disturbance caused by 

livestock grazing and protect the outstandingly remarkable cultural and scenic values, and would 

enhance water quality of the segment. 

Overall, this alternative would provide the greatest protection to the outstandingly remarkable 

values, free-flowing nature of the rivers, and tentative classification of all the suitable segments. 

The Upper and Lower Green River, the White River (Segments 1 and 2), Nine Mile Creek 

(Segment A), and Bitter Creek, would largely be protected from surface disturbance related to 

mineral development by either being closed to mineral leasing or by no surface occupancy 

stipulations. However, where mineral development would be allowed (on valid existing leases) 

with standard stipulations or timing and controlled surface use, or where other mineral 

development would be allowed within the corridor of Evacuation Creek, White River (Segments 

1 and 3), and Nine Mile Creek, segment B (on valid existing leases), the outstandingly 

remarkable values of these rivers would be at risk. The White River and Evacuation Creek 

segments are most at risk as they are within an area of foreseeable mineral development. 

All suitable river segments would be in a limited or closed OHV category, with most of the 

segments closed. This alternative would best protect these river corridors from surface 

disturbance and the presence and noise related to OHV activity. No loss of outstandingly 

remarkable values from OHV use would be anticipated during the life of the plan. The closed 

category for Segment 2 of the White River would be consistent with the tentative classification 

of wild. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-442 

4.16.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE A 

With Alternative A, 86 river miles (57 miles of BLM shoreline) involving four eligible river 

segments would be recommended suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River 

System (see Table 4.16.2). Under this alternative, the Upper and Lower Green Rivers and 

segments 1 and 2 of the White River would be recommended suitable for designation as wild and 

scenic rivers. The alternative would result in the same management prescription and resultant 

impacts to the outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing water, and tentative classification 

of these four river segments as described for these segments under Alternative C above. 

4.16.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

With Alternative D, the recommended suitable Upper and Lower Green River (see Table 4.16.2) 

segments, involving 52 river miles (39 miles of BLM shoreline), would remain suitable, and be 

managed so as to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, tentative classification, and freeflowing nature. Although suitability recommendations would not be made for the other eligible 

rivers under this alternative, non-suitable recommendations made for Nine Mile Creek, Argyle 

Creek, and Middle Green River in the Diamond Mountain RMP would continue with this 

alternative. However, in keeping with BLM Manual 8351, Sections .32C and .33C, the White 

River (Segments 1, 2, and 3) Evacuation Creek, and Bitter Creek would remain eligible with this 

alternative and, where BLM manages the shoreline or other lands within the river corridors, they 

would be managed in a manner that would protect their outstandingly remarkable values, 

tentative classification, and free-flowing water until such time as suitability findings are made. 

Approximately 87 river miles (34 miles of BLM shoreline) would be involved. 

However, protective management would be restricted by other decisions made in the Diamond 

Mountain RMP. Where mineral development would be allowed on valid existing leases with 

standard stipulations or timing and controlled surface use, or where other mineral development 

would be allowed in the corridors of the Middle Green River, Bitter Creek, Nine Mile Creek, 

White River Segments 1 and 3, Argyle Creek, and Evacuation Creek (on valid existing leases), 

the outstandingly remarkable values of these rivers would be at risk. Segments 1 and 3 of the 

White River Corridor would be most at risk because they are in an area of foreseeable mineral 

development, and Segment 1 has been identified for a potential dam site. Also, river corridors 

which would remain in an open category for OHV use would also be at risk from increased 

surface disturbance. 

A locatable mineral withdrawal or other protective measures would be pursued that would 

preclude mineral entry and agricultural entry within the corridors of the Upper Green River, and 

the lower Green River. This withdrawal would prevent surface disturbance that would degrade 

the outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature of the rivers, and eligible classification 

of these river segments. 

Under this alternative, the continued eligibility decision for Segment 1 of the White River would 

be incompatible with the existing permit for the dam site. Because this permit would continue 

under this alternative, the free-flowing nature of Segment 1 would not be maintained and this 

segment would no longer be eligible for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-443 

4.16.2.2.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 192 river miles (104 miles of BLM shoreline) including all 11 eligible river 

segments would be recommended suitable for designation as wild and scenic rivers. (see Table 

4.16.2 above). The only difference between this alternative and Alternative C is the exclusion of 

White River segment 1. This segment of the White River would not be recommended suitable for 

designation, pending completion of a review of the permit for dam construction. In the interim, 

the segment would remain eligible and managed to protect its river values. Thus the management 

prescription and resultant impact to wild and scenic river values would be the same for all 11 

rivers as described under Alternative C above. 

In addition, under this alternative, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the river 

corridors would be managed to protect those characteristics, and, where suitable wild and scenic 

river segments include portions of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, additional 

protections would result from the protective management prescriptions. Portions of the White 

River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are located in the White River wild and 

scenic river corridor. Portions of Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are in the Nine Mile Creek corridor. Parts of the Bitter Creek, Rat Hole Ridge, 

Cripple Cowboy, and Hell's Hole Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are 

located in the Bitter Creek corridor. Parts of Lower Flaming Gorge non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics are in the Upper Green River corridor, and portions of Desolation 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are located in the Lower Green River 

corridor. 

To protect their wilderness characteristics, the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be closed to OHV use, oil and gas leasing, mineral material sales, wood cutting, and road 

construction. The non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be ROW avoidance 

areas. VRM Class I objectives would protect the natural characteristics from change in each of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. For those portions of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics located in suitable wild and scenic river corridors, this 

prescription would prevent surface disturbances that would have adverse impacts on the 

outstanding natural, scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife, and cultural values; tentative 

classification; and free-flowing nature of these rivers. 

4.16.2.3. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts to outstandingly remarkable river values, the free-flowing 

condition of the rivers, and their tentative classification would occur from mineral development 

and OHV activity, depending upon the river segment and Proposed RMP or alternative. 

4.16.2.4. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Any loss of river values due to surface disturbances or alteration of the free-flowing nature of the 

rivers would remain throughout the life of the plan. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-444 

4.16.2.5. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Any loss of outstandingly remarkable values of eligible or recommended suitable river segments 

that would result from mineral development would be irretrievable. No irreversible impacts are 

anticipated under the Proposed RMP or any alternative. 

4.16.3. WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSAS) 

Wilderness study areas (WSAs) are managed under the Interim Management Policy and 

Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP) (BLM 1995) which directs the BLM to 

manage the areas so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness. This 

management policy applies to all uses and activities in WSAs but acknowledges those uses 

specifically exempted from this standard by FLPMA (such as grandfathered uses) and valid 

existing rights. Because of this protective standard, there would be no impacts to the wilderness 

characteristics of the WSAs from implementation of the Proposed RMP or any alternative except 

in areas with existing valid rights. The only area where valid existing rights are expected to 

impact the wilderness values is in the Winter Ridge WSA. 

The Winter Ridge WSA (42,462 acres) is located in an area high oil and gas development 

potential (Mineral Potential Report, BLM 2002), with a demonstrated exploration and production 

history. About 25% of the lands in the WSA are currently under lease. Although, WSAs are 

closed to leasing, the IMP does recognize valid existing rights. Under the Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives, it is anticipated that the leaseholder(s) would exercise their rights under these leases 

to explore and develop oil and gas resources. The resulting surface disturbance (i.e., roads, well 

pads, pipelines) would degrade the natural characteristics on as much as 33% of the WSA. The 

presence and noise of people, vehicles, and equipment would also diminish opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive recreational activities. Through the exercise of valid existing 

rights, it is anticipated that approximately 13,832 acres of the WSA would lose its wilderness 

characteristics. 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E, each WSA would be managed under 

VRM Class I objectives. This objective provides for preservation of the characteristic landscape 

and would preserve the natural characteristics of the WSAs. Preservation of an undeveloped 

landscape (the natural values) would also provide the setting needed to support outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreational activities. 

Under the Proposed RMP and alternatives motorized use is either limited to designated "ways" 

or closed to all motorized use, depending on the WSA and alternative, and consistent with the 

IMP. In WSAs where motorized travel is permitted on designated routes, there would be no 

additional surface disturbance to the natural characteristics of the WSAs. However, the presence 

and noise of vehicles would temporarily disrupt opportunities for solitude and conflict with 

primitive forms of recreation. In WSAs where existing "ways" would be closed to motorized 

travel, there would be no added surface disturbance that would degrade the natural characteristics 

of the WSA and no conflicts with opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation activities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.16. Special Designations

Vernal RMP 4-445 

4.16.3.1. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Because of the anticipated exercise of valid existing rights on existing oil and gas leases in the 

Winter Ridge WSA, 13,832 acres of the WSA would lose its wilderness characteristics resulting 

from surface disturbance created by exploration and development. While mitigation measures 

would be employed to reduce the effects on the wilderness values of the WSA, the leaseholder(s) 

have the right to develop the lease(s), and that development would degrade the wilderness values 

of the WSA. That impact cannot be avoided. 

4.16.3.2. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The loss of wilderness values of Winter Ridge WSA is expected to remain for 25–30 years, the 

average life of a producing well, plus time for reclamation. 

4.16.3.3. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Any loss of wilderness characteristics that would result from mineral development would be 

irretrievable, but not irreversible. At the end of the production life of the well, the site would be 

reclaimed, and the natural characteristics of the land would return.
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-446 

4.17. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Federally listed and sensitive species are updated per Instruction Memorandum No. UT 2007-

078 dated September 26, 2007 (Expires: 09/30/2008). The Updated Utah BLM State Director's 

Sensitive Plant and Animal Species Lists states the following: 

"1. Sensitive Animal Species List. By this Instruction Memorandum, Utah BLM adopts 

the existing Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) Utah Sensitive Species List.

This means that BLM will now use the official DWR list that is in place at the time of a 

given action. DWR updates this list on a regular basis so it will be important to consult 

the DWR web site at http://www.wildlife.utah.gov to ensure that you are using the latest 

list. Only those species or their habitat that occur on BLM administered public lands 

should be considered. 

2. Sensitive Plant Species List. The existing state director's sensitive plant species 

list contained in IM No. UT 2003-027 is currently undergoing extensive peer review 

both inside and outside of BLM. That review has not yet been completed; therefore, 

the existing list (see IM No. UT 2003-027) will continue to be used until a new list 

has been developed. However, due to recent changes in the legal status of Penstemon 

grahamii, this species is now included on the existing plant list."

As of July 1, 2008, there are 13 federally listed, 2 candidate, and 32 sensitive species within the 

VPA, which includes mammals, birds, reptiles, fishes and plants. Each of these species has 

different habitats, different ranges of distribution, and different susceptibilities to management 

activities. In contrast to other resources, special status species have limited distributions and key 

habitat requirements that might not be located or unable to be relocated elsewhere within the 

VPA. For this reason, total acres of surface disturbance under individual alternatives are difficult 

to interpret in the context of a special status species, without being placed in a context of the 

factors most important in managing individual species for either recovery or to prevent listing as 

threatened or endangered. 

The methods used to analyze the impacts to special status species were to first list the overall 

species threats, as defined in individual species' Federal Register listing packages (for federally 

listed species), or according to data provided by the BLM for sensitive species. How the 

management decisions in the RMP would contribute to a change in individual species' threats 

(either positively or negatively) was then identified. Finally, the risks of individual resource 

decisions contributing to species threats were evaluated, using both qualitative analysis and a 

selected subset of acreage data that would pertain to individual key special status species limiting 

factors. Table 4.17.1 below summarizes the overall threats and potential impacts of RMP 

alternatives' management actions on listed species. The remainder of this section describes how 

the specific management actions under the Proposed RMP and each alternative would affect key 

factors affecting species, as listed in Table 4.17.1. Because, there is less information on sensitive 

species than listed species, most sensitive species are discussed in conjunction with those 

federally listed species sharing similar habitat and limiting factors. Sensitive species for which 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-447 

the RMP includes specific management prescriptions are individually discussed. These include 

the Ferruginous Hawk, Burrowing Owl, Sage-grouse, and Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

Impacts to listed species would occur if any of the resource decisions were to result in direct 

impacts to a listed or candidate species through "take," defined by the Endangered Species Act as 

"harm, hunting, wounding, killing, or harassment." Harassment includes activities resulting in 

increased stress during critical life history stages such as nesting, migration or wintering, loss or 

degradation of designated critical habitat, loss or degradation of occupied or potential listed 

species' habitat, or activities precluding or reducing the effectiveness of recovery goals or 

measures. Although other special status species are not regulated under the Endangered Species 

Act, impacts to these species were identified if they fell within one of the above categories. 

Some decisions regarding resources would not affect special status species because they would 

neither change the status of current species threats nor affect recovery potential. The impacts 

from decisions concerning Cultural Resources, Lands and Realty, Paleontological Resources, 

Visual Resource Management, Wild Horse Management, and Wildlife and Fisheries 

Management would be negligible on special status plant and animal species in the Vernal 

Planning Area (VPA) and therefore will not be discussed further in this analysis. 

Impacts from other resource decisions would affect special status species. Individual resource 

decisions that would have a combined potential effect on special status species and could not be 

separated were addressed jointly. Impacts from other resource decisions that would affect 

Special Status species include: Fire Management/Woodland and Forest Management, Forage 

Allocation/Livestock Grazing, Mineral Resources, Recreation and Travel, Riparian Resources, 

Special Designations, Special Status Species, and Soils and Watershed. Decisions relating to 

these resources and resource uses would have a either a direct or indirect impact on special status 

plant and animal species in the VPA and be long term or short term in nature. 

4.17.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.17.1.1. FIRE AND WOODLAND MANAGEMENT

Under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, prescribed burning and public harvest of 

forest products would occur. These impacts would occur in woodland, forest and desert shrub 

habitats, but not grassland or riparian habitats. As a result, fire would not be used in black-footed 

ferret, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, endangered Colorado River fish, or Ute ladies'-tresses habitat. Fire 

would occur in vegetation types occupied by the listed plant species other than the Ute ladies'-

tresses (hereafter referred to as the Book Cliffs soil endemics, referring to the general restriction 

of these plant species to specific soil types in the Book Cliffs area). In general, the Book Cliffs 

soil endemics occur in sparsely vegetated habitats within the larger mapped vegetation types. 

Controlled prescribed fire would not likely carry in these habitats unless they had been invaded 

by cheatgrass or other annual weedy species or if prescribed fires spread beyond their intended 

dense woodland target. As a result, carefully controlled prescribed fire would not have a major 

adverse impact on the Book Cliffs soil endemics, and would have long-term beneficial impacts 

by preventing larger fires in adjacent woodlands that could spread through sensitive species 

habitat. If prescribed fires were to spread beyond their intended dense woodland target these fires 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-448 

would have adverse impacts on special status species by directly destroying individual plants of 

special status plant species or by indirectly contributing to the risk of cheatgrass invasion, which 

is higher following a fire. Associated activities, such as fire line construction and off-road travel 

by necessary fire maintenance vehicles could also result in direct adverse impacts to the Book 

Cliff soil endemics via uprooting and or trampling. 

Both fire and woodland harvest would likely occur in habitat used by the Mexican Spotted Owl, 

Canada lynx and sensitive bird species. The short-term effects of prescribed fire on the Mexican 

Spotted Owl and Ferruginous Hawk would be direct and adverse by removing the conifers used 

by these species. As long as some mature patches of trees were left in the vicinity, the long-term 

impacts of fire decisions on these species would be beneficial, by reducing the chance of 

catastrophic wildland fire. Catastrophic wildland fire is a key threat to the Mexican Spotted Owl. 

Use of prescribed burning, thinning treatments and any other activities that would result in a mix 

of age classes is supported by the FWS as being beneficial for the Mexican Spotted Owl 

(USFWS 2001). Fire would have mixed effects on the Canada lynx, as this species requires an 

abundance of downed woody debris for denning, which would be removed by prescribed burning 

and would take decades to redevelop. Conversely, fire in decadent forest stands would restore 

habitat for the snowshoe hare, which is the main food for the lynx. 

4.17.1.2. FORAGE ALLOCATION/LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Livestock grazing in both upland and riparian habitats would occur under the Proposed RMP and 

all alternatives. Livestock grazing may have a direct and/or indirect impact on special status 

plant and animal species. Historically, livestock grazing has had an impact on public lands by 

modifying vegetation, introduction of foreign plant species, and an increase in soil erosion. 

Livestock may impact special status plant species through trampling and removal of aboveground portions, preventing flowering and seed set necessary for species survival. Livestock may 

also impact special status animal species through direct "take" and "harassment." 

Proper management of livestock would reduce or eliminate the impacts to special status species 

from livestock grazing. Proper management would be attained through the implementation of the 

appropriate number of livestock, season of use, utilization, and monitoring to meet, exceed or 

make progress toward meeting the Rangeland Heath Standards. 

4.17.1.3. MINERAL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

The Proposed RMP and all alternatives allow some level of mineral and energy development. Oil 

and gas development is identified as a key threat to the Book Cliffs soil endemics and was a 

major factor in their listing. Potential adverse direct effects of oil and gas developments include 

placement of facilities or roads within either occupied habitat or potential habitat necessary for 

the recovery of the species, resulting in an overall reduction in habitat and an increase in habitat 

fragmentation. This threat is particularly high for the shrubby reed-mustard as this species is 

restricted to geologic formations containing oil shale. Indirect adverse impacts of oil and gas 

development within the listed plant species habitat include damage to plants from travel outside 

of designated roads, increases in road densities, and fugitive dust production. The clay soils on 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-449 

which these plants grow are highly susceptible to wind erosion, and surface disturbance increases 

the soil erosion potential. Deposition of wind-blown dust on the listed plant species currently is a 

problem, potentially affecting plant reproduction, in the existing oil and gas fields (Whittington, 

USFWS [personal communication] 2003). Pollination vectors are not known for many special 

status plant species in the VPA. Studies on Ute ladies'-tresses (Sipes and Tepedino 1995) have 

shown that ground-nesting bees are important for pollination of this species, whereas other 

species' pollination vectors are not known within the VPA. Seed dispersal vectors are also 

unknown for most special status species within the VPA, but could be affected by habitat 

fragmentation due to road development. Other indirect adverse impacts include the potential for 

introduction and spread of noxious and invasive weeds that would compete with the special 

status plants. The spatial layout of oil and gas facilities would disturb a large proportion of 

vegetation, when in the context of the landscape. Each area disturbed for the construction of a 

well pad or road increases the opportunity for weed invasions and disrupts the spatial continuity 

of vegetation communities. Also, activities such as road building would increase the access to 

sensitive areas on which special status species are dependent for survival. 

Oil and gas development would have both direct and indirect adverse effects on the Pariette 

cactus, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, White River beardtongue, Ute ladies'-tresses, the Yellowbilled Cuckoo, the four Colorado River fishes and the Colorado River cutthroat trout. Although 

most of the riparian zone is listed as NSO, this stipulation could be allowed an exception (a onetime exemption from a stipulation) if necessary for transmission lines, roads and surface 

occupancy. Any development within riparian zones could adversely affect the Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo and Ute ladies'-tresses through removal of riparian vegetation. Development of oil and 

gas wells requires water for both well drilling and extraction. Approximately 0.75 acre-feet of 

water would be required for each well. The source of this water is unknown, and 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 

effect of water depletion within the Colorado River system, which includes the Green, White, 

and Duchesne Rivers and their associated critical habitat. 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. Depending on where the depletions occur, riparian habitat supporting 

the Ute ladies'-tresses would also be adversely impacted by changes in hydrologic support. Loss 

of riparian habitat through streamflow changes is a key threat to the Ute ladies'-tresses. 

Wastewater disposal methods would be determined by each individual contracting company and 

are currently unknown. Any discharges of petroleum wastes into water bodies would negatively 

affect the special status fish. Boron and selenium are high in the local soils; the degree to which 

sediments containing these contaminants would enter water bodies is unknown. The potential for 

mineral development to increase sedimentation is discussed in Section 4.15 Soil and Water 

Resources. Increases in sediments containing boron or selenium would adversely affect all of the 

special status fishes. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, large areas associated with Ferruginous Hawk 

nesting sites, Mexican Spotted Owl habitat and Greater Sage-grouse habitat would be open for 

oil and gas and mineral development. General adverse impacts to these species (and others, 

including white-tailed prairie dog and black-footed ferret) would include reduction in habitat, 

habitat fragmentation, and increases in noise and other human disturbances. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-450 

4.17.1.4. RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT

Construction of new rangeland improvement projects could have short- and long-term direct 

adverse impacts on some special status species from trampling by livestock due to trailing and 

construction of range developments. Short- and long-term indirect adverse impacts could also 

occur on some special status species if the projects result in moving livestock and wildlife into 

areas that had previously received little use. Conversely, special status species would benefit 

from rangeland improvements by improved dispersion of livestock and wildlife if animals are 

prevented from concentrating in their habitat, although dispersal of weeds into previously 

undisturbed areas would adversely impact some special status species. Direct impacts would 

depend on exact project locations, but in general, adverse impacts are projected to be minimal, 

because site examinations would be conducted prior to project approval. 

Vegetation treatments, including Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) control, prescribed 

burning, and seedings, would impact special status species, depending on the species, the number 

of exotic species within the area, overall ecological condition, and the likelihood that exotics 

would colonize the sites following treatment. Site examinations, to the extent feasible, would be 

conducted prior to treatments; however, due to the generally large size of such treatments, 

species might be overlooked and adverse impacts would result if species are uprooted during the 

physical procedures. Where canopies are opened and exotics are displaced in or near special 

status species habitat, beneficial impacts could result, as sites would be improved for 

establishment or recolonization by certain species. 

4.17.1.5. RECREATION AND TRAVEL

The Proposed RMP and all alternatives would encourage recreation in the Book Cliffs area and 

allow a degree of OHV use. Identification of special recreation management areas (SRMAs) 

would provide beneficial impacts to special status species by providing focused recreation 

management on these lands and reducing impacts associated with dispersed recreation with 

minimal management. Continued use of OHVs and development of trails would have adverse 

impacts on special status species by providing access to habitats where trampling, habitat 

fragmentation and illegal plant collecting could occur. Increased visitor use of recreational areas 

would adversely affect special status species through increased human disturbance. 

4.17.1.6. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Raptors would be managed under the auspices of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which 

would include implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers to disturbances in the vicinity of 

nesting raptors that would be tailored to the individual raptor species involved, and based on 

factors such as line of sight distance between nest and disturbance, type and duration of 

disturbance, nest structure security, sensitivity of the species to disturbance, observed responses 

to related disturbances, and the amount of other disturbances already occurring in the vicinity to 

reduce adverse impacts of minerals development on raptors. These buffers would implement 

"Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah" (Utah BLM, 

2006, Appendix A) with modifications allowed as long as protection of the raptors is ensured. 

The BLM would also pursue a partnership between industries, local governments, the USFWS, 

UDWR, USFS, and NRCS and others as appropriate to establish a raptor management fund to be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-451 

utilized for raptor population monitoring and habitat enhancement. The BLM would also 

cooperate with utility companies, UDWR, and the USFWS to prevent electrocution of raptors. 

Additionally, under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives: 

• Cottonwood bottoms for Bald Eagle winter habitat along the Green and White Rivers, at 

Pelican Lake, and at the Cliff Creek Bald Eagle roost site would be protected. 

• In cooperation with UDWR the BLM would maintain nesting habitat and maintain/enhance 

prey-base habitat for burrowing and Short-eared Owls. 

• To provide primary food sources for the Ferruginous Hawk, the BLM would cooperate with 

UDWR to maintain and enhance white-tailed prairie dog and prey base habitat. 

• The BLM would establish Protected Activity Centers (PACs) at all known Mexican Spotted 

Owl nest sites; maintain habitat to support small mammal populations as a prey base for 

Mexican Spotted Owls in occupied and suitable owl habitats; and retain large down logs, 

large trees, and snags as prey habitats in occupied and suitable Mexican Spotted Owl 

habitats. 

• For Peregrine Falcons the BLM would protect and enhance riparian habitat in Pariette Draw, 

as well as along the Green River, White River, Bitter Creek, and other drainages. 

• The BLM would manage the black-footed ferret consistent with the 1999 Black-footed Ferret 

Reintroduction Plan Amendment. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.17

Vernal RMP Table 4.17.1. Comparison of Potential Resource Decision Impacts within the VPA to Overall Species Thre

Listed and BLM Sensitive Species 

Common Name Overall Species Threats Potential Impacts Associated with Resource 

Black-footed ferret Loss of prairie dog colonies on which they depend 

due to habitat loss and fragmentation, poisoning, agricultural conversion, and disease. 

Changes in the prairie dog prey base within the Coyote population through conversion of open, sparse grasslantype. 

Canada lynx Inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect the 

species coniferous forest habitat which is important for denning (needs large woody debris), its snowshoe hare prey base (needs dense understory), and corridors for dispersal. 

Forest practices that would remove large woody debris, fragment the Diamond Mountain coniferous forest dispetrails, or other barriers; forest practices that would providmaintenance of different-aged forest stands. 

Mexican Spotted Owl Forested habitat loss due to even-aged stands, 

catastrophic wildland fires. 

Forest practices that would develop even-aged stands owildland fires, and loss of forested habitat within the steeCliffs area; forest practices that would provide for long-tedifferent-aged forest stands. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Loss of multilayered riparian habitat. Any loss of multilayered riparian habitat; activities that co

development of dense riparian habitat. 

Bonytail Colorado pikeminnow Humpback chub Razorback sucker 

Cumulative effects of streamflow regulation and depletion, changes in temperature regimes, loss of connected floodplain habitat, competition with and predation by nonnative fish, hybridization, increased concentration of salts and contaminants. 

Any river depletion or change in Duchesne River, White stream flows that would add to the cumulative impacts oparticularly in the designated critical habitat reaches; chathat could affect mainstem flows; increased salt or contaassociated with flow depletion and/or increased sedimen

White River beardtongue Barneby ridge-cress1

Cumulative effects of restriction to unique formations, with oil and natural gas development, and sheep and cattle grazing. Energy/mineral developments, livestock grazing, and off-road vehicle use. 

Direct placement of facility footprints or associated infrastructu

colonies, placement of facilities on potential habitat needed fograzing within the restricted habitat areas that tramples plants flowering, unrestricted off-road travel, wind erosion from high 

the highly erodible clay soils on which these species depend, reproduction capabilities due to habitat fragmentation. Indirect effects include invasion of habitat by noxious weplant species resulting from surface disturbance in and aand/or potentially suitable Barneby ridge-cress habitat. 

Clay reed-mustard Shrubby reed-mustard 

Cumulative effects of restriction to unique formations, with oil and natural gas development. 

Potential impacts for shrubby reed-mustard are the samthe additional risk that the oil shale underlying the mustastrong possibility for future oil and gas development withClay reed-mustard grows in silty loam without a trace of 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus Pariette cactus 

Energy/mineral developments, livestock grazing, stone collecting, and off-road vehicle use. 

Direct placement of facility footprints or associated infrasindividuals or colonies, placement of facilities on potentiaspecies' recoveries, grazing within the restricted habitat unrestricted off-road travel. 

Ute ladies'-tresses Loss of riparian habitat through streamflow 

alteration, streamflow depletion, and invasion by noxious weeds overgrazing; changes in stream dynamics allowing repeated new habitat creation. 

Additional changes in streamflow through new consumpdecreases in noxious weeds increases or decreases in twithin riparian zones, discretionary authority to allow infrdesignated riparian zones. 

1Found on tribal and private land. Not yet found on BLM land (personal communication with Clayton Newberry, BLM VFO, May 14, 2008). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-453 

4.17.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

4.17.2.1. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.17.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E would have direct beneficial and adverse 

effects on special status species as described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives, 

although the impacts would generally be positive for species status over the long term. The 

greatest beneficial impact of prescribed fire on 156,425 acres per decade would be to restore 

habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl and over the long term reduce the potential for catastrophic 

wildland fires in other sensitive species habitats. Adverse impacts would include mortality, and 

short-term loss of habitat. The Proposed RMP and these four action alternatives would provide 

for prescribed burning on 104,525 more acres per decade than Alternative D (No Action). As a 

result, the Proposed RMP and the action alternatives would provide substantially more long-term 

beneficial impacts to special status wildlife species than Alternative D (No Action) due to a 

greater acreage of prescribed fire under the Proposed RMP and all action alternatives. 

4.17.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) allows for prescribed fire on 50,900 acres per decade (27,950 and 

22,950 acres under the Book Cliffs and Diamond Mountain RMPs, respectively). The impacts of 

this alternative on special status species would be similar to those described above for the action 

alternatives, except that the impacts would be on a smaller scale. 

4.17.2.2. IMPACTS OF FORAGE ALLOCATION AND LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.17.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, up to 50% of upland forage would be utilized by livestock, wild 

horses, and big-game species. The total number of AUMs (including livestock, wild horses and 

big game) would be 245,607. Approximately 2,340 of these AUMs would only be temporarily 

allocated for wild horses because wild horses would be gathered and removed under the 

Proposed RMP. However, these AUMs would still be utilized through allocation in later 

planning processes. In riparian areas, stubble height would be initially identified as 4 inches, 

with 30% key herbaceous riparian species utilization unless bank stabilization goals were not 

met. In that case, minimum stubble height would be increased to six inches with a maximum of 

20% key herbaceous riparian species utilization. The riparian grazing standards under the 

Proposed RMP differ from Alternative D (No Action) in that stubble heights are set at 3 inches 

(1 to 3 inches lower than the Proposed RMP) and that Alternative D (No Action) has no riparian 

key herbaceous riparian species utilization standards. 

In general, grazing is a threat to all listed and most sensitive species, as described under Impacts 

Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives (4.17.1). Under the Proposed RMP, the risk 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-454 

of grazing impacts to the Book Cliffs soil endemics would be slightly less than those of 

Alternative D (No Action) as grazing utilization would be monitored; however substantial 

grazing impacts to these species would still occur as there little difference in AUMs (less than 

1%) between the Proposed RMP and Alternative D (No Action). Also, under the Proposed RMP, 

even 50% upland forage utilization would provide a threat to special status plant species, 

although this is less than Alternative D (No Action) which would not explicitly limit forage 

utilization. The risk of adverse grazing impacts to the Ute ladies'-tresses would remain 

unchanged from Alternative D (No Action), as both the Proposed RMP and Alternative D (No 

Action) would allow grazing to the extent that flowering parts could be removed. 

The largest difference in grazing management between the Proposed RMP and Alternative D 

(No Action) would be that the Proposed RMP would restrict woody riparian species utilization 

whereas Alternative D (No Action) would have no such restrictions. Over the long term, 

restrictions on woody species utilization would provide beneficial impacts to riparian-dependent 

wildlife such as the Yellow-billed Cuckoo over Alternative D (No Action), although it should be 

noted that grazing impacts would occur to these species as long as grazing was allowed in the 

riparian zone. 

The increased grazing restrictions in the riparian zone to increase stream bank stability would 

have beneficial impacts on the Colorado River cutthroat trout and potentially the Colorado River 

endangered fishes by reducing sediment input into streams. 

4.17.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, up to 50% of upland forage would be utilized by livestock, wild horses, 

and big-game species. The total number of AUMs (including livestock, wild horses and big 

game) would be 245,649. In riparian areas, stubble height would be initially identified as 4 

inches, with 30% key herbaceous riparian species utilization unless bank stabilization goals were 

not met. In that case, minimum stubble height would be increased to six inches with a maximum 

of 20% key herbaceous riparian species utilization. The riparian grazing standards under 

Alternative A differ from Alternative D (No Action) in that stubble heights are set at 3 inches (1 

to 3 inches lower than Alternative A) and that Alternative D (No Action) has no riparian key 

herbaceous riparian species utilization standards. 

In general, grazing is a threat to all listed and most sensitive species, as described under Impacts 

Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives (4.17.1). Under Alternative A, the risk of 

grazing impacts to the Book Cliffs soil endemics would be slightly less than those of Alternative 

D (No Action) as grazing utilization would be monitored; however substantial grazing impacts to 

these species would still occur as there is little difference in AUMs between Alternative A and 

Alternative D (No Action). Also, under Alternative A, even 50% upland forage utilization would 

provide a threat to special status plant species, although this is less than Alternative D (No 

Action), which would not explicitly limit forage utilization. The risk of adverse grazing impacts 

to the Ute ladies'-tresses would remain unchanged from Alternative D (No Action), as both 

alternatives would allow grazing to the extent that flowering parts could be removed. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-455 

The largest difference in grazing management between Alternatives A and D (No Action) would 

be that Alternative A would restrict woody riparian species utilization whereas Alternative D 

(No Action) would have no such restrictions. Over the long term, restrictions on woody species 

utilization would provide beneficial impacts to riparian-dependent wildlife such as the Yellowbilled Cuckoo over Alternative D (No Action), although it should be noted that grazing impacts 

would occur to these species as long as grazing was allowed in the riparian zone. 

The increased grazing restrictions in the riparian zone to increase stream bank stability would 

have beneficial impacts on the Colorado River cutthroat trout and potentially the Colorado River 

endangered fishes by reducing sediment input into streams. 

4.17.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, up to 60% of upland forage would be utilized by livestock, wild horses, and 

big-game species. The total number of AUMs (including livestock and big game; wild horses 

would not be allocated AUMs under this alternative) would be 244,034 or 2,094 AUMs 

(approximately 0.8%) less than under Alternative D (No Action). The riparian zone would be 

managed in a similar manner to the Proposed RMP and Alternative A except that key herbaceous 

riparian vegetation in riparian areas, other than the stream banks, would not be grazed more than 

50% during the growing season, or 60% during the dormant season. The impacts of grazing, 

forage allocation and riparian grazing management decisions under Alternative B would be 

similar to those described for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. 

4.17.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Under Alternatives C and E, up to 50% of upland forage would be utilized by livestock, wild 

horses, and big-game species. The total number of AUMs (including livestock, wild horses and 

big game) would be 187,450 or 58,678 AUMs (approximately 24%) less than under Alternative 

D (No Action). The riparian zone would be managed the same as described for the Proposed 

RMP and Alternative A. 

Although grazing is a threat to all listed and most sensitive species, the 24% reduction in AUMs 

would provide a substantial benefit to all species compared to Alternative D (No Action), and 

particularly reduce the risk of grazing impacts to the Book Cliffs soil endemics as compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Other impacts would be the same as described for the Proposed RMP 

and Alternative A. 

4.17.2.2.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), upland forage utilization levels are unspecified. The total 

number of AUMs (including livestock, wild horses, and big game) would be 246,128. In riparian 

areas, stubble height would be initially identified as 3 inches, with an unspecified amount of 

woody species utilization. Alternative D (No Action) would continue the existing grazing risk for 

all special status species and not provide benefits for any of them. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-456 

4.17.2.3. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Table 4.17.2 presents a summary of the changes in acres open for mineral and energy 

development. The table displays differences in total acres as well as a percentage change in acres 

available for mineral and energy development (Standard Stipulations and Timing and Controlled 

Surface Use) as compared to Alternative D (No Action). As depicted in Table 4.17.2 there are 

large differences in total acreages available for mineral/energy development among the 

alternatives as compared to Alternative D (No Action) (ranging from an 11% decrease under 

Alternative E to an 18% increase under Alternative B), and that the largest changes occur in the 

areas available for oil, gas, and mineral leasing. However, acres of development alone can be 

misleading unless placed in geographic context. Most of the increased oil and gas mineral 

development within BLM administered lands in the VPA would occur primarily in the 

Monument Butte – Red Wash Area, and secondarily in the East Tavaputs Plateau area. It is also 

important to note that the Hill Creek Extension (188,500 acres) was not leased in the Book Cliffs 

RMP and therefore it is not included in the acreage totals for Alternative D (No Action). These 

areas are population centers for the Book Cliffs soil endemics and the Mexican Spotted Owl. 

Concentration of increased mineral and energy development within habitats of sensitive species 

whose major threat is oil and gas development would result in substantial adverse effects through 

direct take, potential harassment and by preventing recovery by development in unoccupied but 

suitable habitat. 

Table 4.17.2. Differences in Acreages Available for Mineral and Energy Development 

under Each the Proposed RMP and Action Alternative as Compared to 

Alternative D (No Action) 

Activity Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative 

E 

Oil and Gas +104,351acres 

(+7%) 

244,830 acres 

(+16%) 

+283,367 

acres 

(+18%) 

+91,055 acres 

(+6%) 

-36,569 

(-2%) 

Open 

Minerals 

+2,088 acres 

(+1%) 

27,695 acres 

(7%) 

+45,253 acres 

(+12%) 

999 acres 

(0.3%) 

-43,018 

(-11%) 

4.17.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.17.2.3.1.1. Special Status Plant Species 

Under the Proposed RMP, areas open for mineral and energy development would increase by 7% 

in areas open for oil and gas leasing, and 1% in areas open for mineral development as compared 

to Alternative D (No Action). The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing on BLM 

administered lands within the VPA would be 1,640,381, and mineral materials 389,788 acres. As 

described in Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives, the increased minerals 

development would have multiple short-term and long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts 

on special status plant populations within the VPA. These impacts include categorizing a large 

majority of special status plant habitat as open to mineral development. These designations 

would likely lead to an increase in road densities, a reduction in habitat through the installation 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-457 

of mineral development infrastructure, and an increase in habitat fragmentation. Increased road 

densities would also make access to remote areas easier for OHVs and could increase illegal 

collection of rare plants. Long-term adverse impacts would primarily be in the form of loss of 

habitat and direct destruction of individuals and populations, with the extent of impacts generally 

determined by the amount of activity. Other impacts that could occur would be genetic isolation 

of special populations and biodiversity loss. Impacts to seed dispersal and pollinators could 

occur, but studies of these impacts within the VPA are limited and few conclusions can be 

drawn. 

Locatable mining activities, including mineral exploration, development, and collection of 

building stone would continue to have a long-term adverse impact on certain special status plant 

species, particularly Uinta Basin hookless cactus, Pariette cactus, and shrubby reed-mustard 

(Schoenocrambe suffrutescens). Impacts from mineral mining are projected to be most severe 

within the areas in and near Wrinkles Road, Little Pack Mountain, and Big Pack Mountain that 

are currently mined and in areas where high potential has been identified for mineral occurrence. 

Impacts of increased oil and gas leasing are projected to be most severe within the areas in and 

near the Book Cliffs, on alluvial river terraces near the confluence of the Green, White, and 

Duchesne Rivers, and in Pariette Draw. The potential impacts to Uinta Basin hookless cactus, 

Pariette cactus, clay reed mustard, shrubby reed mustard, Barneby ridge-cress, and White River 

beardtongue are expected to be high with oil, gas, and CBNG development. 

Adverse impacts would be highest for special status plants where future development would 

occur in pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, and desert shrub communities. For comparative purposes, 

the alternatives are analyzed with an assumption of 20-acre to 40-acre well spacing. Under the 

Proposed RMP, 470,731 acres of desert shrub, 489,679 acres of sagebrush, and 483,249 acres of 

pinyon-juniper would be subject to surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG development. 

The Proposed RMP proposes 12% more disturbance to desert shrub, 14% more to sagebrush, and 

17% more to pinyon-juniper than does Alternative D (No Action). 

4.17.2.3.1.2. Special Status Animal Species 

Ferruginous Hawk

The minerals development land categorization proposed under the Proposed RMP would have 

multiple short-term and long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts on Ferruginous Hawk 

populations in the VPA. These impacts would include categorizing a majority of areas associated 

with Ferruginous Hawk nesting sites as open for mineral development. These designations would 

likely lead to an increase in road densities, a reduction in habitat from the installation of mineral 

development infrastructure, and an increase in habitat fragmentation. 

The Proposed RMP would increase the proportion of areas surrounding Ferruginous Hawk 

nesting sites open to oil and gas development by approximately 4% when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP and Alternative D (No Action) would also 

decrease the proportion of areas surrounding Ferruginous Hawk nesting sites subject to special 

stipulations (other than those prescribed specifically for Ferruginous Hawk) by 9% and 10%, 

respectively. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-458 

Mexican Spotted Owl

The minerals development land categorization proposed in the Proposed RMP would likely have 

multiple short-term and long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts on Mexican Spotted Owl 

populations in the VPA. These impacts include categorizing a majority of important Mexican 

Spotted Owl canyon and forest habitat as open for minerals development. These designations 

would likely have impacts similar to those described for Ferruginous Hawks. 

The Proposed RMP would decrease the proportion of Mexican Spotted Owl canyon and forest 

habitat open to oil and gas development by approximately 22% and 15%, respectively, when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP would decrease the proportion of 

Mexican Spotted Owl canyon and forest habitat subject to special stipulations by approximately 

19% and 18%, respectively when compared to Alternative D (No Action). Most of the increased 

oil and gas development, as well as the reduction in special stipulation designations, would occur 

in the canyon habitat immediately adjacent to designated critical habitat and in an area in which 

substantial suitable habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl occurs. 

Greater Sage-grouse

The minerals development land categorization proposed in the Proposed RMP would have 

multiple short-term and long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts on Greater Sage-grouse 

populations in the VPA. These impacts include categorizing a large majority of important 

Greater Sage-grouse winter and brooding habitat as open to minerals development. 

The Proposed RMP would increase the proportion of Greater Sage-grouse brooding habitat open 

to oil and gas development by approximately 5% while decreasing the proportion of Greater 

Sage-grouse winter habitat open to oil and gas development by approximately 12% when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). This alternative would also increase the proportion of 

Greater Sage-grouse winter and brooding habitat subject to special stipulations by approximately 

23% and 29%, respectively when compared to Alternative D (No Action) (see Sage-grouse 

Tables 14 and 15 in Appendix H, Wildlife). 

Outright losses, degradation and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats are suspected as the 

primary causes of Sage-grouse population declines throughout Utah (UDWR 2005). Although 

there are several factors that contribute to habitat loss (such as drought), development of oil and 

gas resources includes direct loss of habitat for well pads, roads, and pipelines. Vehicle traffic 

and noise disturbance on roads and at well sites during the drilling phase can have a negative 

effect (Connelly et al. 2004). Disturbances within 200 meters of lek sites resulted in loss of 

attendance at Sage-grouse leks (Braun et al. 2002). Sage-grouse continued to use highly 

fragmented habitats in some oil fields and reclaimed areas, but population levels were below 

numbers prior to disturbance (Braun et al. 2002). 

Stipulations regulate timing and distance from lek sites of construction activities and are largely 

directed to avoid disturbance to Sage-grouse near leks during breeding or nesting periods. 

However, effects on habitats from roads, power lines, compressor stations, and pipelines remain 

following construction. Female Sage-grouse moved greater distances from leks and had lower 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-459 

rates of nest initiation in areas disturbed by vehicle traffic (1-12 vehicles/day) (Lyon and 

Anderson 2003). Surface disturbance created by roads also facilitates spread of exotic plant 

species (Forman and Alexander 1998; Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Gelbard and Belnap 2003). 

The soil surface of disturbed areas is prepared and reseeded. The primary objectives of the 

reclamation are to control soil erosion, establish desirable vegetation and prepare for natural 

processes to restore the site. Although Sage-grouse may repopulate reclaimed areas, their 

numbers may not return to levels prior to disturbance (Braun et al. 2002). 

White-tailed Prairie Dog and Black-footed Ferret

The minerals development proposed in the Proposed RMP would have multiple short-term and 

long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts on white-tailed prairie dog and black-footed ferret 

populations in the VPA. For this analysis it was assumed that black-footed ferrets are completely 

dependent upon white-tailed prairie dog towns for survival in those areas where they have been 

reintroduced into the VPA. Therefore, the impacts of minerals development on white-tailed 

prairie dog populations would be similar to the impacts on black-footed ferret populations. 

Minerals development would likely lead to an increase in road densities, a reduction in habitat 

from the installation of mineral development infrastructure, and an increase in habitat 

fragmentation. 

The Proposed RMP would increase the proportion of white-tailed prairie dog habitat open to oil 

and gas development by approximately 5% when compared to Alternative D (No Action). This 

alternative would decrease the proportion of white-tailed prairie dog habitat subject to special 

stipulations by approximately 61% when compared to Alternative D (No Action) (see Table 16 

in Appendix H, Wildlife). 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Yellow-billed Cuckoo are generally associated with lowland riparian and cottonwood forest 

areas. A stipulation common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives is that surface-disturbing 

activities would not be allowed within 100 meters of riparian areas. This stipulation would 

protect these lowland riparian and cottonwood forest habitats from activities such as mineral 

development. However, an exception would be authorized if 1) there are no practical 

alternatives, or 2) all long-term impacts would be fully mitigated or 3) the activity would benefit 

and enhance the riparian area. Any exception that would allow development or construction in 

the riparian zone would have adverse effects on listed or sensitive riparian species. 

Bonytail, Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback Chub, Razorback Sucker, Roundtail Chub, 

Flannelmouth sucker, Bluehead sucker and Colorado River Cutthroat Trout

The minerals development proposed in the Proposed RMP would have long-term and short-term, 

direct and indirect adverse impacts on bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, 

razorback sucker, roundtail chub, flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker and Colorado River 

cutthroat trout. The Soils and Water Quality Section (Section 4.17.2) concludes that although 

stipulations would mitigate the negative impacts of minerals development on water quality, the 

mineral development outlined for the Proposed RMP and each alternative would result in 

indirect, long-term adverse impacts to water quality through soil erosion, sedimentation, and the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-460 

potential for petroleum discharges into surface water and would therefore adversely impact these 

fisheries. It is also currently unknown how minerals development would increase surface 

disturbances in selenium and boron-rich soils, which could indirectly increase these 

contaminants in waters supporting these fisheries. 

The greatest impact to the Colorado River fishes would be that most of the new energy and 

mineral development would occur in the southern part of the VPA, in the proximity of the Green 

and White Rivers or their tributaries. Oil and gas development would change clean water 

discharge patterns into the rivers. Any new depletion from the Green River, particularly in a 

critical habitat reach would constitute a substantial impact. 

4.17.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.17.2.3.2.1. Special Status Plant Species 

Under Alternative A, areas open for mineral and energy development would increase by 16% in 

areas open for oil and gas leasing, and 7% in areas open for mineral development as compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing on BLM 

administered lands within the VPA would be 1,780,860, and mineral materials 415,395 acres. As 

described in the Impacts Common to All Alternatives, the increased minerals development 

would have multiple short-term and long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts on special 

status plant populations within the VPA. These impacts include categorizing a large majority of 

special status plant habitat as open to mineral development. These designations would likely lead 

to an increase in road densities, a reduction in habitat through the installation of mineral 

development infrastructure, and an increase in habitat fragmentation. Increased road densities 

would also make access to remote areas easier for OHVs and could increase illegal collection of 

rare plants. Long-term adverse impacts would primarily be in the form of loss of habitat and 

direct destruction of individuals and populations, with the extent of impacts generally determined 

by the amount of activity. Other impacts that could occur would be genetic isolation of special 

populations and biodiversity loss. Impacts to seed dispersal and pollinators could occur, but 

studies of these impacts within the VPA are limited and few conclusions can be drawn. 

Locatable mining activities, including mineral exploration, development, and collection of 

building stone would continue to have a long-term adverse impact on certain special status plant 

species, particularly Uinta Basin hookless cactus, Pariette cactus and shrubby reed-mustard that 

occur in areas used for collecting building stone. Impacts from mineral mining are projected to 

be most severe within the areas in and near Wrinkles Road, Little Pack Mountain, and Big Pack 

Mountain that are currently mined and in areas where high potential has been identified for 

mineral occurrence. Impacts of increased oil and gas leasing are projected to be most severe 

within the areas in and near the Book Cliffs, on alluvial river terraces near the confluence of the 

Green, White, and Duchesne Rivers, and in Pariette Draw. The potential impacts to Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus, Pariette cactus, clay reed mustard, shrubby reed mustard, Barneby ridge-cress 

and White River beardtongue are expected to be high with oil, gas, and CBNG development. 

Adverse impacts would be highest for special status plants where future development would 

occur in pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, and desert shrub communities. For comparative purposes, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-461 

the alternatives are analyzed with an assumption of a 40-acre well spacing. Under Alternative A, 

438,230 acres of desert shrub, 442,502 acres of sagebrush, and 429,882 acres of pinyon-juniper 

would be subject to surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG development. Alternative A 

proposes 4% more disturbance to desert shrub, 4% more to sagebrush, and 3% more to pinyonjuniper than does Alternative D (No Action). 

4.17.2.3.2.2. Special Status Animal Species 

Ferruginous Hawk

The minerals development land categorization proposed under Alternative A would have 

multiple short-term and long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts on Ferruginous Hawk 

populations in the VPA. These impacts would include categorizing a majority of areas associated 

with Ferruginous Hawk nesting sites as open for mineral development. These designations would 

likely lead to an increase in road densities, a reduction in habitat from the installation of mineral 

development infrastructure, and an increase in habitat fragmentation. 

Alternative A would increase the proportion of areas surrounding Ferruginous Hawk nesting 

sites open to oil and gas development by approximately 2% when compared to Alternative D 

(No Action). This alternative would also decrease the proportion of areas surrounding 

Ferruginous Hawk nesting sites subject to special stipulations other than those prescribed for 

Ferruginous Hawk by 9% and 10%, respectively. 

Mexican Spotted Owl

The minerals development land categorization proposed in Alternative A would likely have 

multiple short-term and long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts on Mexican Spotted Owl 

populations in the VPA. These impacts include categorizing a majority of important Mexican 

Spotted Owl canyon and forest habitat as open for minerals development. These designations 

would likely have impacts similar to those described for Ferruginous Hawks. 

Alternative A would increase the proportion of Mexican Spotted Owl canyon and forest habitat 

open to oil and gas development by approximately 9% and 10%, respectively, when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Alternative A would decrease the proportion of Mexican Spotted 

Owl canyon habitat subject to special stipulations by approximately 12% but would increase 

Mexican Spotted Owl forest habitat subject to special stipulations by approximately 10%, when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). Most of the increased oil and gas development, as well 

as the reduction in special stipulation designations, would occur in the canyon habitat 

immediately adjacent to designated critical habitat and in an area in which substantial suitable 

habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl occurs. 

Greater Sage-grouse

The minerals development land categorization proposed in Alternative A would have multiple 

short-term and long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts on Greater Sage-grouse populations 

in the VPA. These impacts include categorizing a large majority of important Greater Sagegrouse winter and brooding habitat as open to minerals development. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-462 

Alternative A would increase the proportion of Greater Sage-grouse winter and brooding habitat 

open to oil and gas development by approximately 3% when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). This alternative would also decrease the proportion of Greater Sage-grouse winter and 

brooding habitat subject to special stipulations by approximately 2% when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action) (see Sage-grouse Tables 14 and 15 in Appendix H, Wildlife). 

Outright losses, degradation and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats are suspected as the 

primary causes of Sage-grouse population declines throughout Utah (UDWR 2005). Although 

there are several factors that contribute to habitat loss (such as drought), development of oil and 

gas resources includes direct loss of habitat for well pads, roads, and pipelines. Vehicle traffic 

and noise disturbance on roads and at well sites during the drilling phase can have a negative 

effect (Connelly et al. 2004). Disturbances within 200 meters of lek sites resulted in loss of 

attendance at Sage-grouse leks (Braun et al. 2002). Sage-grouse continued to use highly 

fragmented habitats in some oil fields and reclaimed areas, but population levels were below 

numbers prior to disturbance (Braun et al. 2002). 

Stipulations regulate timing and distance from lek sites of construction activities and are largely 

directed to avoid disturbance to Sage-grouse near leks during breeding or nesting periods. 

However, effects on habitats from roads, power lines, compressor stations, and pipelines remain 

following construction. Female Sage-grouse moved greater distances from leks and had lower 

rates of nest initiation in areas disturbed by vehicle traffic (1 to 12 vehicles per day) (Lyon and 

Anderson 2003). Surface disturbance created by roads also facilitates spread of exotic plant 

species (Forman and Alexander 1998; Trombulak and Frissell 2000; Gelbard and Belnap 2003). 

The soil surface of disturbed areas is prepared and reseeded. The primary objectives of the 

reclamation are to control soil erosion, establish desirable vegetation and prepare for natural 

processes to restore the site. Although Sage-grouse may repopulate reclaimed areas, their 

numbers may not return to levels prior to disturbance (Braun et al. 2002). 

White-tailed Prairie Dog and Black-footed Ferret

The minerals development proposed in Alternative A would have multiple short-term and longterm direct and indirect adverse impacts on white-tailed prairie dog and black-footed ferret 

populations in the VPA. For this analysis it was assumed that black-footed ferrets are completely 

dependent upon white-tailed prairie dog towns for survival in those areas where they have been 

reintroduced into the VPA. Therefore, the impacts of minerals development on white-tailed 

prairie dog populations would be similar to the impacts on black-footed ferret populations. 

Alternative A would increase the proportion of white-tailed prairie dog habitat open to oil and 

gas development by approximately 3% when compared to Alternative D (No Action). This 

alternative would decrease the proportion of white-tailed prairie dog habitat subject to special 

stipulations by approximately 30% when compared to Alternative D (No Action) (see Table 16 

in Appendix H, Wildlife). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-463 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Yellow-billed Cuckoo are generally associated with lowland riparian and cottonwood forest 

areas. A stipulation common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives is that surface-disturbing 

activities would not be allowed within 100 meters of riparian areas. This stipulation would 

protect these lowland riparian and cottonwood forest habitats from activities such as mineral 

development. However, an exception would be authorized if 1) there are no practical 

alternatives, or 2) all long-term impacts would be fully mitigated or 3) the activity would benefit 

and enhance the riparian area. Any exception that would allow development or construction in 

the riparian zone would have adverse effects on listed or sensitive riparian species. 

Bonytail, Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback Chub, Razorback Sucker, Roundtail Chub, 

Flannelmouth Sucker, Bluehead Sucker and Colorado River Cutthroat Trout

The minerals development proposed in Alternative A would have long-term and short-term, 

direct and indirect adverse impacts on bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, 

razorback sucker, roundtail chub, flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker and Colorado River 

cutthroat trout. The Soils and Water Quality Section (Section 4.17.2) concludes that although 

stipulations would mitigate the negative impacts of minerals development on water quality, the 

mineral development outlined for the Proposed RMP and each alternative would result in 

indirect, long-term adverse impacts to water quality through soil erosion, sedimentation, and the 

potential for petroleum discharges into surface water and would therefore adversely impact these 

fisheries. It is also currently unknown how minerals development would increase surface 

disturbances in selenium and boron-rich soils, which could indirectly increase these 

contaminants in waters supporting these fisheries. 

The greatest impact to the Colorado River fishes would be that most of the new energy and 

mineral development would occur in the southern part of the VPA, in the proximity of the Green 

and White Rivers or their tributaries. Oil and gas development would change clean water 

discharge patterns into the rivers. Any new depletion from the Green River, particularly in a 

critical habitat reach would constitute a substantial impact. 

4.17.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.17.2.3.3.1. Special Status Plant Species 

Under Alternative B, areas open for mineral and energy development would increase 18% in 

areas open for oil and gas leasing and 12% in areas open for mineral development. The number 

of acres open to oil and gas leasing on BLM administered lands within the VPA would be 

1,819,397 and mineral materials 432,953 acres. Additionally, 463,510 acres of desert shrub, 

464,549 acres of sagebrush, and 443,217 acres of pinyon-juniper would be subject to surface 

disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG development. Alternative B proposes 10% more 

disturbance to desert shrub, 8% more to sagebrush, and 7% more to pinyon-juniper than does 

Alternative D (No Action). Impacts of mineral and energy development under Alternative B are 

generally similar to those described for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, except that the 

increase in mineral and energy development is concentrated in the southern part of the VPA, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-464 

which would place the Book Cliffs soil endemics at substantial risk and potentially result in 

jeopardy to listed species and/or the listing of previously candidate or sensitive species as 

threatened or endangered. The risks would be especially high for the listed and candidate 

penstemons and reed mustards. 

4.17.2.3.3.2. Special Status Animal Species 

Impacts to the Ferruginous Hawk, Greater Sage-grouse, white tailed prairie dog, black-footed 

ferret, and Yellow-billed Cuckoo under Alternative B would be similar to those described for the 

Proposed RMP and Alternative A. 

Most of the increased oil and gas development, as well as the reduction in special stipulation 

designations, would occur in the canyon habitat immediately adjacent to designated critical 

habitat and in an area in which substantial suitable habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl occurs. 

Alternative B would increase the proportion of Mexican Spotted Owl canyon and forest habitat 

open to oil and gas development by approximately 9% and 1%, respectively, when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Alternative B would decrease the proportion of Mexican Spotted Owl 

canyon and forest habitat subject to special stipulations by approximately 22% and 12%, 

respectively, versus Alternative D (No Action). The combination of both increased oil and gas 

development and a reduction in protective measures within canyons providing substantial 

suitable habitat potentially necessary for the species recovery would provide a substantial impact 

when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Impacts to the Colorado River fishes would be similar to those described for the Proposed RMP. 

4.17.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.17.2.3.4.1. Special Status Plant Species 

Under Alternative C, areas open for mineral and energy development would increase by 6% in 

areas open for oil and gas leasing, and 0.3% in areas open for mineral development when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing on 

BLM administered lands within the VPA would be 1,627,085, and mineral materials 388,699 

acres. Under Alternative C, 445,945 acres of desert shrub, 424,043 acres of sagebrush, and 

404,772 acres of pinyon-juniper would be subject to surface disturbance from oil, gas, and 

CBNG development. Alternative C proposes 6% more disturbance to desert shrub, 1% less to 

sagebrush, and 2% less to pinyon-juniper than does Alternative D (No Action). Impacts of 

mineral and energy development under Alternative C are generally similar to those described for 

Alternative D (No Action); although, there are slight increases in acreage available for mineral 

and energy development. The overall effect of Alternative C would be to maintain the current 

condition that is one of continued risk for endemics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-465 

4.17.2.3.4.2. Special Status Animal Species 

Alternative C would decrease the proportion of Greater Sage-grouse winter and brooding habitat 

open to oil and gas development by approximately 2% when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). This alternative would also increase the proportion of Greater Sage-grouse winter and 

brooding habitat subject to special stipulations by approximately 11% when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). This would have a beneficial impact when compared to Alternative D 

(No Action). 

Alternative C would increase the proportion of white-tailed prairie dog habitat open to oil and 

gas development by approximately 3% when compared to Alternative D (No Action). This 

alternative would also decrease the proportion of white-tailed prairie dog habitat subject to 

special stipulations by approximately 17% when compared to Alternative D (No Action). This 

would result in impacts similar to the other action alternatives. 

Alternative C would decrease the proportion of Mexican Spotted Owl canyon and forest habitat 

open to oil and gas development by approximately 1% and 3%, respectively, when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). This alternative would also decrease the proportion of Mexican 

Spotted Owl canyon and forest habitat subject to special stipulations by approximately 23% 

when compared to Alternative D (No Action) (see Tables 17 and 18 in Appendix H, Wildlife). 

The combination of a slight decrease in oil and gas development within the Mexican Spotted 

Owl canyon habitat (1%) with a 23% reduction in protective measures within canyons providing 

substantial suitable habitat potentially necessary for the species recovery would provide a 

substantial impact when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Impacts to the Colorado River fishes would be similar to those described for the Proposed RMP. 

4.17.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), substantial mineral and energy development would still occur. 

There would be 1,536,030 acres of land open for oil and gas leasing, 387,700 acres open for 

mineral materials, totaling 1,923,730 acres. Impacts under Alternative D (No Action) would be 

the same as described under Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives. 

4.17.2.3.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.17.2.3.6.1. Special Status Plant Species 

Under Alternative E, there would be a 2% decrease in the area open for oil and gas leasing, and 

an 11% decrease in the area open for mineral development when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing on BLM administered lands within the 

VPA would be 1,499,461, and mineral materials 344,682 acres. Under Alternative E, 418,869 

acres of desert shrub, 371,960 acres of sagebrush, and 327,451 acres of pinyon-juniper would be 

subject to surface disturbance from oil, gas, and CBNG development. Alternative E proposes 

0.4% less disturbance to desert shrub, 11% less to sagebrush, and 17% less to pinyon-juniper 

than does Alternative D (No Action). Impacts of mineral and energy development under 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-466 

Alternative E are generally similar to those described for Alternative D (No Action); although, 

there are slight decreases in acreage available for mineral and energy development. The overall 

effect of Alternative E would be to slightly reduce the risk to endemics. 

4.17.2.3.6.2. Special Status Animal Species 

Alternative E would decrease the proportion of Greater Sage-grouse winter habitat open to oil 

and gas development by approximately 17% while increasing the proportion of Greater Sagegrouse brooding habitat open to oil and gas development by approximately 1% when compared 

to Alternative D (No Action). This alternative would also increase the proportion of Greater 

Sage-grouse winter and brooding habitat subject to special stipulations by approximately 12% 

and 21%, respectively when compared to Alternative D (No Action). This would have a 

beneficial impact when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Alternative E would increase the proportion of white-tailed prairie dog habitat open to oil and 

gas development by approximately 1% when compared to Alternative D (No Action). This 

alternative would also decrease the proportion of white-tailed prairie dog habitat subject to 

special stipulations by approximately 52% when compared to Alternative D (No Action). This 

would result in impacts similar to the other action alternatives. 

Alternative E would decrease the proportion of Mexican Spotted Owl canyon and forest 

habitat open to oil and gas development by approximately 17% and 2%, respectively when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). This alternative would also increase the proportion 

of Mexican Spotted Owl canyon habitat subject to special stipulations by approximately 

106% while decreasing the proportion of Mexican Spotted Owl forest habitat subject to 

special stipulations by approximately 10% when compared to Alternative D (No Action) (see 

Tables 17 and 18 in Appendix H, Wildlife). The combination of a decrease in oil and gas 

development within the Mexican Spotted Owl canyon habitat and an increase in protective 

measures within canyons would provide a substantial beneficial impact when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Impacts to the Colorado River fishes would be similar to those described for the Proposed RMP. 

4.17.2.4. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.17.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D (NO ACTION), AND E 

Protecting wilderness characteristics outside designated WSAs would provide direct and indirect 

beneficial impacts to special status species by precluding surface disturbance in these areas. 

Reducing surface disturbance limits erosion and decreases habitat fragmentation, noise, and 

traffic that can have adverse impacts on special status species. The Proposed RMP and 

Alternative E would manage approximately 106,178 acres and 277,596 acres, respectively, to 

maintain their wilderness characteristics. The Proposed RMP and Alternative E propose to 

manage these lands for their wilderness characteristics. Alternative E would be more beneficial 

to wildlife than the Proposed RMP primarily because Alternative E would include more acreage 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-467 

and because Alternative E would manage these areas as VRM Class I (compared to VRM Class 

II under the Proposed RMP) and closed to oil and gas leasing. 

4.17.2.5. IMPACTS OF RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

General impacts associated with all of the alternatives would be the same as described in the 

Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives section. Such impacts would be 

either beneficial or adverse, depending on whether the improvements made for livestock grazing 

resulted in moving livestock out of special status species habitat or concentrating them in new 

habitats. The exact locations of the rangeland treatments are presently unknown. Therefore, the 

discussion below focuses only on how rangeland improvement decisions would affect special 

status plants as compared to Alternative D (No Action). Table 4.17.3 below describes the range 

improvement management actions for each alternative. 

Table 4.17.3. Rangeland Improvements for the Proposed RMP and all Alternatives 

Activity Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E

Vegetation 

treatment 

(acres) 

34,640 34,640 50,900 45,860 40,390 45,860

Fencing 

(miles) 68.5 68.5 368.5 129.0 65.0 129.0

Guzzlers/ 

reservoirs 812 812 1,165 811 775 811

Wells/springs 51 51 78 87 74 87

Water 

pipeline 

(miles) 

37.5 37.5 51.0 29.5 35.0 29.5

4.17.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

This alternative would decrease the amount of vegetation treatment and wells/springs, but 

increase the length of fencing and the number of wells/springs that would be developed in the 

VPA. The slightly less surface disturbance caused by vegetation treatments, when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), would produce slightly less adverse impacts on special status plant 

habitat. 

4.17.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would propose more vegetation treatments, fencing, and guzzlers/reservoirs than 

Alternative D (No Action). The greater amount of disturbance under this alternative from 

vegetation treatments, when compared to Alternative D (No Action), would result in potentially 

greater adverse impacts to special status plant species. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-468 

4.17.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Alternatives C and E propose slightly more vegetation treatments and rangeland improvements 

than Alternative D (No Action). Impacts to special status plants would be similar to those 

described under alternative B. 

4.17.2.5.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Vegetation disturbance for rangeland improvements would occur under this alternative and result 

in both beneficial and adverse impacts as described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

4.17.2.6. IMPACTS OF RECREATION AND TRAVEL DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.17.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D (NO ACTION), AND E 

Assignment and designation of Back Country Byways and SRMAs would have both beneficial 

and adverse impacts on special status species. Beneficial impacts would result from focused 

management of recreation in these areas. However adverse impacts would also result because of 

the increased visitor use—and associated disturbance from human presence, trampling of 

vegetation, etc.—that would likely occur following designation. The nature of long-term 

beneficial and adverse impacts on special status species in these areas would be the same among 

the alternatives as described in Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and all Alternatives. 

However, the magnitude of these impacts would differ among the alternatives. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B would designate Seep Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, 

and Atchee Ridge Roads as BLM Back Country Byways. Alternatives C and E would not 

designate these roads as BLM Back Country Byways. This action is not specified under 

Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP and all alternatives would manage Pelican Lake 

(1,014 acres) and Red Mountain – Dry Fork (24,259 acres) as SRMAs. Lands in Browns Park 

and Nine Mile Canyon would also be managed as SRMAs under all alternatives but the acreage 

would differ between some alternatives (Browns Park: 18,490 acres under the Proposed RMP; 

17,000 acres under Alternatives B and D; 52,720 acres under Alternatives A, C and E; Nine Mile 

Canyon: 44,168 acres under the Proposed RMP; 44,181 acres under Alternatives B, and D; 

81,168 acres under Alternatives A, C and E). Lands in Blue Mountain, the Book Cliffs, Fantasy 

Canyon, and the White River would be managed as SRMAs under some alternatives and not 

under others. Acreages would differ as well. Lands in Blue Mountain (42,758 acres), Fantasy 

Canyon (69 acres), and the White River (2,831 acres under the Proposed RMP and 47,130 acres 

under Alternatives C and E) would be managed as SRMAs under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives C and E. Alternative A would managed all of these lands as SRMAs except Fantasy 

Canyon and the White River would consist of 24,183 acres. Under Alternatives B and D these 

lands would not be managed as SRMAs. Lands in the Book Cliffs (273,486 acres) would be 

managed as SRMA under Alternatives A, C and E but not under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives B and D. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E would improve, develop, 

and/or sign up to 400 miles of non-motorized trails. Up to 800 miles of motorized routes would 

be improved, developed, and/or signed under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and D. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-469 

With respect to travel management, the main difference between the Proposed RMP and the 

action alternatives and Alternative D (No Action) is in the amount of land available for Open and 

Limited OHV use. Total acreages available for OHV Open use under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives A, B, C, and E are similar, ranging from 6,202 acres under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A to 5,434 acres under Alternatives B, C, and E. In comparison, Alternative D (No 

Action) would allow 787,859 acres to be Open to unrestricted OHV use. Under the Proposed 

RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E, the number of acres designated as the more restrictive 

Limited category of OHV use are roughly similar, ranging from 1,326,024 under Alternative E to 

1,659,901 under Alternative E. The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would designate 1,643,475 

acres as Limited to designated routes while Alternative C would designate 1,353,529 acres as 

Limited to designated routes. In comparison, Alternative D (No Action) would designate 

887,275 acres as Limited OHV use. Generally adverse OHV effects, such as trampling of either 

occupied or potential special status species habitat, noise, habitat fragmentation, increased wind 

erosion in sensitive habitats would still occur but the risks of these impacts on special status 

species would be substantially reduced under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and 

E, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). The minimal management of OHV use would 

lead to declines of special status species and habitats as areas in the VPA become more popular 

for OHV recreation. 

Although recreational hunting is carefully managed by the UDWR, impacts to species such as 

the Greater Sage-grouse and the White-tailed prairie dog could be exacerbated by recreational 

and travel activity. 

4.17.2.7. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

The RMP provides special status species designations for Sage-grouse and the Colorado River 

cutthroat trout. Therefore, only special status species decisions for these two species are 

addressed in this section. 

4.17.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

4.17.2.7.1.1. Greater Sage-grouse 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives C and E no surface-disturbing activities would be 

allowed year round within 0.25 miles of active Sage-grouse leks. From March 1 through June 15 

(the brooding period) no surface-disturbing activities would be allowed within two miles of 

active Sage-grouse leks and no permanent facilities or structures would be allowed when 

possible. Finally, within 0.5 miles of known active Sage-grouse leks, the best available 

technology would be used to reduce noise. These measures would provide more benefits to Sagegrouse than Alternative D (No Action) which would only require buffers of 300 feet (Book Cliffs 

area) and 1,000 feet (Diamond Mountain area) and would not require noise reduction devices for 

operations occurring within 0.5 miles of known active leks. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-470 

4.17.2.7.1.2. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives C and E would provide, maintain, and/or enhance habitat 

for the reintroduction of Colorado River cutthroat trout to Bitter Creek, Upper Willow Creek, 

Beaver Creek, Sears Creek, Crouse Creek, Tolivers Creek, Davenport Creek, Jackson Creek, and 

Sweetwater Creek and their tributaries. In comparison, Alternative D (No Action) would provide 

and maintain suitable habitat for the reintroduction of Colorado River cutthroat trout to the same 

creeks mentioned above with the exception of Sweetwater, Bitter, and Upper Willow Creeks. 

Under Alternative D (No Action), Argyle Creek would also be included in this list. There would 

be no essential difference between the Proposed RMP and Alternatives C and E and Alternative 

D (No Action), except in the number and location of creeks available for the reintroduction of 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives C and E would be more 

beneficial to Colorado River cutthroat trout than Alternative D (No Action) because there would 

be more creeks available for reintroduction under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives C and E. 

4.17.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.17.2.7.2.1. Greater Sage-grouse 

Alternative A would implement the Strategic Management Plan for Sage-Grouse (UDWR 2002) 

as follows: Human disturbances within 0.6 mile (3,168 feet) of a Sage-grouse lek would be 

avoided during the Sage-grouse breeding season (March 1 through May 31) from 1 hour before 

sunrise to 3 hours after sunrise. Roads, fences, poles, and utility lines would not be constructed 

within 1,300 feet of a lek. Noise reduction according to best available technology would be used 

within 0.5 miles of a lek. The main differences between Alternative A and Alternative D (No 

Action) would be that (1) Alternative A would provide a greater human protective buffer (3,168 

feet) as compared to only 300 feet in the Book Cliffs and 1,000 feet in the Diamond Mountain 

area and (2) noise reduction devices would be used on machinery under Alternative A, whereas 

there would be none under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.17.2.7.2.2. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

Impacts to the Colorado River cutthroat trout would be as described for the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives C and E because the decisions are the same. 

4.17.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.17.2.7.3.1. Greater Sage-grouse 

Sage-grouse management would be as described for Alternative A, with the exception that 

restrictions would apply only to "significant human disturbance," developments may occur 

within 1,300 feet of a lek and there would be no measures undertaken to reduce noise. In general, 

Alternative B would provide much greater protection for Sage-grouse than Alternative D (No 

Action), although the lack of definition of "significant human disturbance" and the option for 

development within 1,300 feet of a lek leaves the possibility open that there would be no 

difference in Sage-grouse management between Alternative B and Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-471 

4.17.2.7.3.2. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

Impacts to the Colorado River cutthroat trout would be as described for the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives C and E because the decisions are the same. 

4.17.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.17.2.7.4.1. Greater Sage-grouse 

Alternative D (No Action) would limit surface disturbance, exploration, drilling, and other 

minerals development activities from March 15 to June 15 and no drilling or storage facilities 

would be allowed within 300 feet of a lek in the Book Cliffs area. No surface-disturbing 

activities would be allowed in Sage-grouse nesting areas (a 2-mile radius of sagebrush vegetation 

type surrounding a lek) from March 1 through June 30 or within 1,000 feet of a lek in the 

Diamond Mountain area. 

4.17.2.7.4.2. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

Under Alternative D (No Action) suitable habitat would be provided and maintained to 

reintroduce Colorado River cutthroat trout in Upper Willow (Brown's Park), Beaver, Sears, 

Crouse, Tolivers, Davenport, Jackson, and Argyle Creeks as found applicable. 

4.17.2.8. IMPACTS OF SOILS AND WATERSHEDS DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.17.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D (NO ACTION), AND E 

Alternatives that incorporate decisions to protect water quality and reduce soil erosion would 

benefit special status plants and animals. The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would provide 

beneficial protection for soils and watersheds by limiting surface disturbance on slopes greater 

than 40% and requiring an approved erosion control strategy and design for activities on slopes 

of 21%–40%. 

Alternative B would have beneficial impacts on special status species by limiting surfacedisturbing activities on slopes greater than 20% by requiring an approved erosion control 

strategy and design. 

Alternatives C and E would provide beneficial protection by preventing disturbance to slopes 

above 40%, and requiring an approved erosion control strategy and design for activities on 

slopes of 21%–40%. 

Alternative D (No Action) restricts surface disturbance for mineral activities only on slopes 

greater than 40%. 

Protection of water quality, reduction of sedimentation in streams, and limits on surface 

disturbance would be beneficial to special status species; therefore the Proposed RMP and all of 

the action alternatives would provide more protection that Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-472 

Alternatives C and E would provide the most protection for water quality and surface disturbance 

and therefore provide the greatest amount of indirect protection for special status species. 

4.17.2.9. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

ACECs, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness would provide direct and indirect beneficial 

impacts to special status species. ACECs provide direct beneficial impacts through management 

prescriptions when they are focused on protecting wildlife, riparian resources, and special status 

species. They also provide indirect beneficial impacts if they preclude surface disturbance within 

portions of the ACEC by limiting erosion and decreasing habitat fragmentation, noise, and 

traffic. Wild and Scenic River recommended designations protect river corridors from mineral 

development and most other surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 mile line of sight from 

centerline of the river thereby providing direct protection to special status species within the river 

corridor. Wilderness Study Areas are closed to leasing unless they have prior valid existing 

rights and thereby provide direct beneficial impacts to special status species. The acreage and 

prescriptions for WSAs are the same for the Proposed RMP and all alternatives so these are not 

discussed below. The acreage and prescriptions for these areas would only change if these areas 

were released by congress. 

4.17.2.9.1. ACECS

4.17.2.9.1.1. Proposed RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, Brown's Park (18,490 acres), the Lower Green River Corridor (8,470 

acres), Nine Mile Canyon (44,168 acres), the Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres), 

Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), Red Creek Watershed (24,475 acres), and the Pariette Wetlands 

(10,437 acres) would be designated as ACECs (131,700 total acres). The benefits of ACEC 

designation, as described above, to special status species would be reduced under the Proposed 

RMP compared to Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP would designate 20% less 

area as ACECs than Alternative D (No Action) (165,944 acres). 

4.17.2.9.1.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, Bitter Creek (68,834 acres), Brown's Park (52,721 acres), Coyote Basin 

(87,743 acres), the Lower Green River Corridor and Lower Green River Expansion (10,170 

acres), Nine Mile Canyon (48,000 acres), the Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres), 

White River (17,810 acres), Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), Red Creek Watershed (24,475 acres), 

and the Pariette Wetlands (10,437 acres) would be designated as ACECs (345,850 total acres). 

The benefits of ACEC designation, as described above, to special status species would be 

increased under Alternative A compared to Alternative D (No Action). Alternative A would 

designate 108% more area as ACECs than Alternative D (No Action) (165,944 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-473 

4.17.2.9.1.3. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, Browns Park (18,474 acres), Coyote Basin (47,659 acres), the Lower Green 

River Corridor (8,470 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (44,181 acres), the Red Mountain – Dry Fork 

Complex (24,285 acres), Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), Red Creek Watershed (24,475 acres), and 

the Pariette Wetlands (10,437 acres) would be designated as ACECs (179,356 total acres). The 

total acreage of ACECs under Alternative B would be about 8% greater than under Alternative D 

(No Action) resulting in more beneficial impacts to special status species than Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.17.2.9.1.4. Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, Bitter Creek (147,425 acres), Browns Park (52,721 acres), Coyote Basin 

(124,161 acres), Four Mile Wash (50,280 acres), the Lower Green River Corridor and Lower 

Green River Expansion (10,170 acres), Main Canyon (100,915 acres), Middle Green River 

(6,768 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 acres), the Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex (24,285 

acres), the White River (47,130 acres), Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), Red Creek Watershed 

(24,475 acres), and the Pariette Wetlands (10,437 acres) would be designated as ACECs 

(681,310 total acres). The total acreage of ACECs under Alternative B would be nearly four 

times greater than under Alternative D (No Action) resulting in more beneficial impacts to 

special status species than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.17.2.9.1.5. Alternative D (No Action) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), Browns Park (52,721 acres), the Lower Green River Corridor 

(8,407 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (44,181 acres), the Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex (24,285 

acres), Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), Red Creek Watershed (24,475 acres), and the Pariette 

Wetlands (10,437 acres) would be designated as ACECs (165,944 total acres). 

4.17.2.9.1.6. Alternative E 

The impacts of special designation decisions on special status species would be the same as 

discussed above for Alternative C because the management actions are the same, except that 

Bitter Creek would not be designated as an ACEC under Alternative E and that the non-WSA 

areas with wilderness characteristics would be managed for the protection of their wilderness 

values. Under this alternative, approximately 197,171 acres within the proposed ACECs would 

be managed under VRM I objectives, closed to mineral leasing and mineral materials disposal, 

excluded from ROW consideration, closed to commercial and private woodcutting, and closed to 

cross-country OHV travel. These management decisions would have long-term, beneficial 

impacts on special status species by either reducing or prohibiting surface disturbances within 

the non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas. This alternative would have more beneficial 

impacts on special status species than all other alternatives because it would manage potential 

special status species habitat with more protective prescriptions. However, it would manage 

fewer acres overall (681,310 total acres) for their wilderness characteristics than Alternative C. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-474 

4.17.2.9.2. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

4.17.2.9.2.1. Proposed RMP and Alternative B 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative B, two river segments on the Upper Green River (22 

miles) and Lower Green River (30 miles) with a tentative classification of scenic for both river 

segments would be considered for Wild and Scenic River designation. Though Alternative D (No 

Action) would also not identify any segments of the aforementioned rivers as suitable for Wild 

and Scenic River designation it would manage portions of Bitter Creek, Evacuation Creek, and 

the White River to protect the free flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative 

classification of the river. As a result, Alternative D (No Action) would have more beneficial 

impacts for special status species than the Proposed RMP and Alternative B. 

4.17.2.9.2.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the portion of the White River between the Colorado state line and the trust 

land boundary (44 miles) would be tentatively classified as "Scenic" (Segment A) and "Wild" 

(Segment B). Though Alternative D (No Action) would not identify any river segments as 

suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation it would manage portions of Bitter Creek, 

Evacuation Creek, and the White River to protect the free flowing nature, outstandingly 

remarkable values, and tentative classification of the river. As a result, Alternative D (No 

Action) would have more beneficial impacts for special status species than Alternative A. 

4.17.2.9.2.3. Alternatives C and E 

Under Alternatives C and E all segments of the aforementioned rivers would be considered 

suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation. This would result in reduced surface disturbance 

and adverse impacts to special status species along approximately 158 miles of river in the VPA. 

Long-term beneficial impacts to riparian dependent special status species would be greater under 

Alternatives C and E compared to Alternative D (No Action) due to the greater river mileage 

considered suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation. These alternatives would identify 

segments along the White River, Nine Mile Creek, the Middle Green River, Evacuation Creek, 

Bitter Creek, and Argyle Creek as suitable for designation into the Wild and Scenic River 

System. These management actions would have greater beneficial impacts on special status 

species than any of the other alternatives. 

4.17.2.9.2.4. Alternatives D (No Action) 

This alternative would not identify any river segments within the VPA as suitable for Wild and 

Scenic River designation. However, segments of Bitter Creek, Evacuation Creek, and the White 

River would be managed to protect the free flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and 

tentative classification of the rivers. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-475 

4.17.2.10. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS AND FOREST MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SPECIAL 

STATUS SPECIES

4.17.2.10.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C AND E 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E would allow public utilization of forest and 

woodland products as one tool for conducting vegetative treatments to achieve desired future 

conditions in these forest and woodland habitats. The Proposed RMP would treat/harvest up to 

546,152 acres of forest and woodland habitat. Alternatives A and C would treat/harvest up to 

552,152 acres of forest and woodland habitat. Alternative B would treat/harvest 554,108 acres of 

forest and woodland habitat. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E would manage forests and woodlands to 

maintain and restore ecosystems to a condition in which biodiversity is preserved and 

occurrences of fire, insects, disease, and other disturbances do not exceed levels normally 

expected in healthy forests and woodlands. The Proposed RMP and these alternatives would 

maintain relict stands of vegetation for biological and genetic diversity. Forests and woodlands 

would be managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield without permanent 

impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment; allow use of 

forest, woodland products, biomass, and certain vegetation products in areas specified for this 

use to meet RMP goals. The Proposed RMP and each of these alternatives would implement the 

National Healthy Forest Initiative and the National Fire Plan by conducting treatments to reduce 

fuel loadings, fire severity, and restoring historical disturbance regimes. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B would initiate a proactive program of woodland 

management that would be implemented for the salvage of forest and woodland products that are 

dead and/or dying due to, fire, disease, insect-kill or other disturbance with the management 

intent of promoting healthy forest and woodlands. Alternative C would allow for the salvage of 

forest and woodland products within proposed ACECs (242,760 acres) only when there is a 

threat to forest and woodlands or other resources in the ACEC. Alternative C would also allow 

for salvage of forests and woodlands for other resources on up to 343,110 acres outside of 

proposed ACECs. Alternative E would allow for the salvage of forest and woodland products 

outside proposed ACECs (242,602 acres) but would not allow these activities within proposed 

ACECs. Alternative E would also prohibit forest and woodland salvage on non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Alternative B would allow harvesting forest and woodland stands that 

have reached culmination of mean annual increment (growth begins to decrease). Stands would 

thereafter be grown and thinned to approximately 80% to 90% of "normal (maximum) basal 

area" until the culmination of mean annual increment, at which time the stand(s) would be cut 

again. 

4.17.2.10.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would allow up to 88,200 acres of forest and 200,100 acres of 

woodlands to have treatments or be harvested. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-476 

These woodland and fire management treatments would have a varying degree of beneficial to 

adverse impacts on special status plant and animal species. Treatments would be conducted to 

manage structure, composition, and function of vegetation, and consideration of how these 

attributes relate to the landscape. Fire suppression activities such as line construction would 

avoid plant sites as much as possible, resulting in slight to moderately adverse impacts 

depending on location and successful avoidance of sites. Maintaining forest and woodland 

habitats in a mosaic of seral stages would have beneficial impacts on most special status species 

by providing a diversity of habitats to meet the life history needs of those species that use these 

areas. 

4.17.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation measures would be implemented under the Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives: 

Mineral and energy development in areas directly associated with Ferruginous Hawk nesting 

areas would be subject to special stipulations including buffers outlined in "Best Management 

Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah" (Utah BLM, 2006, Appendix A) 

with modifications allowed as long as protection of the raptors is ensured. 

Notices for oil and gas development and BLM-committed conservation measures would be 

applied to Utah's T&E species (see Appendix L). 

The Proposed RMP and all alternatives would have stipulations and mitigation measures meant 

to protect and/or enhance existing Greater Sage-grouse habitat. The Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives C and E would not allow surface-disturbing activities year round within 0.25 miles 

of active Sage-grouse leks. From March 1 through June 15 (the brooding period) no surfacedisturbing activities would be allowed within two miles of active Sage-grouse leks and no 

permanent facilities or structures would be allowed when possible. Finally, within 0.5 miles of 

known active Sage-grouse leks, the best available technology would be used to reduce noise. 

Alternative A would implement the Strategic Management Plan for Sage-Grouse (State of Utah, 

June 11, 2002) as the baseline threshold. Alternatives A and B would result in the avoidance of 

all human disturbances within 0.6 miles of a Sage-grouse lek during the Sage-grouse breeding 

season (March 1 to May 31) from 1 hour before sunrise to 3 hours after sunrise. Under 

Alternative A, roads, fences, poles, and utility lines would not be developed within 1,300 feet of 

a lek. Alternative B would allow development within 1,300 feet of a lek but would be designed 

to minimize, to the extent possible, bird collision and to minimize raptor perching within 2 miles 

of a lek. Alternative D (No Action) would limit surface disturbance, exploration, drilling, and 

other minerals development activities from March 15 to June 15 and no drilling or storage 

facilities would be allowed within 300 feet of a lek in the Book Cliffs area. No surface-disturbing 

activities would be allowed in Sage-grouse nesting areas (a 2-mile radius of sagebrush vegetation 

type surrounding a lek) from March 1 through June 30 or within 1,000 feet of a lek in the 

Diamond Mountain area. 

Construction and development around any Bald Eagle nests would be managed under the 

authority of the Eagle Protection Act, and under the auspices of Best Management Practices as 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-477 

outlined in "Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah" 

(Utah BLM, 2006, Appendix A) with modifications allowed as long as protection of nests is 

insured. 

No surface occupancy would be allowed in the riparian zone under the Proposed RMP or any of 

the action alternatives unless 1) there are no practical alternatives; 2) all long term impacts would 

be fully mitigated; or 3) the activity would benefit or enhance the riparian areas. 

Roads, buried pipelines, facilities and well pads should be designed and constructed down slope 

of populations, or suitable habitat, of special status species to eliminate effects of changes to 

water flows that can create erosion and/or sedimentation. In addition, roads, buried pipelines, 

facilities and well pads should be located outside of the 100-year floodplain, wherever feasible. 

Where construction of roads and pads due to landscape constraints, or other resource impacts 

such as archeological sites, need to be upslope of habitat; site specific designs of buffers utilizing 

the landscape, berms, and engineered roads and pads construction measures will be initiated to 

eliminate concentrated water flows and sediment into habitats. 

When buffers are utilized to protect habitat, the buffers need to be of sufficient width to allow 

road or facility maintenance and weed controls without jeopardizing the habitat. 

Where habitat for special status species occurs adjacent to planned construction areas, temporary 

fencing will used to prevent equipment from disturbing habitat. 

Surface pipelines should be placed a minimum of ten feet from special status plants and habitat. 

Where resource impacts conflict and pipelines need to go through habitat, the pipelines will be 

placed ten feet from occurring plants and staked to prevent snaking in the habitat areas. 

Small area closures using permanent fencing, signing, barriers, or other protective measures 

should be utilized to protect special status species habitat from off road travel or OHV use. 

Monitoring of off road travel and OHV use will determine the level of protection needed. 

BLM would initiate the avoidance of key habitats with allotment permittees to protect special 

status species habitat during livestock herding and trailing activities or use of habitat areas for 

bedding or camp sites. (Key habitats are those that are deemed necessary for the conservation of 

the species, including, but not necessarily limited to Designated Critical Habitat, and other 

occupied or unoccupied habitat considered important for the species).

Supplements for livestock and range improvement projects, such as water developments and 

fences, would be planned to avoid concentrating livestock use on special status species habitat. 

Where season of use by livestock is proven detrimental to special status species populations, 

BLM would initiate grazing plans using herding, deferment or rest rotation or other management 

activities, to lessen or deter impacts. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.17. Special Status Species

Vernal RMP 4-478 

4.17.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

The specified mitigation measures would reduce impacts to special status species but would also 

still result in adverse impacts to the Book Cliffs soil endemics, Ferruginous Hawk, Mexican 

Spotted Owl and the threatened and endangered Colorado River fishes. Depending on the degree 

of restriction applied to riparian zone exemptions, unavoidable adverse impacts could also occur 

to the Yellow-billed Cuckoo and the Ute ladies'-tresses. 

4.17.5. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Construction of roads and well pads associated with mineral development would potentially 

provide a short-term use that would eventually result in long-term loss and fragmentation of 

special status species habitat. These activities would also increase the occurrence of noxious 

weed infestations competing for water and space with special status plants. Off highway vehicle 

use in the short-term would cause long-term loss of special status species through habitat 

disturbance, illegal collection of plants, and the indirect spread of noxious weeds. 

4.17.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Irreversible impacts (species loss) to special status species (plants and animals) within the VPA 

would not occur due to planning level decisions described in this document. Irretrievable impacts 

to special status species would occur due to minerals development and other surface-disturbing 

activities that would remove and fragment habitat. In particular, there could be irretrievable 

impacts to the Ferruginous Hawk population because Ferruginous Hawks appear to be more 

susceptible to disturbance because of their preference for solitude when nesting and their high 

dependence on primary prey species such as rabbits and/or ground squirrels (Bechard et al. 1990; 

White and Thurow 1985; Holmes et al. 1993; Olendorff 1993). Similar irretrievable impacts 

could also occur to other special status species that are sensitive to noise and disturbance, such as 

Sage-grouse, and/or of limited distribution such as narrow soil endemic plant species (e.g., Book 

Cliffs soil endemics). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-479 

4.18. VEGETATION

Vegetation resources across the VPA would be affected by the management decisions of several 

resources. Direct adverse effects would primarily occur in the form of surface disturbance 

associated with development activities, vegetation manipulation treatments, and forage 

utilization. Oil and gas exploration and development requires the construction of roads, 

pipelines, wells, well pads, and compressors. Construction of recreation facilities, such as 

campgrounds and trails, and off-road vehicle travel would also disturb vegetated areas. Forage 

use by livestock, wildlife, and wild horses affect plant productivity and plant community 

structure and composition, having both beneficial and adverse impacts. Vegetation manipulation 

treatments and range improvement projects result in both beneficial effects in the long-term and 

adverse effects in the short-term due to surface disturbance. These activities alter plant 

communities and could eventually change the community's successional trajectory. Indirect 

impacts to vegetation associated with surface disturbance activities would also occur through 

processes such as soil loss and compaction, and noxious weed invasions. Indirect effects would 

also be beneficial through special designations such as ACECs. 

This section describes the programmatic-level analysis of the potential effects to vegetation 

resources of the VPA as a result of land management decisions. Short-term direct and indirect 

impacts include acreage of surface disturbance, when possible, while long-term direct and 

indirect effects depend on the potential for a site to be revegetated or improved following surface 

disturbance. 

4.18.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL

The Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health would apply under the Proposed RMP and all of 

the alternatives. Summarized in Chapter 2, these management objective guidelines would ensure 

good site productivity, properly functioning riparian and wetland areas, vegetation communities 

composed of desired species, including native, and special status species when applicable, and 

compliance with state and federal water quality standards. Site-specific monitoring and 

evaluation strategies would be implemented to measure the success of following the Standards 

for Rangeland Health. Approved activities that would result in short-term adverse impacts 

contrary to these objectives would require rehabilitation and reclamation. 

In addition to the Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health, vegetation would benefit from 

specific management guidelines, constraints or stipulations on use (see Chapter 2). 

Considerations would include monitoring to ensure compliance with permit conditions of 

approval and successful site reclamation. Proper livestock grazing timing and intensity would 

maintain or improve rangeland health. Special considerations during periods of drought would be 

made regarding livestock, wildlife, wild horses, recreation, and OHV use. 

All management prescriptions would consider climatic conditions relative to an activity's effect 

on long-term rangeland productivity. The effect of management activities combined with 

wildland fire, drought, and natural disasters would also be considered. Resource degradation 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-480 

would be minimized through adaptive-management actions such as temporary livestock 

reductions or recreation limitations, as necessary. 

Several resources incorporate management goals and objectives and resource-specific actions 

common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives that would beneficially affect the vegetation 

resource by either reducing surface disturbance, rehabilitating or restoring areas following 

surface disturbance, or protecting areas from consumptive use, thereby minimizing impacts to 

vegetation. These resources consist of cultural, fire management, forage, lands and realty, 

livestock and grazing, riparian, soil and watershed, wilderness, ACEC and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers special designations, special status species, visuals, wildlife, and woodlands and forests. 

Actions common to all are summarized by resource in Chapter 2. 

The Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives allow for utilization increases in the event that 

rangeland health was being sustained or significant progress was being made towards rangeland 

health improvements. This increase in grazing would potentially cause adverse impacts to 

vegetation if not carefully managed and monitored. Impacts related to forage utilization are 

further analyzed in Section 4.8, Livestock and Grazing. 

Land withdrawals would benefit vegetation in both the short- and long-term by reducing the 

potential for surface disturbance by mineral extraction activities. The Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives A and B would pursue locatable mineral withdrawal in the Book Cliffs Natural Area 

(401 acres), Green River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park (8,208 acres), relict vegetation areas in 

Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), the White River (9,218 acres), and developed and potential 

recreation sites (5,000 acres), for a total of 24,202 acres. Alternatives C and E would pursue 

locatable mineral withdrawal in all of the aforementioned locations (except developed and 

potential recreation sites) in addition to the Lower Green River ACEC for a total of 36,265 acres. 

Alternative D (No Action) would pursue mineral withdrawals in the above areas, but with 

different acreages designated for withdrawal in some cases: in Browns Park (19,400 acres), 

Lears Canyon (3,600 acres), the Lower Green River ACEC (7,900 acres), and developed and 

potential recreation sites (5,000 acres). A total of approximately 35,900 acres of mineral 

withdrawals would be pursued under Alternative D (No Action). 

Special Designations that are currently managed would be maintained under the Proposed RMP 

and all alternatives. These include ACEC designation in Browns Park, Lears Canyon, Nine Mile 

Canyon, Red Mountain - Dry Fork, Pariette Wetlands, and Red Creek. These areas are also 

discussed under alternative impacts along with other impacts of special designations (Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, WSAs) on vegetation. 

The Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives would allow harvesting of forest and woodland 

products. Impacts common to the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives would include the 

long-term beneficial impacts that would result from the reduction of excessive fuel loads within 

the treated areas, which would reduce the potential for catastrophic, stand-destroying wildland 

fire; allow public use of woodland products; make improvements to woodland habitat; and make 

improvements in woodland productivity by restoring woodland and forest health. Prescribed fire 

or other treatments that would reduce the number of diseased and/or insect-infested trees in the 

resource area would also have long-term beneficial impacts to woodland health. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-481 

The Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives would restore or rehabilitate up to 200,000 acres of 

sagebrush-steppe habitat over the life of the plan. These vegetation treatments would consider 

the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Guidelines for Management 

of Sage Grouse Populations and Habitats and State and Local Conservation Plans. These Sagegrouse habitat protection measures would directly benefit vegetation by curtailing surface 

disturbance and increasing the acreage of stable sagebrush-steppe habitat. 

Any decisions involving spatial and seasonal buffers for raptor protection would generally 

benefit any surrounding vegetation. Long-term benefits to vegetation would occur, as nesting 

sites would be protected from surface disturbance associated with oil and gas leasing activities. 

Impacts due to paleontological and cultural decisions would not be different under the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP and are discussed under management common to all in 

Chapter 2. 

4.18.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

Management decisions that would affect vegetation are discussed below for the Proposed RMP 

and each alternative. 

4.18.2.1. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

4.18.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C AND E 

All prescribed fire activities are preceded by a burn plan. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, 

B, C and E would allow for 156,425 acres of prescribed fire per decade in the VPA. Target 

vegetation communities include pinyon-juniper, oak, aspen, and conifer. Prescription fires would 

reduce plant material initially, resulting in an adverse, short-term impact on vegetation. There 

would be an increased risk of noxious weed and invasive species establishment on fire-exposed 

and disturbed ground surfaces. However, as vegetation recovers and plant communities return to 

a natural fire regime, long-term, beneficial effects on the vegetation resource would occur, 

except where invasive annuals such as cheatgrass have invaded and become established. Plant 

communities could return to a more native mix of species. In some situations, seeding may be 

required in conjunction with prescribed fire to help prevent the establishment of non-native, 

invasive, and noxious species. The reduction in hazardous fuels from the use of prescribed fire 

would also benefit vegetation in the long-term by reducing the risks of wildland fire. These 

beneficial impacts would be greater than those that would occur under Alternative D (No Action) 

because these action alternatives and the Proposed RMP would propose more acreage for 

prescribed fire treatments than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would allow up to 27,950 acres of prescribed burn treatments in the 

Book Cliffs RMP area and 22,950 acres of treatments, including prescribed burns, in the 

Diamond Mountain RMP area. As under the other alternatives and the Proposed RMP, direct 

impacts on vegetation would be adverse immediately following treatment, but long-term impacts 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-482 

would be beneficial. However, the smaller amount of prescribed fire allowed under this 

alternative would produce less short-term adverse effects and less beneficial long-term effects 

than would the other alternatives or the Proposed RMP. 

Impacts to vegetation would also occur with fire suppression activities (e.g., surface disturbance 

caused by heavy equipment, the digging of fire lines, etc.). Invasive species could spread to these 

disturbed areas, resulting in adverse impacts to vegetation community composition. 

4.18.2.2. IMPACTS OF FORAGE DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Forage utilization decisions would directly impact vegetation in both the short- and the longterm. Short-term direct adverse impacts include loss of vegetative cover and biomass, and 

trampling, while long-term adverse impacts would include reductions in plant productivity and 

regenerative ability, and increases in noxious weeds. The severity of adverse impacts also 

depends on grazing management (i.e., season of use) and climatic conditions (see Section 4.8 

Livestock and Grazing). As explained in Chapter 2, the BLM Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Grazing Management would apply to forage utilization decisions. 

4.18.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C AND E 

Though forage utilization would generally lead to short- and long-term adverse impacts to 

vegetation as described above, under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C and E season 

of use changes, reduced livestock use, and improved livestock management strategies would all 

lead to improved vegetation conditions compared to Alternative D (No Action). Areas already 

meeting standards for rangeland health would be maintained; no other impacts would be present 

or no other improvements would be needed. 

The Proposed RMP and each action alternative would allow for reductions in AUMs in the event 

that rangeland conditions are not being sustained or improved. This adaptive management 

strategy would generally benefit vegetation in the long-term compared to Alternative D (No 

Action) by allowing it to recover from grazing pressure. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, 

B, C and E would reduce utilization only after all other viable management options were 

considered, such as timing of use. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C and E would limit percent forage utilization on 

uplands—under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C and E forage utilization would be 

limited to 50%, while under Alternative B forage utilization would be limited to 60%—and 

would, therefore, result in less adverse impacts to vegetation as compared to Alternative D (No 

Action), which would not limit percent forage utilization (Table 4.18.1). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-483 

Table 4.18.1. Forage Utilization and AUM Allocations for the Proposed RMP and 

each Alternative 

Alternative AUM Allocations 

/ Proposed 

RMP 

Forage Utilization Limit (%) Livestock Wildlife Wild Horses 

Proposed 

RMP 50 138,402 104,865 2,340 

A 50 137,838 104,871 2,940 

B 60 139,163 104,871 0

C 50 77,294 106,196 3,960 

D NA 146,161 96,607 3,360 

E 50 77,294 106,196 3,960 

1

AUM Allocations for wild horses under the Proposed RMP would be temporary, until wild horses have been gathered 

and removed. 

4.18.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

In addition to the AUM allocations shown in Table 4.18.1, Alternative D (No Action) also 

includes the following allocations. The Book Cliffs RMP allocates 1,123 AUMs for antelope in 

the Bonanza-Rainbow area. These AUMs are split among the Bonanza Wild Horse Herd area, 

which includes 239 AUMs inside the area and 502 outside the area. Some allotments have shown 

an upward trend in forage availability and changes made to other allotments would result in an 

upward trend under Alternative D (No Action). 

As mentioned above, each action alternative and the Proposed RMP would allow for reductions 

in AUMs in the event that rangeland conditions are not being sustained or improved. This 

adaptive management strategy would generally benefit vegetation in the long-term by allowing it 

to recover from grazing pressure. Alternative D (No Action) does not specify a utilization 

reduction, which would potentially result in greater impacts to vegetation than the action 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Rangeland health complications such as noxious weed 

infestations could result from the inability to limit forage use. This would have indirect, adverse 

impacts on vegetation as noxious weeds would outcompete native vegetation for space and 

resources. 

4.18.2.3. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

4.18.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C 

Decisions regarding land acquisitions to improve access would potentially increase impacts to 

vegetation in some areas, while reducing potential impacts in other areas. The Proposed RMP 

and Alternatives A and C could result in impacts to vegetation along the White River near the 

mouth of Cowboy Canyon if access was acquired, resulting in more adverse impacts than under 

Alternative D (No Action). Adverse impacts from damage to vegetation and from the 

establishment of noxious weeds could occur through the subsequent increase in traffic through 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-484 

this area. This activity would not occur under Alternative B and it is not specified under 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Acquisition of lands in Bitter Creek and near the confluence of South and Sweetwater Canyons 

would occur under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and C, with potentially adverse 

impacts to vegetation in these areas. Under Alternative B administrative access only would be 

pursued in these areas. These activities are not specified under Alternative D (No Action), so the 

potential for adverse impacts from these management actions would be less than those under the 

Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and C. 

Decisions regarding locatable mineral withdrawal or other protective measures that would 

preclude mineral entry would have beneficial impacts on vegetation by reducing the acreage of 

surface disturbance that would result from mineral withdrawal activities. A total of 24,202 acres 

would be withdrawn from mineral entry or subject to other protective measures under the 

Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B. This is approximately two-thirds (67%) as much as 

would be withdrawn or subject to other protective measures under Alternative D (No Action) 

(35,900 acres upon which mineral and agricultural entry would be precluded). The Proposed 

RMP and Alternatives A and B, therefore, would be less beneficial to vegetation because these 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP would protect less acreage from mineral withdrawal 

activities than Alternative D (No Action). Under Alternative C a total of 36,265 acres would be 

withdrawn from mineral entry or subject to other protective measures. This is about 365 more 

acres subject to these measures than under Alternative D (No Action). Alternative C, therefore, 

would be more beneficial to vegetation because this alternative would protect more acreage from 

mineral withdrawal activities than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action) management decisions related to land access are unspecified. 

However, locatable mineral withdrawal or other protective measures that would preclude mineral 

and agricultural entry would occur on a total of approximately 35,900 acres. The preclusion of 

mineral and agricultural entry on this acreage would decrease the potential for adverse impacts to 

vegetation in these acres, as compared to the Proposed RMP and the action alternatives. 

4.18.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts of lands and realty decisions on vegetation would be similar to those discussed 

above for Alternative C because the decisions are similar, except that approximately 277,597 

acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the VPA would be managed as 

ROW exclusion areas. The management decisions for these areas, in order to protect their 

wilderness values, would have long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation resources because 

surface disturbance impacts would be restricted. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this 

alternative would have more beneficial impacts on vegetation resources because more protection 

would be afforded vegetation, reducing the potential for invasive species establishment and 

maintaining vegetation communities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-485 

4.18.2.4. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Impacts to vegetation from livestock grazing depend partly on the seasonality and locality of the 

grazing activity. Seasons-of-use decisions incorporate these factors and differ across the 

Proposed RMP and each alternative under the broad grazing management strategies of: 

Phenology (Proposed RMP and Alternative A), Billed Use (Alternative B), Adjudicated 

(Alternatives C and E), and Permitted (Alternative D, No Action). In general, impacts to 

vegetation are reduced when grazing occurs in the fall and winter, because plants are dormant 

and are not using energy for growth or reproduction. In contrast, grazing during the spring would 

have adverse indirect impacts on native plants by inhibiting productivity and reproduction, and 

increasing the likelihood of noxious weed expansion or establishment. Other direct, adverse 

impacts from livestock grazing include trampling, soil compaction, and soil erosion. 

4.18.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would employ a phenology-based grazing system in all 

areas except Area 1 which would allow vegetation to recover by coupling forage use with 

dormancy and avoiding the growth periods of plants. Grazing would occur in Area 1 (Special 

Resources) only at the discretion of the VFO. Under the Proposed RMP grazing would be 

allowed in the Nine Mile Acquired Area provided that grazing is controlled, of short duration, 

does not detract from recreation and/or riparian values along the river, and is in accordance with 

the Green River Allotment Management Plan administered by the Price Field Office. With 

respect to the Nine Mile Acquired Area, to enhance riparian and watershed values Alternative A 

would not allow grazing. In the Nine Mile Acquired Area, therefore, Alternative A would have 

more beneficial impacts to vegetation than the Proposed RMP. In general, the Proposed RMP 

and Alternative A would result in fewer adverse impacts to vegetation due to livestock grazing 

than Alternative D (No Action) because the Proposed RMP and Alternative A would only allow 

grazing during the dormancy period of the forage plants, whereas Alternative D (No Action) 

would allow grazing during the growth period of forage plants. 

4.18.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would have the highest potential for adverse impacts to vegetation of all 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. This alternative would be based on dates taken from 

permittee billing receipts and would reflect the actual allotment use times, not necessarily the 

permitted use periods or the best time, biologically, with respect to vegetation growth periods. 

Combined with a 60% forage allocation (see Section 4.18.2.2, Forage Decisions), this alternative 

would result in the greatest impacts to vegetation compared to all other alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. Grazing use under Alternative B would often exceed the permitted timeframes, 

or overlap grazing start or end dates, increasing the risk of adverse impacts to vegetation. 

Livestock grazing use in Area 1 and in the Nine Mile Acquired Area would be the same under 

Alternative B as under Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-486 

4.18.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Alternatives C and E would incorporate the negotiation between permitted use periods and 

vegetation phenology, narrowing the time period of actual use as it occurs under permitting, to 

the most sound vegetation phenological period. In general, forage use would be limited to the fall 

and winter, except in Areas 2 and 3, reducing the potentially adverse impacts that could occur 

during crucial growth periods. These alternatives would result in fewer adverse impacts to 

vegetation when compared to Alternative D (No Action) (Permitted Use) because Alternative D 

would allow more use during the growth period of forage plants than Alternatives C or E. 

Under Alternatives C and E livestock grazing in Area 1 would be allowed at the discretion of the 

VFO (same as Alternatives A, B, and D), though these alternatives would not allow lands in the 

Nine Mile Acquired Area to be grazed. Alternative E would include additional protections for 

vegetation because conversions would not be allowed in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics if fencing or other structural improvements would be required or if conversions 

would result in significant resource conflicts. In general, Alternative E would be the most 

protective of vegetation resources with respect to livestock grazing decisions. 

4.18.2.4.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) reflects current livestock grazing activities, as assigned on grazing 

permits. Potential impacts of this alternative would be similar to those under Alternative B, but 

would differ (for most areas) by the length of time grazing may occur in each area. Management 

prescriptions for the Nine Mile Acquired Area are unspecified under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.5. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

The potential direct impacts from oil, gas, and CBNG production; Gilsonite and phosphate (nonenergy leasable minerals) mining; and mineral materials mining would occur as various forms of 

surface disturbance. Initial loss of vegetation would be followed by a greater potential for 

invasive and noxious weed establishment. 

Of the six oil and gas development areas within the VPA (see Figure 24, RFD Areas), vegetation 

in the three most southern RFD areas is expected to be the most impacted by minerals decisions. 

It is anticipated that these three areas (East and West Tavaputs Plateau, and Monument ButteRed Wash) would have the highest levels of oil and gas well development. 

Surface disturbance associated with well construction would produce both short- and long-term 

adverse impacts to vegetation, potentially beyond the average well-life of 25 years. In the short 

term, surface disturbance would remove vegetation and increase the potential for noxious weed 

invasions. Other surface-disturbing activities associated with well development, such as road and 

pipeline construction, would produce additional impacts to vegetation. Following the initial 

short-term impacts, surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development would produce 

long-term impacts to vegetation. Successful reclamation is estimated to take at least 10 years, 

allowing time for site degradation and noxious weed infestations to continue. Revegetation is 

especially difficult within the desert shrub type, as soils are shallow and highly saline, and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-487 

moisture availability is relatively low. Noxious weed invasions, notably cheatgrass, are likely in 

the sagebrush/perennial grass types, as these areas are often grazed by domestic livestock. 

Pinyon-juniper areas that have been chained and/or burned in the past are also highly susceptible 

to noxious weed invasions, and further disturbance would only increase the possibility of weed 

infestation. Russian knapweed is already a problem in the Diamond Mountain and Blue 

Mountain areas. Surface disturbance near noxious weed populations in these areas would likely 

allow for the weeds to spread. Other areas of concern include the Uinta Basin, Clay Basin, and 

Browns Park, where large populations of Russian thistle, halogeton, and cheatgrass are known to 

occur. 

Acres of each vegetation type by leasing category are shown for the Proposed RMP and each 

alternative in Table 4.18.2. Note that acreage figures may differ slightly due to discrepancies 

between vegetation data and leasing data used in the minerals potential report. Also, GAP 

vegetation type categories listed below do not include values for Urban and Agricultural areas. 

Acreage figures under the categories Standard Stipulations and Timing and Controlled Surface 

Use reflect the total BLM administered areas within the VPA open to surface-disturbing 

activities. These are not estimates of the total area disturbed within the VPA, but a comparison 

by alternative and the Proposed RMP of the amount of area open to potential development within 

BLM administered areas within the VPA. 

Table 4.18.2. Acreage of Each Vegetation Cover Type by Minerals Leasing Category under 

the Proposed RMP and Each Alternative 

Alternative / 

Proposed 

RMP 

Vegetation Type Standard 

Stipulations 

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

No Surface 

Occupancy No Leasing 

Aspen 125 0 0 14 

Badland/rock outcrop 43,222 14,569 5,700 987 

Conifer 25,742 65,228 500 13,604 

Desert Shrub 354,250 92,090 18,617 5,774 

Mountain Shrub 11,805 52,882 752 8,166 

Pinyon Juniper 150,159 225,997 12,922 94,171 

Riparian 1,147 466 2,867 34 

Sagebrush 263,149 166,824 30,738 28,968 

Sand Bars 28 1 59 0 

Proposed 

RMP 

TOTAL1

 849,627 618,057 72,155 151,718 

Aspen 138 0 0 0 

Badland/rock outcrop 47,190 10,442 4,258 2,451 

Conifer 28,197 67,945 886 7,534 

Desert Shrub 385,809 52,421 15,931 1,199 

Mountain Shrub 19,936 51,475 920 937 

Pinyon Juniper 165,502 264,380 12,129 39,281 

Riparian 849 435 2,252 506 

A 

Sagebrush 320,109 122,393 26,723 18,428 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-488 

Table 4.18.2. Acreage of Each Vegetation Cover Type by Minerals Leasing Category under 

the Proposed RMP and Each Alternative 

Alternative / 

Proposed 

RMP 

Vegetation Type Standard 

Stipulations 

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

No Surface 

Occupancy No Leasing 

Sand Bars 28 1 59 0 

TOTAL1 967,758 569,492 63,158 70,336 

Aspen 138 0 0 0 

Badland/rock outcrop 51,462 9,737 2,935 527 

Conifer 54,676 41,828 871 7,187 

Desert Shrub 395,431 49,773 11,099 908 

Mountain Shrub 45,022 26,486 920 841 

Pinyon-Juniper 199,586 244,997 8,063 28,656 

Riparian 2,254 485 1,309 0 

Sagebrush 340,275 117,138 16,174 14,378 

Sand Bars 82 2 4 0 

B 

TOTAL1 1,088,926 490,446 41,375 52,497 

Aspen 138 0 0 0 

Badland/rock outcrop 38,337 11,739 2,826 11,760 

Conifer 31,680 27,877 408 44,602 

Desert Shrub 335,461 90,494 15,454 15,809 

Mountain Shrub 19,117 35,434 1,110 17,607 

Pinyon-Juniper 151,407 235,799 15,105 78,994 

Riparian 877 67 1,398 1,706 

Sagebrush 246,769 167,826 20,550 52,820 

Sand Bars 26 0 44 18 

C 

TOTAL1 823,812 569,236 56,895 223,316 

Aspen 105 0 17 0 

Badland/rock outcrop 38,123 14,470 10,955 531 

Conifer 55,853 34,739 5,692 7,461 

Desert Shrub 279,485 142,510 33,445 964 

Mountain Shrub 24,025 46,010 3,164 826 

Pinyon-Juniper 231,749 180,799 39,012 29,033 

Riparian 693 196 3,578 0 

Sagebrush 265,607 164,587 38,976 14,503 

Sand Bars 26 0 62 0 

D 

TOTAL1

 895,666 583,311 134,901 53,318 

Aspen 124 0 0 14 

Badland/rock outcrop 36,930 11,256 2,138 14,339 

E 

Conifer 31,088 22,458 408 50,614 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-489 

Table 4.18.2. Acreage of Each Vegetation Cover Type by Minerals Leasing Category under 

the Proposed RMP and Each Alternative 

Alternative / 

Proposed 

RMP 

Vegetation Type Standard 

Stipulations 

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

No Surface 

Occupancy No Leasing 

Desert Shrub 333,716 85,154 14,816 23,542 

Mountain Shrub 17,907 29,724 743 24,897 

Pinyon-Juniper 141,392 186,059 10,945 142,919 

Riparian 877 66 1,356 1,749 

Sagebrush 225,022 146,938 15,523 100,492 

Sand Bars 26 0 40 22 

TOTAL ACRES1 787,082 481,655 45,969 358,588

1

The differences in total BLM vegetation acreages for each leasing category and total BLM acreages for oil and gas leasing are 

accounted for by those areas lacking vegetation (e.g., rocky areas, urban/developed areas). 

4.18.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP 

As shown in Table 4.18.2, the potential for impacts to vegetation associated with the total area 

open to potential development would be greater under the Proposed RMP compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Under the Proposed RMP, combined acreages totaling approximately 

1,467,684 acres would be categorized as Standard Stipulations or Timing and Controlled Surface 

Use in the vegetation types listed in Table 4.18.2, a 1% decrease over Alternative D (No Action). 

Estimated surface disturbance by individual well development would total 18,860 acres; 5,045 

acres of which would be reclaimed within one year of completion of operations (as per 

stipulations in the Minerals Potential Report). This represents a 4% increase in potential acres 

disturbed by oil and gas development compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Under the Proposed RMP approximately 223,873 acres of No Surface Occupancy and No 

Leasing BLM lands would not be impacted by oil and gas development, representing a 19% 

increase in the total acres that would not be impacted by oil and gas development compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Under the Proposed RMP impacts associated with prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate would potentially occur on 76,208 acres open to leasing within the phosphate 

occurrence areas. Approximately 4% fewer acres are available for this activity under the 

Proposed RMP compared to Alternative D (No Action), which would potentially result in fewer 

adverse impacts to vegetation from this activity under the Proposed RMP. Gilsonite prospecting, 

leasing, and development would potentially occur on 172 miles (36,846 acres) of Gilsonite veins 

and on all BLM lands classified as open that contain additional veins. This area is 2% more than 

the area available under Alternative D (No Action), which would result in more adverse impacts 

to vegetation under the Proposed RMP. 

Mineral material disposal could occur on 389,788 acres, less than a 1% increase compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Therefore, adverse impacts to vegetation under Alternative A would 

be greater when compared to Alternative D (No Action), but only slightly. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-490 

4.18.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

As shown in Table 4.18.2, the potential for impacts to vegetation associated with the total area 

open to potential development would be greater under Alternative A compared to Alternative D 

(No Action). Under Alternative A, combined acreages totaling approximately 1,537,250 acres 

would be categorized as Standard Stipulations or Timing and Controlled Surface Use in the 

vegetation types listed above, a 14% increase over Alternative D (No Action). Estimated surface 

disturbance by individual well development would total 18,971 acres; 5,071 acres of which 

would be reclaimed within one year of completion of operations (as per stipulations in the 

Minerals Potential Report). This represents a 4% increase in potential acres disturbed by oil and 

gas development compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Approximately 133,141 acres of No Surface Occupancy and No Leasing BLM lands would not 

be impacted by oil and gas development, representing a 30% decrease in the total acres that 

would not be impacted by oil and gas development compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Alternative A impacts associated with prospecting, leasing, and development of phosphate would 

potentially occur on 87,724 acres open to leasing within the phosphate occurrence areas. 

Approximately 4% fewer acres are available for this activity under Alternative A compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), which would potentially result in fewer adverse impacts to vegetation 

from this activity under Alternative A. Gilsonite prospecting, leasing, and development would 

potentially occur on 172 miles (36,846 acres) of Gilsonite veins and on all BLM lands classified 

as open that contain additional veins. This area is 2% more than the area available under 

Alternative D (No Action), which would result in more adverse impacts to vegetation under 

Alternative A. 

Mineral material disposal could occur on 415,395 acres, a 7% increase compared to Alternative 

D (No Action). Therefore, adverse impacts to vegetation under Alternative A would be greater 

when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

As shown in Table 4.18.2, Alternative B would designate approximately 1,579,372 acres as 

Standard Stipulations or Timing and Controlled Surface Use within the vegetation types listed 

above; a 7% increase over Alternative D (No Action). Surface disturbance associated with oil 

and gas activity on BLM administered land within the VPA would equal 19,033 acres, with 

5,088 acres to be reclaimed within one year of completion of operations (as per stipulations in 

Minerals Potential Report). This represents a 5% increase in surface disturbance over Alternative 

D (No Action). Potential oil and gas related impacts to vegetation under Alternative B would be 

greater than what would occur under Alternative D (No Action). 

Approximately 94,603 acres of No Surface Occupancy and No Leasing BLM lands would not be 

impacted by oil and gas development, representing a 50% decrease in total acres not available 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). Thus, the area available for development is greater 

under Alternative B compared to Alternative D (No Action), allowing for a greater potential for 

adverse impacts to vegetation. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-491 

Under Alternative B, 87,724 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate within the phosphate occurrence areas, representing a 4% increase over Alternative D 

(No Action). Gilsonite prospecting, leasing, and development would potentially occur on 172 

miles (36,846 acres) of Gilsonite veins and on all BLM lands classified as open that contain 

additional veins, representing a 2% increase as compared to Alternative D (No Action). Impacts 

associated with phosphate and Gilsonite prospecting activities would be greater under 

Alternative B, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Mineral material disposal could occur on 432,953 acres under Alternative B, a 12% increase as 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). Potentially adverse impacts to vegetation associated 

with mineral material disposal would be greater under Alternative B when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.5.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

As shown in Table 4.18.2, Alternative C would designate approximately 1,393,048 acres as 

Standard Stipulations or Timing and Controlled Surface Use, representing a 6% decrease as 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). Oil and gas development would impact 18,757 acres, 

5,020 of which would be reclaimed within one year of completion of operations (as per 

stipulations in Minerals Potential Report). This represents a 3% increase under Alternative C in 

potential disturbances related to oil and gas production compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Approximately 286,916 acres of No Surface Occupancy and No Leasing BLM lands would not 

be impacted by oil and gas development, representing a 51% increase in total acres that would 

not be impacted by oil and gas development compared to Alternative D (No Action). Thus, the 

potential for impacts would be less under Alternative C when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Under this alternative, 63,571 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate with standard and special stipulations within the phosphate occurrence areas. This 

represents a 25% decrease over Alternative D (No Action), resulting in a lower potential for 

adverse impacts to vegetation under Alternative C. Gilsonite prospecting, leasing, and 

development would potentially occur on 172 miles (36,846 acres) of Gilsonite veins and on all 

BLM lands classified as open that contain additional veins. This equates to a 2% increase in area 

available for Gilsonite activities across the BLM administered areas within the VPA as compared 

to Alternative D (No Action). Thus, greater adverse impacts to vegetation would be expected. 

Mineral material disposal could occur on 388,699 acres, an increase of 0.3% in potentially 

adverse impacts to vegetation when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.5.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

As shown in Table 4.18.2, Alternative D (No Action) would classify approximately 1,478,977 

acres in the vegetation types listed above as Standard Stipulations and Timing and Controlled 

Surface Use. Oil and gas development would potentially impact 18,212 acres, 4,886 of which 

would be reclaimed within one year. Approximately 189,470 acres of No Surface Occupancy 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-492 

and No Leasing BLM lands would not be impacted by oil and gas development under 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 84,600 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and 

development of phosphate with standard and special stipulations within the phosphate 

occurrence areas. Gilsonite prospecting, leasing, and development would potentially occur on 

168 miles (36,009 acres) of Gilsonite veins, and on all BLM lands classified as open that contain 

additional veins. Additional mitigation actions would be required in critical deer and elk winter 

range to reduce short and long-term impacts to habitat. Mineral material disposal could occur on 

387,700 acres. 

4.18.2.5.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

As shown in Table 4.18.2, Alternative E would designate approximately 1,268,737 acres as 

Standard Stipulations or Timing and Controlled Surface Use within the vegetation types listed 

above, representing a 14% decrease as compared to Alternative D (No Action). Oil and gas 

development would impact 17,469 acres, 4,703 of which would be reclaimed within one year of 

completion of operations (as per stipulations in Minerals Potential Report). This represents a 4% 

decrease under Alternative E in potential disturbances related to oil and gas production compared 

to Alternative D (No Action). 

Approximately 414,666 acres of No Surface Occupancy and No Leasing BLM lands would not 

be impacted by oil and gas development, representing a 119% increase in total acres that would 

not be impacted by oil and gas development compared to Alternative D (No Action). Thus, the 

potential for impacts would be less under Alternative E when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Under this alternative, 52,063 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate with standard and special stipulations within the phosphate occurrence areas. This 

represents a 38% decrease compared to Alternative D (No Action), resulting in a lower potential 

for adverse impacts to vegetation under Alternative E. Gilsonite prospecting, leasing, and 

development would potentially occur on 163 miles (34,967 acres) of Gilsonite veins and on all 

BLM lands classified as open that contain additional veins. This equates to a 3% decrease in area 

available for Gilsonite activities within the VPA as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Thus, fewer adverse impacts to vegetation would be expected. 

Mineral material disposal could occur on 344,682 acres, a decrease of 11% in potentially adverse 

impacts to vegetation when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.6. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS BY RFD AREA

Surface disturbances (acres) by RFD area within the BLM administered areas of the VPA are 

shown in Table 4.18.4 below. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-493 

Table 4.18.4. Short- and Long-term Minerals Impacts under the Proposed RMP and Each 

Alternative by RFD Area within BLM-administered Land (acres) 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

RFD Area Alternative E

Short Long Short Long Short Long Short Long Short Long Short Long

East 

Tavaputs 

Plateau 

599 1,627 612 1,670 613 1,672 599 1,627 613 1,672 474 1,245

West 

Tavaputs 

Plateau 

266 696 266 696 278 733 266 696 278 733 253 657

Monument 

Butte-Red 

Wash 

4,003 11,067 4,013 11,099 4,016 11,107 4,003 11,067 4,016 11,107 3,797 10,437

AltamontBluebell 

121 262 121 262 121 262 121 262 121 262 121 262

TabionaAshley Valley 

38 113 39 116 40 116 38 113 40 116 38 112

Manila-Clay 

Basin 

20 50 21 56 21 56 20 50 21 56 20 51

Subtotal 5,045 13,815 5,072 13,899 5,089 13,946 5,045 13,815 5,089 13,946 4,703 12,765

TOTAL 18,860 18,971 19,035 18,758 18,212 17,469

Source: Vernal Draft EIS Calculations 10 August 2004.

4.18.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Total short-term and long-term impacts from oil and gas surface disturbances to vegetation 

would be greater under the Proposed RMP than under Alternative D (No Action). Under the 

Proposed RMP surface disturbance from oil and gas development would be 4% greater than 

under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C

Total short-term and long-term impacts from oil and gas surface disturbances to vegetation 

would be greater under Alternatives A, B, and C when compared to Alternative D (No Action) 

because surface disturbance would be greater (ranging from 3% to 5%) under these alternatives 

than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.6.3. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Total short-term and long-term impacts from oil and gas surface disturbances to vegetation 

would be about 18,212 acres under Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-494 

4.18.2.6.4. ALTERNATIVE E

Under Alternative E the potentially adverse impacts to vegetation caused by oil and gas surface 

disturbances would be the least of all the alternatives (4% less than Alternative D, No Action) 

because the acres of impact would be the least. 

4.18.2.7. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

VEGETATION RESOURCES

Where non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to maintain these 

characteristics vegetation resources would generally benefit by the elimination or curtailment of 

surface-disturbing activities such as energy and minerals development, woodland harvest, and 

OHV use. Where these lands would not be managed to maintain their wilderness values these 

prescriptions would not apply and vegetation resources would potentially be subject to increased 

adverse impacts in the form of surface disturbance from these activities. 

4.18.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP approximately 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed to maintain their wilderness values. Management prescriptions 

would include VRM II; closed to oil and gas leasing; closed to woodland product harvest; rightof-way avoidance; and OHV use limited to designated routes. Vegetation resources located on 

these lands would benefit from the protection provided under the listed prescriptions. Because of 

these protective prescriptions the Proposed RMP would be more beneficial to vegetation 

resources than Alternative D (No Action), because Alternative D (No Action) would not include 

the aforementioned protective measures. 

4.18.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternatives A, B, C, and D (No Action), no non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. The management 

prescriptions described for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under the Proposed 

RMP and Alternative E would not apply and, as a result, vegetation resources in these areas 

would potentially be subject to adverse impacts from surface-disturbing activities such as energy 

and mineral development, OHV use, and woodland harvest. 

4.18.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would provide the most benefit to vegetation resources by restricting surface 

disturbance within approximately 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The impacts on vegetation resources would be similar to the discussion under 

Alternative E, Woodlands above. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-495 

4.18.2.8. IMPACTS OF RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Habitat enhancement projects include vegetation treatments, fencing, and water developments. 

Treatments may include mechanical, chemical, biological, and prescribed fire. While these 

activities produce short-term adverse impacts to vegetation associated with initial treatment or 

construction surface disturbance, long-term benefits to vegetation would also occur. Restoring 

natural vegetation communities, eliminating weeds, and fencing areas to control animal 

movement would enhance the vegetation resource and help achieve the desired mix of seral 

stages (see Chapter 2). However, additional guzzlers and pipelines would not enhance vegetation 

in the long-term. Table 4.18.5 provides information on rangeland improvements for the Proposed 

RMP and each of the alternatives. 

Table 4.18.5. Comparison of Rangeland Improvements for the Proposed RMP and Ea 

Alternative 

Alternative / 

Proposed 

RMP 

Treatment acres (+/- 

impacted compared to 

Alternative D, No Action) 

Fencing miles 

(acres disturbed)

Guzzlers/reservoirs 

(acres disturbed) 

Pipeline 

miles 

Proposed 

RMP 

34,640 (- 5,750) 68.5 (34) 812 37.5 

A 34,640 (- 5,750) 68.5 (34) 812 37.5 

B 50,900 (+10,510) 368.5 (184) 1,165 51 

C 45,860 (+5,470) 129.0 (65) 811 29.5 

D 40,390 65.0 (33) 775 35 

E 45,860 (+5,470) 129.0 (65) 811 29.5 

4.18.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would result in fewer short-term impacts associated with 

vegetation treatments compared to Alternative D (No Action), but the long-term benefits would 

also be less. Potentially adverse impacts associated with fencing and pipeline projects would be 

similar to Alternative D (No Action), but new guzzlers and reservoirs would result in greater 

long-term adverse impacts to vegetation compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

All rangeland improvements under Alternative B would result in greater short-term impacts to 

vegetation, but vegetation treatments and fencing would have beneficial impacts on vegetation in 

the long-term when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Management decisions for vegetation treatments, fencing, and guzzlers/reservoirs would be the 

same for Alternatives C and E, and would result in greater short-term impacts to vegetation 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). On the other hand, short-term impacts associated with 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-496 

new pipelines would be slightly less under Alternatives C and E than under Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.18.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Rangeland improvements that include vegetation treatments and fencing would have short-term 

adverse impacts on vegetation caused by construction, but would have long-term beneficial 

impacts on vegetation by improving the distribution of grazing animals, restoring natural 

vegetation communities, and eliminating weeds. Guzzlers and reservoir development would tend 

to have long-term adverse impacts on vegetation by concentrating livestock and attracting 

wildlife and wild horses in those areas, with subsequent disturbance and degradation of 

vegetation communities. 

4.18.2.9. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

The alternative recreation management decisions focus primarily on whether to designate areas 

as SRMAs. In providing for focused management of recreation activities, in general SRMAs 

would benefit the vegetation resource by reducing or limiting surface-disturbance related to 

recreation. However, long-term adverse impacts would still occur with increases in access and 

visitors. As more people recreate in an area, trampling of the vegetation would occur and the 

chance for invasive, noxious weed introduction would increase. 

4.18.2.9.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, Pelican Lake (1,014 acres), Red Mountain – Dry Fork (24,259 acres), 

Blue Mountain (42,729 acres), Browns Park (18,490 acres), Fantasy Canyon (69 acres), Nine 

Mile Canyon (44,168 acres), and a portion of the White River (2,831 acres) would be managed 

as SRMAs (133,560 total acres). Management actions within each SRMA would vary but in 

general recreational activities would be allowed and managed in designated areas. By focusing 

management activities on specified areas and/or uses managed recreational use as in SRMAs 

would reduce impacts to vegetation compared to dispersed recreational use with limited 

management. Under the Proposed RMP the total acreage of land (133,592 acres) managed as 

SRMAs would be about 113% greater than that under Alternative D (No Action) (62,655 total 

acres managed as SRMAs). This would reduce the potential for impacts to vegetation when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

The Proposed RMP would develop up to 400 miles of non-motorized trails, disturbing/removing 

approximately 150 acres of vegetation (assuming an average 3-foot trail width along 400 miles). 

Short-term impacts would consist of vegetation loss and noxious weed invasion of disturbed 

areas. This activity would disturb approximately 130 more acres than Alternative D (No Action), 

adversely impacting a greater amount of vegetation. This alternative would also develop, 

improve, and/or sign up to 800 miles of motorized trails. Assuming an average motorized trail 

width of 6 feet, approximately 580 acres would potentially be disturbed or removed by this 

action, with impacts to vegetation similar to those described for non-motorized trails. No similar 

action would occur under Alternative D (No Action) thus impacts from the improvement, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-497 

development, and/or signage of motorized routes would be greater under the Proposed RMP than 

under Alternative D (No Action). 

The Proposed RMP would eliminate OHV use off designated routes for big game retrieval. This 

activity is unspecified in Alternative D (No Action); therefore, the Proposed RMP would result 

in less OHV-related adverse impacts to vegetation. 

The Proposed RMP would assess the placement of additional cabins for permitted/administrative 

use at or near the existing Chipeta, Trujillo, Moonshine, Rat Hole, and Wolf Den cabins and at 

Westwater Point, Dick Canyon, and other locations. Short-term impacts to vegetation would 

occur as new cabins were constructed. Long-term impacts would include increased potential for 

noxious weed invasions in disturbed areas and the loss of vegetation equal to the size of the 

cabin footprint. Adverse impacts to vegetation would be greater than what would occur under 

Alternative D (No Action) because no similar management action is proposed under Alternative 

D (No Action). 

4.18.2.9.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, Pelican Lake (1,020 acres), Red Mountain – Dry Fork (24,285 acres), Blue 

Mountain (42,758 acres), Browns Park (52,720 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 acres), and a 

portion of the White River (24,183 acres) would be managed as SRMAs (499,588 total acres). 

Management actions within each SRMA would vary but in general recreational activities would 

be allowed and managed in designated areas. By focusing management activities on specified 

areas and/or uses managed recreational use as in SRMAs would reduce impacts to vegetation 

compared to dispersed recreational use with limited management. Under Alternative A the total 

acreage of land (499,588 acres) managed as SRMAs would be about seven times greater than 

that under Alternative D (No Action). This would reduce the potential for impacts to vegetation 

when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Alternative A would develop up to 400 miles of non-motorized trails, disturbing/removing 

approximately 150 acres of vegetation (assuming an average 3-foot trail width along 400 miles). 

Short-term impacts would consist of vegetation loss and noxious weed invasion of disturbed 

areas. This activity would disturb approximately 130 more acres than Alternative D (No Action), 

adversely impacting a greater amount of vegetation. This alternative would also develop, 

improve, and/or sign up to 800 miles of motorized trails. Assuming an average motorized trail 

width of 6 feet, approximately 580 acres would potentially be disturbed or removed by this 

action, with impacts to vegetation similar to those described for non-motorized trails. No similar 

action would occur under Alternative D (No Action) thus impacts from the improvement, 

development, and/or signage of motorized routes would be greater under Alternative A than 

under Alternative D (No Action). 

Alternative A would eliminate OHV use off designated routes for big game retrieval. This 

activity is unspecified in Alternative D (No Action); therefore, Alternative A would result in less 

OHV-related adverse impacts to vegetation. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-498 

Alternative A would assess the placement of additional cabins for permitted/administrative use at 

or near the existing Chipeta, Trujillo, Moonshine, Rat Hole, and Wolf Den cabins and at 

Westwater Point, Dick Canyon, and other locations. Short-term impacts to vegetation would 

occur as new cabins were constructed. Long-term impacts would include increased potential for 

noxious weed invasions in disturbed areas and the loss of vegetation equal to the size of the 

cabin footprint. Adverse impacts to vegetation would be greater than what would occur under 

Alternative D (No Action) because no similar management action is proposed under Alternative 

D (No Action). 

4.18.2.9.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, Pelican Lake (1,020 acres), Red Mountain – Dry Fork (24,285 acres), 

Browns Park (17,000 acres), and Nine Mile Canyon (44,181 acres) would be managed as 

SRMAs (86,454 total acres). The specific locations and acreage of lands managed as SRMAs 

under Alternative B would be the same as under Alternative D (No Action). 

Alternative B would improve, develop, and/or sign up to 800 miles of motorized trails, 

potentially impacting approximately 580 acres. These management actions are the same as the 

Proposed RMP and Alternative A and would result in the same impacts as described under those 

alternatives. 

Alternative B would allow OHV use for big game retrieval for a 24-hour period following the 

punching of a tag. Impacts would likely be short-term related to big game retrievals occurring 

during the established hunting season. However, long-term impacts could occur if the paths 

become frequently used, resulting in new recreational travel corridors. This activity is 

unspecified in Alternative D (No Action); therefore, Alternative B would result in less OHVrelated adverse impacts to vegetation. 

With respect to the placement of additional cabins for permitted/administrative use on certain 

lands Alternative B would be the same as the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. The impacts of 

Alternative B, therefore, would be the same as the Proposed RMP and Alternative A compared 

to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.9.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, Pelican Lake (1,020 acres), Red Mountain – Dry Fork (24,285 acres), Blue 

Mountain (42,758 acres), the Book Cliffs (273,486 acres), Browns Park (52,720 acres), Fantasy 

Canyon (69 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 acres), and a portion of the White River (47,130 

acres) would be managed as SRMAs (522,604 total acres). Because Alternative C would manage 

almost six times more land as SRMAs compared to Alternative D (No Action), it would reduce 

the potential for adverse impacts to vegetation compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Miles of hiking, horseback riding, and mechanized (non-motorized) trails and limitations for 

OHV use off of designated routes for big game retrieval would be the same under Alternative C 

as under Alternative A resulting in the same impacts compared to Alternative D (No Action). On 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-499 

the other hand, up to 800 miles of motorized routes would not be improved and/or developed 

under this alternative. 

Alternative C would not allow new cabin construction in the Book Cliffs. Alternative D (No 

Action) does not specify this activity; therefore, the impacts to vegetation would be the same as 

under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.9.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), Pelican Lake (1,020 acres), Red Mountain – Dry Fork (24,285 

acres), Browns Park (17,000 acres), and Nine Mile Canyon (44,181 acres) would be managed as 

SRMAs (86,454 total acres). Impacts would be the same as described in Alternative B. 

This alternative would develop 55 miles of non-motorized hiking and/or horseback riding trails, 

resulting in adverse impacts to approximately 20 acres of vegetation from removal/surface 

disturbances (assuming an average 3-foot trail width). Further, approximately 2 miles of 

mountain bicycle trails would be established using existing rural roads and trails along with 

developing a non-motorized trail along Sears Canyon. 

Alternative D (No Action) would not specify new cabin construction in the Book Cliffs or 

elsewhere; therefore, the impacts are not analyzed. 

4.18.2.9.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would be similar to Alternative C, except that protecting non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics within the proposed SRMAs under this alternative would require 

managing some areas (approximately 157,018 acres) under VRM I class objectives, closing these 

areas to cross-country OHV use, and managing for primitive, non-mechanized recreational 

opportunities in order to protect their wilderness values. This would have long-term, beneficial 

impacts on vegetation by reducing the likelihood of recreation-related surface disturbances in the 

non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this 

alternative would have more beneficial impacts on vegetation because more protection would be 

afforded the resource. 

Prescriptions related to trail maintenance and development under Alternative E would also be 

similar to Alternative C, except that trail uses would be limited to primitive, non-mechanized 

forms of recreation to protect wilderness values and up to 800 miles of motorized routes would 

be signed, improved, and/or developed (as under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B). 

Impacts related to trail signage, maintenance, and/or development would be similar between 

Alternatives E and A compared to Alternative D (No Action), though Alternative E would result 

in more beneficial impacts to vegetation because mechanized forms of recreation would not be 

allowed in non-WSAs with wilderness characteristics under this alternative. Under Alternative E, 

impacts related to the signage, maintenance, and/or development of 800 miles of motorized 

routes would be the same as the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B as compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-500 

4.18.2.10. IMPACTS OF SOILS AND WATERSHEDS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

4.18.2.10.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D (NO ACTION), AND E

Decisions to reduce soil erosion would benefit vegetation by ensuring that adequate soil substrate 

exists for continued plant growth. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B would require 

erosion control strategies and design for slopes greater than 20 percent. Alternatives C and E 

would not allow any surface-disturbing activities on slopes greater than 40 percent. Thus, the 

adverse impacts to vegetation under these alternatives would be less than Alternative D (No 

Action), which only precludes mineral development on slopes greater than 4%. 

4.18.2.11. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) are intended 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. While management 

prescriptions may vary between ACECs an ACEC designation for a particular area generally 

results in enhanced protection from surface disturbance for that area. ACECs, therefore, have 

beneficial impacts for vegetation resources by eliminating or reducing surface disturbance in the 

area proposed for ACEC designation. In general, the greater the acreage designated as ACEC the 

greater the beneficial impacts for vegetation. Other special designations are Wild and Scenic 

Rivers and WSAs. The impacts of Wild and Scenic Rivers decisions are discussed in the 

following section. WSAs generally have beneficial impacts to vegetation resources by reducing 

surface disturbance within their boundaries. The impacts of WSAs are not discussed for the 

Proposed RMP and alternatives because their acreage would not vary. 

4.18.2.11.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, Browns Park (18,490 acres), Lower Green River Corridor (8,470 

acres), Nine Mile Canyon (44,168 acres), the Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres), 

Pariette Wetlands (10,437 acres), Red Creek Watershed (24,475 acres), and Lears Canyon (1,375 

acres) would be designated as ACECs (131,700 total acres). The benefits of ACEC designation, 

as described above, to vegetation resources would be decreased under the Proposed RMP 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP would designate 20% less area as 

ACECs than Alternative D (No Action) (165,944 acres). 

4.18.2.11.2. ALTERNATIVES A

Under Alternative A, Bitter Creek (68,834 acres), Browns Park (52,721 acres), Coyote Basin 

(87,743 acres), Lower Green River Corridor and Lower Green River Expansion (10,170 acres), 

Nine Mile Canyon (48,000 acres), the Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres), the 

White River (17,810 acres), Pariette Wetlands (10,437 acres), Red Creek Watershed (24,475 

acres), and Lears Canyon (1,375 acres) would be designated as ACECs (345,850 total acres). 

The benefits of ACEC designation, as described above, to vegetation resources would be 

increased under Alternative A compared to Alternative D (No Action). Alternative A would 

designate 108% more area as ACECs than Alternative D (No Action) (165,944 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-501 

4.18.2.11.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, Browns Park (18,474 acres), Coyote Basin (47,659 acres), the Lower Green 

River (8,470 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (44,181 acres), the Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex 

(24,285 acres), Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), Red Creek Watershed (24,475 acres), and the 

Pariette Wetlands (10,437 acres) would be designated as ACECs (179,356 total acres). The total 

acreage of ACECs under Alternative B would be about 8% greater than under Alternative D (No 

Action) resulting in more beneficial impacts to vegetation than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.11.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, Bitter Creek (147,425 acres), Browns Park (18,474 acres), Coyote Basin 

(124,161 acres), Four Mile Wash (50,280 acres), Lower Green River (10,170 acres), Main 

Canyon (100,915 acres), Middle Green River (6,768 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 acres), 

the Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres), the White River (47,130 acres), Lears 

Canyon (1,375 acres), Red Creek Watershed (24,475 acres), and the Pariette Wetlands (10,437 

acres) would be designated as ACECs (647,063 total acres). The total acreage of ACECs under 

Alternative C would be about four times greater than under Alternative D (No Action) resulting 

in more beneficial impacts to vegetation than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.11.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), Browns Park (52,721 acres), Lower Green River (8,407 acres), 

Nine Mile Canyon (44,181 acres), the Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres), Lears 

Canyon (1,375 acres), Red Creek Watershed (24,475 acres), and the Pariette Wetlands (10,437 

acres) would be designated as ACECs (165,944 total acres). 

4.18.2.11.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts of special designation decisions on vegetation would be the same as discussed 

above for Alternative C because the management actions are the same, except that Alternative E 

would manage the non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics for the protection of their 

wilderness values. Under this alternative, approximately 197,171 acres within the proposed 

ACECs would be managed under VRM I objectives, closed to mineral leasing and mineral 

materials disposal, excluded from ROW consideration, closed to commercial and private 

woodcutting, and closed to cross-country OHV travel. These management decisions would have 

long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation by either reducing or prohibiting surface 

disturbances within the non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas; indirectly reducing the 

likelihood for noxious or invasive species establishment; reducing potential soil disturbances that 

could affect plant communities; and maintaining the vegetation productivity within the protected 

areas. This alternative would have more beneficial impacts on vegetation resources than all other 

alternatives because it would manage the resource with more protective prescriptions. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-502 

4.18.2.12. IMPACTS OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

When areas are identified as suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation they are generally 

afforded greater protection from surface disturbance to preserve their wild, scenic, and/or 

recreational values. Greater protection from surface disturbance results in long-term beneficial 

impacts to vegetation resources be reducing or eliminating activities that would result in direct 

vegetation loss, trampling, and other impacts that would be adverse to vegetation. During the 

planning process portions of Argyle Creek, Bitter Creek, Evacuation Creek, the Upper, Lower 

and Middle Green River, Nine Mile Creek, and the White River were considered for Wild and 

Scenic River designation under the Proposed RMP and different alternatives. 

4.18.2.12.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A AND B 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B the Upper Green River segment and Lower 

Green River segment would continue to be recommended as suitable for Wild and Scenic River 

designation. However, under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B, none of the Argyle 

Creek, Bitter Creek, Evacuation Creek, Middle Green River, and Nine Mile Creek river 

segments considered for Wild and Scenic River designation were identified as suitable under any 

category (Wild, Scenic, or Recreational). The segments of the White River considered for 

recommendation to the Wild and Scenic River system would not be identified as suitable for 

designation under the Proposed RMP and Alternative B but would be considered suitable under 

Alternative A. Though Alternative D (No Action) would also not identify any segments of the 

aforementioned rivers as suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation it would manage 

portions of Bitter Creek, Evacuation Creek, and the White River to protect the free flowing 

nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification of the river. As a result, 

Alternative D (No Action) would have more beneficial impacts for vegetation than the Proposed 

RMP and Alternatives A and B. 

4.18.2.12.2. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Under Alternatives C and E all segments of the aforementioned rivers would be considered 

suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation. This would result in reduced surface disturbance 

and adverse impacts to vegetation along approximately 164 miles of river in the VPA. Long-term 

beneficial impacts to riparian vegetation would be greater under Alternatives C and E compared 

to Alternative D (No Action) due to the greater river mileage considered suitable for Wild and 

Scenic River designation. These alternatives would continue to recommend the Upper and Lower 

Green River segments along with the White River, Nine Mile Creek, the Middle Green River, 

Evacuation Creek, Bitter Creek, and Argyle Creek as suitable for designation into the Wild and 

Scenic River System. These management actions would have greater beneficial impacts on 

riparian vegetation than any of the other alternatives. 

4.18.2.12.3. ALTERNATIVES D (NO ACTION) 

This alternative would continue to recommend the Upper Green River segment and Lower Green 

River segment as suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation, but would not identify any 

other river segments within the VPA as suitable. However, segments of Bitter Creek, Evacuation 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-503 

Creek, and the White River would be considered eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation 

and would be managed to protect the free flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and 

tentative classification of the rivers. 

4.18.2.13. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Road closures would tend to benefit vegetation by restricting access, reducing the chance of 

impacts to vegetation, such as trampling and noxious weed invasions. Prohibiting motorized 

access into an area would also prevent the development of undesignated access/spur roads and 

trails. 

4.18.2.13.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and C would remove existing trails and roads and return 

habitat to its original condition when they no longer serve their permitted purpose or public 

interest, allowing for vegetation growth and reducing the potential for indirect adverse effects 

associated with allowed access. Long-term benefits to vegetation would include increases in 

diverse vegetation communities and a reduction in disturbed areas suitable for noxious weed 

growth. Alternatives A and C would have more beneficial impacts as compared to Alternative D 

(No Action), as road and trail maintenance (except for OHV trails) or removal are unspecified 

under Alternative D (No Action). 

Alternative B would not obliterate roads. Potential impacts associated with open roads under 

Alternative B would be the same as Alternative D (No Action), which does not specify for road 

obliteration. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and C would repair, maintain, or upgrade existing 

trails and roads in poor condition. This would increase the chance of noxious weed invasion in 

areas where repair, maintenance and/or upgrading occurs. On the other hand, Alternative D (No 

Action) does not specify road and trail improvements. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and C would also include less area open to OHV 

travel as compared to Alternative D (No Action), thus; impacts to vegetation overall would be 

less (Proposed RMP and A: 6,202 acres; B: 5,434; C: 5,434 acres open, compared to 787,859 

acres under Alternative D, No Action). Impacts associated with OHV travel include damage to 

and loss of vegetation, and the spread of noxious weed seeds. 

The number of acres that would be closed to OHV travel varies under each action alternative and 

the Proposed RMP, but would be more than what would occur under Alternative D (No Action), 

which would close 50,388 acres. Thus, adverse impacts to vegetation would be less under the 

action alternatives than under Alternative D (No Action). Alternative C would close the second 

greatest number of acres (366,559 acres), with the Proposed RMP and Alternative A closing 

75,845 acres, and Alternative B closing 60,187 acres. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-504 

4.18.2.13.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would allow 787,859 acres to remain open for unlimited OHV use. 

Approximately 887,275 acres would be designated as Limited for OHV travel, while 50,388 

acres would be closed to OHV use. 

The management of newly permitted roads and trails, once their purposes have been served, are 

unspecified under this alternative. Also, the management of roads and trails that would cause 

resource damage remains unspecified under this alternative. 

4.18.2.13.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts of travel decisions on vegetation would be the similar to the discussion under 

Alternative C above because the decisions are the same for acres of Open, Limited, and Closed 

OHV use. Under this alternative, approximately 57 miles of travel routes would be closed to 

travel in order to protect wilderness values within non-WSA areas with wilderness 

characteristics. The impacts of these travel route closures would be negligible, as there would be 

no reduction of or additional surface disturbances to vegetation resources along these previously 

disturbed routes. 

4.18.2.14. IMPACTS OF VISUALS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Visual resource management (VRM) decisions would have impacts on vegetation resources 

under all of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Visual Resource Management Classes I and 

II would provide the highest level of visual resource protection, with direct, short-term and longterm, protection and preservation-related impacts on vegetation resources; VRM III and VRM IV 

would be less protective, allowing more surface-disturbing impacts, and therefore more impacts 

to vegetation resources, than VRM I and II. 

4.18.2.14.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 289,687 acres of land within the VPA would be managed as VRM 

Class I and II. Under this alternative 1,430,253 acres would be managed as VRM Class III and 

IV. The Proposed RMP would manage approximately 74% more land as VRM Class I and II 

than Alternative D (No Action). Lands managed as VRM Class III and IV would be reduced by 

8% compared to Alternative D (No Action). Due to the greater acreage of land managed as VRM 

Class I and II under the Proposed RMP it would have more beneficial impacts to vegetation 

resources than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.14.2. ALTERNATIVES A 

Under Alternative A, 513,644 acres of land within the VPA would be managed as VRM Class I 

and II. Under this alternative 1,960,356 acres would be managed as VRM Class III and IV. 

Alternative A would manage approximately 208% more land as VRM Class I and II than 

Alternative D (No Action). Lands managed as VRM Class III and IV would be increased by 26% 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). Due to the greater acreage of land managed as VRM 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-505 

Class I and II under Alternative A it would have more beneficial impacts to vegetation resources 

than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.14.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, 166,794 acres of land within the VPA would be managed as VRM Class I 

and II. Under this alternative 1,553,146 acres would be managed as VRM Class III and IV. Due 

to the fact that the acreage managed under the different VRM classifications varies by less than 

1% between Alternatives B and D the impacts would be nearly the same between these 

alternatives. 

4.18.2.14.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, 508,441 acres of land within the VPA would be managed as VRM Class I 

and II. Under this alternative 1,211,499 acres would be managed as VRM Class III and IV. 

Alternative C would manage over 200% more land as VRM Class I and II than Alternative D 

(No Action). Lands managed as VRM Class III and IV would be reduced by 22% compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Due to the greater acreage of land managed as VRM Class I and II 

under Alternative C it would have more beneficial impacts to vegetation resources than 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.14.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 166,772 acres of land within the VPA would be managed as 

VRM Class I and II. The total acreage of land managed as VRM Class III and IV under this 

alternative would be approximately 1,553,168 acres. Impacts to vegetation resources would be 

the same as those discussed at the beginning of this section. 

4.18.2.14.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 595, 980 acres of land within the VPA would be managed as VRM Class I 

and II. Under this alternative 1,126,563 acres would be managed as VRM Class III and IV. 

Alternative E would manage over 250% more land as VRM Class I and II than Alternative D 

(No Action). Lands managed as VRM Class III and IV would be reduced by approximately 27% 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). Due to the greater acreage of land managed as VRM 

Class I and II under Alternative C it would have more beneficial impacts to vegetation resources 

than any other alternative. 

4.18.2.15. IMPACTS OF WILD HORSES DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Decisions for wild horse management would involve eliminating, maintaining, or re-establishing 

herds. Amounts of forage allocated for horses would be altered depending on the wild horse 

management decisions. Where wild horse herds are maintained or re-established direct, adverse 

impacts to vegetation from trampling, fencing, and grazing would result. Where wild horses are 

eliminated vegetation would benefit from a reduction in these impacts. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-506 

4.18.2.15.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE B 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative B, wild horses would be gathered and removed from 

the planning area. Forage would be allocated for wild horses until they are removed. The 

Proposed RMP and Alternative B would be more beneficial to vegetation resources than 

Alternative D (No Action) because wild horses would be removed and impacts related to 

trampling, fencing, and grazing would be eliminated. 

4.18.2.15.2. ALTERNATIVES A, C, D (NO ACTION), AND E

Decisions for wild horse management under Alternatives A, C, D (No Action), and E would 

involve re-establishing herds and altering amounts of forage allocated for horses. Impacts would 

be the same as those described above. Adverse impacts to vegetation would be greater under 

these three alternatives than under Alternatives A and B because wild horses would remain. 

4.18.2.16. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

4.18.2.16.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D (NO ACTION), AND E

Seasonal restrictions and limitations on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of wildlife 

would indirectly benefit vegetation. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and C would 

provide slightly more protection than Alternative D (No Action), as Alternative D (No Action) 

would only restrict minerals activities. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C and E would 

stipulate limits on the amount of surface disturbance (10% of crucial deer habitat for the 

Proposed RMP, up to 560 acres of new surface disturbance per township under Alternatives A 

and B; and up to 560 acres of total surface disturbance per township for Alternatives C and E), 

further reducing the direct adverse impacts to vegetation when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action), under which new surface disturbances remain unspecified. 

Sagebrush habitat reclamation or enhancement (at a ratio of 3:1) within crucial deer winter range 

under Alternatives C and E would benefit this vegetation type, when compared to Alternative D 

(No Action, under which sagebrush habitat reclamation remains unspecified). Vegetation 

treatments in sagebrush communities would beneficially impact the development of the desired 

seral stages. The Proposed RMP would approach compensatory mitigation on an as appropriate 

basis where it can be performed on-site, and on a voluntary basis where it is performed offsite, 

or, in accordance with current management. Alternatives A and B would also reclaim disturbed 

sagebrush habitat areas, but at a lower ratio (1.5:1 and 1:1, respectively) than Alternatives C and 

E and would therefore produce fewer beneficial impacts to the vegetation than Alternatives C 

and E, but more than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.17. IMPACTS OF WOODLAND DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

4.18.2.17.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, up to 546,152 acres of forest and woodlands would be harvested or 

have vegetation treatments applied to reduce the risks of wildland fire. All other components of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-507 

woodland decisions under the Proposed RMP are the same as Alternative A below except that 

there would be special management actions for the old growth pinyon areas found in Bitter 

Creek to reduce impacts to this vegetation community. Special management actions for old 

growth pinyon areas in Bitter Creek are not specified under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.18.2.17.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, up to 552,152 acres of forest and woodlands would be harvested or have 

vegetation treatments applied to reduce the risks of wildland fire. Forest and woodlands would 

be managed to maintain and restore biodiversity and reduce the occurrences of insect 

infestations, fire, and disease to levels normally expected in healthy forest and woodlands. Relict 

stands would be maintained for biological and genetic diversity. These management actions 

would have long-term direct and indirect protection-related beneficial impacts on vegetation 

resources by reducing the risks of wildland fire, and reducing the damage caused by insects and 

disease. Other beneficial impacts are described under Section 4.18.1 Impacts Common to the 

Proposed RMP and All Alternatives. When compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative 

A would have more beneficial impacts on vegetation. 

Woodland harvesting and associated access road and trail construction disturbances, and 

subsequent soil erosion would have direct and indirect, long-term adverse impacts on vegetation 

by increasing soil erosion rates and increasing the potential for noxious weed establishment. 

Applying best management practices to reclaim obsolete access roads and trails created for 

woodland harvesting, and reducing soil erosion caused by woodland harvesting would reduce 

adverse impacts to vegetation resources (and to vegetation productivity) to the short-term. 

4.18.2.17.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Management actions under Alternative B would allow the harvesting of forest and woodlands 

before and after vegetation treatments to achieve desired future conditions. Up to 554,108 acres 

would be open to harvesting or vegetation treatments, and public harvesting would be allowed to 

achieve the greatest output of woodland and forest products. Similar to Alternative A, 

management actions would allow salvaging of dead, dying, diseased trees with the intent of 

promoting healthy forest and woodlands. These management actions would have long-term 

beneficial impacts on vegetation resources, when compared to Alternative D (No Action, which 

does not specify management actions for forest and woodlands), by reducing fuel loading and 

reducing the risks of wildland fire. The adverse impacts would be similar to those described 

under Alternative A. 

4.18.2.17.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

This alternative would allow harvesting or treatments on 552,152 acres (the same as Alternative 

A), with impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. Compared to Alternative D (No 

Action), Alternative C would have more beneficial impacts on vegetation resources. The indirect 

impacts of soil erosion and sedimentation would be less under Alternative C because of the 

greater restrictions on woodlands and forest species salvage, and thus less surface disturbance 

would be caused by this activity under Alternative C than under Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-508 

4.18.2.17.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would allow up to 88,200 acres of forest and 200,100 acres of 

woodlands to be harvested or have vegetation treatments, which would have beneficial impacts 

on vegetation resources by reducing fuel loads and by reducing the risks of wildland fire. 

Adverse impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

4.18.2.17.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

This alternative would have woodland harvesting and treatments impacts similar to those 

described under Alternative A, except that approximately 131,809 acres of woodlands within the 

277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to prohibit 

woodland harvesting and salvage in order to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics values. Under this alternative, these non-WSA areas would be managed as closed 

to private and commercial harvesting and seed collection, closed to cross-country OHV access, 

closed to road construction, and managed under VRM I objectives. The impacts of these 

decisions on woodland vegetation would be beneficial in the long term from preservation and 

maintenance of woodland vegetation communities, reduced direct and indirect impacts to soils, 

and a reduced potential for noxious or invasive species establishment from surface disturbances; 

however, there would be long term, adverse impacts to vegetation from prohibitions on 

treatments to reduce fuel loading, which would maintain the risks of wildland fire and the 

subsequent exposure of burned areas to noxious and invasive species establishment. Compared 

to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have more beneficial impacts on vegetation 

because of the more protective decisions to preserve wilderness values that include vegetation. 

4.18.2.18. SUMMARY

In general, the impacts from surface disturbance are directly related to vegetation impacts, 

therefore the alternatives with greater surface disturbances would have the highest impacts to 

vegetation resources. The greatest surface disturbance from oil and gas leasing (which includes 

CBNG) would be due to Alternative B, followed by Alternative A, the Proposed RMP, and 

Alternatives C, D and E, respectively. 

Off highway vehicle use would be generally unrestricted under Alternative D (No Action), 

therefore direct adverse impacts would be greatest under this alternative, followed by the 

Proposed RMP and Alternative A, and Alternatives B, C, and E, respectively. 

4.18.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation measures for vegetation resources would include: 

1) seeding with native seed where surface disturbance occurs to limit the spread of noxious 

weeds. Treatments of weed infestations with chemical and mechanical means would be done as 

well; 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.18. Vegetation

Vernal RMP 4-509 

2) reclamation of obsolete roads and trails to reduce soil erosion and subsequent loss of 

vegetation productivity. 

4.18.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts would occur to vegetation resources from road building, minerals 

development, and the construction of recreational facilities and trails. 

4.18.5. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Construction of roads and well pads with mineral development would provide short-term mineral 

use that could result in long-term degradation of vegetation resources. Areas converted to 

developed sites would lose the original vegetation and soil while being used for other resource 

purposes. Roads provide a pathway for invasive plant species to infest more remote areas, and 

improper rehabilitation and re-vegetation of well pads would also provide a route for invasive 

species area to spread. 

4.18.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There could be irreversible and irretrievable impacts to vegetation resources in areas where 

invasive species are allowed to proliferate. Irreversible impacts would include loss of vegetative 

cover, reduced productivity, and weed infestation as a result of surface-disturbing activities such 

as mineral development. Provided continued management and mitigation measures these impacts 

would not likely be permanent. However, invasive species, particularly cheatgrass, once 

established are difficult to remove (populations can be controlled but complete eradication is 

unlikely), thereby causing an irretrievable impact in terms of loss of productive vegetation 

resources free of weeds (a permanently altered vegetation community). Other irretrievable 

impacts to vegetation resources would occur where land is cleared and permanent structures are 

built. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-510 

4.19. VISUAL RESOURCES

All of the alternatives would impact visual resources to varying degrees. Generally, the greater 

the degree of surface disturbance, the greater the impact would be to scenic quality. Abandoned 

mine lands, fire, minerals development, trail maintenance and construction (both non-motorized 

and motorized), special designation areas, recreation, grazing, visual resources, and woodlandforest management would introduce new visual elements into the landscape, altering the line, 

form, color, and texture that characterize the existing landscape. These visible, surface-disturbing 

impacts, measured as line, form, color, or texture contrasts with the natural environment, would 

impact scenic quality. 

In assessing the degree of surface-disturbing impacts on scenic quality, viewer perception 

(measured as viewing distance), viewer sensitivity to impacts, and Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) Class objectives are also considered. Areas with lower scenic value (managed as VRM 

Class III and VRM Class IV) are allowed a wider range of impacts on visual resources than areas 

with higher scenic value (VRM Class I and VRM Class II). 

All surface-disturbing activities, regardless of alternative or management action, would be 

subject to the VRM Class objectives of the area within which the activity takes place. The visual 

resource contrast rating system is used as a guide to analyze the potential site-specific impacts of 

surface disturbance as well as facility design and placement. Surface-disturbing activities and 

facilities would then be designed to mitigate their visual impacts and conform to the area's 

assigned VRM Class objective. See Figures 39–44 for depictions of the proposed designation of 

VRM Classes within the VPA for each alternative. 

4.19.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.19.1.1. ABANDONED MINE LANDS

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, the AML safety program priority would be to 

clean up and address AML physical safety/hazard concerns in proximity to developed recreation 

sites and areas with high visitor use. The reclamation of abandoned mine sites within the VPA 

would have an impact on scenic quality. Capping and/or removing tailings piles and mine 

wastes; and removing and disposing of mining and milling equipment, mining debris, and 

hazardous wastes would directly and indirectly enhance scenic quality. Beneficial impacts would 

be produced through site reclamation that would likely modify these sites (by reducing surface 

disturbance visual contrasts) to be more compatible with or similar to the surrounding landscape. 

4.19.1.2. FIRE MANAGEMENT

Fire management decisions, including use of prescribed fire, vegetation treatment, and fire 

suppression, would impact visual quality under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives. 

Mechanical and/or chemical treatments, prescribed burning, and seeding treatments would have 

direct and indirect effects on the existing visual characteristics of the landscape. Prescribed 

burning impacts on visual quality would tend to be adverse in the short term and beneficial in the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-511 

long term. Burning and/or chemically and mechanically removing vegetation and then seeding 

would produce direct impacts that alter the color and the textural, formal, and linear attributes of 

the existing landscape. Indirect impacts to the color, line, form, and texture of the landscape 

would be produced by fences or barriers used to exclude livestock from the treated areas. 

The impacts of fire suppression on visual resources, for the Proposed RMP and all of the 

alternatives, would also vary depending upon the methods used for suppression. The application 

of fire retardant to the landscape would produce minor, short-term, adverse visual contrasts 

because of its bright color, but this effect would dissipate relatively quickly. Access to burned 

areas and areas in the vicinity of dozer lines and firebreaks would be restricted in the short term, 

but limiting this access would have minor, beneficial effects in the long term by reducing further 

impacts. Fire suppression-related construction of firelines, firebreaks, dozer lines, and access 

roads for fire crews and equipment would produce both short-term and long-term beneficial and 

adverse impacts on visual resources. Beneficial impacts on visual resources would be produced 

by the preservation of vegetation not intended for fire treatment. Adverse impacts would be the 

potentially strong linear, color, texture, and form contrasts produced by the construction of 

highly disturbed strips of land denuded of vegetation for firebreaks, firelines, and temporary 

access roads. If not effectively rehabilitated, these fire-suppression features could remain as 

long-term visual impacts. 

Long-term beneficial impacts to visual resources from fire management would be produced by: 

1) the reduction in the potential for catastrophic, stand-destroying wildland fires; 2) the 

recreation of historic fire regimes; 3) increased biodiversity, with a reduction in diseased, 

stressed, and infested trees; and 4) the creation of a visual mosaic of vegetation that would tend 

to improve scenic quality. 

4.19.1.3. LANDS AND REALTY

Land and realty management decisions would have impacts on visual quality under the Proposed 

RMP and all of the alternatives. Withdrawal of lands open to mineral leasing within the Green 

River Scenic Corridor is a management action applicable to all of the alternatives. The impacts 

of this action on visual resources would be protection-related in the short term and long term 

because these lands would be preserved from the potentially adverse visual effects caused by 

mineral exploration and development (see below for mineral and hydrocarbon effects on visual 

resources). 

4.19.1.4. MINERALS

Minerals and hydrocarbon leasing would have direct and indirect adverse impacts on visual 

quality under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, in the short term and long term. The 

effects on visual quality would include strong visual contrasts from (and not limited to) the 

construction of well pads, access roads, drilling rigs, pipelines, and processing and support 

facilities. Indirect impacts to visual quality, both short-term and long-term, would be the result of 

soil erosion from disturbed areas, fugitive dust from disturbed areas, and/or regional haze from 

compressor and generator emissions that could obscure or degrade scenic vistas. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-512 

4.19.1.5. RECREATION

Recreational OHV use would tend to cause direct and indirect adverse impacts to visual quality, 

in the short-term and long-term, under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives. Direct 

visual quality degradation would be caused by visual contrast-creating disturbances in natural 

areas from trail expansion and trail widening, particularly on highly visible steep slopes and 

ridgelines. Indirect impacts would be caused by visibility-reducing fugitive dust from trails, 

potential adverse impacts to cultural resources that possess visual or scenic attributes such as 

petroglyphs, pictographs, and prehistoric structures, and soil erosion contrasts. 

4.19.1.6. VISUAL

Visual resource management (VRM) would have impacts on visual quality under the Proposed 

RMP and all of the alternatives. Visual Resource Management Classes I and II would provide the 

highest level of visual resource protection, with direct, short-term and long-term, protection and 

preservation-related impacts on visual quality; VRM III and VRM IV would be less protective, 

allowing more surface-disturbing impacts than VRM I and II. 

4.19.1.7. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

Special designation areas are proposed under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives. 

These areas include ACECs, WSAs, and portions of rivers identified as being suitable for 

designation under the Wild and Scenic River System. Generally, ACECs, and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers are established to protect wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources, scenic quality, or 

recreational opportunities, each of which has direct, preservation-related impacts on the scenic 

quality component of an area. Each of the designations proposed would have direct, short-term 

and long-term preservation-related impacts on scenic quality within the designated areas by 

requiring all surface-disturbing activities to conform to the goals and objectives of the particular 

special designation area. The direct impacts on scenic quality would be the same for all the 

alternatives (see Section 4.19.2.9). 

Air Quality, Forage, Paleontology, Rangeland Improvements, Special Status Species, Wild 

Horses, and Wildlife and Fisheries management decisions would have negligible affects on 

visual resources. These resources are not analyzed further. 

4.19.2. ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

4.19.2.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

4.19.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, high-density archaeological and historical sites (and thus visual 

resources) would be protected from OHV-use disturbance by limiting this activity to designated 

routes in the Uinta Foothills, Little/Devils Hole, Upper Willow Creek, and Four Mile Wash 

areas. These management actions would have direct, short-term and long-term protection and 

preservation-related impacts on visual quality. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-513 

Proposed RMP would be more protective of visual resources because OHV travel would be 

limited designated routes and leased for minerals development under stipulations that would 

protect cultural sites. Under Alternative D (No Action) these sites would not be specifically 

protected and OHV use would be designated as open to cross-country OHV use. 

4.19.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A decisions would have the same visual impacts on cultural resources as discussed 

under the Propose RMP because the decisions are the same. 

4.19.2.1.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under this alternative, the protection and preservation-related impacts on cultural (and thus 

visual) resources would be similar to those discussed for Proposed RMP. Compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would be more protective. 

4.19.2.1.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, high-density cultural sites and traditional sacred properties would be 

protected in the Uinta Foothills, Devils Hole, Upper Willow Creek, and Four Mile Wash areas as 

well, via the exclusion of oil and gas leasing and OHV use. These management actions would 

have the greatest direct, short-term and long-term protection and preservation-related impacts on 

visual quality. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would be more resource 

protective. 

4.19.2.1.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D would not limit OHV use near high-density cultural sites, and high-density cultural 

sites would be open to oil and gas leasing. This alternative would have long-term, adverse 

impacts on visual quality by permitting these regulated, surface-disturbing activities near highdensity cultural resources. 

4.19.2.1.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

To protect areas of high cultural resource site density and traditional sacred properties, the Uinta 

Foothills, Devils Hole, Upper Willow Creek, and Four Mile Wash areas would be closed to oil 

and gas leasing and OHV use under Alternative E. These management actions would have the 

greatest direct, short-term and long-term protection and preservation-related impacts on visual 

resources because of restrictions on surface disturbances. Compared to Alternative D (No 

Action), this alternative would be more resource protective. 

In summary, the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E would provide the greatest level of 

landscape (visual resource) protection, because they also provide the highest levels of cultural 

resource protection. Alternative B would provide some visual resource protection, but less than 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-514 

would the Proposed RMP and Alternative C. Alternative D (No Action) would provide the 

lowest level of cultural resource (and visual resource) protection. 

4.19.2.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

4.19.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP, AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

The Proposed RMP and the action alternatives would allow for prescriptive fire treatments on 

approximately 156,425 acres per decade. The impacts of fire management decisions on scenic 

quality would vary, depending upon the location, size, and timing of the burned areas and the 

type of fire management treatment conducted (as described in Section 4.17.1 of the Draft 

RMP/DEIS). Short-term impacts of fire management decisions on visual resources would be 

largely adverse, affecting the color, line, form, and texture of the vegetation by creating strong 

visual contrasts between burned and unburned areas. However, the use of prescribed fire as part 

of a fire management program would, in the long term, decrease the frequency, intensity, and 

size of unmanaged wildland fires and reduce smoke generation, both of which would benefit 

visual resources by limiting landscape-obscuring haze and preserving the desired vegetation 

component of the scenic landscape (see Section 4.19.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives for a 

discussion of fire management decisions). Further, use of prescribed fire under the Proposed 

RMP and these alternatives would introduce long-term vigor and variety to the vegetation 

element of the landscape, creating a vegetation mosaic that would enhance scenic quality. The 

Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E, when compared to Alternative D (No Action), 

would have greater beneficial impacts on visual resources because prescribed fire would be 

applied to more area under these action alternatives than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.19.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would use prescriptive fire methods (including but not limited to 

prescribed burning) on up to 27,950 acres in the Book Cliffs area and would manipulate 22,950 

acres within the Diamond Mountain area. The potential impacts, either adverse or beneficial, 

would be similar to those described under Alternative A and Section 4.19.1, Impacts Common to 

All Alternatives, but to a lesser degree and smaller scale than the action alternatives. 

In summary, assuming that fire management would have long-term, beneficial impacts on scenic 

quality, the Proposed RMP, and Alternatives A, B, C, and E would have equivalent impacts on 

this resource. Alternative D (No Action) would have the least beneficial impacts on scenic 

quality due to the increased risk of wildland fires. 

4.19.2.3. IMPACTS OF GRAZING DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

4.19.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE B 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative B, grazing could be allowed in the Nine Mile 

Acquired Area; however, this management prescription would control livestock grazing to 

prevent adverse impacts to recreation values (including scenic quality) and thus have direct, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-515 

protection-related impacts on visual resources. Compared to Alternative D, the Proposed RMP 

and this alternative would provide more protection from grazing to riparian areas because 

management prescriptions under Alternative D (No Action) are unspecified. 

4.19.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under this alternative, the Nine Mile Acquired Area would be grazed, which would preserve 

existing visual resources in the area. This alternative would be more beneficial than Alternative 

D (No Action) because, as mentioned above, there are no specific livestock and grazing 

management decisions under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.19.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would prohibit grazing in the Nine Mile Acquired Area. This alternative would 

have beneficial impacts by preserving scenic resources within the riparian corridor, the same as 

discussed under Alternative A. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would 

provide more protection from grazing and livestock, as discussed under Alternative A. 

4.19.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action) grazing and livestock management decisions are unspecified in 

the Nine Mile Acquired Area. This alternative would not have adverse impacts on visual quality 

if the loss of riparian vegetation to grazing did not conflict with or detract from recreation/scenic 

values along the riparian corridor. Based on the lack of specific management actions for this 

alternative in the Nine Mile area, the grazing impacts on scenic quality in the riparian corridor 

are unknown. 

4.19.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, lands acquired in Nine Mile Canyon would not be grazed in order to protect 

this area's riparian and watershed values. This would directly protect the vegetation component 

of the scenic landscape and visual resources within the riparian zone. Livestock grazing on the 

uplands outside the riparian zone would follow standards and guidelines for rangeland health. 

This would result in proper levels of livestock grazing and, probably, construction of some 

grazing facilities (e.g., fences and water features). The impacts to the vegetative component of 

the landscape would not be noticeable, but construction of facilities would introduce humanmade features to the landscape. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would 

provide more protection to the scenery of the riparian landscape from grazing. 

Alternative E (along with the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, B, and C) would protect the 

scenic quality of riparian areas from grazing. The Proposed RMP and Alternative B would 

provide more protection than is given under current management, but less than that given by 

Alternatives A, C and E. Alternative D (No Action) would provide no specific protection to 

visual resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-516 

4.19.2.4. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

4.19.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Described in Section 4.19.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives, the Proposed RMP would 

pursue locatable mineral withdrawals in order to preclude mineral entry into the Green River 

Scenic Corridor in Browns Park, the White River, Lears Canyon, potential and developed 

recreation sites, and the Book Cliffs Natural Area. The proposed withdrawals, totaling 24,202 

acres, would have direct, protection-related impacts on scenic quality in these areas. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be ROW-avoidance areas, which would prevent surface disturbance and 

changes to the landscape, thus protect existing scenic quality. Compared to Alternative D (No 

Action), the Proposed RMP would provide more protection than Alternative D (No Action) 

because of the additional protection given non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

However, the proposed withdrawal of locatable minerals leasing on 24,202 acres would be less 

beneficial that Alternative D (No Action) because it would be less than the currently managed 

withdrawal of locatable minerals leasing on 35,900 acres. 

4.19.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts of proposed locatable minerals withdrawals would have the same impacts on visual 

resources as the Proposed RMP because the decisions are the same (with proposed withdrawal of 

24,202 acres). However, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be designated 

under this alternative and the acreage proposed for locatable mineral withdrawal would be less 

than currently managed under Alternative D (No Action). Therefore, this alternative would have 

less beneficial impacts than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.19.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under this alternative, the same acreages would be proposed for locatable mineral withdrawals 

(19,202 acres), with the same impacts on scenic quality as discussed under the Proposed RMP. 

When compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would provide less protection than 

Alternative D (No Action) for the same reasons as discussed under the Proposed RMP (fewer 

acres of protection than is currently being managed). 

4.19.2.4.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

The impacts to visual resources under this alternative would be the same as those discussed 

above for the Proposed RMP, except that locatable mineral withdrawals would also be pursued 

on 10,170 acres within the proposed Lower Green River ACEC. Under this alternative, a total of 

29,372 acres of proposed withdrawals would receive scenic quality protection from potential 

impacts due to locatable minerals surface disturbances. As discussed under the above 

alternatives, Alternative C would provide less protection than Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-517 

4.19.2.4.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would pursue mineral withdrawals in the Green River Scenic 

Corridor, relict vegetation areas, the Lower Green River ACEC , and 5,000 acres of mineral 

withdrawal within developed and potential recreation sites, for a total of 35,900 acres of mineral 

withdrawals. Mineral withdrawals under this alternative would have beneficial protection-related 

impacts on visual resources. 

4.19.2.4.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E proposes mineral withdrawals in order to preclude mining in the Green River 

Scenic Corridor in Browns Park, the White River, Lears Canyon, the Book Cliffs Natural Area, 

and the Lower Green River ACEC. The proposed withdrawals, totaling 29,372 acres (the same 

proposed acreage as Alternative C), would prohibit hardrock mining in these areas and the 

surface disturbance associated with mining. The result would be no lands and realty–related 

changes to the landscape and to scenic quality in these areas. Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres 

of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as ROW-exclusion areas, 

closed to new road construction, and recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. These 

actions would prevent surface disturbance and changes to the landscape, thus protecting the 

existing scenic quality. 

When compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative E would provide more protection to 

visual resources because more area would be proposed for locatable mineral withdrawal and 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to restrict surface 

disturbances. 

With recommendations for locatable mineral withdrawal and exclusion of ROWs, the Proposed 

RMP and Alternative E would provide the greatest level of landscape protection for visual 

resources from mining, construction of utility lines, and other lands and realty–related actions. 

Alternative D (No Action) would provide a high level of protection to visual resources, with 

Alternatives A, B, and C to lesser degree than the other alternatives. 

4.19.2.5. EFFECTS OF MINERALS/ENERGY DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

As described under subsection 4.19.1, Impacts Common to All Alternatives, minerals-related 

exploration, development, and facilities and infrastructure construction and operation would 

create surface disturbances that would adversely affect scenic quality. As mentioned in the 

introduction, an assumption made during analysis of visual resources is that the greater the 

numbers of acres available for mineral exploration, the greater the potentially adverse impacts to 

visual resources. The proposed acreages available for minerals leasing are tabulated below in 

Table 4.19.1. 

4.19.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would allow Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface minerals leasing 

and mining on a total of 2,143,223 acres, with potential impacts to visual resources as discussed 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-518 

under subsection 4.19.1. Under the Proposed RMP alternative, 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing in order to protect their 

wilderness values and would be managed under VRM II objectives. This closure would reduce 

surface disturbance caused by mineral development within the VPA and would protect the scenic 

quality within these areas. The Proposed RMP also proposes a total of 24,202 acres in the Green 

River Scenic Corridor, White River, Lears Canyon, and the Book Cliffs Natural Area for 

locatable minerals withdrawals, which would provide additional scenic quality protection. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP would make available 98,291 more 

acres for minerals development than Alternative D (No Action); however, when protection of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics is considered, the Proposed RMP would provide 

greater long term, beneficial protection of visual resources than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.19.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would allow Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface leasing and mining on 

2,320,825 acres (276,486 more acres than Alternative D, No Action), with impacts as discussed 

under subsection 4.19.1. This alternative also proposes the same acreage for locatable minerals 

withdrawals as the Proposed RMP, with the same impacts on visual resources as discussed under 

that alternative. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would potentially have 

more adverse impacts on visual resources and scenic quality than Alternative D (No Action). 

This is because less acreage would be protected from surface disturbances through minerals 

withdrawals than under the No Action, and more area would be available for surface 

disturbances under mineral leases and mining than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.19.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

This alternative would pursue locatable mineral withdrawals on the same number of acres as 

discussed under the Proposed RMP, with the same impacts to visual resources within the 24,202 

acres in the Green River corridor, White River, Lears Canyon, recreation sites, and the Book 

Cliffs Natural Area. This alternative would also allow Standard and Timing and Controlled 

Surface Use leasing stipulations and mining on 2,376,920 acres (332,581 more acres than 

Alternative D, No Action) that would potentially have long term, adverse affects on scenic 

quality from surface disturbances. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative B would 

have more potentially adverse impacts to visual resources than Alternative D (No Action) 

because more acreage would be available for surface disturbances to scenic quality. 

4.19.2.5.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would pursue locatable mineral withdrawals for the areas discussed under the 

Proposed RMP, with additional withdrawals pursued within the Lower Green River ACEC 

(10,170), totaling 29,372 acres. The impacts would be the same as discussed under the Proposed 

RMP but to a slight greater degree, but still less than the current 35,900-acre protection provided 

to these areas under Alternative D (No Action). This alternative would allow Standard and 

Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations and mining on 2,116,201 acres within 

the VPA (71,862 more acres than available under Alternative D, No Action). Compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have more potentially adverse impacts on 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-519 

visual resources for the same reasons as discussed above under Alternative B: more acreage 

would be available for surface disturbances to scenic quality than currently available under 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.19.2.5.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) precludes locatable mineral withdrawals on 35,900 acres within the 

Green River Scenic Corridor, relict vegetation areas, the Lower Green River ACEC, and 

developed and potential recreation sites, with beneficial long term protection-related impacts on 

scenic quality. This alternative also currently allows Standard and Timing and Controlled 

Surface Use leasing and other mining on 2,044,339 acres within the VPA, with potentially 

adverse impacts to scenic quality as discussed above under subsection 4.19.1. 

4.19.2.5.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would allow Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing and other 

mining on 1,931,353 acres within the VPA (112,986 fewer acres than available under Alternative 

D (No Action), and the least area of all the alternatives), with potential impacts to scenic quality 

as discussed under subsection 4.19.1. 

Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

closed to mineral leasing in order to protect their wilderness values and would be managed under 

VRM Class I objectives. As discussed under the Proposed RMP alternative, this closure would 

prevent surface disturbance caused by mineral development and would protect the scenic quality 

within these areas. 

Alternative E proposes mineral withdrawals in order to preclude mining in the Green River 

Scenic Corridor in Browns Park, the White River, Lears Canyon, the Book Cliffs Natural Area, 

and the Lower Green River ACEC. The proposed withdrawals total about 29,372 acres (the same 

as Alternative C), and their withdrawal would prohibit locatable (hardrock) mining in these areas 

and the surface disturbance associated with mining. Thus, there would mining-related changes to 

the landscape and to scenic quality in these areas. 

In summary, the greatest acreage of potential minerals-related surface disturbance (and potential 

degradation of visual quality) would occur under Alternative B, followed by the Proposed RMP, 

and then Alternative C. Alternatives D and E propose the least acreage be available for potential 

mineral surface disturbance because of proposed mineral withdrawals and oil and gas leasing 

closures within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-520 

Table 4.19.1. Mineral Leasing Acreages 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Oil and Gas – 

Standard Stipulations, 

Timing and Controlled 

Surface Use 

1,640,381 1,780,860 1,819,397 1,627,085 1,536,030 1,499,641 

 

Mineral Materials – 

Open 389,788 415,395 432,953 388,699 387,700 344,682 

Phosphate – Open 76,208 87,724 87,724 63,571 84,600 52,063 

Gilsonite (miles / 

acres) 

172 / 

36,846 

172 / 

36,846 

172 / 

36,846 

172 / 

36,846 

168 / 

36,009 

163 / 

34,967 

Total 2,143,223 2,320,825 2,376,920 2,116,201 2,044,339 1,931,353 

4.19.2.6. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.19.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres would be managed to protect non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. These lands would be managed under VRM Class II objectives to 

preserve their wilderness landscapes. Closing these areas to oil and gas leasing and limiting 

OHV use to designated routes would have long term, beneficial impacts on scenic quality by 

protecting these areas from minerals and OHV caused surface disturbances. 

4.19.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND D 

Under these alternatives, no management decisions would be prescribed to specifically protect 

the wilderness values of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and thus there would be 

no direct impacts to visual resources. 

4.19.2.6.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres in 25 areas would be managed to protect their wilderness 

characteristics (see Section 3.10 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics). To achieve 

this objective, these lands would be managed under VRM Class I objectives to preserve the 

characteristic landscape. These areas would be closed to surface-disturbing activities, subject to 

valid existing rights. These actions would prevent changes to the characteristic landscape (the 

lines, forms, colors, and textures) and protect the scenic quality of these lands. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-521 

4.19.2.7. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

4.19.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would manage a total of 133,560 acres of SRMAs within the VPA, with 

scenic quality protection through SRMA-specific management plans: 42,729 in Blue Mountain, 

1,014 acres in Pelican Lake, 18,490 acres in Browns Park, 24,259 acres in Red Mountain-Dry 

Fork, 69 acres in Fantasy Canyon, 44,168 acres in Nine Mile Canyon, and 2,831 acres along the 

White River as SRMAs. This would have direct, beneficial, short-term and long-term impacts on 

scenic quality by limiting surface-disturbing activities to ensure that satisfying recreational 

opportunities are available within the proposed SRMAs. 

Some parts of the White River, Blue Mountain, Browns Park, and Nine Mile Canyon SRMAs 

include non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and managed within the SRMAs as 

closed to oil and gas leasing. The non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would also be 

managed as VRM II and would limit OHV use to designated routes. These actions would restrict 

surface disturbances within the SRMAs, thereby protecting scenic quality and scenic values. 

Under the Proposed RMP, the direct long-term, adverse impacts of light pollution adjacent to 

Dinosaur National Monument would be mitigated by requiring potential light pollution sources 

to operate at least 200 meters (656 feet) from the monument boundary. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP would have more long term, 

beneficial impacts on visual resources because more area would be protected within SRMAs 

(including protection of scenic quality) than under current management. Under t Alternative D 

(No Action), 87,928 acres would be protected within the existing VPA SRMAs. 

4.19.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would manage a total of 499,588 acres within the VPA under SRMA management 

plans to protect recreation resources (including scenic quality), an increase of 411,660 acres 

beyond the SRMA protection currently managed under Alternative D (No Action). The SRMAs 

under Alternative A would include expansion of the existing Browns Park (52,720 acres) and 

Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 acres) SRMAs, maintaining the Pelican Lake (1,014 acres) and Red 

Mountain-Dry Fork (24,259 acres) SRMAs, and designating the White River (24,183 acres), 

Blue Mountain (42,758 acres), and Book Cliffs (273,486 acres) SRMAs. The long term, 

beneficial, impacts to visual resources would be the same as discussed above under the Proposed 

RMP, but to a greater degree, as SRMA management plans would provide scenic quality 

protection to a larger area within the VPA. 

The mitigation of light impacts would be the same as discussed above under the Proposed RMP 

alternative. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have substantially greater 

beneficial impacts to visual resources and scenic quality because a much greater area would be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-522 

protect under SRMA management plans within proposed SRMAs than under current 

management. 

4.19.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would continue to manage the White River corridor for recreational use with 

minimal management oversight, which would potentially create scenic quality degradation due to 

unrestricted OHV use, unlimited recreational group sizes, potential concentrated use of certain 

recreational areas, and minimal monitoring of impacts to scenic quality from recreational use. 

Alternative B would also manage the Book Cliffs for unlimited and unconfined recreation, which 

would have direct and indirect, short-term and long-term, adverse impacts from surfacedisturbing activities associated with recreation. 

Alternative B would continue to manage Browns Park as a 17,000-acre SRMA, Red MountainDry Fork as a 24,259-acre SRMA, Pelican Lake as a 1,014 SRMA, and Nine Mile Canyon as a 

44,181-acre SRMA to protect scenic, recreational, wildlife, cultural, and vegetation resources in 

these areas, which would result in long-term protection-related impacts to these areas. The 

proposed SRMAs under this alternative would encompass a total of 86,454 acres, the same as 

under current management. 

Under Alternative B, the direct long-term adverse impacts of light pollution adjacent to Dinosaur 

National Monument would be mitigated the same as the Proposed RMP. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have the same beneficial impacts 

on scenic quality and visual resources as discussed under Alternative D (No Action) because the 

management decisions for SRMAs would be the same. 

4.19.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would manage a total of 522,604 acres within the VPA through SRMA 

management plans to protect recreation resources and scenic quality (an increase of 434,673 

acres beyond current SRMA management under Alternative D, No Action). Proposed SRMAs 

would encompass 273,486 acres within the Book Cliffs, 52,720 acres in Browns Park, 24,259 

acres in Red Mountain-Dry Fork, 1,014 acres in Pelican Lake, 69 acres in Fantasy Canyon, 

42,758 acres in Blue Mountain, 81,168 acres in Nine Mile Canyon, and 47,130 acres along the 

White River. These management actions would have direct, short-term and long-term 

preservation-related impacts on visual quality because either: 1) the SRMAs would use 

integrated activity plans in their management that provide for scenic viewing; 2) scenic vistas 

would be protected; or 3) surface-disturbing activities would be limited to those that complement 

recreational values (which usually include a scenic quality component). 

Under Alternative C, the direct long-term adverse impacts of light pollution adjacent to Dinosaur 

National Monument would be mitigated through NSO leasing stipulations within one-half mile 

of the monument boundary and requirements for drilling operators to use light-reducing 

equipment and devices. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-523 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative C would have impacts on scenic quality and 

visual resources the same as discussed under Alternative A because both alternatives would 

substantially increase the area currently managed under SRMA protection, including protection 

of scenic quality. 

4.19.2.7.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would maintain the currently designated Browns Park as a 17,000-

acre SRMA and Nine Mile Canyon as a 44,181-acre SRMA, the Pelican Lake SRMA as 1,014 

acres, and the Red Mountain-Dry Fork SRMA within 24,259 acres. The SRMA total acreage 

under current management would encompass 86,454 acres, with long term, beneficial impacts to 

visual resources within this area from SRMA management plan protection of scenic quality. 

There would not be any light pollution mitigation adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument, with 

continuing long term, adverse impacts on night-time visual quality. 

4.19.2.7.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would manage 47,130 acres along the White River as an SRMA. Proposed SRMA 

management would also encompass the following areas: 273,486 acres in the Book Cliffs; 

52,720 acres in Browns Park; 24,259 acres in Red Mountain–Dry Fork; 1,014 in Pelican Lake; 

69 acres in Fantasy Canyon; 42,758 acres in Blue Mountain; and 81,168 acres in Nine Mile 

Canyon. Management of and the impacts of these SRMAs to visual resources and scenic quality 

would be the same as discussed under Alternative C and would provide direct, short- and longterm protection of visual quality because: 1) integrated activity plans would be prepared for the 

SRMAs that provide for scenic viewing; 2) scenic vistas would be protected; 3) surfacedisturbing activities would be limited to those that would meet recreation (SRMA) objectives, 

including scenic quality; and 4) some portions of the proposed SRMAs would be closed to oil 

and gas leasing, reducing surface disturbance and impacts to visual quality. 

Some parts of the White River, Blue Mountain, Book Cliffs, Browns Park, and Nine Mile 

Canyon SRMAs include non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The impacts of 

Alternative E would be essentially the same as those for the Proposed RMP, except that 

Alternative E would also manage 157,231 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the SRMAs as closed to oil and gas leasing. The non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would also be closed to solid mineral leasing and recommended for 

withdrawal from entry under the mining laws (157,231 acres within the SRMAs). These closures 

and withdrawals would prevent surface disturbances to the landscape from mineral and energy 

exploration and development, thereby preventing adverse impacts to visual quality in these areas. 

Other elements of the management prescription for non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are also aimed at protecting their wilderness characteristics (management under 

VRM I objectives and closure to OHV use). These actions would restrict surface disturbances on 

157,231 acres of the SRMAs, thereby protecting scenic quality and scenic values. 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E, the direct long-term adverse impacts 

of light pollution adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument would be mitigated, which would 

also benefit night-time visual quality in the VPA. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-524 

In summary, Alternatives E and C would provide the greatest level of scenic quality protection 

within the SRMAs, followed by the Proposed RMP. Alternatives B and D (No Action) would 

provide the least scenic quality protection. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternatives 

C and E would provide the most visual quality protection from light pollution, followed by the 

Proposed RMP and Alternative B. Alternative D (No Action) would not protect the National 

Monument nor the area within the VPA adjacent to the Monument from night-time light 

pollution. 

4.19.2.8. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL/ROADS/TRAILS DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

4.19.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would improve and/or develop up to 400 miles of hiking, horseback riding, 

and mechanized (non-motorized) trails. Developing additional trails would have an impact on 

visual resources and could affect scenic quality; however, the visual contrast rating system would 

be used to analyze the potential impacts of trail building and trail improvement, and trails would 

be designed to conform to an area's VRM Class objective. The surface-disturbing impacts on 

scenic quality would be minor. 

Under the Proposed RMP, new permitted roads and trails would be obliterated and/or reclaimed 

after serving their useful purposes. This would have no net impact on scenic quality. Although 

the roads would be an adverse impact, reclamation would essentially reverse the impact by 

reducing scenic quality-degrading contrasts, restoring the existing character of the landscape, and 

reducing indirect adverse impacts caused by potential soil erosion and fugitive dust. 

The Proposed RMP would also allow the improvement and/or development of 800 miles of 

motorized trails. Trail modification or construction would have direct, long-term, adverse 

impacts on scenic quality, but visual contrast rating analysis and conformance to the area's VRM 

Class objectives would mitigate the impacts of this surface-disturbing activity. Indirect, longterm, adverse impacts would be produced by soil erosion, trail widening, and unmanaged 

extension of the trail system by OHVs. 

The Proposed RMP would not allow OHV use for off-trail, big game retrieval. This management 

action would have direct, long-term beneficial impacts on visual quality by reducing the creation or 

extension of OHV trails. 

Under the Proposed RMP, areas within the VPA designated as "open" to OHV travel would be 

limited to approximately 6,202 acres, a decrease of approximately 781,657 acres when compared 

to Alternative D (No Action). Limiting the number of open-designated acres would have longterm direct and indirect, beneficial impacts on visual quality by reducing the potential production 

of scenic-quality degrading fugitive dust, and soil and vegetation disturbances within the 

landscape. 

Areas designated as "limited" to OHV travel would be increased to 1,643,475 acres (an increase 

of 756,200 acres from current management under Alternative D, No Action), which would have 

direct long-term beneficial impacts on visual resources by increasing the level of OHV 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-525 

management and by reducing the extent of OHV-caused visual quality degradation within the 

VPA. 

Designating areas "closed" to OHV travel would be increased from 50,388 acres (under 

Alternative D) to 75,845 acres and the number of miles of routes designated routes would 

increase from zero miles under existing conditions (Alternative D, No Action) to 4,860 miles. 

This increase in designated OHV routes would have direct, long-term beneficial impacts on 

visual resources by reducing the OHV-related disturbances to soil, water, and vegetation. 

Under the Proposed RMP, proposed management of 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would allow OHV travel on designated routes only. This would reduce 

short term and long term, adverse OHV-caused disturbances to vegetation and soil, and limit the 

adverse impacts to scenic quality within these areas. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP would have more beneficial impacts 

on visual resources and scenic quality because potential direct, cross-country OHV-caused 

surface disturbances allowed under current management, and indirect impacts from loss of 

vegetation and from soil erosion, would be substantially reduced. 

4.19.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts of travel management decisions under this alternative on visual resources would be 

the same as discussed above for the Proposed RMP because the proposed management decisions 

are the same. 

4.19.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B proposes not obliterating or reclaiming new permitted roads and trails if they serve 

public interests, and developing up to 800 miles of motorized routes. The effects, consisting of 

fugitive dust, erosional impacts, and surface-disturbing contrasts from OHV use, would be 

directly adverse to visual quality in the long term. However, these roads and trails would 

conform to the VRM Class objective of the area within which they lie, and monitoring would 

prevent unmanaged extension of the trails or roads; thus, the surface-disturbing impacts on 

scenic quality would be minor. 

Alternative B proposes OHV use for big game retrieval off designated routes, which could have 

short-term and long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts on visual quality as described under 

Section 4.19.1, Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

Areas open to OHV travel would decrease to 5,434 acres (a decrease of 782,425 acres when 

compared to current management as described under Alternative D, No Action). 

Areas limited to OHV travel would increase to 1,659,901 acres, an increase of 772,626 acres 

from current management as described under Alternative D, No Action. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-526 

Areas closed to OHV travel would increase to a total of 60,187 acres (an increase difference of 

10,799 acres compared to Alternative D, No Action), the least amount of all the alternatives. 

The number of miles of routes designated would increase from zero miles under existing 

conditions (Alternative D, No Action) to 4,861 miles. 

The effects of Alternative B OHV management actions on visual resources would be similar to 

those described under the Proposed RMP, for areas open to OHV travel. Areas designated as 

closed to OHV use would be somewhat reduced, which would provide more opportunity for 

overland OHV travel with subsequent potential degradation of visual resources. Alternative B 

would have long-term beneficial impacts on visual resources similar to those described under the 

Proposed RMP. 

4.19.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C proposes to improve and/or develop up to 400 miles of mechanized (nonmotorized) trails but would not allow improvement or development of 800 miles of motorized 

trails. This would have direct, long-term, beneficial, protection-related impacts on visual quality 

by reducing the level of surface disturbances, when compared to Alternative D, No Action. 

Under Alternative C, new permitted roads and trails would be obliterated and/or reclaimed after 

serving their useful purposes. The effects would be similar to those described under the Proposed 

RMP. 

Alternative C would not allow OHV use for off-trail big game retrieval. The impacts of this 

management action would be similar to those discussed under the Proposed RMP. 

The impacts of OHV management decisions would be similar to those described under Proposed 

RMP. There would be 5,434 acres open to OHV travel (the same as Alternative B), and the 

impacts of open OHV areas would be similar to those described under the Proposed RMP. 

Areas designated as limited OHV travel would be increased to 1,353,529 acres, an increase of 

466,254 acres, from current management under Alternative D (No Action), with impacts similar 

to those described under the Proposed RMP. 

Areas closed to OHV travel would be increased from 50,388 acres (under Alternative D, No 

Action) to 366,559 acres, which would have direct long-term beneficial protection-related 

impacts on soil, water, and vegetation, similar to those described under the Proposed RMP. 

The number of miles of routes designated would increase from zero miles under existing 

conditions to 4,707 miles. 

Alternative C would be the most restrictive of OHV use, with long-term beneficial impacts as 

described under the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-527 

4.19.2.8.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) proposes 55 miles of trail development and proposes not obliterating 

or reclaiming new permitted roads and trails if they serve public interests. The effects, consisting 

of fugitive dust, erosional impacts, and surface-disturbing contrasts from OHV use, would be 

directly adverse to visual quality in the long term. 

Current management practices designate a total of 787,859 acres as open to OHV travel, 887,275 

acres as limited, and 50,388 acres as closed. No OHV routes would be designated under this 

alternative. Travel management under current conditions would maintain the current adverse 

impacts to visual resources. The adverse impacts of OHV-caused surface disturbances to soil, 

water, vegetation, and other components of visual quality would continue. 

4.19.2.8.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, up to 400 miles of trails would be developed or improved for hiking, 

horseback riding, and mechanized (non-motorized) use. The 800 miles of motorized trails 

proposed under the other alternatives would not be developed or improved under Alternative E. 

This would have direct, long-term, benefits to visual resources by reducing surface disturbances. 

Developing additional trails would impact visual resources and scenic quality by introducing 

linear contrasts in the landform and vegetation elements of the landscape. Trail design would be 

mitigated, however, to meet VRM class objectives, and the long term impacts of surface 

disturbance on the scenery would be minor.

Under this alternative, OHV travel (motorized) would not be permitted in the proposed 

277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Thus, OHV travel to dispersed 

campsites would not be permitted, preventing added disturbance to vegetation and soil, and the 

resulting impact on the scenic quality of the landscape. 

Roads and trails authorized for construction would be rehabilitated after serving their intended 

purpose. In the short-term, road construction would result in linear contrasts in the landform and 

vegetation of the landscape, adversely impacting visual quality. In the long-term (sometimes 

beyond the life of the Plan), rehabilitation of roads would have no impact on scenic quality. 

Alternative E would not allow OHV use off of designated routes or trails for big game retrieval. 

This action would directly benefit visual quality by reducing landform and vegetation 

disturbance caused by the creation of new OHV routes or an extension of existing OHV routes. 

Under this alternative, there would be 5,434 acres open to cross-country OHV travel (the same as 

under Alternatives B and C) except in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Crosscountry travel in open areas would result in soil disturbance and vegetation damage, adversely 

affecting the scenic landscape. The extent of cross-country OHV travel effects would vary with 

the type of landform and vegetation. By limiting the areas open to cross-country travel, the 

adverse impacts to soil and vegetation would be reduced, preserving the scenic quality of the 

landscape. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-528 

Areas in which OHV travel is limited to designated routes would increase to 1,326,024 acres, an 

increase of 438,749 acres from current management under Alternative D (No Action). Limiting 

travel to designated routes would directly benefit visual resources by increasing the level of 

management of OHV travel and by reducing the extent of OHV-caused alteration of the existing 

landform and vegetation in the landscape. Reducing surface disturbance would preserve scenic 

quality. 

Areas closed to OHV travel would be increased from 50,388 acres (under Alternative D, No 

Action) to 392,818 acres, which would directly benefit visual resources by preventing OHV 

surface disturbances to soil, water, and vegetation. 

The number of miles of routes designated for motorized travel would increase from zero miles 

under Alternative D (No Action) (though not formally designated, OHV use is occurring on 

many of these routes) to 4,654 miles under Alternative E. Limiting motorized use to designated 

routes would confine soil and vegetation disturbance to those routes and not permit expansion to 

other undisturbed parts of the landscape. This would have a beneficial effect on visual resources. 

In summary, travel decisions under Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E would have the 

greatest benefit to visual resources and scenic quality, followed by those under Alternative B. 

Alternative D (No Action) would have greater OHV impacts on visual resources than would the 

other alternatives because more acres are designated as open to OHV travel with potentially 

adverse cross-country-related impacts to visual resources. 

4.19.2.9. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN/SOILS/WATERSHED DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

Surface-disturbing activities on steep slopes would tend to have direct and indirect, short-term 

and long-term, adverse impacts on scenic quality because of their high visibility. The larger the 

disturbance, the more visible it becomes from foreground and middle-ground viewpoints, and 

thus, the greater the impact on visual quality. Direct impacts would result from visual contrasts 

between surface disturbance and the surrounding landscape; indirect impacts would result from 

contrasts caused by erosion-related surface disturbance. 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E, surface disturbance impacts on 21–40% 

slopes would be mitigated through an erosion-control strategy developed in accordance with 

VRM objectives. Under Alternative B, disturbance of slopes greater than 40% would require an 

approved plan. The Proposed RMP, and Alternatives C and E would not allow any surface 

disturbance on slopes greater than 40%, and Alternative D (No Action) would not allow mineralrelated activities on these slopes. 

In summary, the Proposed RMP, and Alternatives A, C, and E would provide a high degree of 

protection of scenic quality by mitigating erosion through erosion-control strategies, GIS 

modeling, and project design. The Proposed RMP, and Alternatives A, C and E would provide 

the most protection of scenic quality by prohibiting steep slope disturbances greater than 40% in 

addition to erosion control and GIS modeling. Alternative B decisions would provide some 

protection. Alternative D (No Action) would provide the least protection to scenic quality by 

protecting slopes in excess of 40% from minerals disturbances only. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-529 

4.19.2.10. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREA DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

The effects of special designation areas on visual resources for each of the alternatives are 

tabulated below in Table 4.19.2. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, WSAs would be managed to maintain their 

suitability for designation as Wilderness (according to and as directed in the IMP) until Congress 

either designates an area as Wilderness or releases an area from wilderness consideration. 

Wilderness Study Areas within the VPA encompass 53,058 acres (see Special Designation 

Section 4.16 for a detailed discussion of these areas). Until Congressional designation or release, 

these area would be managed under VRM Class I objectives, with long term, beneficial 

preservation-related impacts on scenic quality. 

Alternatives C and E would provide the most long-term visual resource protection by designating 

the most acres as ACECs and by recommending the longest stretches of waterways for protection 

under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Alternatives C and E would designate 

681,310 acres as ACECs). This is based on the assumption that the VPA goals and objectives for 

special designation areas "where special management is required to protect and prevent damage 

to ... scenic values and natural systems and process" would maintain scenic quality within these 

areas. Alternative A management decisions would offer the second-best level of protection to 

visual resources (designating 345,850 acres), followed by Alternative B (through designation of 

170, 886 acres). The Proposed RMP would provide some visual resource protection (by 

designating 131,700 acres as ACECs). Alternative D (No Action) would provide the lowest level 

of protection to visual resources, because it designates the fewest ACEC acres and recommends 

protecting the fewest waterways under the Wild and Scenic River system. A summary of 

Alternative E impacts from special designation decisions are shown below in Table 4.19.2. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.19.2. Impacts of Special Designation Areas on Visual Resources 1

Special 

Designation 

Areas 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (No Action) 

ACECs 

Bitter Creek Potential long-term 

adverse visual quality impacts by not protecting the area as part of an ACEC. 

Long term, beneficial impacts from designating 68,834 acres as an ACEC to protect old growth pinyon, cultural resources, and watersheds, and OHV use closed or limited to designated routes. 

Same impacts as Proposed RMP. 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 147,425 acres as an ACEC to protect old growth pinyon, with OHV use closed or limited to designated routes. 

Unspecified management decisions under thcurrent RMP. 

Brown's Park Long-term 

beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 18,490 acres as an ACEC to protect highvalue scenic views, and from OHV use closed or limited to designated routes. Those portions of the ACEC open to leasing with timing limitations or controlled surface use would allow for some landscape change that would have adverse effects on scenery but that would still meet VRM objectives. 

Same Impacts as Proposed RMP, except 52,721 acres would be designated as an ACEC. 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 18,474 acres as an ACEC to protect highvalue scenic views, and from OHV use closed or limited to designated routes. Those portions of the ACEC open to standard leasing and timing limitations or controlled surface use would allow for some landscape change that would have adverse effects on scenery but that would still meet VRM objectives. 

Same Impacts as Alternative A. 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 52,72acres as an ACECbut potential adverse impacts from areas potentially open to OHV use. Minerals leasing impacts the same as Alternative B. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.19.2. Impacts of Special Designation Areas on Visual Resources 1

Special 

Designation 

Areas 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (No Action) 

Coyote BasinSnake JohnKennedy Wash ACEC 

Potential long-term adverse visual quality impacts by not protecting the area as an ACEC., 

Long term, beneficial protection of scenic quality from designation of 87,743 acres to protect critical wildlife habitat. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts on 83,250 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC. 

Long-term protection of visual quality by designating 47,659 acres as an ACEC. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts on 47,282 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC. 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 124,161 acres as an ACEC. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts on 94,821 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC. 

Unspecified management for this area 

Four Mile Wash ACEC 

Potentially longterm adverse visual quality impacts by not protecting the area as an ACEC. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 50,280 acres as an ACEC to protect scenic values, with OHV use limited to designated routes and closed to oil and gas leasing. 

Unspecified management for this area 

Lears Canyon Long-term, 

beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 1,375 acres to protect relict vegetation 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Lower Green River Corridor and Expansion ACEC 

Long-term, beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 8,470 acres of the Lower 

Lower Green River Corridor impacts same as the Proposed RMP. Additional long term 

Lower Green River Corridor impacts same as the Proposed RMP. 

Impacts the same as Alternative A. 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 8,470 acres as an ACEC
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.19.2. Impacts of Special Designation Areas on Visual Resources 1

Special 

Designation 

Areas 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (No Action) 

Green River Corridor as an ACEC, with NSO stipulations within line-of-sight or 1⁄2 mile from river centerline. 

beneficial impacts from designating the 1,700-acre Lower Green River Expansion to protect scenic values. 

managed as VRM Class II, limited or closed OHV use, and no allowed surface-disturbing activities. 

Main Canyon Potentially longterm adverse visual 

quality impacts by not protecting the area as an ACEC. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 100,915 acres as an ACEC, with VRM I or II management, and closed to OHV travel or limited to designated routes. Those portions of the ACEC open to leasing subject to standard, timing limitations, and controlled surface use would allow surface disturbance that would alter the landform and vegetation and that would have a minimal effect on the visual quality of the canyon, while still meeting VRM objectives. 

Unspecified management undethe current RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.19.2. Impacts of Special Designation Areas on Visual Resources 1

Special 

Designation 

Areas 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (No Action) 

Middle Green River ACEC 

Potentially longterm adverse visual quality impacts by not protecting the area as an ACEC. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 6,768 acres as an ACEC, with OHV use limited to designated routes. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts to visual quality on 4,858 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC. 

Unspecified management undethe current RMP. 

Nine Mile Canyon ACEC 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 44,168 acres to enhance scenic vistas. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts to visual quality on 26,736 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC. 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 48,000 acres as an ACEC to enhance scenic values. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts to visual quality on 27,109 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC. 

Long-term protection of visual quality by designating 44,181 acres as an ACEC. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts to visual quality on 15,274 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC, and 21,022 acres open to Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations. 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 81,168 acres as an ACEC with OHV use closed or limited to designated routes. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts to visual quality on 49,182 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC, and 19,032 acres open to Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations. 

Same Impacts as Alternative B. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.19.2. Impacts of Special Designation Areas on Visual Resources 1

Special 

Designation 

Areas 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (No Action) 

Pariette Wetlands Long-term 

beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 10,437 acres to protect wetlands, wildlife, and plant habitat. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP

Red Creek Watershed 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 24,475 acres as an ACEC to protect the Red Creek watershed. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP

Red Mountain-Dry Fork Complex 

Long-term protection of visual quality by designating 24,285 acres as an ACEC to protect watershed, vegetation, crucial habitat, and recreation. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts to visual quality on 495 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC, and 21,994 acres open to Timing and Controlled Surface 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by maintaining 24,285 acres as an ACECLong term, adverssurface disturbancimpacts to visual quality on 19,955 acres open to Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations within the ACEC. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.19.2. Impacts of Special Designation Areas on Visual Resources 1

Special 

Designation 

Areas 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (No Action) 

Use leasing stipulations. 

White River ACEC Potentially longterm adverse visual 

quality impacts by not protecting the area as an ACEC. 

Long term, beneficial impacts to visual quality from designation of 17,810 acres as an ACEC to protect scenic quality and riparian ecosystems. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts to visual quality on 1,438 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC, and on 7,371 acres open to Timing and Controlled Surface Use stipulations. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Long-term beneficial visual quality impacts by designating 47,130 acres as an ACEC. Long term, adverse surface disturbance impacts to visual quality on 27,087 acres open to Standard leasing stipulations within the ACEC, and on 6,683 acres open to Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations. 

Unspecified management undethe current RMP. 

WSRs 

White River segments 

Long-term adverse visual quality impacts by not protecting the river segments as suitable for consideration as Wild and Scenic. 

Long term protection of visual quality by classifying Segment A as Scenic. Long term protection of visual quality by classifying Segment B as Scenic. Adverse impacts to visual quality by not 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Long term protection of visual quality by classifying all river segments as suitable for designation into the NWSRS (44 miles). 

Long term protection of visuaquality of all river segments until suitability findings are made. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.19.2. Impacts of Special Designation Areas on Visual Resources 1

Special 

Designation 

Areas 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (No Action) 

identifying Segment C as suitable for designation. 

Lower Green River segment 

Long term protection of visual quality by continuing to protect previously recommended segments. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP

Middle Green River segment 

Long-term adverse visual quality impacts by not protecting the river segment as suitable for consideration as Wild and Scenic. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Long-term protection of visual quality by recommending designation of a segment of the Middle Green River as suitable for consideration as Wild and Scenic (approximately 36 miles). 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Nine Mile Creek segments 

Potential long-term adverse visual quality impacts by not protecting segments as suitable for consideration as Wild and Scenic. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Long-term protection of visual quality by recommending designation of segments as suitable for consideration as Scenic and Recreational (2 segments of approximately 13 miles and 6 miles). 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.19.2. Impacts of Special Designation Areas on Visual Resources 1

Special 

Designation 

Areas 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (No Action) 

Upper Green River segment 

Long-term protection of visual quality by continuing to protect previously recommended segments as suitable for consideration as Wild and Scenic 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Evacuation Creek, Argyle Creek, and Bitter Creek segments 

Potentially longterm adverse visual quality impacts by not protecting any of these creek segments as suitable for consideration as Wild and Scenic. 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Same Impacts as the Proposed RMP 

Long-term protection of visual quality by recommending designation of segments along these creeks as suitable for consideration as Wild and Scenic. Recommending Evacuation Creek, Argyle Creek, and Bitter Creek as suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System would limit surface disturbance, providing long-term protection to visual quality. 

Same as ProposeRMP for Argyle Creek. Impacts would be the same as Alternative C for Bitter Creek and Evacuation Creek because, though suitability findings would not be madeprotection would bmaintained for these river segments, which would also directly protect scenic quality. 

1As noted in section 4.19.2.9, VRM acreages used in this analysis of impacts on visual resources include all lands within the VPA, not only BLM administere

the VRM analysis includes foreground, middle ground, and background views that could encompass federal, state, and private property.
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-538 

4.19.2.11. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

4.19.2.11.1. PROPOSED RMP, AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

The Proposed RMP, and Alternatives A, B, C, and E would allow vegetation treatment via 

prescribed fire on 156,425 acres per decade (see also Section 4.19.2.1, Impacts of Fire 

Management Decisions on Visual Resources). The short-term and long-term direct impacts of 

this vegetation treatment are described under Section 4.19.1, Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives. The effects of prescribed burning on visual quality would be adverse in the short 

term. Removing vegetation with fire and then seeding would alter the form, line, color, and 

texture of the existing landscape. Short-term, indirect impacts to these landscape elements would 

also result from the construction of fences to exclude livestock from the treated areas. 

Long-term beneficial impacts to visual resources from prescribed fire would be produced by: 1) 

the reduction in the potential for vegetation and stand-altering wildland fires; 2) the re-creation 

of historic fire regimes; 3) increased biodiversity with a reduction in diseased, stressed, and 

infested trees; and 4) the creation of a visual mosaic of vegetation (added variety in the 

vegetative element of the landscape) that would tend to improve scenic quality. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP and these action alternatives would 

be more beneficial because more area within the VPA would be treated to improve scenic quality 

in the long term. 

4.19.2.11.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would allow vegetation treatment via prescribed fire on up to 27,950 

acres in the Book Cliffs area and on 22,950 acres in the Diamond Mountain area. The impacts of 

vegetation treatment are described under Section 4.19.1, Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

In summary, the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E would have the greatest shortterm adverse impacts and the greatest long-term beneficial impacts to visual resources from more 

VPA acreage that would be affected by proposed vegetation treatments. Alternative D (No 

Action) would have the fewest adverse and long term beneficial impacts on visual resources 

because a smaller area would be affected by vegetation management. 

4.19.2.12. IMPACTS OF VISUAL DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

The proposed designation of VRM Class acreages for each alternative are tabulated below in 

Table 4.19.3. As discussed above in Section 4.19.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives, VRM 

Class I- and VRM Class II- designated areas would receive the highest level of visual resource 

protection, with direct, short-term and long-term, beneficial protection and preservation-related 

impacts on visual quality. The designated VRM Class III and VRM Class IV areas would receive 

less visual resource protection, which would allow more surface-disturbing impacts than VRM 

Classes I and II. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-539 

Under the Proposed RMP, approximately 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed under VRM Class II objectives in order to preserve their 

wilderness characteristics and values, which would have long term, preservation-related, 

beneficial impacts on scenic quality and visual resources. 

Table 4.19.3. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative 

VRM 

Class 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

VRM I 

and 

57,776 63,136 52,764 145,781 53,086 334,516 

VRM II 231,911 294,773 114,030 362,660 113,686 259,694 

VRM III 786,612 716,186 199,179 580,846 199,192 535,586 

VRM IV 643,641 645,845 1,353,967 630,653 1,353,976 590,144 

Total 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 

VRM I 

and II 

289,687 357,909 166,794 508,441 166,772 594,210 

VRM III 

and IV 

1,430,253 1,362,031 1,553,146 1,211,499 1,553,168 1,125,730 

Under Alternative E, approximately 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed under VRM Class I objectives in order to preserve their 

wilderness characteristics and values (see Table 4.19.3). Based on these visual management 

objectives, Alternative E would provide the highest degree of protection to scenic quality under 

VRM I and II, followed by Alternative C, then Alternatives A and the Proposed RMP. 

Alternatives B and Alternative D (No Action) would provide the least protection to scenic 

quality under combined VRM I and II acreages. 

4.19.2.13. IMPACTS OF WOODLAND AND FOREST DECISIONS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

4.19.2.13.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would manage forests and woodlands to maintain and restore ecosystems to 

a condition in which biodiversity is preserved and occurrences of fire, insects, disease, and other 

disturbances do not exceed levels normally expected in healthy forests and woodlands. This 

alternative would maintain relict stands of vegetation for biological and genetic diversity. Forests 

and woodlands would be managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield 

without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment; 

and allow use of forest, woodland products, biomass, and certain vegetation products in areas 

specified for this use to meet RMP goals. The Proposed RMP would implement the National 

Healthy Forest Initiative and the National Fire Plan by conducting treatments to reduce fuel 

loadings, fire severity, and restoring historical disturbance regimes. 546,152 acres of forest and 

woodlands would be open to treatments or harvesting, including 13,606 acres within WSAs and 

106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that would not have woodland 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-540 

product harvest or salvage (and directly affecting 131,809 acres of woodlands within the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics). 

The short-term, direct impacts of these actions on visual quality would be both adverse and 

beneficial: visual quality would be degraded by line, color, and texture contrasts created from 

woodland treatments, harvesting and salvage, and OHV surface disturbances in areas visible to 

the public where these vehicles are used to harvest and salvage woodland products. Beneficial 

visual quality impacts would result from the scenic variety created by the other management 

actions. Indirect, short-term and long-term, adverse, visual quality impacts would be produced by 

fences or barriers used to exclude livestock from the treated areas. 

In the long-term, the woodland and forest management decisions would have beneficial impacts 

on visual resources by: 1) reducing the potential risk (by reducing woodland fuel loads) of standaltering wildland fires that would adversely affect visual quality; and 2) improving visual quality 

through the creation of scenic variety found in the mosaic of vegetation types produced by 

vegetation treatments. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP would have the same types of 

impacts on visual resources as Alternative D (No Action), but to a greater degree, as more acres 

of woodlands (257,852 more acres than under Alternative D, No Action) would be available for 

treatments or harvesting. 

4.19.2.13.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts of woodland harvesting and treatments on visual resources under this alternative 

would be the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP because the management decisions 

would be the same. However, under this alternative up to 552,152 acres would have treatments 

or be available for harvesting, including 13,606 acres within WSAs as discussed above. When 

compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have the same type and 

magnitude of impacts as discussed for the Proposed RMP because the acreages of woodlands 

available for harvesting and/or treatments are similar. 

4.19.2.13.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would allow the harvesting and salvage of woodland and forest products to achieve 

the greatest output of woodland and forest products, after vegetation treatments designed to 

achieve desired future conditions. Up to 554,108 acres would have fire treatments or be 

harvested. This would have direct, short-term and long-term, adverse impacts on visual quality 

by creating distinct line, color, and texture contrasts from woodland treatments, harvesting and 

salvage, and OHV surface disturbances in areas visible to the public. Indirect, short-term, 

adverse impacts would also be created by soil erosion in the disturbed areas, which would further 

contribute to the visual contrasts already described. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-541 

4.19.2.13.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would have the same impacts on visual resources as the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A, as 552,152 acres of woodlands would be available for treatments or harvesting. 

4.19.2.13.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) does not specify woodland and forest management decisions, except 

that up to 88,200 acres of forest and 200,100 acres of woodlands would have treatments or be 

harvested. The types of impacts of these management decisions on visual resources would be the 

same as discussed under the Proposed RMP, but to a lesser degree, as fewer woodland acres 

would be impacted by surface disturbances, exclusion fences, and a subsequently improved 

visual mosaic from vegetation re-growth. 

4.19.2.13.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, impacts to visual resources from forest and woodland treatment would be 

similar to impacts discussed under the Proposed RMP alternative. Approximately 421,133 acres 

within the VPA would have treatments or be available for harvesting under this alternative. 

Woodland salvage and/or harvesting would be prohibited on 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, resulting in the reduction in the long-term benefits to woodlands 

because this form of fuel reduction and the accompanying reduction in wildland fire risks would 

not be conducted. 

The short-term, direct impacts of these actions on visual quality would be both adverse and 

beneficial, as discussed above under the Proposed RMP. 

In summary, woodland management under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C and E 

would have the greatest benefit to visual resources from management actions to improve 

woodland stands (and indirectly improving visual quality). Alternative B would have adverse 

impacts on visual quality by allowing public harvesting for maximum output of woodland and 

forest products. Alternative D (No Action) would provide the least protection of visual quality 

because woodland management decisions under it are unspecified. 

4.19.2.14. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES

4.19.2.14.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would provide high scenic quality protection (though less than Alternatives 

E, C, and A) by: 

• Proposing 133,560 acres for protection as SRMAs 

• Recommending 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for 

withdrawal from mineral entry and establishing OHV designated route only use for 

mechanized travel within these lands 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-542 

• Designating 289, 687 acres of VRM I and II for protection 

4.19.2.14.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would provide a high degree of scenic quality protection (but less than Alternative 

E and C) by: 

• Proposing 499,620 acres for protection as SRMAs 

• Designating 357,909 acres for visual protection under VRM Classes I and II 

4.19.2.14.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B provides less scenic quality protection than the Proposed RMP, or Alternatives A, 

C, and E by: 

• Opening the most area for minerals leasing and mining 

• Protecting the least area within the VPA under VRM Class I and II designation (166,794) of 

all the action alternatives 

• Protecting visual resources with the least area designated as SRMAs (86,454 acres), the same 

as Alternative D (No Action). 

4.19.2.14.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would provide a very high level of protection for scenic quality (but less than 

Alternative E) by: 

• Opening the least area for minerals leasing and mining of all action alternatives (except for 

Alternative E) 

• Protecting the most area under VRM Class I and II designation (508,441 acres), except for 

Alternative E 

• Recommending the most acreage for protection of visual resources within SRMAs 

(522,604,(522,604, the same as Alternative E) 

4.19.2.14.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

This alternative provides the lowest level of protection for scenic quality by: 

• Not establishing cultural site buffer zones 

• Proposing the fewest acres and least scenic quality protection within SRMAs (86,454 acres), 

the same as Alternative B) 

• Managing the least number of acres for protection under VRM Class I and II designation 

(166,772 acres) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-543 

4.19.2.14.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would provide the highest level of protection for scenic quality (comparable to 

Alternative C) by: 

• Establishing protection for areas of concentrated cultural resources 

• Authorizing the fewest number of acres to be leased for mineral development (1,782,199 

acres) 

• Recommending 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for visual 

resource protection under VRM Class I designation and closed to OHV travel 

• Proposing the largest acreages for designation under VRM Class I and II (594,210 acres) 

• Proposing the most area within the VPA for protection under SRMAs (522,604 acres, the 

same as Alternative C) 

4.19.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

All surface-disturbing activities, regardless of alternative or management action, would be 

subject to the VRM Class objectives of the area within which the activity takes place. The visual 

resource contrast rating system is used as a guide to analyze the potential site-specific impacts of 

surface disturbance as well as facility design and placement. Surface-disturbing activities and 

facilities would then be designed to mitigate their visual impacts and conform to the area's 

assigned VRM Class objective. Mitigation would include camouflage coloring, facility design, 

placement, and/or topographic screening. 

4.19.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Minerals exploration and development, trail construction, and woodland and vegetation 

treatments for fire management would cause short-term and long-term, unavoidable adverse 

impacts on visual quality that cannot be completely mitigated by camouflage coloring, facility 

design, placement, and/or topographic screening. 

4.19.5. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The short-term construction of exploratory well pads and access roads would produce a longterm loss of scenic quality, particularly in areas where reclamation is problematic and/or 

unsuccessful. Similarly, short-term OHV trail use, such as woodcutting trails, seismic 

exploration, and unmanaged or unlimited recreational OHV use, would cause long-term losses in 

scenic quality if it occurs in highly visible or visually sensitive areas. The short-term adverse 

impacts of prescribed fire and other vegetation treatments would have long-term beneficial 

impacts on visual quality by improving the form, color, and line of vegetation, improving the 

vegetation mosaic, and reducing the potential for visual quality degradation from wildland fire. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.19. Visual Resources

Vernal RMP 4-544 

4.19.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Some cultural resources, such as petroglyphs, pictographs, and prehistoric and historically 

important structures, are considered to have a visual resource/scenic quality component. Projects 

or activities that cause damage to or loss of these resources would have irreversible impacts on 

the resource. Irretrievable visual impacts would occur to these sites if surface disturbances 

occurred or structures were built near cultural sites such that there was loss of cultural context or 

setting. 

Irretrievable impacts to visual resources would also result from: 1) surface disturbance caused by 

construction during the life of a project; and 2) fire management (until vegetation re-growth). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-8

4.2. AIR QUALITY

The VPA is located in a region designated as unclassifiable for PM10 and 

unclassifiable/attainment for all other airborne pollutants [See 40 CFR Part 81] (L. Svoboda, 

EPA Region VIII, 2005). The proposed management alternatives discussed below have been 

evaluated using requirements and assumptions appropriate to ensure accurate identification of 

potential impacts related to air quality for each alternative. The impacts of implementing the 

Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E are described in detail in the following 

sections. 

4.2.1. 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 because 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. 

4.2.2. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Projected emissions common to all development scenarios include particulate matter (PM10 and 

PM2.5), SO2, NOx, hydrocarbons and combustion by-products. 

With the exception of prescribed fire, impacts from management decisions related to the 

Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E are projected to have no effect to a negligible 

effect on air quality in those regions where they are implemented. Prescribed fire is expected to 

result in a short-term increase in particulate matter (primarily PM2.5), CO2 and ozone emissions 

in burn areas and those locations immediately downwind. The detrimental effects from wildfire 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-9

would likely be greater than those from prescribed fire and exert a larger negative effect on air 

quality in the VPA. 

The magnitude of air quality emissions common to all development scenarios can be further 

minimized by surface stabilization techniques, replacing/improving surface vegetation, and by 

air emission restrictions imposed by regulatory agencies and management authorities. The actual 

pollutant loads produced are dependant on the number and type of pollutant sources, source 

location, duration of loading, and local topographical and meteorological conditions. 

4.2.3. IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.2.3.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL, SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, VISUAL 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, AND WILD HORSE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Impacts from cultural, paleontological, special status species, visual resource management, 

management of non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics, and wild horse management 

decisions are projected to have no substantial effect on air quality except as they limit 

development, access or site use through related management decisions. Therefore, the 

management of these resources will not be discussed under the comparison of the Proposed RMP 

and all alternatives. 

Effects of Soil and Watershed, Special Designations, Recreation Management, and Wildlife and 

Fisheries Management Decisions 

Many of the areas have proposed management and travel-related decisions that limit or reduce 

surface and vegetation disturbance, OHV and other off-trail access, and improve existing 

roadway and trail surfaces. Air quality impacts from these activities are generally projected to 

result in negligible effects on short-term air quality and negligible to incrementally positive 

effects on long-term air quality. 

The surface-disturbing activities related to these decisions are very similar and will be discussed 

jointly in this section. 

4.2.3.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D, AND E 

4.2.3.2.1. DIRECT IMPACTS

The Proposed RMP generally include lower overall surface/soil disturbance. Direct air quality 

impacts from surface-disturbing activities would likely be small and most noticeable in a 

cumulative fashion when coupled with other management decisions. Potentially beneficial 

outcomes from these management decisions include reduced PM10 and other windborne 

particulate from erosion of exposed soils. Air quality impacts are expected to be comparable to 

those described for the Proposed RMP for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. 

• Short Term: Short-term benefits to air quality would most likely not be measurable in 

the overall project area under the Proposed RMP or Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-10

• Long Term: Long-term benefits would include incremental site-specific reductions in 

windborne particulate from reduced erosion of exposed soils as vegetation/soil cohesion 

improves over time. These benefits are expected to be comparable under the Proposed 

RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. 

4.2.3.2.2. INDIRECT IMPACTS

Indirect effects on air quality would most likely not be measurable in the overall project area. 

4.2.3.3. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING, RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT, RIPARIAN 

MANAGEMENT, VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT, AND WOODLAND AND FOREST 

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Many areas have proposed management decisions that limit or reduce grazing intensity and time 

and manage for greater vegetation retention and generation. These alternatives are generally 

projected to result in increased vegetation (density and height) and lower overall surface/soil 

disturbance and surface erosion. 

The surface-disturbing activities related to these decisions are very similar and will be discussed 

jointly in this section. 

4.2.3.3.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D, AND E 

4.2.3.3.1.1. Direct Impacts 

Proposed management decisions generally include increased vegetation (cover, density and 

height) and lower overall surface/soil disturbance. Direct air quality impacts from surfacedisturbing activities would likely be small and most noticeable in a cumulative fashion when 

coupled with other management decisions. Potential effects from these management decisions 

include improved vegetative cover in many areas. Air quality impacts are expected to be 

comparable to those described for the Proposed RMP for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. 

• Short Term: Short-term benefits to air quality would most likely not be measurable in 

the overall project area under the Proposed RMP or Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. 

• Long Term: Long-term benefits would include incremental site-specific reductions in 

windborne particulate from reduced erosion of exposed soils as vegetation improves over 

time. These benefits are expected to be comparable under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. 

4.2.3.3.1.2. Indirect Impacts 

Potential indirect effects from these management decisions include reduced PM10 and other 

windborne particulate from erosion of exposed soils due to improved vegetative cover. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-11

4.2.3.4. IMPACTS OF LAND AND REALTY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON AIR QUALITY

Impacts from land and realty management decisions, outside of those specific to compressor 

stations discussed below, are projected to have no significant effect on air quality under the 

Proposed RMP or any of the alternatives except as they impact other management decisions. It 

should be recognized that some compressor stations are [and would be] authorized by landsrealty while some are [or would be] located on oil and gas leases (BLM). The impacts from 

compressor stations and other associated activities specific to lands-realty authorization were not 

modeled separately from those specific to BLM authorization. All were modeled collectively to 

allow projection of potential cumulative air quality impacts. These projections and modeling 

assumptions are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.3 and in the Air Quality Technical Support 

Document (TSD) (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

4.2.3.5. IMPACTS OF FIRE DECISIONS ON 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 reasons, will produce smoke and other air pollutants. Some short-term 

air pollutant releases are necessary to achieve the benefits related to prescribed burning. Land 

managers recognize that smoke management is critical to avoid air quality intrusions over 

sensitive areas and related visibility problems. As a result of careful management, there is 

usually less smoke from a prescribed fire than from a wildfire burning over the same area. 

Specific policy, rules and procedures are implemented by BLM to minimize the air quality 

impacts and specifically impacts to regional haze for fire events. On July 19, 2000, the BLM 

Utah State Office implemented a Smoke Management Plan (SMP) with its interagency partners 

USFS, NPS, USFWS, UDNR, and UDAQ. The goals of the SMP include the protection of public 

health, safety, and visibility; and the development of an emission inventory for pollutants of 

interest for prescribed fire, wildland fire, and wildland fire used for resource benefits. 

Compliance with the current Smoke Management Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

between BLM, USFS, and UDAQ, in accordance with UAC regulation R446-1-2.4.4, requires 

reporting size, date of burn, fuel type, and estimated air emissions from each prescribed burn. 

All prescribed burns and mechanical and chemical treatments and impacts would be analyzed 

under a project-specific NEPA compliance document. 

Public notification for all prescribed burns occurs at several levels. Hunters in Limited Entry 

areas are notified of upcoming burns that are planned to occur during the fall hunting period, 

through a short letter and project map that is sent with each hunting tag/permit. The letter/map 

describes the project size, location, dates, and contact person for questions. The general public is 

typically notified of planned burn events through radio and newspaper announcements beginning 

several weeks before the planned ignition date. Points of contact for further information are 

included. Other agencies are notified 48 hours in advance of upcoming fire events. These include 

state, local and federal agencies. This notification is implemented through the Uinta Basin 

Interagency Dispatch Center. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-12

4.2.3.5.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

The Proposed RMP and Alternative A identify the potential for approximately 156,425 acres to 

be treated by prescribed fire per decade. As no more specific information on fuel loads, spatial 

distribution, timing, or vegetative species is available at this time; the evaluation of potential air 

quality effects is necessarily somewhat general and qualitative rather than quantitative in nature. 

4.2.3.5.1.1. Direct Impacts 

There are several criteria pollutants of concern specific to prescribed burning, chiefly particulate 

matter and carbon monoxide (CO). Particulate matter produced in prescribed burns is 

predominantly PM2.5. Biomass burning contributes to the release of greenhouse gases (such as 

CO2), and eliminates a carbon sink. 

Direct effects of prescribed fire fall into two general categories: short-term and long-term. 

• Short Term: Short-term air quality effects projected from prescribed burns include a 

general increase in PM2.5 particulate and CO emissions specific to the burn area and 

locations downwind. The magnitude of increase is directly dependent on the size, extent 

and controlled level of the burn. The type and amount of air pollutants released from 

burning wildland vegetation varies with type of fuel, moisture content, temperature of the 

fire, and the amount of smoldering occurring after the fire. If air quality were already 

approaching the threshold for particulate matter, prescribed burning could cause a region 

to exceed the daily limits. Because prescribed burning occurs irregularly, it is generally 

possible to restrict burning on "bad air quality days" to avoid violating air quality 

standards. 

• Long Term: Long-term direct air-quality effects projected from prescribed burns include 

a general increase in airborne particulate materials from the burn site as a result of ash 

dispersion and transport. This increase would occur only until revegetation is complete 

and growth matures. 

4.2.3.5.1.2. Indirect Impacts 

Short-term and long-term indirect effects on air quality from prescribed burns include an 

increase in airborne particulates from the burn site as a result of wind-based erosion of 

devegetated areas. This effect is expected to be small as vegetation management is an active part 

of fire management techniques. A greater long-term effect of prescribed burning is a reduction in 

particulate, CO2 and ozone 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 act as a contributor to the greenhouse effect. As 

a criteria pollutant, ozone production may be regulated by a State Implementation Plan (SIP), or 

burns may be banned under ozone alerts. 

The detrimental effects from wildfire would likely be greater than those from prescribed fire and 

exert a larger negative effect on air quality in the VPA. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-13

4.2.3.5.2. ALTERNATIVE B, C AND E 

Air quality impacts are expected to be comparable to those described for Alternative A because 

the acres of treatment by prescribed burn per decade are the same. 

4.2.3.5.3. ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those discussed for the Proposed RMP, with a 

difference in magnitude of both impacts and benefits associated with the difference in total acres 

treated. Alternative D identifies the potential for 50,900 acres to be burned (27,950 acres in the 

Book Cliffs RMP area and 22,950 acres in the Diamond Mountain RMP area), which is 33% of 

the 156,425 acres identified under the Proposed RMP. 

4.2.3.6. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DECISIONS ON AIR QUALITY

The results of air quality analysis for the Proposed RMP and each alternative specific to mineral 

decisions are presented in the following sections. The assessment of such air quality impacts is 

unique and does not easily conform to the established format of direct and indirect, short- and 

long-term effects. To better clarify the pertinent impacts and considerations involved, and to 

provide the reader with a more direct and understandable summary of the projected air quality 

effects, the air quality section has been divided into near- and far-field air quality analyses, each 

with a detailed discussion of model methodology, emission constituents evaluated and overall air 

quality effects. 

This assessment is based on best available engineering data, meteorological data, and EPA 

dispersion modeling procedures. However, where specific data or procedures were not available, 

appropriate assumptions have been incorporated. 

It should be kept in mind that all dispersion models, regardless of their level of complexity, are 

mathematical approximations of the behavior of the atmosphere. Therefore, particularly given 

the uncertain nature of the number and placement of the emission sources used in this analysis, 

the results need to be viewed as estimates of possible future concentrations and not exact 

predictions in time and space. 

Dispersion modeling is generally conducted in a somewhat conservative manner, attempting to 

ensure that the final results do not underestimate the actual or future impacts, so that appropriate 

planning decisions can be made. For example, sources may be assumed to operate for longer 

times or emit more pollutants than might be reasonable to ensure that health-based air standards 

are protected (i.e., the far-field air quality impact assessment assumed that under Alternative A 

an additional 6,343 new wells would go into production up to five years from the date of the 

RODROD [assumed for purposes of the air quality analysis], then operate at full production 

levels with no "dry holes" or "shut ins," while in reality a small percentage of dry holes and shut 

ins would be expected to occur in projects of this size). 

On the other hand, analyses are not conducted assuming the worst-case conditions across the 

board, which would lead to a "false-positive" result. Hence, dispersion modeling analyses are a 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-14

balancing act, using the best available information and methods (EPA recommended models, 

emission factors, etc.), and the best scientific and professional judgment where necessary, trying 

to direct the analysis so that the final results do not under-predict the actual concentrations that 

would occur in the future. 

Detailed modeling results including a more complete discussion of the models used, the modeled 

scenarios evaluated, the location and date of each maximum impact, plots showing the receptor 

grid, terrain, and location of each maximum impact, and the output, input and list files for the 

post-processing are available in the TSD (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

4.2.3.6.1. NEAR-FIELD ANALYSIS

4.2.3.6.1.1. Modeling Methodology 

The ISCST3 model as contained in Lakes Environmental ISC-AERMOD View software (Lakes 

2002) was used for all near-field modeling. All near-field modeling assumed flat terrain, rural 

dispersion conditions, and building downwash effects for a hypothetical structure. A hypothetical 

grouping of sources (including wells pads, glycol dehydrators, natural gas compressors, and an 

unpaved road traversing the source area) was used that provides an estimate of potential nearfield pollutant impacts. Details of the source types and configurations are discussed in the TSD 

(Trinity and Nicholls 2006). Operating parameters used for each source were (unless otherwise 

stated) the same as those used in the CALPUFF modeling performed by Trinity Consultants. 

Inventory and RFD sources are not included in the near-field analysis. 

The best available air quality monitoring data collected near the VPA were used to compare 

changes in air quality contributed by the modeled emission sources. There were existing 

monitoring stations for various pollutants near the VPA. Air quality data were obtained from the 

EPA AirData database (EPA 2002) and from the state air quality regulatory agencies. Detailed 

information on the air quality modeling techniques employed, parameters utilized, and 

meteorological conditions incorporated is presented in the TSD (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Model receptors (points at which the model estimates concentrations) were placed as outlined in 

4.2.1 below. 

Table 4.2.1. Receptor Spacing for Near-field Modeling 

Pollutant(s) Source Type(s) Receptor 

Ranges (m) 

Receptor 

Spacing (m) 

PM10, PM2.5 Roads 50–1, 500 50 

Pad Construction 50–1,700 50 

All Other Criteria 100–4,000 100 

Pollutants 

Pad Construction, Compressors, and 

Glycol Dehydrators 4,000–10,000 2,000 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 100–4,000 100 

(HAPs) 

Compressors and Glycol Dehydrators 

4,000–10,000 2,000 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-15

Results of the ISCST3 near-field modeling air-quality analysis are common to all alternatives 

and are presented in the following sections. 

4.2.3.6.1.2. Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Maximum potential CO emissions from natural gas-fired compressors were used to determine 

the maximum potential 1-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations. The maximum-modeled 

concentrations were 233.3 μg/m3 (1-hour) and 114.8 μg/m3 (8-hour). When background 

concentrations are added (6,984 μg/m3

 and 4,236 μg/m3 respectively), the total concentrations 

were 7,217 μg/m3

 (1-hour) and 4,351 μg/m3 (8-hour). These concentrations are well below the 

applicable NAAQS for CO of 40,000 μg/m3 (1-hour) and 10,000 μg/m3 (8-hour). 

4.2.3.6.1.3. Particulate Matter 

To address the concerns of some of the stakeholders and cooperating agencies, the modeling 

analysis for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) for all proposed alternatives was divided into 

two parts: an analysis of road-related particulate (road-only); and an analysis of all particulate 

sources grouped together (roads and other sources) that included well pads (construction, traffic), 

compressors, and roads. It should be noted that different receptor configurations were used for 

the two analyses (as discussed in the TSD). All particulate matter sources were modeled with 

emissions limited to the hours from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., the period when these sources are 

generally active (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). PSD increments do not apply, as the majority of 

these sources are temporary in nature. 

PM10

For the road-only analysis, the maximum-modeled potential PM10 concentrations were 0.29 

μg/m3 (24-hour) and 0.043 μg/m3 (annual). When background concentrations are added (28 

μg/m3

 and 10 μg/m3 respectively), the total concentrations were 28.3 μg/m3 for the 24-hour 

average and 10.04 μg/m3 for the annual average. These concentrations are below the applicable 

NAAQS of 150 μg/m3

 (24-hour). 

For the roads, wells and compressors analysis, the maximum-modeled potential PM10

concentrations were 3.76 μg/m3

 (24-hour) and 0.96 μg/m3 (annual). When background 

concentrations are added (28 μg/m3

 and 10 μg/m3 respectively), the total concentrations were 

31.8 μg/m3

 for the 24-hour average and 11.0 μg/m3 for the annual average. These concentrations 

are well below the applicable NAAQS of 150 μg/m3 (24-hour). 

PM2.5

For the road-only analysis, the maximum-modeled potential PM2.5 concentrations were 0.04 

μg/m3 (24-hour) and 0.0006 μg/m3 (annual). When background concentrations are added (19 

μg/m3

 and 7 μg/m3 respectively), the total concentrations were 19.0 μg/m3 for the 24-hour 

average and 7.0 μg/m3

 for the annual average. These concentrations are below the NAAQS for 

PM2.5 of 35 μg/m3

 (24-hour) and 15 μg/m3 (annual). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-16

For the roads, wells and compressors analysis, the maximum-modeled potential PM2.5

concentrations were 0.55 μg/m3

 (24-hour) and 0.14 μg/m3 (annual). When background 

concentrations are added (19 μg/m3 and 7 μg/m3 respectively), the total concentrations were 19.6 

μg/m3

 for the 24-hour average and 7.1 μg/m3 for the annual average. These concentrations are 

well below the proposed NAAQS of 35 μg/m3

 (24-hour) and 15 μg/m3 (annual). 

4.2.3.6.1.4. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

The maximum short-term (3-hour and 24-hour) and long-term (annual average) SO2

concentration from compressors used to move the gas through the pipelines was modeled to be 

20.2 μg/m3 (3-hour), 10.1 μg/m3 (24-hour), and 5 μg/m3 (annual), including representative 

background values. All predicted short-term and long-term SO2 concentrations were well below 

the applicable NAAQS of 1,300 μg/m3 (3-hour), 365 μg/m3 (24-hour) and 80 μg/m3 (annual). 

4.2.3.6.1.5. Nitrogen Oxide (NO2) 

Maximum NO2 impacts during operations were modeled using "reasonably foreseeable" 

compressor NOx emission rates. The maximum-modeled concentration for NO2 reflects an 

adjustment by a factor of 0.75, in accordance with standard EPA methodology (Federal Register 

60:153, p. 40469, dated August 9, 1995) to convert from the modeled NOx concentration to NO2 

(Trinity and Nicholls 2006). The maximum-modeled annual NO2 concentration was 1.40 μg/m3. 

When the assumed representative background concentration (10 μg/m3

) is added, the resulting 

projected maximum total impact is 11.40 μg/m3, which is below the applicable NAAQS of 100 

μg/m3

 (annual). 

4.2.3.6.1.6. Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) 

Maximum HAPs impacts during operations were modeled for the hypothetical arrangement of 

sources as described above. Emissions sources include compressors (benzene, ethylbenzene, 

formaldehyde, toluene, and xylenes) and glycol dehydrators (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, 

hydrogen sulfide, and xylenes). 

Because neither the State of Utah nor the EPA have established HAP standards, 24-hour and 

annual HAP concentrations were projected using the ISCST3 model and compared to a range of 

acceptable ambient concentration levels (AACLs) from other states and/or EPA Reference 

Concentrations (RfCs) (EPA 1997 and Archer 2001). These thresholds are presented in Table 

4.2.2. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-17

Table 4.2.2. Summary of HAP Acceptable Ambient Concentration Levels (AACLs) 

Benzene 

(μg/m3

) 

Ethylbenzene 

(μg/m3) 

Formaldehyde 

(μg/m3) 

Hydrogen 

Sulfide 

(μg/m3

) 

Toluene 

(μg/m3

) 

Xylenes 

(μg/m3) 

Agency 

0.12 1,000 0.077 0.9 400 1,500 

annual 24-hour annual 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 

Washington 

Department of 

Ecology, WAC 

176-460-150 

 

53 14,467 - 467 6,267 14,467 

24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 

Utah DEQ Toxic 

Screening 

Levela

 

- - - 140 - - 

 

24-hour 

 

North Dakota 

Department of 

Health, Division 

of 

Environmental 

Engineering, 

33-15-02 or Air 

Toxics Policy 

 

13-45b - 8b - - - 

annual annual 

EPA IRIS 

Database 

1/10000 Risk 

Level 

- 1,000 - 1 400 100 

 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 

EPA IRIS 

Database 

RfCc

 

a

The Toxic Screening Level (TSL) for Utah can be found in Utah Administrative Code R307-410-4. b

The range of values shown here represents the air unit risk of 1 in 10,000 taken from EPA's IRIS database. 

c

U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) contains information on reference concentration for chronic inhalation 

exposure (RfC). (EPA 1997). 

The results of the near-field HAPs modeling show that the maximum modeled annual benzene 

and formaldehyde concentrations (11.0 μg/m3 and 0.531 μg/m3, respectively), and the 24-hour 

concentration for xylenes (185.1 μg/m3) exceed the low end of the range of respective AACLs. 

However, the background concentration for xylenes recommended for use was greater than the 

100 μg/m3 threshold identified for the 24-hour average (Table 4.2.3). 

To better characterize the risk associated with the modeled concentrations of benzene and 

formaldehyde (xylenes are not considered carcinogenic according to EPA's IRIS database, EPA 

2003) in BLM source emissions, two estimates of cancer risk were performed; one that 

corresponds to a most likely exposure (MLE) condition (related to residents of the area), and one 

reflective of the maximally exposed individual (MEI) such as compressor station workers. 

Possible incremental cancer risks were calculated based on the maximum predicted annual 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-18

concentrations from BLM sources only (excluding background), EPA's unit risk factors for 

carcinogenic compounds (EPA 1997), and an adjustment for time spent at home or on the job. 

Table 4.2.3. Near-field HAPS Modeling Results for Vernal MA 

Pollutant Averaging 

Period 

Maximum Modeled 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Low end of 

AACLs 

(μg/m3

)

b

High end of 

AACLs 

(μg/m3

)

b

Benzene 24-hour 62.5 53 — 

Benzene Annual 11.0 0.12 13-45 

Ethylbenzene 24-hour 11.4 1,000 14,467 

Formaldehyde Annual 0.53 0.077 8 

H2S 24-hour 2.46E-04 0.9 467 

Toluene 24-hour 98.2 400 6,267 

Xylenes 24-hour 185.1 100 14,467 

a

 Sources modeled: Glycol dehydrators, compressors; except H2S – dehydrators only 

b

 See Table 4.2.2 for details on the AACLs 

This analysis assumed that residential exposure was 20 years (well over the national nine-year 

average duration a family lives at a residence) and worker exposure was 20 years. In addition, it 

assumed that family members were exposed to the maximum concentrations 64% of the day, and 

to one forth of this concentration for the remaining 36% of the day. It should be noted that the 

modeled concentrations used in these calculations do not include background concentrations 

because the incremental cancer risk due to BLM sources only is the focus of this portion of the 

analysis. 

Under the MLE scenario, the estimated individual cancer risks associated with long-term 

exposure to benzene (compressors, dehydrators) and formaldehyde (dehydrators) are 5.03 × 10-6 

to 1.78 × 10-5 and 1.44 × 10-6, respectively. Under the MEI analysis, the individual cancer risks 

for benzene and formaldehyde are 6.89 × 10-6 to 2.44 × 10-5 and 1.97 × 10-6 respectively. All are 

at the lower end of the threshold range of EPA's presumptively acceptable risks (1.0 × 10-4 to 1.0 

× 10-6, representing one excess cancer per 1 million people to one excess cancer per 10,000 

people, respectively) (EPA 1999a). 

The above risk calculations are based upon the maximum modeled concentration found 

anywhere in the vicinity of the hypothetical arrangement of sources. These maximum 

concentrations will most likely occur only within a few hundred meters of the edge of the 

sources. It is unlikely that any individual would be living this close to the sources. Therefore, the 

calculated risk values should be viewed as an upper bound on the range of possible risks 

associated with near-field impacts, with risks to actual residents likely being much lower. 

Therefore, the long-term cancer risk analyses for near-field modeling projections indicate 

minimal potential for concern. 

4.2.3.6.1.7. Natural Gas Flare 

A separate modeling exercise was conducted for potential natural gas flaring emissions. The flare 

modeling was performed with the SCREEN3 model (EPA 1995b), as suggested at a meeting of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-19

the air quality stakeholders for this project (BLM 2003). Information provided by the BLM 

Vernal Field Office (VFO) showed that a significant percentage of proposed new wells would 

require flaring (60% of natural gas wells; BLM 2004b). Because the exact locations of wells 

requiring flaring is not known, these emissions were distributed evenly across existing point 

sources, weighted by the percent of the total area covered by each sub-region. Flare emissions 

were modeled as "sweet gas" which is assumed to contain no sulfur. Therefore, no emissions 

were estimated for SO2. Detailed information is presented in the TSD (Trinity and Nicholls 

2006). Modeled results show that all concentrations are well below the NAAQS. 

4.2.3.6.2. FAR-FIELD ANALYSIS

4.2.3.6.2.1. Modeling Methodology 

The CALPUFF air dispersion model is the preferred model for long-range transport 

recommended by the Federal Land Manager Air Quality Related Value Workgroup (FLAG) 

guidance, the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary 

Report and the EPA in its Guideline on Air Quality Models (EPA 2005); Trinity and Nicholls 

2006). 

Specific information on the CALPUFF air dispersion model (Version 5.5, Level 010730-1)1

, the 

CALMET diagnostic meteorological model (Version 5.2, Level 000602d), and the SCREEN3 

flare emissions model (EPA 1995a) used for this analysis is available in the TSD (Trinity and 

Nicholls 2006). The air quality assessment included an evaluation of potential impacts associated 

with proposed future development on ambient air quality and on Air Quality Related Values 

(AQRV) managed by Federal Land Managers (FLM). The following assessments were 

conducted: 

• Projection of potential direct and cumulative air quality impacts of emissions from 

existing and foreseeable oil, gas, and mineral development scenarios (Proposed RMP, 

and Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E). 

• Comparison of potential direct and cumulative air quality impacts, plus the existing 

background concentration to the applicable NAAQS and those state ambient air quality 

standards that are more stringent than the NAAQS. 

• Visibility impacts within mandatory Federal PSD Class I areas and specific Class II areas 

of concern. 

• Atmospheric deposition of total sulfur and nitrogen within mandatory Federal PSD Class 

I areas and specific Class II areas of concern, including a lake chemistry analysis. 

Best available air quality monitoring data collected near the VPA were used to compare changes 

in air quality contributed by modeled emission sources. There were existing monitoring stations 

for various pollutants near the VPA. Air quality data were obtained from the EPA AirData 

database (EPA 2002) and from the state air quality regulatory agencies. Detailed information on 

1 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-20

the air quality modeling techniques employed, parameters utilized, and meteorological 

conditions incorporated is presented in the TSD (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

4.2.3.6.3. AIR QUALITY MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

In the development of this analysis, there was recognized uncertainty regarding the actual 

magnitude of final resource development. This uncertainty included the number of wells, type 

and number of equipment used, specific location of development, etc. Due to this uncertainty, 

actual impacts may vary from the modeled values and would potentially be affected by permit 

requirements. 

All emission sources were assumed to operate at their maximum emission rates simultaneously 

throughout the lifetime of the project. In reality, some sources would only emit during a portion 

of any given day or year. It was also assumed that primary road traffic would occur during 

working, daylight hours (7 A.M. to 7 P.M.), particularly during the construction period of the 

wells2

, and that 50% control of particulate emissions would be attained by watering. 

The contribution to the degradation of air quality from other [non-oil and gas] mineral 

development (i.e., from mine plans associated with solid leasable minerals such as gilsonite and 

phosphate, mineral materials and surface management), outside of the modeled impacts from 

dust due to increased activity and road-building, was considered nominal and only oil and gas 

related activities (the largest component of minerals related activity within the VPA) were 

considered in assessing impacts to air quality. This analysis does not include tar sands/oil shale 

minerals. Such analysis will be addressed and data updated with a land-use amendment after the 

PEIS tar/sands oil shale ROD is signed. 

Other specific assumptions are detailed in the appropriate sections of this report and the 

associated sections of the TSD (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). It should be noted that exceedances, 

over predictions, and under predictions may be caused by limitations within the model. The 

accuracy of modeled results depends on the representation of sources within the model and 

accuracy of the state's emission inventory. One limitation of this air quality analysis is that the 

location of some BLM sources is unknown at this time. Small changes in source location may 

cause a change in modeled impacts, especially given the complex terrain that exists over much of 

the project area. 

Air quality modeling for this document is based on the initial acreages proposed for Alternatives 

A, B, C, and D in June and July 2004 (see Tables 4.1.4a and 4.1.4b). Alternative E formulated 

later than the other Alternatives and is assumed to have the same air quality impacts as 

Alternative C. Similarly, the assumptions relevant to oil and gas development as they pertain to 

air quality are identical for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. Projected well numbers and 

road-related air quality impacts were based on these proposed acreages. The total acreages for 

potential mineral development for Alternatives A, B, C, and D have changed somewhat over 

time as additional considerations and information has been brought forward through the 

assessment process. For Alternatives A, B and C/E, and the Proposed RMP, the changes are very 

small and represent < 1% difference from the acreages and well numbers modeled for air quality 

2 Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning Area (BLM 2002). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-21

impacts. In the case of Alternative D, the acreage used in the modeling assessment is 

approximately 6% greater than that currently recognized. This difference is specific to air quality 

modeling only and is due to a change in proposed total acreage for Alternative D. When the air 

quality modeling was undertaken, the Hill Creek extension (encompassing approximately 

188,500 acres in total) was included in the acreage totals for modeling. However, in the 

intervening time frame, BLM decided that because the Hill Creek Extension was not leased in 

the Book Cliffs RMP, this acreage should have not been included in the modeling for Alternative 

D. Air quality modeling for Alternative D does not reflect the withdrawal of the 188,500 acres 

and therefore exhibits a slight overestimation of air quality impacts for this alternative. Given the 

conservative nature of the assumptions used, these differences are considered to be minor at most 

and the modeled air quality impacts for these alternatives remain valid. 

4.2.3.6.4. EMISSION SOURCES

Two groups of emission sources were modeled for this analysis. The first group, referred to as 

"inventory sources," included new and modified emission sources that have commenced 

operation since the monitoring base year date. Data for inventory-source emissions were 

provided by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) and the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) state inventories.3 The second group of 

sources, referred to as "BLM sources," included those future proposed sources projected to result 

from BLM oil and gas development. Compressors for gas compression, glycol dehydrators, and 

fugitive dust from new roads were included in this category. 

4.2.3.6.5. INVENTORY SOURCES

If a source in the emission inventory was in operation prior to the monitoring date of the 

background concentration, that source was assumed to be included in the background and was 

not modeled. Background air quality data were values recommended by UDEQ and Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment4 and is detailed in Table 3.2.4 in Chapter 3. The 

base year date applied for each pollutant is presented in Table 4.2.4. 

Table 4.2.4. Base Year Date for Background Concentrations 

Pollutant PM10 PM2.5 NO2 CO SO2

Proposed Base Year Date 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 

This analysis assumed that reasonable variations in emissions occur through the years. If an 

emission source showed increases or decreases in emissions that occurred in the year 

immediately before or after the base year date, and the inventory information provided by the 

states did not show modification to the source, the emissions changes were assumed to be a part 

of expected variation and were not modeled. The following sources in the emission inventory 

were not considered to be background and were modeled: 

3 Deborah McMurtrie, SIP/Rules Section, Planning Branch, Division of Air Quality, Department of Environmental Quality, (801) 536-

4187. Dave Thayer, Public Health Engineer Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control 

Division / Stationary Sources Program, david.thayer@state.co.us, Voice: 303-692-3187, FAX: 303-782-0278. 4 Background concentration recommended by CDPHE in the review comments provided by Nancy Chick, dated on December 20, 

2002. Background concentrations recommended by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality in memorandum No. 

DAQP-003-03, dated on January 17, 2003 from Richard W. Sprott to Yu Shan Huang. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-22

• A source that commenced operation after the monitoring base year date. 

• Any emissions increase from a source that had a permit issued after the monitoring base 

year date. If the last permit issue date was not available, the emission increase was 

modeled. The UDEQ inventory did not provide a permit issue date. Therefore, any 

emissions increase after the monitoring base year date was modeled. 

A review of all sources provided in the Utah source inventory and all Title V permits available 

on the UDEQ website was conducted on a per-pollutant basis because each pollutant had a 

different monitoring base year date. The modeling domain was set so that it extended 50 km 

beyond all sources and receptors. Therefore, only sources inside 50 km of the modeling domain 

boundary were modeled. No sources were placed within 10 km of any modeled sensitive areas in 

order to provide a more realistic analysis of existing and expected sources.5 Gravel pits, storage 

piles, haul roads, and other fugitive sources were modeled as area sources. 

A list of all inventory sources that were excluded from the analysis together with the reason for 

exclusion is available in Appendix C of the TSD (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). Additional 

information on modeling domains, stack parameters, emission rates and emission factors used is 

available in the TSD (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

4.2.3.6.6. BLM SOURCES

The four proposed development alternatives modeled include estimates of the number of wells 

drilled for oil and gas, compressor stations, and pipelines, along with other foreseeable 

development activities by non-BLM entities (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). The modeling analysis 

is, at most, a prediction of short-term and annual average air quality impacts. Modeling was 

based on a single year of activity, as little or no variation in activity levels from year to year is 

expected according to BLM field office personnel (BLM 2004a and 2004b). 

Potential emissions specific to BLM sources are summarized in a general fashion in the 

following sections. A detailed summary of the modeled air quality parameters is available in the 

TSD (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

4.2.3.6.7. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

The following subsections present the CALPUFF modeling results for the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A for NAAQS, PSD increments, HAPs, visibility, deposition, and acid neutralizing 

capacity (ANC) specific to BLM sources. 

4.2.3.6.7.1. NAAQS 

Modeling results show no exceedances of the NAAQS for any pollutant or averaging period 

from BLM sources for any of the modeled alternatives. 

5

 For sources located within 10 km of any Class I area, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting rules consider 

any net emissions increase that would have an air quality impact greater than 1 μg/m3

 (24-hour average) at the Class I area to 

be a significant increase. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-23

4.2.3.6.7.2. PSD Increment Thresholds 

BLM identified three mandatory Federal Class I and six Class II areas within the VPA to be 

considered in the analysis. These selected sensitive areas are listed in Table 3.2.3 in Chapter 3. 

The modeling results show no potential concentrations predicted that would exceed the Class I or 

Class II increments for BLM sources only. 

4.2.3.6.7.3. HAPs Emissions 

Near-field HAP concentrations were projected using the ISCST3 model and compared to a range 

of AACLs from other states and/or EPA RfCs (EPA 1997 and Archer 2001). These thresholds 

are presented in Table 4.2.4. Background concentrations for HAPs emissions (Table 4.2.5) were 

estimated using data from EPA's Urban Air Toxics Pilot Project collected in the city of Grand 

Junction between May 2001 and April 2002, as recommended by the Colorado Department of 

Health and Environmental Quality (Chick 2002). As these concentrations were measured in an 

area that is more urban in nature than the majority of the VPA, they may represent an 

overestimation of the actual background levels occurring at any single location within the VPA. 

Table 4.2.5. Recommended HAPs Background Concentration 

Agency Benzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde Toluene Xylenes 

Annual Mean (ppbv)a 0.90 0.84 5.78 3.70 3.63 b

24-hour Maximum (ppbv)a 2.72 10.68 14.00 33.26 43.66 b

Annual Mean (μg/m3) 2.87 3.65 7.11 13.95 15.75 

24-hour Maximum (μg/m3) 8.68 46.35 17.22 125.39 189.48 

a

 ppbv = parts per billion by volume 

b

 The xylenes concentration represents the sum of m,p-xylene and o-xylene. 

The results of the HAPs modeling show no concentration values (excluding background 

concentrations) that exceeded any of the AACLs/RfCs for BLM sources only (annual benzene 

concentration 0.0375 μg/m3

, annual formaldehyde concentration 0.0557 μg/m3). However, when 

background concentrations were included, the annual concentrations for benzene (2.9 μg/m3) and 

formaldehyde (7.1 μg/m3

) as well as the 24-hour concentration for xylenes (192 μg/m3) exceed 

their respective AACLs. (The background concentration for xylenes recommended for use was 

greater than the 100 μg/m3

 threshold identified for the 24-hour average.) BLM sources 

contribute, at most, 1% to these concentrations, meaning that at least 99% of these 

concentrations are due to assumed background concentrations. 

Because one or more of the AACLs/RfCs was exceeded (when background concentrations were 

included), an incremental cancer risk analysis was performed for benzene and formaldehyde 

emitted from the proposed sources modeled (xylenes are not considered carcinogenic). Two 

estimates of cancer risk (MLE and MEI) were completed as discussed previously for near-field 

modeling. Background concentrations are not included in the risk assessment calculations 

because the incremental cancer risk due to BLM sources only is the focus of this portion of the 

analysis. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-24

The MLE range of estimated individual cancer risks for long-term benzene exposure from BLM 

sources only is 1.72 × 10-8 to 6.10 × 10-8. For formaldehyde, the MLE risk is 1.51 × 10-7. These 

values are well below the lower end of the threshold range (1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-6) of presumptively 

acceptable risks (EPA 1998). Under the MEI analysis, the range of individual cancer risks for 

benzene is 2.36 × 10-8 to 8.36 × 10-8. For formaldehyde, the MEI risk is 2.07 × 10-7. These values 

are also well below the lower end of the threshold range of presumptively acceptable risks. These 

values are also well below the lower end of the threshold range of presumptively acceptable 

risks. Therefore, the long-term cancer risk analyses indicate no potential for concern. 

It should be noted that these risk calculations are based on the maximum modeled concentration 

found anywhere near the hypothetical arrangement of sources. It is unlikely that an individual is 

residing at this exact location for the entire length of time assumed in the calculations. Therefore, 

the risk values calculated above should be viewed as an upper bound on the range of possible 

risks associated with near-field impacts, with actual risks to residents likely being lower. 

4.2.3.6.7.4. Visibility Analyses 

Because emissions from the alternatives constitute many small sources spread out over a very 

large area, discrete visible plumes are not likely to impact the PSD Class I areas or other 

wilderness areas. 

Regional haze is caused by fine particles and gases scattering and absorbing light. The first level 

screening analysis for visibility compared daily modeled primary (PM10) and secondary (sulfate 

and nitrate) particulate matter concentrations to "natural" background conditions and seasonal 

relative humidity values, to calculate the potential change in visibility (FLAG 2000). 

A 1.0-deciview (dv) change is considered potentially significant in mandatory Federal PSD Class 

I areas as described in the EPA Regional Haze Regulations (EPA 1999b, Pitchford and Malm 

1994). The results of the screening visibility analysis for all alternatives (Trinity and Nicholls 

2006) indicate that emissions from proposed BLM sources are not expected to result in a 1.0-dv 

reduction in visibility at any of the PSD Class I wilderness areas under any of the alternatives. 

Comparisons of modeled concentrations to the PSD Class I and II increments in this analysis 

were intended solely to evaluate a threshold of concern for potential impacts to provide decision 

makers with as much information as possible upon which to base their decisions. They do not 

represent regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analyses. Such regulatory analyses are the 

responsibility of the state air quality agency (under EPA oversight) and would be conducted 

during permitting process (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

In addition, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and other members of the stakeholders group 

requested that a separate analysis be done, comparing the screening visibility results to the 

USFS's 0.5-dv "Limit of Acceptable Change" threshold to evaluate potential significant visibility 

impacts at the PSD Class I Areas. The BLM performed the analysis of potential visibility 

impacts at the 0.5 dv level at the request of the USFS and other stakeholders, not based on any 

legal requirement. All visibility results are presented in detail in the TSD (Trinity and Nicholls 

2006). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-25

Screening visibility results for a number of Class II areas were added at the request of various 

members of the stakeholder group and are presented for disclosure purposes only. These Class II 

wilderness areas, parks, and monuments have no visibility protection under state or federal law at 

this time. However, inclusion of these areas in the analysis provides BLM decision makers with 

a more complete picture of potential impacts throughout the region. 

At this preliminary resource planning stage, the emission sources in this analysis do not have a 

defined location. In addition, the U.S. Congress has delegated implementation of the Clean Air 

Act to applicable local, state and tribal air quality regulatory agencies (with EPA oversight). The 

regulatory agencies are able to determine the visual impact of the plume from individual 

emission sources during the new source review process. Therefore, this analysis did not evaluate 

the near-field visibility impact of the sources at the resource planning stage (Trinity and Nicholls 

2006). 

Potential 24-hour primary PM10, and secondary sulfate and nitrate particulate matter 

concentrations were calculated within mandatory Federal Class I areas and at specific Class II 

areas of concern. PSD Increments have not yet been established for PM2.5 and therefore were not 

addressed in this analysis. 

The Class II areas included in this analysis were incorporated at the request of some of members 

of the stakeholder group (National Park Service, USFS, etc.). These Class II areas do not have 

any visibility protection under local, state, or federal laws. Their inclusion in the analysis is 

strictly to meet the disclosure requirements under NEPA and to provide decision makers with 

sufficient information upon which to make decisions (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

The BLM has consulted with the Ute Indian Tribe concerning the Hill Creek Extension. Those 

areas considered to be sensitive to the tribe (i.e., traditional cultural properties) have been closed 

to oil and gas leasing. 

Calculated values were first compared to "natural" background conditions as recommended in 

the FLAG Guideline document (FLAG 2000). Because this analysis was conducted for multiple 

emission sources simultaneously, the FLAG 10% change in extinction (1.0 dv) "just noticeable 

change" threshold was used to assess the significance of potential impacts. 

No visibility criteria exceedances were projected for any pollutant or averaging period from 

BLM sources for any of the modeled alternatives (Table 4.2.6). Because the visibility impacts for 

BLM sources for all modeled alternatives was below 10% (1.0 dv) for all Class I areas, no 

refined visibility analysis was conducted. 

Table 4.2.6. Results of Screening Visibility Analysis for Alternative A (BLM Sources Only)

Days >0.5 Deciview Change Days >1.0 Deciview Change PSD 

Class 

Name of Class I or 

Class II Area BLM Sources 

Only 

Inventory 

Sources 

BLM Sources 

Only 

Inventory 

Sources 

I Arches NP 0 1 0 1 

I Canyonlands NP 0 4 0 0 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-26

Table 4.2.6. Results of Screening Visibility Analysis for Alternative A (BLM Sources Only)

Days >0.5 Deciview Change Days >1.0 Deciview Change PSD 

Class 

Name of Class I or 

Class II Area BLM Sources 

Only 

Inventory 

Sources 

BLM Sources 

Only 

Inventory 

Sources 

I Capitol Reef NP 0 0 0 0 

II Browns Park NWR 0 0 0 0 

II Dinosaur NM 0 8 0 2 

II Flaming Gorge 

NRA 

0 0 0 0 

II High Uintas WA 0 0 0 0 

II Ouray NWR 0 6 0 0 

II USFS Requesta 0 0 0 0 

a

 Areas near Mount Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, Mount Timpanogos, and Mount Nebo 

4.2.3.6.7.5. Deposition 

All modeled values of sulfur and nitrogen deposition for BLM sources only were well below the 

applicable thresholds of 3 kilograms per hectare per year (kg/ha-yr) for total sulfur and 5 

kg/ha/yr for total nitrogen. 

4.2.3.6.7.6. Acid Neutralizing Capacity 

Where background lake chemistry data were available, an analysis of potential changes to ANC 

(the ability of a given lake to neutralize acid precipitation) was performed using the procedure 

recommended by the USFS (2000). This screening methodology takes deposition values of 

sulfur and nitrogen estimated by CALPUFF and converts these values into a potential change in 

the ability of a given lake to neutralize acid precipitation. 

ANC thresholds were not exceeded for any of the lakes considered in the analysis of modeled 

BLM source emissions. 

4.2.3.6.8. ALTERNATIVES B, C, D, AND E

The following subsections present the CALPUFF modeling results for Alternatives B, C, D and 

E for NAAQS, PSD increments, HAPs, visibility, deposition, and ANC from BLM sources. 

4.2.3.6.8.1. NAAQS 

Modeling results were the same as for Alternative A and show no exceedances of the NAAQS 

for BLM sources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-27

4.2.3.6.8.2. PSD Increment Thresholds 

Modeling results were the same as for Alternative A and show no exceedances of the Class I or 

Class II increments for BLM sources. 

4.2.3.6.8.3. HAPs Emissions 

The results of the HAPs modeling were similar to those for Alternative A and show no 

concentration values (excluding background concentrations) that exceeded any of the 

AACLs/RfCs for BLM sources only (annual benzene concentration 0.0376 μg/m3, 0.0243 μg/m3, 

0.0056 μg/m3, 0.0243 μg/m3 for Alternatives B, C, D, and E respectively; annual formaldehyde 

concentration 0.0559 μg/m3

, 0.0555 μg/m3, 0.0559 μg/m3 0.0555 μg/m3 for Alternatives B, C, D, 

and E respectively. 

However, when background concentrations are included, the annual concentrations for benzene 

and formaldehyde and the 24-hour concentration for xylenes exceed their respective AACLs 

under all alternatives (Table 4.2.7). The background concentration for xylenes recommended for 

use is greater than the 100-μg/m3

 threshold identified for the 24-hour average (see Table 4.2.5). 

BLM sources contribute, at most, 1% to these concentrations, meaning that at least 99% of these 

concentrations are due to assumed background concentrations. 

Table 4.2.7. HAPs Analysis Results for HAPs Found to Exceed AACLs 

Alternative B Alternative C/E Alternative D 

Pollutant 

(μg/m3

) 

BLM Sources Background Sources BLM sources + Background BLM Sources Background Sources BLM sources + Background BLM Sources Background Sources BLM sources + Background 

Annual 

Benzene 

(annual) 

0.0376 2.871 2.9086 0.0056 2.871 2.8766 0.0056 2.871 2.8766

Formaldehyde 

(annual) 

0.0559 7.1094 7.1653 0.0555 7.1094 7.1649 0.0559 7.1094 7.1653

Xylenes (24-

hour) 

2.13 190 192 0.362 190 190 0.361 190 190

HAPs analysis results for BLM sources, background sources, and BLM + background sources for 

Alternatives B, C/E, and D for HAPs found to exceed AACLs. All concentrations are reported in units of 

μg/m3

. 

An incremental cancer risk analysis (excluding background concentrations) was conducted for 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E as for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. Individual cancer risks 

for long-term exposure to benzene under the MLE scenario were 1.73 × 10-8 to 6.12 × 10-8 for 

Alternative B, 2.57 × 10-9 to 9.11 × 10-9 for Alternatives C, D, and E. The MLE results of the 

risk analysis for formaldehyde show an individual cancer risk value of 1.52 × 10-7 for Alternative 

B, 1.50 × 10-7 for Alternative C and E, and 1.52 × 10-7 for Alternative D. All of the MLE risks 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-28

are well below the lower end of the range of presumptively acceptable risks (1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-6, 

EPA 1998), indicating no potential for concern. 

Under the MEI analysis, the individual cancer risk for benzene was 2.36 × 10-8 to 8.38 × 10-8 for 

Alternative B, 3.52 × 10-9 to 1.25 × 10-8 for Alternatives C and E, and 3.52 × 10-9 to 1.25 × 10-8

for Alternative D for long-term exposure to benzene. The MEI results of the risk analysis for 

formaldehyde show a risk value of 2.08 × 10-7 for Alternative B, 2.06 × 10-7 for Alternatives C 

and E, 2.08 × 10-7 for Alternative D. These risks values are also below the range of 

presumptively acceptable risks, indicating no potential for concern. 

4.2.3.6.8.4. Visibility Analyses 

Modeling results were the same as for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A and show no 

visibility criteria exceedances. 

4.2.3.6.8.5. Deposition 

Modeling results were the same as for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A and show no 

exceedances of the applicable thresholds for total sulfur and total nitrogen. 

4.2.3.6.8.6. Acid Neutralizing Capacity 

Modeling results were the same as for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A and show no 

exceedances of ANC thresholds for any of the lakes considered in the analysis of modeled BLM 

source emissions. 

4.2.3.7. DISCUSSION

Table 4.2.8 contains a relative comparison of physical characteristics and modeled air quality 

parameters from BLM emission sources for the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, D, and 

E. 

Table 4.2.8. Relative Comparison of Modeled Air Quality Parameters from BLM 

Sources for Proposed Management Alternatives 

Parameter Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative

Eb

Physical Characteristics 

Proposed number 

of wellsa

6,342.8 6,342.8 6,432.6 6,225.7 6,247.6 6,225.7 

Estimated number 

of new road miles 

per year a

253.8 253.8 257.3 249.1 250.0 249.1 

Modeled PM10

fugitive dust 

impacts associated 

with new road use 

120.9 120.9 122.5 118.7 119 118.7 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-29

Table 4.2.8. Relative Comparison of Modeled Air Quality Parameters from BLM 

Sources for Proposed Management Alternatives 

Parameter Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative

Eb

and construction 

(tons/year) 

Air Quality Impacts 

Total NAAQS 

exceedances 

None None None None None None 

PSD increment 

exceedances 

None None None None None None 

Hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) 

benzene 

BLM sources add an incremental increase (1%) to background concentrations 

that already exceed at least one AACL. 

Hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) 

formaldehyde 

BLM sources add an incremental increase (1%) to background concentrations 

that already exceed at least one AACL. 

Hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) 

xylenes 

BLM sources add an incremental increase (1%) to background concentrations 

that already exceed at least one AACL. 

Other hazardous 

air pollutants 

BLM sources add an incremental increase (1%) to background concentrations, 

none of which exceed any AACL. 

Visibility impacts No visibility criteria exceedances projected. Visibility impacts for BLM sources for 

all alternatives were below 5% (0.5 dv) for all Class I and Class II areas. 

Deposition of 

sulfur and nitrogen None None None None None None 

Acid neutralizing 

capacity (ANC) 

exceedances None None None None None None 

a

 Please see discussion of well numbers under Section 4.2.2.6.3 Air Quality Modeling Assumptions 

b

 Alternative E was formulated later than the alternatives and was developed to be the same as C, but managing for non WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. For the purposes of the air quality analysis, Alternative E is assumed to be the same as C. 

The information presented in the preceding sections and summarized in Table 4.2.6 shows that 

the proposed BLM sources alone are not projected to cause exceedance of any applicable 

standards or thresholds. Therefore, air quality effects specific to BLM emission sources from 

mineral development are expected to be negligible at most. 

Also, it should be noted that the multiple conservative assumptions used throughout the 

modeling further underscore that actual air quality impacts are likely to be less than the modeled 

values. For example, some pollutant sources were assumed to operate 100% of the time 

throughout the modeled period although it is unlikely that this will occur; the maximum modeled 

concentration was used for health risk calculations, although it is unlikely that anyone resides at 

the maximum location; fugitive dust sources were conglomerated into area sources, likely 

increasing local PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations, and roads are assumed to emit dust equally 

throughout the year, when dust emissions are reduced or eliminated when roads are frozen or 

wet. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-30

4.2.4. MITIGATION MEASURES

No air quality exceedances were projected under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. 

However, the following mitigating measures may be implemented to further minimize air quality 

emissions related to the proposed management decisions. 

Prescribed burning would be concentrated in spring (mid-April through mid-June) and fall (midSeptember through mid-November) to avoid coinciding with peak summer levels of air 

pollutants from other anthropogenic activities in the area and winter inversion potential. The 

increase in local and sub-regional smoke associated with prescribed burns must be traded off 

against the large regional smoke plumes of the wildfires that can be expected without prescribed 

burning. Computer smoke dispersion modeling and related smoke management techniques can 

help to identify the potential for prescribed burning to result in air quality exceedances within the 

VPA. 

Roads, well locations, 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 also be applied as appropriate on local and 

resource roads that represent a dust problem. Lower speed limits, enforced by the appropriate 

authority, would also act to limit dust in project and adjacent areas. 

In addition, a variety of multi-level regulatory processes exist to ensure that pollutant levels do 

not increase above identified thresholds and/or air quality criteria. Pre-construction permitting 

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 ambient air quality standards. 

4.2.5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The CALMET/CALPUFF dispersion modeling system was used with the best available 

meteorological data (1996) plus numerous surface, precipitation, and upper-air data to predict 

maximum potential far-field cumulative air quality impacts at downwind PSD Class I Wilderness 

Areas. This assessment was conducted to: 

• Determine if the NAAQS and PSD Class I and Class II increments might be exceeded, 

• Calculate potential total nitrogen and sulfur deposition (and their related impacts) in 

sensitive lakes, 

• Determine if AACLs are exceeded for HAPs when combined with background 

concentrations, 

• Predict potential impacts to regional visibility. 

Potential emissions from other "reasonably foreseeable" facilities not represented by the 

measured background values were added to modeled emissions from implementation of 

Alternative B (the alternative representing the greatest degree of potential oil and gas 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-31

development) to determine potential cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore, the cumulative 

effects analysis represents the highest potential cumulative impact from the four alternatives. 

Detailed information on the sources outside the VPA is presented in the TSD (Trinity and 

Nicholls 2006). 

4.2.5.1. NAAQS 

Modeling results show no exceedances of the NAAQS for any pollutant for any of the modeled 

alternatives. 

4.2.5.2. PSD INCREMENT THRESHOLDS

The modeling results show no potential concentrations that would exceed the Class I or Class II 

increments for the VPA. 

4.2.5.3. HAPS EMISSIONS

The results of the far-field HAPs modeling show that the annual benzene and formaldehyde 

concentrations (2.9 μg/m3 and 7.2 μg/m3 respectively, including background concentrations) and 

the 24-hour concentration of xylenes (192 μg/m3, including a background concentration greater 

than the 100 μg/m3 24-hour concentration threshold) were the only values that exceeded any of 

the AACLs. An incremental cancer risk analysis was performed for benzene and formaldehyde 

emitted from the proposed sources modeled (xylenes are not considered carcinogenic). 

Under the MLE scenario, the estimated individual cancer risks associated with long-term 

exposure to benzene range from 1.43 × 10-6 to 5.07 × 10-6, while the formaldehyde risk was 

estimated to be 1.97 × 10-5. These values are within the EPA (1998) range of presumptively 

acceptable risks of 1.0 × 10-4 to 1.0 × 10-6. Under the MEI analysis, individual cancer risks for 

benzene were 1.96 × 10-6 to 6.94 × 10-6, while the risk for formaldehyde was 2.70 × 10-5. Again, 

the values are within the range of presumptively acceptable risks and both indicate minimal 

potential for concern. 

As described for Alternatives A through E, risk calculations are based on the maximum modeled 

concentrations and should be viewed as an upper bound on the range of possible risks associated 

with far-field impacts, with risks to actual residents likely being lower. 

4.2.5.4. VISIBILITY ANALYSES

Potential 24-hour primary PM10, and secondary sulfate and nitrate particulate matter 

concentrations were calculated within mandatory Federal Class I areas and at specific Class II 

areas of concern, as described for Alternative A. PSD Increments have not yet been established 

for PM2.5 and therefore were not addressed in this analysis. 

Calculated concentrations were first compared to "natural" background conditions as 

recommended in the FLAG (2000) Guideline document. Because the analysis was conducted for 

multiple emission sources simultaneously, the FLAG 10% change in extinction (1.0 dv) "just 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-32

noticeable change" threshold was used to assess the significance of potential impacts. If the 

seasonal screening analysis indicated that predicted changes in visibility exceeded the 1.0-dv 

Limit of Acceptable Change (LAC), a daily refined analysis was conducted based on hourly 

IMPROVE (2002) optical monitoring data measured at Canyonlands National Park for 1987 

through 2001. Additional detailed information on parameters used and assumptions made for this 

analysis are available in the TSD (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Results of the visibility analyses (Trinity and Nicholls 2006) for all sources are presented in 

Table 4.2.8. 

Table 4.2.8. Screening Visibility Modeling Results and Refined Visibility Analysis for All 

Sources (Cumulative) 

Screening Visibility 

Modeling Results 

Refined Visibility Analysis 

Resultsb

Days >1.0 Deciview Change PSD 

Class 

Name of Class I or 

Class II Area 

All BLM 

sources only 

All BLM and 

inventory 

sources 

Minimum 

Days >1.0 

Deciview 

Change 

Maximum 

Days >1.0 

Deciview 

Change 

I Arches NP 0 1 0 0 

I Canyonlands NP 0 0 

I Capitol Reef NP 0 0 

II Browns Park NWR 0 0 

II Dinosaur NM 0 2 0 1(0) 

II Flaming Gorge NRA 0 0 

II High Uintas WA 0 0 

II Ouray NWR 0 3 

II USFS Request c 0 0 

a Results reflect maximum concentration from all alternatives. 

b Values in parenthesis reflect all BLM sources. All Class II areas and Class I areas with no impacts from the screening analysis are 

not included in the refined analysis. 

c Areas near Mount Olympus, Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, Mount Timpanogos, and Mount Nebo 

Results of the screening visibility analysis shown in Table 4.2.7 indicate that potential BLM 

sources, along with existing inventory sources, do not result in a perceptible (1.0-dv reduction) 

impact on visibility at any of the PSD Class I areas in the study domain. The Class II areas 

included in this analysis were included at the request of some of the members of the stakeholder 

group (National Park Service, USFS, etc.). These Class II areas have no visibility protection 

under local, state, or federal laws. These areas are included in the analysis strictly to meet the 

disclosure requirements under NEPA and to provide decision-makers with sufficient 

information. 

4.2.5.5. DEPOSITION

All modeled values of sulfur and nitrogen deposition for BLM sources only were well below the 

applicable thresholds of 3 kg/ha/yr for total sulfur and 5 kg/ha/yr for total nitrogen. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-33

4.2.5.6. ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY

ANC thresholds were not exceeded for any of the lakes considered in the analysis of modeled 

BLM source emissions. 

4.2.6. AIR QUALITY IMPACT SUMMARY

Management decisions specific to the Proposed RMP and alternatives have the potential to 

impact air quality to the following degrees: 

• Mineral management decisions would emit pollutants during operation (i.e., well 

operations, compressor engines, etc.), along with fugitive dust from construction and 

mineral extraction activities. Air quality impacts from the projected levels of emission are 

expected to be negligible. 

• Air quality impacts from prescribed fire management decisions would generally be 

related to particulate matter (primarily PM2.5) and carbon monoxide (CO). Impacts would 

generally be short term and would have long-term benefits for other resources. 

• Impacts from forage management decisions, livestock grazing, rangeland improvement 

decisions, recreation management decisions, riparian management decisions, soils and 

watershed management decisions, special designations decisions, travel-based decisions, 

wildlife and fisheries management decisions, and woodland and forest management 

decisions are projected to have a negligible to incrementally positive effect on air quality 

in those regions where they are implemented. 

• Impacts from cultural resource management decisions, land and realty management 

decisions, paleontology-based decisions, special status species decisions, visual resource 

management decisions, and wild horse management decisions are projected to have no 

significant effect on air quality except as they impact other management decisions. 

• The burning of fossil fuels (natural gas, crude oil, etc.) produces many types of 

emissions, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). These GHGs (primarily carbon dioxide, 

CO2) are believed to cause global warming. The production and combustion of natural 

gas associated with the proposed alternatives would produce GHGs. However, the 

amount of GHGs produced is an extremely small fraction of the global emissions total, 

and lower than if other fuels (coal, oil, etc.) were being used. Therefore, no significant 

adverse impacts to climate are anticipated from implementation of any of the alternatives. 

4.2.7. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Prescribed fire may result in degradation of air quality through increases in wind-borne 

particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) due to loss of vegetation unless revegetation measures are 

adequately monitored and supported for regrowth. Cumulative impacts to air quality are further 

addressed in Section 4.23.1. 

Adverse impacts to air quality are not projected to occur under any of the proposed mineral 

development alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.2. Air Quality

Vernal RMP 4-34

4.2.8. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Prescribed fire may result in short and long-term (to a lesser degree) degradation of air quality 

through increases in wind-borne particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) due to loss of vegetation unless 

revegetation measures are adequately monitored and supported for regrowth. 

Adverse impacts to air quality are not projected to occur under any of the proposed mineral 

development alternatives. 

4.2.9. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

With proper management and remediation, there is no projected irreversible or irretrievable air 

quality impacts associated with the proposed prescribed burning alternatives. 

There are no irreversible or irretrievable impacts to air quality projected to occur under any of 

the proposed mineral development alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-545 

4.20. WILD HORSES

Impacts from decisions concerning paleontological resources, soils and watershed, special status 

species, visual resource management, and woodland and forests would have negligible or minor 

impacts on wild horse forage and water availability, or herd health and sustainability in the VPA; 

therefore, they will not be discussed further in this analysis. Impacts from decisions concerning 

cultural resources, fire management, forage allocation, lands and realty management, livestock 

grazing, mineral resources, recreation, riparian resources, special designations, travel, vegetation 

resources, wild horse management, and wildlife and fisheries management would potentially 

impact wild horses in the VPA. Decisions relating to these resources and resource uses would 

have short-term or long-term direct or indirect impact on wild horses in the VPA. 

There are currently one herd area (HA) and two herd management areas (HMAs) in the VPA: the 

Bonanza HMA, Winter Ridge HA, and Hill Creek HMA. The Proposed RMP and all alternatives 

vary in their impacts on maintaining the wild horse herds in these areas, as summarized in Table 

4.20.1. 

Table 4.20.1. Maintaining Wild Horse Herds, Proposed RMP and all Alternatives 

Bonanza HMA Winter Ridge HA Hill Creek HMA 

Proposed RMP No No No 

Alternative A No Yes Yes 

Alternative B No No No 

Alternative C Yes Yes Yes 

Alternative D (No Action) No No Yes 

Alternative E Yes Yes Yes 

There are no known reports of wild burros existing within the VPA; therefore, no further analysis 

or discussion of wild burros will be made in this section. 

4.20.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.20.1.1. FIRE

Fire management other than prescribed burning, which includes mechanical and chemical 

treatment methods, would impact wild horses under the Proposed RMP and all of the 

alternatives. Mechanical and/or chemical treatments and seeding treatments would have direct 

and indirect, adverse, short-term effects on wild horse herds. Direct impacts would be caused by 

the removal of forage within the fire treatment areas. Indirect impacts would be produced by 

fencing the treated areas during vegetation re-growth, which would make forage unavailable to 

herds until vegetation re-establishment. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-546 

4.20.1.2. LANDS AND REALTY

For lands and realty management actions under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, 

there is the potential that land tenure adjustments (i.e., acquisitions, disposals, and withdrawals) 

would adversely impact wild horse herds associated with areas where adjustments might be 

made. The land tenure adjustment process would analyze impacts to wild horses on a case-bycase basis. This would, in turn, adversely increase wild horse harassment, which could disrupt 

the daily and seasonal activities of the wild horse bands in these areas. Repeated and consistent 

disruption of the herds would have a long-term, adverse impact on wild horses. 

4.20.1.3. RIPARIAN

Riparian management actions would impact wild horses under the Proposed RMP and all of the 

alternatives by reducing or eliminating their access to riparian areas during efforts to improve 

riparian resources. Any actions that would have the potential to impact wild horses in the VPA 

would be further analyzed on a case-by-case basis prior to the implementation of a project, but 

restricting wild horse access to water within riparian areas would have direct, adverse impacts on 

wild horses. 

4.20.1.4. WILDLIFE

Wildlife management actions under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives would 

adversely impact wild horses. Wildlife has the potential to compete directly and indirectly with 

wild horses for forage and habitat. However, management decisions have been proposed under 

all of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP to adequately allocate forage and habitat to wildlife 

and wild horses to mitigate forage and habitat competition. 

4.20.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

4.20.2.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL DECISIONS, RECREATION DECISIONS, SPECIAL 

DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS, TRAVEL DECISIONS, AND NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON WILD HORSES

4.20.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE B 

No wild horses would be maintained within the VPA under the Proposed RMP and Alternative 

B. Therefore, there would be no impacts to wild horses from cultural, recreation, special 

designations, travel, and non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics decisions. 

4.20.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVES A, C, AND E 

The protection of cultural resource areas under these alternatives by limiting OHV travel to 

designated routes or closed areas to OHV use, and protecting cultural sites from minerals surface 

disturbances under Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations would have indirect, 

long term, beneficial impacts on wild horses. These management decisions would benefit wild 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-547 

horses by reducing the potential for herd harassment and disturbances caused by human noise, 

motion, night lighting, and human presence. 

Under these alternatives, substantial areas within the VPA would be managed as designated 

SRMAs (and each SRMA managed under an integrated activity plan) to provide opportunities 

for specific recreational experiences. Under Alternative A, 499,588 acres would be proposed for 

SRMA designation; Alternatives C and E propose 522,604 acres for management within 

SRMAs. The impacts on wild horses would be the same as discussed for cultural resources above 

because minerals-related surface disturbances would be managed to ensure satisfactory 

recreational experiences. Wild horses would benefit indirectly from SRMA designation because 

OHV use and backcountry and front country activities would be controlled, which would reduce 

human harassment caused by noise and human presence. 

Special designation areas under these alternatives would have impacts similar to those discussed 

above for SRMAs because these areas would be managed to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to scenic, cultural, wildlife, and other natural systems. Thus, minerals-related surface 

disturbances would be constrained, OHV use would be limited to designated routes or 

prohibited, and habitat would be protected. Substantial areas are proposed for ACEC designation 

under these alternatives: Alternative A proposes 345,850 acres for ACEC management; 

Alternatives C and E propose 681,310 acres for management under ACEC special designations. 

This would have indirect beneficial impacts on wild horses similar to those for SRMAs because 

potential human-related wild horse harassment and human presence would be managed to protect 

the resource values within the ACECs, proposed wild and scenic river segments, and WSAs. 

Travel management decisions under these alternatives would have beneficial impacts on wild 

horses by minimizing areas within the VPA that are open to cross-country OHV travel. 

Substantial portions of the VPA would either be closed to OHV use or would limit travel to 

designated routes. Under Alternative A, 6,202 acres would be open to cross-country OHV travel; 

Alternatives C and E would limit open OHV use to 5,434 acres. These management decisions 

would indirectly and beneficially preserve wild horse habitat and reduce potential human 

harassment of herds in the Winter Ridge HA and Hill Creek HMA. 

Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed to preserve their wilderness values. These areas would be managed under VRM Class I 

objectives, closed to OHV use, closed to woodland harvesting, closed to new road construction, 

and closed to oil and gas leasing. However, management of these areas would allow construction 

of wildlife waters and fuels treatments. These management decisions would indirectly benefit 

wild horses in the long term by reducing human presence and the potential for human 

harassment, and improve water availability and forage conditions in the long term. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternatives A, C and E would provide a higher degree 

of protection to wild horses by restricting some activities around designated cultural sites. More 

acres would be managed as SRMAs and ACECs, more area managed to limit surface 

disturbances, and greater restrictions would be placed on OHV travel under Alternatives A, C, 

and E for more beneficial indirect impacts on wild horses than under Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-548 

4.20.2.1.3. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D does not specify designating Seep Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, and Atchee Ridge 

Roads as BLM Back Country Byways and allows for continued recreational use of the White 

River with minimal management oversight and unlimited and unconfined recreation in the Book 

Cliffs. Alternative D (No Action) would maintain current levels of adverse indirect, long-term 

impacts on wild horses in the HA and HMAs. 

4.20.2.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE DECISIONS ON WILD HORSES

4.20.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE B 

Fire management decisions would allow prescribed burning on 156,425 acres per decade within 

the VPA; however, there would be no impacts from fire decisions on wild horses, as in the long 

term all herds would be removed from the VPA. 

4.20.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVES A, C, AND E 

Fire management decisions for Alternatives A, C and E would allow for prescribed burning on 

156,425 acres per decade (the same as under the Proposed RMP and Alternative B). Short-term, 

adverse impacts on wild horses, in the form of reduced forage and restricted use of these areas by 

wild horses, would occur in areas where prescribed burning was applied. However, these 

prescribed fires would be planned in areas where long-term benefits (including improved forage 

for wild horses) would be expected as a result of vegetation treatment. Compared to Alternative 

D (No Action), these alternatives would be more beneficial to wild horses in the long term 

because more area would be managed for prescribed fire vegetation treatments, which would 

have more long-term, indirect improvements on wild horse forage conditions. 

4.1.1.1.1 Alternative D (No Action) 

Fire management under Alternative D (No Action) would allow for prescribed fire on 

approximately 27,950 acres in the Book Cliffs area. Short-term, adverse impacts on wild horses, 

in the form of reduced forage and restricted use of these areas by wild horses, would occur in 

areas subject to such treatments. However, these prescribed fires would be planned in areas 

where long-term benefits would be realized as a result of the vegetation treatment. 

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative D (No Action) would provide the most protection 

to wild horses in the short term by potentially disturbing fewer acres of forage through fire 

treatments. However, the smaller acreage where prescribed burning would be allowed would 

have fewer beneficial impacts from improved forage in the long term. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-549 

4.20.2.3. IMPACTS OF FORAGE ALLOCATION DECISIONS ON WILD HORSES

4.20.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, and in the long term, all wild horses would be removed from the 

VPA, but forage would be temporarily allocated to wild horses until they are removed within the 

Winter Ridge HA and the Hill Creek HMA. Short term forage allocations within the VPA to 

wild horses (in the Winter Ridge HA and the Hill Creek HMA) would total 2,340 AUMs. Wild 

horses were removed in the Bonanza area in 2001, and no forage allocations are proposed for 

that locality under the Proposed RMP. In the long term, the gradual decrease and reallocation of 

forage for wildlife and livestock would have no impact on wild horses because they would not be 

present. In the short term, allocation of forage for the Winter Ridge and Hill Creek localities 

would be beneficial to wild horses because forage would be available to them until final 

gathering and removal from the VPA. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the wild horse 

forage allocation under the Proposed RMP would be less beneficial because in the long term 

wild horse forage would reallocated to wildlife and livestock. 

4.20.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under this alternative, 2,940 AUMs would be allocated for wild horse herds in the Winter Ridge 

HA and Hill Creek HMA. This would have long term, beneficial impacts on wild horses because 

allocated forage would ensure the sustainability and health of herds in these localities. Compared 

to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would be more beneficial to wild horse herds 

because more AUMs would be allocated under Alternative A. 

4.20.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

This alternative would not allocate any forage AUMs to support wild horse herds until they were 

permanently removed from the VPA. Alternative B forage allocation decisions would have short 

term, adverse impacts on wild horses within the VPA because no forage would be allocated until 

gathering had been completed to remove horses from the VPA. The long term impacts would be 

the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP alternative because all wild horses would be 

removed from the VPA. 

4.20.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Under these alternatives, wild horse forage allocations would be 3,960 AUMs: 1,020 AUMs 

would be allocated within the Bonanza HMA, 1,200 AUMs would be allocated within the Winter 

Ridge HA, and 1,740 AUMs would be allocated within the Hill Creek HMA. The impacts would 

be beneficial in the short term and long term because these allocations would provide for the 

dietary needs, health, and sustainability of wild horses within the VPA. 

Proposed management decisions under Alternatives C and E stipulate that if forage conflicts 

between livestock and wild horses are identified in the Bonanza HMA, use by livestock and wild 

horses would be reduced, but the wild horse herd forage allocations would not be reduced below 

480 AUMs. If forage conflicts are identified between wildlife and wild horses in the Bonanza 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-550 

HMA, use by wildlife and wild horses would be reduced proportionally. . The impacts of these 

forage allocation decisions on wild horses would be adverse because reduced forage could affect 

herd size and health. If additional forage were available in the Bonanza HMA, wild horse use 

would be increased in accordance with available forage, which would be beneficial to the 

Bonanza HMA herd because the additional forage would support herd health and population 

sustainability. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), these alternatives would be more beneficial because 

they would allocate more forage for wild horses than Alternative D (No Action) (3,360 AUMs). 

4.20.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

There would be no AUM allocation for a wild horse herd in the Winter Ridge HA under 

Alternative D (No Action) because all wild horses would be removed. Total forage allocation 

under this alternative would be 3,360 AUMs: wild horse forage in the Hill Creek HMA would be 

2,340 AUMs, and forage allocations to wild horses in the Bonanza HMA would be 1,020 AUMs 

(Note: the 1,020 AUMs allocated in the Bonanza HMA was carried forward into Alternative D 

(No Action) in error, as the proposed Bonanza Herd Plan Amendment was never approved or 

implemented). Forage conflicts and additional forage allocations would remain unspecified in the 

Book Cliffs Locality (Hill Creek HMA and Winter Ridge HA) under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.20.2.3.6. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES FOR FORAGE ALLOCATIONS DECISIONS

The Proposed RMP, and Alternatives B and D would provide the least protection to wild horses. 

In the Bonanza HMA, Alternatives C and E would be the most beneficial. In the Winter Ridge 

HA, Alternatives C and E would be the most beneficial. Alternatives C and E would allocate 

1,020 AUMs in the Bonanza HMA. In the Winter Ridge HA and the Hill Creek HMA, the 

Proposed RMP would allocate the most AUMs (2,340 AUMs), however, the AUMs under the 

Proposed RMP would be temporarily allocated until the wild horses are removed. Alternative D 

(No Action) would allocate 2,340 AUMs in the Hill Creek HMA only. Alternatives A, C, and E 

would allocate 1,200 AUMs in Winter Ridge and 1,740 AUMs in Hill Creek. 

4.20.2.4. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS ON WILD HORSES

4.20.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE B 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative B, all wild horses would be removed from the VPA. 

Horses would be temporarily authorized until they were removed; therefore, there would be short 

term direct and indirect impact to wild horses. Direct impacts from well drilling, and access road 

and infrastructure construction would reduce the AUMs available to wild horses. Indirect 

impacts would include the general effects of widespread activities that would create motion, 

noise, and other disturbances to horses. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-551 

4.20.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would manage 240,247 acres within the HMAs and HA under Standard and 

Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations, which is 89% of the total area proposed 

for wild horse management. Minerals development would have long-term direct and indirect, 

adverse impacts to wild horses. Direct impacts would reduce the AUMs available to wild horses, 

caused by well pad, infrastructure, and access road construction. Indirect impacts would include 

the general effects of widespread activities that would create noise, light, movement, human 

presence and associated disturbances to horses. The acreages that would be available for 

Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing for the Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives are shown in Table 4.20.2 below. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the 

impacts under Alternative A would be greater as more acreage would be affected by these 

leasing categories under Alternative A. 

4.20.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Under Alternative C, a total of 213,908 acres within the Bonanza and Hill Creek HMAs and the 

Winter Ridge HA (79% of the total area managed for wild horses within these areas) would be 

managed under Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations. The 

impacts to wild horses would be the same as discussed under Alternative A. This is because of 

the relatively large percentage of these wild horse management areas that would be available for 

minerals leasing-related surface disturbances. 

Alternative E would manage a total of 209,838 acres within the HMAs and HA under Standard 

and Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations (78% of the total area). The impacts 

would be the same as discussed under Alternative A. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternatives C and E would have a lower percentage of 

the HMAs and HAs available for direct minerals-related surface disturbances under Standard and 

Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing, with less directly adverse impacts to wild horse 

range. 

4.20.2.4.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under this alternative, the impacts from minerals development would be similar to those 

described under Alternative A except for the long-term adverse impacts to wild horses, which 

would maintain current minerals development designation on lands in the HMAs and HA. 

Minerals leasing under Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface Use would be allowed on 

234,010 acres within the existing HMAs and HA. The total area available for Standard and 

Timing and Controlled Surface Use leasing within the existing HMAs and HA is 234,010 acres, 

which is 88% of the area currently managed for wild horses in the VPA. 

Alternatives C and E would provide the highest degree of resource protection from minerals 

development by restricting minerals development in the HMAs and HA, followed by Alternative 

D (No Action). Alternatives A and B would provide no protection, as wild horses would be 

removed from the VPA. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-552 

Table 4.20.2. Acres of Standard and Timing and Controlled Surface-use Minerals 

Leasing within the HMAs and HA 

Bonanza HMA Winter Ridge HA Hill Creek HMA 

Proposed RMP 01 0 0 

Alternative A 120,023 (96)2 20,438 (53) 99,786 (95) 

Alternative B 0 0 0 

Alternative C 120,000 (96) 7,253 (19) 86,655 (81) 

Alternative D (No Action) 119,953 (96) 20,392 (52) 93,665 (91) 

Alternative E 115,973 (93) 7,233 (23) 86,632 (81) 

Source: BLM GIS 2008 

1

 Under Proposed RMP and Alternative B, wild horse herds would be removed and the HMAs and HA would not be 

maintained. 

2

 The number in parentheses is the percentage of the HMA or HA proposed for leasing under Standard and Timing 

and Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations. 

4.20.2.5. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA WILDERNESS AREA DECISIONS ON WILD HORSES

Decisions to protect non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas within the VPA are described 

under the Proposed RMP and Alternative E. Under the Proposed RMP, 1,378 acres of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics lie within the Bonanza HMA. Under Alternative E, 16,396 

acres of wilderness characteristics lie within the Hill Creek HMA, and approximately 7,449 acres 

lie within the Bonanza HMA. The impacts of these decisions on wild horses would be beneficial 

in the long term because these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are within the 

above HMAs would be managed as closed to oil and gas leasing, and closed to woodland 

harvesting. These areas would also be either closed to cross-country OHV travel (under 

Alternative E) or would limit OHV travel to designated routes (under the Proposed RMP), 

managed under VRM I Class or Class II objectives, and managed to preserve their wilderness 

values. These decisions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on the VPA wild horse herds 

by restricting surface disturbances within the HMAs, by reducing the impacts to vegetation 

productivity, and by reducing the impacts of other human-caused disturbances on the herds (e.g., 

noise, OHV vehicle and human presence). Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this 

alternative would have more direct and indirect beneficial impacts because it would provide 

more protection to wild horses and to their range. 

4.20.2.6. IMPACTS OF RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS DECISIONS ON WILD HORSES

In those areas where wild horses would be maintained, wild horses would directly benefit in the 

long-term from rangeland improvements through efforts to improve forage and provide 

improved access to water. Any rangeland improvements would done as a case-by-case 

determination of need to maintain the health of the VPA herds and would include: 

• Conducting vegetation treatments aimed at improving forage composition 

• Constructing guzzlers or other reservoirs 

• Constructing wells or improving springs 

• Installing additional water pipelines 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-553 

Rangeland improvements for the Proposed RMP and each alternative are shown below in Table 

4.20.2. 

4.20.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Vegetation treatments for rangeland improvements under the Proposed RMP would occur on 

5,750 fewer acres and 23 fewer wells/springs than Alternative D (No Action). Overall, the 

Proposed RMP would have beneficial long-term rangeland improvement impacts on wild horses 

similar to Alternative D, as the Proposed RMP would increase the number of guzzlers/reservoirs 

and miles of water pipeline over those proposed under Alternative D (No Action). Although wild 

horses would not be managed in the long term under this alternative (and would eventually be 

removed from the VPA), there would be beneficial impacts to wild horse populations from 

rangeland improvements until such time as horses are removed. 

4.20.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Vegetation treatments for rangeland improvements under Alternative A would occur on 5,750 

fewer acres and 23 fewer wells/springs (the same as discussed above under the Proposed RMP) 

than Alternative D (No Action). Alternative A would have beneficial long-term rangeland 

improvement impacts on wild horses similar to Alternative D (No Action), as Alternative A 

would increase the number of guzzlers/reservoirs and water pipeline miles over those proposed 

under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.20.2.6.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Although wild horses are not managed under Alternative B from the VPA, there would be short 

term beneficial impacts to wild horse populations from rangeland improvements until such time 

as horses are removed, as discussed above under the Proposed RMP. 

Table 4.20.2. Rangeland Improvements for the Proposed RMP and Each Alternative 

Proposed RMP 

and Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Vegetation Treatment 

(acres) 34,640 50,900 45,860 40,390 45,860 

Fencing (miles) 68.5 368.5 129.0 65.0 129.0 

Guzzlers/reservoirs 812 1,165 811 775 811 

Wells/springs 51 78 87 74 87 

Water pipeline 

(miles) 37.5 51.0 29.5 35.0 29.5 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-554 

4.20.2.6.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Under Alternatives C and E there would be an increased number of acres for vegetation 

treatment fencing, guzzlers/reservoirs, and wells/springs when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). Consequently, Alternatives C and E would have more beneficial long-term impacts on 

wild horses than Alternative D. 

4.20.2.6.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

This alternative would continue the rangeland improvement currently scheduled to be completed 

in the areas associated with the wild horse HA and HMAs. 

4.20.2.7. IMPACTS OF WILD HORSE DECISIONS ON WILD HORSES

4.20.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.20.2.7.1.1. Bonanza 

The Proposed RMP would not reintroduce a wild horse herd into the Bonanza HMA, wild or 

feral horses present would be gathered and removed, and forage would be allocated for wild 

horse use until they were removed from the VPA. The area would be managed as a HA with no 

specific wild horse management plan, gap fencing and water development for wild horses would 

be constructed. The impacts to the wild horse herd within this HMA would be adverse in the 

long term because the herd would be eliminated from this management area. 

4.20.2.7.1.2. Winter Ridge 

Any wild or feral horses present would be gathered and removed, and forage would be allocated 

until removal. The area would be managed as a HA with no specific wild horse management 

plan. No horse grazing permits would be allowed within the HA to grazing permittees, including 

the Northern Ute Tribe and SITLA. A gathering plan would be prepared for removal of wild 

horses and these horses would be made available for adoption under the BLM's Adopt-A-Horse 

program. Also, the BLM would pursue an agreement with the Northern Ute Tribe and issue a 

MOU with for the gathering and removing of wild and feral horses on federal lands. The impacts 

to the wild horse herd in this HA would be adverse in the long term because the herd would be 

removed. 

4.20.2.7.1.3. Hill Creek 

Any wild or feral horses present would be gathered and removed, and forage would be allocated 

until their removal. 

Under the Proposed RMP, the impacts to wild horse herds would be adverse in the long term 

because all wild horses would be removed from the VPA; individuals would be gathered and 

made available for adoption under the BLM's Adopt-a-Horse program, forage allocated until 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-555 

their removal, and the same stipulations would apply as described above in Section 4.20.2.7.1.2 

for Winter Ridge. 

4.20.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.20.2.7.2.1. Bonanza 

The impacts to the Bonanza wild horse herd under Alternative A would be the same as discussed 

above for the Proposed RMP because the herd would not be maintained or re-introduced. 

4.20.2.7.2.2. Winter Ridge 

Under this alternative the Winter Ridge herd would be established and maintained with the 

population ranging between 50 and 100 horses, the HA would be designated as an HMA, and 

monitoring plan would be prepared. The impacts to the Winter Ridge herd would be beneficial in 

the long term because the herd population would be adjusted for health and sustainability, and 

because the population would be monitored under a Management Area Plan to ensure its health. 

4.20.2.7.2.3. Hill Creek 

The Hill Creek herd would be maintained at a minimum population of 70 horses, a range 

improvement program and MOU would be pursued with the North Ute Tribe and adjacent 

private land owners, and a 4-year gathering plan would be implemented. The boundaries of the 

HMA would be extended to include Wild Horse Bench and Big Pack Mountain (an increase of 

53,212 acres). These proposed decisions would have long term beneficial impacts on the Hill 

Creek herd because the herd range would be expanded; a program would be developed to ensure 

herd and sustainability through a monitoring program. 

Under this alternative, equine diseases could have adverse impacts on the VPA herds, affecting 

both the Northern Ute Tribe horses as well as wild horses because of the potential for contact 

between herds. However, proposed fence construction in key areas of concern for management 

of tribal and wild horse herds would likely reduce this impact. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have more beneficial impacts on 

VPA wild horse herds because more specific management decisions and management plans 

would be implemented to ensure herd health and sustainability than under Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.20.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.20.2.7.3.1. Bonanza, Winter Ridge, and Hill Creek 

Horses were removed from the Bonanza HMA in 2001 and area was declared unpopulated. The 

area would be managed as a HA with no specific wild horse management plan. In the Winter 

Ridge HA, no horse grazing permits would be allowed or the immediate areas to grazing 

permittees including the Northern Ute Tribe and SITLA. Alternative B would have the same 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-556 

impacts on wild horses as discussed under the Proposed RMP because all horses would be 

removed from the VPA. 

4.20.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

4.20.2.7.4.1. Bonanza 

Under Alternative C, a wild horse herd would be re-established with a minimum herd size of 40 

horses, a herd management plan would be developed, fencing would be constructed to contain 

the herd, and additional herd watering areas would be developed. Under this alternative, a herd 

gathering plan would be developed and integrated with the BLM's Adopt-a-Horse Program. All 

of these management decisions would have long term, beneficial impacts on the Bonanza Herd 

because they would ensure that the re-established herd would remain healthy and sustainable by 

limiting the population to available management area forage allocations and water resources. 

Alternative E proposes the same management decisions as discussed under Alternative C, so the 

impacts would be the same. 

4.20.2.7.4.2. Winter Ridge 

Alternatives C and E propose the same management decisions as Alternative A, so the impacts 

would be the same as discussed under that alternative. 

4.20.2.7.4.3. Hill Creek 

Under Alternatives C and E, the proposed management decisions for Hill Creek would be the 

same as proposed under Alternative A so the impacts would be the same. 

4.20.2.7.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.20.2.7.5.1. Bonanza 

The impacts on wild horses would be the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP because 

wild horses would not be maintained within the Bonanza HA. 

4.20.2.7.5.2. Winter Ridge 

Under this alternative the Winter Ridge herd would not be maintained, and wild horses would be 

removed from the HA. The impacts would be adverse in the long term on wild horses within the 

VPA because the wild horse population would be reduced. 

4.20.2.7.5.3. Hill Creek 

The Hill Creek HMA would be managed for wild horses under this alternative, with an 

unspecified minimum herd size and a 195-horse maximum population size. Management 

decisions for this HMA are unspecified under the current RMP, which would have long term, 

adverse impacts on wild horses within the HMA. The impacts would be adverse because equine 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-557 

disease concerns would not be addressed, no gathering plan would be developed to maintain the 

herd population within its forage allocations, no range improvements are specified, and Ute 

Tribe and private property boundary concerns would not be specifically addressed. Therefore, 

the long term health and sustainability of the herd would not be ensured. 

4.20.2.8. SUMMARY

4.20.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE B 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative B wild horses would be removed from the VPA. These 

alternatives would provide no protection to wild horse herds. 

4.20.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would have a high level of beneficial protection to wild horse herds because the 

herds would be maintained within the Winter Ridge HA and the Hill Creek HMA. 

4.20.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

These alternatives would provide the highest degree of wild horse protection by re-establishing 

the Bonanza HMA, designating the Winter Ridge HA as a HMA, extending herd management 

boundaries, designating travel corridors, and providing the most range improvements. 

4.20.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would provide some protection to wild horses, but less than 

Alternatives C and E by maintaining the Hill Creek HMA. This alternative would cause 

potentially less short-term disturbance to forage from fire treatment than the other alternatives 

and allocate more AUMs in the Hill Creek HMA than the other alternatives. 

4.20.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

• Consider fencing major arterial roadways and major roads in the vicinity of oil and gas 

development areas to reduce the potential for vehicle-wild horse collisions. 

• Use a staggered schedule for fire treatment within HMAs to reduce the short-term, adverse 

impacts to wild horses from treated areas that have been fenced off for vegetation regrowth. 

• Coordinate equine disease testing with the State of Utah Veterinarian to ensure that wild 

horse herds remain healthy and do not impact Ute Tribe horses. 

• Encourage Uintah County and the Ute Tribe to establish an equine disease-testing program. 

4.20.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

There are no unavoidable adverse impacts to wild horses if mitigation measures are 

implemented. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.20. Wild Horses

Vernal RMP 4-558 

4.20.5. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The short-term resource uses associated with minerals development (such as seismic exploration 

and natural gas test well drilling, and the noise associated with these activities) in an area would 

have adverse impacts on the long-term productivity of wild horse herds if they impinge on wild 

horse foraging areas and water sources. These activities, though short term, would have 

cumulatively long-term adverse impacts on wild horse productivity if they continue sporadically 

throughout an area. 

Short-term fire management activities, such as prescribed burning or other fire treatments would 

have beneficial impacts on the long-term productivity of the herds by increasing available forage. 

Dispersed recreational activities in an area, while individually short-term, would potentially have 

cumulative long-term impacts on wild horse herd productivity by preventing an area's use for 

shelter, forage, or as a water source. 

4.20.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Irretrievable impacts to the VPA wild horse herds would include the loss of forage in areas of 

minerals development. The construction and maintenance of access roads, drilling well pads, and 

support facilities would temporarily remove areas from vegetation production that would 

otherwise be available for wild horse forage or as shelter. Gap fencing to protect riparian areas 

would be an irretrievable loss of water resources for wild horses and would have an adverse 

impact on wild horses. Under Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B, the complete removal of 

wild horses from the VPA would be an irretrievable loss of the wild horse resource. There are no 

irreversible impacts to the wild horse resource. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-559 

4.21. WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES 

Impacts from decisions concerning Paleontological Resources and Visual Resource Management 

would have a negligible effect on wildlife in the Vernal Planning Area (VPA) and therefore will 

not be discussed further in this analysis. Paleontological resource decisions would not result in 

substantial amounts of surface disturbance nor protections from surface disturbance whereas 

Visual Resource Management decisions would generally be reflected in energy and minerals 

decisions discussed below. All other proposed management decisions have the potential to 

impact wildlife in the VPA. A detailed description of these impacts is given below. It should be 

noted that the effects of livestock grazing decisions on wildlife and fisheries resources would be 

generally limited to the disease transmission impacts of domestic sheep to bighorn sheep. Forage 

allotments that currently allow domestic sheep would continue to be phased to cattle allotments 

if they are associated with bighorn sheep reintroduction areas. 

4.21.1. IMPACTS OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS COMMON TO THE 

PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

BLM would, wherever possible, provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife and fish species within 

the planning area, maintain and protect existing crucial habitats for big game and upland game 

species, restore degraded habitats, and manage for large un-fragmented blocks of continuous 

wildlife habitat that would provide the life cycle requirements of a variety of wildlife species. 

BLM recognizes the need to identify species and habitats most in need of conservation so that 

these areas can receive prioritization in preserving valuable wildlife habitats. BLM also 

recognizes the important role of UDWR in managing wildlife populations, hunting, and fishing 

associated with lands managed by BLM. Specific BLM actions to achieve these goals are listed 

in Chapter 2. These actions note that habitat preservation and cooperative wildlife management 

would be important in maintaining the wildlife populations associated with lands managed by 

BLM in the VPA. 

4.21.2. IMPACTS OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND 

FISHERIES FOR THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.21.2.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

RESOURCES

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E, closing or limiting OHV use to 

designated trails in the Uinta Foothills, Little Devil/Big Hole, Upper Willow Creek, and Four 

Mile Wash areas would reduce surface-disturbing activities and thus would have beneficial 

protection-related impacts to wildlife near cultural sites and traditional sacred properties. 

Alternative D (No Action) would maintain these areas as open to OHV use, and areas near 

cultural sites and traditional sacred properties would not provide protection to wildlife from 

OHV use, when compared to the Proposed RMP and the action alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-560 

4.21.2.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E allow for prescribed fire on approximately 

156,425 acres per decade. The effects of prescribed fire on wildlife and fish populations would 

be direct and adverse in the short term by removing habitat, reducing short-term habitat quality 

and causing individual mortality. Additionally, the use of fire lines and fire suppression activities 

for wildfire under the Fire Management Plan would likely have similar short-term direct adverse 

effects from habitat removal. However, fire management decisions would generally have a longterm beneficial impact to wildlife and fish populations by helping to restore the natural fire 

regime, which would improve habitat health and increase habitat diversity. Restoring the natural 

fire regime would also reduce the chance of catastrophic fire, and the subsequent loss of major 

ecosystem components, in comparison to Alternative D (No Action). Alternative D (No Action) 

provides for a total of 50,900 acres per decade of prescribed fire (27,950 and 22,950 acres for the 

Book Cliffs and Diamond Mountain RMPs respectively). This alternative provides for fewer 

acres of disturbance and therefore would likely have fewer short-term direct adverse impacts to 

wildlife and fish populations, but would likely result in a higher long-term risk of catastrophic 

wildfire than the action alternatives. This, in turn, would result in greater long-term risk to 

wildlife and fish populations than the action alternatives. 

4.21.2.3. IMPACTS OF FORAGE ALLOCATION ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

The overarching goal of forage allocation decisions is to maintain or improve the total forage 

resource using techniques that are compatible with the use and development of other resources 

and that would maintain, meet, or make substantial progress towards meeting Utah BLM 

Rangeland Health Standards. The impacts of forage allocation decisions by alternative are 

discussed below for all localities and under the heading of each forage locality. AUMs for 

wildlife are obtained by a combination of previously adjudicated AUMs and AUMs obtained 

either from the previous purchase of private grazing lands or through the allocation of AUMs 

currently owned and controlled by non-governmental organizations. 

4.21.2.3.1. ALL LOCALITIES

4.21.2.3.1.1. Proposed RMP 

The Proposed RMP would restrict forage utilization on uplands to a maximum of 50% 

utilization. Alternative D (No Action), on the other hand, would not specify forage utilization on 

uplands. The Proposed RMP would allocate 104,865 animal unit months (AUMs) for wildlife, 

which would include all wildlife species and populations. This is about 9% more (8,258 more 

AUMs) than Alternative D (No Action), which would allocate 96,607 AUMs to wildlife. In the 

short-term Alternative D (No Action) would have greater beneficial impacts to wildlife than the 

Proposed RMP by allowing for more forage utilization (not limited to 50%). However, in the 

long-term Alternative D (No Action) would have greater adverse impacts to wildlife than the 

Proposed RMP because the lack of a forage utilization limit would result in greater adverse 

impacts to the forage vegetation resource on which wildlife species depend. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-561 

4.21.2.3.1.2. Alternative A 

Alternative A would restrict forage utilization on uplands to a maximum of 50% utilization. 

Alternative D (No Action), on the other hand, would not specify forage utilization on uplands. 

Alternative A would allocate 104,871 AUMs for wildlife, which would include all wildlife 

species and populations. This is about 9% more (8,264 more AUMs) than t Alternative D (No 

Action), which would allocate 96,607 AUMs to wildlife. In the short-term Alternative D (No 

Action) would have greater beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A by allowing for 

more forage utilization (not limited to 50%). However, in the long-term Alternative D (No 

Action) would have greater adverse impacts to wildlife than Alternative A because the lack of a 

forage utilization limit would result in greater adverse impacts to the forage vegetation resource 

on which wildlife species depend. 

4.21.2.3.1.3. Alternative B 

Alternative B would restrict forage utilization on uplands to a maximum of 60% utilization. 

Currently there is no specification for forage utilization on uplands under Alternative D (No 

Action). Alternative B would allocate 104,871 AUMs for wildlife. This would be an increase of 

8,264 AUMs (about 9%) allocated to wildlife in comparison with Alternative D (No Action). 

With respect to AUMs allocated for wildlife Alternative B would be more beneficial to wildlife 

than Alternative D (No Action) due to the greater number of AUMs. Under Alternative B the 

impacts of forage utilization limits on wildlife compared to Alternative D (No Action) would be 

the same as the impacts discussed under Alternative A except that Alternative B would limit 

forage utilization to 60%. 

4.21.2.3.1.4. Alternatives C and E 

Alternatives C and E would restrict forage utilization on uplands to a maximum of 50% 

utilization (the same as Alternative A). Currently there is no specification for forage utilization 

on uplands under Alternative D (No Action). Alternatives C and E would allocate 106,196 

AUMs for wildlife. This would be an increase of 9,589 AUMs allocated to wildlife in 

comparison to Alternative D (No Action). The impacts of forage utilization decisions on wildlife 

under Alternatives C and E would be the same as under Alternative A because the decisions 

would be the same. With respect to AUMs allocated for wildlife Alternatives C and E would be 

more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) due to the greater number of AUMs. 

4.21.2.3.1.5. Alternative D (No Action) 

Currently there is no specification for forage utilization on uplands under Alternative D (No 

Action). The Alternative D (No Action) would allocate 96,607 AUMs for wildlife. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-562 

4.21.2.3.2. BONANZA LOCALITY

4.21.2.3.2.1. Proposed RMP and Alternative A 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, if forage allocation reductions are necessary to 

maintain, meet or make significant progress towards rangeland health in the Bonanza locality 

AUMs allocated to livestock and pronghorn would be reduced proportionally though pronghorn 

use would not be reduced below 502 AUMs. The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would be 

more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A specify necessary actions when the aforementioned criteria are met. 

If, however, additional forage is available forage increases would be divided proportionately 

between livestock and big game with the wildlife AUMs going to pronghorn and deer. In this 

case, the impacts of the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and D (No Action) are approximately 

the same because both alternatives would provide additional forage for wildlife. 

4.21.2.3.2.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, in the Bonanza locality if forage allocation reductions are necessary to 

maintain, meet or make significant progress towards rangeland health pronghorn use would be 

reduced, but not below 502 AUMs. Other appropriate reductions in big game use would also be 

made but prior to making reductions in livestock numbers. In this case, Alternative B would be 

more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because Alternative B specifies 

necessary actions when the aforementioned criteria are met. 

If additional forage is available up to 502 AUMs would be provided for pronghorn and sheep 

and/or cattle use would be increased in accordance with available forage. If livestock and 

pronghorn are not in need of additional forage remaining AUMs would be allocated to deer. In 

this case, Alternative D (No Action) would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative B 

because Alternative B would favor livestock over wildlife in allocating additional forage. 

4.21.2.3.2.3. Alternatives C and E 

Under Alternatives C and E, if forage allocation reductions are necessary to maintain, meet or 

make significant progress towards rangeland health in the Bonanza locality livestock AUM use 

would be reduced while pronghorn, deer, and other big game use would be maintained. 

Alternatives C and E would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) 

because Alternative D (No Action) does not specify management actions when the 

aforementioned criteria are met whereas Alternatives C and E do. Alternatives C and E would 

not reduce big game use at all. Instead all forage allocation reductions would be borne by 

livestock. 

If additional forage is available wildlife use would be increased in accordance with available 

forage and livestock use would not be increased above permitted use. In this case, Alternatives C 

and E would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because all additional 

available forage would be allocated for wildlife. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-563 

4.21.2.3.2.4. Alternative D (No Action) 

If forage allocation reductions are necessary to make significant progress towards or sustain 

rangeland health, there is no specified management plan for the Bonanza locality under 

Alternative D (No Action). 

If additional forage is available and rangeland health is being sustained, or significant progress is 

being made towards sustaining rangeland health in the Bonanza Area, additional forage 

allocations would: (1) Provide for optimum wildlife levels where conflicts with livestock do not 

exist. (2) Specific to deer, habitat would be managed to support significantly increased levels; 

and specific to pronghorn, habitat would be managed to support increased levels. (3) Target 

livestock AUM figures are not final stocking levels. (5) Rather, all livestock use adjustments 

would be implemented through documented mutual agreement or by decision. When livestock 

use adjustments would be implemented by decision, it would be based on operator consultation 

and monitoring of resource conditions. (6) Additionally, any necessary adjustments in stocking 

levels or other management practices, including changes or additions to existing management 

facilities, would be based on allotment evaluations. 

4.21.2.3.3. BONANZA WILD HORSE HERD AREA LOCALITY

4.21.2.3.3.1. Proposed RMP 

Wild horses in the Bonanza Wild Horse Herd were gathered and removed from the area in 2001. 

Under the Proposed RMP, the area would be declared unpopulated and managed as an HA with 

no specific management plan for wild horses. No AUMs are allocated for wild horses potentially 

leaving more forage available for wildlife and livestock. 

If forage allocation reductions are necessary to maintain, meet or make significant progress 

towards rangeland health in this locality and demonstrated conflicts are between wildlife and 

livestock the Proposed RMP would proportionately reduce sheep and pronghorn AUM use but 

pronghorn use would not be reduced below 239 AUMs, making the Proposed RMP more 

beneficial to wildlife than livestock than Alternatives C and E because the Proposed RMP 

eliminates conflicts for forage with wild horses. 

If additional forage is available and rangeland health is being sustained, or significant progress is 

being made towards sustaining rangeland health and the additional forage meets the needs of 

livestock and wildlife, then sheep and wildlife use would be increased proportionately with 

available forage. If additional forage meets the needs of livestock, and pronghorn then livestock 

and wildlife use would be increased proportionately in accordance with available forage because 

no are within this area. As in the other situations described above, in this case the Proposed RMP 

would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because, under the 

Proposed RMP, no wild horses are within this area potentially resulting in more additional forage 

for wildlife. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-564 

4.21.2.3.3.2. AUMs Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, horses would not be gathered and removed from the locality but no AUM 

allocations would be made to maintain the wild horse population there. In this case, Alternative 

A would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) due to the fact that 

Alternative A would not allocate AUMs to wild horses whereas Alternative D (No Action) 

would allocate 1,020 AUMs to wild horses. However, horses would still use AUMs under 

Alternative A because they would still be present. 

If forage allocation reductions are necessary to maintain, meet or make significant progress 

towards rangeland health in this locality and demonstrated conflicts are between wildlife and 

livestock Alternative A would proportionately reduce sheep and pronghorn AUM use but 

pronghorn use would not be reduced below 239 AUMs. Under Alternative A, while conflicts 

between wild horses and livestock or between wild horses and wildlife may arise they would not 

be addressed (no management prescriptions) because wild horses would not be managed under 

Alternative A. In this situation Alternatives A and D (No Action) would have approximately the 

same impact on wildlife because neither alternative specifies management for this issue. 

If additional forage is available and rangeland health is being sustained, or significant progress is 

being made towards sustaining rangeland health and the additional forage meets the needs of 

livestock and wildlife then sheep and wildlife use would be increased proportionately with 

available forage. If additional forage meets the needs of wild horses, sheep, and pronghorn then 

sheep and wildlife use would be increased proportionately in accordance with available forage 

because wild horses would not be managed under this alternative. As in the other situations 

described above, in this case Alternative A would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative 

D (No Action) because, under Alternative A, wild horses would not be managed potentially 

resulting in more additional forage for wildlife. 

4.21.2.3.3.3. Alternative B 

Alternative B would be the same as the Proposed RMP except, if forage allocation reductions are 

necessary to maintain, meet or make significant progress towards rangeland health in this locality 

and demonstrated conflicts are between wildlife and livestock, then Alternative B would reduce 

wildlife AUM use but not below 239 AUMs and 147 AUMs for pronghorn and deer, 

respectively. If additional forage is available and rangeland health is being sustained, or 

significant progress is being made towards sustaining rangeland health and the additional forage 

meets the needs of livestock and wildlife, the management prescriptions under Alternative B 

would be the same as those under the Proposed RMP. Because the management prescriptions 

would be the same, the impacts would be the same compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.21.2.3.3.4. Alternatives C and E 

Forage allocation decisions in the Bonanza Wild Horse Herd Area locality would be the same 

under Alternatives C and E as under Alternative D (No Action). Because the management 

decisions would be the same under each of these alternatives, the impacts would be the same. 

Under these alternatives there would be minimal impact on wildlife due to the small number of 

AUMs (1,020) allocated for wild horses under these alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-565 

If forage allocation reductions are necessary to maintain, meet or make significant progress 

towards rangeland health in this locality and demonstrated conflicts are between wildlife and 

livestock, under Alternatives C and E wildlife use would not be reduced but livestock use would. 

If conflicts are between wild horses and livestock wild horse use would be reduced to as low as 

480 AUMs and livestock use would be reduced with no minimum level specified. If conflicts are 

between wild horses and wildlife, wild horse and wildlife use would be reduced proportionately. 

In this case, Alternatives C and E would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No 

Action) because Alternatives C and E would allocate more AUMs for wildlife whereas 

Alternative D (No Action) does not specify management. 

If additional forage is available and rangeland health is being sustained, or significant progress is 

being made towards sustaining rangeland health and the additional forage meets the needs of 

livestock and wildlife pronghorn and deer use would be increased in accordance with available 

forage but livestock use would not be increased above permitted use. If additional forage meets 

the needs of wild horses, sheep, and pronghorn then AML would not increase, but pronghorn use 

would increase until there are conflicts with sheep and sheep use would increase in accordance 

with available forage. These actions would be beneficial to wildlife because they would make 

additional forage available for use by wildlife species. In this case the impacts of Alternatives C 

and E would be the same as Alternative D (No Action), because the management decisions 

would be the same. 

4.21.2.3.3.5. Alternative D (No Action) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 1,020 AUMs would be allocated for wild horses. AUMs for 

livestock and wildlife are not specified. The allocation of AUMs to wild horses rather than 

wildlife would adversely impact wildlife by reducing the forage available to them. 

If forage allocation reductions are necessary to maintain, meet or make significant progress 

towards rangeland health in this locality and demonstrated conflicts are between wildlife and 

livestock then pronghorn use would not be reduced below 289 AUMs but sheep use would be 

reduced. Under Alternative D (No Action) no management prescriptions are specified for 

situations where conflicts are between wild horses and livestock or between wild horses and 

wildlife. 

For situations were additional forage is available and rangeland health is being sustained, or 

significant progress is being made towards sustaining rangeland health and the additional forage 

meets the needs of livestock and wildlife pronghorn use would be increased until there are 

conflicts with sheep and sheep use would increase in accordance with available forage. For 

situations where the additional forage meets the needs of livestock, wildlife, and wild horses the 

management prescriptions, and therefore impacts, would be the same under Alternative D (No 

Action) as under Alternatives C and E. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-566 

4.21.2.3.4. BOOK CLIFFS LOCALITY

4.21.2.3.4.1. Proposed RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 1,325 unallocated AUMs acquired by the acquisition of private lands 

at Cripple Cowboy would be reserved for watershed. Livestock and wildlife would not be 

excluded from utilizing these AUMs but no additional AUMs would be allocated for either 

livestock or wildlife. In this case, the Proposed RMP would be more beneficial to wildlife than 

Alternative D (No Action) because the Proposed RMP explicitly states that additional AUM use 

would be for watershed but would not exclude wildlife. 

Under the Proposed RMP, in the Winter Ridge/Hill Creek Herd Area the wild horse population 

would be gathered and removed from the area over an approximately 10 year period. Initially, 

2,340 AUMs would be allocated to wild horses under the Proposed RMP in this locality but 

these AUMs would be decreased overtime as horses are gathered. Under the Proposed RMP 

these AUMs would be reallocated through future planning processes. In this situation, the 

Proposed RMP would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because the 

Proposed RMP would phase out wild horses potentially leaving more AUMs for wildlife. 

Under the Proposed RMP, when additional forage is present in cattle allotments 60% would be 

allocated to cattle to restore suspended AUMs and 40% would be allocated for wildlife. After all 

suspended cattle AUMs have been restored additional AUMs would be allocated proportionately 

between cattle and wildlife. 

Under the Proposed RMP, when additional forage is present in sheep allotments forage increases 

would be allocated proportionately between livestock and big game. 

4.21.2.3.4.2. Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, forage decisions with respect to Cripple Cowboy would be the same as the 

Proposed RMP, therefore the impacts would be the same compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Under Alternative A, 1,200 and 1,740 AUMs would be allocated to wild horses in the Winter 

Ridge and Hill Creek Herd Areas, respectively. Alternative A would be more detrimental to 

wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because Alternative A would allocate more AUMs for 

wild horses over all leaving fewer AUMs available for wildlife use. 

If monitoring shows that reductions are necessary in all areas because of conflicts between 

wildlife, livestock, and/or wild horses under Alternative A forage use would be reduced 

proportionately between the conflicting animal groups. In these situations Alternative A would 

be less beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because forage for big game would 

be reduced under Alternative A but this action is not specified under Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-567 

Under Alternative A, when additional forage is present in cattle allotments 60% would be 

allocated to cattle to restore suspended AUMs and 40% would be allocated for wildlife. After all 

suspended cattle AUMs have been restored additional AUMs would be allocated to livestock. 

Under Alternative A, when additional forage is present in sheep allotments forage increases 

would be allocated proportionately between livestock and big game. 

4.21.2.3.4.3. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 1,325 unallocated AUMs acquired by the acquisition of private lands at 

Cripple Cowboy would be allocated to livestock. In this case Alternative B would be less 

beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because Alternative B would allocate 

additional AUMs to livestock therefore making these AUMs unavailable to wildlife. 

Under Alternative B, horses would not be gathered and removed from the Winter Ridge/Hill 

Creek Herd Area but no AUM allocations would be made to maintain the wild horse population 

there. Alternative B would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because 

Alternative B would not allocate AUMs to wild horses. However, this benefit would be limited 

because horses would still be present and using the resource. 

If monitoring shows that reductions are necessary in all areas because of conflicts between 

wildlife and livestock under Alternative B big game use would be reduced. In this situation 

Alternative B would be less beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because forage 

for big game would be reduced under Alternative B but this action is not specified under 

Alternative D (No Action). 

When additional forage is present in cattle allotments Alternative B would allocate 60% of the 

additional forage to cattle to restore suspended AUMs and 40% to wildlife. After restoring all 

suspended AUMs additional forage would be allocated to livestock. In this case, Alternative D 

(No Action) would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative B because Alternative D (No 

Action) would optimize wildlife levels and Alternative B would explicitly allocate additional 

forage to livestock rather than wildlife. 

Under Alternative B, when additional forage is present in sheep allotments forage increases 

would be allocated to sheep. In this case, Alternative D (No Action) would be more beneficial to 

wildlife than Alternative B because Alternative D (No Action) would optimize wildlife levels 

and Alternative B would explicitly allocate additional forage to sheep. 

4.21.2.3.4.4. Alternatives C and E 

Under Alternatives C and E, 1,325 unallocated AUMs acquired by the acquisition of private 

lands at Cripple Cowboy would be allocated to wildlife. Alternative C and E, in this respect, 

would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because these alternatives 

would explicitly allocate additional AUMs for wildlife. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-568 

In the Winter Ridge Herd Area under Alternatives C and E 1,200 AUMs would be allocated for 

wild horses. In the Hill Creek Herd Area under these alternatives 1,740 AUMs would be 

allocated for wild horses. Under Alternatives C and E the total allocation of AUMs to wild 

horses in these areas would be 2,940. In the Winter Ridge Herd Area Alternatives C and E would 

be less beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because Alternatives C and E would 

allocate 1,200 AUMs for wild horses in this area and Alternative D (No Action) would not 

provide wild horse AUM allocations in this area. In the Hill Creek Herd Area Alternatives C and 

E would be more beneficial for wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because Alternatives C 

and E would allocate fewer AUMs for wild horses than Alternative D (No Action) potentially 

making more AUMs available for wildlife use. 

If monitoring shows that reductions are necessary in all areas except Wild Horse Herd Areas 

because of conflicts between wildlife and livestock under Alternatives C and E livestock use 

would be reduced. In this case, Alternative C and E would be more beneficial to wildlife than 

Alternative D (No Action) because Alternatives C and E explicitly state that livestock use would 

be reduced. 

When additional forage is present in cattle allotments Alternatives C and E would allocate 60% 

of the additional forage to cattle to restore suspended AUMs and 40% to wildlife. After restoring 

all suspended AUMs additional forage would be allocated to wildlife. In this situation 

Alternatives C and E would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) 

because Alternatives C and E would explicitly allocate additional forage for wildlife. 

Under Alternatives C and E, when additional forage is present in sheep allotments forage 

increases would be allocated to big game. However, if forage were not needed by big game, it 

would be given to livestock. Under these alternatives in this situation big game numbers would 

be allowed to increase to the point that livestock permitted use would not be reduced. 

Alternatives C and E would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) 

because they account for wildlife forage use first and livestock secondarily. 

4.21.2.3.4.5. Alternative D (No Action) 

Under Alternative D (No Action) no management prescriptions are specified for the 1,325 

unallocated AUMs acquired through the acquisition of private lands at Cripple Cowboy. 

In the Hill Creek Herd Area under Alternative D (No Action), 2,340 AUMs would be allocated 

for wild horses. No allocations or prescriptions are specified for the Winter Ridge Herd Area 

under this alternative. 

Under Alternative D (No Action) there are no prescriptions specified for situations where 

monitoring shows that reductions are necessary in all areas except Wild Horse Herd Areas 

because of conflicts between wildlife and livestock. 

When additional forage is present in cattle allotments under Alternative D (No Action) the 

following would apply: (1) Additional forage in the Book Cliffs locality would be used to 

provide for optimum wildlife levels where conflicts with livestock do not exist; specific to deer, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-569 

habitat would be managed to support significantly increased levels. (2) Target livestock AUM 

figures are not final stocking levels. (3) All livestock use adjustments would be implemented 

through documented mutual agreement or by decision. (4) When livestock use adjustments would 

be implemented by decision, it would be based on operator consultation and monitoring of 

resource conditions. (5) Any necessary adjustments in stocking levels or other management 

practices, including changes or additions to existing management facilities, would be based on 

allotment evaluations. In this situation, Alternative D (No Action) would generally have beneficial 

impacts to wildlife because it would optimize wildlife levels. 

When additional forage is present in sheep allotments under Alternative D (No Action) the same 

items would apply as for cattle allotments except that habitat on the East Bench would be 

managed to support increased levels of pronghorn. In this situation, Alternative D (No Action) 

would generally have beneficial impacts to wildlife because it would optimize wildlife levels. 

4.21.2.3.5. BLUE MOUNTAIN LOCALITY

4.21.2.3.6. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A in the Blue Mountain locality if monitoring of 

forage indicates that AUM allocations cannot be met livestock permitted and wildlife use would 

be reduced proportionately. In this case, in the Blue Mountain locality Alternative D (No Action) 

would be more beneficial to wildlife than the Proposed RMP and Alternative A because 

Alternative D (No Action) only specifies livestock use adjustments whereas the Proposed RMP 

and Alternative A would reduce livestock and wildlife use proportionately. 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A when there is additional forage in the Blue 

Mountain locality it would be allocated proportionately between livestock and big game. This 

strategy would generally provide additional forage to wildlife under these conditions when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.21.2.3.6.1. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B in the Blue Mountain locality if monitoring of forage indicates that AUM 

allocations cannot be met wildlife use would be reduced to a level at which no livestock/wildlife 

forage conflict exists and any additional reductions would be made to livestock. Under these 

conditions Alternative D (No Action) would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative B 

because Alternative B would reduce wildlife use first. 

Under Alternative B when there is additional forage in the Blue Mountain locality it would be 

allocated for livestock. In this situation Alternatives B and D (No Action) would have about the 

same impacts because both alternatives would allocate additional forage to livestock. 

4.21.2.3.6.2. Alternatives C and E 

Under Alternatives C and E in the Blue Mountain locality if monitoring of forage indicates that 

AUM allocations cannot be met livestock permitted use would be reduced. In this situation 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-570 

Alternatives C and E would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) 

because they explicitly state that permitted use would be reduced potentially leaving more forage 

available for wildlife. 

Under Alternatives C and E when there is additional forage in the Blue Mountain locality it 

would be allocated for wildlife. Under these conditions Alternatives C and E would be more 

beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because Alternatives C and E would 

explicitly allocate additional forage to wildlife. 

4.21.2.3.6.3. Alternative D (No Action) 

Under Alternative D (No Action) if monitoring of forage indicates that AUM allocations cannot 

be met livestock use adjustments would be implemented by mutual agreement or by decision. 

Decreases in livestock forage would be implemented over a five year period. Alternative D (No 

Action) would generally benefit wildlife because it would generally reduce livestock forage use 

when forage allocations cannot be met. 

Under Alternative D (No Action) when there is additional forage in the Blue Mountain locality 

the same process would be followed as when monitoring of forage indicates that AUM 

allocations cannot be met. 

4.21.2.3.7. DIAMOND MOUNTAIN LOCALITY

4.21.2.3.7.1. Proposed RMP and Alternative A 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A in the Diamond Mountain locality if monitoring of 

forage indicates that AUM allocations cannot be met livestock and wildlife use would be reduced 

proportionately. In this case, in the Diamond Mountain locality the Proposed RMP, Alternative 

A, and Alternative D (No Action) would benefit wildlife to approximately the same extent 

because Alternative D (No Action) would employ a mix of management actions resulting in 

livestock and wildlife use reductions (see Section 4.19.2.3.7.4). 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, when there is additional forage in the Diamond 

Mountain locality it would be allocated 1) in the area's northern half to livestock until wildlife 

demands require them, and 2) in the southern half proportionately between livestock and big 

game on non-crucial wildlife areas. The impacts of the Proposed RMP and Alternative A on 

wildlife would be about the same as the impacts under Alternative D (No Action) because the 

management prescriptions are about the same. 

4.21.2.3.7.2. Alternative B 

Under Alternative B in the Diamond Mountain locality if monitoring of forage indicates that 

AUM allocations cannot be met wildlife use would be reduced to a level at which no 

livestock/wildlife forage conflict exists and any additional reductions would be made to 

livestock. Under these conditions Alternative D (No Action) would be more beneficial to wildlife 

than Alternative B because Alternative B would reduce wildlife use first. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-571 

Under Alternative B when there is additional forage in the Diamond Mountain locality it would 

be allocated for livestock. In this situation Alternatives B and D (No Action) would have about 

the same impacts because both alternatives would allocate additional forage to livestock. 

4.21.2.3.7.3. Alternatives C and E 

Under Alternatives C and E in the Diamond Mountain locality if monitoring of forage indicates 

that AUM allocations cannot be met livestock permitted use would be reduced. In this situation 

Alternatives C and E would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) 

because they explicitly state that permitted use would be reduced potentially leaving more forage 

available for wildlife. 

Under Alternatives C and E when there is additional forage in the Diamond Mountain locality it 

would be allocated for wildlife or retained for watershed. Under these conditions Alternatives C 

and E would be more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action) because Alternatives 

C and E would explicitly allocate additional forage to wildlife. 

4.21.2.3.7.4. Alternative D (No Action) 

Under Alternative D (No Action) in the Diamond Mountain locality reductions would be made 

using the following criteria. (1) Livestock temporary, nonrenewable AUMs above permitted use 

would be reduced first. (2) On wildlife crucial habitat, livestock permitted use would be reduced 

if there is a conflict between use by livestock and wildlife, and if wildlife numbers are within the 

herd unit or population objective levels. If there is no conflict and the reduction is necessary 

because of overuse by either livestock or wildlife, the number of grazers would be reduced. (3) 

On non-crucial wildlife habitat, livestock permitted use and wildlife numbers would be reduced 

equally. The first year, there would be an initial 10% adjustment in permitted use. Five-year 

agreements would be developed and signed at the same time outlining the process for phased 

reductions in the desired level. (4) Temporary adjustments in use due to effects of drought would 

be made to livestock and/or wildlife as shown needed by monitoring. 

Under Alternative D (No Action) when there is additional forage in the Diamond Mountain 

locality it would be used to provide additional AUMs (over permitted use) to livestock on a 

temporary, nonrenewable basis until identified for crucial wildlife needs. Additional AUMs outside 

crucial wildlife areas could be assigned to livestock. In this situation under Alternative D (No 

Action) there would generally be beneficial impacts to wildlife because additional AUMs would 

be allocated to wildlife as needed. 

4.21.2.4. IMPACTS OF LAND AND REALTY MANAGEMENT ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

RESOURCES

Land access decisions under the Proposed RMP and any alternative would generally have 

minimal impacts to wildlife due to the limited nature of the access that each decision would 

provide. On the other hand, land withdrawals would benefit wildlife in both the short- and longterm by reducing the potential for surface disturbance by mineral extraction activities. Impacts to 

wildlife and fisheries and their habitat would depend on the area involved in a lands and realty 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-572 

activity. Acquisition or withdrawal of lands with special status species habitat would generally 

contribute positively to the objectives of wildlife and fisheries habitat protection. 

4.21.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C and E would pursue locatable mineral withdrawal 

in the Book Cliffs Natural Area (401 acres), Green River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park (8,208 

acres), relict vegetation areas in Lears Canyon (1,375), and the White River (9,218 acres). 

Alternatives C and E would also pursue locatable mineral withdrawal in the Lower Green River 

ACEC (17,063 acres) while the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B would also pursue 

locatable mineral withdrawal in developed and potential recreation sites (5,000 acres). 

4.21.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would pursue mineral withdrawals in the Green River Scenic Corridor 

in Browns Park (19,400); relict vegetation areas in Lears Canyon (3,600 acres); the Lower Green 

River ACEC (7,900 acres), and developed and potential recreation sites (5,000 acres). The total 

acreage of land withdrawals would be greater under Alternative D (No Action) (35,900 acres) 

than under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B (24,202 total acres under each of these 

alternatives) resulting in more short- and long-term benefits to wildlife than the Proposed RMP 

and Alternatives A and B. On the other hand, Alternative D (No Action) would have fewer shortand long-term benefits to wildlife than Alternatives C and E because Alternatives C and E would 

pursue more acres (36,265) for locatable mineral withdrawal than Alternative D (No Action). 

Also, because of the developed nature of the developed and potential recreation sites, these 

withdrawals would have negligible impacts on wildlife and fisheries populations. 

4.21.2.5. IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

Livestock grazing has the potential for both direct and indirect impacts on wildlife and fisheries 

populations and their habitats. Direct impacts would primarily include the removal or trampling 

of vegetation that would be subsequently lost as forage or cover by wildlife species. The severity 

of such impacts to wildlife species would depend on the density and types of livestock, extent 

and relative locations of grazing, and the terrain and water availability. An additional direct 

impact would be the transmission of disease from domestic to wild animal populations. Indirect 

impacts of grazing to wildlife populations would consist of changes in vegetation and habitat 

value due to livestock grazing. Relative percent ages of nutritive grasses and forbs, as well as 

total vegetative cover, can shift with livestock grazing and subsequently impact the health and 

survival of wildlife species dependent on that forage and cover. 

Depending on its implementation, livestock grazing has the potential to improve or degrade 

rangeland habitat quality for wildlife. In 1997, the BLM in Utah developed Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management. With proper rotational and 

seasonally restricted management, livestock grazing could have beneficial effects on wildlife and 

fisheries. Selective and timely grazing by livestock can increase the diversity of forage (forbs 

and grasses) by removing deteriorating vegetation and promote bank stabilization through 

healthy vegetative cover of hillsides. Hence, proper grazing could aid in reducing erosion, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-573 

increasing water quality of nearby waterways, and increasing the nutritive value of the vegetation 

in areas also used by wildlife such as deer, elk, pronghorn, small mammals, and birds. The 

mosaic pattern of varied grazing pressure that occurs with carefully monitored rotational grazing 

management can emulate natural habitat variation and promote an increase in select wildlife 

populations over time (Forest and Range Web site, 2006). 

Adverse impacts to rangeland health typically occur with improper grazing management, 

including high stock densities, continued heavy grazing by a single stock species, and 

unrestricted access to riparian areas (Belsky et. al, 1999). Improper grazing practices in the 

western United States have been linked to such adverse impacts as losses of biodiversity, 

decreases of wildlife population densities, disruption of ecosystem functions including nutrient 

cycling and succession, changes in community organization, and changes in the physical 

characteristics of both terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Fleischner 1994). Because livestock in the 

arid West tends to congregate in riparian areas for shade, water, and an abundance of forage 

plants, the ecological costs listed above can easily be magnified in riparian zones. Potential 

specific impacts from improper grazing in the VFO might include the decreased quality and 

diversity of forage plants for big and small game, decreased amounts of vegetation used by 

wildlife for cover, increases in noxious weeds, decreased nest sites for upland game species, 

increased disturbance at big game fawning grounds, the trampling or disturbance of 

waterfowl/riparian bird nests, and decreased water quality in creeks and rivers (Forest And 

Range Web site, 2006). 

The VFO is divided into Areas 1–7 for the purpose of livestock grazing management. Under 

each alternative, livestock grazing would be allowed in these areas only during specific time 

periods. These temporal limitations would likely affect livestock both directly and indirectly as 

described above. An alternative that allows livestock grazing during spring vegetation growth 

periods could impact wildlife by limiting the development of important forage plant quantity 

and/or diversity and increasing the potential for erosion and degraded water quality. An 

alternative that allows livestock grazing for extended periods each year might encourage 

increased trampling of habitat and would be more likely to increase interactions between 

domestic and wildlife species. 

4.21.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, seasons of use would be determined based on plant 

phenology to ensure that the physiological requirements of plants would be met. Deferments and 

other tools would be used to facilitate an adaptive management approach. Ensuring that the 

physiological requirements of plants would be met also ensures that forage resources will be 

available to the species that use them (wildlife and livestock). In so doing, these alternatives 

would have fewer adverse impacts to wildlife than Alternative D (No Action), which would 

allow grazing on many allotments during critical growth periods. 

4.21.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

The determination of season of use under Alternative B would be based on an average of billed 

use. The billed use is based on how the permittees are actually billed. Under this alternative 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-574 

grazing on many allotments would continue during critical growth periods (April/May) of forage 

species without a deferment and, therefore, the impacts of Alternative B on wildlife are similar to 

the impacts of Alternative D (No Action). 

4.21.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

The determination of season of use under Alternatives C and E would be based on how grazing 

was adjudicated in the 1960s. It is similar to Alternative A, but lacks the discretion to allow 

adaptive management approaches to react to change. The impacts of this alternative compared to 

Alternative D (No Action) would be similar to those described above for Alternative A. 

4.21.2.5.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under this alternative, seasons of use would be based on the current permitted use. Grazing on 

many allotments would continue during critical growth periods (April/May) of forage species 

resulting in short- and long-term adverse impacts to forage resources and, by extension, adverse 

impacts to wildlife. 

4.21.2.6. IMPACTS OF MINERAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

RESOURCES

The development of leasable minerals would have long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts 

to wildlife and fisheries populations in the VPA. Direct impacts include a reduction in AUMs 

available to wildlife, loss of wildlife and fisheries habitats, and disruption and/or alteration of 

seasonal migration routes due to the additional construction of roads, pipelines, well pads, 

compressor stations, power lines, and fences in areas where mineral development would occur. 

Indirect impacts include habitat fragmentation and changes in behavior, distribution, activity, and 

energy expenditure that are caused by human disturbance. These disturbances can include human 

presence at project operations, improved hunter access and success, illegal hunting, and vehiclerelated mortality. 

The exact number and location of facilities relating to mineral development have not been 

determined and therefore are not analyzed in this programmatic EIS. The impacts of project-level 

mineral development, including location and timing, would be analyzed on a site-specific basis 

as required under NEPA. However, for the purposes of this programmatic analysis, it is assumed 

that all land categorized for mineral extraction would be developed to its full potential. 

Accordingly, this analysis discloses the potential impacts of the maximum potential disturbance 

from this development on wildlife habitat throughout the entire VPA. Additionally, 

programmatic protective measures have been formulated to minimize or avoid these impacts 

wherever possible. These measures are described by alternative and the Proposed RMP in the 

following sections. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-575 

4.21.2.6.1. LAND CATEGORIZATION

BLM has developed four land categories for oil and gas development that describe the conditions 

placed upon public domain lands in regard to their availability for fluid hydrocarbon leasing. 

These categories are discussed in Section 3.9 Minerals and Energy Resources. 

BLM has also made land use designations for the development of mineral materials, phosphate, 

and Gilsonite. A discussion of these mineral developments is made in the Chapter 3 and 4 

Minerals Sections. These areas are either open or closed to development which follows the same 

category designations as oil and gas RFD areas. 

Tables 1 through 19 of Appendix H outline the land categorization of mineral development on 

BLM lands in the VPA by alternative and the Proposed RMP with respect to important wildlife 

habitats. The impacts of these land categorizations on wildlife habitat and populations in the 

VPA are discussed by alternative and the Proposed RMP in the following sections. 

4.21.2.6.2. HABITAT FRAGMENTATION

Current habitat fragmentation by existing roads in the VPA was analyzed using three roads 

effects zones (660 feet, 1,320 feet, and 2,640 feet). An analysis of existing habitat fragments 250 

acres or greater shows there is currently a broad range of number, average size, and percent of 

wildlife habitat available outside these roads effects zones. These roads effects zones and the 

minimum fragment size were selected based on the latest literature dealing with wildlife habitat 

use and fragmentation (see the Wildlife and Fisheries Resources section of Chapter 3). Although 

the analysis shows that there is a relatively low rate of fragmentation in most areas of the VPA, 

many of these remaining habitat fragments are categorized as being open for mineral 

development. This may lead to further fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat and populations 

in these areas. This fragmentation can separate wildlife populations into smaller "meta" 

populations that are more susceptible to extinction from random events such as drought, disease, 

introduction of an exotic predator, etc. This fragmentation also makes movement between habitat 

fragments more difficult during periods when resources are limited or mates are not available. 

Fragmentation degrades the unique habitat characteristics of large, unbroken habitat tracts; 

characteristics such as accessible migration corridors, cover and forage that are free from 

disturbance, and areas isolated from hunting and predators. In many cases, habitats fragmented 

by human disturbances such as roads, buildings, and structures facilitate the invasion of noxious 

weeds and exotic species that are better adapted to human disturbance, usually to the detriment 

of native species. 

Efforts would be made under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives to reduce habitat 

fragmentation throughout the VPA to the extent possible by requiring oil and gas field 

development plans and encouraging such activities as well clustering, multiple drilling from a 

single pad, utilization of existing roads and pipelines, and other measures to minimize surface 

impacts. 

The existing fragmentation showing all fragments and fragments larger than 250 acres created by 

roads and pipelines on BLM-administered lands in the VPA is outlined in Table 20 of Appendix 

H. This analysis is also broken down by RFD area in Tables 21-32 of Appendix H. These tables 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-576 

show the number and average size of fragments at road/pipeline width (11.5 feet) and at 660-

foot, 1,320-foot, and 2,640-foot functional habitat loss zones. These tables also show what 

proportion of these fragments would be open to surface occupying minerals development under 

the Proposed RMP and each alternative. This analysis shows that the West and East Tavaputs 

Plateau RFD areas have the least amount of fragmentation with approximately 98% and 96%, 

respectively, of each RFD area composing fragments larger than 250 acres; the Tabiona-Ashley 

Valley RFD and Monument Butte-Red Wash RFD areas with a moderate amount of 

fragmentation with approximately 92% of each RFD area composing fragments larger than 250 

acres; and the Manila-Clay Basin RFD and Altamont-Bluebell RFD areas with the most 

fragmentation with approximately 89% of each RFD area composing fragments larger than 250 

acres. 

Even though the West Tavaputs Plateau has the least amount of fragmentation with regard to 

having the highest percent area consisting of fragments 250 acres or greater, this RFD area also 

has the highest proportion of large fragments categorized to be open to minerals development of 

any of the RFD areas under the Proposed RMP and each alternative. This indicates that the 

existing minerals development land categorization has the potential to increase fragmentation at 

a greater degree in this less-disturbed RFD area than in RFD areas that are already more 

developed. This land categorization may be inconsistent with the direction to manage for large 

un-fragmented blocks of continuous wildlife habitat in the VPA as identified in Chapter 2, 

Management Common to All for Wildlife and Fisheries. 

The Altamont-Bluebell RFD area is the smallest in the VPA and has a road and pipeline density 

of approximately 1.45 miles of roads and pipelines per square mile. The Monument Butte-Red 

Wash RFD area is the largest RFD area and, while having a considerable number of large 

fragments over 250 acres, has a relatively high road and pipeline density of approximately 2 

miles of roads and pipelines per square mile. As zones on these roads are extended out 2,640 

feet, the proportion of large fragments outside of this zone is reduced to only 36% of the RFD 

area (Monument Butte-Red Wash RFD area), which is the lowest proportion of large fragments 

of all the RFD areas. The other RFD areas are between 1.23 and 1.53 miles of roads and 

pipelines per square mile. Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E road and 

pipeline densities in all RFD areas would be reduced compared to Alternative D (No Action), 

except in the Monument Butte-Red Wash RFD area, where road and pipeline densities would 

increase by between 20% and 23% (see Tables 4.19.1 through 4.19.6). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-577 

Table 4.21.1. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on BLM 

Lands in the Manila-Clay Basin RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Road and Pipeline 

Densities (mi/mi2) 

1.48 1.47 1.47 1.45 1.53 1.41 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-660' zone 

86% 86% 86% 86% 82% 87% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-1,320' zone 

75% 75% 75% 75% 68% 76% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-2,640' zone 

57% 57% 57% 58% 48% 60% 

Table 4.21.2. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on BLM 

Lands in the Tabiona-Ashley Valley RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Road and Pipeline 

Densities (mi/mi2

) 

1.21 1.21 1.20 1.11 1.34 1.06 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-660' zone 

88% 88% 88% 89% 84% 90% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-1,320' zone 

79% 78% 79% 80% 71% 81% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-2,640' zone 

63% 63% 63% 66% 51% 67% 

Table 4.21. 3. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on BLM 

Lands in the Altamont-Bluebell RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Road and Pipeline 

Densities (mi/mi2) 

1.34 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.45 1.33 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-660' zone 

85% 85% 85% 85% 83% 85% 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-578 

Table 4.21. 3. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on BLM 

Lands in the Altamont-Bluebell RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-1,320' zone 

72% 72% 72% 72% 70% 72% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-2,640' zone 

51% 51% 51% 51% 49% 51% 

Table 4.21.4. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on BLM 

Lands in the Monument Butte-Red Wash RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Road and Pipeline 

Densities (mi/mi2

) 

2.45 2.42 2.42 2.40 2.00 2.40 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-660' zone 

78% 78% 78% 79% 77% 79% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-1,320' zone 

61% 62% 62% 62% 59% 62% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-2,640' zone 

39% 39% 40% 40% 36% 40% 

Table 4.21.5. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on BLM 

Lands in the West Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Road and Pipeline 

Densities (mi/mi2

) 

1.27 0.88 0.88 0.82 1.23 0.76 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-660' zone 

86% 90% 90% 91% 85% 91% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-1,320' zone 

74% 81% 81% 82% 73% 84% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

54% 65% 65% 68% 52% 70% 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-579 

Table 4.21.5. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on BLM 

Lands in the West Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Loss-2,640' zone 

Table 4.21 6. Functional Habitat Loss Created by Proposed Roads and Pipelines on BLM 

Lands in the East Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Road and Pipeline 

Densities (mi/mi2

) 

0.85 0.83 0.83 0.76 1.45 0.74 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-660' zone 

90% 91% 91% 91% 83% 92% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-1,320' zone 

82% 82% 82% 84% 69% 84% 

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-2,640' zone 

66% 67% 67% 70% 47% 71% 

Table 4.19.7 indicates existing habitat fragmentation within the VPA and the percentage of 

fragments that would be open to minerals development under the Proposed RMP and each 

alternative. 

Table 4.21.7. Habitat Fragments Created by Roads and Pipelines in the VPA and Roadeffects Zones Associated with These Fragments 

All Fragments Fragments 250 Acres or Greater 

Fragment 

Categories Number 

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Number

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Fragments 

created by 

roads or 

pipelines 

4,485 383 99.6 PRMP: 86.6 

Alt A: 93.3 

Alt B: 95.2 

Alt C: 84.6 

Alt D: 89.1 

Alt E: 76.0 

736 2,194 93.6 PRMP: 85.6 

Alt A: 92.9 

Alt B: 95.0 

Alt C: 83.9 

Alt D: 88.4 

Alt E: 74.5 

Fragments 

outside the 

660-foot road 

effects zone 

2,849 492 81.2 PRMP: 85.4 

Alt A: 92.8 

Alt B: 95.0 

696 1,891 76.3 PRMP:84.2 

Alt A: 92.3 

Alt B: 94.8 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-580 

Table 4.21.7. Habitat Fragments Created by Roads and Pipelines in the VPA and Roadeffects Zones Associated with These Fragments 

All Fragments Fragments 250 Acres or Greater 

Fragment 

Categories Number 

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Number

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Alt C: 83.6 

Alt D: 87.6 

Alt E: 75.0 

Alt C: 82.8 

Alt D: 86.5 

Alt E: 73.6 

Fragments 

outside the 

1,320-foot 

road effects 

zone 

2,394 477 66.1 PRMP:84.1 

Alt A: 92.3 

Alt B: 94.8 

Alt C: 82.6 

Alt D: 87.6 

Alt E: 73.2 

593 1,803 62.0 PRMP:82.7 

Alt A: 91.7 

Alt B: 94.4 

Alt C: 81.6 

Alt D: 86.5 

Alt E: 71.6 

Fragments 

outside the 

2,640-foot 

road effects 

zone 

1,510 505 44.2 PRMP:81.3 

Alt A: 90.9 

Alt B: 94.1 

Alt C: 80.3 

Alt D: 85.5 

Alt E: 69.6 

413 1,728 41.4 PRMP:79.6 

Alt A: 90.2 

Alt B: 93.7 

Alt C: 79.0 

Alt D: 84.3 

Alt E: 67.9 

As shown in the above table, Alternative B would have the greatest amount of impact on large 

habitat fragments, followed by Alternatives A and D, the Proposed RMP, and Alternatives C and 

E. In comparison with Alternative D (No Action), Alternative B would have a 7% to 11% higher 

acreage of large habitat fragments open to development, Alternative A would have a 5% to 7% 

higher acreage, Alternative C would have 4% to 6% lower acreage, Alternative E would have 

15% to 19% lower acreage, and the Proposed RMP would have 3% to 6% lower acreage of large 

habitat fragments open to mineral development. 

The sections below describe the amount of habitat for specific wildlife groups that would be in 

areas open to mineral development or in areas open to mineral development but subject to 

controlled surface use. Typically those areas designated as controlled surface use for mineral 

development are subject to minor constraints and seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to 

wildlife or other resources. Conversely, areas open to mineral development are subject only to 

standard stipulations and may not cater to specific on-site wildlife concerns. Accordingly, 

mineral development in areas open to mineral development would typically have a greater 

impact on wildlife than areas designated for controlled surface use. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-581 

4.21.2.6.2.1. Big Game Species 

Big game populations in the VPA include populations of mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, 

pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, moose, black bear, and mountain lion. The UDWR 

has prepared a GIS database that includes habitat coverages for each of these species, and for 

mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk, and has further subdivided these habitat coverages into 

seasonal use areas (crucial winter range, migration corridor, and fawning/calving habitat). These 

habitat coverages were compared to the land categorization for minerals development provided 

by BLM to determine potential impacts to the big game populations occurring in the VPA. The 

minerals development land categorization in the Proposed RMP and under all alternatives would 

have long-term and short-term, direct and indirect adverse impacts on these big game 

populations when compared to the existing levels of minerals development in the VPA. 

Irby et al. (1987) were unable to detect a response by mule deer to low intensity oil and gas 

exploration and drilling activities along the east slope of the Rocky Mountains in north-central 

Montana. However, they did identify that high intensity hydrocarbon development had the 

potential to make wintering areas in that area unsuitable for mule deer and that strategies for oil 

and gas development in individual units should be decided prior to development. In the Book 

Cliffs, Karpowitz (1984) investigated the impacts of energy development on mule deer and 

found it difficult to assess. He could not quantify the effects of drilling on mule deer, but 

speculated that there was avoidance of active drilling sites. He observed mule deer returning to 

those sites after drilling ceased, but noted that habitat loss occurred as a result of drilling 

operations due to the construction of roads and drill pads. 

Van Dyke and Klein (1996) found that elk subjected to oil well drilling in Wyoming maintained 

their fidelity to seasonal and annual ranges, but were observed making use of habitat and 

topographic features to minimize visual contact with the disturbance and avoiding direct contact 

with the site of disturbance that slightly reduced the total area of range that was used. Ward and 

Brock (1995) monitored a hunted elk population on winter range by visual observation and 

telemetry during short-term seismographic activity, including above ground explosions, truck 

vibrations, and drill and shoot activities. He observed that elk were displaced to areas beyond 

visual contact by all three forms of seismograph activities, with the most extreme response 

resulting from people walking through the project area. However, he observed that elk returned 

to the seismograph use areas within a few days after human activity stopped. Lyon (1997) and 

Lyon et al. (1985) documented a shift in elk distribution away from areas with roads or other 

long-term disturbances. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP would decrease the proportion of 

big game habitat open to surface occupying oil and gas development by as much as 100% for 

some species' habitats (crucial winter mule deer, mule deer migration corridors, and crucial 

winter rocky mountain elk) while increasing it by as much as 33% for other species (pronghorn). 

Areas subject to timing and controlled surface use stipulations under the Proposed RMP would 

increase by as much as 194% (for bighorn sheep) and decrease by as much as 31% (for 

pronghorn) compared to Alternative D (No Action). Alternatives A and B would increase the 

proportion of big game habitat open to surface occupying oil and gas development by up to 62% 

and 107% respectively, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). There would also be 

decreases of as much as 100% for each of these alternatives. These alternatives would increase 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-582 

the proportion of big game habitats in areas subject to controlled surface use by up to 170% and 

171%, respectively, when compared to Alternative D (No Action), but there would also be 

decreases of as much as 67% under Alternative A and 70% under Alternative B. Alternatives C 

and E would decrease the proportion of most big game habitats open to surface occupying oil 

and gas development by at least 15% and 3%, respectively (and as much as 100%) when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). An exception is an increase in pronghorn habitat open to 

surface occupying oil and gas development by approximately 36% and 24%, respectively 

(Alternatives C and E). Alternatives C and E would also increase the proportion of big game 

habitat subject to controlled surface use by up to 145% (Alternative C - crucial mule deer winter 

habitat) and 148% (Alternative E: crucial winter rocky mountain elk habitat) when compared to 

Alternative D, No Action: Pronghorn and black bear habitat would have approximately 35% and 

6% less acreage, respectively, subject to controlled surface use under Alternative C and 32% and 

9% less acreage, respectively, subject to controlled surface use under Alternative E (see Tables 1 

to 19 in Appendix H). 

4.21.2.6.2.2. Upland Bird Species 

The minerals development land categorization proposed under the Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives would have long-term and short-term, direct and indirect adverse impacts on upland 

bird populations in the VPA. The analysis in this section covers pheasant, Rio Grand Turkey, 

Blue Grouse, and Chukar habitat managed by BLM in the VPA. A discussion of impacts to 

Greater Sage-grouse is given in the Special Status Species section. The UDWR has prepared GIS 

database habitat coverages for each of these species, and these habitat coverages were compared 

to the land categorization for minerals development provided by BLM to determine potential 

mineral development impacts to the upland bird populations occurring in the VPA. 

The Proposed RMP would increase the proportion of upland bird habitat open to surface 

occupying oil and gas development by up to 150% compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Under the Proposed RMP, the proportion of upland bird habitat open to surface occupying oil 

and gas development would decrease for some species (Blue Grouse and Chukar) by as much as 

69% compared to Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP would increase the proportion 

of Blue Grouse habitat subject to controlled surface use by up to 73% while decreasing the 

proportion of upland bird habitat subject to controlled surface use by as much as 28% for other 

upland bird species. Alternatives A and B would increase the proportion of upland bird habitat 

open to surface occupying oil and gas development by as much as 223% and 222% respectively, 

when compared to Alternative D (No Action). These alternatives would also decrease the 

proportion of upland bird habitat subject to controlled surface use by as much as 72% and 47% 

respectively, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). On the other hand, Alternative A 

would also increase the proportion of upland bird habitat subject to controlled surface use by up 

to 48% (Blue Grouse). Alternatives C and E would increase the proportion of upland bird habitat 

open to surface occupying oil and gas development by up to 199% and 138%, respectively when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). These alternatives would generally decrease the 

proportion of upland bird habitat subject to controlled surface use by as much as 61% and 28%, 

respectively, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). However, under Alternatives C and 

E the proportion of Blue Grouse habitat subject to controlled surface use would increase by 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-583 

approximately 7% and 6%, respectively, compared to Alternative D (No Action) (see Tables 1-

19 in Appendix H). 

None of the alternatives presented or the Proposed RMP contained stipulations and mitigation 

measures relative to minerals development meant to protect and/or enhance existing upland bird 

habitat. 

4.21.2.6.2.3. Raptors 

The Proposed RMP and all alternatives would apply spatial and temporal buffers to minimize 

disturbances near nesting raptors. The buffers were tailored to the individual raptor species 

involved, and were based on factors such as line of sight distance between nest and disturbance, 

type and duration of disturbance, nest structure security, sensitivity of the species to disturbance, 

observed responses to related disturbances, and the amount of existing disturbances near the nest. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, BLM would also pursue a partnership between 

industries, local governments, USFWS, UDWR, USFW, NRCS and others to establish a raptor 

management fund to be utilized for raptor population monitoring and habitat enhancement. BLM 

would also cooperate with utility companies, UDWR, and USFWS to prevent electrocution of 

raptors. A detailed description of the effects of resource decisions on special status raptor species 

can be found in the Special Status Species section. 

4.21.2.6.2.4. Neotropical Migrants, Small Mammals, and Amphibians 

Lowland riparian and cottonwood forest areas have been identified as areas typically associated 

with high concentrations of biodiversity and include wildlife such as neotropical migrants, small 

mammals, amphibians, and other wildlife species. A stipulation for mineral development 

common to all alternatives and the Proposed RMP is that surface mineral developments cannot 

be placed in wetlands or riparian zones, and must occur outside the 100-year floodplain. This 

stipulation would protect these lowland riparian and cottonwood forest habitats from minerals 

development. Therefore, minerals development would not directly impact these habitat types and 

those wildlife species that use them. Additionally, all alternatives and the Proposed RMP would 

incorporate conservation measures in accordance with Executive Order 13186 for the protection 

of migratory birds, as outlined in the Utah Partners-In-Flight Avian Conservation Strategy, and 

other scientific information into all surface-disturbing activities. 

4.21.2.6.2.5. Fisheries and Riparian/Aquatic Species 

Riparian areas, wetlands, and marsh areas are typically areas associated with high concentrations 

of biodiversity and include wildlife such as shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, and fish 

species. A stipulation for mineral development common to the Proposed RMP and all 

alternatives is that surface mineral developments cannot be placed in wetlands or riparian zones, 

and must occur outside the 100-year floodplain. This stipulation would protect these wetland and 

riparian zone habitats from minerals development. Therefore, minerals development would not 

directly impact these habitat types and those wildlife species that use them. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-584 

The VFO would also assist in implementing the strategic plan for Utah's Initiative on Blue 

Ribbon Fisheries by managing aquatic and riparian habitats to maintain a quality cold-water 

sport fishery along the Green River from the Ashley National Forest border to the Colorado/Utah 

border. Additionally, the VFO would assist in managing Pelican Lake as a quality warm-water 

sport fishery. Any other aquatic and riparian habitats associated with identified Blue Ribbon 

Fisheries would be managed by BLM for quality sport fisheries. The VFO would implement this 

initiative to the extent consistent and appropriate with the Vernal RMP and other land use 

authorizations. 

Although the restrictions on mineral development in wetlands, riparian zones, and floodplains 

protect aquatic resources from direct impacts, it would not protect them from indirect impacts. 

The Water Quality section of this EIS identifies that although stipulations would mitigate the 

negative impacts of minerals development on water quality, the mineral development outlined 

for each alternative and the Proposed RMP would result in increased risk of indirect, long-term, 

adverse impacts to water quality through soil erosion, sedimentation, and the potential for 

petroleum discharges to surface water. These impacts would have a correspondingly increased 

risk of adverse impacts to fisheries associated with these areas. In general, the level of risk of 

impacts would be commensurate with the level of mineral development under the Proposed RMP 

and each alternative. Accordingly, Alternative B would have the greatest potential of impacts to 

aquatic habitat, followed by Alternatives A and D, the Proposed RMP, and Alternatives C and E. 

Mineral development under the Proposed RMP and each alternative has the risk of increasing 

surface disturbance in selenium rich soils, and consequently impacting aquatic organisms. 

However, at this programmatic level, it is not known where specific developments would occur. 

Accordingly, the impacts of actual implementation phase of mineral development on selenium 

rich soils and associated aquatic resources would be analyzed on a site-specific basis at the 

project level under NEPA. 

4.21.2.7. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

4.21.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, approximately 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed with special protections to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics. This area would be managed as VRM Class II, OHV use limited to designated 

routes, closed to oil and gas leasing, and closed to woodland product harvest. This management 

would result in less surface disturbance than under Alternatives A, B, C, or D (No Action) and 

would have greater beneficial impacts to wildlife and fisheries, as described elsewhere in this 

section (4.13), than these alternatives. Compared to Alternatives A, B, C and D (No Action), the 

Proposed RMP would have indirect, long-term benefits to wildlife and fisheries in the form of 

reduced soil erosion and sedimentation and salinity in streams, reduced human disturbance of 

wildlife, and reduced surface disturbance and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-585 

4.21.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND D (NO ACTION) 

Under these alternatives, lands with wilderness characteristics outside of designated WSAs 

would not be subject to protective management to maintain those characteristics. Depending on 

management decisions for other resources, there would be varying levels of development and 

surface disturbance within these areas, which would have indirect, long-term, adverse impacts to 

wildlife and fisheries. 

4.21.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed with special protections to maintain their wilderness characteristics. This area would be 

managed as VRM Class I, closed to OHV use, closed to mineral disposal, excluded from new 

ROWs, closed to road construction, closed to wood cutting and seed collecting, and retained for 

federal ownership. This management would result in less surface disturbance than under any 

other alternative and would therefore have the greatest beneficial impacts to wildlife and 

fisheries, as described elsewhere in this section (4.13). Compared to Alternatives A, B, C, and D, 

Alternative E would have greater indirect, long-term benefits to wildlife and fisheries in the form 

of reduced soil erosion and sedimentation and salinity in streams, reduced human disturbance of 

wildlife, and reduced surface disturbance and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. 

4.21.2.8. IMPACTS OF RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

Wildlife and fish populations would directly benefit over the long-term from rangeland 

improvements proposed under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. These rangeland 

improvements would include conducting vegetation treatments aimed at improving forage 

composition, installing additional fencing, constructing guzzlers or other reservoirs, constructing 

wells or improving springs, and installing additional water pipeline. These improvements would 

improve existing wildlife habitat and provide water during high-stress drought periods. It can be 

assumed that the level of relative positive impacts for the Proposed RMP and of each alternative 

would be directly related to their respective level of rangeland improvements. The amount of 

each of these rangeland improvements under the Proposed RMP and each alternative is described 

in Table 4.21.8 below. 

Table 4.21. 8. Rangeland Improvements Proposed under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives1

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Vegetation treatment 

(acres) 

34,640 34,640 50,900 45,860 40,390 45,860 

Fencing (miles) 68.5 68.5 368.5 129 65 129 

Guzzlers/reservoirs 812 812 1,165 811 775 811 

Wells/springs 51 51 78 87 74 87 

Water pipeline (miles) 37.5 37.5 51 29.5 35 29.5 

1

 These range improvements acres are projected and are not an upper limit. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-586 

The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would increase the miles of fencing and water pipelines 

over Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would decrease the 

amount of vegetation treatment and the number of wells/springs that would be developed area. 

Alternative B would propose more vegetation treatments, more miles of fencing and water 

pipelines, as well as additional guzzlers/reservoirs and wells/springs than Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Alternatives C and E would propose more vegetation treatments and more miles of fencing as 

well as additional guzzlers/reservoirs and wells/springs than Alternative D (No Action). 

However, they would propose fewer miles of water pipelines. 

4.21.2.9. IMPACTS OF RECREATION AND TRAVEL ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

4.21.2.9.1. RECREATION

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B would designate Seep Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, 

and Atchee Ridge Roads as BLM Back Country Byways. Alternatives C and E would not 

designate these roads as BLM Back Country Byways. This action is not specified under 

Alternative D (No Action). All alternatives would manage Pelican Lake (1,020 acres) and Red 

Mountain – Dry Fork (24,259 acres) as SRMAs. Lands in Browns Park and Nine Mile Canyon 

would also be managed as SRMAs under all alternatives but the acreage would differ between 

some alternatives and the Proposed RMP (Browns Park: 18,490 acres under the Proposed RMP; 

18,474 acres under Alternatives B and D (No Action); 52,720 acres under Alternatives A, C and 

E; Nine Mile Canyon: 44,168 acres under the Proposed RMP; 44,181 acres under Alternatives B, 

and D; 81,168 acres under Alternatives A, C and E). Lands in Blue Mountain, the Book Cliffs, 

Fantasy Canyon, and the White River would be managed as SRMAs under some alternatives and 

not under others. Acreages would differ as well. Lands in Blue Mountain (42,758 acres), Fantasy 

Canyon (69 acres), and the White River (2,831 acres under the Proposed RMP and 47,130 acres 

under Alternatives C and E) would be managed as SRMAs under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives C and E. Alternative A would managed all of these lands as SRMAs except Fantasy 

Canyon and the White River would consist of 24,183 acres. Under Alternatives B and D (No 

Action), these lands would not be managed as SRMAs. Lands in the Book Cliffs (273,486 acres) 

would be managed as SRMA under Alternatives A, C and E but not under the Proposed RMP 

and Alternatives B and D (No Action). The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E would 

SRMAs improve, develop, and/or sign up to 400 miles of non-motorized trails. Up to 800 miles 

of motorized routes would be improved, developed, and/or signed under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives A, B, and D (No Action). 

These designations and improvements would have both long-term beneficial and adverse impacts 

on wildlife and fish populations in these areas. Beneficial impacts SRMAs would stem largely 

from the fact that managed and focused recreation, such as in SRMAs, tends to result in fewer 

adverse impacts to wildlife and associated resources than dispersed recreation with minimal 

management. However, because increased visitor use would be projected under SRMA 

management and with the addition of BLM Back Country Byways, some adverse impacts on 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-587 

wildlife and fish populations SRMAs would occur. Both long-term beneficial and adverse 

impacts on wildlife and fish populations in these areas would be much the same between 

alternatives, except that they would be proportional to the acreage of land proposed for 

management as SRMAs. 

Alternative D (No Action) would not designate any BLM Back Country Byways. BLM would 

continue to provide minimal management oversight for recreational use of the White River. No 

specific management plans would be made for Blue Mountain or Fantasy Canyon. The Book Cliffs 

would continue to provide for unlimited and unconfined recreation. Browns Park (18,474 acres), 

Red-Mountain Dry Fork (24,285 acres), Pelican Lake (1,020 acres), and Nine Mile Canyon (44,181 

acres) would continue to be managed as SRMAs that would include providing important habitat for 

fisheries and wildlife. Roughly 55 miles of hiking and/or horseback trails along the Green River and 

on Dry Fork, Ashley Creek, Beaver, Willow, Nine Mile, and other places in the resource area would 

be developed. Two miles of mountain bike trails using existing rural road and trails would be 

established. A non-motorized trail along Sears Canyon would be developed, and the Red Mountain 

trail would be managed as a motorized trail. The recreation decisions would continue a relatively 

hands-off approach to managing recreational areas associated with the VPA. This approach has 

historically allowed for relatively little disturbance to wildlife and fish populations in the area. 

However, this approach could lead to declines to wildlife and fish populations and habitats as areas in 

the VPA become more popular recreational destinations and other uses increase without additional 

protective measures placed on critical areas. 

4.21.2.9.2. TRAVEL

With respect to travel management, the main difference between the action alternatives and Alternative 

D (No Action) is in the amount of land available for Open and Limited OHV use. Total acreages 

available for OHV Open use under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E are similar, 

ranging from 6,202 acres under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A to 5,434 acres under Alternatives 

B, C, and E. In comparison, Alternative D (No Action) would allow 787,859 acres to be Open to 

unrestricted OHV use. Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E, the number of acres 

designated as the more restrictive Limited category of OHV use are roughly similar, ranging from 

1,326,024 under Alternative E to 1,659,901 under Alternative E. The Proposed RMP and Alternative A 

would designate 1,643,475 acres as Limited to designated routes while Alternative C would designate 

1,353,529 acres as Limited to designated routes. In comparison, Alternative D (No Action) would 

designate 887,275 acres as Limited OHV use. Generally adverse OHV effects, such as trampling of 

either occupied or potential wildlife habitat, noise, habitat fragmentation, increased wind erosion in 

sensitive habitats would still occur but the risks of these impacts on wildlife would be substantially 

reduced under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E, when compared to Alternative D 

(No Action). The minimal management of OHV use would lead to declines of wildlife and wildlife 

habitats as areas in the VPA become more popular for OHV recreation. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-588 

4.21.3. IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

4.21.3.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E, key streamside herbaceous riparian 

vegetation, where stream bank stability is dependant upon it, would have a minimum stubble height 

capable of trapping and assuring retention of sediment during high flows at the end of the growing 

season. Management actions would be based on residual stubble height or utilization of current year's 

growth at the end of the growing season. To maintain riparian conditions, stubble height on key 

riparian plant species would be set at four inches or 30% utilization. If riparian conditions need 

improvement, stubble height on key riparian plant species would be set at six inches or less than 20% 

utilization. Key riparian woody vegetation would not be browsed at a level that precludes adequate 

recruitment to maintain or recover the woody component. Woody vegetation would be managed for 

the sprouting and young categories rather than in the mature and dead categories. Woody vegetation 

utilization would be set at 30%. Alternative B varies from the other action alternatives in that key 

herbaceous riparian vegetation in riparian areas, other than the stream banks, would not be grazed 

more than 50% during the growing season, or 60% during the dormant season. Likewise, under 

Alternative B, key riparian woody vegetation would not be used more than 50% of the current annual 

twig growth that is within reach of the animals. 

This would help maintain or improve riparian areas in the VPA more effectively than Alternative 

D (No Action). Improvements in the riparian area have the potential to directly benefit fish and 

wildlife species associated with these riparian areas by providing improved habitat and 

resources. 

4.21.3.1.1. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under this Alternative, the objective would be to maintain an average minimum herbage stubble 

height of three inches after livestock grazing where grazing is allowed on riparian areas within 

the Diamond Mountain portion of the VPA. Within the Book Cliffs portion of the VPA there 

would be no management prescriptions for average minimum herbage stubble height. Efforts 

would be made to provide sufficient herbaceous biomass to meet requirements of plant, vigor, 

maintenance, bank protection, and sediment entrapment. However, this alternative would not 

provide the level of protection to riparian habitat and associated wildlife species that the action 

alternatives would provide. 

4.21.3.2. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

4.21.3.2.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, D (NO ACTION), AND E 

Special Designation areas ACECs would generally have a long-term beneficial impact on the 

wildlife and fisheries known to occur within their boundaries. Normally, only activities that 

would maintain or enhance habitat used by wildlife and fisheries would be permitted in these 

areas, although some of these areas would remain open to minerals development. In areas where 

minerals development may impact wildlife and fisheries, restrictive lease stipulations would be 

required to minimize these impacts. The designation of these areas, or lack thereof, would have 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-589 

similar impacts between alternatives and the Proposed RMP. Alternatives C and E propose the 

most ACECs (647,063 acres and 533,885 acres respectively for Alternative C and Alternative E) 

and the greatest quantity of river segments as suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation 

(164 miles in addition to segments of the Upper and Lower Green River that would continue to 

be suitable). The Proposed RMP proposes the fewest ACECs (131,700 acres) and river segments 

as suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation (two segments, the Upper and Lower Green 

River that would continue to be suitable). Alternatives B and D (No Action) propose about the 

same number and acreage of ACECs (179,356 acres and 165,944 acres respectively for 

Alternative B and Alternative D, No Action) and river segments as suitable for Wild and Scenic 

River designation (those segments of the Upper and Lower Green River that would continue to 

be suitable). Alternative A proposes approximately 345,850 acres of ACECs and 57 miles of 

river segments as suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation. A summary of the total ACECs 

by alternative and the Proposed RMP is given below in Table 4.21.9. The acreage of WSAs is 

the same under the Proposed RMP and each alternative. 

Table 4.21.9. ACEC Designations for the Proposed RMP and Alternatives 

ACECs Acres 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Bitter Creek/P.R. Spring 0 0 0 78,591 0 0 

Coyote Basin 0 87,743 47,659 0 0 0 

Coyote Basin – Coyote 

Basin 

0 0 0 26,590 0 26,590 

Coyote Basin – Kennedy 

Wash 

0 0 0 10,670 0 10,670 

Coyote Basin – Myton 

Bench 

0 0 0 36,670 0 36,670 

Coyote Basin–Shiner 0 0 0 21,957 0 21,957 

Coyote Basin–Snake John 0 0 0 28,274 0 28,274 

Four Mile Wash 0 0 0 50,280 0 50,280 

Lears Canyon 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 

Middle Green River 0 0 0 6,768 0 6,768 

Lower Green River 

(Corridor and Expansion) 

8,470 10,170 8,470 10,170 8,470 10,170 

White River 0 17,810 0 47,130 0 47,130 

Browns Park 18,490 52,721 18,474 18,474 52,721 52,721 

Red Mountain – Dry Fork 24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285 

Nine Mile Canyon 44,168 48,000 44,181 81,168 44,181 81,168 

Pariette 10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 

Red Creek 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 24,475 

Main Canyon 0 0 0 100,915 0 100,915 

Total Acreage 131,700 345,850 179,357 647,063 165,944 533,885 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-590 

4.21.3.3. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

RESOURCES

Alternatives that incorporate decisions to protect special status plant and animal species would 

also likely benefit general wildlife and fish populations. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A 

and B would provide more protection than Alternative D (No Action), but less protection than 

Alternatives C and E for special status species, and indirectly other wildlife and fish populations.

4.21.3.4. IMPACTS OF SOILS AND WATERSHEDS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E would use oil and gas industry slope 

disturbance guidelines (Gold Book) to limit surface disturbances from oil and gas activities, 

which would provide indirect, long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife and fisheries by reducing 

soil erosion on steep hillsides. 

4.21.3.4.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, surface disturbances on slopes between 21–40% 

would require erosion control, GIS modeling, and surveying, and slopes greater than 40% would 

not be disturbed unless other proposed construction alternatives would cause unnecessary 

degradation. These actions would also provide indirect, long-term beneficial impacts to wildland 

and fisheries by reducing soil erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation. 

4.21.3.4.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would require erosion control, GIS modeling, and surveying on slopes greater than 

20% for unavoidable surface disturbances, with similar indirect beneficial impacts to wildlife 

and fisheries as described for the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, but without the restrictions 

to disturbances to slopes greater than 40% as described under the Proposed RMP and Alternative 

A. 

4.21.3.4.3. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Alternatives C and E would have greater indirect beneficial impacts on wildlife and fisheries 

than the other alternatives by applying the same management actions on 21–40% slopes as the 

Proposed RMP and Alternative A and by prohibiting surface disturbances (and thus reducing the 

risk of increased stream sedimentation) on slopes greater than 40%. 

4.21.3.4.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) restricts surface disturbance only for mineral activities on slopes 

greater than 40% and does not specifying slope restrictions on slopes less than 40%. The 

reductions in stream sedimentation imposed by management actions that limit surface 

disturbances would improve water quality and reduce stream embeddedness, which, in turn, 

would improve macroinvertebrate habitat and increase fish spawning success. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-591 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B would provide more protection to aquatic 

resources than Alternative D (No Action), but less protection than Alternatives C and E. 

Alternative E would provide the most restrictions on surface disturbance, and would, 

consequently, provide the greatest protection for water quality and aquatic habitat. 

4.21.3.5. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND 

FISHERIES RESOURCES

4.21.3.5.1. PROPOSED RMP 

This Proposed RMP would not allow surface disturbance activities within McCook and 

Monument Ridge mule deer migration corridors from April 15 through May 31. This would 

result in an extension of the dates in the Monument Ridge area but a reduction of dates in the 

McCook area when compared with Alternative D (No Action). Activities would not be allowed 

that would result in adverse impacts to mule deer and elk within crucial winter range from 

December 1 through April 30. This restriction would not apply if deer and elk are not present, or 

impacts could be mitigated through other management actions. New surface disturbance within 

crucial mule deer winter range would be limited to no more than 10% that would remain unreclaimed at any given time. This 10% surface disturbance threshold in crucial deer winter range 

would only apply to new disturbances. All compensatory mitigation would be approached on an 

as appropriate basis where it can be performed on-site, and on a voluntary basis where it is 

performed offsite, or, in accordance with current guidance. New surface disturbance or 

restoration in crucial mule deer winter range is not specified in Alternative D (No Action). These 

actions would have an overall benefit to mule deer and elk populations when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Under the Proposed RMP (as well as Alternatives A, C and E) the BLM would provide habitat 

and forage for the emigration and/or reintroduction of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the 

following areas: Upper Book Cliffs including the Willow Creek drainage upstream from Wood 

Canyon and the Bitter Creek drainage upstream from the Sweetwater confluence; the White 

River corridor; the Browns Park/Green River corridor including Red Creek Canyon; Sears Creek 

Canyon; Crouse Canyon; Toliver's Creek; Beaver Creek/Willow Creek area; Goslin Mountain 

and Teepee Mountain; Big Brush Creek; Little Brush Creek; and Ashley Gorge; and ridge tops 

on Diamond Mountain, Richard's Mountain, the Island Park/Dry Fork area, and Nine Mile 

Canyon. This would expand the reintroduction effort for bighorn sheep in the VPA and would 

benefit bighorn sheep populations when compared with Alternative D (No Action). 

The BLM would continue to work cooperatively with UDWR and other entities on the Book 

Cliffs Bison Management Plan, with long-term, beneficial impacts on this species within the 

VPA. Further, habitat and forage would be provided for the emigration and/or reintroduction of 

moose, which would benefit moose populations in the VPA when compared with Alternative D 

(No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-592 

4.21.3.5.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

This alternative would not allow surface disturbance activities within McCook and Monument 

Ridge mule deer migration corridors from April 15 through May 31. This would result in an 

extension of the dates in the Monument Ridge area but a reduction of dates in the McCook area 

when compared with Alternative D (No Action). Activities would not be allowed that would 

result in adverse impacts to mule deer and elk within crucial winter range from November 15 

through April 30. This restriction would not apply if it is determined through analysis and 

coordination with UDWR that impacts could be mitigated. New surface disturbance within 

crucial mule deer winter range would be limited to 560 acres per township, or 2.4% of the 

township, and prorated based on the percentage of the crucial mule deer winter range within the 

township. All surface disturbances within sagebrush habitat on crucial mule deer winter range 

would be reclaimed or enhanced at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. New surface disturbance or restoration in 

crucial mule deer winter range is not specified in Alternative D (No Action). These actions 

would have an overall benefit to mule deer and elk populations when compared to Alternative D 

(No Action). 

Under this alternative the BLM would provide habitat and forage for the emigration and/or 

reintroduction of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep as described under the Proposed RMP above. 

Habitat and forage would be provided for the emigration and/or reintroduction of bison in the 

southern Book Cliffs, with long-term, beneficial impacts on this species within the VPA. 

Habitat and forage would be provided for the emigration and/or reintroduction of moose, which 

would benefit moose populations in the VPA when compared with Alternative D (No Action). 

4.21.3.5.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

This alternative would not allow surface disturbance activities within McCook and Monument 

Ridge mule deer migration corridors from April 15 through May 31 and September 1 through 

October 15. This would result in an extension of the dates in the Monument Ridge area but a 

reduction of dates in the McCook area when compared with Alternative D (No Action). 

Disturbance activities would not be allowed from December 15 through March 15 that would 

displace mule deer and elk from more than 10% of their total winter habitat at any time. Waivers 

would be granted if deer and elk are not present, topography or other attributes screen the 

activity sufficiently so that the proposed activity would not displace the subject species, or 

disturbance resulting from the proposed activity could be mitigated. This would be a reduction of 

the dates when compared to Alternative D (No Action). This alternative would not provide 

UDWR an opportunity to be involved in analyzing exceptions to these dates as with the 

Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E. Within crucial deer winter range, no more then 

10% of such habitat would be subject to surface disturbance and remain un-claimed at any given 

time. This 10% surface disturbance threshold in crucial deer winter range would only apply to 

new disturbances (same as the Proposed RMP). Disturbance within sagebrush habitat on crucial 

deer winter range would be reclaimed at or enhanced at a ratio of 1 to 1. New surface disturbance 

or restoration in crucial mule deer winter range is not specified in Alternative D (No Action). 

These actions would have an overall benefit to mule deer and elk populations when compared to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-593 

Alternative D (No Action), but these benefits would not be as great as those outlined for the 

Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E. 

Under Alternative B, BLM would only support Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep if natural 

emigration occurs in the same areas as described under the Proposed RMP above This would 

expand the reintroduction effort for bighorn sheep in the VPA and would benefit bighorn sheep 

populations when compared with Alternative D (No Action). However, this alternative limits the 

establishment efforts for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep to emigration versus reintroduction; 

therefore, benefits of this alternative to bighorn sheep are not as great as those outlined for The 

Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E. 

This alternative would have adverse impacts to moose and bison, as the BLM would not support 

them (i.e., habitat and forage would not be provided) in the Book Cliffs. 

4.21.3.5.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

These alternatives would not allow surface disturbance activities within McCook and Monument 

Ridge mule deer migration corridors from April 15 through May 31 and September 1 through 

October 15. This would result in an extension of the dates in the Monument Ridge area but a 

reduction of dates in the McCook area when compared with Alternative D (No Action). 

Activities would not be allowed that would result in adverse impacts to mule deer and elk within 

crucial winter range from November 15 through April 30. This restriction would not apply if it is 

determined through analysis and coordination with UDWR that impacts could be mitigated. 

Factors to be considered would include snow depth, temperature, snow crusting, location of 

disturbance, forage quantity and quality, animal condition, and expected duration of disturbance. 

This would be an extension of the dates and provide UDWR an opportunity to be involved in 

analyzing impacts when compared to Alternative D (No Action). Total new surface disturbance 

within crucial mule deer winter range would be limited to 560 acres per township, or 2.4% of the 

township, and prorated based on the percentage of the crucial mule deer winter range within the 

township on BLM-managed lands. All disturbances within sagebrush habitat on crucial mule 

deer winter range would be reclaimed or enhanced at a ratio of 3 to 1. New surface disturbance 

or restoration in crucial mule deer winter range is not specified in Alternative D (No Action). 

These actions would have an overall benefit to mule deer and elk populations when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Under Alternatives C and E, management actions for bighorn sheep would be the same as the 

Proposed RMP and Alternative A. This would expand the reintroduction effort for bighorn sheep 

in the VPA and would benefit bighorn sheep populations when compared with Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Habitat and forage would be provided for the emigration and/or re-introduction of bison in the 

Book Cliffs, which would have long-term, beneficial impacts on this species within the VPA. 

The impacts on moose would be the same as discussed under Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-594 

4.21.3.5.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

This alternative would not allow surface disturbance activities within mule deer migration 

corridors on Monument Ridge from May 11 to May 31 or on McCook Ridge from October 2 to 

May 31. The allowable amount of new disturbance in crucial deer winter range and the 

reclamation of sagebrush habitat on crucial deer winter range would remain unspecified. 

Surface-disturbing activities would not be allowed in crucial winter elk habitat in the Book Cliffs 

from November 1 to March 31 and in Diamond Mountain from December 1 to April 30, with 

exceptions if deer and/or elk are not present or if impacts could be mitigated through other 

management actions. These actions would benefit mule deer and elk populations in the VPA. 

This alternative would allow for the reestablishment of bighorn sheep in Browns Park and 

provide forage and cover to support an average annual population of about 300 to 400 animals on 

public lands in the Browns Park Habitat Management Plan (HMP) area. This would benefit 

bighorn sheep in this area of the VPA. 

The reintroduction of bison into the Southern Book Cliffs and moose throughout the VPA would 

remain unspecified. Therefore, this alternative would not benefit moose or potential bison 

populations in the VPA. 

4.21.3.6. IMPACTS OF WILD HORSE DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

The alternatives would maintain wild horse herds as outlined in Table 4.21.10 below. In those 

areas and under those alternatives where wild horse herds would be maintained, there is the 

potential for wild horses to compete directly and indirectly with wildlife with respect to forage 

and habitat. However, efforts have also been made to allocate forage and habitat to wildlife and 

to wild horses to reduce the potential adverse impacts to wildlife populations from this 

competition (See Chapter 2). The Proposed RMP and Alternative B would offer the greatest 

benefits to wildlife in terms of reduced competition with wild horses because the Proposed RMP 

and Alternative B would either gather and remove wild horses from the planning area or not 

manage for them (therefore not allocating AUMs for wild horse use). The other alternatives 

would maintain wild horse populations on some level resulting in potential conflicts with 

wildlife for forage and habitat resources. 

Table 4.21.10. Maintaining Wild Horse Herds by the Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives 

Bonanza 

HA 

Winter Ridge HA Hill Creek HA 

Proposed RMP No No No 

Alternative A No Yes Yes 

Alternative B No No No 

Alternative C Yes Yes Yes 

Alternative D (No Action) No No Yes 

Alternative E Yes Yes Yes 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-595 

4.21.3.7. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS AND FOREST MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND 

FISHERIES RESOURCES

4.21.3.7.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E would allow public utilization of forest and 

woodland products as one tool for conducting vegetative treatments to achieve desired future 

conditions in these forest and woodland habitats. These alternatives would treat/harvest up to as 

much as 554,108 acres (under Alternative B) of forest and woodland habitat and as little as 

421,133 acres (under Alternative E). 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E would manage forests and woodlands to 

maintain and restore ecosystems to a condition in which biodiversity is preserved and 

occurrences of fire, insects, disease, and other disturbances do not exceed levels normally 

expected in healthy forests and woodlands. These alternatives and the Proposed RMP would 

maintain relict stands of vegetation for biological and genetic diversity. Forests and woodlands 

would be managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield without permanent 

impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment; and allow use of 

forest, woodland products, biomass, and certain vegetation products in areas specified for this 

use to meet RMP goals. Each of these alternatives and the Proposed RMP would implement the 

National Healthy Forest Initiative and the National Fire Plan by conducting treatments to reduce 

fuel loadings, fire severity, and restoring historical disturbance regimes. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B would initiate a proactive program of woodland 

management implemented for the salvage of forest and woodland products that are dead and/or 

dying due to fire, disease, insect-kill or other disturbance with the management intent of 

promoting healthy forest and woodlands. Alternatives C and E would allow for the salvage of 

forest and woodland products within proposed ACECs (242,760 acres) only when there is a 

threat to forest and woodlands or other resources in the ACEC. Alternative C would also allow 

for salvage of forest and woodland for other resources on up to 343,110 acres outside of 

proposed ACECs. However, under Alternative E salvaging of woodland and forest species would 

not be allowed in areas proposed for protection of wilderness characteristics, which would result 

in fewer indirect long-term adverse impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources through reduced 

surface disturbance. Alternative B would allow harvesting forest and woodland stands that have 

reached culmination of mean annual increment (growth begins to decrease). Stands would 

thereafter be grown and thinned to approximately 80 to 90% of "normal (maximum) basal area" 

until the culmination of mean annual increment, at which time the stand(s) would be cut again. 

In summary, all Action Alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, and E) and the Proposed RMP would 

have some short-term impacts on wildlife habitat associated with cavity-nesters and other 

wildlife associated with woodland habitat, including snags. However, woodland harvest would 

also provide edge habitat that would benefit several big-game species, including deer, elk, and 

black bear. It would also likely improve long-term habitat by eliminating fuel loading, thereby 

reducing the risk of habitat loss from catastrophic wildland fire. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-596 

4.21.3.7.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would allow up to 88,200 acres of forest and 200,100 acres of 

woodlands to have treatments or be harvested. Accordingly, Alternative D (No Action) would 

have similar impacts to those described for the action alternatives, but to a lesser degree due to 

the lower treatment acreage. 

4.21.4. SUMMARY

In general, the greatest impacts to wildlife habitat would be fragmentation of essential wildlife 

and fisheries habitat due to continued minerals development. In this respect, Alternative B would 

have the greatest impact, followed by Alternatives A and D, the Proposed RMP, and Alternatives 

C and E. However, it should be noted that the difference in fragmentation impacts between these 

alternatives is proportionally less than 10% between the alternative with the least impacts 

(Alternative E) and the most impacts (Alternative B). The impacts of other resource management 

decisions on wildlife would be similarly ranked with Alternative B having the greatest adverse 

impact, followed by Alternatives A and D (No Action), the Proposed RMP, and Alternatives C 

and E. 

4.21.5. MITIGATION MEASURES

The mitigation measures developed to reduce impacts to wildlife and fisheries as a result of the 

implementation of management decisions have already been incorporated into the Management 

Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives (See Chapter 2). These mitigation measures 

would likely reduce significant impacts to wildlife and fishery population viability in the VPA, 

but would not completely avoid adverse impacts to wildlife habitat. 

4.21.6. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts to fishery and wildlife populations due to management of other 

resources would occur due to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation; population isolation 

and reduction; loss of prey base; and ecosystem function. While mitigation measures described 

under Management Common to the Proposed RMP and all Alternatives (See Chapter 2) would 

reduce these impacts to the extent possible, they would still occur to a varying degree under the 

Proposed RMP and alternatives, with the greatest unavoidable impact occurring under 

Alternative B, followed by Alternatives A and D, the Proposed RMP, and Alternatives C and E. 

These unavoidable impacts could limit future expansion of wildlife and fishery populations in 

the VPA, particularly into current suitable habitat that may be unoccupied. 

4.21.7. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Construction of roads and well pads associated with mineral development would provide a shortterm resource use in terms of mineral extraction. However, that use could eventually result in 

long-term fragmentation of wildlife and fisheries habitat. These activities would also increase the 

occurrence of noxious weed infestations competing for water and space with native plants, which 

would likely reduce the long-term habitat productivity of the area. Other competing resource 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.21. Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Vernal RMP 4-597 

uses, such as off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and livestock grazing, provide a short-term 

resource use that would also result in long-term adverse impacts to wildlife and fishery 

populations through disturbance, habitat degradation, and spread of noxious weeds. 

4.21.8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Land categorization for minerals development in the VPA proposes to open, to minerals 

development, approximately 80% to 100% of available habitat for most wildlife and fisheries on 

BLM managed lands in the VPA. The habitat fragmentation associated with this development 

would create an irretrievable impact to wildlife populations by potentially breaking up wildlife 

populations into smaller populations more susceptible to population declines and possible 

extinction from random events. Additionally, this fragmentation would make wildlife movement 

between fragments difficult, as well as decreasing the habitat suitability for large mobile wildlife 

species that may require large habitat areas. This shift to smaller populations and smaller discrete 

habitats would create an irretrievable loss in wildlife productivity until the areas used as access 

roads and for other developments associated with minerals activities were reclaimed. Eventually 

those areas could be restored, so this impact would not necessarily be irreversible. However, 

there is the possibility of an irreversible loss of small isolated wildlife populations due to this 

fragmentation, particularly if reclamation of cleared well pads and roads does not occur within 

20 to 30 years. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-598 

4.22. WOODLANDS AND FOREST RESOURCES

4.22.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives would allow open and/or limited OHV use areas. 

In general, OHV effects would have short-term and long-term adverse and beneficial impacts on 

woodland resources. Adverse impacts would be created by trails leading into formerly 

inaccessible woodland resource areas if the trails were unmanaged and unmonitored: these OHV 

trails would create opportunities for unmanaged and unmonitored woodcutting and/or harvesting 

of woodland products. The indirect adverse effects of open OHV use would be the ruts and 

gullies on steep slopes that would contribute to soil erosion. Long-term beneficial impacts, 

created by increasing managed OHV access to the resource, would tend to improve woodland 

resource management, and allow controlled woodland products harvesting to meet resource 

objectives. 

Mineral and hydrocarbon leasing for oil, natural gas, Gilsonite, and phosphate would be allowed 

under all of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP. These activities would have direct shortterm and long-term adverse effects on woodland resources by removing the resource from 

production and use during the construction and maintenance of well pads, access roads, 

processing facilities, pipelines, or support facilities, until reclamation and re-growth, or for the 

lifetime of a project. 

Woodland resources would be treated or harvested under the Proposed RMP and all of the 

alternatives; however, under the Proposed RMP and Alternative E, non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be managed with prohibitions on woodland and timber 

harvesting and salvage. These prohibitions would have adverse impacts on harvesting 

opportunities in the long term. Prescriptive fire treatments would be applied under all of the 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP. These activities would tend to be adverse in the short term 

and beneficial in the long term. Short-term adverse impacts would result from surface 

disturbance caused by harvesting, chemical and mechanical treatments, reseeding, fire 

suppression, and/or burned areas temporarily denuded of vegetation that would tend to increase 

soil erosion and increase the potential for noxious weed infestation in treated areas. Vehicles and 

equipment used in vegetation and woodland treatments would have short-term adverse grounddisturbing impacts on woodland resources. Long-term beneficial impacts would result from the 

reduction of excessive fuel loads within the treated areas, which would reduce the potential for 

stand-replacing wildland fire; allow public use of woodland products; make improvements to 

woodland habitat; and make improvements in woodland productivity by restoring woodland and 

forest health. Prescriptive fire or other treatments that reduce the number of diseased and/or 

insect-infested trees in the resource area would also have long-term beneficial impacts to 

woodland health. 

Locatable mineral withdrawals would be considered for all of the alternatives, for the Green 

River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park (8,208 acres) and in the Lears Canyon relic vegetation 

area (1,375 acres) for the Proposed RMP, and Alternatives A, B, C, and E. Under Alternative D 

(No Action), the designated acres for these areas would be different than the action alternatives: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-599 

Green River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park would encompass 19,400 acres) and the relict 

vegetations areas in Lears Canyon would include 3,600 acres. These protective measures would 

have direct long-term protection-related beneficial impacts on woodland and forest resources. 

The Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives designate some acreage within the VPA as VRM 

Class I and VRM Class II (as well as VRM Class III and Class IV). The resource-protective 

visual quality objectives of VRM I and VRM II would have direct and indirect beneficial 

impacts on woodland resources by preventing the degradation of the resource from unmanaged 

OHV use which would otherwise potentially lead to noxious weed and invasive species spread, 

and soil erosion. 

Socioeconomically, the impacts of the Proposed RMP and alternatives would have the greatest 

economic benefits under Alternative B because harvesting would be managed to achieve the 

greatest output of forest and woodland products. The Proposed RMP and Alternative D (No 

Action) would have the next highest level of socioeconomic benefit, with the least economic 

benefit under Alternatives C and E. Under the Proposed RMP and each alternative the resource 

would remain available to the public for fuel, timber, Christmas tree cutting, biomass, fence 

posts, pinyon nut gathering, landscaping, and special forest products. The restrictions and/or land 

use designations described under the Proposed RMP, and Alternatives, C and E, and to a lesser 

extent under Alternative D (No Action), would impair woodcutting harvesting. 

The impacts of grazing would have similar impacts for the Proposed RMP and all of the 

alternatives. The impacts would be minor or negligible on woodland resources except along the 

Green and White River riparian corridors where aging, over-mature cottonwood stands are not 

regenerating due to a combination of grazing and lack of flooding conditions. Grazing impacts 

on cottonwoods would be direct and adverse in the short-term and long-term. 

Special Designation Areas are proposed under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives. 

These areas include SRMAs, ACECs, and the identification of stretches along rivers 

recommended for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System. Where riparian 

resources are to be protected, these designations would have direct short-term and long-term 

beneficial, protection-related impacts on woodland resources within the designated areas by 

requiring all surface-disturbing activities to conform to the goals and objectives of a particular 

Special Designation Area. Each ACEC and proposed Wild and Scenic River segment would 

have a management plan created, which would protect specific resources within the area. 

Generally, Wild or Scenic River suitability designation would have long-term beneficial 

protection-related impacts on riparian woodlands. 

Abandoned Mine Lands, Air Quality, Cultural, Wildlife, Paleontology, Wild Horses, and 

Hazardous Materials management actions for the Proposed RMP and alternatives would have 

minor or negligible effects on woodland resources and therefore will not be analyzed further. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-600 

4.22.2. ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

4.22.2.1. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCES

4.22.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP, AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

The Proposed RMP and all of the action alternatives would have direct beneficial and adverse 

affects on woodland resources from fire management, as described under Impacts Common to 

All Alternatives. The beneficial effects of prescribed fire on 156,425 acres of woodlands per 

decade would be to reduce fuel loads, aid in regeneration of some desirable species such as aspen 

and ponderosa pine, and other species, create wildlife snags from burned trees, and reduce the 

level of woodland disease and insect infestation. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP and these alternatives would provide 

approximately three times the beneficial impacts to woodland resources from prescribed fire, 

based on the proposed VPA acreage available for fire treatments. Short-term adverse indirect 

effects from fire treatments would include increased soil erosion and soil loss from steep slopes. 

Off highway vehicle (OHV) use in these areas would have short-term and long-term adverse 

impacts on woodland resources by intensifying the adverse fire-related soil erosion impacts. 

4.22.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would use prescriptive fire on up to 27,950 acres within the Book 

Cliffs RMP area, and manipulate 22,950 acres within the Diamond Mountain RMP area (totaling 

50,900 acres). The types of impacts would be similar to those discussed above for the Proposed 

RMP and the action alternatives, but on a smaller scale. 

4.22.2.2. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCES

4.22.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP

The Proposed RMP would have additional long-term beneficial, protection-related impacts on 

woodland resources by pursuing locatable mineral withdrawals along the White River in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics (6,720 acres), the White River SRMA (1,110 acres), 

Lears Canyon relict vegetation areas (1,375 acres), the Book Cliffs Natural Area (401 acres), and 

in the Green River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park (8,208 acres), totaling 22,814 acres. This 

alternative would provide beneficial resource-protection and use impacts for woodland 

resources, but based on acres of mineral withdrawals pursued under this alternative, the acreages 

would be less than those under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts on woodland resources under this alternative would be the same as discussed under 

Proposed RMP because the management decisions are similar. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-601 

4.22.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

The impacts on woodland resources would be the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP 

because the management decisions are similar. 

4.22.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would have the same types of impacts on woodlands from locatable minerals 

withdrawals as discussed under the Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree. Under Alternative C, 

a total of 36,265 acres would be withdrawn in the Book Cliffs Natural Area, along the Green 

River Scenic Corridor, in Lears Canyon, and within the Lower Green River ACEC. Compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would provide more beneficial resource-protection 

and use impacts for woodlands because more area would be protected from mineral surface 

disturbances. 

4.22.2.2.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would have beneficial protection-related impacts on woodland 

resources that would include 19,400 acres within the Green River Scenic Corridor, 3,600 acres of 

relict vegetation, 7,900 acres in the Lower Green River ACEC, and 5,000 acres within developed 

and potential recreation sites, totaling 35,900 acres. 

4.22.2.2.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts of lands and realty decisions would be similar to the discussion under Alternative C, 

except that approximately 131,809 acres of woodlands within non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be managed as ROW exclusion areas and closed to disposal of mineral 

materials. This would have long-term, beneficial impacts on woodland resources by prohibiting 

ROW-related surface disturbances and maintaining woodland productivity within these areas. 

The alternative would have more beneficial impacts on woodland resources than Alternative D 

(No Action) because protection would be applied to the resource. 

4.22.2.3. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCES

4.22.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP

The impacts of mineral exploration and development are described under subsection 4.20.1 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Under the Proposed RMP, approximately 18,860 acres of 

woodlands could be directly and adversely affected by short-term and long-term minerals 

impacts from oil and gas development. This alternative would adversely impact approximately 

648 more woodland acres than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, approximately 18,971 acres of woodlands could be directly and adversely 

affected within the VPA by short-term and long-term surface disturbance-related impacts from 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-602 

oil and gas development, with those impacts discussed under subsection 4.20.1 above. This 

alternative would adversely impact approximately 759 more acres than Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.22.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, approximately 19,033 acres of woodlands could be adversely affected in 

the short-term and long term by minerals development, with impacts as discussed under 

subsection 4.20.1. This alternative would adversely impact approximately 821 acres more than 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under this alternative, approximately 18,757 acres could be adversely affected in the short-term 

and long-term by minerals development. This alternative would impact approximately 545 acres 

less than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) could adversely affect approximate 18,212 acres of woodland 

resources in the short term and long term from the development of oil and gas resources. The 

impacts would be caused by surface disturbances discussed above under subsection 4.20.1. 

4.22.2.3.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under this alternative, approximately 17,469 acres could be adversely affected in the short-term 

and long-term by minerals development. This alternative would impact approximately 743 acres 

less than Alternative D (No Action). 

In summary, and based on the number of acres potentially disturbed by oil and gas minerals 

activities, and in comparison to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative B would have the most 

long-term adverse impacts on woodland resources, followed by Alternative A and the Proposed 

RMP, then Alternative D (No Action). Alternatives E and C would have the least adverse 

impacts on woodland resources from minerals-related surface disturbances. As discussed under 

Impacts Common to the Proposed RMP and All Alternatives above, the adverse impacts to 

woodland resources would be caused primarily by the loss of resource production and 

availability of woodland products during the lifetime of minerals projects. Direct, long-term 

adverse impacts to woodlands management would include well pads, support facilities, and 

access roads created by developing minerals areas in woodlands. 

4.22.2.4. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

WOODLANDS

Areas with non-WSA wilderness characteristics would be managed under the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative E, with management decisions that include prohibitions on woodland harvesting and 

salvage (but allowing vegetation and fuel reduction treatments). Under the Proposed RMP, these 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-603 

lands would be designated as VRM Class II, closed to oil and gas leasing, and allow OHV travel 

along designated routes. Under Alternative E, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be closed to cross-country OHV access, designated as VRM Class I, closed to minerals 

leasing, and excluded from ROW designation. These decisions would have beneficial and 

adverse impacts on woodland resources: closing non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

to woodland harvesting and OHV access would preserve the resource by beneficially reducing 

direct and indirect impacts from surface disturbances within these areas (e.g., soil compaction 

and erosion, increased fire risks from motorized OHVs, an increased potential of invasive 

species invasion and replacement of woodland resources); long-term, adverse impacts would be 

produced by the reduced opportunities for woodland harvesting within the VPA. 

4.22.2.5. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCES

4.22.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would manage 2,831 acres along the White River as an SRMA. Designating 

and managing other SRMAs areas on Blue Mountain (42,729 acres), Red Mountain-Dry Fork 

(24,259 acres), Pelican Lake (1,014 acres), Browns Park (18,490 acres), Fantasy Canyon (69 

acres), and Nine Mile Canyon (44,168 acres). These management decisions would have direct 

long-term, beneficial impacts on woodland resources by restricting OHV use to designated trails 

and managing recreational woodcutting on a total of 133,560 acres of area proposed as SRMAs. 

This alternative would provide more protection to woodland resources than Alternative D (No 

Action), which would continue to manage 87,931 acres of SRMAs. 

4.22.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would manage 24,183 acres along the White River as an SRMA. In the proposed 

White River SRMA, the restriction of surface-disturbing activities would be of up to one mile 

from the up to 1⁄2 mile from center- line of the river corridor and would have direct beneficial 

impacts to woodland resources by restricting OHV travel in the river corridor. This restriction 

would reduce recreation-related impacts to cottonwood stands along the river corridor. Under 

Alternative A, designating and managing portions of the White River, other SRMAs areas on 

Blue Mountain (42,758 acres), in the Book Cliffs (273,486 acres), Browns Park (52,720 acres), 

and Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 acres) as SRMAs would have direct long-term beneficial impacts 

on woodland resources by restricting OHV use to designated trails and managing recreational 

woodcutting. This alternative would manage and protect a total of 499,620 acres within SRMAs, 

including woodlands. This alternative would provide more protection for woodland resources 

than Alternative D (No Action) because of the substantially increased acreage proposed for 

management under SRMAs (a 568% increase over current management). 

4.22.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, unspecified or minimal management oversight of recreational use would 

have direct, major, adverse impacts on woodland resources caused by unlimited and unconfined 

recreation within the VPA. Off highway vehicle use, however, would be limited to designated 

trails, reducing unmanaged access to woodland areas. The White River, Blue Mountain, Fantasy 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-604 

Canyon, and Book Cliffs SRMAs would not be designated under this alternative. However, 

Alternative B would continue to manage the existing Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, Pelican 

Lake, and Red Mountain-Dry Fork SRMAs with the same acreages as Alternative D (No Action) 

(86,454 acres), which would have direct beneficial protection-related impacts on woodland 

resources. The impacts under this alternative would have the same impacts on woodlands 

resources as current management under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.5.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Alternatives C and E would manage 47,130 acres along the White River as an SRMA, 42,729 

acres at Blue Mountain, 273,486 acres in the Book Cliffs, 52,720 acres in Browns Park, 81,168 

acres in Nine Mile Canyon, and 69 acres in Fantasy Canyon, 1,014 acres at Pelican Lake, and 

24,259 acres at Red Mountain-Dry Fork. The impacts would be similar to those discussed under 

Proposed RMP, but to a greater degree, because more area (a total of 522,604 acres) would be 

managed as SRMAs that would provide protection to and management of woodland resources. 

Thus, this alternative would provide more protection for woodland resources than Alternative D 

(No Action). 

4.22.2.5.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), unspecified or minimal management oversight of recreational 

use would have direct, major, adverse impacts on woodland resources. The areas open to crosscountry OHV use and limited to designated trails would continue under current conditions, 

which would have direct, adverse impacts on woodland resources from unmanaged harvesting, 

unmanaged access to the resource from unmanaged road and trail development, soil erosion, 

vegetation trampling, and the increased risks of wildland fire. There would be no specified 

monitoring of dispersed camping-related firewood use or other recreational uses of woodland 

resources, which would have direct adverse impacts on the resource. The White River, Blue 

Mountain, and Book Cliffs SRMAs would not be designated under this alternative, but the 

existing SRMAs (as described under Alternative B) would continue to be managed for the 

protection of woodland resources, totaling 86,454 acres. 

In summary, Alternatives C and E would provide the most protection to woodland resources, 

followed by the Proposed RMP and Alternative A. Alternatives B and D (No Action) would 

provide the least protection to woodland resources. 

4.22.2.6. IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED/RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCES

4.22.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP, AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C AND E 

Under the Proposed RMP and the action alternatives, managing the browse in riparian areas for 

woody species would have direct long-term beneficial affects on aging cottonwood stands. 

Proper grazing use of woody vegetation and allowing the recruitment and recovery of woody 

species would have a major long-term beneficial impact on restoring healthy cottonwood stands 

along riparian corridors. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-605 

No surface disturbance on slopes greater than 40% (under Alternatives C and E),erosion control 

measures on 21%–40% percent slopes (under the Proposed RMP and Alternative A) and greater 

than 20% slope erosion control measures under Alternative B would produce direct long-term 

beneficial effects on woodland stands by reducing the impacts associated with woodland 

treatments, particularly prescribed fire treatments. The Proposed RMP and these alternatives 

would provide more protection of woodland resources than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would allow grazing within riparian areas without regard for woody 

riparian species, and only prohibit surface disturbances to minerals-related activities on slopes 

greater than 40%. This would have direct, adverse, long-term impacts on woodland resources 

where recruitment of riparian woody species is necessary to maintain woodland areas for 

biological and genetic diversity. 

In summary, Alternatives C and E would provide the most protection to woodland resources, 

followed by the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, and then Alternative B. Alternative D (No 

Action) would provide the least riparian and soils-related protection to woodland resources. 

4.22.2.7. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCES

Under management common to the Proposed RMP and all action alternatives, the Pariette 

Wetlands ACEC (10,437 acres), Red Creek Watershed ACEC (24,475 acres), and Lears Canyon 

ACEC (1,375 acres) designated under the current RMP would be re-designated. These ACECs 

would be managed to protect high value wetland and plant habitat, wildlife habitat, and relict 

vegetation and would have direct, beneficial, long-term protection-related impacts on woodland 

resources. The proposed Nine Mile Canyon and Lower Green River ACECs would be managed 

to protect relict vegetation and would be expanded under some alternatives, which would also 

have direct, long-term protection-related beneficial impacts on woodland resources. 

The management of riparian woodlands along river stretches under the National Wild and Scenic 

River System would have direct, long-term beneficial effects on woodland resources by 

protecting riparian woodland habitats. Long term, beneficial impacts on riparian woodlands 

would result from continued protection of the Lower Green River Corridor, and Upper and 

Lower Green River segments under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. 

A comparison of acreages by alternative is located in the Chapter 4 Special Designations (section 

4.16), and a summary of resources to be protected is located in the discussion in Chapter 3 

Special Designations (section 3.16). 

4.22.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would designate Browns Park (18,490 acres), the Lower Green River (8,470 

acres), Nine Mile Canyon (44,168 acres), and Red Mountain-Dry Fork complex (24,285 acres) 

as ACECs (totaling 131,700 acres that includes the ACECs discussed above in subsection 

4.20.2.6) with long-term beneficial, protection-related impacts to woodland resource. Lears 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-606 

Canyon would be managed to protect relict vegetation; and the Lower Green River would be 

managed to protect riparian habitat, including cottonwood and willow woodlands. All of the 

proposed ACECs would be managed to protect and prevent damage to important cultural or 

scenic values, wildlife habitat, or ecosystem processes, which would indirectly protect woodland 

resources from surface disturbances. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), which would 

maintain the currently established and designated ACECs within a total of 165,944 acres, the 

impacts to woodlands would be similar. 

With the exception of protected Upper and Lower Green River segments as discussed above, the 

Proposed RMP would not identify any other river segments as suitable for WSR designation, 

which would provide less protection to riparian woodlands along White and Green River 

segments than Alternative D (No Action). Under Alternative D (No Action), suitability findings 

would not be made on either the White or Green rivers, but would continue protection of eligible 

segments along the White River, and Upper and Lower Green River. 

4.22.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would designate Bitter Creek (68,834 acres), the Lower Green River (10,170 

acres), Coyote Basin-Snake John-Kennedy Wash (87,743 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (48,000 

acres), Red Mountain-Dry Fork (24,285), Browns Park (52,721 acres), and the White River 

corridor (17,810) as ACECs and the three ACECs discussed above under current management 

(Lears, Pariette, and Red Creek). These ACECs would have a total area of 345,850 acres that 

would have the same impacts to woodlands as discussed under the Proposed RMP, but to a 

greater degree, because more acreage would be protected within ACECs. Alternative A would 

have the same impacts on proposed Wild and Scenic River segments as discussed under the 

Proposed RMP alternative. 

This alternative provides more long-term, beneficial protection-related impacts on woodland 

resources than Alternative D (No Action). Under alternative A, 345,850 acres (179,906 more 

acres than Alternative D) would be designated or maintained as ACECs when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

This alternative proposes ACEC designation and management of 18,474 acres in Browns Park, 

47,659 acres in Coyote Basin, 44,181 acres in Nine Mile Canyon, and 24,285 acres in Red 

Mountain-Dry Fork ACECs. Including the ACECs carried forward under current management 

(Pariette, Lears, and Red Creek ACECs, the total acreage within ACECs under this alternative 

would be 170,886 acres. Alternative B would recommend designation of the Lower and Upper 

Green River as suitable for consideration as Wild and Scenic (a decision common to all 

alternatives). Under this alternative, there would be more beneficial impacts to woodlands from 

ACEC designation because more area (4,942 more acres than under Alternative D) would be 

designated or maintained as ACECs when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-607 

4.22.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

Alternatives C and E would affect woodland resources by designating Bitter Creek and Bitter 

Creek/PR Spring (147,425 acres), 52,721 acres in Browns Park, the Coyote Basin Complex 

(124,161 acres), Four Mile Wash (50,280 acres), the Lower Green River (10,170 acres), Main 

Canyon (100,915 acres), the Middle Green River (6,768 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 

acres), Red Mountain-Dry Fork (24,285 acres), and the White River corridor (47,130 acres) as 

ACECs. In addition to the Lear, Pariette, and Red Creek ACECs brought forward under current 

management, the total acreage of proposed ACECs would be 681,310 acres. The types of 

impacts to woodlands would be the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP, but to a greater 

degree, because more acres of riparian and upland woodlands would receive protection within 

these special designation areas. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have substantially more 

beneficial impacts to woodlands because 515,366 more acres would be protected (and the 

woodlands within them) under these alternatives than under the No Action. 

In addition to segments along the Upper and Lower Green Rivers, Alternatives C and E would 

recommend segments of the White River (approximately 44 miles), Nine Mile Creek 

(approximately 19 miles), the Middle Green River (36 miles), and Evacuation Creek (21 miles), 

Bitter Creek (22 miles), and Argyle Creek (22 miles) as suitable for designation into the 

NWSRS. The designation of these segments would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

woodland resources by providing more resource protection for woodland riparian resources and 

biodiversity, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Under Alternative E, 197,170 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics lie within 

proposed ACECs. These areas would be managed to prohibit woodland harvesting or salvage, 

which would have long-term, adverse impacts on harvesting opportunities and long-term, 

beneficial impacts on resource preservation and productivity. These acreages would be available 

for fuels reduction treatments, so there would be indirect, long term, beneficial impacts to 

woodlands from the reduced risks of stand-altering wildland fire. 

4.22.2.7.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Management actions under Alternative D (No Action) would not designate any new ACECs or 

recommend new river segments for consideration as Wild and Scenic. Management of current 

ACECs would continue under existing management actions and goals, which would include 

165,944 acres of currently designated ACECs, and continued protection of segments along the 

White River, and the Upper and Lower Green Rivers. 

Special Designation decisions would have the most long-term beneficial impacts under 

Alternatives E and C, followed by Alternatives A and B, then Alternative D (No Action), based 

on the number of woodland acres protected under ACEC integrated activity plans, and actions to 

control and enhance woodland resources. The Proposed RMP would have the least beneficial 

impacts on woodland resources within proposed ACEC special designation areas. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-608 

4.22.2.8. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL/ROADS/TRAILS DECISIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCES

4.22.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would allow for the improvement and/or development of up to 800 miles of 

motorized trails. The impacts would be both adverse and beneficial. Developing 800 miles of 

motorized trails would have indirect adverse impacts on woodland resources by potentially 

increasing soil erosion rates along the trail system, introducing noxious weeds, and increasing 

the potential for unmanaged, unmonitored woodcutting. Expanding the potential access to 

woodland resources if woodland resources activities are regulated and monitored would produce 

beneficial impacts. Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres of Non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to woodland harvesting, which would have adverse impacts on 

harvesting opportunities in the long term. 

Developing trails (400 miles of mechanized [non motorized]) along the Green River and in other 

riparian areas would have direct long-term, adverse impacts on cottonwood habitat and the relict 

stands in the riparian corridor. Assuming that campers would use riparian cottonwood as 

firewood, and considering that riparian cottonwood stands are relict, aging, and without 

recruitment, this would have a major adverse impact on riparian woodland species. 

New, permitted roads and trails would be obliterated and/or reclaimed after serving their useful 

purposes. This would have direct and indirect beneficial impacts on woodland resources by 

recreating woodlands habitat and reducing adverse impacts caused by potential soil erosion 

conditions. The Proposed RMP (also Alternatives A, C, and E) would prohibit OHV use for offtrail big game retrieval (Alternative D, No Action, is unspecified). The impacts of this 

management decision would be beneficial and long-term for woodland resources by reducing the 

unmanaged extension of OHV trails and reducing the potential for soil erosion and noxious weed 

spread from these trails. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP provides more protection for 

woodland resources because opportunities for open, cross-country OHV surface disturbances 

within woodlands would be greatly reduced; however, opportunities for woodland harvesting 

would be reduced, in comparison to Proposed, because of harvesting prohibitions in non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.22.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts of travel decisions under this alternative would be the same as discussed above 

under the Proposed RMP because the management decisions would be the same. 

4.22.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B proposes OHV use for big game retrieval off of designated routes (the only 

alternative that proposes this management decision), which would have short-term and long-term 

direct and indirect adverse impacts on woodland resources as described under Impacts Common 

to All Alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-609 

Alternative B would not propose obliteration or reclamation of permitted roads and trails, and 

800 miles of motorized trails would be developed or improved. This management action would 

have long-term direct and adverse impacts on woodland resources by potentially creating 

opportunities for unmanaged, unregulated woodcutting and woodland products harvesting. 

Indirect, adverse impacts would be created by increasing soil erosion rates along these roads and 

trails, as they are widened and expanded by OHV use. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), 

these alternatives would have similar impacts to woodland resources. 

4.22.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would not allow for improvement or development of up to 800 miles of motorized 

trails within the VPA. Indirect long-term beneficial and adverse impacts would be the reverse of 

those described for the Proposed RMP: there would be less potential for soil erosion caused by 

trails, but the ability to access woodland resources for resource management and/or harvesting of 

woodland products also would be reduced, which would have long-term adverse access-related 

impacts on woodland resource management. 

Developing trails (400 miles of mechanized [non motorized]) along the Green River and other 

riparian areas, under Alternative C, would have direct adverse impacts on cottonwood habitat 

and the relict stands, as described under the Proposed RMP. 

Under Alternative C, new, permitted roads and trails would be obliterated and/or reclaimed after 

serving their useful purposes. The impacts would be similar to those described under the 

Proposed RMP and therefore would provide more beneficial impacts to woodland resources than 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.8.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

This alternative would develop approximately 55 miles of trails along riparian corridors, with 

adverse impacts to woodland resources similar to those described for Alternatives A and C, but 

on a smaller scale. 

Alternatives D (No Action) would not propose obliteration or reclamation of permitted roads and 

trails. The impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative B. 

4.22.2.8.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would have similar impacts as Alternative C, except there would be less potential 

for adverse soil erosion impacts to woodland resources caused by trails because 57 miles of 

OHV travel routes would be closed to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

These travel route closures would also adversely reduce woodland harvesting and salvage 

opportunities in the long term because these closures could potentially restrict or prevent access 

to areas where harvesting would be permitted. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-610 

In summary, the Proposed RMP and Alternative A would have the greatest beneficial protectionrelated impacts on woodland resources, followed by Alternatives C and E. Alternatives B and D 

would have the least beneficial impacts on the resource. 

4.22.2.9. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCES

4.22.2.9.1. PROPOSED RMP, AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C AND E 

Vegetation decisions to use prescribed fire treatments on 156,425 acres per decade for the 

Proposed RMP and all of the action alternatives would have impacts similar to those described 

under Fire Management and in subsection 4.20.1. The Proposed RMP and these alternatives 

would provide approximately three times the beneficial impacts to woodland resources, through 

fire treatments and vegetation manipulation, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.9.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

The impacts of prescribed burning and vegetation manipulation (described in subsection 4.20.1) 

for Alternative D (No Action) would be similar to the action alternatives, but less in scope than 

the other alternatives. 

4.22.2.10. IMPACTS OF VISUAL DECISIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCES

4.22.2.10.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, the impacts of VRM Class I and Class II designations in the VPA on 

woodland resources would be both adverse and beneficial. Direct, long-term beneficial impacts 

would result from the preservation of biodiversity in woodland areas; direct, long-term adverse 

impacts would result from the limitations on woodland treatments for disease, infestations, and 

excessive fuel loading in designated VRM Class I and VRM Class II areas so that scenic quality 

is preserved and the VRM class objectives are met. In particular, the limitation would be on 

prescribed burning or other fire management treatments in these areas where burning or other 

treatment impacts would exceed surface disturbance-caused visual contrast limits for the VRM 

class objectives. The VRM Class III and Class IV designations would impose fewer restrictions 

on woodland resources, which would be beneficial in reducing fuel loads and subsequently 

reducing the risks of wildland fire. The impacts from the Proposed RMP would be the same as 

Alternative D (No Action), but greater in scope, as 122,915 more acres within the VPA would be 

designated at VRM Classes I and II under Proposed RMP when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.22.2.10.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts on woodlands from Alternative A visual resource decisions would be the same as 

discussed above under the Proposed RMP, but increased in scope. This is because more area 

would be protected from long term scenic quality degradation: a total of 357,909 acres would be 

designated for scenic protection as VRM Class I and II under this alternative. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-611 

4.22.2.10.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

The impacts of Alternative B would be similar to Proposed RMP, but to a lesser degree, as fewer 

acres would be managed under VRM I and VRM II surface disturbance and visual contrast 

restrictions (a total of 166,794 acres), which is approximately the number of acres designated 

under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.10.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

The impacts would be the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP, except that Alternative C 

would designate more acres as VRM I and VRM II, which would have greater protection-related 

direct and indirect effects on woodland resources than the other alternatives, and larger-scale, 

long-term restrictions on woodland resource access than the other alternatives (except for 

Alternative E) (see Table 4.19.3 in Visual Resources). This alternative would designate 508,441 

acres for scenic quality protection under VRM Classes I and II. This alternative would have more 

adverse impacts on woodland resources, by restricting woodland fire treatments, than Alternative 

D (No Action). Alternative D (No Action) would designate 166,772 acres under VRM Class I 

and II (a difference of 341,669 acres). 

4.22.2.10.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), the impacts of VRM Class I and Class II designations in the

VPA on woodland resources would be both adverse and beneficial, with the same impacts as 

described under the Proposed RMP. This alternative would designate the least number of acres 

under VRM I and II (166,772 acres), thereby providing the least visual resource protection to 

woodland resources, but also having the least number of acres restricted by VRM surface 

disturbance limitations under VRM Class I and II objectives. More acres within the VPA could 

be treated for fire and fuel load reductions, which would have beneficial impacts on woodland 

resources by reducing wildland fire risks. 

4.22.2.10.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts would be the same as Proposed RMP, except that Alternative E would designate 

more acres as VRM Classes I and II than the Proposed RMP and the other action alternatives. 

This would have greater beneficial, protection-related direct and indirect effects on woodland 

resources than the Proposed RMP and the other alternatives, and larger-scale, long-term, adverse 

restrictions on woodland resource access and harvesting opportunities. This alternative would 

also have more adverse impacts on woodland resources, by prohibiting woodland harvesting in 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (managed as VRM I, with prohibitions on OHV 

travel within these areas). Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative E would have 

more beneficial and more adverse impacts on woodland resources, as discussed above, because 

Alternative E would designate a combined 594,210 acres as VRM Class I and Class II, 427,438 

more acres than the Alternative D (No Action). 

In summary, Alternative E would have the highest number of VPA woodland acres designated 

for protection under VRM Classes I and II objectives, followed by Alternative C, then 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-612 

Alternative A and the Proposed RMP. Alternatives B and D (No Action) would provide the least 

VRM protection to woodland resources. 

4.22.2.11. IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCES

4.22.2.11.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 546,152 acres within the VPA would be open to treatments or be 

available for harvesting. The purpose would be to maintain and restore woodlands and forest 

ecosystems to a condition in which biodiversity is preserved, insects and diseases are controlled 

to normal levels, relict stands are maintained, fuel loading is reduced, historical fire regimes are 

restored, and multiple use and sustained yield are allowed through treatments. Approximately 

13,606 acres (within WSAs) and 67,559 acres of woodlands within non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be off-limits to woodland harvesting; however, the 13,606 acres 

of WSAs and the proposed 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would still be available for fuels reduction treatments. The impacts on woodland resources from 

these management decisions would be both directly and indirectly adverse and beneficial: OHV 

use during treatments and woodcutting to access treatment areas and to remove cut wood would 

cause direct short-term surface disturbances, indirectly cause soil erosion, and indirectly create 

conditions that support the introduction and spread of noxious weeds. Beneficial long-term 

impacts would result from these management decisions and are described in subsection 4.20.1. 

The Proposed RMP would have more beneficial impacts to woodland resources than Alternative 

D (No Action) because 257,852 more acres of forest and woodlands within the VPA would be 

available for harvesting or treatments than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.11.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, management actions on up to 552,152 acres of BLM administered land 

within the VPA would have the same impacts as discussed under the Proposed RMP because the 

management decisions are similar. 

4.22.2.11.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

The beneficial and adverse impacts of woodland and forest treatment and non-removal of WSA 

vegetation would be similar to those described for Proposed RMP. Up to 554,108 acres of forest 

and woodlands would have treatments or be harvested, and approximately 13,606 acres (within 

WSAs) would not have vegetation removal, but would still be available for fuels reduction 

treatments. Compared to Alternative D, this alternative would have more beneficial impacts 

because 265,808 more acres of forest and woodlands would be available for treatments or 

harvesting under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.22.2.11.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would have the same impacts as discussed under the Proposed RMP, with the same 

number of acres open to forest and woodland management as Alternative A (552,152 acres) to 

achieve various management goals, and 13,606 acres (within WSAs) off-limits to vegetation 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-613 

removal. This alternative would provide more benefits to woodland resources than Alternative D 

(No Action), with the same impacts as the Proposed RMP because the acreages of affected 

woodlands are similar. 

4.22.2.11.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would allow up to 288,300 acres of woodlands and forest to be treated 

or harvested. Approximately 13,606 acres (within WSAs) would be off-limits to vegetation 

removal, but would still be available for fuels reduction treatments. The impacts to the resource 

would be similar to those described for the Proposed RMP, but on a smaller scale. Woodland 

product salvaging, ecosystem restoration, disease control, fuel load reductions, and relict stand 

preservation management actions are unspecified under this alternative. 

4.22.2.11.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would manage approximately 131,809 acres of woodlands (within the 277,596 

acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics) with private and commercial harvesting 

and salvage prohibitions that would have long term, adverse impacts on woodland harvesting and 

gathering opportunities. Under this alternative, up to 421,133 acres would be available for 

harvesting or treatments. The impacts on woodland resources would be beneficial in the long 

term from maintenance of woodland productivity and preservation of the resource through 

harvesting and/or treatments. This alternative would have more benefits to woodland resources 

than Alternative D (No Action), with similar impacts as discussed under the Proposed RMP. 

4.22.2.12. SUMMARY

4.22.2.12.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would have a highly beneficial impact to woodland resources (more than 

Alternatives B and E, and the No Action) by: 

• Allowing up to 546,152 acres of forest and woodland harvesting or treatments 

• Maintaining and restoring woodlands biodiversity, forest and land health, historical fire 

regimes, and multiple use and sustained yield 

• Allowing prescribed burning on 156,425 acres per decade 

• Closing 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to woodland 

harvesting, while allowing vegetation treatments and fuel load reductions to reduce 

wildland fire risks. 

4.22.2.12.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would provide the second highest level of benefit to woodland resources by: 

• Allowing forest and woodland harvesting or treatments on 552,152 acres (but less than 

Alternative C) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-614 

• Allowing prescribed burning on 156,425 acres per decade 

• Maintaining and restoring woodlands biodiversity, forest and land health, historical fire 

regimes, and multiple use and sustained yield 

4.22.2.12.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

This alternative would provide more beneficial impacts to woodland resources than Alternative 

D (No Action), but less than the other action alternatives, by: 

• Allowing forest and woodland harvesting and treatments on 554,108 acres (the largest 

area of all alternatives) 

• Allowing prescribed burning on 156,425 acres per decade 

• Managing forest and woodland resources for the greatest output of forest and woodland 

products through public harvesting 

4.22.2.12.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

This alternative would have the highest level of woodlands resource protection and benefits, as 

compared to Alternative D (No Action) and the other alternatives, by: 

• Allowing forest and woodland harvesting and treatments on same acreage as Alternative 

A (522,152 acres) 

• Allowing prescribed burning on 156,425 acres per decade 

• Maintaining and restoring woodlands biodiversity, forest and land health, historical fire 

regimes, and multiple use and sustained yield 

• Maintaining relict stands for biological and genetic diversity 

• Providing the highest protection for steep slope disturbances 

4.22.2.12.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

This alternative would provide the least level of protection for and the least beneficial impacts to 

woodland resources by: 

• Providing the least level of fire management or treatments for woodland resources 

(50,900 acres) 

• Allowing forest and woodland harvesting and treatments within the smallest area 

(288,200 acres) 

• Providing the least protection for riparian areas and steep slopes 

• Providing the least protection or treatment to develop healthy, sustainable woodland and 

forest resources 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-615 

4.22.2.12.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

This alternative would provide a high level of woodlands resource protection and beneficial 

impacts by: 

• Allowing forest and woodland harvesting and treatments on 421,133 acres (the least of 

the action alternatives) 

• Allowing prescribed burning on 156,425 acres per decade 

• Providing the highest protection for steep slope disturbances (the same as Alternative C) 

• Closing 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to woodland 

harvesting while allowing fuel load reductions and prescribed burning to reduce wildland 

fire risks 

4.22.2.13. MITIGATION MEASURES

After forest and woodland treatments (including prescribed fire, chemical and/or mechanical 

treatments, and fire suppression), noxious weed infestations would be treated and controlled to 

prevent their spread. 

After forest and woodland treatments, disturbed areas would be reseeded, or replanted, where 

needed if natural regeneration or reestablishment of targeted species is difficult or time sensitive. 

Off highway vehicle use disturbances after firewood sales and/or salvage would be mitigated to 

prevent soil erosion and additional surface disturbances from recreational OHV use, through 

road or trail closing. Off highway vehicle use would be monitored for compliance with OHV 

access and travel restrictions. 

Avoiding unauthorized surface-disturbing activities within delineated riparian areas would 

mitigate impacts to woody riparian species from recreational activity within river corridors. 

Monitoring soil erosion and applying standard erosion control techniques to the area would 

mitigate impacts to soils after treatments. 

4.22.3. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

If the mitigation measures described were implemented, minerals exploration and development, 

trail construction, and woodland and vegetation treatments for fire management would cause 

short-term unavoidable adverse impacts on woodland resources, but no long-term unavoidable 

adverse impacts. 

4.22.4. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short-term uses that would produce long-term losses of resource productivity would include 

failing to prevent noxious weed invasion after disturbances, which could alter successional 

patterns and fire regimes. This type of short-term disturbance would inhibit re-establishment of 

woodland resources in the long-term. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.22. Woodlands and Forest Resources

Vernal RMP 4-616 

4.22.5. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There are no management actions that would irreversibly remove woodland resources and 

prevent their possible restoration. However, noxious weed infestations indirectly resulting from 

fire treatments or wildfire would potentially become irretrievable impacts. Other irretrievable 

impacts would include: 1) prescribed fire, other fire treatments, and vegetation treatments that 

remove the resource until re-growth; 2) harvesting, thinning, or construction-related impacts that 

temporarily remove the resource during the life of a project; 3) uncontrolled wildfire-caused loss 

of woodland resources; and 4) OHV-caused disturbances that inhibit re-growth. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-617 

4.23. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are the effects on the environment from all past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions outside of the scope or not associated with the proposed project. These 

impacts are discussed because the quality of the human environment is the result of many actions 

or factors working together to produce a cumulative effect. The effect of any single action cannot 

be determined by considering that action in isolation. The cumulative impacts discussion that 

follows considers the Proposed RMP and all alternatives in the context of the broader human 

environment, outside the scope and geographic area described in the subsections below. Planning 

projects within the following areas that could contribute to cumulative impacts include Ashley 

National Forest, Dinosaur National Monument, Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Browns Park and 

Ouray National Wildlife Refuges and the Kemmerer, Rock Springs, White River, Little Snake, 

Grand Junction, Price, Salt Lake, and Moab BLM Field Offices. 

4.23.1. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY

The cumulative effects on air quality discussed here should be considered in addition to those 

discussed in previous chapters and under the related resource sections. No past projects or 

actions are anticipated to add to the impacts of any of the management decisions currently being 

considered. 

Present projects or actions are anticipated to add to the impacts of the management decisions 

currently being considered only to the extent that the background concentration of xylene 

utilized for modeling of air quality impacts is 189.48 μg/m3, well above the 100 μg/m3 threshold 

identified by EPA's IRIS as an RfC for the 24-hour average (EPA 1997). However, this 

background concentration is based on data collected in Glenwood Springs, Colorado (the closest 

available monitoring point appropriate to the project area) and most likely represents an 

overestimation of the actual concentrations of xylene within the project area. 

Reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions have the potential to add to the impacts of any 

of the management decisions currently being considered as follows. The primary source of air 

quality impacts from mineral resource development decisions in the VPA is the production of oil 

and gas. The magnitude of air quality impact associated with these activities is directly related to 

the density and intensity with which extraction proceeds. Therefore, air quality impacts 

associated with the Proposed RMP and proposed management alternatives are expected to be 

related to worldwide oil and natural gas production. 

It is reasonable to assume that oil, natural gas, and CBNG exploration and development would 

continue within the project area over the next 15 years. However, if alternative energy sources 

are developed within the VPA and successfully compete on a scale sufficient with traditional 

fossil fuel resources, the demand for fossil fuels may decrease. A decrease in, thereby decreasing 

the demand for oil, natural gas, and CBNG exploration and development would and, 

proportionately, decreasing air quality impacts. Similar decreases would be expected to occur in 

other mineral resource extraction activities and the associated air quality impacts with 

development of alternative energy sources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-618 

Other cumulative air quality impacts would be due to continued increases in prescribed fire use 

for fuels management by both the BLM and other federal agencies. Additionally, human 

population is expected to continue to grow in and around the planning area, with attendant 

increases in pollutants from vehicle emissions as well as from other sources not directly related 

to oil and gas development. 

The air quality modeling performed as part of this analysis considered the air quality impacts of 

both proposed (near-field and far-field) and existing emission sources within the project area. As 

discussed in the specific air quality modeling section and the TSD (Trinity 2003), background 

data in most cases represented an overestimation of existing concentrations, which adds an 

additional margin of safety to the other conservative assumptions discussed previously. It is 

possible, however, that the development proposed by Alternative A, combined with increased 

population growth and usage of the project area, could result in increased pollutant levels above 

those projected by the model. 

The air quality modeling projected an increase in PM10 concentrations within the VPA and 

specific PSD Class II sensitive areas related to management decisions specific to mineral 

extraction. Future, non-project sources of airborne particulate and NOx emissions associated with 

increased traffic in the area could produce potentially substantial cumulative impacts to these 

areas. 

Air quality modeling also projected an increase in ambient 24-hour xylene concentrations 

associated with management decisions specific to mineral extraction. As the existing background 

concentrations exceeded the ambient air quality threshold of 100 μg/m3, the potential exists that 

future, non-project sources of xylene (such as compressors or glycol dehydrators associated with 

non-BLM gas extraction activities) could result in cumulative impacts to air quality in the VPA. 

Air quality modeling for the VPA showed that particulate emissions represent the most probable 

mechanism for visibility impacts. Therefore, an increase in future, non-project sources of PM10, 

and PM2.5, especially if combined with increased SO2 and NO2 emissions, could produce 

potentially substantial cumulative impacts to visibility in the VPA and surrounding areas. 

4.23.2. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Resource decisions from this RMP could combine with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions to produce cumulative impacts to cultural resources and resources of 

religious or traditional importance to Native American tribes associated with the VPA. Resource 

decisions for the areas noted above, which are either adjacent to or within the VPA would likely 

result in few cumulative effects to cultural resources as cultural resources are stationary entities. 

Surface disturbance associated with consumptive uses such as oil, gas, and other minerals 

development, and forage use could result in cumulative effects over a larger landscape scale than 

what is analyzed in this RMP. However, planning decisions in other areas are also subject to 

federal cultural resource laws and application of the Section 106 process of the NHPA. Further, 

general planning decisions of these two entities in relation to land uses and management that has 

the potential to impact cultural resources on adjacent lands within the VPA (i.e., fire fuels 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-619 

reduction, erosion reduction through effective vegetation management, etc.) would generally 

have a positive effect on cultural resources within the VPA. 

Oil and gas development has occurred across this region in the past and would continue into the 

future. Seismic exploration for oil and gas resources is also ongoing. Several environmental 

impact statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs) have been prepared to assess 

these impacts. 

The spatial layout of oil and gas facilities disturbs a large proportion of the ground surface when 

considered across the landscape. Each disturbed area for a well pad or road increases the 

opportunity for both direct and indirect impacts to cultural resource sites. All such development 

is, however, subject to Section 106 of the NHPA, which is used to identify important cultural 

resources within the area of potential effects for these undertakings and consider alternatives to 

avoid or mitigate these impacts. In this manner, the potential for direct and indirect impacts to 

cultural resources can be reduced. 

Many decisions related to visual resource management, special designations, and restrictions on 

surface disturbance in crucial deer winter range have the potential to provide a net positive 

benefit to cultural resources within the VPA. 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 the Proposed RMP and 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 effect an increase in human activity within those areas of minerals development and 

recreational use. Increased human activity tends to equate with increased adverse impacts to 

cultural resources. 

In general, implementation of the array of resource decisions under Alternatives C and E would 

have the lowest degree of potential negative cumulative impact on cultural resources within the 

VPA, and in many cases Alternatives C and E have 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, the Proposed RMP, Alternative A, and Alternative D (No 

Action) have the potential for roughly comparable levels of potential cumulative adverse impact 

to cultural resources. 

Decisions under Alternative B have the greatest potential for adverse cumulative impacts. It 

should always be remembered that under the Proposed RMP and 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., National Register listed sites or sites determined eligible 

for listing on the National Register) within the area of potential effects 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. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-620 

4.23.3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Cumulative effects are a combination of impacts from the Proposed RMP and each alternative 

with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions associated with the project and 

surrounding area. 

Revisions are being made to the Ashley Forest Resource Management Plan and The Price Field 

Office RMP. Depending upon on those decisions, various actions could affect fire management 

within the VPA. Based on the impetus that the federal fire management agencies are placing on 

implementing the Federal Wildland Fire Policy, it is likely that these revisions would include 

vegetation management to decrease fuel loading, and consequently, decreased fire risk. 

Most foreseeable future development within the VPA consists of oil and gas well exploration and 

development. Environmental Impact Statements are being written for field development projects 

in and around the VPA. Depending upon the decisions, various actions could affect fire 

management within the VPA. Most of gas and oil pipelines in and around the VPA are located 

within the desert shrub vegetation community and, hence, do not produce high fire risk. Surface 

gathering lines (3-4" diameter) in these areas are occasionally made of plastic. Service lines up to 

10" in diameter may be placed on the surface. As a Best Management Practice (BMP), water 

lines and service lines greater than 10" diameter are buried. 

4.23.4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Cumulative impacts would be the same for the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives. 

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 effects, 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. If all applicable laws, regulations, safeguards, and procedures were followed, there 

would be no cumulative impacts caused by hazardous materials. 

4.23.5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON LANDS AND REALTY

Cumulative impacts would be the same from the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. City and 

County use plans for surrounding communities could have cumulative impacts where land is 

developed adjacent to BLM lands. Management of existing ROWs not owned by the BLM could 

also have cumulative impacts. Generally, cumulative impacts of lands and realty decisions would 

include an increased potential for development in localized areas adjacent to communities. Such 

developments could alter the open space nature of public lands by having additional visual 

impacts and transforming limited areas into more urbanized settings. The potential for increased 

recreational use in currently unused areas could occur if additional easements are pursued that 

alter the pristine character of some areas. Potential corridor developments in support of energyrelated uses could create large-scale linear visual impacts. State lands that are surrounded by 

BLM land could have impacts from development if these inholdings are improved. The potential 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-621 

for consolidating land ownership patterns could also have impacts in terms of development in 

more remote areas. Impacts could include changes in visual quality, impacts on watersheds, and 

impacts on wildlife habitats. Transportation improvements could also have cumulative impacts. 

4.23.6. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING

Cumulative effects to livestock and grazing could result from activities on adjacent private lands, 

activities scheduled for State and Institutional Trust Land Administration lands, surrounding 

BLM Field Offices, and administrative actions on the Ashley National Forest. Surface-disturbing 

activities such as mineral development can reduce the amount of vegetation available for 

livestock grazing. However, these disturbances have resulted in minor impacts to livestock 

grazing in the past and up to the present. These disturbances are also projected to be minor in the 

future. Activities such as vegetation treatments and fire rehabilitation projects can provide 

additional forage for livestock grazing. Cumulative Impacts on Mineral Resources 

Other reasonable foreseeable actions that impose restrictions on mineral development within the 

VPA boundaries could produce long-term cumulative impacts on mineral resources. Most 

foreseeable future development within the VPA consists of oil and gas well exploration and 

development. These restrictions would reduce the total baseline number of wells that were 

projected in the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario for oil and gas. An average of 

6530 wells is projected on all lands (State, Forest Service, private) within the VPA over the next 

15-20 years if no restrictions are applied. The restrictions are no applied to non-federal (state and 

private) wells. While other restrictions may be applied to non-federal wells, the impacts of such 

restrictions cannot be quantified for this analysis. 

4.23.7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON MINERAL RESOURCES

Other reasonable foreseeable actions that impose restrictions on mineral development within the 

VPA boundaries could produce long-term cumulative impacts on mineral resources. Most 

foreseeable future development within the VPA consists of oil and gas well exploration and 

development. These restrictions would reduce the total baseline number of wells that were 

projected in the reasonably foreseeable development scenario for oil and gas. An average of 

6530 wells is projected on all lands (state, Forest Service, private) within the VPA over the next 

15-20 years if no restrictions are applied. The restrictions are not applied to non-federal (state 

and private) wells. While other restrictions may be applied to non-federal wells, the impacts of 

such restrictions cannot be quantified for this analysis. 

4.23.8. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS 

The analysis of cumulative impacts for areas with wilderness characteristics (designated 

wilderness, WSAs, and areas identified with wilderness characteristics) includes all federal lands 

with wilderness characteristics in Utah that are currently being managed for management of 

wilderness characteristics to protect those values. Under Alternative E, wilderness characteristics 

would be maintained on 277,596 acres. This would make the statewide total of federal lands 

where wilderness characteristics are protected by law or administrative decision to 6,043,632 

acres or about 4.6% of the statewide total. Under the Proposed RMP wilderness characteristics 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-622 

would be maintained on 106,178 acres. This would make the statewide total of federal lands 

where wilderness characteristics are protected by law or administrative decision to 5,772,214 or 

about 1.8% of the statewide total. Alternatives A, B, C, and D would contribute to the loss of 

areas with wilderness characteristics in the region. 

4.23.9. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The cumulative effects of the Proposed RMP and all alternatives that include surface-disturbing 

activities within areas containing significant fossils have the potential to damage this fragile, 

nonrenewable resource. However, existing laws, regulations and policies provide ample 

opportunity to mitigate adverse effects 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 VPA 

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. 

4.23.10. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON RECREATION

The Ashley National Forest is currently undergoing a Forest Management Plan that will establish 

policy for recreation use. Because recreation areas in the VPA are adjacent to areas in the Ashley 

National Forest, plans for recreation could have a cumulative impact on the availability of 

recreational opportunities in the region. Management actions in the Uinta National Forest could 

also affect the availability and quality of recreation in the region. 

The Price Field Office is currently undergoing a Resource Management Plan process. In 

particular, plans for Nine Mile Canyon would affect management in the VPA. 

Dinosaur National Monument draws nationwide visitation for paleontological resources. Many 

of these visitors stay in the area and recreate within the VPA. Plans for Dinosaur National 

Monument to draw visitors could also increase visitation to the VPA. 

Four state parks in the VPA host approximately 260,000 visitors per year, which could contribute 

to both the economic activity attributable to recreation, as well as the potential effects of 

recreation stated above. 

4.23.11. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Past and present actions within the VPA 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 

resulting in the widespread introduction of invasive weeds. Water withdrawals and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-623 

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 other BLM, Park Service and Forest Service planning efforts that target riparian restoration. 

Future impacts on private lands may include both positive and negative impacts as described 

above. 

4.23.12. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS

The mission of the State of Utah Travel Council is to promote tourism throughout the State of 

Utah. The Travel Council currently promotes the VPA as "Dinosaurland," where visitors can 

explore paleontological resources while enjoying the outdoors. The visitation resulting from this 

marketing, when considered together with recreational activities that would occur on federal 

lands, could create a beneficial cumulative impact to the regional tourism industry. 

Dinosaur National Monument draws approximately 300,000 visitors each year. Continued 

visitation will bring additional visitors to the VPA and create a beneficial effect on the tourism 

economy of the area. 

Economic plans completed by Uintah, Daggett and Duchesne 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 affect the economic condition of the 

region by increasing jobs and population. 

The Forest Management Plan for the Ashley National Forest could have a cumulative impact 

with respect to social and economic conditions by either increasing or decreasing tourism 

visitation based on allowable activities. Additionally, if drilling for oil and gas is allowed on the 

forest, it could affect the regional economy by potentially reducing tourism and increasing the oil 

and gas sector of the economy. 

The pace of drilling has risen dramatically in the VPA. From 2003 to 2007 the amount of drilling 

in the area has nearly doubled from just under 300 wells in 2003 to approximately 550 wells 

estimated in 2007 (BLM 2008). Within in VPA, 27 percent of new wells drilled have been in 

Duchesne County (up 17 percent five years previously). One sizeable natural gas project 

occurring within the boundaries of the Price and Vernal BLM planning areas is the West 

Tavaputs Plateau Full Field Development Project. This project proposes 807 natural gas wells to 

be drilled over an 8 year period with the projected life of each well to be 20 years. The 

development of the wells and the long term operation of the wells could lead to increases in 

employment and labor opportunities in Duchesne County. These potential new jobs could "pull" 

people from Vernal, Utah, which is currently the dominant industry depot. With an increase in 

producing wells, Duchesne County could see a rise in production-related revenues, including an 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-624 

increase in property taxes based on the value of production from the West Tavaputs project 

occurring out of the Price Field Office. 

4.23.13. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES

Reasonably foreseeable actions affecting soil and water resources include increased oil and gas 

development on and off of federal lands, road building on and off of federal lands associated 

with increased oil and gas development and mineral exploration, and increased need for water 

supply to support mineral extraction, new road construction, and new recreation facilities. The 

cumulative impacts from these activities would be greater with more surface disturbance and 

with full resource development could be severe. 

Soil productivity would be primarily impacted by surface disturbance and vegetation loss 

associated with these activities, increasing soil erosion and loss, 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, dependent upon structural controls and rock types. These effects may 

have an impact on surface water features, such as springs and perennial flows, and may have an 

economic impact on domestic wells through increased pumping costs. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would present a level of soils and water protection 

balanced between Alternatives B and C/E. Alternative B would favor resource development, and 

more surface-disturbing activities would occur than in the other action alternatives and therefore 

have greater cumulative effects. Alternatives C and E would favor resource protection, and less 

surface-disturbing activities would occur than in the other action alternatives and therefore have 

fewer cumulative effects. Alternative D is the No Action Alternative, and many of the 

management guidelines are unspecified with respect to water, soils, and other resources. 

Cultural, forage, fire management, lands and realty, rangeland improvement, riparian, soil and 

water, special designations, special status species, paleontology, travel, visual resource, wild 

horses, wildlife, and woodlands decisions would cause beneficial or minimal cumulative effects 

to soil and water resources from the Proposed RMP and all alternatives as compared to the 

Alternative D (No Action). Mineral resource decisions would cause adverse cumulative effects 

to soil and water resources. Livestock and recreation resource decisions would cause both 

beneficial and adverse cumulative effects to soil resources. With respect to livestock, trampling 

would be adverse to soils, but proper grazing management would enhance vegetation cover, 

thereby reducing soil erosion. With respect to recreation, open OHV use would be adverse to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-625 

soils. Expanding SRMAs would be adverse by causing increased traffic and recreational 

pressures. 

Outside of BLM lands, resource decisions occurring on other lands managed by state and federal 

agencies (USFS) would have cumulative effects similar to the BLM. Private lands present a full 

spectrum of resource development from full resource development/use (adverse) to resource 

preservation (beneficial). 

4.23.14. 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 

VPA. Surface disturbance associated with consumptive uses such as oil and gas, and minerals 

development, and forage use would result in cumulative effects over a larger landscape scale 

than what is analyzed in this VPA RMP. 

Oil and gas development has occurred across this region in the past and will continue into the 

future. The seismic exploration is also ongoing. Several EISs and EAs have been prepared to 

assess these impacts. 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 building will increase access to sensitive areas Special Status 

Species are dependent upon for survival. 

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, changes 

in OHV use due to increased roads, and rock 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. In addition, some sensitive species may be pushed closer to listing or 

extinction from the cumulative degradation of BLM lands in the long term. Beneficial impacts 

would be obtained with designation of the proposed ACECs, because numerous plant 

populations would be given special management protection within the boundaries of those 

designated areas. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-626 

4.23.15. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

4.23.15.1. ACECS

Adverse impacts would occur mainly from surface-disturbing activities. Impacts could include 

the loss of vegetation resulting in impacts to soils, wildlife habitat, and visual resources. Cooccurring planning projects in the region include the Price FO RMP, and the Ashley National 

Forest Management Plan. Resource decisions for the Price Field Office, which is adjacent to the 

VPA, could also result in cumulative effects. 

4.23.15.2. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Should Congress designate eligible/suitable river segments into the NWSRS, protection of the 

outstandingly remarkable values, tentative classifications, and free-flowing nature of these rivers 

would continue to be protected, but to a greater extent than under the proposed management 

actions. In addition to the BLM protecting wild and scenic values to the extent of its authority, 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would not be able to license any 

hydropower projects within any designated segments. This would preclude any future 

construction of a dam involving Segment A of the White River under Alternatives A, C and E. 

Also, if Congress were to designate Segment B of the White River into the NWSRS with a 

tentative classification of Wild, as proposed under Alternatives A, C and E, all public lands 

within the river corridor would automatically be withdrawn from mineral location and the public 

land laws. In addition, Congress may choose to provide a federal reserved water right for instream flow purposes for any rivers that it designates into the national system, but it would be 

junior to any existing water rights. 

Alternatives C and E favor WSR protection and would recommend the most designated miles of 

river than the other action alternatives and therefore have the fewest adverse cumulative effects 

when considered with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. Alternative B and 

D (No Action) would recommend fewer designated miles of river than the Proposed RMP and 

other alternatives and therefore have greater adverse cumulative effects. The Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A would present a level of WSR protection balanced between Alternatives B and 

C/E. 

4.23.15.3. WILDERNESS

The Proposed RMP and the alternatives would contribute no adverse cumulative impacts to 

Wilderness Study Areas because they are protected by law, regulation and policy. 

4.23.16. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON VEGETATION

Resource decisions from this RMP could, combined with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions, produce cumulative impacts to the vegetation of the VPA. Co-occurring 

planning projects in the region include other Field Office RMPs, and the Ashley National Forest 

Management Plan. Resource decisions for the Price Field Office, which is adjacent to the VPA, 

would likely result in cumulative effects. The same management direction and resource uses 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-627 

occur in both planning areas. The Ashley National Forest management decisions would also 

overlap regarding several of the same resources. Surface disturbance associated with 

consumptive uses such as oil and gas, and minerals development, and forage use would result in 

cumulative effects over a larger landscape scale than what is analyzed in this RMP. 

Oil and gas development has occurred across this region in the past and will continue into the 

future. Several EISs and EAs have been prepared to assess these impacts. The combined amount 

of surface disturbance of these past, present, and future actions would be adverse to vegetation. 

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. 

4.23.17. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

Other management efforts within and outside the VPA 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 VPA 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. 

Specific actions would be required to conform to an area's VRM Class objectives through design, 

camouflage, and/or topographic screening, which would prevent their cumulative impacts on 

visual resources from becoming significant. 

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 VPA. 

Conversely, if planning efforts are not coordinated, scenic quality along the VPA boundary could 

be adversely affected. 

4.23.18. 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 VPA. Co-occurring planning projects in the region include other BLM Field 

Office RMPs, National Forest and Park Service Plans. 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 would result in cumulative 

effects over a larger landscape scale than what is analyzed in this RMP. 

Oil and gas development has occurred across this region in the past and will continue into the 

future. Seismic exploration for oil and gas resources is also ongoing. Several EISs and EAs have 

been prepared to assess these impacts. 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 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. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.23. Cumulative Impacts

Vernal RMP 4-628 

4.23.19. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WOODLANDS

Other management efforts within the VPA 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 VPA 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 VPA consists of oil and gas well exploration and development. Areas 

within the VPA where these activities are being considered include: 

• Altamont–Bluebell 

• the East and West Tavaputs Plateaus 

• Manila–Clay Basin. 

• Monument Butte–Red Wash 

• Tabiona–Ashley Valley 

Other planning efforts in the surrounding areas could have cumulative beneficial impacts on 

woodland resource if inter- and intra-agency coordination were included. Coordination would be 

useful in managing prescribed burns, and wildfires. 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. 

4.23.20. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WILD HORSES

Disease transmission to and from domestic horses on Tribal and private land surrounding the HA 

will likely continue to be an issue with the wild horse herds in the VPA until the movement and 

intermingling of wild horses and Tribal horses is reduced. Trespass of wild horses on Tribal 

lands along the unfenced and partially fenced northern boundary of the Hill Creek HA (Wild 

Horse Bench) and private and state lands in Agency Draw will likely continue. However, the 

areas wild horses are currently using in Wild Horse Bench and Agency Draw were not 

considered crucial to the long-term survival of the herd nor was it included in the original 

delineation of the HA. Wild horses in the southern part of the HA move seasonally between 

public and Tribal lands. During the winter, horses tend to move onto public lands, as Tribal lands 

are higher in elevation. As a result of this seasonal migration, winter census counts for the HMA 

are typically two to three times higher than late summer counts (150–170 horses in winter 

compared 40–50 in summer). Water is also limited on public lands in the summer, and so the 

majority of the horses move back to the Tribal land at that time. Limiting the movement of wild 

horses in this area could reduce or eliminate the portion of the wild horse herd using this area of 

the HA. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-35

4.3. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impacts to the cultural resources of the VPA would primarily result from activities associated 

with surface and subsurface disturbance such as development projects, recreational use/OHV 

travel, and fire management. Impacts may, however, result from specific cultural resource 

management decisions and from non-surface-disturbing activities that create visual and/or 

auditory effects. These latter impacts would apply primarily to sites or locations deemed sacred 

or traditionally important by Native American tribes and used by these groups in such a manner 

that visual obstructions and/or noise levels impinge upon that use. 

Because the majority of cultural resources that have been identified in scoping consist of 

archaeological sites, the primary concern for negative impacts relates to disturbance of the 

artifacts, features, architecture of sites in ways that reduces their integrity, alters their association 

with traditional values, and reduces the potential to recover data. Archaeological data consist of 

both "objects" (in the broad sense of artifacts, architecture, features, etc.), and the horizontal and 

vertical relationships between these objects. Our ability to interpret and understand the past is 

based on recovering not only the material culture of the past in the form of artifacts, buildings, 

and the built environment but the spatial relationships between different aspects of material 

culture. Thus, surface and subsurface disturbances, which not only destroy material culture but 

also destroy the spatial relationships that are key to interpreting that culture, have the greatest 

potential for negative impacts on cultural resources. Impacts can include elimination or reduction 

of the setting and physical integrity of a sacred or other site, including National Register-eligible 

sites, landscapes and cultural theme areas, disruption or reduction of the religious values of sites 

and areas, reduction in the data potential of a site, and damage to traditional collection areas or 

resource sites. In general, impacts on cultural resources from surface disturbance are long-term 

in nature; once an archaeological site has been impacted, the affect typically cannot be reversed. 

Short-term effects from visual or auditory impacts may occur, however, and can often be 

ameliorated or accommodated. 

Potential impacts to cultural resources from the Proposed RMP and the various proposed 

management alternatives are difficult to quantify precisely. The management plan neither 

stipulates precise areas for surface-disturbing activities nor are the precise locations of all 

resources in the zone known. However, it is possible to estimate impacts based on the proposed 

general locations of activities and the relationships of these planning areas to zones of higher and 

lower probability for cultural resources. As discussed in Chapter 3, a geographical model of high 

and low cultural resource site probability has been built utilizing proximity to water, sand dunes, 

pinyon-juniper zones, historical mining districts, and slope. All areas within approximately 1 km 

of permanent water, or within pinyon-juniper vegetation zones, or within areas of sand dunes, or 

within the general area of historical mining districts were considered high site probability zones 

(encompassing approximately 2.7 million acres over the entire region, with about 708,000 acres 

within BLM lands). Areas with greater than 30% slope, or not having any of the high site 

probability factors were considered low site probability zones (encompassing approximately 2.8 

million acres, with about 1.2 million acres within BLM lands). Planning areas and actions in the 

following sections are therefore assessed with regard to how much of the Proposed RMP is likely 

to result in surface-disturbing activities within these zones. While not precise, this method 

enables a quantifiable assessment of probable relative effect(s) of planning actions. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-36

Furthermore, in a number of cases, it is also possible to estimate the number of sites that would 

become either identified or involved in particular types of proposed actions. Class II cultural 

resource inventories in the Vernal area during the 1970s identified the average number of sites 

per square mile in zones of high and low cultural resource sites (see Spangler 1995:228-240). 

These ranged from estimates of 0.13 sites/square mile in low site occurrence zones in the Red 

Wash II survey area (Spangler 1995:233) to 6.5 sites/square mile in high site probability areas in 

the Seep Ridge survey area (Spangler 1995:236). A conservative average of these surveys results 

in an estimation of 4.87 sites/square mile in high site probability zones and 0.93 sites/square mile 

in low site probability areas. For estimating sites along linear projects crossing small portions of 

these zones, the midpoint between these ranges of 2.9 sites/square mile is used. It must be 

stressed that the estimates are based on averages of results from different surveys, are based on a 

number of assumptions, and are therefore best considered a means of gauging relative impacts 

under the Proposed RMP and each alternative. They should be considered a means of 

determining the order of magnitude for numbers of sites involved, rather than precise estimates 

of known numbers of sites. 

Impacts on cultural resources may be indirect and negligible from the Proposed RMP or 

alternative decisions related to forage management, air quality, hazardous materials, livestock 

grazing, riparian area management, soils and watershed management, special status species 

management, visual resource management, and wild horse and wildlife management as they do 

not prescribe specific actions that increase or decrease conditions that directly affect ground 

disturbance—a key consideration in impacts on cultural resources—or secondary affects from 

increased human presence. As such, those actions, determined by the BLM IDT through best 

professional judgment as having little or no potential for impacts on cultural resources, will not 

be considered further in this analysis. All other alternative and the Proposed RMP decisions with 

the potential to impact cultural resources either positively or negatively in a significant way are 

discussed below. 

4.3.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed RMP and all alternatives will comply with federal laws and agency guidelines 

governing the identification, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources and Native 

American sacred/traditional sites and trust assets, including, but not limited to, the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and Executive Orders 13175 and 13007. All undertakings 

under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives are subject to compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA, which mandates the consideration of avoidance or mitigation of adverse impacts on 

cultural resources or traditional cultural places that are either listed on or have been determined 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The BLM has forwarded to the 

Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) a determination that, although in some cases, 

management actions in this plan may have a potential to affect historic properties, there would be 

no adverse affect to these historic properties. Appendix P is SHPO's concurrence with the BLM's 

determination of no adverse affect to historic properties. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-37

Additionally, under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, the BLM will monitor overall 

environmental and resource health and will adjust land uses according to the prescriptions set 

forth in the RMP to provide for healthy and stable resource conditions. 

In general, actions common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives are philosophical or 

procedural in nature and do not include specific actions for which impacts on cultural resources 

can be assessed. However, some decisions crossing the Proposed RMP and all alternatives are 

specific enough to identify potential impacts from them on cultural resources. The effect of noncultural resource related management decisions common to the Proposed RMP and all action 

alternatives on cultural resources can be categorized as those having a potential direct effect and 

those having a potential indirect effect. Management decisions common to the Proposed RMP 

and all alternatives that allow for surface and subsurface disturbance, such as securing 

abandoned mines (many of which are historic), and using chemical, mechanical, and prescription 

fire treatments to manage the effects of wildland fire. Owing to insufficient data related to the 

very small percentage of the VPA that has been inventoried for cultural resources, the exact 

impact of such decisions on specific cultural resources cannot be quantified. Adverse impacts 

from such activities can be avoided or mitigated through adherence to the Section 106 process of 

the NHPA. 

Although it is not possible to precisely estimate the impacts of the decision, motorized camping 

vehicles would be allowed to travel off designated routes on a single path up to 300 feet to access 

an existing disturbed dispersed camp site, except in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and WSA lands. In designated travel route areas, an activity level plan would be 

used to identify areas suitable for camping that would allow motorized vehicles to travel from 

those designated routes. The BLM would monitor dispersed camping activities and would work 

with user groups to address adverse environmental conditions if warranted. If use is such that 

undue environmental impacts are taking place, the BLM would close and rehabilitate damaged 

areas. If monitoring indicates that developed camping is needed, the BLM would evaluate the 

viability of developed campsites. 

The results of this analysis are provided in detail in Section 4.3.2.8, as they are directly related to 

travel decisions along these routes. In summary, the analysis suggests that although the action 

would leave an indeterminate number of cultural resource sites potentially subject to continued 

impacts or new impacts, because the number of open routes would be reduced under the 

Proposed RMP and all alternatives except Alternative D (No Action) (i.e., Proposed RMP and 

Alternatives A, B, C, and E), the number of sites potentially subject to continued or new impacts 

would be reduced unless the no-action alternative is selected. Because a large number of routes 

are open at the present time, and therefore impacts may be presently occurring, reducing the 

number of open routes reduces the potential for new or ongoing disturbance to cultural resource 

sites, and therefore this prescription is generally beneficial to cultural resources. Monitoring of 

impacts from the guideline should help to reduce continuing or new impacts further. 

Conversely, many common management decisions have direct positive impacts on cultural 

resources. In particular, the decision to treat vegetation around important archaeological sites so 

as to reduce the probability and severity of wildland fire impacts on sites provides a direct 

positive benefit to the subject archaeological sites by helping to protect those values that render 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-38

them significant. Other types of management decisions have potential indirect impacts on 

cultural resources. For example, management decisions that call for enforcing land use permits to 

insure no incidental surface and subsurface disturbance, maintaining appropriate grazing/forage 

AUMs to insure stable vegetation cover thereby reducing erosion, requiring dispersed camping, 

or limiting activities in areas of biological soil crusts or special designations, provides an indirect 

benefit to cultural resources by reducing surface and subsurface disturbance and placing tighter 

controls on some land uses. 

Understandably, the actions common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives that have the 

greatest direct impact on cultural resources are those related specifically to said resources. The 

cultural resource decisions common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives are designed to 

follow federal law and agency guidelines and to protect the values of cultural resources that 

make them important, whether these are public values, scientific values, conservation values, 

experimental values, or traditional values. As such, these decisions common to the Proposed 

RMP and all alternatives would be made within a decision-making environment that requires 

balanced stewardship of cultural resources within the VPA. In particular, these decisions must 

consider human burials and associated burial goods under both the NAGPRA and the ARPA. 

The decisions also insure adherence to the Section 106 process of the NHPA for all BLM 

authorizations of land and resource use and codify the importance of appropriate levels of 

consultation and interaction with Native American tribal groups to assure that the concerns of 

indigenous peoples are addressed and their rights protected as the BLM makes management 

decisions. 

Special designations, such as ACECs, WSAs, and Wild and Scenic Rivers, common to the 

Proposed RMP and all alternatives should also afford indirect benefit to cultural resources 

through the restriction, in some cases, of surface disturbances as part of the designation. Seven 

existing ACECs in the region, Browns Park, Nine Mile Canyon, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, Red 

Creek Watershed, Pariette Wetlands, the Lower Green River Corridor, and Lears Canyon, would 

be maintained under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. Some of the alternatives have 

expanded ACECs, however the Proposed RMP does not. The ACEC designation will provide 

some protection through additional management prescriptions. Furthermore, the Pariette 

Wetlands and Lears Canyon ACECs will be managed as NSO and closed to mineral material 

disposal, which should also reduce potential impacts to cultural resources. The Pelican Lake 

SRMA is designated NSO under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, which should afford 

protection to cultural resources. Wild and Scenic River designations, such as the existing Upper 

and Lower Green River designations, also offer indirect benefit as these areas are managed as 

NSO 0.25 mile from the high water line of the river as per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

4.3.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

Proposed actions under the Proposed RMP and each alternative have the potential for different 

degrees and kinds of impacts on cultural resources within the VPA. It must be remembered, 

however, that regardless of the level of potential impacts under a given alternative or the 

Proposed RMP, decisions with the potential to impact cultural resources that would require 

further permitting or analysis, such as permitting particular oil and gas operations, developing 

rangeland improvements such as guzzlers or fences, conducting a prescribed burn, or developing 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-39

a campground are subject to the Section 106 process of the NHPA before they can be authorized. 

As part of this process, if it is determined that there are any known or potential impacts to 

cultural resources that are either listed on or have been determined eligible for listing on the 

NRHP, alternatives must be developed that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects 

on historic properties. Because of these protective measures, over management of the area in the 

past there have been minimal negative impacts to cultural resources. It is frequently possible to 

identify resources in advance and either avoid these resources or develop mitigation strategies to 

reduce the negative impact to the resource. 

4.3.2.1. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resource decisions under the Proposed RMP and the various alternatives include direct 

site protection and interpretation measures. Cultural resource decisions include provisions for 

establishing on- and off-site interpretive facilities at appropriate cultural resource sites in a 

manner that does not adversely impact the resource. Sites selected for interpretation would be 

ranked higher in public use values than in other site values such a scientific, conservation, or 

experimental values. Sites with high traditional values to Native American tribes would not be 

designated for interpretation unless tribal approval was granted. Decisions to provide interpretive 

facilities both on- and off-site have generally positive short-term effects on cultural resources 

within the VPA. Through interpretation, the public can be educated about the value of cultural 

resource sites and the necessity to refrain from damaging them. 

Indirect effects to cultural resources from cultural resource decisions under many alternatives are 

limited. In the short-term, limiting OHV travel to designated routes in areas of high site density 

may encourage OHV users to move their activities to other areas. Additionally, limiting OHV 

travel to designated routes may increase traffic along the designated routes and indirectly impact 

resources. As such a small percentage of the VPA has been inventoried for cultural resource 

sites, it may not be possible to proactively assess the potential impact on cultural resources 

resulting from shifts in location of OHV activity in light of travel restrictions in some areas. 

Indirect impacts may also result from decisions to provide on- and off-site interpretive facilities. 

Increasing the awareness of the public that cultural resources are present in a given area would 

encourage some land users to intentionally seek out cultural resource sites for exploration and 

looting. Such incidental impacts are, however, expected to be quite limited. 

4.3.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Cultural resource decisions under the Proposed RMP would limit OHV travel to designated 

routes in areas of high cultural resource site density such as the Uinta Foothills (33,059 acres), 

Little/Devils Hole (10,878 acres), Upper Willow Creek (4,304 acres), and Four Mile Wash (ca. 

560 acres). Such OHV travel prescriptions would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources 

as compared to the current management situation by reducing the frequency of OHV use as well 

as the intensity of surface disturbance related to OHV use. Additionally, OHV travel 

prescriptions should reduce the number of cultural resource sites that are exposed to OHV use 

overall. Oil and gas leasing would still be allowable in these areas under the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-40

Other cultural resource decisions under the Proposed RMP include provisions for establishing 

on- and off-site interpretive facilities at appropriate cultural resource sites in a manner that does 

not adversely impact the resource. 

4.3.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Cultural resource decisions under Alternative A would limit OHV travel to designated routes in 

areas of high cultural resource site density such as the Uinta Foothills (33,059 acres), 

Little/Devils Hole (10,878 acres), Upper Willow Creek (4,304 acres), and Four Mile Wash (ca. 

560 acres). Such OHV travel prescriptions would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources 

as compared to the current management situation by reducing the frequency of OHV use as well 

as the intensity of surface disturbance related to OHV use. Additionally, OHV travel 

prescriptions should reduce the number of cultural resource sites that are exposed to OHV use 

overall. Oil and gas leasing would still be allowable in these areas under Alternative A. 

Other cultural resource decisions under Alternative A include provisions for establishing on- and 

off-site interpretive facilities at appropriate cultural resource sites in a manner that does not 

adversely impact the resource. 

4.3.2.1.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Direct positive impacts to cultural resources resulting from cultural resource decisions under 

Alternative B are similar to those described for the Proposed RMP, however, the magnitude of 

their impact is reduced for some decisions. Under Alternative B, on- and off-site interpretive 

facilities would still be developed, but they would only be established as part of mitigation of 

impacts for authorized or permitted activities; implementation of interpretive programs would 

not be proactive or independent of mitigation. 

Decisions on the restriction of OHV travel to designated routes in areas of high cultural resource 

site density are identical to those described for the Proposed RMP. 

4.3.2.1.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Cultural resource decisions under Alternative C are similar to those under the Proposed RMP and 

would have a higher direct positive impact on cultural resources within the VPA than under any 

alternative. Cultural resource decisions under Alternative C would eliminate both oil and gas 

leasing and OHV travel in the areas of high cultural resource site density noted previously. The 

other action alternatives permit oil and gas leasing in these areas but restrict OHV travel to 

designated routes. The closure of these areas would significantly reduce potential and ongoing 

impacts to cultural resources as compared to the current management situation and other action 

alternatives by substantially reducing levels and frequencies of surface disturbance. 

Under Alternative C, on- and off-site interpretive facilities would be established at all 

appropriate cultural resource sites in a manner that does not adversely impact the resource. Such 

interpretive facilities would be established proactively and independent of mitigation for 

authorized or permitted undertakings. Sites with high traditional values to Native American 

tribes still would not be designated for interpretation unless tribal approval was granted. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-41

4.3.2.1.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under the current management situation, the four identified high cultural resource site density 

areas (Uinta Foothills, Little/Devils Hole, Upper Willow Creek, and Four Mile Wash) would be 

open to oil and gas leasing with standard lease stipulations and OHV travel. Such a situation 

increases the possibility, over other alternatives, that important cultural resource sites would be 

damaged or destroyed by surface disturbance. 

Under the current management situation, interpretive facilities would be developed at the Old 

Rock Saloon site and Nine Mile Canyon area. Further, a self-guided tour of important structures 

and locations in the Browns Park area would be implemented. The direct impact of such 

interpretive facilities on educating the public about good site stewardship would be similar to 

that described under the Proposed RMP but would be somewhat reduced in scope as fewer 

facilities would be developed. 

4.3.2.1.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts on cultural resources would be similar to those discussed under Alternative C 

because the proposed decisions are the same. 

4.3.2.1.7. SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS

Overall, Alternatives C and E would provide the greatest benefit to cultural resources by 

eliminating oil and gas development and OHV travel in specific areas of high site density, and by 

establishing interpretive facilities at the greatest number of locales. The Proposed RMP would 

provide less benefit because oil and gas development would continue to be allowed in areas of 

high site density. Alternatives B and D would provide the least benefit to cultural resources 

because fewer restrictions would be placed on minerals development and OHV travel. 

4.3.2.2. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Fire management decisions would primarily have direct and indirect effects that vary in kind 

over the short- and long-term. Depending on the flame height, temperature, and duration of fires, 

prescribed burns as well as associated pre-burn vegetation treatments and post-burn 

rehabilitation activities can have a negative impact on cultural resources by damaging or 

destroying combustible artifacts and features, damaging artifacts, features, rock art, aspen art, 

and sites through surface disturbance, altering the provenience of artifacts through surface 

disturbance, and altering the accuracy of scientific tests (e.g., radiocarbon, obsidian hydration, 

and residue analysis). These direct effects are the same over both the short- and long-terms. 

Furthermore, once denuded by prescribed fire, there may be additional negative impacts to 

cultural resources in the short-term due to increased erosion on archaeological sites, which can 

displace artifacts and reduce their interpretive value. Increased visibility of archaeological sites 

can also result in increased looting or artifact collection, which reduces the scientific value of the 

resource. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-42

However, because prescribed fires often occur at a lower temperature than wildfires, prescribed 

fires are likely to result in less damage to cultural resources than would wildfires over the same 

area. Furthermore, all prescribed fire and associated activities with the potential to negatively 

impact cultural resources are also, subject to review and approval under Section 106 of the 

NHPA prior to implementation. Such review and approval requires the identification of NRHP 

listed and eligible cultural resources within the treatment area, evaluation of those resources for 

the NRHP, development of avoidance and/or mitigation protocols to ameliorate potential adverse 

impacts, and consultation with potentially effected Native American tribes. Such protections are 

not in place in the case of wildfires. Thus, overall, prescribed fires tend to have a greater positive 

benefit to cultural resources than wildfires, though they do involve limited negative impacts. 

Reduction of surface cover through prescribed fire can also have a positive impact on knowledge 

of cultural resources within a given area by exposing previously unidentified cultural resource 

sites that were obscured by vegetation. The exposure of such sites allows for increased 

knowledge regarding the overall archaeological record of the VPA and the more thorough 

identification of prehistoric and historic land-use patterns. Thus, over the short-term, direct, and 

indirect effects can include destruction of artifacts and other cultural resources by fire, and 

erosion can also occur. However, over the long-term, the reduction in intensity of fires combined 

with the increased knowledge of cultural resources that would occur as a result of surveys 

conducted prior to fires and increasing site visibility after fires would result in an increased 

benefit to cultural resources. 

Under the current management situation, Alternative D (No Action), 27,950 acres in the Book 

Cliffs RMP and 22,950 acres in the Diamond Mountain RMP would be treated with prescribed 

fire and related activities for a total of 50,900 acres. Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives 

A, B, C, and E prescribed fire would be allowed on approximately 156,425 acres per decade. 

Because a far greater number of acres are proposed for prescribed fire under the Proposed RMP 

and Alternatives A, B, C, and E relative to Alternative D (No Action), all of these alternatives 

are likely to have greater positive direct impacts on cultural resources and reduced negative 

direct impacts relative to the current management situation. 

4.3.2.3. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Land and realty decisions involve decisions to acquire and manage various lands and resources. 

For the most part, the lands and resources involved are currently managed under the same federal 

laws that apply to the BLM and effects are likely to be minimal. Variations between the 

alternatives primarily relate to the specific aspects of the proposed actions, and impacts are likely 

to be indirect and long-term rather than direct or short-term. 

4.3.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, the BLM could pursue an easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed 

from the Utah/Colorado line to Watson in Evacuation Wash. The old Uintah Railroad bed is a 

known and documented historical cultural site. There are likely to be long-term beneficial 

indirect impacts, as withdrawing lands from mineral development would reduce negative impacts 

over the area. Furthermore, the acquisition of the Uintah Railroad corridor by the BLM and the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-43

management of this historical site in accordance with federal law and agency guidelines would 

afford some protection to this specific site by reducing potential negative impacts to it from 

private actions not subject to the same laws and guidelines. The BLM would pursue the 

acquisition of Indian trust lands near the confluence of South and Sweetwater Canyons and in the 

Bitter Creek area and would pursue public access at the mouth of Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza 

Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. Because these lands are currently managed under the same 

federal laws that apply to the BLM, there are likely to be minimal changes from the current 

action in how cultural resource sites are protected or impacted. 

Additionally, under the Proposed RMP, the BLM would pursue a locatable mineral withdrawal 

or other protective measures that would preclude mineral entry in the Green River Scenic 

Corridor in Browns Park (8,208 acres), the Lears Canyon relict vegetation area (1,375 acres), the 

White River area non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (6,720 acres), the White River 

SRMA (1,110 acres), developed and potential recreation sites (5,000 acres), and the Book Cliffs 

Natural Area (401 acres). These actions would have a long-term indirect positive impact on 

cultural resources within the VPA by reducing the number of cultural resource sites that are 

subject to mineral development. The effect of withdrawal of lands from mineral entry under the 

1872 mining law as amended is a decrease in overall surface and subsurface disturbance within 

the withdrawn area. As the extent of surface and subsurface disturbance is the single greatest 

factor in predicting the potential for adverse impacts to cultural resources, an overall reduction in 

surface and subsurface disturbance through a mineral entry withdrawal would presumably reduce 

the overall potential negative impact to cultural resources. Compared to Alternative D (No 

Action), this would provide less protection because fewer acres would be withdrawn and because 

Alternative D (No Action) would withdraw lands for both agricultural and mineral entry. 

4.3.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would pursue the acquisition of Indian trust lands near the 

confluence of South and Sweetwater Canyons and in the Bitter Creek area and would pursue 

public access at the mouth of Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. 

Because these lands are currently managed under the same federal laws that apply to the BLM, 

there are likely to be minimal changes from the current action in how cultural resource sites are 

protected or impacted. 

Additionally, under Alternative A, the BLM would pursue a locatable mineral withdrawal or 

other protective measures that would preclude mineral entry in the same areas as described for 

the Proposed RMP. As such, the impacts under Alternative A from these decisions would be the 

same as those described for the Proposed RMP. 

4.3.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, the BLM would pursue only administrative access to Indian trust lands and 

would not pursue public access to the White River at the mouth of Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza 

Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. Any administrative actions that would be considered federal 

actions would be subject to NHPA and other laws. Furthermore, land use decisions would have 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-44

to be coordinated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Native American tribes, and other 

landowners. 

Additionally, under Alternative B, the BLM would pursue a locatable mineral withdrawal or 

other protective measures that would preclude mineral entry in the same areas as listed under the 

Proposed RMP. Impacts of these actions would be the same as the Proposed RMP. 

4.3.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Lands and realty decisions under Alternative C are identical to the Proposed RMP, with impacts 

similar to those discussed under the Proposed RMP, except that the BLM would pursue an 

easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed from the Utah/Colorado line to Watson in Evacuation 

Wash and locatable mineral withdrawals would be pursued in the proposed Lower Green River 

ACEC (17,063 acres) and White River ACEC (9,218 acres). 

The impacts would be the same as described under the Proposed RMP, except that an additional 

13,500 acres would be subject to locatable mineral withdrawal or other protective measures that 

would preclude mineral entry. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this would provide 

similar protection because only 365 more acres would be withdrawn. 

4.3.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Lands and realty decisions under Alternative D (No Action) include locatable mineral 

withdrawal or other protective measures that would preclude mineral and agricultural entry on 

the Green River Scenic Corridor in Browns Park (19,400 acres), the relict vegetation areas 

(3,600 acres), the lower Green River ACEC (7,900 acres), and developed and potential 

recreation sites (5,000 acres). These withdrawals would afford protection to cultural resources in 

these areas by limiting surface disturbance. Overall, this alternative provides for approximately 

13,000 more acres of land withdrawal than the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B, and 

365 fewer acres than Alternatives C and E. 

4.3.2.3.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative C because the decisions are 

the same, except that approximately 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be excluded from rights-of-way (ROW) designation. This decision would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources because these areas would be protected 

from the surface disturbances associated with ROWs (e.g., utility, oil, and gas transmission line 

corridors). 

4.3.2.3.7. SUMMARY OF LAND AND REALTY DECISIONS

In summary, relative to unspecified decisions under the current management situation, the 

Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C and E are all likely to provide long-term, indirect, and 

beneficial impacts to cultural resources in the Vernal area. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-45

A, C and E are likely to have the greatest beneficial impacts, as all involve withdrawing lands 

from mineral developments in certain areas. 

4.3.2.4. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DECISIONS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, all undertakings related to minerals development 

would be in compliance with all federal cultural resource laws, including Section 106 of the 

NHPA, as well as agency guidance. Furthermore, the SHPO consultation concluded that no 

minerals decisions under the Proposed RMP or any alternatives would adversely impact cultural 

resources within the VPA. 

The difference in effects on cultural resources between the alternatives is in the numbers of acres 

open to minerals development. Because the precise location of any minerals development 

activity is not stipulated in this planning document, the assessment of potential affects is based 

on the overall potential acreage open for development with respect to high and low site 

probability zones. Table 4.3.1 provides the acreage for each type of development under each 

alternative with respect to probability of involvement within high and low site probability zones.
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.3.1. Summary of Minerals Development Relative to High and Low Cultural Resource-site Probab

Oil and Gas Leases Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternativ

(No Acti

Acres within High Site Probability Zones 

Standard Lease Terms 265,0502 265,792 305,080 229,366 276Timing and Controlled Surface Use 366,625 366,243 342,067 340,310 257Total Open 634,678 632,035 647,147 569,676 533No Surface Occupancy 35,598 32,787 27,808 34,063 65Closed 38,415 43,878 33,745 104,961 33Percent Change Relative to Alternative D (No Action) 

18.9% 18.4% 21.2% 6.7% 

Acres within Low Site Probability Zones 

Standard Lease Terms 718,874 718,845 808,035 629,242 641Timing and Controlled Surface Use 427,327 427,327 364,214 428,167 360Total Open 1,146,201 1,146,172 1,172,249 1,057,409 1,002No Surface Occupancy 33,704 33,704 14,245 24,606 71Closed 25,424 25,424 18,806 123,285 18Percent Change Relative to Alternative D (No Action) 

12.6% 14.4% 17.0% 5.5% 

Other Minerals (Open) Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternativ

(No Acti

Acres within High Site Probability Zones 

Mineral Materials 169,476 173,050 173,050 154,096 157Percent Change Relative to Alternative D (No Action) 

7.9% 10.1% 10.1% -1.9% 

Phosphate 51,679 52,343 52,343 37,714 50Percent Change Relative to Alternative D (No Action) 

3.3% 4.6% 4.6% -24.6% 

Gilsonite (40' width) 226 453 453 226 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.3.1. Summary of Minerals Development Relative to High and Low Cultural Resource-site Probab

Oil and Gas Leases Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternativ

(No Acti

Percent Change Relative to Alternative D (No Action) 

4.1% 108.8% 108.8% 4.1% 

Acres within Low Site Probability Zones 

Mineral Materials 245,907 257,108 257,108 224,683 230Percent Change Relative to Alternative D (No Action) 

6.7% 11.5% 11.5% -2.6% 

Phosphate 36,044 36,044 36,044 26,517 37Percent Change Relative to Alternative D (No Action) 

-3.9% -3.9% -3.9% -29.3% 

Gilsonite (40' width) 611 1,224 1,224 608 Percent Change Relative to Alternative D (No Action) 

1.7% 103.7% 103.7% 1.2% 

Note: Acreages were calculated using GIS technology and there may be slight variations in total acres between disciplines. These variations are negligi

analysis. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-48

It is important to note that not all minerals development activities would have the same impact 

on the landscape. Differing extraction processes would result in different surface-disturbances. In 

some cases, it is possible to provide additional analysis beyond simply estimating acres 

disturbed. For oil and gas and CBNG development, it is possible to project the estimated number 

of wells within each RFD area over the zones of high and low cultural resource site probability 

in order to estimate the likely disturbance within each cultural resource site probability zone of 

each RFD area (Table 4.3.2 and Table 4.3.3). This analysis results in a slightly more precise 

estimation of disturbance because it takes into account the differences in the distribution of 

projected development and the distribution of high and low cultural resource site probability 

zones. In essence, the analysis takes the percent of disturbance by wells relative to the total area 

open for development, applies that percentage to the acreages within high and low cultural 

resource site probability zones, and assumes that the disturbance within these zones is likely to 

be equal to the overall disturbance. In other words, the analysis assumes that disturbance is 

equally likely to occur in any zone. It is then possible to estimate the probable disturbance in 

each area and assess this disturbance. Furthermore, it is also possible to estimate the total number 

of sites that would become either identified or exposed to potential disturbance under oil, gas, 

and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development. As described in the introduction to this section, a 

conservative average of measures of archaeological site density results in an estimation of 4.87 

sites/square mile in high site probability zones and 0.93 sites/square mile in low site probability 

areas. While it must be understood that these averages are nothing more than conservative 

estimates, they provide a means of assessing the probable numbers of cultural resource sites that 

may be involved during oil, gas, and CBNG well development (Table 4.3.4). 

Table 4.3.2. Estimated Disturbance in High Cultural Resource-site Probability Zones by 

Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) Development by RFD Area and 

Alternative 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E

Open Acres within High Probability Zones for Cultural Sites* 

Monument Butte 189,911 187,085 190,624 187,235 155,475 183,232 

East Tavaputs 227,627 227,627 228,189 193,791 173,014 191,251 

West Tavaputs 41,590 41,590 48,962 42,157 42,427 41,429 

Altamont 1,963 1,963 1,963 1,963 1,963 1,963 

Tabiona 146,843 146,843 150,553 117,914 136,330 88,959 

Manila 26,679 26,679 26,851 26,660 24,695 21,571 

Total 634,679 631,787 647,142 569,720 533,904 528,405 

Percent Potential Disturbance (Projected Total Disturbance Based on Wells/Total Open Area) 

Monument Butte 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 

East Tavaputs 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 

West Tavaputs 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 

Altamont 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 

Tabiona 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Manila 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total* 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.3% 3.4% 3.3% 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-49

Table 4.3.2. Estimated Disturbance in High Cultural Resource-site Probability Zones by 

Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) Development by RFD Area and 

Alternative 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E

Estimated Disturbance in High Probability Zones (Percent Disturbance* Acres in Zone) 

Monument Butte 4,558 4,303 4,384 4,868 4,198 4,920 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative 

D (No Action)

8.6% 2.5% 4.4% 16.0% 0.0% 17.2% 

East Tavaputs 911 911 913 775 692 574 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative 

D (No Action)

31.6% 31.6% 31.9% 12.0% 0.0% -17.1% 

West Tavaputs 83 83 98 84 85 83 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative 

D (No Action)

-2.4% -2.4% 15.3% -1.2% 0.0% -2.4% 

Altamont 3 3 3 3 2 3 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative 

D (No Action)

50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 

Tabiona 29 29 30 35 41 27 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative 

D (No Action)

-29.3% -29.3% -26.8% -14.6% 0.0% -34.1% 

Manila 3 3 3 3 2 2 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative 

D (No Action)

50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 5,587 5,332 5,431 5,768 5,020 5,609 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative 

D (No Action)

11.3% 6.2% 8.2% 14.9% 0.0% 11.7% 

*Across all RFD areas 

Note: Because the number of acres of surface disturbance by RFD does not decrease proportionately with the number of acres 

open in the RFD alternatives that have less proposed development may show a higher percentage of estimated disturbance. 

Table 4.3.3. Estimated Disturbance in Low Cultural Resource-site Probability Zones by 

Oil, Gas, and Coal-bed Natural Gas Development by RFD Area and Alternative 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E

Open Acres within Low Probability Zones for Cultural Sites* 

Monument Butte 482,389 481,521 487,902 475,855 432,826 468,709 

East Tavaputs 322,506 322,506 324,087 263,161 173,014 250,332 

West Tavaputs 116,392 116,392 129,748 42,153 42,427 93,795 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-50

Table 4.3.3. Estimated Disturbance in Low Cultural Resource-site Probability Zones by 

Oil, Gas, and Coal-bed Natural Gas Development by RFD Area and Alternative 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E

Altamont 12,218 12,218 12,218 12,218 12,004 12,215 

Tabiona 191,172 191,172 196,727 170,697 181,311 130,546 

Manila 21,523 21,523 21,604 21,517 17,818 15,458 

Total 1,146,200 1,145,332 1,172,286 985,601 859,400 971,055 

Percent Potential Disturbance (Projected Total Disturbance based on Wells/Total Open Area) 

Monument Butte 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.5% 1.7% 1.5% 

East Tavaputs 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 

West Tavaputs 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 

Altamont 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Tabiona 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Manila 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0% 1.8% 

Estimated Disturbance in Low Probability Zones (Percent Disturbance* Acres in Zone) 

Monument Butte 6,271 6,260 6,343 7,138 7,358 7,031 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative D 

(No Action) 

-14.8% 14.9% 13.8% 3.0% 0.0% -4.4% 

East Tavaputs 645 645 648 526 346 501 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative D 

(No Action) 

86.4% 86.4% 87.3% 52.0% 0.0% 44.8% 

West Tavaputs 116 116 130 42 42 94 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative D 

(No Action) 

176.2% 176.2% 209.5% 0.0% 0.0% 123.8% 

Altamont 4 4 4 5 5 5 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative D 

(No Action) 

-20.0% -20.0% -20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Tabiona 19 19 20 34 36 26 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative D 

(No Action) 

-47.2% -47.2% -44.4% -5.6% 0.0% -27.8% 

Manila 1 1 1 2 1 1 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative D 

(No Action) 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 7,056 7,045 7,146 7,747 7,788 7,658 

Percent Difference 

from Alternative D 

(No Action) 

-9.4% -9.5% 8.2% -0.53% 0.0% -1.7% 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-51

Table 4.3.4. Estimated Numbers of Cultural Resource Sites Potentially Involved in Oil, 

Gas, and Coal-bed Natural Gas Development by RFD Area and Alternative 

Estimated Number of Sites Potentially Encountered by Development 

 Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E

High Site Probability Zones* 

Monument Butte 35 33 33 37 32 37 

East Tavaputs 7 7 7 6 5 4 

West Tavaputs 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Altamont 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tabiona 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Manila 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal 43 41 41 44 38 42 

Low Site Probability Zones** 

Monument Butte 9 9 9 10 11 10 

East Tavaputs 1 1 1 1 1 1 

West Tavaputs 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Altamont 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tabiona 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Manila 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal 10 10 10 11 12 11 

Grand Total 53 51 51 55 50 53 

*(Number of acres of potential disturbance/640 acres per square mile)* 4.87 sites/square mile 

**(Number of acres of potential disturbance/640 acres per square mile)* 0.93 sites/square mile 

Throughout this analysis, however, it is important to note that these numbers are produced 

through reasonable estimates of development and estimates of site density and location deriving 

from currently available data. Specific development or site location is unknown at this time. 

Therefore, the assessment of effects here will be considered a relative assessment; in other 

words, more acres open to development within high site probability zones will be considered to 

provide a greater likelihood for some type of effect on cultural resources, even if the actual effect 

is small or negligible. It should be understood that, strictly in terms of the minerals decisions 

alone, no alternative benefits cultural resources. 

Mineral decisions would involve direct and indirect effects on cultural resources. Direct effects 

to cultural resources resulting from mineral decisions under the alternatives are related to the 

level of surface and subsurface disturbance permitted under the decisions. The greater the level 

of permitted surface and subsurface disturbance, the greater the potential for encountering 

cultural resources. Direct effects could entail: surface disturbance and even destruction of 

archaeological sites and features if unauthorized activities take place or if errors occur during the 

development process; physical alteration or elimination of archaeological sites as they are 

mitigated through data recovery or other on-site means when avoidance of the sites is not 

possible, as determined through the Section 106 process (see Appendix P for SHPO 

consultation); and long-term changes in overall site settings as the number of wells and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-52

associated facilities increase. Avoidance of cultural resource sites is the preferred alternative 

under all scenarios. Although it is not possible to avoid the potential for irresolvable conflicts 

between any given specific proposed development in the future and archaeological sites, and 

although there is always potential for inadvertent discovery, historically, the ability to identify 

sites during the planning phase, and standard development stipulations that enable and promote 

site avoidance, has resulted in a relatively low rate of sites requiring mitigation and a very low 

rate of negative impacts to sites. According to the field office archaeologist, approximately 1% 

of the total cultural resource sites involved in oil and gas development have been negatively 

impacted by development (Blaine Phillips, personal communication 2004). 

While sites within the area of potential direct effects will have been identified and either avoided 

or mitigated as part of the specific mineral development projects, sites not located within the 

footprints of undertakings are also vulnerable to negative impacts as human traffic in the general 

area increases. Potential indirect effects on cultural resources include vandalism and looting of 

cultural resource sites related to increased human activity within areas of mineral development. 

Other indirect negative impacts related to increased human activity in given areas include 

trampling of sites simply through the shear volume of individuals visiting sites. Additional 

potential indirect effects include increased erosion on cultural resource sites located near well 

pads, pipelines, and other minerals related facilities where vegetation cover has been reduced or 

eliminated. 

4.3.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, oil and gas leasing would be open under standard lease terms or with 

timing and controlled surface use conditions on approximately 635,000 acres within the high site 

probability areas and approximately 1,146,000 acres within the low site probability areas (see 

Table 4.3.1). Based on projections of the numbers of wells, the size of each well and disturbance 

by associated facilities, approximately 19,000 acres would be subject to surface and subsurface 

disturbance. The majority of this disturbance (approximately 15,000 acres) would be within the 

Monument Butte RFD area, with approximately 3,500 acres in the East and West Tavaputs and 

Altamont-Bluebell areas, and small acreages in the remaining Tabiona and Manila areas. 

Assuming that disturbance is equally likely in high and low site probability areas, and that 

disturbance in these areas would be related to the overall disturbance relative to total land area, 

under the Proposed RMP the estimated acreage of disturbance in the high site probability zones 

is approximately 5,600 acres, with more than two-thirds of this disturbance in the Monument 

Butte RFD area (see Table 4.3.2). Estimated acreage of disturbance in the low site probability 

zones is approximately 7,000 acres under the Proposed RMP (see Table 4.3.3). 

The Proposed RMP reflects a 11.3% overall increase in oil and gas (including CBNG) surfacedisturbing activities in the high cultural resource site probability zones relative to Alternative D 

(No Action) (see Table 4.3.2). Relative to Alternative D (No Action), disturbance within high 

site probability zones would increase by 8.6-50% in several RFD areas, although it would 

decrease by 2.4% in the West Tavaputs area (see Table 4.3.2). The greatest percent increases are 

in the Altamont and Manila areas, though the actual acreage increase is only 1 acre in each area. 

The East Tavaputs area would experience a 31.6% increase in disturbance, which equates to a 

net increase in acres disturbed of 219 acres. The Proposed RMP is likely to result in 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-53

encountering approximately 43 sites within high site probability zones and 10 sites in low site 

probability zones, or approximately 53 sites total (see Table 4.3.4). This is an estimated increase 

of about 6% more sites over the estimated 50 sites that may be exposed to analysis under the 

Alternative D (No Action). It is important to note that these are the numbers of sites that are 

likely to be potentially encountered by development projects, and that they would not necessarily 

be disturbed. Given that only an estimated 1% of sites involved in minerals development are 

inadvertently disturbed, this alternative is likely to not result in significant disturbance to 

archaeological sites. 

Impacts from projected development for oil shale, mineral materials, phosphate, and Gilsonite 

are much more difficult to quantify given that these projects have not been determined or set and 

are dependent on future technological advances and market needs, and that these developments 

involve different types of disturbances, and the disturbances are frequently more localized. Thus, 

assessment is best developed in terms of relative acres open to development. Based on the 

numbers of acres potentially open to development, the Proposed RMP results in increases of 

between 3 and 8% in development in high cultural resource site probability zones relative to the 

Alternative D (No Action) (see Tables 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). Projected impacts relative to phosphate 

development in low site probability areas actually drops by almost 4% under the Proposed RMP. 

4.3.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas leasing would be open under standard lease terms or with 

timing and controlled surface use conditions on approximately 632,000 acres within the high site 

probability areas and approximately 1,145,000 acres within the low site probability areas (see 

Table 4.3.2). Based on projections of the numbers of wells, the size of each well and disturbance 

by associated facilities, approximately 19,000 acres would be subject to surface and subsurface 

disturbance. The majority of this disturbance (approximately 15,000 acres) would be within the 

Monument Butte RFD area. An additional 3,500-3,700 acres of disturbance would occur in the 

East and West Tavaputs and Altamont-Bluebell areas, and small acreages in the remaining 

Tabiona and Manila areas. Under Alternative A the estimated acreage of disturbance in the high 

site probability zones is approximately 4,300 acres, with more than two-thirds of this disturbance 

in the Monument Butte RFD area (see Table 4.3.2). Estimated acreage of disturbance in the low 

site probability zones is approximately 7,000 acres under Alternative A (see Table 4.3.3). 

Alternative A reflects a 6.2% overall increase in oil and gas (including CBNG) surfacedisturbing activities in the high cultural resource site probability zones relative to Alternative D 

(No Action) (see Table 4.3.2). Relative to Alternative D-No Action, disturbance within high site 

probability zones would increase by 2.5%–50% in several RFD areas, although it would decrease 

by 2.4%–29.3% in the West Tavaputs and Tabiona areas (see Table 4.3.2). The greatest percent 

increases (50%) are in the Altamont and Manila areas, though the actual acreage increased is 

only 1 acre in each area. The East Tavaputs area would experience a 31.6% increase in 

disturbance, which equates to a net increase in acres disturbed of 219 acres. Alternative A is 

likely to result in encountering approximately 41 sites within high site probability zones and 10 

sites in low site probability zones, or approximately 51 sites total (see Table 4.3.4). This is an 

estimated increase of about 2% more sites over the estimated 50 sites that may be exposed to 

analysis under Alternative D (No Action). It is important to note that these are the numbers of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-54

sites that are likely to be potentially encountered by development projects, and that they would 

not necessarily be disturbed. Given that only an estimated 1% of sites involved in minerals 

development are inadvertently disturbed, this alternative is likely to not result in significant 

disturbance to archaeological sites. 

Under Alternative A, impacts from projected development for special tar sands, oil shale, 

mineral materials, phosphate, and Gilsonite would increase between 4 and 10% in development 

in high cultural resource site probability zones relative to Alternative D (No Action) (see Table 

4.3.2). The greatest potential increase is in Gilsonite development. Projected impacts relative to 

phosphate development in low site probability areas actually drops by almost 4% under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, oil and gas leasing would be open under standard lease terms or with 

timing and controlled surface use conditions on approximately 647,000 acres within the high site 

probability areas and approximately 1,172,000 acres within the low site probability areas (see 

Table 4.3.1). Based on projections of the numbers of wells and the size of each well, 

approximately 19,000 acres would be subject to surface and subsurface disturbance. The 

majority of this disturbance (approximately 15,100 acres) would be within the Monument Butte 

RFD area, with approximately 3,600 acres in the East and West Tavaputs and Altamont areas, 

and small acreages in the remaining Tabiona and Manila areas. Assuming that disturbance is 

equally likely in high and low site probability areas, and that disturbance in these areas would be 

related to the overall disturbance relative to total land area, under Alternative B the estimated 

acreage of disturbance in the high site probability zones is approximately 54,600 acres, with 

more than two-thirds of this disturbance in the Monument Butte RFD area (see Table 4.3.2). The 

greatest increase in acreage of potential disturbance relative to Alternative D (No Action) is in 

the Monument Butte and East Tavaputs RFD areas, involving an additional 200 acres potentially 

subject to disturbance in each area. Estimated acreage of disturbance in the low site probability 

zones is approximately 7,100 acres under Alternative B (see Table 4.3.3). 

Alternative B reflects an approximately 8% overall increase in oil and gas (including CBNG) 

surface-disturbing activities in the high cultural resource site probability zones relative to 

Alternative D (No Action). Relative to Alternative D (No Action), disturbance within high site 

probability zones would increase by 4-50% in several RFD areas (see Table 4.3.2). The greatest 

percent increases (50%) are in the Altamont and Manila areas, though the actual acreage 

increased is only 1 acre in each area. Based on an estimation of site counts, Alternative B is 

likely to result in encountering approximately 41 sites within high site probability zones and 10 

sites in low site probability zones, or approximately 51 sites total, an increase of only 1 site over 

Alternative D (No Action) (see Table 4.3.4). It is important to note that these are the numbers of 

sites that are likely to be potentially encountered by development projects, and that they would 

not necessarily be disturbed. 

In terms of development for oil shale, mineral materials, phosphate, and Gilsonite, Alternative B 

results in the same potential impacts as Alternative A (see Table 4.3.1). However, potential 

development by phosphate exploration and recovery decreases by approximately 4% relative to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-55

the Alternative D (No Action). The greatest potential increase in high site probability areas is in 

Gilsonite development. 

4.3.2.4.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, oil and gas leasing would be open under standard lease terms or with 

timing and controlled surface use conditions on approximately 570,000 acres within the high site 

probability areas and approximately 986,000 acres within the low site probability areas (see 

Tables 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). Based on projections of the numbers of wells and the size of each well, 

approximately 18,800 acres would be subject to surface and subsurface disturbance. The 

majority of this disturbance (approximately 15,000 acres) would be within the Monument Butte 

RFD area, with approximately 3,500 acres in the East and West Tavaputs and Altamont areas, 

and small acreages in the remaining Tabiona and Manila areas. Assuming that disturbance is 

equally likely in high and low site probability areas, and that disturbance in these areas would be 

related to the overall disturbance relative to total land area, under Alternative C the estimated 

acreage of disturbance in the high site probability zones is approximately 5,768 acres, with more 

than two-thirds of this disturbance in the Monument Butte RFD area (see Table 4.3.2). Estimated 

acreage of disturbance in the low site probability zones is approximately 7,750 acres under 

Alternative B (see Table 4.3.3). 

Alternative C reflects an approximately 15% overall increase in oil and gas (including CBNG) 

surface-disturbing activities in the high cultural resource site probability zones relative to 

Alternative D (No Action) and an approximately 0.5% decrease in disturbance in low cultural 

resource site probability zones. Relative to Alternative D (No Action), disturbance in high 

cultural resource site probability zones would increase by 12%–50% in several RFD areas, but 

would decrease by approximately 1% in the West Tavaputs RFD area. The greatest percent 

increases (50%) are in the Altamont and Manila areas, though the actual acreage increase is only 

1 acre in each area. Alternative B is likely to result in encountering approximately 44 sites within 

high site probability zones and 11 sites in low site probability zones, or approximately 55 sites 

total (see Table 4.3.4). 

Based on the numbers of acres potentially open to development for oil shale, mineral materials, 

phosphate, and Gilsonite, Alternative C results in an increase of 4% in Gilsonite development in 

high cultural resource site probability zones relative to Alternative D (No Action) and decreases 

between 2 and 25% for other minerals (particularly phosphate) development (see Table 4.3.1). 

4.3.2.4.5. ALTERNATIVE D ( NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), oil and gas leasing would be open under standard lease terms 

or with timing and controlled surface use conditions on approximately 534,000 acres within the 

high site probability areas and approximately 859,000 acres within the low site probability areas 

(see Tables 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). Based on projections of the numbers of wells and the size of each 

well, approximately 18,212 acres would be subject to surface and subsurface disturbance. The 

majority of this disturbance (approximately 14,500 acres) would be within the Monument Butte 

RFD area, with approximately 3,400 acres in the East and West Tavaputs and Altamont areas, 

and small acreages in the remaining Tabiona and Manila areas. Assuming that disturbance is 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-56

equally likely in high and low site probability areas, and that disturbance in these areas would be 

related to the overall disturbance relative to total land area, under Alternative D (No Action) the 

estimated acreage of disturbance in the high site probability zones is approximately 5,100 acres, 

with more than two-thirds of this disturbance in the Monument Butte RFD area (see Table 4.3.2). 

Alternative D (No Action) projects the lowest amount of disturbance in high cultural resource 

site probability zones of any of the alternatives, but the difference between Alternative D (No 

Action) and Alternative C (which has the highest amount of proposed disturbance) is less than 

750 acres. Estimated acreage of disturbance in the low site probability zones is approximately 

7,800 acres under Alternative D (No Action) (see Table 4.3.3). Combined, the disturbance is 

slightly lower than projected under Alternative C. Alternative D (No Action) is likely to result in 

encountering approximately 38 sites within high site probability zones and 12 sites in low site 

probability zones, or approximately 50 sites total (see Table 4.3.4). 

Based on the numbers of acres potentially open to oil shale, mineral materials, phosphate, and 

Gilsonite development, Alternative D (No Action) has overall less projected oil shale, phosphate, 

and Gilsonite development in high cultural resource site probability zones relative to the other 

alternatives (i.e., the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B), and slightly more mineral 

materials and phosphate development relative to Alternatives C and E (see Table 4.3.1). 

4.3.2.4.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, oil and gas leasing would be open under standard lease terms or with 

timing and controlled surface use conditions on approximately 528,405 acres within the high site 

probability areas and approximately 971,000 acres within the low site probability areas (see 

Tables 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). Based on projections of the numbers of wells and the size of each well, 

approximately 18,000 acres would be subject to surface and subsurface disturbance over the 

short-term. The majority of this disturbance (approximately 14,000 acres) would be within the 

Monument Butte-Red Wash RFD area, with approximately 2,350 acres in the East and West 

Tavaputs and Altamont-Bluebell areas, and the remainder of disturbances within the TabionaAshley Valley and Manila-Clay Basin areas. 

Alternative E reflects an approximately 11.7% overall increase in oil and gas (including CBNG) 

surface-disturbing activities in the high cultural resource site probability zones relative to 

Alternative D (No Action) and an approximately 1.7% decrease in disturbance in low cultural 

resource site probability zones. Relative to Alternative D (No Action), disturbance in high 

cultural resource site probability zones would increase by 50% in the Altamont-Bluebell and by 

17% in the Monument Butte-Red Wash RFD areas. However, in the Altamont-Bluebell area, the 

actual net increase would only by 1 acre. Alternative E is likely to result in encountering 

approximately 42 sites within high site probability zones and 11 sites in low site probability 

zones, or approximately 53 sites total (see Table 4.3.4). 

Based on the numbers of acres potentially open to development for oil shale, tar sands, 

conventional oil and gas, mineral materials, phosphate, and Gilsonite, Alternative E would have 

decreases in minerals development of between 2% and 34% in high cultural resource site 

probability zones relative to Alternative D (No Action) (see Table 4.3.1). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-57

4.3.2.4.7. SUMMARY OF MINERALS DECISIONS

Overall, based on the numbers of acres open for development and consideration of the likely 

lease areas, Alternative E provides the greatest benefit to cultural resources from all action 

alternatives, followed by Alternative C. Alternatives C and E would result in a lowest increase in 

potential for conflicts with cultural resource sites. The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and B 

have the greatest number of acres subject to potential disturbance of any of the alternatives. 

Alternative D (No Action) does have the least number of total acres affected, but the Hill Creek 

Extension (188,500 acres) was not leased in the Book Cliffs RMP and therefore is not included 

in the total acreage calculations of Alternative D (No Action), which accounts for the difference. 

Overall, the relative increases to Alternative D (No Action) are generally around 15% (except 

where RFD acreage areas are small, and net increases of a few acres increases the overall 

percentages dramatically, such as in the Altamont-Bluebell area, where an increase of 1 acre 

results in a percent comparable with Alternative D (No Action) with an increase of 50%), and a 

small additional number of sites are likely to be identified and subject to avoidance, mitigation, 

or potential impact through inadvertent discovery. It remains important to reiterate that specific 

minerals development projects will undergo another level of analysis, and will therefore be 

subject to Section 106 review. Consequently, the potential for actual negative direct impacts to 

occur to cultural resources is low. 

4.3.2.5. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Management decisions to protect non-WSA wilderness characteristics would reduce the area in 

the VPA that would otherwise be vulnerable to surface development. Beneficial impacts of 

surface disturbance prohibitions to cultural resources would include a reduction in the likelihood 

of surface development, which would reduce the potential for unauthorized collection by 

exposing the site. Adverse impacts would result from resource protections that would prevent 

development-related detection of cultural sites. Discovery and pre-construction surveying of sites 

would increase the likelihood of site protection or scientific excavation, as well as prevent the 

degradation of sites from natural causes. 

4.3.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be protected. Management decisions include closing these areas to oil and gas leasing, 

limiting OHV travel to designated routes, closing to woodland product harvest and salvage, and 

designating these areas for management under VRM II class objectives. Impacts would include 

those described above. Compared to Alternatives, A, B, C, and D, this alternative would have 

greater impacts upon cultural resources, as there would be more restrictions on surface 

development. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-58

4.3.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVES A–D 

Under Alternatives A–D, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be protected. 

Impacts to cultural resources would be dependant upon management prescriptions for other 

resources. 

4.3.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

protected. Management decisions to protect non-WSA wilderness characteristics would include 

closing these areas to oil and gas leasing and mineral material disposal, closing the areas to 

cross-country OHV travel, prohibiting vegetation treatments, prohibiting woodland harvesting 

and salvage, realty actions that exclude these areas from ROW consideration, and designating 

these areas for management under VRM I Class objectives. Impacts would be similar to those in 

the Proposed RMP, except the acreage affected would be greater and Alternative E protections 

are somewhat more restrictive. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would 

have greater (beneficial) impacts upon cultural resources, as there would be more restrictions on 

surface development. 

4.3.2.6. IMPACTS OF RANGELAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Because of existing federal laws protecting cultural resources, the effect of rangeland 

management decisions on cultural resources within the VPA are likely to be minimal. The 

primary short- and long-term impacts to cultural resources would occur as result of surface and 

subsurface disturbance related to mechanical, chemical, and fire-related vegetation treatments, 

fencing, installation of guzzlers, creation of reservoirs, development of wells and springs, and 

installation of water pipelines. Although it is not possible to estimate the precise placement of 

these treatments and constructions, it is possible to estimate potential numbers of cultural 

resources involved in the treatments and constructions based on the acres associated. In general, 

increased acres of vegetation treatment would increase the possibility of involving cultural 

resources and raise the potential for adverse impacts. All rangeland improvements projects 

would require adherence to Section 106 of the NHPA and agency guidelines for the 

identification, evaluation, and protection of important cultural resource sites. As such, negative 

impacts to cultural resources from proposed rangeland improvements can either be avoided or 

mitigated. 

Short and long-term indirect effects on cultural resources from rangeland improvement decisions 

are limited. It is anticipated that the primary negative indirect impact would be to increase the 

potential for concentrated trampling of cultural resource sites located in areas adjacent to 

fencing. As cattle, sheep, or other grazers walk back and forth along fence lines, their repeated 

footsteps typically wear entrenched trails that may pass through archaeological sites, and denude 

areas of vegetation thereby increasing erosion that would result in scouring or sheet washing of 

cultural resource sites in adjacent areas. 

Utilizing the acreages for vegetation treatment and the acreages produced by the disturbance 

assumptions for fencing, pipelines, guzzlers, and wells, estimates of the numbers of acres 

proposed for the various actions and the probable numbers of cultural resource sites present were 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-59

produced for the analysis (Table 4.3.5). Because each type of action has different chances of 

landing in high, medium, or low cultural resource site probability zones, different estimates for 

numbers of sites per square mile were used for each proposed action. Vegetation treatments, 

fences, and pipelines are likely to cross both high and low site probability zones. Thus, for the 

analysis an average number of 2.9 sites per square mile (midway between the high and the low 

estimates) were utilized for these types of actions. Guzzlers and wells, while not necessarily 

directly over natural sources of water, are often located near natural water sources. Cultural 

resource sites are much more likely to be present near natural water sources, so a high estimate 

of 4.87 sites per square mile were utilized for these actions. While it must be understood that 

these averages are nothing more than conservative estimates, they provide a means of assessing 

the probable numbers of cultural resource sites that may be in an area subject to vegetation 

treatment, fencing, guzzlers, etc. 

Table 4.3.5. Estimated Acres and Potential Cultural Resource Sites Associated with 

Rangeland Constructions and Vegetation Treatments by Alternative 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E

From Rangeland Constructions 

Fencing 69.0 69.0 369 129 65 129 

Acres 34.25 34.25 184.25 64.5 32.5 64.5 

Pipeline 37.5 37.5 51 29.5 35 29.5 

Acres 37.5 37.5 51 29.5 35 29.5 

Subtotal Acres 71.75 71.75 235.25 94 67.5 94 

Estimated Sites* 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Guzzlers 812 812 1165 811 775 811 

Acres 812 812 1165 811 775 811 

Wells 51 51 78 87 74 87 

Acres 51 51 78 87 74 87 

Subtotal Acres 863 863 1243 898 849 898 

Estimated Sites** 7 7 9 7 6 7 

Total Acres 934.75 934.75 1478.25 992 916.5 992 

Percent Change 2.0% 2.0% 61.3% 8.2% 0.0% 8.2% 

Total Estimated Sites 7 7 10 7 6 7 

From Vegetation Treatments 

Acres 34,640 34,640 50,900 45,860 40,390 45,860 

Percent Change -14.2% -14.2% 26.0% 13.5% 0.0% 13.5% 

Estimated Sites* 157 157 231 208 183 208 

*Utilizes a moderate site density estimate of 2.9 sites/square mile 

**Utilizes a high site density estimate of 4.87 sites/square mile 

4.3.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The level of potential surface and subsurface disturbance associated with these facilities under 

the Proposed RMP include 34,640 acres of vegetation treatment, 68.5 miles of fencing, 37.5 

miles of water pipeline, 51 well/spring developments, and 812 guzzler or reservoir projects. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-60

Relative to Alternative D (No Action), the current management situation, this action includes 

minor increases in the acres affected by rangeland constructions, with no significant increase in 

the numbers of sites potentially involved. Increases from guzzlers and wells are also minor, with 

only potentially one or a few additional sites involved. Vegetation treatments would decrease by 

about 14% under this alternative relative to Alternative D (No Action), and would likely involve 

approximately 157 sites, or slightly fewer than under Alternative D (No Action). Fencing, 

pipelines, guzzlers, and wells are likely to involve approximately 7 sites, roughly comparable to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.3.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would be the same as the Proposed RMP. As such, potential impacts under 

Alternative A would be the same as those described in Section 4.3.2.5.1. 

4.3.2.6.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B 50,900 acres of would be subject to vegetation treatment, 368.5 miles of 

fencing would be installed, 51 miles of water pipeline would be installed, 78 well/spring 

developments would be undertaken, and 1,165 guzzler or reservoir projects would be completed. 

These acreages, miles, and numbers of facilities reflect an approximately 61% increase over the 

acreages proposed under Alternative D (No Action), the current management situation. 

Vegetation treatments increase by about 26% and are likely to involve approximately 230 sites, 

higher than under any alternative. Fencing, pipelines, guzzlers, and wells are likely to involve 

approximately 10 sites, slightly higher than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.3.2.6.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C a total of 45,860 acres of would be subject to vegetation treatment, 129 

miles of fencing would be installed, 29.5 miles of water pipeline would be installed, 87 

well/spring developments would be undertaken and 811 guzzler or reservoir projects would be 

completed. These acreages, miles, and numbers of facilities reflect an approximately 8% increase 

over the acreages proposed under Alternative D (No Action), the current management situation. 

Vegetation treatments are likely to involve approximately 208 sites, which is less than 

Alternatives B and E, but higher than the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and D (No Action). 

Fencing, pipelines, guzzlers, and wells are likely to involve approximately 7 sites, roughly 

comparable to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.3.2.6.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action) a total of 40,390 acres of would be subject to vegetation 

treatment, 65 miles of fencing would be installed, 35 miles of water pipeline would be installed, 

74 well/spring developments would be undertaken and 775 guzzler or reservoir projects would 

be completed. Vegetation treatments are likely to involve approximately 180 sites, the secondfewest of any alternative. Fencing, pipelines, guzzlers, and wells are likely to involve 

approximately 6 sites, roughly comparable to the other alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-61

4.3.2.6.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would proposed the same management decisions as those under Alternative C, 

with similar impacts as discussed under that alternative. 

4.3.2.6.7. SUMMARY OF RANGELAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Overall, the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and D (No Action) are likely to have the lowest 

potential for negative impacts to cultural resources under any alternative. The Proposed RMP 

and Alternative A would have the lowest number of potential acres of vegetation treatment, and 

second lowest disturbance for fencing and pipelines. Alternative D (No Action) has the lowest 

number of sites potentially involved in guzzler or spring developments. The Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A have the lowest number of sites potentially involved in vegetation treatments, and 

an overall decrease of almost 26 sites potentially involved in such treatments relative to 

Alternative D (No Action). Thus, direct and indirect effects are likely to be lowest for these 

alternatives. Alternatives C and E would have a slightly greater increase in acreages and sites 

involved. Alternative B would have the greatest increase in numbers of sites involved and is the 

alternative most likely to pose the greatest potential for direct and indirect negative impacts to 

cultural resources. However, due to the additional level of analysis required for compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA and agency regulations, the potential for adverse impacts to cultural 

resources would be low 

4.3.2.7. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Direct effects to cultural resources resulting from recreation decisions are related to the level of 

surface and subsurface disturbance associated with recreational development and use and with 

the degree of increased human activity associated with said development and use. Increased 

human activity in areas where cultural resources are present also tends to correspond with 

increased levels of vandalism and looting of said resources. In both the short- and the long-term, 

the greater the level of surface and subsurface disturbance associated with recreational 

development and use, the greater is the potential that cultural resources would be adversely 

impacted. Concomitantly, the greater the level of human activity, the greater is the potential for 

cultural resources within a recreational area to be adversely impacted by the shear volume of 

individuals walking over or visiting sites. Human activity, however, can occur in a managed 

setting, where recreational areas are developed and in an unmanaged setting where recreational 

use occurs as a result of other management decisions. 

Additional long-term direct effects on cultural resources include the physical alteration or 

elimination of archaeological sites as they are mitigated through data recovery or other on-site 

means when avoidance of the sites is not possible for recreational development and use, as 

determined through the Section 106 process. The net effect of mitigating multiple sites in a given 

area when avoidance is not possible is the gradual alteration, and eventual elimination, of the 

overall archaeological record within the developed area. It should be noted, however, that 

mitigation of archaeological sites does have a limited positive effect in that new scientific 

knowledge of prehistoric and historic land uses within an area may be obtained in this manner. 

Other long-term direct impacts may include increases in levels of trampling and vandalism 

associated with increased human activity in given recreational areas. It should be noted, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-62

however, that regulated recreational use of areas tends to provide better protection to cultural 

resources than does unregulated use. 

While sites within the area of potential direct effects would have been identified and either 

avoided or mitigated as part of specific development projects, sites not located within the 

footprints of undertakings are also vulnerable to negative impacts as human traffic in the general 

area increases. Potential indirect effects on cultural resources under all recreation alternatives 

include vandalism and looting of cultural resource sites related to increased human activity 

within areas of recreational development. Other indirect negative impacts related to increased 

human activity in given areas include trampling of sites simply through the shear volume of 

individuals visiting sites. Additional potential indirect effects include increased erosion on 

cultural resource sites located in the vicinity of trails, campgrounds, and other recreational 

facilities where vegetation cover has been reduced or eliminated and/or water runoff is not 

appropriately controlled. 

4.3.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 133,560 acres would be specifically managed as SRMAs in the 

following areas: Blue Mountain (42,729 acres); Browns Park (18,490 acres); Red Mountain-Dry 

Fork (24,259 acres); Nine Mile Canyon (44,168 acres); Pelican Lake (1,014 acres); Fantasy 

Canyon (69 acres) and White River (2,831 acres). These areas contain large numbers of acres 

within high cultural resource site probability zones (Blue Mountain-approximately 26,000 acres; 

Browns Park-approximately 18,490 acres; Nine Mile Canyon-approximately 32,000 acres; White 

River-approximately 2,831). Consequently, there is very good potential for cultural resource sites 

to occur in these zones, and negative impacts would continue to occur. However, the designation 

of a SRMA allows for the potential to manage these impacts, in contrast to the no-action 

alternative where for the most part these areas are used for recreation with little or no 

management. The proposed designations reflect a substantial increase of 45,657 acres beyond the 

current SRMA management (87,928 acres). 

All SRMAs would be managed according to the philosophy of multiple-use. Additionally, 400 

miles of non-motorized trails would be improved and/or developed, and restrictions would be 

placed on the use of OHVs for retrieval of big game off designated routes. A total of 800 miles 

of motorized OHV trails would be developed under this alternative. Also under the Proposed 

RMP, a management plan would be prepared for the Fantasy Canyon SRMA, and this plan 

would include prescriptions for the protection of cultural resources with high scientific, 

experimental, conservation, and traditional values, and the interpretation of cultural resources 

with high public use values. Under the Proposed RMP, new cabin construction would be allowed 

within the VPA. The Proposed RMP incorporates substantially greater numbers of acres into 

SRMAs than does Alternative D (No Action). Alternative D (No Action) generally allows for 

unrestricted and unconfined use of BLM lands for recreation. While the designation of SRMAs 

generally includes surface and subsurface disturbance related to recreational development and 

does increase human activity in given areas, such designations and associated development are 

subject to compliance with cultural resource laws, as noted previously. These designations also 

require the preparation of management plans that must include prescriptions for the protection of 

important cultural resource values. As such, even though the Proposed RMP incorporates greater 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-63

numbers of acres into SRMAs and miles into non-motorized and motorized trails, these 

designations include protocols designed to protect cultural resources. 

4.3.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

 Under Alternative A, approximately 499,588 acres would be specifically managed as SRMAs in 

the following areas: Blue Mountain (42,758 acres); Book Cliffs (273,486 acres); Browns Park 

(52,720 acres); Pelican Lake (1,014 acres); Red Mountain-Dry Fork (24,259 acres) Nine Mile 

Canyon (81,168 acres); and White River (24,183 acres). These areas contain large numbers of 

acres within high cultural resource site probability zones (Blue Mountain-approximately 26,000 

acres; Book Cliffs-approximately 197,000 acres; Browns Park-approximately 38,000 acres; Nine 

Mile Canyon-approximately 32,000 acres; White River-approximately 20,000 acres). 

Consequently, there is very good potential for cultural resource sites to occur in these zones, and 

negative impacts would continue to occur. However, the designation of a SRMA allows for the 

potential to manage these impacts, in contrast to the no-action alternative where for the most part 

these areas are used for recreation with little or no management. The proposed designations 

reflect a significant increase, approximately 455,000 acres over the current acres (18,474) 

represented by SRMAs in the area. All SRMAs would be managed according to the philosophy 

of multiple-use. 

4.3.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Improvement, development, and/or restriction of non-motorized trails would be the same as 

under the Proposed RMP. Under Alternative A, a management plan would be prepared for the 

Fantasy Canyon SRMA, and this plan would include prescriptions for the protection of cultural 

resources with high scientific, experimental, conservation, and traditional values, and the 

interpretation of cultural resources with high public use values. Under Alternative A, new cabin 

construction would be allowed within the VPA. Alternative A incorporates substantially greater 

numbers of acres into SRMAs than does Alternative D (No Action). Alternative D (No Action) 

generally allows for unrestricted and unconfined use of BLM lands for recreation. While the 

designation of SRMAs generally includes surface and subsurface disturbance related to 

recreational development and does increase human activity in given areas, such designations and 

associated development are subject to compliance with cultural resource laws, as noted 

previously. These designations also require the preparation of management plans that must 

include prescriptions for the protection of important cultural resource values. As such, even 

though Alternative A incorporates greater numbers of acres into SRMAs and miles into nonmotorized and motorized trails, these designations include protocols designed to protect cultural 

resources. 

As with the Proposed RMP, direct effects to cultural resources resulting from recreation 

decisions under Alternative B are related to the level of surface and subsurface disturbance 

associated with recreational development and use and with the degree of increased human 

activity associated with said development and use. Under Alternative B, a total of 86,454 acres 

would be managed within SRMAs: 44,181 acres in Nine Mile Canyon, 24,259 acres in Red 

Mountain-Dry Fork, 1,014 would be managed for Pelican Lake, and 17,000 acres in Browns 

Park. All designated SRMAs would be managed according to the philosophy of multiple-use. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-64

Additionally under Alternative B, no non-motorized or motorized trails would be improved or 

developed, and OHV use off of designated trails would not be allowed for big game retrieval. 

Under Alternative B, no management plan would be prepared for the Fantasy Canyon SRMA, 

and unrestricted and unconfined recreational use of the Book Cliffs would continue as currently 

managed. Under Alternative B, new cabin construction would be allowed within the VPA in 

specific areas. 

Alternative B is roughly comparable to Alternative D (No Action) in terms of acres managed as 

SRMAs and miles developed for non-motorized and motorized trails. Alternative B generally 

allows for unrestricted and unconfined use of BLM lands for recreation. As noted above, such 

allowances tend to increase adverse impacts to cultural resources as compared to areas that are 

actively managed for recreational uses. 

4.3.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, 522,604 acres would be specifically managed as SRMAs in the following 

areas: Book Cliffs (273,486 acres); Fantasy Canyon (69 acres); Browns Park (52,720 acres); Red 

Mountain-Dry Fork (24,259 acres); Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 acres), White River (47,130 

acres), Blue Mountain (42,758 acres), and Pelican Lake (1,014 acres). These areas contain large 

numbers of acres within high cultural resource site probability zones (Blue Mountainapproximately 26,000 acres; Book Cliffs-approximately 196,000 acres; Browns Parkapproximately 38,000 acres; Nine Mile Canyon-approximately 32,000 acres, White Riverapproximately 40,000 acres, all of the acreages in Fantasy Canyon are considered low site 

probability zones). All designated SRMAs would be managed according to the philosophy of 

multiple-use, and unlike under other alternatives, portions of the Book Cliffs SRMA would be 

open to oil and gas development under Alternative C. Under Alternative C, 400 miles of nonmotorized trails would be improved and/or developed, and restrictions would be placed on the 

use of OHVs for retrieval of big game off designated routes. No motorized OHV trails would be 

developed under this alternative. Under Alternative C, no new cabin construction would be 

allowed within the VPA. 

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative C is roughly comparable to the Proposed RMP 

although slightly fewer acres would be managed as SRMAs under the Proposed RMP. None of 

the 69 acres proposed for the Fantasy Canyon SRMA fall within high site probability zones. The 

proposed designations reflect a substantial increase of acres over the current acres represented by 

SRMAs in the area.

4.3.2.7.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), the impacts on SRMAs would be the same as discussed above 

under Alternative B because the management decisions are the same. Additionally under 

Alternative D (No Action), 55 miles of non-motorized trails would be improved or developed. 

The Red Mountain-Dry Fork trail would be managed as a motorized OHV trail. No 

specifications are given for OHV use off designated trails for the retrieval of big game. Under 

Alternative D (No Action), development of a management plan for the Fantasy Canyon SRMA is 

unspecified as is the management of Blue Mountain as an SRMA. In general, Alternative D (No 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-65

Action) would allow for unrestricted and unconfined recreational use of most areas within the 

VPA. Under Alternative D (No Action), management of new cabin construction is unspecified. 

4.3.2.7.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E recreation decisions would be the same as those described under Alternative C, 

with similar impacts on cultural resources, except that approximately 157,018 acres within the 

proposed SRMAs would be managed to protect non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics, 

and for primitive, non-motorized/non-mechanized recreational opportunities. These protected 

areas would be managed under VRM I Class objectives, closed to cross-country OHV use, and 

closed to private wood cutting and seed collection. The impacts on cultural resources from nonWSA wilderness area protection within the proposed SRMAs would be beneficial in the long 

term because of the prohibitions and limitations on surface disturbances within these areas (to 

protect wilderness values) that would also protect cultural resources from surface disturbances. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would be more beneficial to cultural 

resources because more protection would be applied to cultural resources within the SRMAs 

than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.3.2.7.7. SUMMARY OF RECREATION DECISIONS

Alternative E would have the greatest potential for positive impacts to cultural resources because 

of the additional protection applied to the resource from non-WSA wilderness area protection. 

Alternatives C and A would provide a high degree of protection through the relatively large 

number of acres proposed as SRMAs, when compared to Alternative D (No Action). Alternative 

B would be comparable to Alternative D in the level of protection applied to cultural resources. 

Although there is a potential for direct and indirect negative impacts from increased recreation in 

the areas proposed for SRMA designation, the management of these areas under specific plans to 

protect SRMA resources would be beneficial to cultural resources in the long term. 

4.3.2.8. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Significant impacts to cultural resources from special designation decisions are direct, long-term, 

and generally beneficial. These positive impacts are related to the restriction of surfacedisturbing activities and limitations placed on land uses within areas of special designation. The 

reduction, control, or elimination of surface-disturbing activities, such as oil and gas 

development and OHV travel, within large geographic areas affords significant protection to 

cultural resource sites and insures preservation of the important scientific, experimental, 

conservation, and traditional use values of these resources. Long-term direct positive impacts on 

cultural resources from special designation decisions include increased protection of cultural 

resource use values through the overall reduction of surface-disturbing activities within some of 

the specially designated areas. While a direct one-to-one correlation of acres disturbed to cultural 

resources encountered does not exist, relative ratios of higher numbers of acres disturbed to 

higher numbers of sites encountered and fewer acres disturbed to fewer sites encountered can be 

assumed. Thus, with the specific controls and restrictions placed on surface-disturbing activities 

under some of the special designations, the long-term net effect would be an overall decrease in 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-66

the numbers of sites subject to impacts, including those resulting from mitigation where 

avoidance is not possible. Furthermore, the designations may contribute to the preservation of 

site settings and view sheds, spiritual settings and values, and cultural resource site feelings and 

association and conservation of areas of tribal importance. There are no measurable short-term or 

long-term indirect effects on cultural resources resulting from special designation decisions. 

4.3.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, the following areas (and acreages) are proposed for ACEC 

designation in addition to (or differing from) the current designations: Browns Park (18,490 

acres), Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (44,168 acres), Pariette (10,437 acres), 

Red Creek Watershed (24,475 acres), Lower Green River Corridor (8,470 acres)and the Red 

Mountain-Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres). All of these areas contain between 10,000 and 

35,000 acres each within the zones of high potential for cultural resource sites. The acreages 

identified for each specially designated area represent increases over existing management 

acreages for established areas of special designation. Further, recommendation for designation of 

the Upper Green River and the Lower Green River as wild and scenic rivers affords additional 

protection to cultural resources adjacent to said river segments as surface-disturbing activities in 

these adjacent areas would be restricted to insure maintenance of those characteristics rendering 

these river segments eligible for special designation. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the 

Proposed RMP provides increased benefit to cultural resources. 

4.3.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, the following areas (and acreages) are proposed for ACEC designation in 

addition to (or differing from) the current designations: Bitter Creek (68,834 acres), Browns Park 

(52,721 acres), Coyote Basin (87,743), Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), Lower Green River (10,170 

acres), Nine Mile Canyon (48,000 acres), Pariette (10,437 acres), Red Creek Watershed (24,475 

acres), Red Mountain-Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres), and White River (17,810 acres). All of 

these areas contain between 10,000 and 35,000 acres each within the zones of high potential for 

cultural resource sites. The acreages identified for each specially designated area represent 

increases over existing management acreages for established areas of special designation. 

Further, recommendation for designation of two segments of the White River, one segment of 

the Upper Green River, and one segment of the Lower Green River as wild and scenic rivers 

affords additional protection to cultural resources adjacent to said river segments as surfacedisturbing activities in these adjacent areas would be restricted to ensure maintenance of those 

characteristics rendering these river segments eligible for special designation. Also under 

Alternative A, the Lower Green River found suitable for designation as wild and scenic would be 

managed as such. The segment of the Green River between Little Hole and the Colorado State 

Line would be managed as a wild and scenic river with a classification of scenic until such time 

as Congress makes as decision as to whether or not to include this river segment in the national 

Wild and Scenic River system. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative A provides 

increased benefit to cultural resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-67

4.3.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, the following areas (and acreages) are proposed for ACEC designation in 

addition to (or differing from) the current designations: Browns Park (18,474 acres), Coyote 

Basin (47,659 acres), Lears Canyon (1,375 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (44,181 acres), Pariette 

(10,437 acres), Red Creek (24,475 acres), and Red Mountain-Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres). 

This constitutes a reduction in number of separate areas defined relative to the Proposed RMP 

and it does not designate Lower Green River as does Alternative D (No Action). Only the Upper 

and Lower Green would be recommended for designation as a WSR. 

4.3.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, the following acreages are proposed for ACEC designation: Bitter / P.R. 

Spring (147,425 acres), Browns Park (52,721 acres), Coyote Basin-Coyote Basin (26,590) 

Coyote Basin-Kennedy Wash (10,670 acres), Coyote Basin-Myton Bench (36,670 acres), Coyote 

Basin-Shiner (21,957 acres), Coyote Basin-Snake John (28,274 acres), Four Mile Wash (50,280 

acres), Lears Canyon (1,375, Lower Green River Expansion (10,170 acres), Main Canyon 

(100,915 acres), Middle Green River (6,768 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (81,168 acres), Pariette 

(10,437 acres), Red Creek (24,275 acres), Red Mountain-Dry Fork Complex (24,285 acres), 

White River (47,130 acres). Between 1,000 and 75,000 acres within high cultural resource site 

probability zones are present in these proposed areas. Unlike decisions under the other three 

alternatives, decisions under Alternative C would also include the designation of 50,280 acres of 

land in the Four Mile Wash area as and ACEC/ONA, approximately 7,000 of these acres are 

within high cultural resource site probability zones. 

Under Alternative C three segments of the White River would be recommended for wild and 

scenic designations, and one segment each of Nine Mile Creek, Argyle Creek, and the Middle 

Green River would be recommended for wild and scenic designation with a classification of 

recreational. Additionally, one segment each of Evacuation Creek, Nine Mile, and Bitter Creek 

would be recommended for wild and scenic designation with a classification of scenic. Further, 

the segment of the Green River between Little Hole and the Colorado State Line would be 

managed as a wild and scenic river with a classification of scenic until such time as Congress 

makes as decision as to whether or not to include this river segment in the national Wild and 

Scenic River system. 

The overall nature of the direct effect of special designation decisions on cultural resources under 

Alternative C is similar to but greater than that described for the Proposed RMP and Alternatives 

A and B. Under Alternative C, significantly higher numbers of acres would be designated as 

special status and would be subject to the restrictions and controls on surface and subsurface 

disturbance and land use that provide positive protective benefits to cultural resources within the 

designated areas. Under Alternative C, approximately 195,000 more acres within zones of high 

probability for cultural resource sites would be protected relative to the Proposed RMP and 

approximately 210,000 more acres would be protected relative to Alternatives B and D. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-68

4.3.2.8.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

The net positive direct effect of proposed ACEC designation on cultural resources under 

Alternative D (No Action) is substantially less than those under all action alternatives. Under 

Alternative D (No Action), no new special area designations would be made. Only those existing 

ACECs of the Lower Green River west bank (8,470 acres), Browns Park (52,721 acres), Red 

Mountain-Dry Fork (24,285 acres), Nine Mile Canyon (44,181 acres), Pariette (10,437 acres), 

Red Creek (24,475 acres) and Lears Canyon (1,375 acres) would be managed according to 

special designation management restrictions and controls on surface-disturbing activities and 

land uses. Also under Alternative D (No Action), the Lower Green River found suitable for 

designation as wild and scenic would be managed as such. The segment of the Green River 

between Little Hole and the Colorado State Line would be managed as a wild and scenic river 

with a classification of scenic until such time as Congress makes as decision as to whether or not 

to include this river segment in the national Wild and Scenic River system. 

4.3.2.8.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The special designation decisions and impacts on cultural resources would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative C, except that the approximately 197,171 acres of non-WSA areas 

with wilderness characteristics that lie within proposed ACECs would have protection measures 

as discussed above under Section 4.3.2.6.5 for Recreation. The impacts on cultural resources 

would be similar to those for SRMAs: the management decisions would substantial limit or 

prohibit surface disturbances within these areas in order to protect their wilderness values, which 

would also afford long term, beneficial protection to cultural resources. This alternative would 

have more beneficial impacts on cultural resources than Alternative D (No Action) because, as 

discussed under the Recreation above, more resource-protective surface disturbance prohibitions 

and limitations would be applied under Alternative E. 

4.3.2.8.7. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS

Overall, Alternative E has the greatest potential long-term direct and indirect benefit to cultural 

resources of all the alternatives. Alternative C has the second-greatest benefit, followed by the 

Proposed RMP, then Alternative B, and Alternative D (No Action). 

4.3.2.9. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Travel decisions, such as the designation of areas open, limited, or closed to OHV travel and the 

designation of travel routes can impact cultural resources in a number of ways. Negative direct 

effects can result from construction of new roads and trails that would disturb archaeological 

sites, from allowing OHV travel in areas with cultural resource sites, or allowing motorized 

camping vehicles to travel off designated routes on a single path up to 300 feet to access an 

existing disturbed dispersed camp site, except in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

and WSA lands. Indirect effects can result from increased traffic in the area and the potential for 

the traffic along designated routes to develop into access to and subsequent travel over or even 

looting of nearby cultural resource sites. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-69

However, there can also be benefits to cultural resources from travel decisions. Cultural 

resources located in areas closed for OHV use or with restrictions placed on OHV use would 

receive the greatest positive benefit by either eliminating or reducing the potential for travelrelated damage to cultural resource sites by closing or re-routing travel ways around important 

cultural resource sites and restricting vehicular travel to those designated routes. Thus, with the 

specific controls and restrictions placed on travel activities under the travel decisions, the longterm net effect would be an overall decrease in the numbers of sites subject to impacts. 

While there is not a one-to-one correlation between acreage of routes and exact numbers of 

cultural resources encountered, a basic ratio of acres of routes to sites encountered can be 

assumed such that the greater the acreage of disturbance the greater the potential for 

encountering cultural resources. For the purposes of analysis, areas of open, limited, or closed 

OHV travel were combined with zones of high and low cultural resource site probability to 

determine the probable numbers of acres potentially subject to negative impacts from OHV 

travel (Table 4.3.6). To determine potential impacts in areas where travel is limited to designated 

routes and motorized camping vehicles would be allowed to travel off designated routes on a 

single path up to 300 feet to access an existing disturbed dispersed camp site, except in nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and WSA lands, a 300-foot zone was established on 

either side of the designated routes for the Proposed RMP and each alternative, and the acreages 

within areas of high and low cultural resource site probability were calculated accordingly for the 

Proposed RMP and each alternative (Table 4.3.7). An estimation of 4.87 sites per square mile in 

high site probability zones and 0.93 sites per square mile in low site probability areas was then 

applied to estimate the number of potential cultural resource sites involved under each scenario. 

While it must be understood that these averages are nothing more than conservative estimates, 

they provide a means of assessing the probable numbers of cultural resource sites that may be in 

an area open to OHV travel (see Table 4.3.6) or within the 300-foot area allowed for recreation 

use (and potential indirect negative impacts) associated with allowing limited travel on 

designated routes (see Table 4.3.6). 

Table 4.3.6. Estimated Numbers of Acres Open to OHV Travel and Limited OHV Travel 

in High and Low Cultural Resource-site Probability Zones, and Estimated 

Numbers of Cultural Resource Sites Potentially within Open OHV Travel Areas 

by Alternative 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E

Acres in High Site Probability Zones 

Open 236 236 236 236 251,120 236 

% Change -99.9% -99.9% -99.9% -99.9% 0.0% -99.9% 

Potential Sites 2 2 2 2 1,911 2 

Limited 587,212 587,212 592,986 478,924 355,539 469,497 

% Change 65.2% 65.2% 66.8% 34.7% 0.0% 32.1% 

Acres in Low Site Probability Zones 

Open 5,966 5,966 5,198 5,198 526,700 5,198 

Percent Change -98.9% -98.9% -99.0% -99.0% 0.0% -99.0% 

Potential Sites 9 9 8 8 765 8 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-70

Table 4.3.6. Estimated Numbers of Acres Open to OHV Travel and Limited OHV Travel 

in High and Low Cultural Resource-site Probability Zones, and Estimated 

Numbers of Cultural Resource Sites Potentially within Open OHV Travel Areas 

by Alternative 

Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E

Acres in High Site Probability Zones 

Limited 1,058,746 1,058,746 1,066,916 875,740 532,876 858,904 

% Change 98.7% 98.7% 100.2% 64.3% 0.0% 61.2% 

Total Open 

Acreage 

6,202 6,202 5,434 5,434 787,820 5,434 

Total Potential 

Sites 

11 11 10 10 2752 10 

(Note: Potential sites for areas associated with limited travel are estimated on the next table) 

Table 4.3.7. Estimated Acres and Potential Cultural Resource Sites Associated with 

Travel Routes and the 300-foot Travel Buffer by Alternative 

 Proposed RMP Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E

Within High Cultural Site Probability Zones 

Acres 49,554 49,554 49,370 46,604 68,852 44,800 

% Change -28.0% -28.0% -28.3% -32.3% 0.0% -34.9% 

Potential Sites 377 377 376 355 524 339 

Within Low Cultural Site Probability Zones 

Acres 71,748 71,748 71,746 69,102 91,699 68,279 

% Change -21.8% -21.8% -21.8% -24.6% 0.0% -25.5% 

Potential Sites 104 104 104 100 133 99 

Total Acres 121,302 121,302 121,116 115,706 160,551 113,079 

% Change -24.4% -24.4% -24.6% -27.9% 0.0% -29-6% 

Total Potential 

Sites 

481 481 480 455 657 438 

4.3.2.9.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Compared to the other action alternatives and to the current management situation, the Proposed 

RMP provides a much greater level of benefit to cultural resources within the VPA. The 

Proposed RMP provides for the limitation of travel to designated routes for 1,643,475 acres of 

land. Approximately 240 acres would remain open to OHV travel in high cultural resource site 

probability zones and approximately 6,000 acres would remain open in low cultural resource site 

probability zones, a nearly 100% decrease in the amount of acreage open to unrestricted travel 

within each site probability zone as compared to Alternative D (No Action) (see Table 4.3.6). 

Based on the estimates for sites/square mile described above, approximately 11 sites may be 

present in these open areas and would continue to see impacts that may be already occurring (see 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-71

Table 4.3.6). However, not all of these sites would necessarily continue to be impacted or would 

necessarily be newly impacted. The number of sites is also greatly reduced relative to the noaction alternative, which has approximately 2,700 sites within areas that are currently open to 

OHV travel. 

Under the Proposed RMP, multiple areas would have travel restricted to existing routes. 

Approximately 121,300 acres of land are located in or allowing motorized camping vehicles to 

travel off designated routes on a single path up to 300 feet to access an existing disturbed 

dispersed camp site, except in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and WSA landset 

of either side of existing routes (see Table 4.3.7). This represents an approximately 25% 

reduction in open area overall relative to Alternative D (No Action), with an approximately 28% 

reduction in open area within high cultural resource site probability zones (see Table 4.3.7). 

Based on reasonable projections of numbers of sites within high and low probability zones, this 

alternative would potentially expose approximately 480 cultural resource sites to ongoing 

impacts or potentially new impacts. However, this number is approximately 27% lower than the 

nearly 660 sites that are currently potentially subject to impacts. 

4.3.2.9.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would be the same as the Proposed RMP. As such, potential impacts from 

Alternative A are the same as those described in Section 4.3.2.8.1. 

4.3.2.9.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B provides for the limitation of travel to designated routes for 1,659,901 acres of 

land currently open to unrestricted OHV travel, or a 99.5% decrease in areas open to travel. 

Approximately 240 acres would remain open to OHV travel in high cultural resource site 

probability zones and approximately 5,200 acres would remain open in low cultural resource site 

probability zones, a nearly 100% decrease in the amount of acreage open to unrestricted travel 

within each site probability zone (see Table 4.3.6). Based on the estimates for sites/square mile 

described above, approximately 10 sites may be present in these open areas and would continue 

to see impacts that may be already occurring (see Table 4.3.6). However, not all of these sites 

would necessarily continue to be impacted or would necessarily be newly impacted. The number 

of sites is also greatly reduced relative to Alternative D (No Action), which has approximately 

2,700 sites within areas that are currently open to OHV travel. 

Under Alternative B, multiple areas would have travel restricted to existing routes. 

Approximately 121,500 acres of land are located in or within 300 feet of either side of existing 

routes (see Table 4.3.7). This represents an approximately 25% reduction in open area overall 

relative to Alternative D (No Action), with an approximately 28% reduction in open area within 

high cultural resource site probability zones (see Table 4.3.7). Based on reasonable projections of 

numbers of sites within high and low probability zones, this alternative would potentially expose 

approximately 480 cultural resource sites to ongoing impacts or potentially new impacts. 

However, this number is approximately 27% lower than the nearly 660 sites that are currently 

potentially subject to impacts.
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-72

4.3.2.9.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C provides for the limitation of travel to designated routes for 1,353,529 acres of 

land currently open to unrestricted OHV travel, or a 99.5% decrease in areas open to travel. 

Approximately 240 acres would remain open to OHV travel in high cultural resource site 

probability zones and approximately 5,200 acres would remain open in low cultural resource site 

probability zones, a nearly 100% decrease in the amount of acreage open to unrestricted travel 

(see Table 4.3.6). Based on the estimates for sites/square mile described above, approximately 10 

sites may be present in these open areas and would continue to see impacts that may be already 

occurring (see Table 4.3.6). However, not all of these sites would necessarily continue to be 

impacted or would necessarily be newly impacted. The number of sites is also greatly reduced 

relative to Alternative D (No Action), which has approximately 2,700 sites within areas that are 

currently open to OHV travel. 

Under Alternative C, multiple areas would have travel restricted to existing routes. 

Approximately 115,700 acres of land are located in or within 300 feet of either side of existing 

routes (see Table 4.3.7). This represents an approximately 28% reduction in open area overall 

relative to Alternative D (No Action), with an approximately 32% reduction in open area within 

high cultural resource site probability zones (see Table 4.3.7). Based on reasonable projections of 

numbers of sites within high and low probability zones, this alternative would potentially expose 

approximately 455 cultural resource sites to ongoing impacts or potentially new impacts. 

However, this number is approximately 31% lower than the nearly 660 sites that are currently 

potentially subject to impacts under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.3.2.9.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Travel decisions under Alternative D (No Action) are largely unspecified. No specific provisions 

exist for the repair, maintenance, upgrade, or realignment of roadways causing damage to 

resources. Designations do exist, however, for OHV use within the VPA under Alternative D 

(No Action). These designations provide the least protection to cultural resources of all the 

designations under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. Under Alternative D (No Action) 

relative to the Proposed RMP and other alternatives, significantly more acres (787,859 acres) are 

open to unrestricted OHV use. Fewer acres (887,275 acres) are subject to restrictions on OHV 

use, and fewer acres (50,388 acres) are closed to OHV use. Based on the estimates of acreages 

and sites/square mile in high and low cultural resource site probability zones, under this 

alternative, approximately 2,750 sites are subject to potential new damage or to continuing 

damage from OHV use. 

Under Alternative D (No Action), the largest number of travel routes and associated access areas 

would remain open. Approximately 161,500 acres of land are located in or within 300 feet of 

either side of existing routes (see Table 4.3.7). Based on reasonable projections of numbers of 

sites within high and low probability zones, this alternative would potentially expose 

approximately 660 cultural resource sites to ongoing impacts or potentially new impacts. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-73

4.3.2.9.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would have travel decisions similar to those proposed under Alternative C, with 

similar impacts on cultural resources: Open, cross-country OHV travel would be allowed on 

5,435 acres; OHV Limited travel on designated routes would be allowed on 1,326,024 acres; and 

approximately 392,818 acres would be designated as Closed to OHV travel. Under this 

alternative, approximately 53 miles of OHV routes would be closed to travel in order to protect 

the wilderness values that lie within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, which 

would have long-term, beneficial impacts on cultural resources by reducing the potential for 

OHV impacts to the resource along designated travel routes. 

Approximately 240 acres would remain open to OHV travel in high cultural resource site 

probability zones and approximately 5,200 acres would remain open in low cultural resource site 

probability zones, a nearly 100% decrease in the amount of acreage open to unrestricted travel 

(see Table 4.3.6). Based on the estimates for sites/square mile described above, approximately 10 

sites may be present in these open areas and would continue to see impacts that may be already 

occurring (see Table 4.3.6). However, not all of these sites would necessarily continue to be 

impacted or would necessarily be newly impacted. The number of sites is also greatly reduced 

relative to Alternative D (No Action), which has approximately 2,700 sites within areas that are 

currently open to OHV travel. 

Under Alternative E, multiple areas would have travel restricted to existing routes. 

Approximately 113,079 acres of land are located in or within 300 feet of either side of existing 

routes (see Table 4.3.7). This represents an approximately 30% reduction in open area overall 

relative to Alternative D (No Action), with an approximately 35% reduction in open area within 

high cultural resource site probability zones (see Table 4.3.7). Based on reasonable projections of 

numbers of sites within high and low probability zones, this alternative would potentially expose 

approximately 438 cultural resource sites to ongoing impacts or potentially new impacts. 

However, this number is approximately 33% lower than the nearly 660 sites that are currently 

potentially subject to impacts under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.3.2.9.7. SUMMARY OF TRAVEL DECISIONS

Alternatives E and C would have the greatest beneficial impacts on cultural resources because of 

the small areas designated as Open to OHV travel, followed by the Proposed RMP and then B. 

Alternative D (No Action) would have the least beneficial impacts on travel because 

approximately 787,859 acres would be managed for unlimited, cross-country OHV use. The 

large open OHV area under Alternative D (No Action) would increase the likelihood for direct 

and indirect, adverse, surface-disturbances to cultural resources. 

4.3.2.10. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Vegetation decisions under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives are similar to those described 

previously for Fire Management. As the impacts of such decisions on cultural resources have 

already been described, they would not be reiterated here. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-74

4.3.2.11. IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON CULTURAL 

RESOURCES

There are no measurable short-term or long-term direct effects on cultural resources resulting 

from visual resource management decisions. Significant impacts to cultural resources from visual 

resource management decisions under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives are direct and 

beneficial over the long-and short-term. These positive impacts are related to the restriction of 

surface-disturbing activities and limitations placed on land uses within areas of high VRM Class 

values. The reduction, control, or elimination of surface-disturbing activities, such as oil and gas 

development, OHV travel, mechanical vegetation treatments, prescribed fire, etc. within large 

geographic areas to preserve high VRM values affords significant protection to cultural resource 

sites and insures preservation of the important scientific, experimental, conservation, and 

traditional use values of these resources. 

While a direct one-to-one correlation of acres disturbed to cultural resources encountered does 

not exist, relative ratios of higher numbers of acres disturbed to higher numbers of sites 

encountered and fewer acres disturbed to fewer sites encountered can be assumed. Thus, with the 

specific controls and restrictions placed on surface-disturbing activities in areas managed as the 

two highest VRM classes, the long-term net effect would be an overall decrease in the numbers 

of sites subject to impacts, including those resulting from mitigation where avoidance is not 

possible. 

4.3.2.11.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 57,776 acres would be managed as VRM Class I, the highest level of 

VRM value and the one with the most limitations on the nature of surface-disturbing activities. 

Another 231,911 acres would be managed as VRM Class II, 786,612 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class III, and 643,641 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV, the least restrictive 

visual resource management class. Compared to the other alternatives, the Proposed RMP 

provides the fourth highest level of overall direct benefit to cultural (behind Alternatives C and 

E) as a total of 289,687 acres would be managed as the two highest VRM classifications. Visual 

resource management decisions under the Proposed RMP provide a greater benefit to cultural 

resources than do those under Alternatives B and D. 

4.3.2.11.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, approximately 63,136 acres would be managed as VRM Class I, the 

highest level of VRM value and the one with the most limitations on the nature of surfacedisturbing activities. Another 294,773 acres would be managed as VRM Class II, approximately 

716,186 acres would be managed as VRM Class III, and 868,542 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class IV, the least restrictive visual resource management class. Compared to the other 

alternatives, Alternative A provides the third highest level of overall direct benefit to cultural 

(behind Alternative C) as a total of 357,909 acres would be managed as the two highest VRM 

classifications. Visual resource management decisions under Alternative A provide a greater 

benefit to cultural resources than do those under Alternatives B and D. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-75

4.3.2.11.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, 52,764 acres would be managed as VRM Class I, and 114,030 acres would 

be managed as VRM Class II. Another 199,179 acres would be managed as VRM Class III, and 

1,353,967 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. Compared to the other alternatives, 

Alternative B provides the fifth greatest level of benefit to cultural resources with 166,794 acres 

managed as the two highest, and most restrictive, VRM classes. Visual resource management 

decisions under Alternative B provide a similar benefit as those under Alternative D (No Action) 

but less than those under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E. 

4.3.2.11.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, 145,781 acres would be managed as VRM Class I, and 362,660 acres 

would be managed as VRM Class II. Another 580,846 acres would be managed as VRM Class 

III, and 630,653 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. Compared to the other alternatives, 

Alternative C provides the second greatest level of benefit to cultural resources with a total of 

508,441 acres managed as the two highest, and most restrictive, VRM classes. 

4.3.2.11.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Indirect effects of visual resource management decisions on cultural resources under Alternative 

D (No Action) would be substantially less than that described for Alternatives A, C, and E. As 

impacts to cultural resources are generally related to the level of surface and subsurface 

disturbance in a given area, the lower number of acres managed as either VRM Class I or VRM 

Class II under Alternative D (No Action) provides less protection to cultural resources within the 

VPA. Under Alternative D (No Action), 53,086 acres would be managed as VRM Class I, and 

113,686 acres would be managed as VRM Class II. Another 199,192 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class III, and 1,353,976 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. Compared to the 

Proposed RMP and all other action alternatives Alternative D (No Action) provides the lowest 

level of benefit to cultural resources with a total of 116,772 acres managed as the two highest, 

and most restrictive, VRM classes. 

4.3.2.11.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 331,913 acres would be managed under VRM Class I 

objectives, and 263,285 acres would be managed under VRM II objectives. Approximately 

536,301 acres would be managed as VRM Class III, and 590,262 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class IV. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative E provides the highest level of 

benefit to cultural resources with a total of 595,198 acres managed as the two highest, and most 

restrictive, VRM classes because VRM I and II would either prohibit or greatly restrict surface 

disturbances on the landscape in order to protect scenic quality. These prohibitions and/or 

restrictions would also be beneficial in the long term in preserving and protecting cultural 

resources from surface disturbances. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative 

would be more beneficial because it would manage 428,000 more acres under VRM I and II 

objectives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-76

4.3.2.12. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

Wildlife and fisheries decisions under the Proposed RMP and the various alternatives have 

negligible direct impacts on cultural resources within the VPA. Potentially significant impacts to 

cultural resources from wildlife and fisheries decisions under the alternatives are generally 

indirect, long-term, and beneficial. These positive impacts are related specifically to those 

decisions placing restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and limitations on land uses within 

areas of crucial deer winter range. The reduction or control of surface-disturbing activities, such 

as oil and gas development and OHV travel, within large geographic areas to preserve crucial 

deer winter range affords significant protection to cultural resource sites and insures preservation 

of the important scientific, experimental, conservation, and traditional use values of these 

resources. 

It should be noted, however, that direct, long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources might 

occur from wildlife use of the Planning Area. These impacts are primarily related to the 

trampling of archaeological sites by herd animals such as wild horses, burros, and elk. These 

potential impacts would typically be comparable to those described for livestock grazing. 

Because of their particular herd behavior, wild horses may have a slightly greater impact on 

cultural resources by trampling, as evidenced by the higher level of vegetation damage and soil 

erosion noted in areas where wild horses congregate. 

4.3.2.12.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, new surface disturbance of up to 10% per township of crucial deer 

winter range would be allowed. Under the Proposed RMP, no more than 10% of such habitat 

would be subject to new and pre-existing surface disturbance and would remain un-reclaimed at 

any given time. This decision under the Proposed RMP provides greater benefit to cultural 

resources than do decisions under Alternative B but slightly less than decisions under 

Alternatives C and E. Similar decisions are unspecified under Alternative D (No Action). 

Potential adverse impacts on cultural resources from wildlife trampling would be comparable to 

those described for livestock for this alternative. 

4.3.2.12.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A, new surface disturbance of up to 560 acres per township would be allowed and 

would be prorated based upon the percentage of the range within that township that functions as 

crucial winter range. Under Alternative A, the 560 acres represent new surface and subsurface 

disturbance over and above existing disturbance. This decision under Alternative A provides 

greater benefit to cultural resources than do decisions under Alternative B but slightly less than 

decisions under Alternative C. Similar decisions are unspecified under Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.3.2.12.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, new surface disturbance of up to 560 acres per township would be allowed 

and would be prorated based upon the percentage of the range within that township that 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-77

functions as crucial winter range (same management action as Alternative A). As such, this 

alternative provides less net benefit to cultural resources than do Alternatives C and E, which 

limit total disturbance (new and existing) to 560 acres per township. Potential adverse impacts on 

cultural resources from wildlife trampling would be comparable to those described for livestock 

for this alternative. 

4.3.2.12.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, surface disturbance in crucial deer winter range would be capped at 560 

acres per township (prorated based upon the percentage of the range within that township that 

functions as crucial winter range on BLM-managed land). This 560-acre cap includes both new 

and existing surface and subsurface disturbance. This decision under Alternative C provides 

greater benefit to cultural resources than do decisions under the other alternatives. Potential 

adverse impacts on cultural resources from wildlife trampling would be comparable to those 

described for livestock for this alternative. 

4.3.2.12.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Wildlife and fisheries decisions related to surface and subsurface disturbance in crucial deer 

winter range are unspecified under Alternative D (No Action). Potential adverse impacts on 

cultural resources from wildlife trampling would be comparable to those described for livestock 

for this alternative. 

4.3.2.12.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts would be the same as Alternative C because the management decisions are the 

same. 

4.3.2.13. MITIGATION MEASURES

All undertakings based on decisions set forth under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives 

analyzed herein for the VPA RMP are also subject to compliance with cultural resource laws, 

such as Section 106 of the NHPA, as well as internal agency guidelines. These laws and 

guidelines are intended to provide considered alternatives to eliminate, reduce, and/or mitigate 

adverse impacts to cultural resources. Although the preferred treatment of important cultural 

resources within an area of an undertaking is complete avoidance, this is not always possible. As 

such, mitigation of impacts is offered as an alternative to avoidance. While avoidance helps to 

preserve the physical archaeological record within an area, mitigation would result in the gradual 

elimination of the physical archaeological record and its conversion into a paper or archival 

record. It should be noted, however, that both the identification of sites and the mitigation of 

impacts through data recovery conducted in association with the Section 106 process for land 

uses has the positive impact of increasing the body of knowledge about past human behaviors 

and occupations in the Vernal Planning Area. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.3. Cultural Resources

Vernal RMP 4-78

4.3.3. 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 these impacts might be. There is some potential for unavoidable 

adverse impacts from nearly any proposed management decision. However, following the 

relevant cultural resource laws would provide opportunities for mitigation of many of these 

impacts. 

4.3.4. SHORT-TERM USES 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. 

4.3.5. 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 these impacts might be. There is the potential for 

impacts from nearly any proposed management decision. However, following the relevant 

cultural resource laws would provide opportunities for mitigation of many of these impacts. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.4. Environmental Justice

Vernal RMP 4-79

4.4. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

4.4.1. THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C AND E 

The Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Uintah County has high 

potential for oil and gas occurrence (USDI, BLM, Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal 

Planning Area, June, 2004). It could be expected, therefore, that full development of federal 

minerals (188,500 acres) and adjacent Indian minerals (113,684 acres) for oil and gas would 

occur. In addition, the infrastructure development, such as pipelines access roads and 

compressors would facilitate development on adjacent Indian mineral areas inside and outside 

the Hill Creek Extension. 

However, estimates of future revenue generated from anticipated well field development are 

uncertain. The uncertainty of future market conditions contributes to the unknown factors. 

Primary among non-market uncertainties is the irregular nature of natural gas reservoirs, which 

are often discontinuous and localized. Uncertainties in estimating future revenues from natural 

gas production also arise from the difficulty in estimating gas production and capitalization for 

future natural gas development (BLM 1999). Current seismic projects in this area are attempting 

to define potential natural gas reservoirs. 

On federal mineral areas, the Tribe would benefit from revenue derived from granting rights-ofway to the oil and gas industry across Indian surface. Should similar development occur on 

adjacent areas of Indian minerals, the Tribe would benefit from oil and gas royalties. In addition, 

it can be expected that several Tribal contractors would contribute to the local workforce 

constructing roads, well pads, and pipelines. 

Well field development would not be in immediate proximity to a Tribal community. The nearest 

community is located approximately 10 miles to the north at the settlement of Ouray. It is 

possible that this town could experience an increase in exposure to road traffic, including large 

rigs and trucks used to service the oil fields, increased air pollution, fugitive dust, spills, and an 

impact to water resources. Residents in the settlement of Ouray may be subject to increased 

health risks as a result of an increase in oil and gas development in nearby areas. Therefore, 

Alternative B would have the greatest potential for adverse impacts to the community with and 

estimated 6,391 wells, followed by the Proposed RMP with 6,342. 

Should full development of oil and gas resources occur, important Tribal traditional lifeways and 

religious sites would be at high risk. In general, the Northern Ute Tribe maintains the northern 

half of the Hill Creek Extension as a sensitive religious and cultural area and the southern half as 

a sensitive wilderness/wildlife area. The highest of these values is along Willow Creek and the 

higher elevation Book Cliffs divide. The Hill Creek Extension Book Cliffs "wilderness" is where 

relatively undisturbed natural values interrelate to Tribal lifeways and religious pursuits. 

In these Tribal sensitive areas, construction, operation and sights and sounds of oil and gas wells 

and associated support facilities would degrade the roadless and natural character of undisturbed 

areas. In addition, intensive oil and gas development could depress or replace Tribal livestock 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.4. Environmental Justice

Vernal RMP 4-80

grazing. Similar to other nearby areas on the public lands, the cumulative surface disturbance and 

density of well spacing would change the natural landscape into an industrial landscape. 

The industrial landscape would decrease opportunities for big game hunting and the gathering of 

plants and other materials for ceremonies as traditional Tribal activities. These areas are 

primarily associated with places where ancient activities were conducted, such as camps, burial 

sites, and areas where artifacts, rock art, and lithic scatters are located (USDI, BLM, Ouray to 

Interstate 70 Highway Draft Environmental Impact Statement, September, 1992). 

A disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on the Northern Ute 

Tribe would not result from this alternative. However, extensive future development would be a 

tradeoff between Tribal economic benefits versus loss of traditional lifeways, ethnographic and 

religious values. 

4.4.1.1. MITIGATION

Partial mitigation would be avoidance of sensitive areas. Tribal consultation would be conducted 

for areas where conflicts arise between traditional Ute values and proposed development. Tribal 

mitigation would be considered and followed as appropriate. Where federal mineral rights do not 

exist, the Tribe might restrict development in areas of special significance. 

4.4.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

The Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Uintah County has high 

resource potential for oil and gas (USDI, BLM, Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning 

Area, June, 2004). It should be expected, therefore, that development of Indian oil and gas 

resources (113,684 acres) would continue. In addition, infrastructure development, such as 

pipelines access roads and compressors would facilitate development on adjacent Indian mineral 

areas outside the Hill Creek Extension. However, under this alternative, federal minerals within 

the Hill Creek Extension (188,500 acres) would not be developed. 

Estimates of future revenue generated from anticipated well field development are uncertain. The 

uncertainty of future market conditions contributes to the unknown factors. Primary among nonmarket uncertainties is the irregular nature of natural gas reservoirs, which are often 

discontinuous and localized. Uncertainties in estimating future revenues from natural gas 

production also arise from the difficulty in estimating gas production and capitalization for future 

natural gas development (USDI, BLM, Costilla Energy Inc. Hill Creek Unit Well field 

Development Environmental Assessment/RMP Plan Amendment, December, (BLM 1999). 

Current seismic projects in this area are attempting to define potential natural gas reservoirs. 

Well field development would not be in proximity to a Tribal community. The nearest 

community is located approximately 10 miles to the north at the settlement of Ouray. Therefore, 

oil and gas development would not expose this community or the public-at-large to known health 

risks or environmental hazards. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.4. Environmental Justice

Vernal RMP 4-81

Should full development of oil and gas resources occur, important Tribal traditional lifeways and 

religious sites would be at high risk. In general, the Northern Ute Tribe maintains the northern 

half of the Hill Creek Extension as a sensitive religious and cultural area and the southern half as 

a sensitive wilderness/wildlife area. The highest of these values is along Willow Creek and the 

higher elevation Book Cliffs divide. The Hill Creek Extension Book Cliffs "wilderness" is where 

relatively undisturbed natural values interrelate to Tribal lifeways and religious pursuits. 

In these Tribal sensitive areas, construction, operation and sights and sounds of oil and gas wells 

and associated support facilities would degrade the roadless and natural character of undisturbed 

areas. In addition, intensive oil and gas development could depress or replace some Tribal 

livestock grazing. Similar to other nearby areas on the public lands, the cumulative surface 

disturbance and density of well spacing would change the natural landscape into an industrial 

landscape. 

The industrial landscape would decrease opportunities for big game hunting and the gathering of 

plants and other materials for ceremonies as traditional Tribal activities. These areas are 

primarily associated with places where ancient activities were conducted, such as camps, burial 

sites, and areas where artifacts, rock art, and lithic scatters are located (USDI, BLM, Ouray to 

Interstate 70 Highway Draft Environmental Impact Statement, September, 1992). 

A disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on the Northern Ute 

Tribe would not result from this alternative. However, future extensive development would be a 

tradeoff between Tribal economic benefits versus loss of traditional lifeways, ethnographic and 

religious values. 

4.4.2.1. MITIGATION

Partial mitigation could include avoidance of sensitive areas. Areas or artifacts could be cleared 

by Tribal traditional ritual, as appropriate The Tribe could restrict development in areas of 

special significance. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-82

4.5. FIRE MANAGEMENT

Management common to the Proposed RMP and all alternatives would include the restoration of 

natural fire regimes using prescribed fire, mechanical treatment, chemical treatments, and 

wildland fire. Fire Condition Classes and Fire Management Categories have been designated 

throughout the VPA to indicate fire treatment priorities and are described in Chapter 3. 

Prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, and chemical treatments would be used in the Fire 

Management Category Areas every decade, as described below in Table 4.5.1. Mechanical and 

chemical treatments would primarily be applied on additional acres; however, some overlap 

could occur with the acres designated for prescribed burning. 

Table 4.5.1. Acreages in the VPA Receiving Various Treatments per Decade, by Fire 

Management Category 

Fire Management 

Category 

Prescribed Fire Mechanical Chemical 

A 1,000 5,000 5,000 

B 19,570 10,000 10,000 

C 82,738 20,000 20,000 

D 53,117 0 0 

Four Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas were identified within the VPA and assigned a Fire 

Management Category: Dry Fork, Category B; Diamond Mountain, Category C; Deep Creek, 

Category B; and Browns Park, Category B. Special attention would be directed to each of these 

areas because they present a high risk associated with human safety. 

In addition to the acres listed above, naturally occurring wildland fires would be used for fire 

management, when feasible, in the category areas as described below, in Table 4.5.2. This 

treatment would be applied under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, as determined by 

site-specific conditions. Naturally occurring wildland fires would be allowed to burn as many 

acres per category area as described below: 

Table 4.5.2. Acreages in the VPA to Receive Treatment via Natural Wildland Fires, by 

Fire Management Category 

Fire Management Category Acres Targeted Acres Allowed to Burn 

A 0 2,100 

B 0 21,000 

C 75,000 151,500 

D 30,000 30,000 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-83

4.5.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

In order to analyze the impacts of various management decisions on fire management, two key 

elements have been considered: 1) the risks of fire ignition from vehicles, humans, or other 

sources and 2) fuel loading. 

Ignition risk would occur primarily from oil and gas development activities. Management 

Common to All would include mineral leasing on approximately 188,500 acres of the Hill Creek 

Extension (see Chapter 2). In the short term, this action would create a potential fire-ignition risk 

from vehicles and construction activities. In the long term, fire risk would be present during 

mineral development activities, site maintenance, and machinery and vehicle operations. The 

presence of large mainline and feeder natural gas lines, primarily those greater than eight inches 

in diameter, would potentially impede the movement of fire suppression vehicles and equipment 

across these lines. 

Recreation management decisions under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives would draw 

visitors onto public lands within the VPA. Under all of the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, 

motorized camping vehicles would be allowed to travel off designated routes on a single path up 

to 300 feet to access an existing disturbed dispersed camp site, except in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and WSA lands. Additionally, areas (generally areas where 

disturbances to vegetation and soils would be deemed acceptable) would be designated to 

accommodate intensive cross-country travel. These activities would increase fire risk associated 

with vehicle- and human-caused ignitions. Recreation management decisions would include 

maintenance and possible expansion of all recreational sites. These activities would increase fire 

risk due to increased visitation, construction, and maintenance activities. The limitations on fire 

treatments within developed recreation areas and intense-use recreational areas would maintain 

hazardous fuel loads in these areas. 

Visual resource decisions, under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, would affect fire 

management. Restrictions on management activities that would degrade scenic quality, as 

described in the VRM I and VRM II Class objectives, could limit the use of fire management in 

some areas. Those areas most likely to be affected within the VPA would include areas 

designated as eligible for consideration under the Wild and Scenic River System, special 

designation areas, riparian corridors, and cultural sites that possess scenic quality (e.g., rock art 

and prehistoric structures) and could be damaged by fire. 

Fire management would be affected by wildlife and special status species management actions 

for the Proposed RMP and all alternatives. Spatial and timing restrictions for raptors and sage 

grouse, and surface-disturbing restrictions for wildlife would determine when, where, and to 

what degree fire management treatments would be applied. 

Vegetation treatments would occur under all rangeland improvement management decisions, and 

would use prescribed fire, mechanical, and/or chemical treatments. For analysis purposes, it is assumed 

that the greater the number of acres treated, the greater the direct long term, beneficial impacts to fire 

management because more of the fire management goals and objectives would be achieved. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-84

4.5.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

The impacts of various management decisions on fire management are quantitatively and/or 

qualitatively determined, depending on the management action. Impacts are discussed in terms of 

the risk of fire from ignition, fuel loading, and limitations on the use of prescribed fire due to 

implementation of other resource management decisions. In analyzing the impacts of the 

proposed RMP management actions on fire management, an assumption was made that there 

would be a relationship between the increased presence of humans and human activities within 

the VPA and an increase in the risks of wildland fire. 

Management actions associated with paleontology, lands and realty, forage, livestock grazing, 

soils and watershed, and wild horse's resources would have negligible impacts on fire 

management and, therefore, are not discussed further in this section. 

4.5.2.1. IMPACTS OF FIRE DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Implementation of fire management strategies and treatments would be based on Fire 

Management Categories, Fire Regimes, and Fire Condition Classes, which are depicted in 

Figures 2, 3, and 4. 

Fire Regimes are the patterns of wildland fires that include factors such as fire frequency, extent, 

and severity, and vegetation type. Regimes vary by ecosystem because each ecosystem has a 

different composition and structure determined by climatic conditions, vegetation types, and 

ignition sources. 

As described in Chapter 3, Fire Condition Classes represent the degree to which an area has 

departed from historic fire conditions. Fire Condition Classes 1, 2, or 3 are assigned to areas 

depending on wildland fire risk, potential fire intensity and severity, and ecological integrity, 

compared to the historic fire regime, which is based on the stand density, the density of forest 

understory and fuel loads, and ecological conditions prior to the implementation of a policy of 

fire suppression (USDA and USDI 2001). Class 1 represents a relatively low risk for a 

catastrophic wildland fire event, and Class 3 represents a relatively high risk. 

Fire Management Categories designate the type and extent of fire treatments in an area. The 

categories range from Category A, where full suppression of fire would be applied and the 

protection of areas where fire is not desired, to Category D in which planned wildland fires 

and prescribed fires would be used for resource benefit and where there are few constraints 

on fire use. 

4.5.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP, ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

In the long term, the proposed use of prescribed fire on 156,425 acres within the VPA per decade 

would directly benefit fire management by reducing fuel loads and stand densities and, 

subsequently, the risks of large-scale, catastrophic wildland fires. Management actions under 

these alternatives would reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fire within the VPA, when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-85

4.5.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

This alternative would designate prescribed fire on 50,900 acres of the VPA (27,950 within the 

Book Cliffs area and 22,950 in pinyon-juniper and sagebrush communities within the Diamond 

Mountain area). This alternative would not provide the fuel load reductions that would occur 

under the action alternatives. Therefore, the fire risks associated with Alternative D (No Action) 

would be higher than for the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and C, and E . 

4.5.2.2. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Wildland fire risks would be limited to Standard Stipulations and Timing and Controlled Surface 

Use areas. No Surface Occupancy and Closed category areas would not be available for surface 

development and, therefore, would not be sources of wildland fire risk from minerals 

development activities. 

4.5.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Approximately 18,860 acres of surface disturbance would pose a greater risk for wildland fire 

due to minerals development (and surface disturbances) within the BLM-administered areas of 

the VPA, in the short term and long term. Surface disturbances would include seismic 

exploration, access road and well pad construction, pipeline construction, and the construction of 

support facilities. Short-term surface disturbances within this area would increase the risk of 

wildland fire, particularly during clearing and blading of well pads and access roads, with longterm adverse impacts on fire management because of limitations on prescribed fire treatments in 

these areas. The potential risks would be created by spark or heat ignition from vehicles, 

construction equipment, and construction personnel. However, there may be beneficial impacts 

to fire management from construction of roads for minerals development. These roads would 

serve as possible fire breaks and would provide equipment access for fire control. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), the Proposed RMP would potentially disturb 

approximately 648 more acres through minerals surface disturbances (with an associated 

increase in fire risks) in the short term and long term. 

4.5.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Approximately 18,971 acres of surface disturbance would pose a greater risk for wildland fire 

due to minerals development (and surface disturbances) within the BLM-administered areas of 

the VPA, in the short term and long term. The impacts would be similar to those described under 

the Proposed RMP. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative A would potentially disturb approximately 

759 more acres through minerals surface disturbances (with an associated increase in fire risks) 

in the short term and long term. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-86

4.5.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Minerals development under this alternative would disturb approximately 19,033 acres 

throughout the BLM-administered areas of the VPA from minerals-related surface disturbances, 

in the short term and long term. The impacts would be similar to those described under the 

Proposed RMP. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative B would potentially disturb 

approximately 821 more acres in the short term and long term. 

4.5.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Minerals development under Alternative C would disturb approximately 18,757 acres throughout 

the BLM-administered areas of the VPA in the short term and long term from minerals-related 

surface disturbances. The impacts would be similar to those described under the Proposed RMP. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative C would potentially disturb approximately 

545 more acres in the short term and long term. 

4.5.2.2.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under this alternative, minerals development would disturb approximately 18,212 acres 

throughout the BLM-administered areas of the VPA from minerals-related surface disturbances 

in the short term and long term. The impacts would be similar to those described under the 

Proposed RMP. Alternative D (No Action) would potentially disturb approximately fewer acres 

in the short term and long term than the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B and C, but more 

than Alternative E. 

4.5.2.2.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Minerals development under Alternative E would disturb approximately 17,469 acres throughout 

the BLM-administered areas of the VPA in the short term and long term from minerals-related 

surface disturbances. The impacts would be similar to those described under the Proposed RMP. 

Compared to Alternative D (No Action), Alternative E would potentially disturb approximately 

744 fewer acres in the short term and long term. 

4.5.2.2.7. SUMMARY

The relative risks of fire from surface disturbance associated with minerals development would 

be highest under Alternative B, followed by Alternative A, then the Proposed RMP, then C, then 

D, then E. Alternative E would pose the lowest relative risk of fire from minerals surface 

disturbances. 

4.5.2.3. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA AREAS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

FIRE MANAGEMENT

4.5.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, approximately 106,178 acres would be managed as non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Salvage of forest woodland species would not be allowed and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-87

these areas would also be closed to woodland product harvest and salvage, resulting in longterm, adverse impacts as compared to Alternative D (No Action), by not allowing fuel load 

reductions through woodland thinning or removal of dead wood. 

Prescribed burning within these areas would still be permitted when compatible with the goals 

and objectives for management of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This 

would have long-term, beneficial impacts by reducing fire risks by reducing understory 

vegetation. 

This alternative would have more long-term adverse impacts on fire management than 

Alternative D (No Action), but fewer than Alternative E. 

4.5.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C AND D

The impacts of managing non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics on fire management 

under Alternatives B, C, and D would be the same, as no acres would be managed as non-WSA 

areas with wilderness characteristics under any of these alternatives. This would have more 

beneficial impacts on fire management as compared to Alternatives A or E. 

4.5.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, the impacts to fire management from the closure of 277,596 acres of nonWSA areas with wilderness characteristics to woodland harvest would be similar to A, but 

greater due to the additional 176, 891 acres of non-WSA lands and because these areas would 

also be closed to commercial and personal wood cutting. This alternative would have the most 

long-term adverse impacts on fire management as compared to the other action alternatives and 

Alternative D (No Action) because a greater acreage would be restricted from fuel load 

reductions through woodland thinning or removal of dead wood. 

4.5.2.4. IMPACTS OF RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

4.5.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Vegetation treatments for rangeland improvements under the Proposed RMP would occur on an 

estimated 34,640 acres. This is an estimate, not a limit. Therefore, this alternative would be less 

beneficial to fire management than Alternative D (No Action) because under the Proposed RMP 

5,750 fewer acres would be treated than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.5.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Impacts for vegetation treatments for rangeland improvements under Alternative A would be the 

same as the Proposed RMP because the acreages are the same. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-88

4.5.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Vegetation treatments for rangeland improvements under Alternative B would occur on an 

estimated 50,900 acres. This is an estimate, not a limit. This alternative would result in long-term 

benefits to fire management, when compared with Alternative D (No Action) because 10,510 

more acres would have vegetation treatments under this alternative than under Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.5.2.4.4. ALTERNATIVE C AND E 

Vegetation treatments for rangeland improvements under Alternative C and E would occur on an 

estimated 45,860 acres. This is an estimate, not a limit. These alternatives would have beneficial 

impacts on fire management, compared to Alternative D (No Action), because 5,470 more acres 

would have vegetation treatments than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.5.2.4.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Rangeland-improvement vegetation treatments under Alternative D (No Action) would occur on 

an estimated 40,390 acres. This is an estimate, not a limit. Alternative D (No Action) would 

benefit fire management more than Alternative A, but less than Alternatives B and C. 

4.5.2.5. IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Recreation opportunities included under the Proposed RMP and all of the proposed alternatives 

would draw visitors onto public lands within the VPA. It is assumed that increased visitation 

would produce an increased risk and potential for human- and/or vehicle-caused fire. In addition, 

visitation would potentially impede the BLM's ability to control fuel loading using prescribed 

fire treatments in areas with high recreational use. 

4.5.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would manage the following seven SRMAs: 

• 42,729 acres on Blue Mountain (13,328 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics) 

• 18,490 acres in Browns Park (8,050 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics) 

• 44,168 acres in Nine Mile Canyon 

• 2,831 acres along the White River 

• 69 acres in Fantasy Canyon 

• 24,259 acres on Red Mountain-Dry Fork 

• 1,014 acres around Pelican Lake 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-89

Under the Proposed RMP, 45,436 acres within the SRMAs identified as having wilderness 

characteristics would be managed as VRM II. Restrictions on management activities, as 

described in the VRM II Class objectives, could limit the use of fire management in some areas. 

The Proposed RMP would also create up to 400 miles of non-motorized trails, and up to 800 

miles of motorized trails would be developed and/or improved. These management actions 

would increase recreation-related visitation. Increased visitation would cause indirect long-term, 

adverse impacts in the form of increased wildland fire risks from human- and vehicle-caused 

ignitions. Remote and dispersed camping fires within the existing and proposed SRMAs would 

pose a particularly high risk of wildland fire. Based on the analytical assumption that increased 

visitation would increase the human-caused risks of wildland fire, the Proposed RMP would 

result in higher human-caused fire risks than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.5.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would manage the following seven SRMAs, with no specific actions specifically 

prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

• 42,758 acres on Blue Mountain 

• 273,486 acres in the Book Cliffs 

• 52,720 acres in Browns Park 

• 24,183 acres along the White River 

• 81,168 acres in Nine Mile Canyon 

• 24,259 acres on Red Mountain-Dry Fork 

• 1,014 acres around Pelican Lake 

Based on the analytical assumption that increased visitation would increase the human-caused 

risks of wildland fire, Alternative A would result in higher human-caused fire risks than 

Alternative D (No Action), but with slightly lower risks than Alternative C. 

Alternative A also proposes to create 400 miles of non-motorized trails and 800 miles of 

motorized trails would be developed and/or improved. Impacts of trail development and 

improvement are the same as described under the proposed RMP because the mileages are the 

same. 

4.5.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would not manage new SRMAs and would not establish new non-motorized trails, 

but would continue to manage four existing SRMAs: Browns Park (17,000 acres), Nine Mile 

Canyon (44,181 acres), Pelican Lake (1,014 acres), and Red Mountain (24,259 acres). No 

specific actions would be specifically prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of nonWSA lands with wilderness within SRMAs. Recreation in the Book Cliffs area would be 

unlimited and unconfined. However, up to 800 miles of motorized trails would be developed 

and/or improved. These management actions would maintain or increase recreation-related 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-90

visitation and their associated wildland fire risks, which would be less than Alternatives A ,C and 

E, but greater than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.5.2.5.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would manage the following eight SRMAs: 

• 42,758 acres on Blue Mountain 

• 273,486 acres in the Book Cliffs 

• 52,720 acres in Browns Park 

• 69 acres in Fantasy Canyon 

• 47,130 acres along the White River 

• 81,168 acres in Nine Mile Canyon 

• 24,259 acres on Red Mountain-Dry Fork 

• 1,014 acres around Pelican Lake 

Under Alternative C, up to 400 miles of non-motorized trails would be created, but no 

improvements or development of 800 miles of motorized trails. The impacts would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A. Based on the increased number of acres designated as 

SRMA and mileages of trail development/improvement, Alternative C would result in higher 

human-caused fire risks, compared to Alternative D (No Action), but less than Alternative E, as 

no specific actions would be specifically prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness within SRMAs. 

4.5.2.5.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D would manage the following recreation areas (the same as Alternative B): 

• Unlimited and unconfined recreation in the Book Cliffs 

• 17,000 acres in Browns Park 

• 44,181 acres in Nine Mile Canyon 

• 24,259 acres on Red Mountain-Dry Fork 

• 1,014 acres around Pelican Lake 

No specific actions would be specifically prescribed to protect the wilderness characteristics of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness within SRMAs. In addition, Alternative D (No Action) would 

create 55 miles of hiking and/or horseback trails, two miles of mountain bicycling trails, and one 

non-motorized trail of an unspecified length along Sears Canyon. This alternative would not 

develop or improve 400 miles of non-motorized trails nor would it develop or improve 800 miles 

of motorized trails. Based on the analytical assumption that increased visitation would increase 

the human-caused risks of wildland fire, Alternative D (No Action) would have lower fire risks 

compared to the action alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-91

4.5.2.5.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would manage the same eight SRMAs as described in Alternative C with similar 

management decisions and impacts, but also manages for protection of non-WSA areas with 

wilderness characteristics within these proposed SRMAs. The acres of non-WSA wilderness 

characteristics in each SRMA are as follows: 

• 13,308 acres on Blue Mountain 

• 77,939 acres in the Book Cliffs 

• 23,657 acres in Browns Park 

• 0 acres in Fantasy Canyon 

• 21,164 acres along the White River 

• 20,952 acres in Nine Mile Canyon 

• 0 acres on Red Mountain-Dry Fork 

• 0 acres around Pelican Lake 

Under Alternative E, the approximately 157,018 acres within the SRMAs identified as having 

wilderness characteristics would be managed as VRM I. Restrictions on management activities, 

as described in the VRM I Class objectives, could limit the use of fire management in some 

areas. Outside of the non-WSA areas, up to 400 miles of non-motorized trails would be created, 

with improvements or development of 800 miles of motorized trails. The impacts would be 

similar to those for Alternative A, but Alternative E would result in the highest human-caused 

fire risks, compared to the other action alternatives and to Alternative D (No Action), based on 

the increased number of acres designated as SRMAs, increased trail development, and 

restrictions on fire management activities within SRMAs lands identified as having wilderness 

characteristics. 

4.5.2.6. IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Motorized use in the VPA 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 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. The Proposed RMP and all of the action alternatives would lessen the impact of humancaused fires more than Alternative D (No Action), due to the reduction of motorized crosscountry travel under those alternatives. Acreages vary by alternative and are discussed below. 

4.5.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 6,202 acres would be open to unrestricted OHV travel. Another 

1,643,475 acres would be open to limited or restricted OHV travel, and 75,845 acres would be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-92

closed to OHV travel. This would have beneficial impacts on fire management as compared to 

Alternative D (No Action) as 781,657 fewer acres would be open to unrestricted OHV travel and 

28,457 more acres would be closed to OHV travel. 

4.5.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Impacts under Alternative A would be the same as under the Proposed RMP because the travel 

decisions are the same. 

4.5.2.6.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, 5,434 acres would be open to unrestricted OHV travel. Another 1,659,901 

acres would be open to limited or restricted OHV travel, and 60,187 acres would be closed to 

OHV travel. This would have beneficial impacts on fire management as compared to Alternative 

D (No Action) as 782,425 fewer acres would be open to unrestricted OHV travel and 9,799 more 

acres would be closed to OHV travel. 

4.5.2.6.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, 5,434 acres would be open to unrestricted OHV travel. Another 1,353,529 

acres would be open to limited or restricted OHV travel, and 366,559 acres would be closed to 

OHV travel. This would have beneficial impacts on fire management as compared to Alternative 

D (No Action) as 782,425 fewer acres would be open to unrestricted OHV travel and 316,171 

more acres would be closed to OHV travel. 

4.5.2.6.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 787,859 acres are open to unrestricted OHV use, largely in 

Condition 1 and Condition 2 areas. There are 887,275 acres subject to restrictions on OHV use, 

and 50,388 acres are closed to OHV use. The highest adverse impacts to fire management would 

be due to Alternative D (No Action) as compared to the Proposed RMP and the action 

alternatives because fewer acres are closed to OHV travel and more acres are open to 

unrestricted OHV travel. 

4.5.2.6.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 5,434 acres would be open to unrestricted cross-country OHV travel. 

Approximately 1,326,024 acres would be managed to restrict OHV travel to designated routes, 

and 392,818 acres would be closed to OHV travel. This would have beneficial impacts on fire 

management as compared to Alternative D (No Action) as 782,425 fewer acres would be open to 

unrestricted OHV travel and 342,430 more acres would be closed to OHV travel. 

Travel decisions would result in the same risk as Alternative A, less risk of fire than Alternative 

B and Alternative C, but more risk than Alternatives D and E. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-93

4.5.2.7. IMPACTS OF WOODLAND AND FOREST DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

4.5.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, forests and woodlands would be managed to promote biodiversity and 

multiple use/sustained yield. In addition, woodlands and forests within the VPA would be 

managed so that disturbances would not exceed levels normally expected within healthy 

woodland and forest ecosystems. Woodland and forest harvesting would reduce stand densities, 

and salvaging of dead or downed wood would reduce fuel loads, which would have direct, longterm, beneficial impacts on fire management. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 546,152 acres of forest and woodlands would be open to treatments or 

harvesting. Approximately 13,606 acres within WSAs and 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would not have woodland product harvest or salvage, but would be 

open to treatments. This would have long term, beneficial impacts by reducing the risk of 

wildland fire through fuel loads reduction. The Proposed RMP would have more long-term direct 

beneficial impacts on fire management than Alternative D (No Action) because more acreage 

within the VPA would have treatments or be harvested. 

4.5.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVES A AND C 

Under Alternatives A and C, 552,152 acres of forest and woodland are proposed for treatments 

or harvesting. Approximately 13,606 acres of WSAs would not have woodland product harvest 

or salvage, but would be open to treatments. Alternatives A and C would have more long-term 

direct beneficial impacts on fire management than Alternative D (No Action) because more 

acreage within the VPA would have treatments or be harvested. 

4.5.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under this alternative 554,108 acres of forest and woodlands would be open to treatments or 

harvesting. The long term, beneficial impacts of this management action on fire management 

would be similar to those described above for the Proposed RMP, but on a larger scale. This 

alternative would have more long-term direct beneficial impacts on fire management than 

Alternative D (No Action) because more acreage within the VPA would have treatments or be 

harvested. 

4.5.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), up to 288,200 acres (88,200 acres of forest and 200,100 acres 

of woodland) would be designated for treatments or be harvested, but public use of the resource 

and woodland salvaging is unspecified. Alternative D (No Action) would have some long-term 

direct beneficial impacts on fire management from harvesting and treatments, but less than those 

resulting from the Proposed RMP or the action alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-94

4.5.2.7.5. ALTERNATIVE E

Under Alternative E, up to 421,133 acres of forest and woodland would be treated or harvested. 

Approximately 330,573 acres within WSAs and non-WSA lands wilderness characteristics 

would not have vegetation removal. Impacts to fire management would be similar to those 

described under the Proposed RMP, but would be less as fewer acres would be treated and the 

salvage of forest and woodland species, woodland product harvest and personal and commercial 

woodcutting would not be allowed in 277,596 acres non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. This would increase the risks of large-scale, catastrophic wildland fires that 

would have direct, long-term, adverse impacts on fire management. This alternative would have 

more long term adverse impacts than any of the alternatives. 

4.5.2.8. SUMMARY

4.5.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, fire risk would be third highest due to minerals development. 

Rangeland improvements would result in fewer beneficial impacts than under Alternative D (No 

Action). Recreation decisions would result in the second highest level of risk when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Travel decisions would result in the same risk as Alternative A, less 

risk of fire than Alternative B and Alternative D (No Action)., but more risk than Alternatives D 

(No Action) and E. Alternative A would have more long-term direct beneficial impacts on fire 

management from woodland decisions that would reduce stand densities, and reduce fuel loads 

through dead or downed wood would reduce fuel loads than Alternative D (No Action). 

Management of non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics would result in fewer beneficial 

impacts to fire management as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.5.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, fire risk would be second highest due to minerals development. Rangeland 

improvements would result in fewer beneficial impacts than under Alternative D (No Action). 

Recreation decisions would result in the second highest level of risk when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Travel decisions would result in less risk of fire than Alternative 

Band Alternative D (No Action)., but more risk than Alternatives D (No Action) and E. 

Alternative A would have more long-term direct beneficial impacts on fire management from 

woodland decisions that would reduce stand densities, and reduce fuel loads through dead or 

downed wood would reduce fuel loads than Alternative D (No Action). Management of nonWSA land with wilderness characteristics would result in fewer beneficial impacts to fire 

management as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.5.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, risk of wildland fire due to minerals development would be the highest. 

Rangeland improvements would be the most beneficial under Alternative B, when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Recreation decisions would result in a higher risk of fire than 

Alternative D (No Action), but lower than the other action alternatives. Travel decisions would 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-95

result in less risk of fire than Alternative D (No Action), but more fire risk than the other action 

alternatives. Woodland decisions would have impacts on reducing the risks of wildland fire 

similar to Alternatives A and C, but on a slightly larger (and more beneficial) scale, with impacts 

to fire management more beneficial than Alternative D (No Action). Management of non-WSA 

land with wilderness characteristics would result in the same impacts as Alternative D (No 

Action). 

4.5.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, the risk of wildland fire due to minerals development would be lower than 

Alternatives A and B. Rangeland improvements would be beneficial when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), though not as beneficial as those under Alternative B. Recreation 

decisions would result in a higher risk of wildland fire, when compared to Alternative D. Travel 

decisions would result in less risk of fire than Alternatives A, B and D (No Action), but more 

risk than Alternative E. Alternative C would have more long-term direct beneficial impacts on 

fire management from woodland decisions than Alternatives A, D (No Action), and E. 

Management of non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics would result in the same impacts 

as Alternative D (No Action). 

4.5.2.8.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Minerals development proposed under Alternative D (No Action) would cause the risk of 

wildland fire to be lower than the risks under Alternatives A and B, and C, but higher than under 

Alternative E. Rangeland vegetation improvements under Alternative D (No Action) would be 

more beneficial than those of Alternative A, but less than those of Alternatives B, C, and E. 

Recreation decisions would pose less of a wildland fire risk than Alternatives A. B, C, and E. 

Travel decisions under Alternative D (No Action) would have substantially more risk than the 

action alternatives. Woodland decisions would have some beneficial impacts on fire 

management, but less than Alternatives A, B, and C. There would be no impacts from non-WSA 

land management decisions under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.5.2.8.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, the risk of wildland fire due to minerals development would be lower than 

all other alternatives. Rangeland improvements would be beneficial when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), though not as beneficial as those under Alternative B. The risk of 

wildland fire due to travel decisions would be lowest under Alternative E. Recreation and 

woodland decisions would result in the highest risk of wildland fire. Management of non-WSA 

land with wilderness characteristics would result in fewer beneficial impacts as Alternative D 

(No Action). 

4.5.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

• To ensure timely access to and escape from wildland fire or prescribed burns for fire 

suppression equipment and personnel, berm or bury pipelines at road crossings to ensure 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.5. Fire Management

Vernal RMP 4-96

that fire equipment and personnel would not be impeded or obstructed by cross-country 

natural gas or liquid petroleum pipelines. 

• To reduce fire risk, vehicles used to transport personnel and equipment to treatment areas 

would be restricted to authorized routes or equipped with spark arresters. 

• Prescriptive treatments would be managed in high-use recreation areas and during special 

seasons (e.g., big-game rifle hunting in the fall) to reduce or eliminate resource use 

conflicts. 

• To reduce wildland fire risk, after prescribed burning, chemicals and seed with 

shrub/grass/forbs would be used to reduce cheatgrass, tamarisk, and other noxious weeds 

and non-native species. 

4.5.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Wildland fire ignition risks associated with minerals development would be an unavoidable 

adverse impact. 

Recreation decisions would have unavoidable adverse impacts on fire management by increasing 

visitation, but reducing the ability of the BLM to control fuel loading through the use of 

prescribed fire or other treatments. 

4.5.5. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short-term development of mineral exploration and extraction sites would have long-term 

impacts on fire management, including increasing the wildland fire ignition risk and increasing 

the difficulty of restoring desired natural Fire Regimes and Fire Condition Classes. 

Recreation decisions would potentially result in long-term impacts to fire management by 

increasing wildland fire ignition risks that result from increased visitor use in recreation areas 

and, due to an increased human presence in VPA recreation areas, decreasing the ability to 

control fuel loading through prescribed fire. 

4.5.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Proposed management decisions regarding woodlands, recreation and travel management, 

minerals development; and management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would impose long-term limitations and restrictions on the use of prescribed fire for vegetation 

and fuels management. This, in turn, would result in a potential irretrievable departure in 

vegetative natural functioning condition, with a resultant increase in the risk of catastrophic fire 

in those areas where these restrictions are imposed. However, these impacts would not be 

irreversible as areas where proposed surface disturbance would occur could be rehabilitated or 

restored. Additionally, chemical and mechanical vegetation treatments could be used in these 

areas in lieu of prescribed fire. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 4-97

4.6. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Sources of hazardous materials are subject to the federal and state laws and regulations described 

in Chapter 3. These laws and regulations are designed to safeguard human health and safety and 

to protect other environmental resources. Enforcement of these laws and regulations would 

minimize risks associated with the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, but with an 

increase in inherent risk associated with an increase in the amount of hazardous materials 

generated, used, transported, and stored. Decisions regarding the following resources and 

resource uses would have no adverse impact on hazardous materials for the Proposed RMP or 

any of the alternatives, because none of these resources have management prescriptions that 

would generate hazardous wastes, affect cleanup of toxic or hazardous waste spills, or increase 

or decrease the dangers of existing abandoned minelands (AML) sites and related AML water 

quality. 

The following resources would not affect generation, usage, transportation, or storage of any 

hazardous materials: 

• Air quality 

• Cultural and paleontological resources 

• Fire resource actions 

• Lands and realty 

• Forage management, livestock grazing, and rangeland improvement 

• Recreation 

• Soils and water 

• Special designations 

• Travel 

• Vegetation, including woodland and riparian resources 

• Visual resources 

• Wild horse, wildlife resources, and special status species 

• Woodlands 

These impacts and resources, as they pertain to hazardous materials, are not analyzed further. 

4.6.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.6.1.1. MINERALS

For the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, BLM management goals include meeting local 

and national, non-renewable and renewable energy needs, and other public mineral needs, while 

ensuring a viable long-term mineral industry related to energy development. Management goals 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 4-98

also include reasonable and necessary protections of other resources. Oil, natural gas, and other 

mineral exploration and development operations are users and producers of hazardous materials 

within the VPA, and these operators are responsible for understanding and complying with 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. 

Under the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, approximately 188,500 acres of split-estate 

lands (lands involving Tribal surface overlying federal minerals) within the Hill Creek Extension 

of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation would be considered for minerals leasing. All 

potential mineral- and energy-related activities would be closely coordinated with the tribal 

government to ensure that their concerns were accommodated to the maximum extent possible 

under existing law and policy, and that Environmental Justice concerns were met. 

For the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, applicable safety measures would reduce the 

potential for hazardous materials contamination and releases associated with minerals 

development. All potentially hazardous chemicals in the VPA would be stored in accordance 

with state and federal guidelines. Personnel with emergency response training would periodically 

inspect areas containing chemicals. Standard operating procedures for oil and gas operators 

would include required measures that would be followed in the event of a chemical release in 

excess of reportable quantities (as outlined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA] of 1990). Bureau of Land Management standard 

approval for oil and gas operations would require that the operators be subject to required 

coordination with and/or permitting from applicable local and state agencies, and otherwise 

conform to applicable state and federal laws and regulations when conducting activities 

involving the generation, storage, or transport of hazardous materials. Additionally, federal and 

state operating and reporting requirements include provisions for the cleanup and mitigation of 

chemical, product, or waste releases. Hazardous materials associated with oil, natural gas, and 

CBNG extraction are listed in Table 3.6.1 of the Hazardous Materials section in Chapter 3. 

4.6.1.1.1. PIPELINES

The installation of pipelines and supporting services for pipelines (e.g., compressor stations) 

would be necessary for oil and gas development. The companies installing and operating 

pipelines in the VPA are responsible for understanding and abiding by the applicable hazardous 

material laws and regulations. The Vernal Field Office would be responsible for inspecting and 

monitoring these operations to ensure that these companies are in compliance with all applicable 

laws and regulations. 

4.6.1.1.2. POWER LINES

The installation of power lines would be necessary for oil and gas development, and the 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) contained in power line transformers are classified as a 

hazardous material. The operators that install and maintain the power lines are responsible for 

understanding and abiding by all applicable hazardous material laws and regulations. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 4-99

4.6.1.1.3. TRANSPORTATION

Minerals development activities would increase the instances of hazardous materials 

transportation. Transportation (e.g., trucking) companies are responsible for understanding and 

abiding by all applicable hazardous materials transportation laws and regulations. 

4.6.1.1.4. GAS FLOWLINE LEAKAGE OR RUPTURES

The potential exists for gas flowline leakage or ruptures during natural gas extraction and 

processing. 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 (Office of Pipeline Safety 

1997). More than 50% of pipeline ruptures occur as a result of heavy equipment striking the 

pipeline. Such ruptures would potentially cause a fire or explosion if a spark or open flame 

ignited the natural gas escaping from the pipeline. 

Pipeline design, materials, maintenance, and abandonment procedures are required to meet the 

standards set forth in 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). 

4.6.1.1.5. WELL FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS

Well fires are rare but can occur under certain conditions, and a well fire could result from a 

blowout during drilling activities or from a gas leak during extraction operations. Conditions that 

would cause gas accumulation in a confined space, and ignition by a spark would likely produce 

a well fire. Even though these risks are low, oil and gas companies would typically have a 

procedure within their Emergency Contingency Plan that would recommend calling a service 

company specializing in controlling and extinguishing well fires in the unlikely event of such a 

fire. 

4.6.1.1.6. HUMAN-CAUSED FIRES

Implementing the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM) measures for surface fire 

hazards would reduce the risks of human-caused wildfires resulting from unsafe well control 

practices. Well sites would be kept free of vegetation and trash in order to minimize fire fuel near 

the well. The UDOGM Rule R649-3 Drilling and Operating Practices (from the Oil and Gas 

Conservation General Rules) requires trash control measures to minimize surface fire hazard 

risk. 

4.6.1.1.7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

The potential risks associated with oil, gas, and CBNG development include geologic hazards. 

These hazards include natural gas seepage, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) releases, abnormally high gas 

pressure, seismic activity, and fires and explosions. The following sections describe these risks 

and the standard measures that would be required to minimize these risk factors. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 4-100

4.6.1.1.7.1. Natural Gas Seepage 

There are two potential avenues for natural gas to reach the ground surface. First, natural gas 

could migrate up the well bore annulus (the space between the drilling pipe and the bore hole). A 

cementing and casing program would be used to isolate or protect all geologic zones containing a 

fluid (gas or liquid) with the potential to migrate. Second, natural gas could seep through the 

natural fractures and faults of geologic formations, eventually venting when it reaches ground 

surface. The geologic setting would dictate the measures necessary to prevent natural fracture 

seepage. 

4.6.1.1.7.2. Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 

The likelihood of a potential H2S release (a byproduct of drilling, extraction, and processing) is 

monitored by H2S detectors located near the drill holes. If H2S gas was detected, an H2S 

Emergency Contingency Plan should be available for implementation by the well operator. 

4.6.1.1.7.3. Abnormal High Pressure 

High pressures could be encountered when drilling. Blowout prevention equipment must be used 

to safely control any abnormally high pressures encountered. Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2 

established the minimum equipment necessary to safely drilling and handling specific pressure 

situations. All wells drilled on federal mineral leases would abide by this Order. Wells drilled on 

private and state leases would have similar requirements administered by the Utah Division of 

Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM). Pressure equipment would be prescribed site-specifically 

during the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) approval process, and oil and gas companies 

would be required to maintain the equipment. The BLM and UDOGM would conduct 

inspections during drilling activities to verify compliance with these requirements. 

4.6.1.1.7.4. Seismic Activity 

Seismic risks in Utah are typically associated with the Wasatch Line, a north-south-trending 

system of earthquake faults. The effects of this seismically active area extend beyond Utah into 

Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, and California. The effects are not as pronounced to the east of the 

Wasatch Line (toward Vernal), but there is a system of four faults that trends east-west 

approximately 9 miles (15 km) north of the towns of Duchesne, Roosevelt, and Vernal. 

Earthquake epicenters of major historic quakes measuring four or greater on the Richter Scale 

have been recorded approximately 30 miles (50 km) west of Vernal and approximately 30 miles 

(50 km) southeast of Vernal along the Utah/Colorado border (Stokes 1986). Thus, although the 

risk is not high, a seismic risk does exist within the VPA. 

Seismic activity could increase hazardous material risks. Seismic activity has the potential to 

cause rupturing of holding or evaporative ponds, and/or cause damage to storage facilities. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 4-101

4.6.1.2. ABANDONED MINE LAND (AML) 

The BLM recognizes the need to identify and address physical safety and environmental hazards 

at all AML sites on public lands. Abandoned mine land sites would be prioritized for remediation 

and closure, based on physical safety, watershed protection, and funding by other agencies. 

Abandoned mine lands would be considered in future recreation management area designations, 

land use planning, and all applicable use authorizations. 

4.6.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

4.6.2.1. IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Increased minerals exploration and development would indirectly cause increases in hazardous 

materials risks. These impacts could be adverse and long-term. 

4.6.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.6.2.1.1.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 1,640,381 acres of BLM administered land within the VPA would be open to oil 

and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) with standard, timing limitation and/or controlled 

surface use stipulations. This represents a 7% increase in the total amount of acres available for 

leasing, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

An increase in the total number of acres available for oil and gas development would increase the 

use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the 

increase in the short-term and long-term adverse impacts due to presence hazardous materials 

would be less than 7% because the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of 

associated hazardous materials would be consistently regulated. 

4.6.2.1.1.2. Gilsonite and Phosphate 

Approximately 172 miles or 36,846 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and 

development of Gilsonite. (Additional, new veins located via field study or prospecting [not 

shown on Figure 19] would also be available if they are within Open category lands) (see Table 

4.8.1). This represents a 2% increase in total linear miles of land for Gilsonite prospecting, 

leasing, and developing compared to Alternative D (No Action). An increase in the total linear 

miles available for Gilsonite development would increase the use, generation, storage, 

transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the increase in long-term 

adverse impacts due to the presence of hazardous materials would be less than 2% because the 

use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of associated hazardous materials would 

be consistently regulated. 

Approximately 87,724 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate within areas known to contain phosphate deposits. This represents a 4% increase in 

the total acreage open for prospecting, leasing and developing phosphate, compared to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 4-102

Alternative D (No Action). An increase in the total acreage available for phosphate development 

would increase the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous 

materials. However, the increase in long-term adverse impacts due to the presence of hazardous 

materials would be less than 4% because the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or 

disposal of associated hazardous materials would be consistently regulated. 

4.6.2.1.1.3. Mineral Materials 

Approximately 389,788 acres would be open for mineral materials development. This represents 

a 1% increase in the total number of acres available for development of mineral materials, 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). An increase in the total acreage available for minerals 

development would increase the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of 

hazardous materials. However, the increase in adverse impacts due to the presence of hazardous 

materials is less than 1% because the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of 

associated hazardous materials would be consistently regulated. 

4.6.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Because the amount of acres open to mineral development (1,780,860 acres) is similar to those 

under the Proposed RMP (a 7% increase under Alternative A) and the amount of oil and gas 

wells anticipated under Alternative A is identical to the Proposed RMP (6,342 wells), impacts on 

hazardous materials would be similar to the Proposed RMP. 

4.6.2.1.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.6.2.1.3.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 1,819,397 acres of land would be administratively available for oil and gas 

leasing (which includes CBNG) with standard, timing limitation and/or controlled surface use 

stipulations. This represents an 18% increase in the total acreage available for leasing and 

potential number of wells, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

An increase by 18% of the total number of acres available for oil and gas development would 

increase the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, with 

impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

4.6.2.1.3.2. Gilsonite and Phosphate 

Approximately 172 miles or 36,846 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and 

development of Gilsonite. (Additional, new veins located via field study or prospecting [not 

shown on Figure 20] would also be available if they are within Open category lands). This 

represents a 2% increase in the total linear miles open for Gilsonite prospecting, leasing, and 

developing, compared to Alternative D (No Action), with impacts similar to those described 

under Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 4-103

Approximately 87,724 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate resources. This 4% increase in the number of available acres, when compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), would have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. 

4.6.2.1.3.3. Mineral Materials 

Approximately 432,953 acres would be open for mineral material development. This would be a 

12% increase in the total acreage available for development of mineral materials, compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). The impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

4.6.2.1.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.6.2.1.4.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 1,627,085 acres of land would be administratively available for oil and gas 

leasing (which includes CBNG) under Standard Stipulations or Timing and Controlled Surface 

Use. This represents a 6% increase in the total acreage available for leasing and potential number 

of wells, compared to Alternative D (No Action). The impacts of a 6% increase in the number of 

available acres would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

4.6.2.1.4.2. Gilsonite and Phosphate 

The number of miles Open for Gilsonite leasing and the impacts would be the same as for 

Alternative A. 

Approximately 63,571 acres would be open for phosphate development. This represents a 25% 

decrease in the total acreage Open for prospecting, leasing, and developing phosphate, compared 

to Alternative D (No Action). If this decrease in available acreage were equivalent to a decrease 

in actual mining, then there would be a decrease in the potential impacts associated with 

hazardous materials used for vehicle and equipment operations. 

4.6.2.1.4.3. Mineral Materials 

Approximately 388,699 acres would be open for mineral material development. This represents a 

0.3% increase in the total acreage available for development of mineral materials, compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). An increase in the total number of acres available for mineral 

materials development would increase the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or 

disposal of hazardous materials. However, the increase in impacts due to hazardous materials 

would be less than 0.3% because the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of 

associated hazardous materials would be consistently regulated. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 4-104

4.6.2.1.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.6.2.1.5.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 1,536,030 acres of land would be available on BLM-administered land for oil 

and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) under Standard Stipulations and Timing and Controlled 

Surface Use within the VPA. The impacts of hazardous materials from oil, gas, and CBNG 

exploration and development activities would continue at current levels, with hazardous 

materials risks at levels similar to present conditions. 

4.6.2.1.5.2. Gilsonite and Phosphate 

Approximately 168 miles (36,009 acres) would be open for prospecting, leasing, and 

development of Gilsonite resources. Approximately 84,600 acres would be open for 

development of phosphate resources. The potential impacts of hazardous materials from 

Gilsonite and phosphate mining would continue at current levels, with hazardous materials risks 

at levels similar to present conditions. 

4.6.2.1.5.3. Mineral Materials 

Approximately 387,700 acres would be open for mineral materials development, with potential 

impacts and risks from hazardous materials within the VPA at current levels. 

4.6.2.1.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.6.2.1.6.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 1,499,461 acres of land would be administratively available for oil and gas 

leasing (which includes CBNG)under Standard Stipulations or Timing and Controlled Surface 

Use. This represents a 2% decrease in the total acreage available for leasing and potential 

number of wells, compared to Alternative D (No Action). The impacts of a 2% decrease in the 

number of available acres would beneficially reduce the risks associated with use, generation, 

storage, transportation, and/or disposal of oil and gas drilling and extraction-related hazardous 

materials. 

4.6.2.1.6.2. Gilsonite and Phosphate 

Approximately 163 miles (34,9467 acres) would be open for exploration and development of 

Gilsonite resources, with impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative D (No Action). 

Approximately 52,063 acres would be Open for phosphate development, which would be a 38% 

decrease in the total acreage Open for prospecting, leasing, and developing phosphate, compared 

to Alternative D (No Action). If this decrease in available acreage were equivalent to a decrease 

in actual mining, then there would be a proportional decrease in the potentially adverse impacts 

associated with hazardous materials used for vehicle and equipment operations. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 4-105

4.6.2.1.6.3. Mineral Materials 

Approximately 344,682 acres would be open for mineral material development. This represents a 

11% decrease in the total acreage available for development of mineral materials, compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). A decrease in the total number of acres available for mineral 

materials development would decrease the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or 

disposal of hazardous materials, with a proportional decrease in potential impacts from the 

aforementioned hazardous materials activities. 

4.6.2.2. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA AREAS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.6.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, approximately 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed or NSO to minerals leasing and closed to mineral materials 

disposal. This would reduce the area available for minerals development and thus reduce the 

potential for the handling and transportation of hazardous materials, and reduce the need to 

dispose of these materials, with long-term, beneficial impacts from the reduced potential for 

hazardous materials impacts to natural resources within the VPA. Compared to Alternative D 

(No Action), this alternative would be more beneficial because the greater reduction in risks 

from hazardous materials use. 

4.6.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

 There would be no impacts of managing non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics on 

hazardous materials under Alternative A, as no acres would be managed as non-WSA areas with 

wilderness characteristics under this alternative. 

4.6.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE B, C, AND D 

The impacts of managing non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics on hazardous materials 

under Alternatives B, C, and D (No Action) would be the same as Alternative A, as no acres 

would be managed as non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics under any of these 

alternatives. 

4.6.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, approximately 277,596 acres of areas with wilderness characteristics would 

be closed to minerals leasing and mineral materials disposal. Compared to Alternative D (No 

Action), this alternative would be more beneficial because the greater reduction in risks from 

hazardous materials use. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.6. Hazardous Materials

Vernal RMP 4-106

4.6.2.3. SUMMARY

Minerals management decisions made under Alternative B would have the highest hazardous 

material potential impacts in the VPA. Minerals management decisions made under Alternative 

A would have the second highest potential impacts, followed by the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative C. and Alternative D (No Action). Alternative E would have the lowest hazardous 

materials potential impacts of all the alternatives. 

4.6.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

Using signs to identify the location of underground pipelines would help to reduce the incidence 

of ruptures caused by the impact of heavy equipment. 

No additional mitigation would be required to reduce hazardous materials impacts. Hazardous 

material risks would be low, as it is assumed that hazardous materials users and producers would 

be in compliance with existing federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous 

materials use, storage, transportation, and disposal. 

4.6.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Hazardous material risks would increase during minerals exploration and development, with 

unavoidable adverse impacts that would include the potential for H2S releases, abnormally high 

pressure during drilling, seismic activity, gas flowline leakage or rupture, well fires, and 

explosions. Hazardous materials risks and impacts would increase due to the disruption of 

minerals operations by these events and the subsequent potential release of hazardous materials 

into the environment. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts would be caused by the increase in personnel time required to 

monitor and be prepared to respond to hazardous materials releases when hazardous materials 

are being used. 

4.6.5. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

There would be no loss in either short-term uses or long-term productivity as they relate to 

hazardous materials. 

4.6.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

There are no irreversible or irretrievable impacts to hazardous materials impacts prevention for 

any of the alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 4-107

4.7. LANDS AND REALTY

The majority of specific program management decisions regarding the following resources and 

resource uses would have no adverse impacts (short term and/or long term, as well as direct 

and/or indirect) on lands and realty for the Proposed RMP of any of the alternatives. These 

include fire resource actions, air quality, hazardous materials, forage management, livestock 

grazing, and rangeland improvement, cultural and paleontological resources, some recreation 

decisions, travel decisions, vegetation decisions (including decisions regarding woodland and 

riparian resources), visual resources, and wild horse and wildlife resources. Impacts would be 

minimal because management decisions under these resources would not alter the BLM's 

authority to designate ROWs or to withdraw, acquire, and/or exchange lands under its 

administration. These impacts and resources, as they pertain to lands and realty, will not be 

analyzed further. 

In general, adverse impacts to lands and realty would be limited because the types of acquisitions 

and disposals are identified. 

4.7.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.7.1.1. DIRECT IMPACTS

No specific land disposals or exchanges have been identified under the Proposed RMP or any 

alternative; thus, there are no direct impacts associated with these lands and realty issues. Future 

land-tenure adjustments for major water developments—to protect water sources, consolidate 

management opportunities, or to accommodate the needs for the economy and community 

growth—would be processed on a case-by-case basis with public notices as required by 

regulation. 

Priorities for land-tenure adjustments would focus on opportunities to pursue and assemble land 

exchanges with the State of Utah in order to consolidate land management opportunities for the 

BLM and provide the State of Utah with additional revenue generating potential for the State 

Institution Trust Lands Administration. 

The BLM recognizes local government concerns over net gains of public lands within the 

respective counties and would continue to consider these concerns during land-tenure adjustment 

processes. 

Priority would be given for acquisition of lands containing significant paleontological or cultural 

resources, special status species habitat, riparian and wetland habitat, crucial wildlife habitat, and 

high-value recreation areas. Lands would be acquired through donation, purchase, or land 

exchange from willing partners to secure key property necessary to protect special status species 

and to promote biological diversity. Right-of-way designation would be generally avoided in 

threatened and endangered species habitat. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 4-108

Recreation resources would affect lands and realty where increased public access is desired in 

order to provide recreational opportunities on approximately 70,700 acres within the VPA. Landtenure adjustments would be made and/or easements acquired from willing partners to improve 

public access for hunting and access to rivers for fishing, boating, or swimming. In addition, 

ROW designation would be avoided in developed or inventoried recreation sites unless necessary 

to support recreational uses. 

The BLM would pursue easements from willing partners to provide access for roads and trails 

with priority given to certain areas. Similarly, easements would be pursued for access to 

woodland resources. 

Easements would be acquired to provide public access to ACECs and SRMAs, and new ROWs 

may be issued to avoid special designation areas unless necessary to support complementary 

uses. 

ACECs would be managed to protect a variety of special values under the Proposed RMP and 

each alternative. While the number of ACECs and acreage designated would vary under the 

Proposed RMP and each alternative, the values identified for protection would remain the same. 

Under the Proposed RMP or all alternatives considered, portions of the Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Green Rivers, White River, Evacuation Creek, Bitter Creek, Nine Mile Creek, and Argyle 

Creek would be recommended for designation as wild and scenic rivers. The number of 

segments and miles of river recommended suitable varies under the Proposed RMP and each 

alternative. The utility corridors that exist would be carried forward in the Proposed RMP and 

each alternative considered, for location of future utility lines. These corridors lie adjacent to, or 

cross, almost every proposed ACEC and recommended wild and scenic river. Placement of new 

power lines and pipelines within these corridors would have to be consistent with protection of 

identified relevant and important ACEC values, and outstandingly remarkable wild and scenic 

river values. For ACECs that are managed to protect relevant and important scenic values 

(Brown's Park, Four Mile Wash, Lower Green River, Nine Mile Canyon, Red Mountain-Dry 

Fork, and White River), construction of new power lines and pipelines within the designated 

corridors would have to be consistent with VRM objectives. However, construction of new 

utility lines would also have to be consistent with other natural and cultural resource objectives 

of the ACECs. Compatibility with the objectives of the ACECs would depend on the size, 

design, and location of the line within the corridors. Placement of new lines within the corridors 

would also have to be consistent with wild and scenic river values. Generally, rights-of-way are 

discouraged in "wild," scenic," and "recreational" river segments unless they are provided for in 

a plan, or no reasonable alternative exists. New lines would likely be confined to the designated 

corridors and would be designed to minimize impacts to the outstandingly remarkable river 

values. See Tables 4.16.1 for a list of ACECs that would be designated and Table 4.16.2 for a list 

of wild and scenic rivers recommended for designation under the Proposed RMP and each 

alternative. 

Specific cultural resource mitigation requirements may adversely affect some lands by limiting 

access to significant cultural sites in order to preserve cultural resources. Land-tenure 

adjustments might be made and easements acquired from willing partners to obtain land and 

provide access to significant cultural sites for protective or interpretive purposes. Right-of-way 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 4-109

designation, permits, and leases are unavailable or very limited in areas designated for avoidance 

due to significant cultural sites 

The Proposed RMP and all alternatives would have some direct short- and long-term impacts to 

lands and realty due to mineral resource decisions. If locatable minerals are found on lands to be 

sold, the VFO might remove the lands from sale, dispose of the surface estate, or reserve all or 

part of the mineral estate to the U.S. Consequently, the VFO would dispose of the mineral estate 

pursuant to Section 209(b) of the FLMPA, or a surface owner could acquire the mineral estate 

under 43 CFR 2720. Acquisition of access rights could be pursued, providing easements for 

removal of mineral resources, and ROW designation, permits, and leases would be provided for 

oil and gas gathering systems or roads. 

In 1982, a dam and reservoir ROW grant, serial number UTU-30745, was issued to the State of 

Utah Division of Water Resources, but the dam has not been built. Should the dam be 

constructed, access road(s) and power line locations and their effects would need to be addressed 

at that time. 

Where public access would be sought, VRM Class I areas may be affected. 

4.7.1.2. INDIRECT IMPACTS

Cultural and historical sites, special area designations, special status species, fish and wildlife 

habitat, wetland and riparian habitats, water and fisheries issues, and other resource values 

generally limit lands available for exchange or disposal in any area, reducing the demand for the 

number and type of realty use authorizations and withdrawals and restricting the ability to 

construct or relocate roads for legal access. 

4.7.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

No short-term indirect impacts are anticipated for the Proposed RMP or any of the alternatives. 

4.7.2.1. IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON LANDS AND REALTY

4.7.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Easements would need to be acquired from the state and/or willing private landowners to 

increase public recreation access to trail systems where they cross non-federal lands. Under the 

Proposed RMP, a public access easement would be pursued for the White River at the mouth of 

Cowboy Canyon, Bonanza Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. This would allow the public to 

access a portion of the White River, which has been nominated for Wild and Scenic River 

(WSR) status. An easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed from the Utah–Colorado line to 

Watson in Evacuation Creek would not be pursued, thus restricting access along this portion of 

the creek. 

Acquisition of Indian Trust lands in Bitter Creek and near the confluence of South and 

Sweetwater Canyons would be sought from willing partners, which would allow the public to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 4-110

access this area, as well as permit the BLM to better manage the area by consolidating 

landscape-level issues without having to consider administrative boundaries. 

Land-withdrawal decisions would preclude mineral entry on 22,814 acres under the Proposed 

RMP. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have less adverse, longterm impacts on lands and realty because fewer acres would be restricted and the range of land 

usages would be greater. 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed as ROW avoidance areas. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this 

alternative would have greater adverse, long-term impacts on lands and realty because more 

acres would be restricted and the range of land uses would be less. 

4.7.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Impacts of land-access decisions under Alternative A would be the same as the Proposed RMP, 

as the land-access management decisions are the same. 

Impacts of land withdrawal decisions under Alternative A would be the same as the Proposed 

RMP, as the same acreages are proposed for withdrawal. 

No acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as ROW 

avoidance areas under Alternative A. Impacts would be the same as Alternative D (No Action), 

because management decisions regarding non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are the 

same. 

4.7.2.1.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under this alternative, the BLM would pursue only administrative access to Indian Trust lands 

and would not pursue public access to the White River at the mouth of Cowboy Canyon, 

Bonanza Bridge, and Wagon Hound Road. These land-acquisition decisions would have 

potential direct, long- and short-term adverse effects on lands resources as compared to 

Alternative D (No Action), by restricting access to public lands and increasing BLM lands. 

Impacts of land-withdrawal decisions under Alternative B would be the same as the Proposed 

RMP, because the same acreages are proposed for withdrawal. 

Impacts of management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as 

under Alternative A because management decisions are the same. 

4.7.2.1.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Lands and realty decisions under Alternative C are similar to the Proposed RMP, except that the 

BLM would also pursue an easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed from the Utah–Colorado 

line to Watson in Evacuation Wash. Potential long- and short-term direct impacts to lands and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 4-111

realty from land-acquisition decisions under Alternative C would be similar to those described 

under Alternative A, but would also include the railroad bed easement. 

Land-withdrawal decisions would preclude mineral entry on 36,265 acres under the Alternative 

C. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this alternative would have adverse, long-term 

impacts on lands and realty because slightly more acres would be restricted; however, the range 

of land usages would be less restrictive than Alternative D, No Action, which would also 

preclude agricultural entry. 

Impacts of management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as 

under Alternative A because management decisions are the same. 

4.7.2.1.5. ALTERNATIVE D 

Lands and realty decisions under Alternative D (No Action), are unspecified in the current 

management plan. Any proposal to acquire or dispose of land would be reviewed to determine its 

potential to affect resources. 

Land-withdrawal decisions would preclude mineral and agricultural entry on 35,900 acres, over 

13,000 more acres than the Proposed RMP Alternatives A and B, but slightly fewer acres than 

Alternative C and E. This alternative would have most adverse, long-term impacts on lands and 

realty because the range of land uses would be more limited as compared to the action 

alternatives, and in general, more acres would be subject to restrictions. 

Impacts of management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as 

under Alternative A because management decisions are the same. 

4.7.2.1.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Proposed lands and realty decisions under Alternative E are similar to Alternative C, with 

potential long- and short-term direct impacts to lands and realty from land-acquisition decisions 

similar to those described under Alternative A, except that under this alternative, approximately 

277,596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the VPA would be 

designated as ROW exclusion areas to protect the wilderness characteristics values in these 

areas. This would have more long-term, adverse impacts on lands and realty by reducing the 

range of land uses as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Impacts from land withdrawal decisions under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative C 

because the acreages are the same. 

4.7.2.2. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DECISIONS ON LANDS AND REALTY

4.7.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 1,640,381 acres of BLM-administered land would be open for oil and 

gas development within the VPA and 273,706 acres would be closed to surface occupancy or 

development. Off-lease roads and pipelines related to oil and gas development are a major 

contributor to lands and realty actions within the VFO planning area. More acres would be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 4-112

available for oil and gas leasing, resulting in more land and realty actions, such as ROW 

applications, than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.7.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, 1,780,860 acres of BLM-administered land would be open for oil and gas 

development within the VPA and 133,141 acres would be closed to surface occupancy or 

development. Off-lease roads and pipelines related to oil and gas development comprise a major 

contributor to land and realty actions within the VFO planning area. More acres would be 

available for oil and gas leasing, resulting in more land and realty actions, such as ROW 

applications, than under Alternatives D, No Action. 

4.7.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, 1,819,397 acres of BLM-administered land would be open for oil and gas 

development within the VPA and 94,603 acres would be closed to surface occupancy or 

development. Impacts to lands and realty would be similar to Alternative A. More acres would 

be available for oil and gas leasing, resulting in more ROWs applied for and granted than under 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.7.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, 1,627,085 acres of BLM-administered lands would be open to minerals 

development and 286,916 acres would be closed to surface occupancy or development. Impacts 

to land and realty would be similar to Alternative A. More acres would be available for oil and 

gas leasing, and therefore more ROWs would be applied for and granted than under Alternative 

D (No Action). 

4.7.2.2.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), 1,536,030 acres on BLM-administered lands within the VPA 

would be open to oil and gas development, while 189,470 acres would be closed to surface 

occupancy or development. Fewer acres would be available for oil and gas leasing, and therefore 

fewer ROWs would be applied for and granted as compared to Alternatives A through C, but 

more than Alternative E. 

4.7.2.2.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 1,499,461 acres of BLM-administered lands would be open to oil and gas 

minerals development and 414,666 acres would be closed to surface occupancy or minerals 

surface occupancy or development. Of all the alternatives, Alternative E has the fewest acres 

available for oil and gas leasing and would result in fewest ROWs being applied for and granted. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 4-113

4.7.2.3. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA AREAS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

LANDS AND REALTY

4.7.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, approximately 106,178 acres within the VFO would be retained in 

federal ownership and would be managed to preserve non-WSA wilderness characteristics. In 

addition to managing these areas as realty-action ROW avoidance areas, they would be managed 

as closed for oil and gas development (except for the White River area which is NSO and subject 

to prior existing rights), closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material disposal, not 

available for disposal or exchange, and managed under VRM Class II objectives. 

Restricting or prohibiting surface disturbance related development in order to protect the 

wilderness values in non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics would result in fewer realty 

actions as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.7.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVES A–D 

Under these alternatives, there would be no management decisions to protect non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. 

4.7.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Approximately 277,596 acres within the VFO would be retained in federal ownership and 

managed to preserve non-WSA wilderness characteristics. In addition to managing these areas as 

realty-action ROW exclusion areas, they would be managed as closed for oil and gas 

development (subject to prior existing rights), closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral 

material disposal, not available for disposal or exchange, and managed under VRM Class I 

objectives. Restricting or prohibiting surface disturbance related development in order to protect 

the wilderness values in these areas would result in fewer realty actions as compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.7.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

There are no mitigation measures necessary for lands and realty. 

4.7.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

There are no unavoidable adverse impacts. 

4.7.5. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

At this point in time, there is no known loss in land productivity as a result of the decisions of the 

Proposed RMP or any alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.7. Lands and Realty

Vernal RMP 4-114

4.7.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

The Proposed RMP and all alternatives accommodate land-tenure adjustments that may result in 

the permanent loss of lands from public ownership if they enter private or state ownership. 

There are no irreversible or irretrievable impacts to Lands and Realty for the Proposed RMP or 

any alternative chosen. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-115

4.8. LIVESTOCK AND GRAZING MANAGEMENT

4.8.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Impacts to livestock and grazing resources would occur under the Proposed RMP and all of the 

proposed alternatives. The impacts could include those caused by route construction and 

maintenance, wellpad construction, vehicle traffic, accidental spills of potentially hazardous 

materials, and noxious weed infestations. These impacts are generally mitigated as part of the 

conditions of approval. 

Controlling livestock movement by maintaining fence lines would serve to maintain efficient 

livestock and range management. 

While new routes and wellpad construction produce adverse impacts on livestock grazing, such 

as removing forage, they can also have beneficial impacts. The construction of new routes 

associated with the Proposed RMP and the alternatives would provide beneficial impacts for 

livestock permittees from improved access to remote facilities and grazing areas. Also, the 

development of route systems within the VPA would improve livestock dispersal, thereby 

improving livestock foraging efficiency as cattle are better dispersed across the landscape due to 

improved access to forage and water sources. However, increased access could produce an 

increased disturbance to livestock, an increased number of undesignated routes, and increased 

distribution problems associated with unclosed cattle gates and/or gaps created in cut fences. 

Vehicles would also present a potential collision hazard to livestock. 

For the Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives, fugitive dust caused by vehicles traveling 

along proposed new routes, existing routes, and other areas of surface disturbance could settle on 

vegetation used as forage, especially alongside routes with heavy traffic. This dust would 

potentially affect the quality and regenerative capacity of roadside grasses and forbs as well as 

decrease the palatability of the forage for livestock use. 

Livestock forage would also be potentially impacted by spills and/or disposal of produced water 

from CBNG activities, and spills of fuels, solvents, or drilling fluids. 

Areas of disturbed soil would lead to invasion by noxious weeds or other undesirable non-native, 

invasive plant species. These species would reduce rangeland and forage values by replacing 

preferred forage species, leading to a reduction in grazing capacity. Without proper management 

and control, invasive plant species become established and cause severe infestations. 

Additionally, some invasive species are poisonous to livestock and can kill or impair them if 

ingested. 

Under the Proposed RMP and the proposed alternatives for riparian resources, many areas have 

proposed riparian management improvements that limit or reduce soil disturbance and manage 

for greater vegetative cover. Impacts from these management alternatives are generally projected 

to have minor impacts on livestock grazing, except as they relate to improved vegetation cover in 

currently impaired areas, or potential reduction in intensity or exclusion of grazing in currently 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-116

impaired areas being managed for the recovery of vegetation. Long-term effects are expected to 

include the required development of grazing management plans to achieve appropriate 

vegetation utilization as per BLM guidelines. 

For all of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, wild horse management decisions would 

generally have an indirect relationship to impacts upon livestock grazing, mostly in regards to 

forage availability. In terms of AUMs and categories of use, forage would be managed and 

designated to livestock, wildlife, and/or wild horses. Thus, if AUM designation were changed for 

wild horses, it could affect livestock and wildlife, or it could affect wildlife only. See Section 

4.7.2.2 for specific foraging decisions that affect livestock in terms of wild horses. 

Several areas have proposed wildlife and fisheries management decisions that would limit or 

reduce access and disturbance seasonally or year-round. Impacts from the proposed designations 

are generally projected to have relatively minor effects on livestock grazing. Impacts specific to 

decisions regarding the provision of habitat and forage, and potential emigration and 

reintroduction of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, and moose, would include some 

changes in forage availability and use-priority. Combined with prescribed fire and other 

vegetation treatment options, including enhanced distribution and access to water, the impacts to 

livestock grazing from wildlife and fisheries management would be minor. 

For proposed travel decisions under all of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, many areas 

have proposed recreation management decisions that would increase on- and off-trail activities 

and OHV use. Impacts to livestock grazing from these management decisions would be 

moderately adverse in that they would result in increased human-caused noise, dust, and 

vegetation disturbance, and increase the opportunities for harassment of grazing animals. Intense 

recreational activities would exclude livestock use in the same area unless uses were separated in 

time. Increased human-caused impacts would include potential harassment of livestock, potential 

for OHVs to move off of designated routes, potentially producing vegetation losses on illegal 

trails, and the potential cutting of fences or leaving gates open affecting proper livestock 

distribution. Under Alternative D (No Action), much of the VPA would be open to cross-country 

OHV travel, which would allow visitors to travel throughout the allotments and potentially 

reduce forage productivity. For example, four open or "play" areas exist close to Vernal, Utah, 

and are designated as "open" for OHV use. While these areas are limited in forage production, 

they are located within existing allotments. Due to the level of impact, these areas would be 

considered lost in the calculation of forage production because these areas effectively change the 

allotment boundaries. The mean number of AUMs per acre of land within the VPA is 0.06 

AUMs (standard deviation of 0.04). Assuming this average loss per acre of land open to OHV 

use, the number of lost AUMs for these areas under Alternatives A, B, and C, would be up to 

372, 326, and 326 AUMs respectively. There is no way to effectively quantify the number of 

AUMs that have currently been lost in the 787,859 acres of area open to OHV use under 

Alternative D (No Action). However, it is assumed that future loss of AUMs, by continuing to 

leave these areas open, would be much higher than would be experienced under the more 

controlled OHV use proposed under the Proposed RMP and the action alternatives. 

Under the Proposed RMP and the action alternatives, areas proposed for woodland and forest 

management improvements would limit or reduce soil disturbance and manage for greater 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-117

vegetation cover. Impacts from these management alternatives are generally considered to have 

relatively minor impacts on livestock grazing, except as they relate to improved vegetation cover 

and additional forage in currently impaired areas. 

4.8.2. ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

Management decisions specific to the Proposed RMP and the identified alternative have the 

potential to impact livestock grazing in the following ways: 

• Impacts to livestock grazing from fire management decisions, livestock grazing management 

decisions, rangeland improvements, riparian management decisions, vegetation management 

decisions, and woodland and forest management decisions are projected to be directly 

beneficial and provide both short- and long-term improvements in forage health and 

availability, habitat improvements, and water access and availability. The use of fire as a 

management tool may lead to some areas being unavailable for foraging in the short term, but 

in the long term would act to improve overall conditions and reduce the likelihood for 

wildland fire damage. 

• Without careful management, increased levels of livestock, wildlife and/or wild horse use 

could lead to increased utilization levels and decreased forage quality over time. 

• Impacts from special status species and wildlife and fisheries management decisions are 

projected to be adversely small to moderate on livestock grazing, as management for the 

increased needs of bighorn sheep could result in the reduction of grazing opportunities and 

changes in priority forage utilization for livestock. 

• Impacts from recreation and travel-based management decisions are expected to be adversely 

small to moderate on livestock grazing as related to increases in noise, dust, soil and 

vegetation disturbances, and harassment from humans. The majority of these projected 

impacts are assumed to be the result of proposed increases in motorized travel and access 

opportunities. 

• Impacts associated with mineral management decisions could be potentially adverse to 

livestock grazing, as they represent the potential loss of AUMs from mining, well pad and 

access road construction, and the construction of support facilities. In most cases, these 

impacts are routinely mitigated, are of relatively short duration (e.g., surface disturbances 

around oil and gas well pads and extraction infrastructure are reclaimed immediately after 

construction) and affect a relatively small area within the VPA (the predicted surface 

disturbances and losses of AUMs from minerals development are discussed below in 

subsection 4.7.2.3). These adverse impacts to livestock and grazing may be greater where 

energy development features include dense well sites (i.e., more dense than a 40-acre well 

spacing). Current RFD scenarios do not assume such a high density. Other potentially 

adverse but remote impacts from mineral development would include increased livestock 

management needs, decreased livestock dispersal, and the physical risks of livestock/vehicle 

collisions associated with increased vehicle traffic in grazing areas. There are often benefits 

where reclamation of right-of-way corridors and well pads establish more palatable forage. 

• Impacts from cultural resource management decisions, paleontological resources decisions, 

land and realty management decisions, soils and watershed management decisions, special 

designations, and visual resource management decisions are projected to have minor or 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-118

negligible impacts on livestock grazing except as they impact other management decisions as 

outlined above. These categories will not be discussed in detail in this alternatives analysis. 

4.8.2.1. IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

4.8.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP, AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

The Proposed RMP and all of the action alternatives propose using prescribed fire to treat up to 

156,425 acres per decade. Livestock grazing management decisions would need to be 

coordinated with fire management decisions. While general areas have been identified for 

prescribed fire treatments, decisions regarding where fire would be prescribed would be 

determined by the Fire Management Plan and would be dependent upon the status of the 

vegetation and the seasonal and annual meteorological conditions. Therefore, it is very difficult 

to quantify potential impacts to livestock grazing. Prescribed burning is a useful tool for resource 

management and would be used to enhance forage for cattle and to reduce hazardous fuel loads. 

The direct effects of prescribed fire and fire treatments as a tool for forage and fuels management 

would be large for livestock grazing, both in the short and long term. Cumulatively, the use of 

prescribed fire would have beneficial impacts, and would outweigh the short-term impacts 

associated with the use of prescribed fire or other fire treatments as a management tool. 

Generally, the short-term livestock grazing effects from prescribed burn and/or other fire 

treatments would include the exclusion of livestock (and other related activities) from treated 

areas for approximately three growing seasons (typically, one growing season prior to treatment 

and two seasons post-treatment). This would result in a short-term reduction in available grazing 

acreage and associated AUMs where prescribed burning or other fire treatments coincide with 

grazed areas. 

The long-term direct effects from prescribed burns would include improvement in the health, 

biomass, and diversity of forage. Studies on prescribed fire in other areas have shown that cattle 

gains were much greater on burned range than on unburned range during the spring and two to 

three times higher for the entire season. Also, the cattle showed a strong preference for recently 

burned areas, when the burned areas were available for grazing (FDOF 2000). The use of 

prescribed burning is an irreplaceable tool in maintaining biological diversity and ecological 

balance. Prescribed burns, as well as wildland fire, could effectively produce an increase in 

forage for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses. Decisions to potentially increase AUMs would be 

authorized temporarily and would be non-renewable for the affected allotments. 

In conclusion, while the use of prescribed burning as a management tool would result in some 

short-term losses of grazing areas, the long-term beneficial impacts of its application far 

outweigh the projected short-term impacts. Prescribed fire has the potential to improve forage 

and presents a much lower risk to livestock grazing than wildland fire burning over the same 

area. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-119

4.8.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

This alternative would use prescribed burning to treat up to approximately 50,900 acres per 

decade within the VPA. The description of impacts under Alternative D (No Action) would be 

generally the same as Alternative A, with a difference in magnitude of both impacts and benefits 

associated with the difference in total acres treated. In comparison, the Proposed RMP and the 

action alternatives would have greater beneficial impacts on livestock grazing from fire 

treatments and prescribed burning than Alternative D (No Action) because more area would be 

treated than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.8.2.2. IMPACTS OF FORAGE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

4.8.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The determination of the season of use under the Proposed RMP was based on plant phenology 

to ensure that the physiological needs of plants would be met. Therefore, the Proposed RMP, by 

focusing on the needs of plants, both due to season of use and utilization levels, would ultimately 

improve rangeland conditions and meet the Standards for Rangeland Health. Within the VPA, a 

total of 138,402 AUMs would be allocated to livestock, a total of 104,865 AUMs would be 

allocated to wildlife, and 2,340 AUMs would be temporarily allocated to wild horses. Within the 

uplands in the VPA, up to 50% use of forage would be allowed unless otherwise specified by a 

management plan. The Proposed RMP and all of the action alternatives would reduce forage 

availability from current conditions for livestock. Under the Proposed RMP, there would be a 5% 

reduction in livestock forage allocations when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

As the number of AUMs is directly related to the amount of available forage for grazing, the 

short- and long-term direct impacts can be similarly anticipated whenever AUMs are used as a 

quantitative measure of impact. In the short term, the Proposed RMP would beneficially impact 

livestock. Also, the use of grazing management criteria (see Section 2, Alternatives) to maintain 

or improve rangeland conditions, would over the long term, maintain adequate forage production 

levels for livestock, wildlife, and wild horse use. Minor, adverse, indirect impacts as a result of 

the implementation of the Proposed RMP would occur to the ranching community, but not 

individual ranchers, due to the reduction in AUMs. 

Under the Proposed RMP, allowable utilization on upland would be 50 percent. This level of 

utilization would be considered proper use because plant health would be maintained and 

adequate root growth would be allowed to occur. The Proposed RMP would result in less impact 

to rangeland health than Alternative D (No Action) because upland utilization is unspecified 

under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.8.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts to livestock and grazing under this alternative would be the same as discussed under 

the Proposed RMP because the management decisions are similar. Under Alternative A, 137,838 

AUMs would be allocated to livestock, 104,871 AUMs for wildlife, and 2,940 AUMs for wild 

horses, and the percentage of upland forage utilization would be the same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-120

4.8.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

The determination of season of use under Alternative B was based on billed use. The billed use is 

based on how the permittees are actually billed. 

Within the VPA, a total of 139,163 AUMs would be allocated to livestock, a total of 104,871 

AUMs would be allocated to wildlife, and no (0) AUMs would be allocated to wild horses. This 

reallocation in AUMs would be due to the increase in AUMs from acquired private properties. 

This alternative would result in an approximate 5% reduction in AUMs for livestock as 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). Overall reductions in forage use would be 0.8 percent. 

Within the uplands of the VPA, up to 60% use of forage would be allowed unless otherwise 

specified by a management plan. The Proposed RMP and all of the action alternatives would 

reduce forage availability from current conditions for livestock; however, of the action 

alternatives, Alternative B would be most favorable to livestock. 

In the short term, Alternative B would beneficially impact livestock, and the use of grazing 

management criteria (see Chapter 2, Alternatives) to maintain or improve rangeland conditions 

would, over the long-term, maintain adequate forage production levels for livestock and wildlife 

use. Overall, grazing management criteria under this alternative would be beneficial for livestock 

management. Minor indirect impacts as a result of the implementation of Alternative B would 

occur to ranchers due to the reduction in AUMs and to local economies because of economic 

impacts to ranchers. 

Under Alternative B, allowable utilization by livestock on upland vegetation would be 60 

percent. This level of utilization would not be considered proper use without appropriate grazing 

management in place that would meet the physiological needs of plants because plant health 

would not be maintained over the long term and adequate root growth would not be allowed to 

occur. This alternative would have indirect long-term, adverse impacts on livestock and grazing 

because of a decline in rangeland health. Alternative B would result in a greater adverse impact 

to rangeland health than the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, C, and E, but would be less than 

Alternative D (No Action). 

4.8.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

The determination of season of use under Alternatives C and E would be based on how grazing 

was adjudicated (judicially assigned) in the 1960s. Within the VPA, a total of 77,294 AUMs 

would be allocated to livestock, a total of 106,196 AUMs would be allocated to wildlife, and a 

total of 3,960 AUMs would be allocated to wild horses. The number of livestock AUMs was 

determined by removing historic non-use AUMs (available AUMs not used over the past 10 

years) from Alternative D (No Action) for the life of the management plan. Non-use by 

permittees would be the result of factors such as private business reasons, livestock market 

fluctuations, and drought conditions. This would result in an approximate 47.1% permitted 

reduction for livestock under Alternatives C and E as compared to Alternative D (No Action), 

which would have a major adverse impact on the livestock and grazing resource. Overall 

reductions in forage use would be 24.3%. Within the uplands of the VPA, up to 50% use of 

forage would be allowed unless otherwise specified by a management plan. All of the action 

alternatives would reduce forage availability from current conditions for livestock, and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-121

Alternatives C and E are the alternatives least favorable to livestock from the standpoint of total 

available AUMs. However, from a rangeland health perspective, Alternatives C and E would 

result in the least use by livestock of the forage. Proper levels of use sustain a healthy vegetation 

condition that would support continued livestock grazing. 

Because the number of AUMs is directly related to the amount of available forage for grazing, 

the short- and long-term direct impacts can be similarly anticipated whenever AUMs are used as 

a quantitative measure of impact. In the short term, Alternatives C and E would provide forage 

for livestock for roughly half of the AUMs as compared to Alternative D (No Action), due to the 

47.1% removal of historic non-use AUMs. This reduction would have a major impact on the 

livestock industry within the VPA. However, the total use of AUMs would not realistically differ 

from current conditions based on the levels of non-use. As with the other alternatives, grazing 

management criteria would be followed (see Chapter 2, Alternatives) to maintain or improve 

rangeland conditions. A long-term direct, adverse impact of Alternatives C and E would be the 

limitation of permittees to expand the size of their operations above current levels within the 

allotments. This limitation would not allow the number of livestock to increase as markets 

improve, but increases would be driven by rangeland health and the capacity of the vegetation to 

support grazing. Forage production would likely increase under Alternative E, resulting in 

increased feed for foraging animals and an improvement in rangeland health. Alternatives C and 

E would result in indirect impacts to ranchers and their families, to the local economy due to the 

reduction in livestock AUMs, and to local businesses due to the slowed economy. The reduction 

in permitted AUMs could affect the ability of ranchers to obtain adequate financial resources 

because federal permits are a recognized value to lending institutions. Fire ecology would also 

change due to the limited amount of grazing that would be authorized. The increased amount of 

forage would increase fuel loads, thereby affecting rangeland fire conditions. 

Rangeland health would be the driving force under Alternatives C and E and would be monitored 

to ensure that rangeland health standards would be met. As a result, the number of AUMs could 

increase under Alternatives C and E on a case-by-case basis as directed by improved rangeland 

health. Under Alternatives C and E, allowable utilization levels of 50% on uplands would be 

targeted to provide for plant health and adequate root growth. This level is expected to vary from 

year to year due to climatic changes, and the 50% utilization target could be modified in sitespecific management plans considering allotment-specific conditions. Because of their lower 

utilization limits (50%), the Proposed RMP, and Alternatives A, C, and E would result in less 

livestock use of forage, compared to Alternative B (specified for management at 60% forage 

utilization). Proper levels of use sustain a healthy vegetation condition that would support 

continued livestock grazing. A comparison to Alternative D (No Action) is not possible because 

there is no specified utilization target. However, healthy rangeland standards would be targeted 

under all of the alternatives. 

4.8.2.2.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

The determination of season of use under Alternative D (No Action) was based on the permitted 

use. Season of use, combined with allowable utilization levels would adversely impact rangeland 

health to the greatest degree among the alternatives. Under this alternative, within the VPA, a 

total of 146,161 AUMs would be temporarily allocated to livestock, a total of 96,607 AUMs 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-122

would be allocated to wildlife, and a total of 2,340 AUMs would be allocated to wild horses. 

Forage actions for the uplands in all localities of the VPA are unspecified; therefore, the effects 

of forage management decisions on livestock grazing cannot be determined at this time. 

Alternative D (No Action) is the alternative most favorable to livestock. 

As the number of AUMs is directly related to the amount of available forage, the short- and longterm direct impacts can be similarly anticipated whenever AUMs are used as a quantitative 

measure of impact. In the short term, Alternative D (No Action) would beneficially impact 

livestock, and the use of grazing management criteria (see Section 2, Alternatives) to maintain or 

improve rangeland conditions, would over the long-term, maintain adequate forage production 

levels for livestock, wildlife, and wild horse use. Minor indirect impacts as a result of the 

implementation of Alternative D (No Action) would occur to ranchers due to the increased 

amount of forage from range improvement practices. 

Under Alternative D (No Action), allowable utilization on upland vegetation and riparian 

vegetation are unspecified. Depending on the allotment, proper use would potentially not be 

maintained. Alternative D (No Action) would potentially result in the greatest adverse impact to 

rangeland health, as compared to the Proposed RMP and alternatives. 

4.8.2.3. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Activities associated with the exploration and development of mineral resources would have 

impacts on livestock grazing that would result in: 

• the temporary loss of vegetation and/or the loss of land available for grazing; 

• the possible disruption of livestock practices; 

• the possible loss of grazing capacity due to changes in land management. 

These impacts would be minor (and would be routinely mitigated), unless well densities were 

higher than projected. Short term losses of forage from surface disturbances would be adverse; 

however, reclamation of these areas would create the opportunity for establishing more palatable 

forage. Livestock grazing and the development of oil and gas and CBNG natural gas deposits are 

assumed to be generally compatible with livestock grazing in most cases, as exploration activity 

would be short-term and extraction activities and impacts are expected to require relatively small 

areas for the placement of equipment and machinery. The development of phosphate and 

Gilsonite resources would result in the long-term removal of lands from grazing activity to a 

greater extent than the above resource extraction processes because of greater surface and 

subsurface disturbances. In general, livestock grazing on rangeland would be expected to 

continue at some level during the development of oil and gas, and coal bed resources. 

The potential impacts of mineral development on livestock grazing would be the same for the 

Proposed RMP and all of the alternatives. The construction of drilling well pads, pipelines, and 

access routes would remove areas from the forage base, thereby resulting in a decrease in 

available AUMs for livestock. The actual losses of AUMs as a result of development under each 

alternative are described separately below. Mineral development would also potentially produce 

adverse impacts on use patterns due to the construction of new access routes and fencelines, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-123

resulting in the potential fragmentation of forage resources. This fragmentation could result in 

areas where livestock grazing would be avoided or areas where livestock become more 

concentrated. While the loss in AUMs under any alternative would be relatively low, these other 

impacts pertaining to resource fragmentation could result in a cumulatively greater impact. 

The development of wellpad and mining access routes would have both adverse and beneficial 

impacts on the grazing resource. Routes would beneficially provide additional access to portions 

of the allotments that currently do not have access. Access routes could increase livestock 

distribution in some areas, but can also disrupt distribution patterns. Increased livestock 

distribution could occur in some areas that have previously been inaccessible due to terrain 

limitations, distance from water, or a combination of both. Livestock distribution would be 

adversely disrupted in some areas because livestock would move along the routes, thereby 

missing available forage, or livestock could gain access to areas that are not desirable or are too 

fragile for grazing. Access routes would also allow increased vehicular traffic, contributing to 

potentially adverse disturbance to livestock from OHV users and those seeking dispersed 

recreational opportunities. 

4.8.2.3.1. ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS

In developing this analysis, there was a large degree of recognized uncertainty regarding the 

magnitude of final development. Uncertainty specific to livestock grazing impacts includes the 

number of wells, type and amount of equipment used, specific locations of development, etc. 

Because of this uncertainty, actual impacts would vary from the projected values and would 

potentially be affected by the timing of phased development and associated permit requirements. 

The projected impacts discussed below were based on the following assumptions: 

• Losses in grazing area from exploration activities. 

• Areas of impact and changes in AUMs were calculated assuming that all mineral extraction 

activity would be located on grazed lands. 

• All impacts to livestock grazing were assessed at the full magnitude of the proposed 

management alternatives and therefore represent impacts at full development. Initial impacts 

are expected to be much smaller as all lands will not be developed at the same rate or 

schedule for any of the proposed alternatives. 

• To the extent possible, existing roadways and fence crossings would be used for oil and gas 

operations rather than new construction in the same vicinity. 

• Fugitive dust emissions from roadways were treated as line sources in the air quality model 

(see subsection 4.2.3.6.1.3). This may increase or reduce the predicted maximum loads 

deposited near roadways depending on meteorology and terrain. 

• Other specific assumptions as detailed within this analysis. 

4.8.2.3.2. PROPOSED RMP 

General impacts to livestock grazing under the Proposed RMP are projected to be primarily 

caused by the loss of grazing land from the construction of well pads, other extraction facilities 

and access routes; loss of vegetation available for grazing due to surface disturbance in areas 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-124

associated with extraction activities; and disruption of livestock management practices due to 

extraction activities. For the purposes of this analysis, the mean number of AUMs per acre of 

land within the VPA (0.06) was used to estimate the potential loss of AUMs due to mineral 

development disturbances. Under the Proposed RMP, a total of 303 AUMs (based on the RFD 

prediction of 5,045 acres of short term surface disturbances) would be lost in the short-term due 

to oil and gas well construction (including CBNG development) and associated facilities. The 

total long-term loss of AUMs from minerals development would be 829 AUMs (based on a RFD 

prediction of 13,815 acres of long-term disturbance from well pads, pipelines, roads, 

compressors, and power line construction), which would be a 4% increase in lost AUMs when 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Each exploration or extraction site would be unique and would have site-specific impacts on 

livestock and on grazing. Impacts specific to minerals exploration are expected to be short-term 

(e.g., the length of time required to drill a well and determine its productivity potential); impacts 

from extraction activities are expected to be long term and last as long as those activities are 

occurring (i.e., the productive lifetime of a oil/gas well or mine). Changes in livestock 

management that would be necessary during minerals operations would potentially include 

construction of cattle guards and fences to prevent livestock escape due to the proposed 

construction of routes, and identification of specially designated or restricted areas and pipelines. 

It should be noted that a total exclusion of livestock grazing is not expected to occur within areas 

of oil and gas, and CBNG development. 

In the long term, the movement of livestock within the VPA would be hindered, to some degree, 

by the placement of routes and well pads or similar extraction-related construction. New routes 

associated with the proposed alternatives would provide livestock permittees with improved 

access to remote facilities and grazing areas. Increased vehicle traffic associated with the new 

routes (recreational and those associated with mineral exploration and extraction activities) 

would present a potential physical hazard to livestock proportional to traffic and livestock 

density. Increased use of the land area by mineral resources would potentially shift grazing 

locations, resulting in greater grazing pressure on more remote areas. 

Fugitive dust from new and existing routes and other areas of surface disturbance would have 

adverse impacts on livestock grazing, as it would tend to settle onto forage, especially along 

routes with heavy traffic. Such dust has the potential to affect the quality and regenerative 

capacity of grass and forb forage. Generally such effects are most severe in an area extending up 

to 0.25 miles from the route. Air quality modeling for this alternative has projected that 254 

miles of new routes would be constructed per year, with the potential to generate 121 tons of 

particulates (PM10) per year. Given the 0.25-mile assumption for dust effects, this equates to an 

area of impact of approximately 350,000 acres, not all of which would be grazed acres. 

Additional, potentially adverse impacts on livestock and grazing would be produced by the 

establishment and spread of non-native, invasive species and noxious weeds that replace or outcompete palatable forage, and the disposal or spilling of highly saline produced-water from 

CBNG extraction activities, fuels and solvents, and drilling fluid that would adversely reduce 

forage productivity. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-125

4.8.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE A 

The short term and long term impacts would be the same as discussed above under the Proposed 

RMP. There would be a short term loss of 304 AUMs from wellpad, pipeline, infrastructure, and 

access road construction (based on a RFD projection of 5,066 acres of disturbance). The total 

long-term loss in AUMs from constructed physical facilities would be 833 AUMs (based on a 

RFD projection of 13,879 acres of disturbance), which would be 4% increase in lost AUMs, 

when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Fugitive dust impacts would be the same as discussed above under the Proposed RMP, as the 

same number of new roads per year would be constructed, with the potential to generate the 

same number of tons of PM10 particulates per year. The impacts from fluid spills and invasive 

species establishment would be the same as discussed above. 

4.8.2.3.4. ALTERNATIVE B 

Short-term and long term impacts from mineral resource exploration and development for 

Alternative B would be the same as those described under the Proposed RMP. Under Alternative 

B, a total of 305 AUMs that would be lost in the short-term due to oil and gas (including CBNG) 

well construction and associated facilities (based on a RFD disturbance of 5,088 acres in the 

short term). This alternative would reduce forage by 837 AUMs in the long term (from a 

projected surface disturbance of 13,945 acres). This would be a 5% long-term increase in the 

number of lost AUMs as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

The air quality modeling for this alternative has projected that the construction of 257 miles of 

new routes per year would create the potential to generate 123 tons of particulate (PM10) per 

year. Given the assumption of 0.25 mile for dust effects, this equates to an area of impact of 

approximately 350,000 acres, not all of which would be grazed acres. The impacts of fugitive 

dust on livestock forage are discussed under the Proposed RMP. 

4.8.2.3.5. ALTERNATIVE C 

The short-term and long term impacts from mineral resource exploration and development for 

Alternative C would be the same as those described under the Proposed RMP. Under Alternative 

C, a projected total of 301 AUMs that would be lost in the short term because of oil and gas well 

(including CBNG) construction and associated infrastructure. The total long-term loss of AUMs 

from constructed physical facilities would be 824 AUMs (from oil and gas disturbances on 

13,737 acres), which is a 3% increase in AUMs lost as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Air quality modeling for this alternative has projected the construction of 249 miles of new 

routes per year with the potential to generate 119 tons of particulate (PM10) per year. Given the 

0.25-mile assumption for dust effects, this equates to an area of impact of approximately 350,000 

acres, the same as the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-126

4.8.2.3.6. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

General impacts from mineral resource exploration and development for Alternative D (No 

Action) are expected to be comparable to those described for the Proposed RMP. Under 

Alternative D (No Action), a total of 293 AUMs that would be lost in the short-term due to oil 

and gas well (includes coal bed) construction and associated facilities. There would be a total 

long-term loss of 800 AUMs, with the same impacts as those described under the Proposed 

RMP. 

For Alternative D (No Action), air quality modeling has projected that 250 miles of new routes 

would be constructed per year with the potential to generate 119 tons of PM10 particulates per 

year. Given the 0.25-mile assumption for dust effects, this equates to an area of impact of 

approximately 350,000 acres. 

4.8.2.3.7. ALTERNATIVE E 

The short term and long term impacts to livestock forage from minerals development would be 

the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP Under Alternative E, a total of 282 AUMs would 

be lost in the short term due to oil and gas well (includes CBNG) construction and associated 

facilities. Long term loss of forage productivity would total 766 AUMs (based on a RFD 

prediction of 12,765 acres of disturbances), with impacts as discussed above under the Proposed 

RMP, which would result in a 4% reduction in lost AUMs when compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Air quality modeling has determined that 249 miles of new roads would be constructed each 

year, with the generation of 119 tons of PM10 particulates per year. This equates to an area of 

impact of approximately 350,000 acres. 

4.8.2.4. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA AREAS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

4.8.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, 106,178 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be managed to protect their wilderness values. Management decisions under the Proposed 

RMP would allow construction of livestock facilities if compatible and consistent with the goals 

and objectives of preserving wilderness values in these areas. At the programmatic level of 

analysis, the impacts to livestock grazing would be difficult to predict, and any impacts would be 

analyzed at the site-specific activity level and/or at the time of proposed conversions or 

construction of new facilities. 

4.8.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE A, B, C, AND D (NO ACTION) 

Under these alternatives, there would be no management decisions to specifically protect nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Thus, there would be no impacts to livestock 

grazing. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-127

4.8.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, 277, 596 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, which 

represent approximately 16% of public lands in the VPA, would be protected from impacts that 

would degrade their wilderness characteristics. Management decisions would allow the 

construction of livestock facilities and permit the maintenance of existing facilities in non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics if consistent with the goals and objectives of managing nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The impacts would be similar to those discussed 

under the Proposed RMP because the management decisions for livestock are the same. 

4.8.2.5. IMPACTS OF RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

The net impacts to livestock grazing resulting from rangeland improvements would be beneficial 

in the long term under the Proposed RMP and each of the four action alternatives. 

4.8.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under this alternative, direct impacts would include the short-term, adverse impacts of 

displacement of livestock while improvements are made, and the long-term, beneficial impacts 

of improvements to grazing allotments. 

Displacement of cattle would occur as a result of vegetation treatments. Cattle would be 

displaced for two growing seasons from a total of 34,640 acres of vegetation while it is being 

treated. Cattle would be temporarily and intermittently displaced during construction of 

approximately 69 linear miles of fenceline. This displacement would occur for the short term 

(i.e., pre-construction and the time needed to construct a portion of the fence in a particular 

allotment) and from a very small area (i.e., a construction zone to be designated on either side of 

the fence centerline). Cattle would be temporarily and intermittently displaced during 

development of 812 guzzlers and/or reservoirs, 51 wells and/or springs, and 38 miles of pipeline 

within their allotments. The more favorable grazing conditions would result from the three kinds 

of improvement actions. After two growing seasons, a total of 34,640 acres of 

improved/increased forage would be available. After construction of the 69 linear miles of 

fenceline, grazing areas would be more clearly delineated and that would result in better 

livestock management. Finally, more water would be available to cattle after installation of 812 

guzzlers and/or reservoirs and 51 wells and/or springs, as well as the pipelines. 

4.8.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts to livestock and grazing under this alternative would be the same as discussed under 

the Proposed RMP because the management decisions are the same. 

4.8.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under this alternative, direct impacts would include the short-term, adverse impacts of livestock 

displacement while improvements are being made, and the long-term, beneficial impacts of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-128

improvements to grazing allotments. The rangeland improvement actions comprising Alternative 

B would have the greatest number of acres improved, as compared to the other alternatives. 

Displacement of cattle would occur as a result of the three kinds of improvement actions, as 

described under the Proposed RMP. Cattle would be displaced for two growing seasons from a 

total of 50,900 acres of vegetation while it is being treated. Cattle would be temporarily and 

intermittently displaced during construction of 369 linear miles of fenceline. This displacement 

would be in the short term and from a very small area, as described under the Proposed RMP. 

Cattle would be temporarily and intermittently displaced during development of 1,165 guzzlers 

and/or reservoirs and 78 wells and/or springs within their allotments. Cattle would also be 

temporarily and intermittently displaced during construction of 51 linear miles of water pipeline. 

This displacement from pipeline construction would occur in the short term and from a small 

area, as described under the Proposed RMP. 

More favorable grazing conditions will result from the three kinds of improvement actions. After 

two growing seasons, a total of 50,900 acres of improved/increased forage would be available. 

After construction of the 369 linear miles of fenceline, grazing areas would be more clearly 

delineated. Finally, more water would be available to cattle after installation of 1,165 guzzlers 

and/or reservoirs and 78 wells and/or springs, as well as the pipeline. 

4.8.2.5.4. ALTERNATIVES C AND E 

More favorable grazing conditions would result from three kinds of improvement actions. These 

improvement actions include vegetation treatments; fence construction for improved livestock 

control; and the development of guzzlers and/or reservoirs, wells and/or springs, and pipeline 

construction within cattle allotments. Cattle would be displaced for two growing seasons from a 

total of 45,860 acres for vegetation treatments. Cattle would be temporarily and intermittently 

displaced from a very small area during construction of 129 linear miles of fenceline. Cattle 

would be temporarily and intermittently displaced during the development of 811 guzzlers and/or 

reservoirs and 87 wells and/or springs, and during the construction of 30 linear miles of water 

pipeline. After two growing seasons, a total of 45,860 acres of improved/increased forage would 

be available, grazing areas would be more clearly delineated, and more water would be available 

to cattle. 

Under Alternatives C and E, direct impacts include the short-term, adverse impacts of 

displacement of livestock while improvements are made and the long-term, beneficial impacts of 

improvements to grazing allotments. Rangeland improvement actions under Alternatives C and E 

will improve current rangeland more than under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and D 

(No Action) but less than under Alternative B. 

4.8.2.5.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under this alternative, direct impacts include the short-term, adverse impacts of displacement of 

livestock while improvements are made and the long-term, beneficial impacts of improvements 

to grazing allotments. The rangeland improvement actions composing Alternative D (No Action) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-129

would improve current rangeland more than the Proposed RMP and Alternative A but less than 

Alternatives B and C. 

Displacement of cattle would occur as a result of the three kinds of improvement actions 

described under the Proposed RMP. Cattle would be displaced for two growing seasons from a 

total of 40,390 acres of vegetation while it is being treated. Cattle would be temporarily and 

intermittently displaced during construction of 65 linear miles of fenceline. This displacement 

would occur in the short term and over a very small area, as described under the Proposed RMP. 

Cattle would be temporarily and intermittently displaced during development of 775 guzzlers 

and/or reservoirs and 74 wells and/or springs within their allotments. Cattle would also be 

temporarily and intermittently displaced during construction of 35 linear miles of water pipeline. 

This displacement from pipeline construction would occur in the short term and from a small 

area. 

In the long term, more favorable grazing conditions would result from the three kinds of 

improvement actions, as described under the Proposed RMP. After two growing seasons, a total 

of 40,390 acres of improved/increased forage would be available. After construction of the 65 

linear miles of fenceline, grazing areas would be more clearly delineated. Finally, more water 

would be available to cattle after installation of 775 guzzlers and/or reservoirs and 74 wells 

and/or springs, as well as the pipeline. 

4.8.2.6. IMPACTS OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

4.8.2.6.1. PROPOSED RMP, AND ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND E 

Vegetation in the Vernal planning area would be managed by using prescribed burning on 

approximately 156,425 acres per decade and by using rangeland improvements, with impacts 

similar to those described in Sections 4.8.2.1 and 4.8.2.4. Under the Proposed RMP and all of the 

action alternatives, the impacts to grazing would be those associated with and discussed under 

Fire Management and Rangeland Improvement. 

4.8.2.6.2. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Generally, the types of impacts would be the same as discussed under the Proposed RMP and 

action alternatives, with a reduction in magnitude of both beneficial and adverse impacts, which 

would be associated with the decrease in acres proposed for fire treatments and reduced levels of 

rangeland improvements. 

4.8.2.7. SUMMARY

4.8.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would have adverse impacts on livestock and grazing by allowing a 4% loss 

of AUMs from mineral development (more than Alternative E, but less than Alternative B) and 

proposes the least number of acres treated for rangeland improvement treatments. Forage 

allocation would be less than Alternatives B and D, but more than Alternatives A, C, and E. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-130

4.8.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

This alternative would have impacts similar to the Proposed RMP from a 4% loss of AUMs from 

minerals development and the same acreage of rangeland improvements treatments. Forage 

allocation would be less than the Proposed RMP and Alternative D (No Action), but more than 

Alternatives C and E. 

4.8.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would produce short-term conditions favorable to livestock, but long-term adverse 

impacts to rangeland health by exceeding forage production capacity, even though this 

alternative proposes the most area for rangeland improvements treatments. The percentage of 

AUMs lost to minerals development would be the highest of the action alternatives (5 percent). 

4.8.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, the impacts on livestock grazing would be adversely high (by removing the 

most AUMs from livestock grazing [the same as Alternative E]), but beneficial to rangeland 

health. The adverse impacts from AUMs lost to minerals development would be the less than of 

all the action alternatives except for Alternative E. Rangeland improvement management actions 

would be less beneficial than Alternative B, but greater than the Proposed RMP and Alternatives 

A and D (No Action). 

4.8.2.7.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Alternative D (No Action) would provide the least number of acres for fire treatment (and 

indirect improvements to rangeland forage). This alternative would provide for rangeland 

improvements greater than the Proposed RMP and Alternative A, but less than Alternatives B, C, 

and E. The area of AUMs lost to minerals development would be less than the Proposed RMP, 

and Alternatives A, B, C, but more than Alternative E. 

4.8.2.7.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, the short-term adverse impacts on livestock grazing would be greater than 

under the other alternatives by removing the most AUMs from livestock grazing; however, it 

would result in the most beneficial long-term impacts to rangeland health. Adverse impacts from 

AUMs lost to minerals development would be the least of all the alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP. Rangeland improvement management actions would be less beneficial than under 

Alternative B, but greater than the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A and D (No Action). 

4.8.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

Timing and location planning and coordination of prescribed burning would be critical in the 

mitigation of impacts. In some cases, it would be possible to time prescribed burns to avoid 

coinciding with seasons of peak grazing use. However, it may be necessary to allow a season of 

rest for a grazing area designated for prescribed burning in order to allow sufficient fuel loads to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8. Livestock and Grazing Management

Vernal RMP 4-131

accumulate. Therefore, because such coordination would typically be impossible, scheduling of 

prescribed burns should be coordinated with grazing to reduce or disperse the overall impacts 

between individual allotment holders to the extent possible and avoid undue impacts and 

hardships to individual allotment holders. 

4.8.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

There would be a short-term, unavoidable adverse impact to grazing from fire and vegetation 

treatments, which would temporarily reduce grazing areas within the VPA during treatment and 

vegetation recovery. There would be unavoidable, adverse short- and long-term loss of AUMs 

from the exploration and development of mineral resources. These losses are described above. 

4.8.5. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

As discussed in the subsections above, short-term uses could be forgone in order to enhance 

long-term productivity. This is particularly the case with rangeland improvements such as 

prescribed fire, vegetation manipulation, and vegetation treatment scenarios. As discussed, 

foregoing short-term uses would greatly enhance the long-term productivity of the resource, 

thereby producing beneficial long-term outcomes. 

4.8.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

Long-term surface-disturbing activities associated with 1) mineral development and access route 

construction, 2) OHV use, 3) motorized and non-motorized trail construction would result in 

irretrievable impacts to resources. There are no irreversible impacts that were identified for 

livestock and grazing resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-132

4.9. MINERALS AND ENERGY RESOURCES

This chapter presents the environmental consequences of mineral and energy exploration and 

development with regard to the management actions proposed under the Proposed RMP and each 

of the five alternatives described in Chapter 2. 

As described in Chapter 3, Minerals and Energy Resources (Section 3.9) the exploration and 

development of mineral and energy resources is accomplished through several stages of activity. 

The first stage (land categorization) involves determining which public lands should be available 

for exploration and development and under what conditions. The BLM has developed four 

conditions of leasing to describe the stipulations that would be placed upon BLM-administered 

public lands regarding their availability for fluid hydrocarbon leasing. All BLM-administered 

public lands within the VPA are allocated to leasing with one of the following four lease 

constraints for oil and gas development: 

• Open to oil and gas leasing subject to standard lease terms 

• Open to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints (TL/CSU) 

• Open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints (NSO) 

• Administratively Closed to oil and gas leasing 

In addition to the oil and gas leasing stipulations, locatable and salable minerals areas are 

generally classified as either open or closed. Locatable minerals are usually the base and 

precious metal ores, ferrous metal ores, and certain classes of industrial minerals where 

acquisition is by staking (locating) a mining claim over the deposit and then acquiring the 

necessary permits to explore or mine. Salable minerals are defined as mineral commodities sold 

by sales contract from the federal government. Salable minerals are generally common varieties 

of construction materials and aggregates, such as sand, gravel, cinders, roadbed, and ballast 

material. 

4.9.1. IMPACTS COMMON TO THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALL ALTERNATIVES

Essentially, the goals and objectives for mineral and energy development that are common to the 

Proposed RMP and all alternatives are to help the BLM meet local and national, non-renewable 

and renewable energy and other public mineral needs, while ensuring a viable, long-term mineral 

industry and providing reasonable and necessary protections to other resources. 

For both non-renewable and renewable alternative energy resources, the following principles 

would be applied: 

1. 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 environmentally sound exploration, extraction and reclamation practices. 

2. Process applications, permits, operating plans, mineral exchanges, leases, and other use 

authorizations for public lands in accordance with existing policy and guidance. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-133

3. Monitor salable, locatable, and leasable mineral operations to ensure proper resource 

recovery and evaluation, production verification, diligence, inspection and enforcement 

of contract sales, common-use areas, community pits, free-use permits, leases, and 

prospecting permits. 

The plan would recognize and be consistent with the National Energy Policy (National Energy 

Policy Development Group, 2001) by: 

1. Recognizing the need for diversity in obtaining energy supplies 

2. Encouraging conservation of sensitive resource values 

3. Improving energy distribution opportunities 

4.9.1.1. OIL AND GAS RESOURCES

Under the Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, C, and E, split-estate lands (federal mineralsTribal surface) within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation 

would be available for mineral leasing. Approximately 188,500 acres of split-estate lands would 

be available under Alternatives A, B, C, and E. Approximately 147,329 acres of split-estate lands 

would be available under the Proposed RMP. The Hill Creek Extension would not be available 

for leasing without an appropriate plan amendment under Alternative D (No Action). Therefore, 

the action Alternatives A, B, C and E, and the Proposed RMP would have more acreage 

available for mineral leasing than Alternative D (No Action), as well as more wells predicted for 

development. Although the Proposed RMP would have more acreage available for mineral 

leasing than Alternative D (No Action), it would have slightly less available than Alternatives A, 

B, C, and E. 

Measures would be developed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse environmental impacts 

that may result from federally authorized mineral lease activities on these split-estate lands. All 

potential mineral- and energy-related activities would be closely coordinated with the Tribal 

government to ensure that their concerns are accommodated to the maximum extent possible 

under existing law and policy. 

The impacts of permitting minerals leasing on split-estate lands within the VPA would be 

beneficial and long-term. Leasing of split-estate lands would lead to the permitting of additional 

wells, which would in turn, lead to an increase in the domestic supply of oil and/or natural gas 

and increased royalties to the federal government and the State of Utah. The Ute Tribe would 

also receive economic benefits from leasing their lands, including rentals or fees from the use of 

surface permits or other rights-of-way (ROWs).6

 

4.9.1.2. LOCATABLE MINERAL RESOURCES

Locatable mining operations on lands open to mineral entry (as well as on claim locations that 

predate withdrawal) must be conducted in compliance with the 43 CFR 3809 (surface 

management) regulations. These regulations require an operator to prevent unnecessary or undue 

6

 Please note that there would also be adverse effects to Tribal lands from mineral leasing. These impacts are discussed under 

individual resource sections and are included as part of the area analysis. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-134

degradation of the land. The three levels of operation under these regulations are casual use, 

notice, and plan of operation. In general, casual use mining activities only negligibly disturb 

federal lands and resources, and usually include recreational mining. This level of mining does 

not require mechanized equipment or explosives, does not require notification of the BLM, and 

does not require an approved plan of operations, but does require reclamation. Notice-level 

mining operations are on five acres or less within a mining claim or project area. A notice is 

submitted by the operator to the BLM that declares the intention of the operator to begin an 

operation, and this allows the BLM to review the operation for potential resource conflicts and to 

eliminate the need for federal action. Plan of operation-level mining activities are on more than 

five acres, with required submission of an operations plan to the BLM. A plan of operations must 

document in detail all actions that the operator plans to take from exploration through 

reclamation. For activities other than casual use, the operator is required to submit either a notice 

or a plan of operations and a reclamation plan. 

A plan of operations and a reclamation plan are required where activities involve the surface 

disturbance of more than 5 acres. The plan of operations must include a description of the 

proposed activities, route access and construction, reclamation measures, timeframes of nonoperation, and a sketch or a map of the area to be disturbed, including all access routes. Notices 

and plans of operations also require a 100% reclamation financial guarantee bond before work 

may commence on the ground. An environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) must be prepared by the BLM or the claimant/operator prior to commencement 

of any surface-disturbing activities. A plan of operations must be approved by the BLM. 

Operations at the plan level may not commence until the plan is approved. 

Five acres or less of surface disturbance usually requires a notice. The notice must describe the 

proposed activities, the location on the ground, the start-up date, route access and construction, if 

any, and reclamation measures. Receipt and review of a notice is not a federal action; therefore, 

there is no requirement for the preparation of an EA or EIS. Approval by BLM is not required 

for a notice. 

There is no requirement for notifying the BLM of casual use activities. Casual use activities are 

those that cause only negligible disturbance of the public lands and resources. For example, 

activities that do not involve the use of earthmoving equipment or explosives may be considered 

casual use. 

Certain lands, as defined in 43 CFR 3802.1-1 and 3809.11, always require a plan of operations. 

A plan of operation would have to be filed for operations conducted in: 

• Lands under wilderness review; 

• River corridors in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and corridors 

designated for potential addition to the system; 

• Designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs); 

• Areas designated as "closed" to OHV use (as defined in 43 CFR 8340-5); 

• Any lands or waters known to contain federally proposed or listed threatened or 

endangered species, or their proposed or designated critical habitat. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-135

Mining operations conducted in WSAs are subject to 43 CFR 3802, Exploration and Mining, 

Wilderness Review Program. The purpose of these regulations is to prevent impairment of the 

suitability of WSAs for inclusion in the wilderness system and to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation by activities authorized under the mining laws. Mining operations in WSAs usually 

require approval of a plan of operations. 

The filing of plans of operation is generally more laborious than notice-level operations, and the 

cost of the extraction of locatable mineral resources would be expected to increase in these areas. 

Given the moderate potential for the occurrence of economical locatable minerals within the 

planning area and the fact that there is limited development activity anticipated over the next 15 

years, requirements for plans of operations would not likely have adverse economic impacts on 

most mining operators or prevent the development of locatable minerals. 

4.9.1.3. MINERAL MATERIALS

Under the Proposed RMP and alternatives, all existing mineral material sites would be evaluated 

to determine continued need and ensure that they are accommodating user needs. The Proposed 

RMP and alternatives would allow applications for contract sale and free-use permits. Commonuse areas and community pits would be established by the BLM in "open" areas, unless 

otherwise encumbered. The impacts of these management decisions would continue to provide 

mineral materials, a direct and beneficial effect in the long term. 

4.9.1.4. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

The goals and objectives for alternative energy development have the potential to provide 

economic benefits, both locally and regionally. Alternative energy development is considered by 

many to impact the human environment less than traditional, non-renewable forms of energy 

development. The goals and objectives reflect the economic need for alternative energy 

development of wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Individual development proposals would be 

evaluated based on conformance with the other program goals and objectives stated in the RMP. 

Alternative energy development would enhance the BLM's ability to help meet local and national 

energy needs, and it would assist in the growth of a practicable, long-term alternative energy 

industry while providing reasonable and necessary protections to other resources. 

Under management common to all, the Proposed RMP and all action alternatives (A, B, C, and 

E) would recognize the opportunity for alternative energy development and proposals would be 

evaluated based on conformance with other program goals and objectives stated in the plan. 

BMPs would be developed. Implementation of these measures would provide for the use of VPA 

lands for alternative energy and communications uses while meeting the individual and overall 

resource management goals of the RMP. 

4.9.2. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

The following section describes the number of acres or miles that would be available for mineral 

development under the Proposed RMP and each alternative, the potential for economical 

resource development, and the impacts of other resource decisions upon mineral resources in the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-136

VPA. Table 4.9.1 summarizes the number of acres or miles that would be available for energy 

and mineral development in the VPA under the Proposed RMP and each alternative. The 

acreages shown for Gilsonite, phosphate, oil shale, and mineral materials are in areas where the 

mineral resource was determined to have a high or moderate potential for occurrence (BLM 

2004e). 

The impacts on minerals resource development from fire, forage, lands and realty, livestock and 

grazing, paleontological resources, rangeland improvements, riparian, wild horses, and 

woodlands management decisions would be minor or negligible. The impacts of these resources 

on minerals resources will not be analyzed further. 

Table 4.9.1. Acres or Miles of Land Available to Energy and Mineral Development under 

All Alternatives 

Resource Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

No Action 

Alternative 

E 

Oil, Gas, and Coal-bed Natural Gas (Acres) 

Standard 

Stipulations 

860,651 983,905 1,113,116 858,619 918,315 818,891

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

779,730 796,955 706,281 768,466 617,715 680,570

No Surface 

Occupancy 

86,789 69,302 42,053 58,670 136,930 47,629

Closed to 

Leasing 

186,917 63,839 52,550 228,246 52,540 367,037

Gilsonite (Miles/Acres) 

Open 172 miles/ 

36,846 

acres 

Same as 

Proposed 

RMP 

Same as 

Proposed 

RMP 

Same as 

Proposed 

RMP 

168 miles/ 

36,009 

acres 

163 miles/ 

34,967 

acres 

Phosphate (Acres) 

Open 76,208 87,724 87,724 63,571 84,600 52,063 

Mineral Materials (Acres) 

Open 389,788 415,395 432,953 388,699 387,700 344,682

 

4.9.2.1. IMPACTS OF MINERAL DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCES

4.9.2.1.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.9.2.1.1.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 860,651 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which 

includes CBNG) with Standard stipulations. Approximately 779,730 acres would be 

administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) with Timing 

Limitations and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. Combined, approximately 1,640,381 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-137

acres of land would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) 

with Standard, Timing Limitation, and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. This represents a 

6.8% increase in the total acreage available for leasing, compared to Alternative D (No Action), 

and the third highest number of acres of land available for leasing among all of the alternatives. 

Oil and gas development is expected to occur within each of the six exploration-anddevelopment areas shown in Table 4.9.2. Coal-bed natural gas development would occur only in 

the East and West Tavaputs Plateau. The predicted number of wells is based on the Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development (RFD) described in the Mineral Potential Report for the VPA (BLM 

2004e). If the Proposed RMP were implemented, there would be a 7.3% increase in the total 

number of predicted oil and gas wells, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Table 4.9.2. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under The Proposed RMP 7

Exploration and 

Development/RFD Area 

Percent of 

Open Area 

Predicted Oil 

Wells 

Predicted Gas 

Wells 

Predicted 

CBNG Wells 

Altamont-Bluebell 99.97% 175 250 0 

East Tavaputs Plateau 89.69% 67 538 72 

Manila-Clay Basin 92.64% 0 42 0 

Monument Butte-Red Wash 97.03% 1,650 3,008 0 

Tabiona-Ashley Valley 94.94% 28 0 0 

West Tavaputs Plateau 95.51% 72 334 48 

Total 1,992 4,172 120 

The direct impacts of mineral resources decisions on oil, gas and CBNG development would be 

beneficial. An increase in the potential number of oil and gas wells under the Proposed RMP 

would lead to an increase in the available supply of oil and/or natural gas. This would have a 

short-term beneficial socioeconomic impact on the minerals extraction industry and on local 

economies from increased production, and by maintaining the supply of an energy resource. 

The indirect impacts of mineral resources decisions on oil and gas development would be 

beneficial and adverse. An increase in the potential number of oil and gas wells under the 

Proposed RMP would lead to an increase in royalties paid to the federal government and/or the 

State of Utah, as the oil and gas wells were developed and the resource was extracted. However, 

the increased total acreage that would be open to oil, gas, and CBNG development would also 

diminish the quantity of finite fossil fuel resources found in the VPA, which would have a longterm adverse impact on the mineral resources extraction industry and on the local economies that 

support the development and extraction of the resource. 

4.9.2.1.1.2. Other Mineral Resources 

The impacts of mineral resource decisions on mineral resources other than fluid minerals are 

described below. Impacts are the same for each resource. Following is a quantitative analysis 

7

 Note: Calculations based on all land-type jurisdictions occurring in the VPA (Bureau of Land Management, State of Utah, Tribal, 

Private, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and U.S. Forest Service). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-138

providing a comparison of mineral resources decisions of the Proposed RMP to Alternative D 

(No Action). 

Direct impacts of mineral resources decisions on Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials 

development would be beneficial. An increase in the total linear miles available for Gilsonite, 

and the total acreage available for phosphate and mineral materials development would have a 

short-term, beneficial socioeconomic impact on the minerals industry and the local economies 

that support the industry resulting from an increase in the amount of mineral resources available 

for extraction and commercial sale. 

Indirect impacts of mineral resources decisions on Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials 

development would be beneficial and adverse. An increase in the linear miles available for 

Gilsonite development, and the total acreage available for mineral materials development under 

the Proposed RMP would lead to an increase in royalties paid to the federal government and/or 

the State of Utah. An increase in the total linear miles available for Gilsonite, and the total 

acreage available for mineral materials development would, over time, decrease the amount of 

the finite mineral resources found in the VPA, producing indirect, long-term, adverse economic 

impacts. A decrease in the area open to phosphate development would decrease royalties but 

retain a larger percentage of the remaining supply of phosphate. 

Coal

Coal mining has not occurred on public lands in the VPA due to lack of demand and the poor 

quality of the deposits. There is a moderate potential for the occurrence of economically 

mineable coal deposits within the VPA, but it is unlikely that coal exploration or development 

will occur during the next 15 years due to the low-grade quality of the coal. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that mineral resource decisions made under this alternative would have impacts, either 

beneficial or adverse, on coal resources. 

Gilsonite

Approximately 172 miles or 36,846 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and 

development of Gilsonite. Additional, new veins located via field study or prospecting would 

also be available if they are within lands already categorized as "open" for Gilsonite 

development. This represents a 2.4% increase in the total miles open for prospecting, leasing, 

and developing Gilsonite, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Phosphate

Approximately 76,208 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate within areas known to contain phosphate deposits. This represents a 9.9% decrease in 

the total acreage open for prospecting, leasing and developing phosphate, compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-139

Mineral Materials

Approximately 389,788 acres would be open for mineral material development. This represents a 

0.5% increase in the total number of acres available for development of mineral materials, 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Locatable Minerals

As identified in the Mineral Potential Report (BLM 2004e), there is moderate potential for the 

occurrence of locatable minerals within the VPA. Very little development activity for locatable 

minerals is anticipated during the next 15 years; therefore, it is unlikely that mineral resource 

decisions under this alternative would have an impact, beneficial or adverse, on locatable mineral 

resources. 

4.9.2.1.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.9.2.1.2.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 983,905 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which 

includes CBNG) with Standard stipulations. Approximately 796,955 acres would be 

administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) with Timing 

Limitations and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. Combined, approximately 1,780,860 

acres of land would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) 

with Standard, Timing Limitation and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. This represents a 

15.9% increase in the total acreage available for leasing, compared to Alternative D (No Action), 

and the second highest number of acres of land available for leasing among all of the 

alternatives. 

Oil and gas development is expected to occur within each of the six exploration-anddevelopment areas shown in Table 4.9.3. Coal-bed natural gas development would occur only in 

the East and West Tavaputs Plateau. The predicted number of wells is based on the Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development (RFD) described in the Mineral Potential Report for the VPA (BLM 

2004e). If Alternative A were implemented, there would be a 8.3% increase in the total number 

of predicted oil and gas wells, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Table 4.9.3. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative A8

Exploration and 

Development/RFD Area 

Percent of 

Open Area 

Predicted Oil 

Wells 

Predicted Gas 

Wells 

Predicted 

CBNG Wells 

Altamont-Bluebell 99.97% 175 250 0 

East Tavaputs Plateau 94.96% 71 570 76 

Manila-Clay Basin 97.86% 0 44 0 

Monument Butte-Red Wash 96.59% 1,655 3,018 0 

Tabiona-Ashley Valley 96.26% 29 0 0 

8

 Note: Calculations based on all land-type jurisdictions occurring in the VPA (Bureau of Land Management, State of Utah, Tribal, 

Private, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and U.S. Forest Service). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-140

Table 4.9.3. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative A8

Exploration and 

Development/RFD Area 

Percent of 

Open Area 

Predicted Oil 

Wells 

Predicted Gas 

Wells 

Predicted 

CBNG Wells 

West Tavaputs Plateau 95.53% 72 334 48 

Total 2,002 4,216 124 

The direct impacts of mineral resources decisions on oil, gas and CBNG development would be 

beneficial. An increase in the potential number of oil and gas wells under Alternative A would 

lead to an increase in the available supply of oil and/or natural gas. This would have a short-term 

beneficial socioeconomic impact on the minerals extraction industry and on local economies 

from increased production, and by maintaining the supply of an energy resource. 

The indirect impacts of mineral resources decisions on oil and gas development would be 

beneficial and adverse. An increase in the potential number of oil and gas wells under 

Alternative A would lead to an increase in royalties paid to the federal government and/or the 

State of Utah, as the oil and gas wells were developed and the resource was extracted. However, 

the increased total acreage that would be open to oil, gas, and CBNG development would also 

diminish the quantity of finite fossil fuel resources found in the VPA, which would have a longterm adverse impact on the mineral resources extraction industry and on the local economies that 

support the development and extraction of the resource. 

4.9.2.1.2.2. Other Mineral Resources 

The impacts of mineral resource decisions on mineral resources other than fluid minerals are 

described below. Impacts are the same for each resource. Following is a quantitative analysis 

providing a comparison of mineral resources decisions of Alternative A to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Direct impacts of mineral resources decisions on Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials 

development would be beneficial. An increase in the total linear miles available for Gilsonite and 

acres available for phosphate and mineral materials development would have a short-term, 

beneficial socioeconomic impact on the minerals industry and the local economies that support 

the industry resulting from an increase in the amount of mineral resources available for 

extraction and commercial sale. 

Indirect impacts of mineral resources decisions on Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials 

development would be beneficial and adverse. An increase in the linear miles available for 

Gilsonite development, and the total acreage available for phosphate and mineral materials 

development under Alternative A would lead to an increase in royalties paid to the federal 

government and/or the State of Utah. An increase in the total linear miles available for Gilsonite, 

and the total acreage available for phosphate and mineral materials development would, over 

time, decrease the amount of the finite mineral resources found in the VPA, producing indirect, 

long-term, adverse economic impacts. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-141

Coal

Coal mining has not occurred on public lands in the VPA due to lack of demand and the poor 

quality of the deposits. There is a moderate potential for the occurrence of economically 

mineable coal deposits within the VPA, but it is unlikely that coal exploration or development 

will occur during the next 15 years due to the low-grade quality of the coal. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that mineral resource decisions made under this alternative would have impacts, either 

beneficial or adverse, on coal resources. 

Gilsonite

Approximately 172 miles or 36,846 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and 

development of Gilsonite. Additional, new veins located via field study or prospecting would 

also be available if they are within lands already categorized as "open" for Gilsonite 

development. This represents a 2.4% increase in the total miles open for prospecting, leasing, 

and developing Gilsonite, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Phosphate

Approximately 87,724 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate within areas known to contain phosphate deposits. This represents a 3.7% increase in 

the total acreage open for prospecting, leasing and developing phosphate, compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Mineral Materials

Approximately 415,395 acres would be open for mineral material development. This represents a 

7.1% increase in the total number of acres available for development of mineral materials, 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Locatable Minerals

As identified in the Mineral Potential Report (BLM 2004e), there is moderate potential for the 

occurrence of locatable minerals within the VPA. Very little development activity for locatable 

minerals is anticipated during the next 15 years; therefore, it is unlikely that mineral resource 

decisions under this alternative would have an impact, beneficial or adverse, on locatable mineral 

resources. 

4.9.2.1.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.9.2.1.3.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 1,113,116 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing 

(which includes CBNG) with Standard Stipulations. Approximately 706,281 acres would be 

administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) with Timing 

Limitations and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. Combined, approximately 1,819,397 

acres of land would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) 

with standard, Timing Limitations, and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. This represents 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-142

an 18.4% increase in the total acreage available for leasing and potential number of wells, 

compared to Alternative D (No Action), and the highest number of acres of land available for 

leasing among all of the alternatives. 

Oil and gas development is expected to occur within each of the six exploration-anddevelopment areas shown in Table 4.9.4. Coal-bed natural gas development would occur only in 

the East and West Tavaputs Plateau. The predicted number of wells is based on the Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development (RFD) outlined in the Mineral Potential Report for the VPA (BLM 

2004e). If Alternative B were implemented, there would be a 9.1% increase in the total number 

of predicted oil and gas wells, compared to Alternative D (No Action). It should be noted, as 

mentioned above in Section 4.9.1.1, that Alternative D (No Action) would not include the 

additional acreage within the Hill Creek Extension analyzed under the action alternatives, so the 

RFD predictions of oil and gas development would seem to be less than predicted under the 

action alternatives. 

Table 4.9.4. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative B 9

Exploration and 

Development/RFD Area 

Percent of 

Open Area 

Predicted Oil 

Wells 

Predicted Gas 

Wells 

Predicted 

CBNG Wells 

Altamont-Bluebell 99.97 175 250 0 

East Tavaputs Plateau 95.19 71 571 76 

Manila-Clay Basin 97.98 0 44 0 

Monument Butte-Red Wash 97.93 1665 3036 0 

Tabiona-Ashley Valley 96.69 29 0 0 

West Tavaputs Plateau 99.65 75 349 50 

Total 2,015 4,250 126 

The direct and indirect impacts of minerals decisions under Alternative B for oil, gas, and CBNG 

development would be similar to those described under Alternative A, though more wells would 

be drill under Alternative B (6,391) than Alternative A (6,342). 

4.9.2.1.3.2. Other Mineral Resources 

The direct and indirect impacts on Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials resources under 

Alternative B would be similar to the impacts described under Alternative A. Following is a 

quantitative analysis providing a comparison of mineral resources decisions of Alternative A to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

9

 Note: Calculations based on all land-type jurisdictions occurring in the VPA (Bureau of Land Management, State of Utah, Tribal, 

Private, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and U.S. Forest Service). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-143

Coal

The impacts on coal resources under Alternative B would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A. 

Gilsonite

Approximately 172 miles or 36,846 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and 

development of Gilsonite. This represents a 2.4% increase in the total miles open for 

prospecting, leasing, and developing Gilsonite, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Phosphate

Approximately 87,724 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate within areas known to contain phosphate deposits. This represents a 3.7% increase in 

the total acreage open for prospecting, leasing, and developing phosphate, compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Mineral Materials

Approximately 432,953 acres would be available for mineral material development. This 

represents a 11.7% increase in the total acreage available for development of mineral materials, 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Locatable Minerals

The impacts on locatable resources under Alternative B would be similar to the impacts 

described under Alternative A. 

4.9.2.1.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.9.2.1.4.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 858,619 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which 

includes CBNG) with Standard Stipulations. Approximately 768,466 acres would be 

administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) with Timing 

Limitations and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. Combined, approximately 1,627,085 

acres of land would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) 

with Standard, Timing Limitations, and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. This represents a 

5.9% increase in the total acreage available for leasing and potential number of wells, compared 

to Alternative D (No Action). The Proposed RMP and Alternatives A, B, and C would increase 

the number of acres available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). Alternative E would be less than the other alternatives and have the 

least oil and gas development of the Proposed RMP and all of the action alternatives (see below). 

Oil and gas development is expected to occur within each of the six exploration-and-development 

areas shown in Table 4.9.5. CBNG development would occur only in the East and West Tavaputs 

Plateau. The predicted number of wells is tied to the RFD outlined in the Mineral Potential Report 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-144

(BLM 2004e). If Alternative C were implemented, there would be a 6.3% increase in the total 

number of predicted oil and gas wells, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Table 4.9.5. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative C 10

Exploration and 

Development/RFD Area 

Percent of 

Open Area 

Predicted Oil 

Wells 

Predicted Gas 

Wells 

Predicted 

CBNG Wells 

Altamont-Bluebell 99.97 175 250 0 

East Tavaputs Plateau 85.18 64 511 68 

Manila-Clay Basin 97.80 0 44 0 

Monument Butte-Red Wash 96.51 1,641 2,992 0 

Tabiona-Ashley Valley 93.93 28 0 0 

West Tavaputs Plateau 95.17 71 333 48 

Total 1,979 4,130 116 

The direct and indirect impacts of minerals decisions under Alternative C for oil, gas, and CBNG 

development would be similar to those described under Alternative A, though somewhat fewer 

wells would be drilled and placed into production under Alternative C (6,225) than Alternative A 

(6,342). 

4.9.2.1.4.2. Other Mineral Resources 

The direct and indirect impacts on Gilsonite, and mineral materials resources under Alternative C 

would be similar to the impacts described under Alternative A. The miles of Gilsonite available 

for production under this alternative would be the same as Alternative A but acres of mineral 

material available for development under Alternative C would be less than that under 

Alternatives A, and D (No Action). Following is a quantitative analysis providing a comparison 

of mineral resources decisions of Alternative C to Alternative D (No Action). 

Direct impacts of mineral resources decisions on phosphate development would be adverse. A 

decrease in the total acreage available for phosphate development under Alternative C (compared 

to Alternative D, No Action) would result in a decrease in the amount of phosphate available for 

mining and commercial sale, which would have a long-term, adverse economic impact on the 

phosphate mining industry in the VPA. However, a decrease in the total acreage available for 

phosphate development would also prolong the availability of finite phosphate resources found 

in the VPA for future use, which would reduce the long-term adverse impacts on the phosphate 

mining industry by ensuring that the resource was available to support a viable, long-term 

phosphate industry. Indirect impacts of mineral resources decisions on phosphate development 

would be economically adverse in the long-term. A reduction in the acreage available for 

phosphate development under Alternative C (when compared to Alternative D) would lead to a 

decrease in the royalties paid to the federal government and/or the State of Utah. 

10 Note: Calculations based on all land-type jurisdictions occurring in the VPA (Bureau of Land Management, State of Utah, Tribal, 

Private, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and U.S. Forest Service). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-145

Coal

The direct and indirect impacts on coal resources under Alternative C would be similar to the 

impacts described for coal under Alternative A. 

Gilsonite

The direct and indirect impacts on Gilsonite resources under Alternative C would be the same as 

described for Alternative A. 

Phosphate

Approximately 63,571 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate within areas known to contain phosphate deposits. This represents a 24.9% decrease 

in the total acreage open for prospecting, leasing, and developing phosphate, compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Mineral Materials

Approximately 388,699 acres would be available for mineral material development. This 

represents a 0.3% increase in the total acreage available for development of mineral materials, 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Locatable Minerals

The impacts on locatable resources under Alternative C would be the same as described under 

Alternative A. 

4.9.2.1.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.9.2.1.5.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 918,315 acres would be available for oil and gas lease under Standard leasing 

stipulations. Approximately 617,715 acres would be managed with special mitigating measures 

required to protect various renewable resource values. In total, approximately 1,536,030 acres of 

land would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) under 

Standard, Timing Limitation and/or Controlled Surface Use lease stipulations. 

Oil and gas development would be expected to occur within each of the six development areas 

shown in Table 4.9.6. The predicted number of wells for these areas is based on estimates of 

RFD outlined in the Mineral Potential Report. 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. Continued oil and gas extraction would also, over time, reduce the quantities of finite, 

non-renewable fossil fuel resources found in the VPA. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-146

Table 4.9.6. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Exploration and 

Development/RFD Area 

Percent of 

Open Area 

Predicted Oil 

Wells 

Predicted Gas 

Wells 

Predicted 

CBNG Wells 

Altamont-Bluebell 99.94 175 250 0 

East Tavaputs Plateau 80.84 61 485 64 

Manila-Clay Basin 95.20 0 43 0 

Monument Butte-Red Wash 89.52 1,522 2,775 0 

Tabiona-Ashley Valley 95.30 29 0 0 

West Tavaputs Plateau 95.16 71 333 48 

Total 1,858 3,886 112 

4.9.2.1.5.2. Other Mineral Resources 

The direct and indirect impacts on Gilsonite, phosphate, and mineral materials resources under 

Alternative D (No Action) would be similar to the impacts described under Alternative A. 

Coal

The impacts on coal resources under Alternative D (No Action) would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A. 

Gilsonite

Approximately 168 miles (36,009 acres) would be open for prospecting, leasing, and 

development of Gilsonite. Restrictions placed on a lease or subsequent conditions of approval do 

not apply to maintenance and production of existing facilities. Restrictions from other resource 

decisions would be applied to new leases, or at the time of lease renewal, for existing leases. 

Exploration and development of Gilsonite within crucial deer and elk winter range would be 

allowed year-round but would require management actions designed to mitigate both short- and 

long-term loss of habitat. 

Phosphate

Approximately 84,600 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate within areas known to contain phosphate deposits. The impacts on phosphate 

resources would be similar to those described for Alternative A. 

Mineral Materials

Approximately 387,700 acres would be available for mineral material development. The impacts 

on mineral materials would be similar to those described for Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-147

Locatable Minerals

The impacts on locatable resources under Alternative D (No Action) would be similar to the 

impacts described under Alternative A. 

4.9.2.1.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

4.9.2.1.6.1. Oil, Gas, and Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Approximately 818,891 acres would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which 

includes CBNG) with Standard stipulations. Approximately 680,570 acres would be 

administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) with Timing 

Limitations and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. Combined, approximately 1,499,461 

acres of land would be administratively available for oil and gas leasing (which includes CBNG) 

with Standard, Timing Limitations, and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. This represents a 

2.4% decrease in the total acreage available for leasing and potential number of wells, compared 

to Alternative D (No Action). Thus, Alternative E would have the least land available for oil and 

gas development of all of the alternatives. 

Under Alternative E, approximately 277,597 acres within non-WSA areas with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing and closed to disposal of mineral materials, 

in order to protect the wilderness characteristics of these areas. This would have long-term, 

adverse impacts on minerals development and extraction because these areas would be closed to 

minerals-related surface disturbances. However, the Hill Creek Extension would be open to 

leasing, as described above. 

Under this alternative, oil and gas development is expected to occur within each of the six 

exploration-and-development areas shown in Table 4.9.7. CBNG development would occur only 

in the East and West Tavaputs Plateaus, with the predicted number of wells linked to the RFD 

discussed in the Mineral Potential Report. If Alternative E were implemented, there would be a 

4.5% increase in the total number of predicted oil and gas wells, compared to Alternative D (No 

Action). 

Table 4.9.7. Predicted Oil and Gas Wells within RFD Areas under Alternative E11

Exploration and 

Development/RFD Area 

Percent of 

Open Area 

Predicted Oil 

Wells 

Predicted Gas 

Wells 

Predicted 

CBNG Wells 

Altamont-Bluebell 99.96% 175 250 0 

East Tavaputs Plateau 83.17% 62 499 67 

Manila-Clay Basin 91.03% 0 41 0 

Monument Butte-Red Wash 95.08% 1616 2948 0 

Tabiona-Ashley Valley 91.80% 28 0 0 

West Tavaputs Plateau 91.00% 68 318 45 

Total 1949 4056 112 

11 Note: Calculations based on all land-type jurisdictions occurring in the VPA (Bureau of Land Management, State of Utah, Tribal, 

Private, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and U.S. Forest Service). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-148

While the fewest number of acres would be available for oil and gas production under 

Alternative E, the direct and indirect impacts of minerals decisions would be similar to those 

described under Alternative A, though somewhat fewer wells would be drilled and placed into 

production under Alternative E (6,117) than Alternative A (6,342). 

4.9.2.1.6.2. Other Mineral Resources 

The direct and indirect impacts on Gilsonite, other leaseable minerals, mineral materials and 

locatable minerals under Alternative E would be of the same nature as the impacts described 

under Alternative A. Following is a quantitative analysis providing a comparison of mineral 

resources decision under Alternative E to Alternative D (No Action). 

Coal

The direct and indirect impacts on coal resources under Alternative E would be similar to the 

impacts described for coal under Alternative A. 

Gilsonite

Approximately 163 miles (34,967 acres) would be available for prospecting, leasing, and 

development of Gilsonite. Additional, new veins located via field study or prospecting would 

also be available if they are within lands already categorized as "open" for Gilsonite 

development. This represents a 2.9% decrease in the total miles open for prospecting, leasing, 

and developing Gilsonite, as compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Phosphate

Approximately 52,063 acres would be open for prospecting, leasing, and development of 

phosphate within areas known to contain phosphate deposits. This represents a 38.5% decrease 

in the total acreage open for prospecting, leasing, and developing phosphate, compared to 

Alternative D (No Action). 

Direct impacts of mineral resources decisions on phosphate development would be adverse. A 

decrease in the total acreage available for phosphate development under Alternative E (compared 

to Alternative D, No Action) would result in a decrease in the amount of phosphate available for 

mining and commercial sale, which would have a long-term, adverse economic impact on the 

phosphate mining industry in the VPA. However, a decrease in the total acreage available for 

phosphate development would also prolong the availability of finite phosphate resources found 

in the VPA for future use, which would reduce the long-term adverse impacts on the phosphate 

industry by ensuring that the resource was available to support a viable, long-term industry. 

Indirect impacts of mineral resources decisions on phosphate development would be 

economically adverse in the long-term. A reduction in the acreage available for phosphate 

development under Alternative E (when compared to Alternative D, No Action) would lead to a 

decrease in the royalties paid to the federal government and/or the State of Utah. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-149

Mineral Materials

Approximately 344,682 acres would be available for mineral material development. This 

represents an 11.1% decrease in the total acreage available for development of mineral materials, 

compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Locatable Minerals

The impacts on locatable resources under Alternative E would be similar to the impacts 

described under Alternative A. 

4.9.2.2. IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCES

4.9.2.2.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

Cultural resource decisions under Alternative A would restrict oil and gas leasing on 48,801 

acres of land in the Uinta Foothills, Little/Devil's Hole, Upper Willow Creek and Four Mile 

Wash areas. Oil and gas leasing within these areas would have Timing Limitations and/or 

Controlled Surface Use stipulations and/or No Surface Occupancy stipulations. The 48,801 acres 

in these two leasing categories is included in the total number of acres available for oil and gas 

leasing (Table 4.9.1). 

Cultural resource decisions under Alternative A would have long-term, indirect, adverse impacts 

to mineral resources. Impacts include increasing the costs associated with mineral exploration, 

extraction, and development, which would have economically adverse impacts on the mineral 

materials industry in the VPA. Increased costs are associated with directionally drilling for subsurface resources in NSO areas, the re-routing of access routes and pipelines, and re-locating 

well pads. 

4.9.2.2.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

The impacts on mineral resources under Alternative B would be similar to the impacts described 

under Alternative A, except that leasing in the Four Mile Wash area would be open subject to 

Standard stipulations, reducing restrictions on oil and gas exploration and development. 

4.9.2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Cultural resource decisions under Alternative C would close lands in the Uinta Foothills, 

Little/Devil's Hole, and Four Mile Wash areas to protect cultural resources. Lands in Willow 

Creek would be open to leasing subject to Timing and Controlled Surface Use stipulations. 

Under this alternative, only the Willow Creek area would be available for oil and gas exploration 

and development, and stipulations to protect cultural resources would have long-term, indirect, 

adverse impacts to mineral resources. Impacts include increasing the costs associated with 

mineral exploration, extraction, and development, which would have economically adverse 

impacts on the mineral materials industry in the VPA. Increased costs are associated with 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-150

measures needed to protect cultural resources including re-routing access routes and pipelines, 

and re-locating well pads. 

4.9.2.2.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Cultural resource decisions under Alternative D (No Action) would leave all 48,801 acres of land 

open to oil and gas leasing in the Uinta Foothills, Little/Devil's Hole, Upper Willow Creek and 

Four Mile Wash areas. The 48,801 acres in this leasing category is included in the total number 

of acres available for oil and gas leasing (Table 4.9.1). 

Impacts include a decrease in the costs associated with mineral exploration, extraction and 

development and possibly increasing the pace at which mineral resources would be developed. 

Fewer restrictions would allow direct, planned placement of access routes and pipelines to and 

from wells; thus, in many cases, the time required to develop oil, gas and CBNG wells would be 

reduced. 

4.9.2.2.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts of cultural resource decisions on minerals and energy resources would be the same 

as described for Alternative C because the actions are the same. 

4.9.2.3. IMPACTS OF NON-WSA AREAS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

MINERAL RESOURCES

4.9.2.3.1. PROPOSED RMP 

The Proposed RMP would manage approximately 106,178 acres of non-WSA areas with 

wilderness characteristics for the protection of the wilderness values within these areas. 

Management decisions to protect these values would include closure to oil and gas leasing 

(except in White River, which would be NSO), closure to solid mineral leasing, and closure to 

mineral material disposal, closure to cross-country OHV travel, no new road construction, ROW 

avoidance, and management under VRM Class II objectives. These decisions would reduce the 

leasing acreage for minerals development within the VPA in the long term, and prevent access 

road construction within these areas, which would have long-term, adverse impacts on minerals 

exploration and development within most of the RFD areas. 

The following Table 4.9.8 shows the number of acres of non-WSA wilderness characteristics 

protection under each alternative that would adversely impact minerals resources leasing within 

each RFD area. 

Table 4.9.8. Acres of Non-WSA Areas with Wilderness Characteristics, by RFD 

Exploration and 

Development/RFD Area 

Proposed RMP Alternatives 

A, B, and C 

Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E 

Altamont-Bluebell 0 0 0 0 

East Tavaputs Plateau 0 0 0 106,785 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-151

Table 4.9.8. Acres of Non-WSA Areas with Wilderness Characteristics, by RFD 

Exploration and 

Development/RFD Area 

Proposed RMP Alternatives 

A, B, and C 

Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative E 

Manila-Clay Basin 12,374 0 0 12,374 

Monument Butte-Red Wash 6,705 0 0 27,572 

Tabiona-Ashley Valley 87,099 0 0 87,099 

West Tavaputs Plateau 0 0 0 43,453 

Total 106,178 0 0 277,597 

4.9.2.3.2. ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND D (NO ACTION) 

Under these alternatives, non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas would not be managed for 

protection of their wilderness values, so there would be no restriction on exploration and 

development of minerals resources. 

4.9.2.3.3. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E would manage approximately 277,596 acres of non-WSA areas with wilderness 

characteristics for the protection of the wilderness values within these areas. All non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, solid mineral leasing, and 

disposal of mineral materials. The impacts to mineral resources under Alternative E would be the 

same as those described for the Proposed RMP, but would occur over a larger area (see Table 

4.9.8). 

4.9.2.4. IMPACTS OF RECREATION RESOURCE DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCES

4.9.2.4.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Recreation resource decisions to mitigate noise and light pollution adjacent to Dinosaur National 

Monument would have long-term, indirect, adverse impacts to mineral resources. Minimizing 

noise and light pollution would impact development by increasing its costs. However, these costs 

would be minimal in comparison to total operation and development costs. Recreation resource 

decisions under this alternative would also lead to decreased opportunities for exploration 

adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument. In this case, impacts, beneficial or adverse, would be 

based on mineral potential adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument. It is unlikely that 

requirements to minimize noise and light pollution would lead to the denial of a proposed 

project. This decision would impact mineral resources more than Alternative D (No Action), 

which does not address light pollution and noise mitigation impacts adjacent to the Monument. 

The Pelican Lake Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA: 1,014 acres) would be closed 

to disposal of mineral materials and NSO for oil and gas leasing. These restrictions would be in 

place for protection of the recreation setting and experience, but increase costs for development 

of fluid and mineral material resources. Oil and gas could still be produced via directional 

drilling, but at greater effort and expense. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-152

4.9.2.4.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Impacts to mineral resources would be the same as for the Proposed RMP. In addition, 160 acres 

in the Book Cliffs would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation for the 

protection of a remnant old growth pinyon pine forest, with similar restriction and limitation on 

the development of oil and gas resources that would result from the NSO stipulation prescribed 

in the Pelican Lake SRMA under the Proposed RMP. Further, in the White River SRMA under 

this alternative, 1⁄2 mile either side of the river would also be NSO of oil and gas leasing for the 

protection of the recreation setting and experience. The effect of NSO in this SRMA would be 

the same as described above for Pelican Lake SRMA. 

4.9.2.4.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Impacts to mineral resources would be the same as for Alternative A, but including only the 

Pelican Lake SRMA prescription and resultant effects on mineral exploration and production. 

4.9.2.4.4. ALTERNATIVE C

Impacts to mineral resources from the decision to mitigate noise and light would be the same as 

for Alternatives A and B. 

The decision to lease for oil and gas activities with an No Surface Occupancy stipulation within 

0.5 mile of Dinosaur National Monument would have a long-term direct and indirect, adverse 

impact to mineral development, in an indirect relationship with the potential for minerals in those 

areas. Impacts include an increase in development costs associated with directional drilling 

operations. The recreation resource decisions under this alternative are substantially more 

restrictive to mineral and energy resources development than alternatives A and B, but less than 

Alternative E (see below). 

The effect of management of the Pelican Lake SRMA on mineral development would be the 

same as described for Alternative A. 

4.9.2.4.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Recreation resource decisions regarding noise and light pollution to Dinosaur National 

Monument are not specified under this alternative, and would place no restrictions on minerals or 

energy development. Impacts to mineral resources would be long-term direct/indirect, and 

beneficial. Impacts would include an increase in the potential number of wells permitted, 

increased domestic supply of oil and natural gas, and increased royalties to the federal 

government and the State of Utah. Impacts would be based on mineral potential adjacent to the 

Monument. 

The management prescription for Pelican Lake SRMA would have the same effect on 

development of mineral and energy resources as described under Alternative A. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-153

4.9.2.4.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts of recreation decisions on minerals would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative C because the management decisions are similar, except that under this alternative 

non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics would be closed to mineral leasing, further 

restricting mineral development. Under this alternative, approximately 277,596 acres of nonWSA wilderness characteristics areas would be managed to provide opportunities for primitive 

recreation activities and focus management on non-motorized recreation uses, and therefore 

would be more restrictive of mineral development. Compared to Alternative D (No Action), this 

alternative would have more adverse impacts on minerals resources because more areas within 

the VPA would be closed to minerals leasing than under Alternative D (No Action). 

4.9.2.5. IMPACTS OF SOIL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCES

4.9.2.5.1. PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVE A 

Soils resource decisions that require an approved erosion control strategy (surveyed and designed 

by a certified engineer and approved by the BLM) prior to construction and maintenance on 

slopes 21-40% would be a long-term, indirect, economically adverse impact on the mineral 

resources industry by potentially increasing the costs of mineral exploration, extraction, and 

development associated with these requirements when compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

Soils resource decisions that do not allow surface disturbance on slopes greater than 40% (unless 

it is determined that it would cause undue or unnecessary degradation to pursue other placement 

alternatives (if available)) would be a long-term direct, economically adverse impact on the 

mineral resources industry. Adverse impacts would include a potential decrease in the number of 

wells or other mineral developments permitted, which in turn would lead to decreased royalties 

to the federal government and/or the State of Utah, and a potential loss of revenue for minerals 

operators. 

The Proposed RMP and Alternative A would impact mineral resources less than Alternative D 

(No Action), which would allow No Surface Occupancy or other minerals-related surface 

disturbances on slopes in excess of 40%. 

4.9.2.5.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Soils resource decisions under Alternative B that require an approved erosion control strategy 

(surveyed and designed by a certified engineer and approved by the BLM) prior to construction 

and maintenance on slopes greater than 20% would be a long-term, indirect, adverse impact to 

mineral resources. Impacts include potential increased costs of mineral exploration, extraction, 

and development. 

This decision would impact mineral resources less than current management, which allows No 

Surface Occupancy or other surface disturbance on slopes in excess of 40%. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-154

4.9.2.5.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Soil resource decisions under Alternative C would be similar to those for the Proposed RMP and 

Alternative A. 

4.9.2.5.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Soils resource decisions that prohibit surface disturbance on slopes greater than 40% would be a 

long-term, indirect, adverse impact to mineral resources. Impacts include increasing the costs 

associated with mineral exploration, extraction, and development. 

4.9.2.5.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts on minerals resources would be the same as discussed under Alternative C because 

the management decisions would be the same. 

4.9.2.6. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCES

Special designations could adversely impact the level of mineral leasing and minerals 

development and extraction within these areas because of the need to protect the identified 

values by prohibiting or limiting surface disturbances. 

Oil and gas leasing under Standard stipulations would not impact mineral resources as this 

allows for maximum development. Oil and gas leasing under Timing and Controlled Surface Use 

is restrictive and could limit mineral development during certain time periods or in identified 

areas. No Surface Occupancy (NSO) precludes development within an area except for the 

outermost perimeter because, although NSO allows for directional drilling, generally, current 

technology can only laterally penetrate about 2,000–3,000 feet of substrate. So, for larger areas, 

NSO effectively precludes most mineral development because areas beyond the 2,000-3,000 foot 

limit would be inaccessible. Areas closed to mineral leasing would prohibit all minerals-related 

surface disturbances. 

4.9.2.6.1. AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACECS) 

The following Table 4.9.9 shows the number of acres under NSO and Closed leasing categories 

within the proposed ACECs for each alternative. (There are additional acres within these ACECs 

that are open to leasing with standard terms and conditions and moderate constraints; these 

acreages are not shown in the table below.) 

Table 4.9.9. Minerals Leasing NSO and Closed Restrictions within Proposed ACECs, by 

Acres and Alternative 

ACEC Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Bitter Creek 0 560 0 58,203 Unspecified 59,628

Browns 

Park 

15,202 24,411 8,992 24,411 31,725 41,144
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-155

Table 4.9.9. Minerals Leasing NSO and Closed Restrictions within Proposed ACECs, by 

Acres and Alternative 

ACEC Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative D 

(No Action) 

Alternative 

E 

Coyote 

Basin 

0 99 110 5,325 Unspecified 5,325

Four Mile 

Wash 

0 0 0 50,280 Unspecified 50,280

Lower 

Green 

River - 

Lower 

Corridor 

8,394 8,470 0 8,470 8,394 8,470

Green 

River - 

Lower 

Expansion 

0 1,700 0 1,700 0 1,700

Middle 

Green 

River - 

0 0 0 0 Unspecified 0

Lears 

Canyon 

1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375

Main 

Canyon 

0 0 0 57,392 Unspecified 57,392

Nine Mile 

Canyon 

17,198 20,487 7,848 11,433 7,848 22,372

Pariette 

Wetlands 

10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437 10,437

Red Creek 

Watershed 

364 364 364 364 2,540 5,217

Red 

MountainDry Fork 

1,988 24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285 24,285

White River 

Corridor 

0* 8,993 0* 13,273 Unspecified 24,024

Total 54,958 101,181 53,411 266,948 86,604 311,649

*Excluding areas currently managed as NSO within line of sight or up to one-half mile from the centerline of the river, whichever is 

less. 

4.9.2.6.2. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Table 4.9.10 shows the number of miles of river recommended suitable for inclusion in the 

NWSRS for each river and for each alternative. The table also displays the classification of the 

river. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-156

Table 4.9.10. River Segments That Would Be Determined Suitable and Total River Miles 

by Alternative 

River/River 

Segment 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D1 

(

No Action) 

Alternative 

E 

White River – 

Segment 1; 

"Scenic" 

0 24 0 24 0 02 

White River – 

Segment 2; 'Wild' 

0 10 0 10 0 10 

White River – 

Segment 3; 

"Scenic" 

0 0 0 10 0 10 

Nine Mile Creek – 

Segment A; 

"Scenic" 

0 0 0 13 0 13 

Nine Mile Creek – 

Segment B; 

"Recreational" 

0 0 0 6 0 6 

Upper Green 

River; "Scenic" 

22 22 22 22 22 22 

Lower Green 

River; "Scenic" 

30 30 30 30 30 30 

Middle Green 

River; 

"Recreational" 

0 0 0 36 0 36 

Evacuation Creek; 

"Scenic" 

0 0 0 21 0 21 

Bitter Creek; 

"Scenic" 

0 0 0 22 0 22 

Argyle Creek; 

"Recreational" 

0 0 0 22 0 22 

Total River Miles 52 86 52 216 52 192 

Total BLM 

Shoreline Miles 

39 57 39 112 39 104 

1

In addition, 87 miles of river involving the White River (Segments 1, 2, and 3), Evacuation Creek, and Bitter Creek would remain 

eligible with this alternative. 

2

Alternative E would not recommend Segment 1 suitable, but would manage and protect the segment as eligible pending completion 

of a review of the permit for dam construction. 

 Note: Mileage is approximate. 

Under a "Wild" classification, river corridors would be closed to new mineral leases and mineral 

entry (claim staking) to protect the free-flowing river, its outstandingly remarkable values, and 

the river classification (wild). These closures would prevent further exploration and development 

of mineral and energy resources. If any existing claims or leases exist within a designated river 

corridor, they would be managed to minimize impacts to the wild and scenic river resource, 

while allowing the operation to occur consistent with laws and regulations. Under a "Scenic" 

river classification, new mining claims and mineral leases can be allowed. Mining would be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-157

regulated under the 43 CFR 3809 regulations to minimize impacts to river values as the 

operation develops. This classification would not prohibit mineral and energy development, but 

likely impose restrictions for the protection of wild and scenic river values. With a 

"Recreational" river classification, new mining claims and mineral leases are allowed. Under all 

classes, new and existing claims and leases would be mitigated to reduce impacts to the freeflowing nature of the rivers, their outstandingly remarkable values, and their classifications. 

4.9.2.6.3. WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSAS) 

Under the Proposed RMP and all alternatives, all 53,058 acres in the six existing WSAs would 

be closed to fluid mineral leasing, solid mineral leasing, and mineral material sales, subject to 

valid existing rights. Locatable mineral entry would be managed under the 43 CFR 3802 

regulations to prevent impairment of the wilderness values of the WSAs. These decisions would 

prevent entry and development of mineral and energy resources, except on 13,832 acres of the 

Winter Ridge WSA where valid existing leases would still be developed. 

4.9.2.7. IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES RESOURCE DECISIONS ON MINERAL 

RESOURCES

The Proposed RMP and all alternatives require some degree of spatial or temporal limitations on 

many surface-disturbing activities, in order to protect sensitive species and their important 

habitats. In the case of mineral and energy development, specific conditions of approval or lease 

terms are often required in order to mitigate the adverse affects of development activities on 

special status species. In order to quantify the overall effect of spatial and temporal limitations on 

energy and mineral development, an accessibility analysis is located at the end of this chapter 

that graphically depicts the cumulative effect of spatial and temporal limitations on accessibility 

to mineral and energy development by industry. Not all spatial and temporal limitations would 

apply to every lease; it would be very rare for any one lease to have so many limitations as to 

render it inaccessible for energy development. 

Spatial and temporal limitations would have an adverse impact on minerals and energy 

development by increasing exploration costs, but the degree and magnitude of such an increase 

depends on several factors. In most cases the economic costs associated with mineral and energy 

development would not increase substantially as a result of spatial and temporal limitations. 

Because most of the VPA available to mineral and energy development is currently leased 

(approximately 70% of available areas), few operators would likely realize increased exploration 

costs due to spatial and temporal limitations. Even though an operator may temporarily have to 

refrain from development in one area of the lease because of spatial and temporal restrictions, 

opportunities to drill other portions of the lease may still be available. In the case of numerous 

overlapping stipulations, the timeframe in which drilling operation can occur given constraints 

(drilling window) may be very limited, which could cause adverse economic impacts. But if the 

drilling window were very broad, then adverse economic impacts would be relatively minor in 

terms of the total number of operators potentially impacted. Operators have complied with 

spatial and temporal restrictions and over the years have developed strategies to minimize the 

economic risks associated with development. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-158

Overall, it is estimated that a small number of operators would experience adverse economic 

effects if drilling operations must be stayed during special status species protection periods or if 

drilling operation must be moved to another area on the lease. Lease stipulations or lease notices 

would assist in educating operators to plan drilling schedules during the open drilling period. 

4.9.2.7.1. PROPOSED RMP 

4.9.2.7.1.1. Raptors 

Under the Proposed RMP, raptor management would be guided by the use of "Best Management 

Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah" (BLM 2006, Appendix A), using 

seasonal and spatial buffers, and mitigation, to maintain and enhance raptor habitat, while 

providing for other resource uses. 

Impacts to mineral and energy resources would include an increase in development costs and 

temporary delay in royalties paid to the federal government and/or the State of Utah. It is 

difficult to quantify the effects of raptor protection guidelines on mineral and energy 

development. Spatial and temporal buffers may preclude mineral and energy development in 

some cases, thereby temporarily reducing the potential number of wells drilled or other mineral 

developments and temporarily decreasing/delaying royalties paid to the federal government and 

the State of Utah. Several factors determining the economic impacts are involved, such as the 

year the lease was issued, the size of the proponent's lease, and the proponent's "priority list." A 

database of raptor nests and their activity status is kept at the Vernal Field Office. This database 

would be referenced as part of the site-specific environmental analysis required prior to drilling a 

well or developing an area for mineral or energy. It can provide the proponent with information 

and guide the management of its lease, thereby decreasing development costs caused by waiting 

for a particular nest's appropriate temporal and spatial restriction. 

Depending on field conditions, the BLM may be able to eliminate restrictions via exceptions. 

During site-specific analyses, the spatial or temporal restrictions may be determined to be 

unnecessary if there are circumstances that would mitigate potential development impacts to 

raptors, such as terrain or vegetative screen. 

Exceptions to spatial and temporal buffers would directly benefit mineral resources by allowing 

development if protection of the nests is ensured by completion of a site specific assessment 

form, written documentation from a BLM Field Office biologist confirming that the 

implementation of the modifications would not impact the success of the nest or the suitability of 

the site for future nesting, and monitoring which would include strategy employment and 

implementation of a post-project/mitigation plan. This would increase the potential number of 

wells drilled or other mineral development, increase the domestic supply of oil and natural gas or 

other minerals, and increase royalties to the federal government and/or the State of Utah. 

4.9.2.7.1.2. Greater Sage-grouse 

Management of Greater Sage-grouse under the Proposed RMP would be similar to Alternative C. 

It is likely that management decisions under the Proposed RMP would have a greater impact on 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-159

mineral and energy development than Alternative D (No Action). Impacts to mineral and energy 

resources include an increase in development costs and temporary delay in royalties paid to the 

federal government and/or the State of Utah. Economic impacts to mineral and energy 

development would depend on the same factors considered for raptors (see above) and vary by 

alternative. 

4.9.2.7.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

4.9.2.7.2.1. Raptors 

In general, raptor protections under Alternative A would be more restrictive to mineral and 

energy development than Alternative D (No Action). Alternative A would establish spatial and 

seasonal buffers for raptors under the auspices of best management practices (BMPs) (Appendix 

A), which would include implementation of buffers comparable to the USFWS Utah Field Office 

Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances (Appendix A), with 

exceptions allowed by the BLM as long as the protection of raptor nests is ensured. Restrictions 

are specific to both occupied and unoccupied nests (see Table 4.9.11). The effects on mineral and 

energy development would be the same as described for the Proposed RMP. 

4.9.2.7.2.2. Greater Sage-grouse 

Implementation of the Strategic Management Plan for Greater Sage-grouse would result in 

impacts to mineral and energy development similar to that described for the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.9. Minera

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.9.11. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resources under 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Se

Bald Eagle 1/1–8/31 Golden Eagle 1/1–8/31 Northern Goshawk 3/1–8/15 Northern Harrier 4/1–8/15 Cooper's Hawk 3/15–8/31 Ferruginous Hawk 3/1–8/1 Red-tailed Hawk 3/15–8/15 Sharp-shinned Hawk 3/15-8/31 Swainson's Hawk 3/1-8/31 Turkey Vulture 5/1-8/15 Peregrine Falcon 2/1–8/31 Prairie Falcon 4/1–8/31 Merlin 4/1-8/31 American Kestrel 4/1-8/15 Osprey 4/1-8/31 Boreal Owl 2/1-7/31 Burrowing Owl 3/1-8/31 Flammulated Owl 4/1-9/30 Great Horned Owl 2/1–9/31 Long-eared Owl 3/1-8/15 N. saw-whet owl 3/1-8/31 Short-eared Owl 3/1-8/1 Mexican Spotted Owl 3/1–8/31 N. Pygmy owl 4/1-8/1 W. Screech owl 3/1-8/15 Common Barn-owl 2/1-9/15 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.9. Minera

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.9.11. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resources under 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Se

Greater Sage-grouse 3/1–6/15 

Table 4.9.12. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resources under 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Se

Bald Eagle 1/1–8/31 Golden Eagle 1/1–8/31 Northern Goshawk 3/1–8/15 Northern Harrier 4/1–8/15 Cooper's Hawk 3/15–8/31 Ferruginous Hawk 3/1–8/1 Red-tailed Hawk 3/15–8/15 Sharp-shinned Hawk 3/15-8/31 Swainson's Hawk 3/1-8/31 Turkey Vulture 5/1-8/15 Peregrine Falcon 2/1–8/31 Prairie Falcon 4/1–8/31 Merlin 4/1-8/31 American Kestrel 4/1-8/15 Osprey 4/1-8/31 Boreal Owl 2/1-7/31 Burrowing Owl 3/1-8/31 Flammulated Owl 4/1-9/30 Great Horned Owl 2/1–9/31 Long-eared Owl 3/1-8/15 N. saw-whet owl 3/1-8/31 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.9. Minera

Vernal RMP 

Table 4.9.12. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resources under 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Se

Short-eared Owl 3/1-8/1 Mexican Spotted Owl 3/1–8/31 N. Pygmy owl 4/1-8/1 W. Screech owl 3/1-8/15 Common Barn-owl 2/1-9/15 Greatger Sage-grouse 3/1–6/15 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-163

4.9.2.7.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

4.9.2.7.3.1. Raptors 

Raptor protections under Alternative B would be less restrictive to mineral and energy 

development than Alternative D (No Action). Impacts to mineral and energy resources include 

an increase in development costs and temporary delay in royalties paid to the federal government 

and/or the State of Utah. Management of raptors under Alternative B would consider the least 

restrictive management options (see Section 4.9.2.7.1.1, Proposed RMP, Raptors; Table 4.9.12). 

4.9.2.7.3.2. Greater Sage-grouse 

Management of Greater Sage-grouse under Alternative B would be similar to Alternative D (No 

Action). It is not likely that management decisions under Alternative B would have a greater 

impact on mineral and energy development than Alternative D (No Action). Impacts to mineral 

and energy resources include an increase in development costs and temporary delay in royalties 

paid to the federal government and/or the State of Utah. Economic impacts to mineral and energy 

development would depend on the same factors considered for raptors (see Section 4.9.2.7.1.1 

Proposed RMP, Raptors) and vary by alternative. The number of acres closed to mineral and 

energy development due to Greater Sage-grouse protections is included under each of the 

alternatives. The impacts of management decisions for Greater Sage-grouse are similar to those 

of raptors. 

4.9.2.7.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

4.9.2.7.4.1. Raptors 

Management of raptors under Alternative C would implement spatial and seasonal buffers for 

raptors as recommended in Appendix A, BMPs. This is more restrictive than management of 

raptors under Alternative D (No Action), and would likely impact mineral resources more than 

Alternative D (No Action). Impacts to mineral and energy resources include an increase in 

development costs and temporary delay in royalties paid to the federal government and/or the 

State of Utah. Under this alternative, there is the potential that fewer wells would be permitted, 

given the more stringent protection guidelines (see Section 4.9.2.7.1.1 Proposed RMP, Raptors; 

Table 4.9.13). 

4.9.2.7.4.2. Greater Sage-grouse 

Management of Greater Sage-grouse under Alternative C would be more restrictive than 

Alternative D (No Action), but it is not likely that management decisions under Alternative C 

would have a greater impact on mineral and energy development than Alternative D (No 

Action). Impacts to mineral and energy resources include an increase in development costs and 

temporary delay in royalties paid to the federal government and/or the State of Utah. Economic 

impacts to mineral and energy development would depend on the same factors considered for 

raptors (see Section 4.9.2.7.1.1 Proposed RMP, Raptors) and vary by alternative. The number of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-164

acres closed to mineral and energy development due to Greater Sage-grouse protections is 

included under each of the alternatives. The impacts of management decisions for Greater Sagegrouse are similar to those of raptors. 

4.9.2.7.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

4.9.2.7.5.1. Raptors 

Alternative D (No Action) would maintain the spatial and seasonal buffers in the Diamond 

Mountain area for the twenty special status or sensitive raptor species listed in the Diamond 

Mountain RMP. Raptor buffers in the Book Cliffs area would remain unspecified. Impacts to 

mineral and energy resources include an increase in the existing development costs due to 

accommodating existing spatial and seasonal buffers and temporary delay in royalties paid to the 

federal government and/or the State of Utah (see Section 4.9.2.7.1.1 Proposed RMP, Raptors; 

Table 4.9.14). 

4.9.2.7.5.2. Greater Sage-grouse 

Management of Greater Sage-grouse under Alternative D (No Action) would continue. Impacts 

to mineral and energy resources include an increase in development costs and temporary delay in 

royalties paid to the federal government and/or the State of Utah. Economic impacts to mineral 

and energy development would depend on the same factors considered for raptors (see Section 

4.9.2.7.1.1 Proposed RMP, Raptors) and vary by alternative. 

4.9.2.7.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts of Alternative E management decisions on minerals resources would be the same as 

Alternative C because the decisions are the same. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.9. Minerals 

4-165 

Table 4.9.13. Seasonal Restrictions in Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resources under Alter

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Se

Bald Eagle 1/1–8/31 Golden Eagle 1/1–8/31 Northern Goshawk 3/1–8/15 Northern Harrier 4/1–8/15 Cooper's Hawk 3/15–8/31 Ferruginous Hawk 3/1–8/1 Red-tailed Hawk 3/15–8/15 Sharp-shinned Hawk 3/15-8/31 Swainson's Hawk 3/1-8/31 Turkey Vulture 5/1-8/15 Peregrine Falcon 2/1–8/31 Prairie Falcon 4/1–8/31 Merlin 4/1-8/31 American Kestrel 4/1-8/15 Osprey 4/1-8/31 Boreal Owl 2/1-7/31 Burrowing Owl 3/1-8/31 Flammulated Owl 4/1-9/30 Great Horned Owl 2/1–9/31 Long-eared Owl 3/1-8/15 N. saw-whet owl 3/1-8/31 Short-eared Owl 3/1-8/1 Mexican Spotted Owl 3/1–8/31 N. Pygmy owl 4/1-8/1 W. Screech owl 3/1-8/15 Common Barn-owl 2/1-9/15 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.9. Minerals 

4-166 

Table 4.9.13. Seasonal Restrictions in Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resources under AlterGreater Sage-grouse 3/1–6/15 

Table 4.9.14. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resources under A

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Se

Bald Eagle 1/1–8/31 Golden Eagle 1/1–8/31 Northern Goshawk 3/1–8/15 Northern Harrier 4/1–8/15 Cooper's Hawk 3/15–8/31 Ferruginous Hawk 3/1–8/1 Red-tailed Hawk 3/15–8/15 Sharp-shinned Hawk 3/15-8/31 Swainson's Hawk 3/1-8/31 Turkey Vulture 5/1-8/15 Peregrine Falcon 2/1–8/31 Prairie Falcon 4/1–8/31 Merlin 4/1-8/31 American Kestrel 4/1-8/15 Osprey 4/1-8/31 Boreal Owl 2/1-7/31 Burrowing Owl 3/1-8/31 Flammulated Owl 4/1-9/30 Great Horned Owl 2/1–9/31 Long-eared Owl 3/1-8/15 N. saw-whet owl 3/1-8/31 Short-eared Owl 3/1-8/1 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.9. Minerals 

4-167 

Table 4.9.14. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resources under AMexican Spotted Owl 3/1–8/31 N. Pygmy owl 4/1-8/1 W. Screech owl 3/1-8/15 Common Barn-owl 2/1-9/15 Greater Sage-grouse 3/1–6/15 

Table 4.9.15. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resources under 

(No Action) 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Bald Eagle All Year Golden Eagle All Year Northern Goshawk 4/15–8/20 Northern Harrier 4/1–7/15 Cooper's Hawk 5/1–8/15 Ferruginous Hawk All Year Red-tailed Hawk 4/1–7/15 Sharp-shinned Hawk 6/20–8/15 Swainson's Hawk 4/1–7/15 Turkey Vulture 5/15–8/15 Peregrine Falcon All Year Prairie Falcon 4/1–7/15 Merlin 4/15–6/25 American Kestrel 5/1–6/30 Osprey 4/1–7/15 Burrowing Owl 4/1–7/15 Great horned Owl 2/1–5/15 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

4.9. Minerals 

4-168 

Table 4.9.15. Seasonal Restrictions within Established Buffer Zones Applied to Mineral Resources under 

(No Action) 

Species Dates Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Long-eared Owl 3/15–6/15 Short-eared Owl 4/10–6/15 Mexican Spotted Owl 3/1–8/1 Greater Sage-grouse (Book Cliffs) 3/15–6/15 Greater Sage-grouse (Diamond Mountain) 3/1–6/30 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-169

4.9.2.8. IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCES

4.9.2.8.1. PROPOSED RMP

Wildlife resource decisions that restrict activities in deer and elk winter range from December 1 

through April 30 would have long-term, indirect, adverse impacts on mineral resource 

development. Potential impacts would include increasing the costs associated with mineral 

exploration, extraction, and development, as well as reducing the opportunities for mineral 

development. The impacts would not be substantially more than current management because 

timing restrictions, but shift 30 days forward from criteria currently used in the Book Cliffs area. 

The restricted period in the Diamond Mountain area would be the same under the Proposed 

RMP. 

The decision to analyze impacts (in coordination with the UDWR) that would be mitigated 

would potentially benefit mineral resource extraction and development in the short-term by 

allowing some exploration to continue during restricted timeframes. By not implementing timing 

restrictions, mineral extraction and development would proceed at a faster pace with lower 

economic costs and risks. 

4.9.2.8.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Wildlife resource decisions that restrict activities in deer and elk winter range from November 15 

through April 30 would have the same impacts on mineral resource development as the Proposed 

RMP, but extend the effect an additional 15 days. As with the Proposed RMP, impacts would 

include increasing the costs associated with mineral exploration, extraction, and development, as 

well as reducing the opportunities for mineral development. The decision to analyze impacts (in 

coordination with the UDWR) that would be mitigated would have the same effect as described 

under the Proposed RMP. 

4.9.2.8.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Wildlife resource decisions to implement timing restrictions on activities that could adversely 

impact deer and elk winter range would have long-term, indirect, beneficial impacts to mineral 

resources. Timing restriction for protection of wildlife species under Alternative B would be less 

restrictive than the other alternatives. By reducing timing restrictions, mineral extraction and 

development could proceed at a faster pace with lower economic costs and risks. 

Under this alternative, disturbance activities that would displace deer and elk from more than 

10% of their total winter habitat at any given time would not be allowed from December 15 

through March 15. Waivers would be granted if deer and elk are not present; topography or other 

attributes screen the activity sufficiently so that the proposed activity would not displace the 

subject species; or disturbance resulting from the proposed activity would be mitigated. Such 

waivers are not present under Alternative D (No Action). Also under this alternative, no more 

than 10% of deer and elk winter habitat would be subject to surface disturbance and remain 

unclaimed at any given time compared to 2.4% for Alternatives A and C and an unspecified 

amount in Alternative D (No Action). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-170

4.9.2.8.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Wildlife resource decisions to implement timing restrictions on activities that could adversely 

impact deer and elk winter range would have long-term, indirect, adverse impacts to mineral 

resources. Impacts include increasing the costs associated with mineral exploration, extraction, 

and development. 

The impacts of this decision would be the same as for Alternative A and only slightly different 

than Alternative D (No Action). Also under this alternative, 560 acres per township (prorated 

based on percentage of the BLM-managed crucial deer winter range within the township 

[approximately 2.4%]) of deer and elk winter habitat would be subject to surface disturbance 

compared to 10% for Alternative B, 10% for Alternative A, and an unspecified amount in 

Alternative D (No Action). Because Alternative D (No Action), does not specify what 

percentage of new surface-disturbing activity would be allowed in deer and elk winter habitat it 

is unclear if wildlife resource decisions under this alternative would restrict mineral resources 

development more or less than Alternative D (No Action). 

4.9.2.8.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Wildlife resource decisions to implement timing restrictions on activities that would adversely 

impact deer and elk winter range would have long-term, indirect, adverse impact to mineral 

resources. Impacts include increasing the costs associated with mineral exploration, extraction, 

and development. 

Alternative D (No Action) does not specify what percentage of new surface-disturbing activity 

would be allowed in deer and elk winter habitat. Therefore it is unclear whether this particular 

factor in wildlife resource decisions would restrict mineral resources development more or less 

than any of the other alternatives. 

4.9.2.8.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

The impacts of wildlife decisions on minerals would be the same as discussed under Alternative 

C because the decisions are the same. 

4.9.2.9. IMPACTS OF VISUAL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCES

Mineral development activities would be subject to the Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

Class objectives of the area within which development would occur. Areas managed for 

landscape change as VRM Class III and Class IV allow a wider range of impacts on scenery, and 

generally would have negligible impacts on mineral development in the VPA. Areas with higher 

scenic values, or areas managed for little to no landscape change (VRM Class I and Class II) 

allow little or no alteration to the line, form, color and texture that characterize the existing 

landscape and would have a greater impact to mineral development in the VPA. Table 4.9.16 

shows the number of acres within each VRM class by alternative. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-171

Table 4.9.16. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative 

VRM 

Class 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative A Alternative 

B 

Alternative C Alternative 

D (No 

Action) 

Alternative E 

VRM I 57,776 63,136 53,058 145,781 53,086 334,516 

VRM II 231,911 294,773 114,030 362,660 113,686 259,694 

VRM III 786,612 716,186 199,179 580,846 199,192 535,586 

VRM IV 643,641 645,845 1,353,967 630,653 1,353,976 590,140 

Total 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 1,719,940 

VRM I 

and II 

289,687 357,909 166,794 508,441 166,772 594,210 

VRM III 

and IV 

1,430,253 1,362,031 1,553,146 1,211,499 1,553,168 1,125,730 

4.9.2.9.1. PROPOSED RMP 

Under the Proposed RMP, the number of acres included in VRM Classes I and II would increase 

by approximately 74%, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

An increase in the number of acres in VRM Classes I and II could have an adverse impact on 

mineral resource development. Direct, adverse impacts would include increased production costs 

associated with mineral development and the exclusion of mineral development from particular 

areas. An increase in the number of acres in VRM Classes I and II would also lead to a decrease 

in the number of locations where potential wells could be drilled. The loss of locations could 

indirectly lead to a decrease in the available supply of oil and natural gas to western markets. 

Indirect impacts of visual resources decisions on mineral development would be adverse. A 

decrease in the number of potential oil and gas wells would lead to a decrease in royalties paid to 

the federal government and/or the State of Utah. 

4.9.2.9.2. ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, the number of acres included in VRM Classes I and II would increase by 

approximately 115%, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

An increase in the number of acres in VRM Classes I and II could have an adverse impact on 

mineral resource development. Direct, adverse impacts would include increased production costs 

associated with mineral development and the exclusion of mineral development from particular 

areas. An increase in the number of acres in VRM Classes I and II would also lead to a decrease 

in the number of locations where potential wells could be drilled. The loss of locations could 

indirectly lead to a decrease in the available supply of oil and natural gas to western markets. 

Indirect impacts of visual resources decisions on mineral development would be adverse. A 

decrease in the number of potential oil and gas wells would lead to a decrease in royalties paid to 

the federal government and/or the State of Utah. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-172

4.9.2.9.3. ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, the number of acres included in VRM Classes I and II would not change 

significantly (0.01% increase), compared to Alternative D (No Action). Impacts would be similar 

to Alternative D (No Action). 

4.9.2.9.4. ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, the number of acres included in VRM Classes I and II would increase by 

approximately 205%, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

An increase in the number of acres in VRM Classes I and II would have an adverse impact on 

mineral resource development. Direct, adverse impacts would include increased production costs 

associated with mineral development and the exclusion of mineral development from particular 

areas. An increase in the number of acres in VRM Classes I and II would also lead to a decrease 

in the number of locations where potential wells could be drilled. The loss of locations could 

indirectly lead to a decrease in the available supply of oil and natural gas to western markets. 

Indirect impacts of visual resources decisions on mineral development would be adverse. A 

decrease in the number of potential oil and gas wells would lead to a decrease in royalties paid to 

the federal government and/or the State of Utah. 

4.9.2.9.5. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative D (No Action), the number of acres included in VRM Classes I and II would 

not change. 

Direct, adverse impacts would continue to include increased production costs associated with 

mineral development, the exclusion of mineral development from a particular area and a 

decrease in the number of locations where potential wells could be drilled. The loss of locations 

could indirectly lead to a decrease in the available supply of oil and natural gas to western 

markets. 

Indirect impacts of visual resources decisions on mineral development would be adverse. A 

decrease in the number of potential oil and gas wells would lead to a decrease in royalties paid to 

the federal government and/or the State of Utah. 

4.9.2.9.6. ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, the number of acres managed under VRM Classes I and II objectives would 

increase by approximately 256%, compared to Alternative D (No Action). 

An increase in the number of acres in VRM Classes I and II would have an adverse impact on 

mineral resource development, with direct, adverse impacts that would include increased 

production costs associated with mineral development and the exclusion of mineral development 

from areas where minerals activities would not meet VRM objectives. An increase in the number 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-173

of acres in VRM Classes I and II would also lead to a decrease in the number of locations where 

potential wells could be drilled. This loss of potential drilling locations could indirectly lead to a 

decrease in the available supply of oil and natural gas to western markets. 

Indirect impacts of visual resources decisions on mineral development would be adverse. A 

decrease in the number of potential oil and gas wells would lead to a decrease in royalties paid to 

the federal government and/or the State of Utah 

4.9.2.10. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVES

4.9.2.10.1. ALTERNATIVE A 

Resource decisions made under Alternative A would, in general, have a long-term, indirect, 

adverse impact on mineral resource development in the VPA. Resource decisions would be 

slightly more restrictive to minerals development than Alternative D (No Action). There would 

be an increase in the potential number of oil and gas wells that could be drilled in each of the six 

RFD areas. Resource decisions would be less restrictive to minerals development than those 

made for Alternative C and more restrictive than those made for Alternative B. 

4.9.2.10.2. ALTERNATIVE B 

Resource decisions made under Alternative B would have both long-term, indirect, adverse, and 

long-term direct beneficial impacts on mineral resource development in the VPA. There would 

be an increase in the potential number of oil and gas wells that could be drilled in each of the six 

RFD areas. In general, resource decisions would be less restrictive to mineral resources 

development than those made for each of the other alternatives. Cultural and wildlife resource 

decisions would have a long-term direct, beneficial impact on mineral resource development. All 

other resource decisions would have an indirect, adverse impact on mineral resource 

development but not substantially more so than each of the other alternatives. Resource decisions 

would be substantially less restrictive than those for Alternative C. 

4.9.2.10.3. ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C decisions would have a long-term, indirect, adverse impact on mineral resource 

development in the VPA. There would be a slight decrease in the potential number of oil and gas 

wells that could be drilled in each of the six RFD areas. In general, resource decisions would be 

more restrictive than those made for each of the other alternatives. 

4.9.2.10.4. ALTERNATIVE D (NO ACTION) 

Resource decision made under Alternative D (No Action) would have a long-term, indirect, 

adverse impact on mineral resource development in the VPA. Resource decisions would be less 

restrictive than those made for Alternatives C and E, more restrictive than Alternative A, and 

only slightly more restrictive than Alternative B. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.9. Minerals and Energy Resources

Vernal RMP 4-174

4.9.2.10.5. ALTERNATIVE E 

Alternative E resource decisions would have a long-term, indirect, adverse impact on mineral 

resource development in the VPA. There would be a decrease in the potential number of oil and 

gas wells that could be drilled in five of the six RFD areas, and minerals resource decisions 

would be more restrictive than those under the other alternatives because of stipulations to 

protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.9.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

Under the Proposed RMP and all action alternatives there would be a net increase in the number 

of predicted oil, gas, and CBNG wells as compared to Alternative D (No Action). Similarly, 

neither the Proposed RMP nor any of the alternatives would substantially restrict mineral 

development. Neither the Proposed RMP nor any of the alternatives would result in impacts that 

would necessitate mitigation of oil, gas, and mineral resources; therefore, mitigation measures 

would not be necessary. 

4.9.4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Under the Proposed RMP and all action alternatives there would be a net increase in the number 

of predicted oil, gas, and CBNG wells as compared to Alternative D (No Action). Similarly, 

none of the alternatives would substantially restrict mineral development. Accordingly, neither 

the Proposed RMP nor any of the alternatives would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to 

mineral development. 

4.9.5. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Once fossil fuel and mineral resources are extracted and the short-term beneficial uses (e.g., 

increased supply of minerals to meet demand, decreased production costs, increased royalties) 

are realized, the resources would no longer be available for long-term or future production. 

4.9.6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE IMPACTS

The extraction and development of mineral resources from the VPA would result in an 

irreversible loss of those minerals due to the finite nature of the resource. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-1

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1. INTRODUCTION

During the planning and decision-making process for this Vernal 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, State and local governments, Indian 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 RMP, and prepare environmental documents that disclose the potential 

impacts of the preferred alternative/Proposed RMP and the reasonable alternatives. 

Such public involvement, consultation, and coordination have been at the heart of the planning 

process leading to the Vernal Field Office 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 thereto on 

the draft RMP/EIS. 

The BLM initiated the planning process on March 2001 by publishing in the Federal Register a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to conduct land-use planning for the Vernal Field Office. 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. The scoping for this project began on March 12, 

2001 remained open until December 31, 2001. As part of the resource inventory to determine 

baseline, 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 January 14, 2005, the BLM published in the Federal Register a Notice of Availability of the 

Draft RMP/EIS to announce and solicit public comment 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 April 4, 2005. The comments and the BLM's responses thereto are addressed in this 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS (PRMP/FEIS or Proposed RMP). 

On December 13, 2005, the BLM published in the Federal Register a Notice of Availability of 

the Draft RMP/EIS to list proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and specific 

associated resource use limitations for public lands in Daggett, Duchesne, Uintah and a small 

portion of Grand Counties, UT. They provided a 60-day comment period on the potential 

ACECs. The comment period ended February 11, 2006. The comments and the BLM's responses 

thereto are addressed in this PRMP/FEIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-2

In order to adequately address the management of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) and a fifth alternative (Alternative E) was published 

by the BLM in 2007. A Notice of Availability was of the SEIS was published in the Federal 

Register on Oct. 5, 2007. The 90-day public comment period to solicit public comment on the 

impacts of Alternative E ended on January 3, 2008. 

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 Vernal Field Office. 

5.2. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH TRIBES, STATE AND LOCAL 

GOVERNMENTS, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES

In the development of this PRMP, 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 Indian tribes. More specifically, Federal law, including FLPMA, 

NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 USC Sec. 470 et seq.), the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC Sec. 661 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA) (16 USC Sec 1531 et seq.), and other applicable law, regulations, policy, and 

executive orders, directs the 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 interdisciplinary 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. A list of cooperating 

agencies and their representatives is presented in Table 5.1. 

The Vernal Field Office has completed its consultation on the Proposed RMP Final EIS with the 

Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as required by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. SHPO’s concurrence is included in Appendix P and they concur with 

BLM’s determinations for the Section 106 consultation process specified in 36 CFR 800.4. 

SHPO concurred with BLMs determination that in many cases there was no potential to cause 

effect by the decisions in this plan and in some cases there was potential to effect, but there 

would be no adverse affect on historic properties. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-3

Table 5.1. Cooperating Agencies and their Representatives 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Ute Indian Tribe 

Forrest S. Cuch Curtis Cesspooch 

State of Utah 

John Harja 

Val Payne 

Uintah, Duchesne, and Daggett Counties County Commissioners 

Daggett County Stewart Leith 

Floyd Briggs 

Henry J. Gutz 

Duchesne County W R (Rod) Harrison 

Kent Peatross 

Kirk Wood 

Uintah County Darlene Burns 

David Haslem 

Mike McKee 

Agency Liaison 

BLM Primary Liaison Lauren Mermejo, State Planning Coordinator 

5.2.1. NATIVE AMERICAN INTERESTS AND TRIBES

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, the 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 would continue after the 

PRMP is completed. 

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 Vernal Field Office invited tribes to consult regarding the entire range of cultural and natural 

resource impacts (Table 5.2). 

The RMP/EIS scoping process was initiated in November 2002 when then–BLM Utah State 

Director Sally Wisely mailed letters to 32 tribal organizations. The BLM requesting information 

regarding any concerns the tribal organizations might have within the planning area, specifically 

requested input concerning the identification and protection of culturally significant areas and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-4

resources located on lands managed by the Vernal and Price Field Offices, and offered the 

opportunity for meetings. Between November 2002 and May 2003, all 32 tribes were contacted 

by SWCA ethnographer Molly Molenaar, under contract with and on behalf of 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. 

Of the 32 organizations contacted for this report, four requested meetings to discuss the 

traditional cultural resources study: Pueblo of Laguna, Hopi Tribe, Southern Ute Tribe, Uintah 

and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe. The Southern Ute Tribe requested that a meeting invitation be 

extended to all Ute Tribes contacted for this project and a meeting was held in Grand Junction, 

Colorado on April 10, 2003. Attending this meeting were representatives from the Ute Mountain 

Ute, White Mesa Ute, Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe, and the Southern Ute Tribe. Two 

meetings were held with the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office on January 19, 2003 and May 23, 

2003. A meeting was held with the NAGPRA Committee at the Pueblo of Laguna tribal offices 

on April 28, 2003. Based on telephone conversations, correspondence, and meetings, 12 Native 

American organizations requested to be contacted for future projects in the Price Field Office 

and 12 Native American organizations requested to be contacted for future projects in the Vernal 

Field Office. Three organizations said that they did not need to be contacted for future projects 

and 16 organizations did not respond to the initial consultation letter or telephone calls made by 

Ms. Molenaar. It is important to note that failure to respond to a request to consult does not 

necessarily mean that a Native American organization is not interested in current or future 

consultation with the Price and Vernal Field Offices. 

The remaining organizations contacted expressed concerns that are summarized below but did 

not specify as to whether or not they would like to be contacted for future projects for the field 

offices. It is important to note that failure to respond to a request to consult does not necessarily 

mean that a Native American organization is not interested in current or future consultation with 

the Price and Vernal Field Offices. 

Table 5.2. Native American Organizations Requesting to Be Contacted for Future 

Projects in the Price Field Office 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe Navajo Nation 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Pueblo of Acoma (NAGPRA cases only) 

Pueblo of Laguna Pueblo of Santa Clara 

Pueblo of Zia Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe 

Southern Ute Tribe White Mesa Ute Tribe 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Hopi Tribe 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-5

Table 5.3. Native American Organizations Requesting to Be Contacted for Future 

Projects in the Vernal Field Office 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe Navajo Nation 

Pueblo of Acoma (NAGPRA cases only) Pueblo of Laguna 

Pueblo of Santa Clara Pueblo of Zia 

Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe Southern Ute Tribe 

White Mesa Ute Tribe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Hopi Tribe Pueblo of Nambe (assumption) 

Table 5.4. Native American Organizations Requesting No Further Consultation 

on Projects in the Price and Vernal Field Offices 

Pueblo of Picuris Pueblo of Sandia 

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians 

Table 5.5. Native American Organizations that Did Not Submit a Final Response 

Kaibab Paiute Tribe San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe 

Pueblo of Cochiti Pueblo of Isleta 

Pueblo of Jemez Pueblo of Pojoaque 

Pueblo of San Felipe Pueblo of San Ildefonso 

Pueblo of San Juan Pueblo of Santa Ana 

Pueblo of Santo Domingo Pueblo of Taos 

Pueblo of Tesuque Pueblo of Zuni 

Confederated Tribes of Goshute Nation Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

Table 5.6. Native American Organizations that Did Not Specify the Need for 

Future Consultation (see Summary of Results for comments) 

Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribe Duckwater Shoshone Tribe 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe Ely Shoshone Tribe 

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians 

5.2.2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The following is a list of requests, comments and concerns submitted to the BLM during the 

consultation process. Complete summaries for each tribe and the BLM response to requests can 

be found in the section entitled, Native American Consultation Review. 

The Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah representative, Dorena Martineau (Cultural Resources Director) 

requested avoidance of "significant cultural resources whenever possible" on lands managed by 

the Price Field Office. She requested to consult with BLM, Price Field Office, on future projects. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-6

The Jicarilla Apache Tribal representative Adelaide Paiz (Acting Director, Historic Preservation 

Office) voiced a concern for the protection of plants and medicinal herbs in the mountainous 

regions of Utah. Because it is not known how far north into Utah the Jicarilla Apache traveled, 

Ms. Paiz requested to consult with the BLM Price and Vernal Field Offices. 

The Navajo Nation representative, Marklyn Chee (Archaeologist, Historic Preservation Office) 

expressed a concern for the protection of the waters of the Green River. The Navajo will not 

usually consult on federal lands north of the Henry Mountains. However, the Green River that 

flows through both the BLM Price and Vernal Field Offices are a significant water source 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 of the Navajo. Mr. Chee requested to 

consult with the BLM, Price and Vernal Field Offices, for future projects. He is particularly 

concerned with new discoveries, sites, and burials where NAGPRA will be initiated. 

The Pueblo of Acoma representative Todd Sissons (Acoma Historic Preservation Office Head 

Researcher and NAGPRA Consultant) requested to be contacted for NAGPRA cases in the Price 

and Vernal Field Offices. 

The Pueblo of Laguna NAGPRA Committee requested a meeting to discuss the traditional 

cultural resources study. Ms. Molenaar met with the committee at the Laguna tribal headquarters 

on April 28, 2003. During the meeting, the following requests were made by committee 

members: 

• A request to consult for future projects in both the Price and Vernal Field Offices. 

• A request to review the traditional cultural resources study draft report. After reviewing 

the draft document, the Laguna NAGPRA Committee will determine the need for 

additional meetings and field visits. 

• A request for a written policy between Native Americans and the BLM that considers 

monetary compensation for field visits to project areas. 

• A comment that federal agency request for consultation and comment for proposed 

projects (i.e., Right-of-Way applications), initial consultation letters, and appropriate 

follow-up contact. Letters are not considered sufficient consultation. 

• A request was made for a large map of the project area and any videos of the project 

area. 

• A request that the draft report include information about the laws that require 

Government-to-Government consultation between the federal agencies and Native 

Americans. 

The Pueblo of Santa Clara representative Gilbert Tafoya (Land Claims, Rights and Protection 

Officer) mailed a written request to Sally Wisely (BLM Utah State Director) claiming affiliation 

to prehistoric cultural groups in the Price and Vernal Field Office areas. In a later telephone 

conversation with Ms. Molenaar, Mr. Tafoya voiced concerns about the BLM's ability to protect 

confidential, culturally significant information. Specific sites are identified, flagged, and 

recorded thus drawing attention to the sites and possibly attracting looting. Mr. Tafoya requested 

to review the draft report and then determine the need for further consultation. 

The Pueblo of Zia representative Celestino Gachupin (Cultural and Natural Resources Director) 

requested to consult on future projects with the BLM, Price and Vernal Field Offices but would 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-7

not participate in the proposed study. Zia claims cultural affiliation with both field office district 

lands through oral history, specifically migration stories. 

The Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribe representative Ted Howard (Environmental 

Coordinator) made a comment that tribes are living cultures, something that the government does 

not always understand. He said that agencies refer to sites as if they are past places, but they are 

dynamic and a sacred site can be rekindled at any time. Mr. Howard also voiced a concern about 

the federal government's ability to protect confidential information about sacred areas. Mr. 

Howard said that the tribe would not participate in the study and did not specify as to whether the 

tribe would like to be contacted for future projects. 

The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe representative Ian Zabarte (Environmental Coordinator) 

commented on the overwhelming number of initial consultation letters received every month. 

The tribe does not have the staffing to issue formal responses for all projects. Mr. Zabarte said 

that the tribe would not be able to participate in the study and did not specify as to whether the 

tribe would like to be contacted for future projects. 

The Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians representative Mel Brewster submitted a cultural 

patrimony claim map to Ms. Molenaar and a report, The Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians: 

Historic Preservation Plan for Assumption of State Historic Preservation Office Responsibilities 

within the National Historic Preservation Program. During an informal meeting with Ms. 

Molenaar, Mr. Brewster requested that federal agencies offer monetary compensation when 

requesting comment and consultation for federal projects. The Skull Valley Band does not have 

the staffing or funding to respond to federal agency requests to consult. 

According to the cultural patrimony claim map, the Skull Valley Band does not consider lands 

managed by the Price and Vernal Field Offices to be part of their traditional territory. However, 

the preservation plan offers the Skull Valley Band's definition for correct and timely consultation 

and coordination of the Government-to-Government consultation process that should be 

considered for future projects in other BLM Field Offices. 

The Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians representative Jennifer Bell (Environmental 

Coordinator) requested that the BLM, Price and Vernal Field Offices, contact the Confederated 

Tribe of Goshute Indians for future projects. The Te-Moak Tribe does not need to be contacted 

for future projects in the Price and Vernal BLM offices. 

The Hopi Tribe representative Leigh Kuwanwisiwma (Director, Hopi Cultural Preservation 

Office) mailed a response letter to Sally Wisely (BLM, Utah State Director) claiming cultural 

affiliation with prehistoric cultural groups in the Price and Vernal Field Office areas. Mr. 

Kuwanwisiwma had the following comments and concerns: 

• Opposition to BLM Instructional Memoranda 98-131-2 which prohibits reburial of 

Native American human remains and funerary objects subject to the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and excavated from BLM lands, on 

BLM lands. 

• Opposition to any proposed ground disturbing activities with the potential to disturb the 

human remains of Hopi ancestors on BLM lands until the memoranda is revised or 

rescinded. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-8

• A request that the revision or revocation of the memoranda be addressed as a traditional 

cultural concern in the preparation of land-use plan revisions. 

• A concern that the Hopi Tribe's cultural values, religious beliefs, traditional practices and 

legal rights are being affected by BLM actions, specifically the instructional memoranda 

mentioned above and the Price Field Office's inaction regarding the appropriate 

protection of exposed burials on BLM lands under their jurisdiction. 

• A request for a summary of cultural resource surveys of the project area (Daggett, 

Uintah, Duchesne, Carbon, and Emery Counties). 

• A request to be involved in future projects. 

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar, Terry Morgart (Legal Researcher) said that 

although the Hopi Council resolution claims affiliation with Basketmaker, Pueblo I and II, 

Archaic and Paleo-Indian Cultures, the Hopi clans have not used the Price and Vernal landscape 

in a long time. Hopi would therefore not be an active participant in the study but requested to 

comment on the final report. Hopi would, however, continue to be involved in NAGPRA cases 

issued by the Price and Vernal Field Offices. 

The Southern Ute Tribe, Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and White 

Mesa Ute Tribe met with BLM Utah State Archaeologist and Price Field Office representatives 

in Grand Junction, Colorado on April 10, 2003 to discuss the land-use plans and traditional 

cultural resources study. The tribes had the following comments and requests: 

• Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribal representative Betsy Chapoose (Director, Cultural 

Rights and Protection) requested that the Vernal Field Office make a concerted effort to 

consult with the tribe on all aspects of projects, not just cultural resources. Ms. Chapoose 

requested that the BLM consider holding community meetings on the reservation to 

discuss future projects. 

• Ms. Chapoose requested that the BLM provide specific information on future project 

study areas (i.e., Class III cultural resource reports) and provide "site types" that may 

appear in the project area. 

• Ms. Chapoose requested that the BLM re-consider their position on compensation for 

tribal knowledge, especially when a tribal elder, spiritual leader, or tribal expert in 

cultural resources is asked for this knowledge. She said that the issue of compensation 

for tribal knowledge concerning cultural resources should be addressed in the 

management plan. 

• Ms. Chapoose said that the project area (Price and Vernal Field Office areas) for the 

proposed study is too large to offer specific information regarding traditional cultural 

properties and requested a larger map and additional cultural resource reports prepared 

for past projects. 

• Southern Ute Tribal Representative Neil Cloud (NAGPRA Representative) voiced a 

concern about the BLM's ability to protect confidential information about culturally 

significant sites. 

• Mr. Cloud requested that a follow-up meeting be held in a few months, stated that the 

project area is too large for a reasonable response and requested additional information 

about cultural resources in both field office areas. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-9

• Ute Mountain Ute Tribal representative Terry Knight (Cultural Resources Director) 

commented that the BLM should protect culturally sensitive areas on federal lands by 

entering into agreements with tribes before projects begin. 

• Mr. Knight requested that the BLM consider compensation for tribal knowledge and said 

that elders should be paid a rate comparable to level of expertise. 

5.2.2.1. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on November 25, 2002, Adelaide Paiz (Acting 

Director, Historic Preservation Office) said that the Jicarilla Apache would like to maintain 

consulting party status for future federal projects on lands managed by the Price Field Office. 

Ms. Paiz said that the Jicarilla Apache have an interest in the BLM Price Field Office lands 

because their nomadic ancestors roamed in the Utah area. When asked if she could identify areas 

of concern for the tribe, she said she would be interested in consulting and protecting the 

mountainous regions for future projects in the Price Field Office. She said that the mountain 

areas are exploited for plants and medicinal herbs more than the plains region in Utah. When 

asked if she could name any plants and herbs, she said that it is hard to identify specific plants 

because these plants usually spread to different locations and cannot be found in the same place 

year after year. She said that if meetings are held for this project, the Jicarilla would like to be 

invited to attend, although attendance at such a meeting would depend on money and staff 

availability. She said that a joint meeting with other tribes would be acceptable as the Jicarilla 

are in frequent contact with the Navajo and Southern Ute groups concerning land use issues. 

On April 10, 2003, a meeting was held between the BLM and Ute Tribes at the request of the 

Southern Ute NAGPRA Coordinator. The Jicarilla Apache were invited to this meeting but were 

unable to send a representative. 

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on May 27, 2003, Ms. Paiz said that the Jicarilla 

Apache would like to stay on the Price and Vernal lists of tribes to be contacted in the future and 

would also like to be placed on the Vernal list for future projects because it is not known how far 

north the Apache traveled. 

5.2.2.2. NAVAJO NATION

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on January 8, 2003, Marklyn Chee (Navajo 

Nation Historic Preservation Office Archaeologist) said that the tribe will not usually consult on 

federal lands north of the Henry Mountains. However, the Green River that flows through both 

the BLM Price and Vernal Field Offices are a significant water source 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. Mr. Chee said that he has drafted an electronic 

response letter to federal agency's requests for Section 106 consulting party status and would be 

emailing response letters to federal agencies in the near future. 

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on May 27, 2003, Mr. Chee said that the Navajo 

Nation would like to remain on the list of tribal contacts for the Price and Vernal Field Offices 

even though he indicated in a previous conversation that the tribe will probably not request to 

consult on projects on lands north of the Henry Mountains. He is particularly concerned with 

new discoveries, sites and burials, where NAGPRA will be initiated. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-10

5.2.2.3. KAIBAB PAIUTE TRIBE

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Kaibab Paiute Tribe. 

5.2.2.4. PAIUTE INDIAN TRIBE OF UTAH

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on March 27, 2003, Dorena Martineau (Cultural 

Resources Director) said that the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah will request consulting party status 

on future projects on lands managed by the BLM Price Field Office only, even though the tribe 

has consulted in the past with federal agencies in the Vernal area. Ms. Martineau said that the 

tribe requests avoidance of significant cultural resources whenever possible and said that Ralph 

Pikyavit (Kanosh Band, Cultural Resources Director) may have additional information about 

specific plants that need to be protected. Ms. Martineau said that the tribe would not participate 

in the traditional cultural resources study. 

5.2.2.5. SAN JUAN SOUTHERN PAIUTE TRIBE

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. 

5.2.2.6. HOPI TRIBE

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on December 30, 2003, Terry Morgart (Hopi 

Cultural Preservation Office Legal Researcher) said that he would submit a written response to 

Ms. Wisely stating that the Hopi Tribe considered the Vernal and Price areas to be peripheral 

territory. Hopi would not request to be a consulting party for the resource management plans. 

However, the preservation office would request a copy of the final traditional cultural resource 

report prepared for the Price and Vernal Field Offices. He said that the Hopi would also request 

the revocation of the BLM Reburial Policy. 

On January 2, 2003, Leigh Kuwanwisiwma (Director, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office) mailed 

a response letter to Sally Wisely (BLM, Utah State Director) claiming cultural affiliation to 

prehistoric cultural groups in the Vernal and Price BLM Field Office areas. 

5.2.2.7. PUEBLO OF ACOMA

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on May 27, 2003, Todd Sissons (Acoma Historic 

Preservation Office Head Researcher and NAGPRA Consultant) said that Acoma is usually 

involved as a consulting party on federal lands in Utah for the Southeastern part of the state. 

However, Acoma sometimes requests to be involved in discovery (NAGPRA) cases in the Price 

and Vernal areas. Mr. Sissons requested that the Pueblo of Acoma stay on the list of tribal 

contacts for the Price office and should be contacted for NAGPRA cases in both the Price and 

Vernal field offices. 

5.2.2.8. PUEBLO OF COCHITI

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of Cochiti. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-11

5.2.2.9. PUEBLO OF ISLETA

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of Isleta. 

5.2.2.10. PUEBLO OF JEMEZ

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of Jemez. 

5.2.2.11. PUEBLO OF LAGUNA

On November 21, 2002, Laguna Governor Harry Early mailed a letter to Sally Wisely (BLM 

Utah State Director) requesting a meeting between the BLM and the Laguna NAGPRA 

Committee. On April 28, 2003, Ms. Molenaar attended a meeting with the Laguna NAGPRA 

Committee representatives to discuss the traditional cultural resources study for the Price and 

Vernal Field Offices. The NAGPRA Committee requested to consult for future projects on lands 

managed by both field offices but did not wish to contribute to the traditional cultural resources 

study until a draft document had been produced and distributed to tribes for review. On May 6, 

2003, Ms. Molenaar mailed copies of the meeting notes to Laguna NAGPRA Committee 

Representatives for comment. The NAGPRA Committee approved of the meeting notes. 

5.2.2.12. PUEBLO OF NAMBE

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on March 19, 2003, Ernest Mirabel (Nambe 

NAGPRA Committee) said that Nambe has been involved in previous projects in the Vernal area 

and requested more information about the proposed study. Copies of the initial consultation letter 

and map were mailed to Mr. Mirabel on the same day but a final response has not been 

forthcoming from the Pueblo of Nambe. 

5.2.2.13. PUEBLO OF PICURIS

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on April 3, 2003, Richard Mermejo (Cultural 

Resources Director) said that Picuris would not request consulting party status for projects on 

lands managed by the BLM, Price and Vernal Field Offices. He said that Picuris would prefer 

that tribes residing close to the project area take the lead role in the consultation process, 

including NAGPRA cases. 

5.2.2.14. PUEBLO OF POJOAQUE

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of Pojoaque. 

5.2.2.15. PUEBLO OF SAN FELIPE

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of San Felipe. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-12

5.2.2.16. PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of San Ildefonso. 

5.2.2.17. PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of San Juan. 

5.2.2.18. PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA

On December 2, 2002, Gilbert Tafoya (Land Claims, Rights and Protection Officer) mailed a 

letter to Sally Wisely (BLM Utah State Director) stating that Santa Clara elders indicated that 

their people had traveled in the project area for hunting, trading, or other reasons and therefore, 

Santa Clara has concerns for traditional cultural properties on lands managed by the Price and 

Vernal Field Offices. Mr. Tafoya requested a copy of the draft report once it becomes available. 

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on March 10, 2003, Gilbert Tafoya (Land 

Claims, Rights and Protection Officer) said Santa Clara would prefer to read the draft report 

before requesting to be involved in the proposed study. If he finds the report lacking or does not 

agree with its contents specific to TCPs, tribal consultation, and cultural resources, he will then 

request a meeting.

Mr. Tafoya said in the past, Santa Clara has released confidential, culturally significant 

information for similar federal projects only to find out years later that the information was not 

kept confidential. He said that he has concerns about identifying specific sites in an area because 

the government usually draws more attention to the site by putting up ribbons and barriers for its 

protection but this draws attention to the site instead and attracts looters. 

Another concern voiced by Mr. Tafoya was that federal agencies often request information from 

the Pueblo of Santa Clara only to completely disregard the concerns raised and information given 

when making final project decisions. 

5.2.2.19. PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of Santa Ana. 

5.2.2.20. PUEBLO OF SANTO DOMINGO

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of Santo Domingo. 

5.2.2.21. PUEBLO OF SANDIA

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on February 26, 2003, Mike Ferguson (Lands 

Director) said that he requested input from tribal elders concerning the traditional cultural 

resource study and was told that the tribal elders had no concerns in the project area. He said that 

he would like to contact the elders one more time and verify their response. He said that if he did 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-13

not call again then the BLM could assume that the Pueblo of Sandia does not have cultural 

resource issues in the project area. 

5.2.2.22. PUEBLO OF TAOS

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of Taos. 

5.2.2.23. PUEBLO OF TESUQUE

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of Tesuque. 

5.2.2.24. PUEBLO OF ZIA

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on May 12, 2003, Celestino Gachupin (Cultural 

and Natural Resources Director) said that Zia would not participate in the proposed study. He 

said that they did not know of any significant traditional cultural properties in the Price and 

Vernal Field Offices but said that they do consider themselves to be culturally affiliated to the 

study area through their migration stories. He said that Zia would prefer that tribes located closer 

to the project area take the lead in tribal consultation for future project planning in the study area 

but would like to remain on the contact list for the Price and Vernal Field Offices. 

5.2.2.25. PUEBLO OF ZUNI

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor the BLM has received a final response from the 

Pueblo of Zuni. 

5.2.2.26. DUCK VALLEY SHOSHONE-PAIUTE TRIBE

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on March 28, 2003, Ted Howard (Environmental 

Coordinator) said that the tribe probably does not need to be involved in the proposed study for 

the BLM, Price and Vernal Field Offices. He did, however, request another copy of the initial 

consultation letter and map for the proposed study. 

Mr. Howard also said that his tribe is very cautious about giving information to the government 

about their sacred areas. He said that they have MOUs in place so that they can keep this 

information within the tribe so that it does not get published in the public record. He said that 

tribes are living cultures, something that the government does not always understand. He said 

that agencies refer to sites as if they are past places, but they are dynamic and a sacred site can be 

rekindled at any time. 

5.2.2.27. DUCKWATER SHOSHONE TRIBE

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on February 20, 2003, Ian Zabarte 

(Environmental Coordinator) said that the tribe would like to respond to all requests to consult 

but they are overwhelmed with the number of requests they receive every month. He said that the 

tribe does not have the staffing to respond to the number of letters received and would therefore 

not be able to participate in the study. Mr. Zabarte did not specify as to whether the tribe would 

like to be contacted for future projects. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-14

5.2.2.28. EASTERN SHOSHONE TRIBE

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on January 8, 2003, Reba Teran (Eastern 

Shoshone Cultural Center), said that the tribe would not be involved in this project due primarily 

to recent budget cuts. The Business Council considers only the most significant cultural resource 

studies, particularly study areas that may contain spiritual rock cairns. She said that, 

unfortunately, there is no budget for the Preservation Office. She said that the Eastern Shoshone 

Spiritual Leaders who used to travel on behalf of the tribe now have to travel with their own 

funds in order to be involved in cultural resource projects. Ms. Teran did not specify as to 

whether the tribe would like to be contacted for future projects. 

5.2.2.29. ELY SHOSHONE TRIBE

In several telephone conversations with Ms. Molenaar, Dana McDade (Tribal Coordinator) said 

that she would prepare a written statement to BLM, Utah State Office concerning Ely Shoshone's 

interest in the Price and Vernal Field Office lands. As of the date of this report, neither SWCA 

nor BLM has received a final response from the Ely Shoshone Tribe. 

5.2.2.30. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GOSHUTE NATION

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor BLM has received a final response from the 

Goshute Nation. 

5.2.2.31. SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES

As of the date of this report, neither SWCA nor BLM has received a final response from the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. 

5.2.2.32. SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS

On January 28, 2003, Ms. Molenaar visited Mel Brewster (Tribal Archaeologist) at the Skull 

Valley tribal offices in Salt Lake City, Utah. Mr. Brewster gave Ms. Molenaar copies of letters to 

federal agencies concerning Goshute indigenous lands, including a cultural patrimony claim 

map, and a definition for consultation from the Goshute Historic Preservation Plan. According to 

the cultural patrimony claim map, the Skull Valley Band does not consider lands managed by the 

Price and Vernal Field Offices to be part of their traditional territory. 

5.2.2.33. TE-MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on November 25, 2002, Jennifer Bell 

(Environmental Coordinator) said that the Eastern half of Utah is not considered to be the 

traditional territory of the Te-Moak Shoshone and requested that BLM contact the Goshute for 

this project. When asked if the tribe should be included in consultation for future projects in the 

Vernal and Price areas, Ms. Bell said the Te-Moak would defer to the Goshute, and did not need 

to be contacted for future projects in the BLM Price and Vernal Field Offices. Ms. Molenaar 

requested that the Te-Moak Tribe submit a written response to the BLM, Utah State Office 

Director, Sally Wisely, stating that they did not need consultation on future projects in the Price 

and Vernal BLM districts. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-15

5.2.2.34. UINTAH AND OURAY UTE INDIAN TRIBE

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on March 11, 2003, Betsy Chapoose said that she 

would attend a meeting with the BLM concerning cultural resource issues and the development 

of the resource management plans for the Price and Vernal Field Offices. On April 10, 2003, Ms. 

Chapoose represented the Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe at a meeting with the BLM in 

Grand Junction, Colorado. 

5.2.2.35. SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on November 21, 2002, Jim Jefferson (Cultural 

Preservation Coordinator) said that the Southern Ute Tribe should be left on the list of tribal 

contacts for the Price and Vernal Field Offices. He voiced a concern about the potential for 

looting of archaeological sites once they are identified. 

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on February 26, 2003, Neil Cloud (NAGPRA 

Representative) requested a meeting with the BLM to discuss the proposed study and the 

development of the resource management plans. On April 10, 2003, Mr. Cloud represented the 

Southern Ute Tribe at a meeting with the BLM in Grand Junction, Colorado. 

5.2.2.36. WHITE MESA UTE TRIBE

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on March 28, 2003, Elayne Attcity 

(Councilwoman) said that she would attend the joint meeting with the Ute Tribes and the BLM 

to discuss the proposed study and the development of the resource management plans. On April 

10, 2003, Mr. Cloud represented the White Mesa Ute Indian Tribe at a meeting with the BLM in 

Grand Junction, Colorado. 

5.2.2.37. UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Molenaar on February 20, 2003, Terry Knight (Cultural 

Resources Director) said that he would attend the joint meeting with the Ute Tribes and the BLM 

to discuss the proposed study and the development of the resource management plans. On April 

10, 2003, Mr. Knight represented the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe at a meeting with the BLM 

in Grand Junction, Colorado. 

In addition, the NHPA and the regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 govern BLM's cultural resource 

management program. The regulations provide specific procedures for consultation between the 

BLM and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The BLM has initiated formal 

consultation with SHPO during the development of the RMP concerning cultural resources. A 

copy of the Draft RMP/EIS was sent to the SHPO for review and comment, and it also will 

receive a copy of this PRMP/FEIS. 

5.2.3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The BLM coordinated with the EPA through multiple meetings and communications. The EPA's 

air quality protocols are used as guideline standards for this document. This PRMP/FEIS also 

responds to EPA's comment letter on the DRMP/EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-16

The BLM provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a copy of the DRMP/EIS 

and the Supplemental Draft. The EPA has submitted comments on both documents. The EPA 

rated the preferred alternative as Environmental Concerns-Insufficient Information, "EC-2". 

The EPA expressed concern about the lack of information associated with BLM's analysis of air 

quality impacts, livestock and grazing management, and oil shale development within the 

planning area. The EPA also questioned the analysis of the environmental hazards and health 

risks to communities near mineral development. Additional analysis and information regarding 

air quality, grazing, oil shale development, and potential risks to communities have been 

included in Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS based on EPA comments. 

5.2.4. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The BLM consulted with the USFWS as required prior to initiation of any project by a federal 

agency that may affect federally listed special status species or its habitat in accordance with 

Section 7 of the ESA and with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 USC Sec 661 et seq. 

This RMP/EIS is considered a major planning action, and the BLM initiated formal consultation 

with the USFWS on August 28, 2001. 

In December 2001, the BLM requested assistance from the USFWS in identifying threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and candidate plant and animal species that may be located in the Vernal 

planning area. A letter was sent by the BLM State office to the USFWS initiating informal 

consultation for the Price, Vernal, and Richfield planning efforts. The USFWS responded by 

providing BLM with a list of species that may be present in or may be affected by projects in the 

subject planning area. Tables 3.1.5.15.1 and 3.1.5.15.2 present a comprehensive list of sensitive 

species that may be present in the planning area and whether they could be affected by the 

proposed and alternative actions. The results of this consultation have been incorporated into this 

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 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. 

The BLM has also consulted with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 

5.2.5. STATE AGENCY COORDINATION

NEPA requires that the agency work closely with cooperating and other responsible and trustee 

state agencies in preparing 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 EIS. The BLM sent preliminary drafts to the State of Utah Divisions of Oil, Gas, and 

Mining; State Parks; Geological Survey; Wildlife Resources; and the State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) and the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-17

5.2.6. COOPERATING AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Cooperating agency status has been extended to federal, state, and local agencies with regard to 

the Vernal RMP/EIS planning effort. Daggett, Duchesne and Uintah Counties signed a 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) in 2001 and 2002 to be cooperating agencies. The State of 

Utah also signed a cooperating agency agreement in 2001. The Ute Tribe signed a cooperating 

agency agreement in September 2004. Cooperating agencies that have participated in the 

development of the Draft RMP/EIS include: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Utah, 

Daggett County, Duchesne County, and Uintah County. 

BLM held more than 70 meetings with the cooperating agencies throughout the planning 

process, all of which have occurred between November 2001 and June 2003. RMP/EIS-related 

topics discussed in these meetings included socioeconomics, Wild and Scenic River suitability, 

ACEC relevance and determination, travel plans, and the development of alternatives. A list of 

these meetings can be found in at the end of this chapter in Section 5.9. 

5.3. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS

This PRMP/FEIS has been prepared by the Vernal Field Office with assistance from the BLM 

Utah State Office and the cooperating agencies. This is the third in a series of four NEPA 

documents released to the public during the federal land-use planning process. The Draft RMP 

(the first NEPA document) was sent to the public in January 2005 with an associated 90-day 

comment period until April 4, 2005. Complete records of public comments are on file in the 

Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 

The BLM planning regulations require that RMPs be consistent with officially approved or 

adopted resource-related plans, and the policies and procedures contained therein, of other 

Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian Tribes, so long as the guidance and 

RMPs also are consistent with the purposes, policies and programs of Federal laws and 

regulations applicable to public lands. 

43 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, but 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 that 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 Sec. 202 (c)(9)). Where State and local plans conflict with 

Federal law, there will be an inconsistency that cannot be resolved or reconciled. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-18

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. In order to ensure such 

consistency, finalized plans were solicited from Federal, State, and local agencies as well as 

Tribal governments listed in Section 1.5. These same agencies received copies of the Draft 

RMP/EIS for review and comment, and will receive copies of this PRMP/FEIS. As stated 

previously, Section 202 of FLPMA requires the BLM to coordinate land-use planning activities 

with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian Tribes. FLPMA also 

requires BLM to ensure that consideration is given to non-BLM plans that are pertinent to the 

development of the RMP, assist in resolving inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal 

government plans, and to provide for meaningful public involvement of other Federal agencies, 

State and local government officials, and Indian Tribes in the development of the RMP. There 

are no known inconsistencies between the Proposed RMP and officially approved and adopted 

resource-related plans of the Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian Tribes. 

Coordination and consultation continued throughout the planning process and would further 

continue with implementation of the RMP. 

Table 5.7 outlines the planning consistency of the Proposed RMP 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 Indian 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. 

The Vernal Field Office RMP is consistent with the following agency plans: Ashley National 

Forest Land-use plan; Dinosaur National Monument Plan; 1996. Green River Management Plan; 

Joint Management Plan; VFO and Ashley National Forest; Browns Park National Wildlife 

Refuge Plan; Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Plan; and Division of State Parks and Recreation, 

Steinaker and Red Fleet State Plans. No comments were received to indicate inconsistency of 

these plans with the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 5.7. Plan Consistency Review 

Daggett County General Plan (1996) 

Discussion Consistent 

C

Economic Development 

Due to the dependence of the County businesses on public lands, it is important 

that economic decisions for the County are made with a firm understanding of public land issues. 

X 

Multiple Use The County supports continuing multiple-use management practices on public 

lands. County residents have used public lands and resources for a variety uses (e.g., grazing, recreation, timber, mining, oil/gas development, agriculture, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, and water resource development). The County feels that multiple use means a balanced allocation of available resources among uses and users. The County acknowledges that in some cases competing uses may conflict. In these situations, the County's position will be to support those uses consistent with maintaining/preserving the County's rural lifestyle and character. The County feels that federal and state public land managers should identify and address local social and economical impacts as part of their resource allocation decision-making processes. 

X 

Private/Public Land Ownership 

The County feels that the amount of acreage owned and managed by federal and state agencies is sufficient for the "public interest". The County encourages state and federal agencies to privatize public lands, particularly those suitable for agricultural uses and natural resource use and/or development. The County feels that federal or state agencies involved in private-to-public land 

ownership/lease/management transactions should identify, and make available for private purchase/lease/management an equivalent amount (acreage or value) of public land as a condition of the initial transaction. These lands, and the accompanying surface and subsurface resources, should be transferred to private ownership with minimal use restrictions. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

The County acknowledges the rights of property owners to dispose of private property to any willing purchaser, including federal or state agencies. 

Public Lands Access 

The County maintains that adequate access on public lands must be available to residents. The County will continue to participate in the current RS-2477 discussions and all other relevant federal and state land/road management decisions. The County also supports general public access through private lands to public lands as historically provided and allowed. BLM Response: The Proposed RMP makes no commitments to respect to any 

valid existing rights, particularly those concerning RS-2477. 

X 

Public Lands Federal and State Agencies 

The County's economic growth and stability depends on public lands and associated resources for continued use and availability for industries such as agriculture, mining, tourism, and recreation. The County supports multiple-use management of public lands and encourages a balance between consumptive and non-consumptive uses. 

X 

Public Land Resource Use and Development 

The County enjoys an abundance of natural resources such as wildlife, timber, minerals, oil/gas, and beautiful scenery. Responsible use of these resources benefits the County economically. The County's believes that federal and state management plans continue to allow should allow for the responsible development of natural resources and the expansion of related industries. The County supports the development and use of additional natural resources as they become available or as new technology allows. 

X 

Recreation and Tourism 

The County continues to participate with local federal and state public land management agencies in their respective recreation and tourism promotion and planning efforts. The County will actively participate in federal and state planning processes that include relevant recreation and tourism elements. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

The County feels that proposals prepared by federal and state agencies, and/or individuals operating as concessioners or permittees, should include an impact analysis for County provided services. 

Value Added Agriculture 

The County recognizes the important contribution that agriculture makes to the 

area's economy and wants to maintain and support this industry. County support for the area's agricultural industry. 

X 

Wildlife/Fisheries The County enjoys a diverse wildlife and fish population. This resource provides a 

variety of recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. The County supports additional wildlife management and habitat improvement programs to the extent that these programs complement other County interests. The County supports rangeland improvement programs that allocate forage increases evenly between wildlife and livestock interests. The County also supports the re-introduction of additional wildlife species as long as doing so does not jeopardize other types of resource use and development. The County feels that local government leaders and interested citizens should be advised of wildlife management issues and invited to provide input to the process before decisions are made and plans implemented. 

The County feels that Animal Unit Months (AUMs) should be based on, and maintained at, current livestock/big game ratios. The County feels that agencydetermined increases in wildlife numbers and/or expanded habitat areas (including reintroduction areas) should not come as a result of decreases in livestock numbers and/or grazing allotments. In areas where wildlife and livestock interests are in direct conflict, the County feels that livestock interests should take priority. The County continues to support responsible management of its nationally renowned fishery resources. BLM Response: Grazing decisions carried forward into the Proposed RMP are 

considered by BLM to be consistent with Utah Code 63j-4-401. Proposed RMP 

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

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 rangeland and watershed health. For example, the Proposed RMP provides the umbrella to allow implementation-level 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 RMP. Prior voluntary relinquishments and/or retirements have been recognized. 

General Plan for the Community of Dutch John (2001) 

Discussion Consistent 

C

Historical Values 

The Dutch John Community promotes the preservation of historical documents, markers, monuments, sites and eventually buildings. 

X 

Recreation Trails and walkways outside of the general boundaries of the community which lead 

to the mountains and hills, the waterfront, and the horse corrals are desired by the Community. Other recreational facilities such as a community waterfront park located on the lake to the west of Dutch John and an equestrian center located in the same area as the existing corrals. The waterfront park will have to be coordinated with the appropriate public agencies since the site is located on public lands. Winter trails for skiing and snowmobiling should also be a part of this effort. BLM Response: For those lands within the scope of the RMP, BLM is consistent 

with the General Plan for the Community of Dutch John. 

X 

Sensitive Lands Certain areas within the community and within future expansion areas have 

characteristics which present special problems for development and which are valuable resources to the community. The loss of these areas will adversely affect the quality of life in the community and efforts must be made to preserve these resources. Vegetation removal must be minimized, as well as soil and slope instability, erosion and water runoff, and impairment of aesthetic qualities, including scenic vistas. There is also a need to maintain and provide recreational access corridors within, or along side of drainage ways. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Sensitive lands include the following amenities: visual, natural resources, flood hazards, wetlands, drainages, open space, seismic, steep slopes, utility corridors, unstable soils, water recharge and culinary water zones. BLM Response: For those lands within the scope of the RMP, BLM is consistent 

with the General Plan for the Community of Dutch John. 

Transportation The community has a responsibility to ensure that new roads are developed 

correctly and that existing roads are used in ways to ensure safety for its citizens and efficiency of vehicular movement. All development proposals, large and small, should be required to provide for new roads as shown on the plan. Developments should dedicate rights-of-way and appropriately develop roads within each project consistent with this plan. BLM Response: For those lands within the scope of the RMP, BLM is consistent 

with the General Plan for the Community of Dutch John. 

X 

Duchesne County General Plan (1997) 

Discussion Consistent P

Co

Air Quality The County's air quality will be protected by standards described in the Utah State 

Implementation Plan approved by the EPA, whose authority is the Clean Air Act of 

1990. High-level air quality is necessary to prevent restrictions on future economic development. Baseline air quality data must be established for the Uintah Basin with full participation of the County. Decisions must be based on this data. Air in the County must be protected from degradation by outside sources. 

X 

Cultural & Historical 

Cultural resources shall be protected and preserved. Cultural identity includes traditional ways of life such as harvesting cedar posts, livestock grazing, agriculture and access which must be protected. Any alteration of landforms, waterways, closure of roads and other such matters shall be carried out only after full consideration of the County's prehistoric and historical cultural heritage. Where significant prehistoric and historic sites and constructs can be protected, they may be developed for education and tourism. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is the basis for cultural and historical preservation and defines the responsibility of federal agencies for protection and preservation of cultural and heritage resources. BLM Response: The Proposed RMP takes into account the identified permitted 

and non-permitted traditional uses of public lands. 

Energy and Mineral Resources 

Access to public lands for mineral development must be increased in the economic 

interest of the county citizens and government. Mineral exploration and development are consistent with the multiple use philosophy for management of public lands. These activities constitute a temporary use of the land that will not impair its use for other purposes in the future. All oil and mineral exploration activities shall comply with appropriate laws and regulations. Identification of energy and mineral potential and location is important for planning future energy needs and resource management. Agencies shall plan, fund, and encourage by way of policy management decisions relative to energy resources. All management plans must address and analyze the possibility for the development of minerals where there is a reasonable expectation of their occurrence within the planning area. After environmental analysis, and as provided for in the governing resource management plan, all tracts will be available and offered for lease or open to be claimed as provided by law. The County recognizes that, while all BLM administered land within the county is currently available for lease, decisions are made regarding oil and gas leases through the land-use planning process. Alternatives identify areas where leasing may occur with standard lease terms, timing and controlled surface use stipulations or no surface occupancy. Additionally, some areas may be considered for no leasing in the future. All permits and applications must be processed on a timely basis, in accordance with Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1. Procedures and required contents of application must be provided by the applicant at the time of application. Development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral resources of the state should be encouraged. The waste of fluid and gaseous minerals within developed areas should be prohibited. Requirements to mitigate or reclaim mineral development 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

projects should be based on credible evidence of significant impacts to natural or cultural resources. 

Feral or Wild Horses 

No forage allocations or permits shall be provided for wild or fugitive horses on public lands in the County. All feral or fugitive horses found roaming on public lands in Duchesne County are trespassing and shall be removed. 

X 

Fishing Land management agencies shall make every effort to provide additional 

opportunities for fishing on public lands in the County. 

X 

Geological, Paleontological, and Archeological Resources 

All significant artifacts found in the area should remain in the County. The County recognizes that vertebrate fossils may be collected from BLM administered lands under a permit issued to qualified individuals and that such fossils 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 of permit issuance. Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common invertebrate and plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use. Resource management plans must provide opportunity for amateur collectors and students of these sciences to study, explore and collect related items as provided by law. Public land management agencies should promote these resources with educational material, signage, and information centers where appropriate. 

X 

Introduced, Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered Species 

No threatened and endangered species shall be proposed for listing in the County until verifiable scientific data has been available to the public that there is a need 

for the designation, that protections cannot be provided by other methods, and the area in question is truly unique compared to other area lands. Buffer zones for the protection of threatened and endangered species or other special designations are not acceptable. The County does not believe that it is the intention of the Act to restore all original habitats once occupied by a specific species, but only the amount needed to protect the species from extinction. These designations or reintroduction often grow beyond the stated boundaries and 

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

scope and result in detrimental effects on the area economy, life style, culture and heritage. The Fish and Wildlife Service shall exclude areas from critical habitat designation if the economic damage is considered too great. Designation or reintroduction plans, guidelines, and protocols must not be developed or implemented without full County involvement and public disclosure. Any analysis of proposed designations or reintroductions must be inclusive and analyze needed actions associated with the proposal to prevent growth beyond the scope and boundaries. Recovery plans must provide for indicators to track the effectiveness of the plan and identify at the point recovery has been accomplished. Such designations shall provide access for reservoirs, maintenance of irrigation facilities, fire, and weed and pest control. Devaluation of private property by the Endangered Species Act is a "taking" under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and compensation must be paid. 

BLM Response: The BLM is required to follow existing laws, such as the 

Endangered Species Act and NEPA. 

Land Exchanges, Acquisitions, and Sales 

Private property shall be protected from coerced acquisition by federal, state and 

local governments. The County shall be compensated for loss of private lands or tax revenues due to land exchanges. Private lands shall not be converted to state or federal ownership in order to compensate for government activities outside of the County. Any conversion from private property to public lands shall result in no net loss of private property. No net loss shall be measured both in terms of acreage and fair market value. A private property owner has a right to dispose of or exchange property as he/she sees fit within applicable law. BLM Response: Land exchanges, acquisitions, disposal, and sales, etc., are 

regulated by FLPMA. 

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Livestock Grazing & Forage Allocations 

Public land agencies shall maintain livestock grazing permits and grazing allocations at present levels until a study of rangeland improvement justifies increased or decreased grazing. The County recognizes grazing permits on public lands as an asset, which may be transferred by the permit owner. When grazing permits are withdrawn from a livestock operator due to grazing violations, the permit shall not be reallocated to other uses and shall be made available for continued livestock use before the commencement of the next grazing season. Access shall be maintained and improved as management needs require. Livestock allocations shall not be converted to wildlife allocations as long as the land supports the grazing Animal Unit Months (AUM's) assigned to the allotment. 

Management decisions shall be based on the individual range allotment condition and not on the overall condition of surrounding lands. Increases in available forage resulting from the conservation practices of livestock permit-holders shall not be allocated or credited to other uses. Forage allocation reductions resulting from forage studies, drought, or natural disasters shall be implemented on an allotment basis. Reductions shall be applied proportionately to all allocations unless it can be proven that a specific type of grazing animal is causing the land health degradation. The County recognizes that, in the event of fire, drought or natural disaster, a variety of emergency or interim actions may be necessary to minimize land health degradation, such as temporary reduced forage allocation for livestock and wildlife. Weed control efforts that affect forage allocations shall be discussed by the land management agency with livestock representatives, neighboring landowners, and the County weed specialist. Public land management agencies shall endeavor to inspect riparian and sensitive areas with livestock permittees approximately one week before livestock are admitted to the grazing allotment. If riparian areas are damaged or degraded 

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

before the livestock enter the grazing allotment, the management agency and representatives shall make a record of the condition and appropriate mitigation shall be acceptable to all parties. A copy of the signed report shall be filed with the agency and provided to the permit-holder. Increases in available forage resulting from practices or improvements implemented by managing agency will be allocated proportionately to all forage allocations, unless the funding source specifies the benefactor. Changes in season of use or forage allocation must not be made without full and meaningful consultation with permittee. The continued viability of livestock operations and the livestock industry shall be 

supported on federal and state lands within the County by management of the lands and forage resources and the optimization of animal unit months for livestock in accordance with the multiple-use provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq., and the provisions of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, 43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. BLM Response: See response to Wildlife and Fisheries of the Daggett County 

General Plan. 

Multiple Use It is the County's position that public lands be managed for multiple use, sustained 

yields, prevention of waste of natural resources, and to protect the health and welfare of the public. It is important to the County economy that public lands be properly managed for fish, wildlife, livestock production, timber harvest, recreation, energy production, mineral extraction and the preservation of natural scenic, scientific and historical values. 

X 

Noxious Weeds Farmers, ranchers, land management agencies and governments work together in 

a coordinated effort to control noxious weeds in Duchesne County. These interests shall develop common management goals, facilitate effective treatment, and coordinate efforts along logical geographic boundaries. An integrated weed management plan shall be implemented for preventing, containing, or controlling undesirable plant species or groups of species using all 

available strategies and techniques prescribed by the State Noxious Weed Act. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) 

Public land agencies shall limit OHV's to trails, roads, or areas specifically designated by the agency for that purpose. Public land agencies shall accommodate livestock permit holders, resource developers and managers who have a legitimate need to enter a specific area on public lands by making OHV 

licenses available. 

X 

Public Access and RS 2477 Roads 

Access to and across public lands, including RS2477 Roads and rights-of-way should remain open. Access and transportation needs shall be considered, evaluated and analyzed in the land-use planning process (in order to accommodate and be consistent with other uses). No roads, trails, rights-of-way, easements or other traditional access for the transportation of people, products, recreation, energy or livestock may be closed, abandoned, withdrawn, or have a change of use without full public disclosure and analysis. Future access must be planned and analyzed to determine its disposition at the completion of its intended life. Access to all water related facilities such as dams, reservoirs, delivery systems, 

monitoring facilities, livestock water and handling facilities, etc., must be maintained. This access must be economically feasible with respect to the method and timing of such access. The County has undertaken efforts over the past several years to identify and plot the location of all Class B and Class D roads that are legitimately part of the County's transportation system. The County has prepared a map of its current transportation system in areas within the stewardship of the Bureau of Land Management, setting forth all roads claimed by the County as part of its transportation system. That map is expressly adopted and incorporated into this policy document by this reference as though fully set forth herein. The map includes but is not limited to all roads claimed by Duchesne County pursuant to RS-2477. Title V rights of way on public lands are granted in perpetuity and do not diminish any RS 2477 claim or right of way. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Recreation and Tourism 

Public land agencies shall evaluate proposed plans and actions for impacts on existing recreational activities. Public land agencies shall evaluate their plans and actions for potential future recreational activities. Public land agencies shall support the County in developing desirable recreation facilities. Recreational activities are compatible with resource development if properly planned and managed. BLM Response: The Proposed RMP makes no commitments to respect to any 

valid existing rights, particularly those concerning RS-2477. 

X 

Soils Apply scientifically effective practices to maintain and improve the quality and 

quantity desirable plant cover to protect watersheds, timber, and rangelands from soil erosion. Install structural measures to prevent soil erosion, as needed. 

X 

Special Designations 

 The objectives of special designations can be met by well-planned and managed development of natural resources. No special designations shall be proposed until the need has been determined and substantiated by verifiable scientific data available to the public. It must be demonstrated that protection cannot be provided by other means and that the area 

in question is truly unique. Special designations can be detrimental to the County's economy, life style, culture, and heritage. Special designations must be made in accordance with the spirit and direction of the laws and regulations that created them. 

County support for the addition of a river segment to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall be withheld until: (i) It is clearly demonstrated that water is present and flowing at all times; (ii) It is clearly demonstrated that the required water-related value is considered outstandingly remarkable within a region of comparison consisting of one of the three physiographic provinces in the state. The rationale and justification for the 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

conclusions shall be disclosed; (iii) The effects of the addition on the local and state economies, private property rights, agricultural and industrial operations and interests, tourism, water rights, water quality, water resource planning, and access to and across river corridors in both upstream and downstream directions from the proposed river segment have been evaluated in detail by the relevant federal agency; (iv) It is clearly demonstrated that the provisions and terms of the process for review of potential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by all federal agencies; and (v) The rationale and justification for the proposed addition, including a comparison with protections offered by other management tools, is clearly analyzed within the multiple-use mandate, and the results disclosed. All valid existing rights, including grazing leases and permits shall not be affected. County support for the designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern shall be withheld until: (i) It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains historic, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or natural processes, which are unique or substantially significant;  (ii) The regional values, resources, processes, or hazards have been analyzed by the federal agency for impacts resulting from potential actions which are consistent with the multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and that this analysis describes the rationale for any special management attention required to protect, or prevent irreparable damage to the values, resources, processes, or hazards; (iii) The difference between special management attention required for an ACEC and normal multiple-use management has been identified and justified, and that any determination of irreparable damage has been analyzed and justified for short and long-term horizons; (iv) It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation is not a substitute for a wilderness suitability recommendation; and (v) The conclusions of all studies are submitted to the county for review, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in all planning documents. (vi) Any impacts on private property rights are evaluated and mitigated. 

Forest Resources and Woodlands 

All forestlands shall be managed for multiple use and sustained yield. Forest management plans shall be written and effective management techniques adopted to promote a stable forest economy and enhanced forest health, in accordance with the National Healthy Forest Initiative. Opportunities for harvesting forest products shall be promoted. Management strategies shall protect timber resources from fire (in accordance with the National 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Fire Plan), insects, and disease. Harvesting techniques shall be employed that will prevent waste of forest products. 

Sound fuel load management techniques shall be used to minimize fire potential at the urban interface and prevent catastrophic events. Forest management techniques shall be implemented that will increase watershed health and long-term 

water quantity yield and quality. Management programs must provide opportunities for citizens to harvest forest products for personal needs, economic value and forest health. 

Water Resources 

 Any proposed action must include an analysis of the effects on water quality, stream flow, the amount of water yields, and the timing of those yields. Privately held water rights shall be protected from federal and/or state encroachment or coerced acquisition. Duchesne County shall oppose any movement toward nationalization or federal control of Utah water rights and resources. Potential reservoir sites and delivery system corridors shall be identified in landuse plans and protected from federal or state action that would prohibit or restrict 

future use for those purposes. Said plans would include provisions for adding or deleting potential reservoir sites and delivery system corridors when deemed appropriate. Any proposed sale, lease or exchange of water rights involving a public land management agency shall address the interests of Duchesne County, and such a sale must include appropriate mitigation. Agency actions shall recognize all legal canal, lateral, and ditch easements and rights-of way. Livestock grazing and other multiple uses are compatible with watershed management. All reasonable water conservation efforts shall be supported. Water conserved as a result of these efforts shall be allocated to those persons or entities whose efforts created savings, within the limits of their water rights. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Many wetlands are created by fugitive water from irrigation systems. When law requires mitigation of impacts from conservation and other projects, the creation of artificial wetlands shall be considered only after all other mitigation possibilities have been exhausted. Creation or maintenance of an artificial wetland is contrary to the intent of conservation. The management of the watershed should allow for continued multiple use. It should preserve the quality and quantity of water as well as environmental values. 

Wilderness Designations 

Wilderness designation is inconsistent with the multiple use mandate. Additional wilderness designation shall be opposed. Such designations shall provide access for reservoirs, maintenance of irrigation facilities, fire, and weed and pest control. Valid existing rights are to be protected in wilderness areas. Proper monitoring of the affect of a wilderness area on the community and economic stability of the county shall be required. BLM Response: The BLM must follow Section 201 of FLPMA. 

 

Wildlife Wildlife management agencies, public land management agencies and the County 

shall work together to manage big game populations. Wildlife populations shall not be increased nor shall new species be introduced until forage allocations have been provided and an impact analysis completed for the effects on other wildlife species and livestock. Increases or reduction in forage allocation resulting from forage studies, drought/natural disasters or improvements will be shared proportionately by wildlife, livestock and other uses. Wildlife target levels and/or populations must not exceed the forage assigned in the RMP forage allocations. Predator and wildlife numbers must be controlled to protect livestock and other private property and to prevent population decline in other wildlife species. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Resource-use and management decisions by federal land management and regulatory agencies should support state-sponsored initiatives or programs designed to stabilize wildlife populations that may be experiencing a scientifically proven decline in numbers. 

Duchesne County General Plan (1997) 

Resolution # 07-15

Discussion Consistent P

Co

The County General Plan be amended at the end of the public lands section for the following area: Twin Knolls & Wrinkles Road 

The County goals are to achieve and maintain a continuing yield of mineral resources; livestock grazing; water resources; traditional access to outdoor recreational opportunities; open all roads that appear on the County's most recent transportation map, and provide for such additional roads and trails as may be necessary from time to time; protect prehistoric rock art, three dimensional structures and other artifacts and sites recognized as culturally important and significant by the State Historic Preservation Officer; manage so as to not interfere with the property rights of private landowners located in these regions; manage the regions so as to not interfere with the fiduciary responsibility of the State School And Institutional Trust Lands Administration ("SITLA") with respect to trust lands located in that region; managing part or all of the regions for wilderness characteristics would violate FLPMA, contradict the state's public land policy and contradict the foregoing County plans of regions; imposing any of the area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) designation alternatives currently under consideration in the price resource management plan revision process, would contradict the County's plan for managing the regions; including any river segment in the national wild and scenic river system would violate the National Wild And Scenic Rivers Act and related regulations, contradict the state's public land policy, and contradict the contradict the County's plan for managing the regions; a visual 

resource management class I or II rating for any part of the regions would contradict the state's public land policy and contradict the contradict the County's 

plan for managing the regions. BLM Response: Duchesne County has cooperating agency status in the 

development of the Proposed RMP. The BLM is bound by applicable laws and regulations for the resources cited. 

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Uintah County General Plan (10/2005) 

Uintah County General Plan (10/2005) 

Discussion Consistent P

Co

Agriculture Encourage, create and maintain an environment that is conducive to owneroperator agricultural businesses. Development guidelines should include home 

occupation provisions appropriate for residential areas. Encourage responsible natural resource use and development. Maintain County land-use plans and regulations that complement the County's agricultural economic development interests and objectives. 

X 

Economic Development 

Encourage communities to pursue economic development initiatives and activities that are compatible with the interests of neighboring communities and complement the economic development efforts and objectives of the County. Explore additional transportation options (including air, rail, pipeline and interstate roadway system) to expand economic development opportunities and markets. 

X 

Forage Allocation/Livestock Grazing 

The proper management and allocation of forage on public lands is critical to the viability of the Basin's agriculture, recreation and tourism industry. The viability of a 

large number of the Basin's agriculture and livestock operation is dependent on access to grazing on public lands. Management of forage resources directly affects water quality and water supplies. Forage allocated to livestock may not be reduced for allocation to other uses. Current livestock allocation will be maintained. Increases in available forage resulting from conservation practice, improved range condition, or development of improvements by the livestock permittee or other allocated use will be credited to that use. Increases in available forage resulting from practices or improvements implemented by managing agency will be allocated proportionately to all forage allocations, unless the funding source specifies the benefactor. Upon termination of a permit, livestock permittee will be compensated for the remaining value of improvements or be allowed to remove such improvements that 

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

permittee made on his/her allotment. Forage reductions resulting from forage studies, fire, drought, or other natural disasters will be implemented on an allotment basis and applied proportionately based on the respective allocations. Permittee may sell or exchange permits. Such transaction shall be promptly processed. Changes in season of use or forage allocation must not be made without full and meaningful consultation with permittee. The permittee must be the first point of contact. Livestock allocations must be protected from encroachment by wild horses and wildlife. Permanent increases or decreases in grazing allocations reflecting changes in available forage will be based on the vegetative type of that forage and applied proportionately to livestock or wildlife based on their respective dietary need. BLM Response: See response to Wildlife and Fisheries of the Daggett County 

General Plan. 

Natural Resources 

Encourage the responsible use and development of natural resources and support associated industries and businesses. Support the development of additional natural resources as opportunities arise and as new technology is available. Support continued natural resource research, exploration and development within the region. This includes encouraging associated industries and businesses to locate within the County. Promote and maintain adequate access to natural resources. Promote public interest and awareness of the County's dependence on natural resource(s) and the potential impacts of resource management decisions and associated regulations on the County's economy. Encourage and support cooperative planning processes among local, state and federal land and resource management agencies, and private land owners. Continue County participation in all relevant public land planning processes. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Promote agency awareness of County issues and interests. Secure and maintain "cooperating agency" status (and/or equivalent) and involvement as relevant resource issues and projects arise. Address public lands and resources in the County's land-use plan. Involve relevant public land management agencies in plan development and implementation activities. Evaluate all proposed developments and associated land uses to determine their potential effects on water quality, air quality, historic/cultural resources and recreation resources. In some cases, mitigation plans may be necessary. Approved projects should be closely monitored. Include the following site-specific natural resource/environmental considerations in County land-use planning and development application review activities: (1) natural hazards (slopes, floodplains, etc.), (2) topography, (3) soil types, (4) wildfire interface, (5) depth to water table, (6) surface drainage patterns, (7) groundwater recharge/discharge areas (including springs), (8) the quantity and quality of surface and underground water resources, and (9) community culinary water sources and sewage/solid waste facilities. Encourage industrial, commercial and residential land uses and development to locate in areas where impacts to air and water quality can be minimized. Consider protection of water resources (and sources) as a part of all County land use and development decisions. Adequate measures should be taken for watershed protection. Encourage the expansion of resource-based, value-added programs. Support small, owner-operated resource-related operations and businesses. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Continue support for the County's noxious weed program and participation in the Cooperative Weed Management Association. 

Natural Resource Exploration and Development 

Continue the County's progressive, proactive approach to economic growth and 

development through natural resource exploration and development. Recruit natural resource-based exploration and development businesses that are 

consistent with, and complementary to, the County's lifestyle and character. Encourage and support natural resource-based entrepreneurial opportunities in the private sector. Maintain County land-use plans and regulations that complement the County's natural resource exploration and development interests and objectives. Encourage responsible natural resource use and development. When deemed to be in the best interest of Uintah County, encourage natural resource exploration and development proposals that are sensitive to County outdoor recreation and open space preservation objectives. 

X 

Public Land General Policies 

Maintain and utilize the County's Public Lands Plan, County Resource 

Management Plan, County Transportation System Map, and subsequent resource and site-specific implementation plans and studies as dynamic documents. The County will work with federal and state agencies to ensure the County's positions and policies as adopted therein are understood and recognized as part of all relevant agency planning and decision-making processes. 

Continue active County participation in agency planning processes. Secure and maintain "cooperating agency" status (and/or equivalent) and involvement as relevant issues and projects arise. Promote local concerns and interests as an integral part of public land planning processes and public land management decisions. Encourage and support public land uses consistent with responsible development and efficient use of renewable and non-renewable resources. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Provide County-prepared positions and/or responses on all relevant federal and state land and resource planning and decision making processes. Continue to utilize the County's Public Lands Committee as an advisory group regarding public land and resource issues. 

Public and Tribal Land Access 

Coordinate with the Ute Tribe and federal and state public land and resource management agencies to complete the County's access management plan. 

Specific elements to be incorporated in this plan include the County's transportation system map, goals and policies regarding public lands access routes, and specific guidelines regarding motorized/non-motorized uses. Encourage continued cooperation among public land agencies, the Ute Tribe, business interests, property owners and Uintah County to address access, rightof-way and road maintenance issues. Prepare a public lands-specific transportation/access plan to complement the 

County's Transportation System Map. 

X 

Recreation and Tourism 

Encourage responsible natural resource use and development. Encourage land-use planning and mapping activities designed to identify appropriate locations for (indoor and outdoor, public and private) recreation sites and facilities. Facilities should be designed in a manner conducive to active and passive recreational activities and should provide opportunities for visitors and County residents alike. When deemed to be in the best interest of the County, encourage development proposals that are sensitive to County outdoor recreation and open space preservation objectives. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Recreation Trails Partner with interested communities, agencies and organizations to prepare and 

adopt a County/community-level recreation trails and alternative transportation corridor plan. Encourage public/private and County/agency partnerships in the development and implementation of site-specific trail and associated recreation plans. An example of this type of effort is the Buckskin Hills Recreation and Trails Plan. Explore alternative trail corridor acquisition and trail construction funding 

strategies. Encourage and support public outreach efforts designed to educate the public and property owners regarding the pros and cons of developing recreational trails and public access corridors. Develop and adopt adequate trail and public access corridor use guidelines. Once trails are developed, monitor uses and users to ensure adjacent properties are not adversely affected. 

X 

Roads and Transportation Planning 

Develop and maintain a master transportation plan to identify and accommodate the current and future transportation needs of the County. Review all development proposals to determine conformity and consistency with the County's adopted transportation plan and related land dedication and roadway construction regulations and standards. Require all new roads and streets to be consistent with the approved County transportation plan with regard to classification, right-of-way, design and construction. Develop, maintain and enforce standards for dedicated County roads. This may include categories for road maintenance and service (e.g., low maintenance, winter maintenance and full maintenance.) Require County approval prior to the construction of all (private and/or public) access points onto County roads. Conditions of approval include, but are not limited to, appropriate design, compatible grades, adequate drainage, number and location of access points, and adequate sight distances. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Require all development proposals and site plans to demonstrate compliance with the following County transportation design guidelines: (1) Controlled access from private property to County collector and arterial roadways will be discouraged. (2) Access to and from concentrated commercial/industrial land uses and residential subdivisions shall be designed to minimize interference with collector and arterial road traffic flow. (3) New development shall provide adequate off-street parking for their projected needs. (4) Shared use of appropriately designed and designated parking facilities among adjacent property owners will be encouraged. (5) Where commercial development is allowed along improved County roads, access to such development shall be encouraged via frontage/backage roads designed and improved at the expense of the developer.Require all private roads warranting dedication by the County as a County road to be built to County specifications prior to dedication. All such roads will then be formally identified/recognized by the County and dedicated as an official County road. 

Transportation Explore additional transportation options (including air, rail and interstate roadway 

system) to expand economic development opportunities and markets. Encourage additional public transportation options and opportunities through private/public partnerships and programs. Encourage development of community/County partnership agreements to address community growth issues and related transportation needs. 

X 

Water Resources 

Continue County participation in all relevant water resource planning processes. Promote agency awareness of County issues and interests. Secure and maintain "cooperating agency" status (and/or equivalent) and involvement as relevant water resource issues and projects arise. Protect and enhance water quality and quantity by promoting the efficient management and use of water resources. Support water conservation programs and activities. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Encourage vegetation and resource management plans and programs that promote healthy water systems. Protect water rights and interests. It is the County's position that water available to the County should be used within the County. Continue to support wellhead, watershed and water source protection programs and activities as determined to be in the best interest of the County. The County is opposed to land use designations that are not compatible with water resource development and/or may limit hydro opportunities.Encourage the reuse of water. As feasible and deemed to be in the public's best interest, the County will continue to support and encourage water treatment and reclamation programs as utilized by the Ashley Valley Sewer Management Plant. Evaluate all proposed developments and associated land uses to determine their potential effects on water resources (and sources). Specific elements to consider include, but are not limited to, topography, soil type, vegetative cover, depth to water table, surface drainage patterns, groundwater recharge/discharge areas (including springs), and the quantity and quality of potentially affected surface and underground water resources (and sources). In some cases, mitigation plans may be necessary. Approved projects should be closely monitored. Require development proposals to identify potential impacts to existing irrigation systems. Require, as appropriate, all development and land use proposals to demonstrate the availability of an adequate, safe water supply and a safe, reliable method of sewage disposal. Discharge should not be detrimental to surface or underground water sources. Encourage large-scale industrial, commercial and residential land uses and development to locate in areas where impacts to water resources can be minimized. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Uintah County Objectives (8/2003) 

Discussion Consistent P

Co

Air Quality Maintaining the Basin's air quality at its current level is critical to the health and 

well being of its residents. A high level of air quality is important to future economic development as it reduces the possibility of restrictions being placed on that development due to air quality standards being exceeded. Air quality baselines must be established for the Basin with the full participation of the County. All air quality related plans and decisions must be based on deviation from a baseline standard established for the Uintah Basin. To maintain high air quality the County must protect the Basin's air from degradation from non-Basin sources. The County will take any actions necessary to protect Basin air quality from degradation by non-Basin sources. 

X 

Cultural and Heritage Resources 

It is the County's position that: Many sites represent a unique culture and are closely related to early religious settlement of the area. They continue to have historical significance and are held by many residents as reverent or consecrated sites and are the essence of their entity. These sites must remain accessible and be preserved. The preservation and perpetuation of heritage and culture is important to the area economy as well as to the life styles and quality of life of the Basin residents. The maintenance of these resources and their physical attributes such as trails, cabins, livestock facilities, etc., is critical to present and future tourism development. The land, its people, and their heritage form an inseparable trinity for the majority of the area residents and this relationship must be considered in all proposed actions. Livestock grazing, the resulting lifestyles, and the resulting imprint on the landscapes of the west is one of the oldest enduring and economically important cultural and heritage resources in the west and must be preserved and perpetuated. It is the County's position that the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is the basis for cultural and historical preservation and defines federal agency's responsibility for protection and preservation of cultural and heritage resources and the agency's responsibility to the County. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Energy and Mineral Resource 

Continued access to energy and mineral resources associated with public lands is paramount to the well being of County residents and its economy, the state of Utah and national security. Any proposal or action taken by state or federal agencies that will result in restriction on reasonable and economical access to these resources shall/will be opposed. Identification of energy and mineral potential and location is important to planning for future energy needs and resource management planning. The County supports such activity and requests that appropriate agencies plan, fund, and encourage by way of policy, management decisions for such activity. All management plans must address and analyze the possibility for the development of minerals where there is a reasonable expectation of their occurrence within the planning area. After environmental analysis, and as provided for in the governing resource management plan, all tracts will be available and offered for lease or open to be claimed as provided by law. All permits and applications must be processed on a timely basis. Procedures and required contents of application must be provided to the applicant at the time of application. 

X 

Horses The presence of uncontrolled and improperly managed Wild horses on public 

land within the County are cause for great concern. The possibility of the spread of equine diseases from uncontrolled and improperly managed wild horse herds on public lands are a threat to the Basin's domestic horse industry and other aspects of the Basin economy. Increases in wild horse numbers adversely affects the Basin economy by reducing forage available for wildlife and livestock. The only authorized herd management area in Uintah County is the Hill Creek Herd Management Area and the wild horse population of that area is not to exceed 195 head. Proposals for introduction of horses outside of the Hill Creek Herd Management Area must be fully analyzed in an RMP or by the NEPA process and must provide for full participation by the County. 

Wild Horses assigned to herd units must be identified in such a way as to insure that feral or fugitive horses are not assimilated into wild horse herds on public lands. All unauthorized feral horses are in trespass and must be 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

removed from public lands in the County. Any future herds legally established must consist of wild horses that are verified as to having Spanish barb characteristics and are not feral or fugitive horses. Horse Management Plans must include provisions for periodic gather of all horses in the unit to limit populations to planned levels, to remove trespass horses, and to test for equine diseases as prescribed by the Utah State veterinarian. Herd Management Plans must contain provisions to provide for the maintenance of the health of wild horses and the prevention of the spread of equine diseases. No herds will be located in areas that do not provide barriers, natural or otherwise, which would prevent herd movement from the herd area, trespass to private lands, or mingling with domestic herds. 

Introduced, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species, Recovery Plans, Experimental Populations, and Related Guidelines and Protocols 

These designations or reintroductions often grow beyond boundaries and scope and result in detrimental effects on the area economy, life styles, culture and heritage. No such designations or reintroductions should be made until it is determined and substantiated by verified scientific data that there is a need for such action, that protections cannot be provided by other methods and the area in question is truly unique when compared to other area lands. Designation or reintroduction plans, guidelines, and protocols must not be developed or implemented without the full involvement of the County and full public disclosure. Any analysis of such proposed designations or reintroductions must prevent growth beyond the scope and boundaries that were analyzed in the proposal. Recovery plans must provide for indicators to track the effectiveness of the plan and identify at what point recovery is accomplished. BLM Response: The BLM is required to follow existing laws, such as the 

Endangered Species Act and NEPA. 

X 

Land Exchanges, Acquisitions, and Sales 

There shall be no net loss of the private land base and that the federal and state government holds a sufficient amount of land to protect public interest. No "net loss" should be measured, both in acreage and fair value, without approval of the County Commission. 

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

A private property owner has a right to dispose of or exchange his property as he/she sees fit within applicable law. A private property owner should be protected from federal, state and county encroachment and/or coerced acquisition. The County will be compensated for any net loss of private lands with public lands of equal value and compensated for any loss of tax base resulting from these exchanges by the appropriate acquiring agency. BLM Response: Land exchanges, acquisitions, disposal, and sales, etc., are regulated by FLPMA. 

Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) 

OHV's have become an important segment of the Basin recreation industry and is an important tool and mode of transportation for farmers, ranchers, and resource development. It supports the current policy of open recreation areas. Will support limiting of OHV to existing roads and trails and the development of 

designated trail system only in areas that demonstrate documented and substantiated adverse impacts. These designations must occur only in situations where it has been substantiated that adverse impacts cannot be mitigated by other management methods. When the necessity for a closure has been established, additional trails and areas must be opened to offset the loss of that recreational opportunity. Public Land Management agencies must implement and maintain an aggressive OHV program to educate users on how to reduce resource impacts. This is to be followed by an aggressive enforcement program. The non-recreational use of OHVs, such as development and livestock operations, must be provided for in all areas unless restricted by law. 

X 

Paleontological Archeology Geology 

Remnants of early life forms, geological history and cultures have evolved as an important segment of a local economy and has become the signature of the local tourism trade. Considerable investment has been made in museums and visitors centers to promote these important resources. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

All significant artifacts found in the area remain here. Resource Management Plans must provide opportunity for amateur collectors and students of these sciences to study, explore for, and collect related items as provided for by law. Public land management agencies should promote these resources with educational material, sign age, and information centers where appropriate. 

Public Access, RS2477 Roads The access across and to public lands is critical to the use, management, and development of those lands and adjoining private lands. 

No roads, trails, rights-of-way, easements or other traditional access for the transportation of people, products, recreation, energy or livestock may be closed, abandoned, withdrawn, or have a change of use without full public disclosure and analysis. Future access must be planned and analyzed to determine its disposition at the completion of its intended life This is to insure needed access is maintained or that such access is removed and resulting disturbances are reclaimed. Roads covered by RS-2477 should remain open and the County will take any 

action needed to protect these rights. This includes identification, inventory, and participation in any legal process to protect them. Access to all water related facilities such as dams, reservoirs, delivery systems, monitoring facilities, livestock water and handling facilities, etc., must be maintained. This access must be economically feasible with respect to the method and timing of such access. Unreasonable restrictions may result in the loss of use of such facilities and property rights. BLM Response: The Proposed RMP makes no commitments to respect to any 

valid existing rights, particularly those concerning RS-2477. 

X 

Public Lands Positions 

The County supports the wise use, conservation and protection of public lands and its resources including well-planned management prescriptions. It acknowledges the need, on occasion, to place strict requirements on the management of some resources in order to provide the needed protection. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

To insure that the management is accomplished with the full participation of the County and is supported by tested and true scientific data and accomplished in a way that fully analyzed the impacts on the economy of the Uintah Basin, County tax base, culture, heritage, and life styles and rights of the area residents. That when a negative impact of a proposed action is unavoidable, the impacts on the County and/or its residents must be mitigated or compensated for. If action results in a taking, all applicable law must be applied. To insure that public access and rights-of-way for utilities and transportation of product must be maintained. This access must be provided for in the future when need is demonstrated. To insure that public lands are managed for multiple use and sustained yield and prevent the loss of resources and private property from catastrophic events and to protect the safety and health of the public. In support of our national energy needs and considering the nation's increasing dependency on foreign oil, all public lands must remain open to the greatest extent possible for the exploration and production of energy and other energy related products. All plans and management decisions must insure that special designations do not influence the use of resources on lands outside of those listed in the designation. The County opposes the use of a buffer zone management philosophy that dictates land use practices and influences decisions beyond the scope and boundaries of the designations. To support agriculture on private and public lands as part of our custom, culture, heritage, and as an important segment of our local economy, as well as providing for a secure national food supply. To provide policy, plans, and other documents for other governmental agencies 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

to use to insure that their resource management and planning is consistent with that of the County. Restrictions placed on any resource must be based on analysis of trends and only imposed after a complete analysis. Lands designated open for various specified uses should be available for such use on a timely basis. Proposed uses of such land must be promptly processed. If such use is not covered in a resource management plan, then these uses will be analyzed in a separate document or by amendment to the RMP. Extended delays or no action will not be used as a method to accomplish management goals. 

Recreation and Tourism 

The area has outstanding potential for recreation and tourism. Resource development and recreation and tourism are compatible through proper planning and management. Potential developments should include family oriented activities and developments that are accessible to the general public, not limited to special interest groups. It supports cultivating recreational facility development and maintenance partnerships with other entities, agencies, and general special interest groups. 

X 

Soils Soil is the basic building block for virtually for all land uses. The protection of 

soils from wind and water erosion and maintaining its fertility is critical to sustaining a viable agricultural economy and maintaining high levels of air and water quality. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey is the basis on which all public land soil related activities will be based. Soil related activities will be based on all available survey drafts until survey is published. Any deviation from this material or soil date developed outside of the survey must be coordinated with the NRCS. 

X 

Special Designations 

It is the County's position that: Special designations, such as wilderness, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), wild and scenic rivers, critical habitat, semi primitive and nonmotorized travel, etc., result in single purpose or non-use and are detrimental to the area economy, life styles, culture, and heritage. Needed protections can be provided by well planned and managed development. No special designations should be proposed until it is determined and substantiated by verified scientific data, that there is a need for the designation, that protections cannot be provided by other methods, and the area in question is truly unique when compared to other area lands. Designations must be made in accordance with the spirit and direction of the acts and regulations that created them. Designations that are not properly planned or managed are inconsistent with 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

the mandates that public lands be managed for multiple use and sustained yield. BLM Response: Uintah County has cooperating agency status in the 

development of the Proposed RMP. The BLM is bound by applicable laws and regulations for the resources cited. 

Forests All forested lands are to be managed for sustained yield and multiple use. 

Managers of public lands must protect watersheds with respect to water quality and to insure the water yield is not decreased or that it is improved. Fire, timber harvesting, and treatment programs must be managed as to prevent waste of forest products. Management programs must provide for fuel load management that will prevent catastrophic events and provide for reduced fire potential at the urban interface. Management programs must provide for citizens to harvest forest products for personal needs and provide harvesting opportunities for small businesses. 

X 

Water Resources Proper management of public land watershed, which supplies the majority of 

the agricultural, domestic, and industrial water use in this water-short area, is critical. An adequate supply of clean water is essential to the health of the County's residents and to the continued growth of the County's economy. Every aspect of the County's economy depends on a dependable and clean supply of water. Agencies must analyze the affect of their action on water quality, watershed yields and timing of those yields. Any action, lack of action, or permitted use that results in a significant or long term decrease in water quality or quantity will be opposed. It is important to protect water from significant long-term decreases in quality or quantity. Any agency action must analyze the impacts on facilities such as dams, reservoirs, delivery systems, monitoring facilities, etc., located on or downstream from land covered by the proposal. It will oppose any movement 

toward nationalization or federal control of Utah's water resources or rights. Privately held water rights should be protected from federal and/or state encroachment and/or coerced acquisition. It is imperative that the quality and quantity of water is not reduced below current levels. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

It will support projects that will improve water quality and increase the amount and dependability of the water supply. All potential reservoir sites and delivery system corridors shall be protected from any federal or state action that would inhibit their future use for such purposes. Any proposed sale, lease or other exchange of water must adequately consider and satisfy the County's interest and concerns before the County will participate or support the proposal. It will not support any proposal that does not protect the County and compensate them for any losses to the County and/or its residents. It recognizes and will support the existence of all legal canals, laterals, or ditch rights-of- way. All federal and state mandates governing water or water systems should be funded by those agencies and developed in cooperation with the County. It supports livestock grazing and other managed uses of watersheds and holds that, if properly managed; multiple use is compatible with watershed management. It endorses the Utah State Water Laws as the legal basis for all water use within the County. Beneficial use is the basis for the appropriation of water in the state of Utah. It will support all reasonable water conservation efforts. Water saved as a result of these efforts should be allocated to those persons or entities whose efforts created the savings. Many wetlands are created by fugitive water from irrigation systems. When law requires mitigation of impacts from conservation and other projects, the creation of artificial wetlands should be considered only after all other mitigation possibilities have been measured. Creation of artificial wetland is contrary to 

the intent of conservation. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Wilderness Designations 

The only legal designations of Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) are those designated under section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the opportunity to create additional wilderness ended in 1991, except as authorized by Congress. That some or all of the WSA designations pending before congress are legally and/or technically flawed and will pursue that position when the WSAs go before Congress for approval. That the 1999 Wilderness Study Area Planning Project and the wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures H6310-1 were legally and technically flawed. Any new wilderness designation must be provided for by Congress and created in cooperation with the County and the State. That all WSAs pending before Congress, which were not recommended for wilderness designation by the Secretary of Interior; be released and managed under multiple use. That any new wilderness designations in the County be a collaborative process by federal, state and county officials. Additionally, the County believes that wilderness designation is not an appropriate, effective, efficient, economic or wise use of land. These lands can be adequately protected through mitigation, minimizing negative impacts and proper reclamation. The creation of wilderness limits access for the elderly and the physically impaired. All wilderness management plans must provide for access for these individuals to the fullest extent possible. Wilderness management must provide for continued and reasonable access for holders of property rights within the area and provide for full use and enjoyment of these rights. Wilderness Study Areas released by Congress must be managed based on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The RMP must be amended, in a timely manner, to reflect the change in status. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Wildlife Properly managed wildlife populations are important to the Basin recreation and 

tourism economy and to the preservation of the culture and lifestyles of its residents. With proper management and planning, healthy wildlife population are not incompatible with other resource development. Wildlife numbers will remain at the allocated level until studies and analysis are completed to determine the ability of forage resources to support the increases and species population trends. No increases in wildlife numbers or the introduction of additional species may be made until the increase in forage or habitat has been provided for and the impacts on other wildlife species has been assessed. Reduction in forage allocation resulting from forage studies, drought, or other natural disasters will 

be shared proportionately by wildlife. Wildlife target levels and/or populations must not exceed the forage assigned to wildlife in the RMP forage allocations. In evaluating a proposed introduction of wildlife species, priority will be given to species that will provide for increased recreational activities. Predator and wildlife numbers must be controlled to a level that protects livestock and other private property from loss or damage and to prevent decline in populations of other wildlife species. That through wildlife habitat mitigation banking impacts of development can be mitigated in a more efficient and planned manner. When implemented, this system could provide much needed habitat for wildlife while providing for multiple use. 

X 

Public Lands Implementation Plan (8/2003) 

Discussion Consistent P

Co

ACEC Buffers established along any water course for the purpose of protecting scenic 

values must not exceed the maximum limits established in the Wild and Scenic Rivers section of this plan. ACEC must not be used for layering to achieve protections not provided for in the subject matter legislation or regulation. Example: extending protections for scenic values along a wild or scenic river that exceeds the limitations provided for in the WSA Act. BLM Response: The potential ACECs brought forward for designation into the 

Proposed RMP have gone through a rigorous and stringent process. Appendix G of the Proposed RMP outlines this process. 

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Forage Allocation/Livestock Grazing 

All Resource Management Plans must analyze and define the methods and list 

the amounts of forage allocated to the respective uses of that forage. To prevent damage to forage and habitat resources allocation of forage must be based on the type of forage consumed by the species in question and the quantity the species consumes. No reduction of forage allocation to livestock or changes in forage allocations shall be made unless specifically provided for by law and analyzed in, or by modifications of, a resource management plan. The retirement or relinquishment of grazing allocations is clearly discussed in a memorandum by the Department of Interior solicitor William Myers III on October 4, 2002. Based on this document the County requires that: There can be no permanent retirement or relinquishment of grazing permits absent congressional action. When such proposed actions cover land within a grazing district the BLM must analyze whether the lands are still "chiefly valuable for grazing and raising of other forage crops". 43 U.S.C. 315. If the BLM concludes the lands still remain chiefly valuable for these purposes, the lands must remain in the grazing district. As such, they would remain subject to application from other permittees. If the BLM determines that the lands are no longer chiefly valuable for grazing, BLM must express this determination and support it by proper findings in the record of decision that concludes the land-use planning process. The land use 

process must consider whether discontinuing livestock grazing would implicate 

congressional reporting requirements. Sec. 43 U.S.C. 1712(e)(2). Unless provided for by congressional action, any relinquishments or retirements of grazing permits provided for in a land-use plan must be identified as temporary unless provided for by congressional action. The plan and the record of decision must state that the action is subject to reconsideration, modification, and reversal. When such actions are proposed in a resource plan or in a management decision it must analyze the fact that once the secretary has established a grazing district under the Taylor Grazing Act the primary use of that land should be grazing. Any reductions in forage allocation or changes in season of use must be supported by proper findings and documentation of the need for the reduction or change. These findings must be specific to the permit in question. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

The permittee must be the first point of contact when increases, reductions, or change in season of use are proposed. The County must be notified of such proposed changes. Land Management agencies must protect livestock allocations from encroachment from other consumption of that forage and act promptly when such encroachment exists. 

Horses Plans that provide for the management or reintroduction of wild horses must 

fully analyze the agency's ability to prevent the movement of horses out of the assigned area, to control diseases and populations, and to prevent co- mingling with domestic horses. Wild horse characteristics should be maintained and not altered by breeding programs intended to make them more adoptable. Horses on public land must be of a color and conformation characteristics consistent with that of their Spanish Barb ancestors or the areas original wild horses. Public Land Management agencies must promptly remove feral and stray horses, as well as wild horses that are outside of their HMA boundaries, from public lands to prevent the spread of disease, inbreeding with managed wild horses and to protect forage allocated to wild horses, wildlife and livestock. Wild horses must be gathered every four years to provide for disease and population control. More frequent gathers must be provided for when the Utah State Veterinarian advises a gather is needed to control disease or when drought condition exist and a reduction in stocking rate is needed to protect forage resource or to prevent horses from exceeding their forage allocation. When gathered, or prior to the release of introduced horses, all horses must be marked or recorded by such method that will identify it as a wild horse when future gathers are conducted. The number of horses released after a gather will be at a number that will insure their populations do not exceed their forage allocation and/or target populations before the next planned gather date. 

X 

Management of Natural Resources on Public Land 

Natural resources on public lands must be available for development while at the same time providing reasonable protection and use of other resource 

values. Management strategies for renewable resources, such as wildlife, must not have absolute veto power over resource development. Uintah County's economy is based upon extractive mineral industries and agriculture and will continue to be in the foreseeable future. The County supports multiple use but because of its importance the minerals and agricultural industry should be given 

the highest priority possible. By utilizing proper management practices it has been demonstrated that minerals development is compatible with the use and development of other resources and that renewable resources can thrive at the same time. However, unwarranted overprotection of renewable resources at the expense of the agriculture and minerals industry is contrary to the best interest of its residents, Uintah County, and the nation. 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Mineral Development in Crucial Habitat 

Protection will be provided for crucial habitat by controlling development 

activities during crucial periods. These periods will be established based on that species needs. In order to protect crucial habitat from permitted surface disturbance no more than 10% of such habitat will be subject to surface disturbance and remain unreclaimed at any given time. Activities that exceed the thresholds above will be approved by analysis in separate NEPA documents when environmental protection can be accomplished by avoidance or mitigation. Reclamation will be mutually discussed between the Authorized Officer and the 

lessee, operator, or permittee to consider a variety of options. Annual monitoring of the actual reclamation results will be an important component of this stipulation to insure compliance. 

X 

Range and Wildlife Habitat Improvement Initiative and Mitigation Bank 

The need exists and there are tremendous opportunities to improve range and wildlife habitats on public lands in Uintah County. Improvement of these 

important resources benefits all public land users and is crucial when a multiple use management concept is applied to these lands. Creating healthy ecosystems reduces conflict between public land users, restrictions on development, the need for expensive recovery and protection programs, and thus are economically feasible. Accomplishing the needed improvements will require public land management agencies, local governments, and users to work as partners to accomplish the goals. To achieve the above and to provide a system to provide for range and wildlife habitat improvement, as well as coordinate programs to provide for mitigation for impacts to these resources, the following programs will be implemented by Uintah County. 

X 

Riparian Standards for the management of riparian areas must be definitive and 

objective in nature. When standards for management provide for variances for a percentage of these areas accommodate stock crossings and watering areas, 

etc., these percentages will be applied to each segment of the riparian area within each grazing permit or stream segment, whichever is most appropriate. 

X 

Soils Due to the lack of definitive scientific data, at this time any protection provided 

to microbiotic crust is premature. Until such a time that substantiated scientific data indicates the need for such protection none will be applied. Avoidance of sensitive areas is recommended when it has be demonstrate that such areas are unique with respect to crust composition and area ecology. Such avoidance must be economically feasible, must not be detrimental to the outcome of the proposed activity and agreed upon by the project proponent. Any protections or 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

restrictions related to microbiotic crust or which the need is based on soils must be coordinated with the Natural Resources Conservation Services and be based on their standards and guidelines. 

Travel/ Transportation 

Prior to taking any action that will result in changing the nature of use or closing roads, trails, ways, and/or open ATV areas, agencies must fully analyze the impacts of such actions. Determination of legal status with respect to RS 2477, easements, right of way, user rights, and enabling statutes. Impacts on other roads, trails or ways. Impacts on other facilities, such as 

improved campgrounds, camping areas, boat launches, etc. Impact on fish and game management, such as the ability to control fish and game populations and the increase of fishing and hunting pressure on more accessible areas and the affect on the quality of the outdoor experience in the more accessible areas. Impacts from loss of access on management capabilities including, but not limited to, fire protection, timber harvest, weed control, watershed management, the ability to use fire wood and other forest product permits for thinning and fuels reduction and wildlife. Any acknowledgment of existing rights, or granting of a rights of way or easements, must provide for a width adequate to allow for maintenance and to accommodate design dimension needed to provide for safe and efficient enjoyment of such grant. The width dictated by state and/or federal design standards as necessary to accommodate proposed uses shall determine the width provided by such grants or acknowledgments. Restriction placed on the use of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) must provide for the following: Accesses by OHV for permitted users to conduct operation, such 

as livestock and development activities. Access by OHV for individuals who are physically impaired. Access for retrieval of big game within 24 hours of a kill, where a kill has been verified by a record on a license and the animal remains in the field. Uintah County does not recognize the authority of any federal or state agencies 

X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

to close any roads designated on Uintah County's RS 2477 map, as well as any Class B or D roads. Uintah County reserves the sole right to open, close, grant rights of ways, and/or restrict access or the time frame of access on any roads described or depicted on the appropriate Uintah County road maps. 

Water/Watersheds Any proposed action or resource management plan that will affect watersheds, 

either by direct action or non-action, must analyze the impact on the watersheds with respect to water yields and water quality. This is to insure that the proposed action does not reduce watershed yields, change or negatively impact the timing of yields, or reduce water quality. Resource plans must provide for manipulation of plant cover, such as sage brush and timber, that will reduce such cover to levels that existed before protective action or management allowed increases beyond their natural occurrences. Watersheds must be evaluated to determine their present function compared to their historical functionality. Treatments must then be prescribed to provide for soil stabilization or bio mass manipulation required to return them to their historical conditions with respect to vegetative type, water yield, and water quality. Protective measures designed to protect water quality must be based on deviation from baseline levels. When waters are determined to be in the need of protection because conditions are exceeding quality standards or are approaching maximum allowable standards, protective actions will be based on scientific and verifiable data. Any public land management agency proposing action involving water or watersheds must seek County involvement. All water quality related management actions must be based on the Utah State Water Quality Standards and Utah's Non-Point Source Management Plan. Public Land Management agencies must consider all less restrictive management options before invoking closures or other actions that restrict access to public lands, inhibit their development, restrict livestock grazing, or other use. 

X 

Wildlife Wildlife species, populations, introductions, reintroductions, predators, hybrids, 

crucial habitats, increases, strategic management plans, guidelines, avoidance, 

restriction, threatened & endangered components were discussed by the County and specifically their impacts on local economies, including threats to livestock or other wildlife, compensation, protection and recreational opportunities. 

X 

Wild and Scenic WSR classifications must be appropriate and reflect the existing conditions and X 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Rivers (WSR) uses of bordering lands and the definitions contained in Sec.2(b)(1)(2)(3) of the 

Act. The County must be provided an opportunity to participate in the preservation and/or administration of any river proposed or designated in the WSR system (Sec. 5(c) of the Act). Such designations must be provided for protections of water rights and access to water contained in that right. No WSA may be designated that have the effect of reducing water rights or access to those rights. Boundaries or buffers for designated water courses shall not exceed 320 acres/mile measured from the ordinary high water mark [Sec. 3(b)] and 1/4 mile from the ordinary high water mark on each side of the river [Sec. 4(d), Sec. 8(b), Sec. 9(a)(iii)]. In addition to the boundary limitation provided in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Congress and the Department of Interior have found these limitations to be adequate on sections of the lower Green River where protection of scenic value was requested by them [Cooperative Government to Government Agreement Concerning Transfer of Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 2, Public Law 106-398 Sec. 3405 (2)(c)]. Any protection applied to streams or rivers must provide that such protections will in 

no manner affect, impair, or limit the ability of holders of water rights to utilize 

their water rights. This is consistent with Department of Interior and congressional actions where similar protections were requested by them. [Cooperative Government to Government Agreement Concerning Transfer of Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 2, Public Law 106-398 Sec. 3405 (2)(c)]. 

Amendment to Clarify Uintah County's Ongoing Plan for Managing Certain 

Non Wilderness Study Area Lands in Uintah County (6/11) 

Discussion Consistent P

Co

The Uintah County General Plan be amended at the end of the public lands section for the following areas: Wild Mountain, Moonshine Draw, Desolation Canyon, Bull 

The County goals are to achieve and maintain a continuing yield of mineral resources; livestock grazing; water resources; traditional access to outdoor 

recreational opportunities; open all roads that appear on the County's most recent transportation map, and provide for such additional roads and trails as may be necessary from time to time; protect prehistoric rock art, three dimensional structures and other artifacts and sites recognized as culturally important and significant by the State Historic Preservation Officer; manage so as to not interfere with the property rights of private landowners located in these regions; manage the regions so as to not interfere with the fiduciary responsibility of the State School And Institutional Trust Lands Administration ("SITLA") with respect to trust lands located in that region; managing part or all 

X 

BLM 

Response: 

Uintah County has cooperating agency status in the developmen
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Canyon, White River, Desolation Canyon Unit 1, Cripple Cowboy, Diamond Mountain, Stone Bridge Draw, Split Mountain Benches & South, Beach Draw, Vivas Cake Hill, Stuntz Draw, Bourdette Draw, Lower Bitter Creek, Sunday School Canyon, Dragon Canyon, Seep Canyon, Bitter Creek, Rat Hole, Wolf Point, Cliff Dweller, Sweet Water, Hideout Canyon, Hells Hole 

of the regions for wilderness characteristics would violate FLPMA, contradict the 

state's public land policy and contradict the foregoing County plans of regions; imposing any of the area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) designation alternatives currently under consideration in the price 

resource management plan revision process, would contradict the County's plan for managing the regions; including any river segment in the national wild and scenic river system would violate the National Wild And Scenic Rivers Act and related regulations, contradict the state's public land policy, and contradict the 

contradict the County's plan for managing the regions; a visual resource management class I or II rating for any part of the regions would contradict the state's public land policy and contradict the contradict the County's plan for 

managing the regions. 

t of the Proposed RMP. The BLM is bound by applicable laws and regulations for the resources cited. 

Consistency with State of Utah Code 63j-4-401 

ACECs State of Utah: 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. 

BLM: The potential ACECs designation into the Proposed Ra rigorous and stringent proceFLPMA, the planning regulatiLand-use planning Handbook accordance with BLM Manual and Procedures Guidelines (45 outlines the process the underwent to determine whethhad relevance and/or importancproposed ACECs is limited ogeography where the relevance are manageable to protect adamage. In the Proposed RMPgenerally do not have redunda
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

and/or other existing protections The potential ACECs carried foRMP necessitate an ACEC desimanagement protection is necemultiple-use management) to relevance and importance vaidentified. The special managehave been proposed are narrowidentified relevant and importanare recognized as wilderness reasons, the potential ACEC deinto the Proposed RMP are coconsistent with Utah Code 63j-4

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

State of Utah: 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers 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. 

BLM: The State of Utah has wAgency throughout this planning intimately involved with the BLMplanning process. The State haspecialists to help determine eliof the river segments, and haeconomic expertise and advice which eligible segments to carry the Proposed RMP. BLM has cooperatively among Federagovernments and communities dwild and scenic river study recommendations for inclusion the National Wild and Scenic Rforward to Congress. Prior to thBLM would work with affected in-stream flows necessary to premarkable values for which the were found suitable via this pbecause there are no effects oon valid existing rights, and becin this planning process do not for the BLM, the land-use plannsuitability determinations are 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

consistent with the Utah Code 6

Grazing State of Utah: It is the policy of the State of Utah that the citizens 

of the state are best served by applying multiple-use and 

sustained-yield 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 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-the-ground 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. 

BLM: Grazing decisions carProposed RMP are considered with Utah Code 63j-4-401. Proppublic lands would continue to pgrazing industry. Forage allocawildlife are fully allocated on pRMP decisions under other idefor the restoration and maintenwatershed health. For exampprovides the umbrella to alloactions for hazardous fuel reducvegetation treatments, riparian 

and wildlife habitat improvemeincluding Healthy Lands Inicollection, etc. Minor, if any, permitted livestock AUMs are RMP. Prior voluntary relinquishmhave been recognized. 

Wilderness Characteristics 

State of Utah: 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 non-renewable 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. Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics should be managed in a manner consistent with the multiple-use, sustained yield standard that applies to BLM 

BLM: The Proposed RMP idenlands with wilderness characteri

preserve, and maintain their wiBLM recognizes that it cannotprocess, designate these landpossible to manage them in acexample, there is no provisioimpairment criteria" mandatemanagement. However, in folFLPMA, BLM has maintained and has determined that lands possess wilderness characterisSection 603 inventory process early 1980's, now have been them. The focus of managemeforward in the Proposed RMP is 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

lands other than congressionally designated wilderness or WSAs. an experience of solitude and p

is enhanced by maintaining tgeographic areas. However, mado not mirror those for WSAs osince these two management odissimilar that imposing similar allow BLM to meet the planninthe Draft RMP/Draft EIS. Wwilderness are rights-of-way exfluid mineral leasing by law, surface-disturbing activities. In wilderness characteristics have either law, rule, regulation, or RMP would allow for surface-diand when they are compamanagement objectives identifieIn order to ensure that BLMregarding the management of ware consistent with Utah law, pobe made in the Record of DeThis editorial change would nogoals and objectives. 

RS-2477 Assertions 

State of Utah: The State of Utah will defend its interest, and that 

of its political subdivisions, in rights-of-way accepted under the self-effectuating 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. 

BLM: The Proposed RMP makerespect to any valid existing rconcerning RS-2477. Chapter states that resolution of this issuand scope of public lands plannadjudicated by a court of law Therefore, nothing in this plan rights-of-way or alters, in any waState of Utah to assert RS-247any use restrictions imposed believe are inconsistent with the
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-64 

5.4. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION

The public participation process for the RMP/EIS has been ongoing throughout the development 

of the RMP/EIS and will continue to the Record of Decision. It includes a variety of efforts to 

identify and address public concerns and needs. In addition to formal public participation 

activities, informal contacts occur frequently with public land users, industry, and interested 

persons through meetings, field trips, telephone calls, or letters. All public participation 

applicable to the RMP/EIS has been documented and analyzed as part of the planning process 

and kept on file in the Vernal Field Office. 

5.4.1. SCOPING AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO PLAN (NOI) 

This planning process began in March 2001 with the publication in the Federal Register of a 

Notice of Intent to plan (NOI). The NOI announced the BLM's intent to conduct land-use 

planning for the public lands administered by the Vernal Field Office 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 Federal, State, and local government agencies and Indian tribes to identify 

potential issues and submit concerns regarding the intended planning effort. 

The scoping period began on March 12, 2001 and ended December 31, 2001. In order to solicit 

public input regarding the development and scope of RMP\EIS alternatives, five scoping 

meetings were held throughout Utah in late October and early November 2001. Information 

obtained during the public scoping and information obtained by BLM and submitted by 

cooperating agencies, other federal, state and local agencies, and Indian tribes is utilized to form 

the scope of the RMP/EIS. Scoping meetings were held at the following locations: in Duchesne, 

Utah, on October 17, 2001; in Vernal, Utah, on October 18, 2001; in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 

October 25, 2001; in Manila, Utah, on November 1, 2001; and in Green River, Utah, on 

November 8, 2001. 

In addition to the NOI, BLM conducted additional outreach for specific program information, 

including by mailing directly to a BLM-maintained mailing list several planning bulletins to 

solicit specific information regarding issues such as public meetings, dates, travel planning, fluid 

mineral leasing, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), wild and scenic river 

segments (W&SR), and wilderness characteristics. The BLM-maintained mailing list for this 

planning effort has been and will continue to be reviewed and updated until the BLM issues the 

PRMP/FEIS and ROD. 

5.4.2. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NOA) OF DRAFT RMP/EIS 

In January 2005, the BLM filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) its Draft 

RMP/EIS for the Vernal Field Office. On January 14, 2005 the BLM and EPA published a 

Notice of Availability in the Federal Register; the later date marked the beginning of the formal 

90-day public review comment period. The DRMP/EIS states that BLM is revising its current 

land-use plan and proposes several alternative ways of managing public lands within the Moab 

Planning Area. The DEIS 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 April 4, 2005. The BLM notified approximately 990 individuals 

regarding the release of the DRMP/EIS. Also, provided hard copies and CDs of the DRMP/EIS 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-65 

directly to cooperating agencies, other federal, state, and local agencies, tribal representatives, 

the Utah BLM Resource Advisory Committee members Hard copies and CDs also were made 

available to the public, and the DRMP/EIS was placed on the BLM's website. The Vernal FO 

received approximately 360 letters, emails and faxes on the DRMP/FEIS. 

On December 13, 2005, the BLM published in the Federal Register a Notice of Availability of 

the Draft RMP/EIS to list proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and specific 

associated resource use limitations for public lands in Daggett, Duchesne, Uintah and Grand 

Counties, UT. They provided a sixty-day comment period on the potential ACECs. The comment 

period ended February 11, 2006. The Vernal FO received approximately 2094 letters, emails and 

faxes on the ACEC NOA. 

On May 24, 2007 the BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft 

RMP/EIS. Supplement to the DRMP/DEIS presents an analysis of the effects of managing nonWilderness Study Area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics in a protective manner. On 

October 5, 2007 the BLM and EPA published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register; 

for the Supplement to the DRMP/DEIS the date marked the beginning of the formal 90-day 

public review comment period. The comment period ended on January 3, 2008. The Vernal FO 

received approximately 191 letters, emails and faxes on the SEIS. 

5.4.3. 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 by the Vernal Field Office 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 postcards and updates throughout the 

planning process. Postcards were mailed to the entire list, announcing the availability of the 

Draft RMP/EIS, Supplemental DRMP/EIS, and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. There are 

currently over 1,400 individuals, organizations, and agencies included on the mailing list. 

5.4.4. WEBSITE

Information regarding the Vernal land-use plan was made available to the public on a website 

found at http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vernal/planning.html/. The website serves as a virtual 

repository for documents related to development of the Vernal 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 pdf format 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 DRMP/EIS, the website served as one of the ways in which the public 

could submit comments. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-66 

5.4.5. PUBLIC MEETINGS

During the 90-day public comment period, the BLM held public meetings in five cities in two 

states in an effort to inform the interested and affected public about the DRMP/EIS. Table 5.8 

lists the open house locations and dates. 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 visual 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. 

Table 5.8. DRMP/EIS Open House Locations and Dates 

 Location Date 

Vernal, Utah February 8, 2005 

Duchesne, Utah February 9, 2005 

Manila, Utah February 10, 2005 

Grand Junction, Colorado February 22, 2005 

Salt Lake City, Utah February 25, 2005 

Public meetings were not held on the release of the ACEC NOA or Supplemental DRMP/EIS. 

5.5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE VERNAL DRMP/EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL 

DRMP/EIS 

5.5.1. PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

According to NEPA, the BLM is required to identify and formally respond to all substantive 

public comments. 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 system follows. 

First, BLM developed a coding structure to help sort comments into logical groups by topics 

and issues. Codes were derived from resources covered in the DEIS or by common issues. 

Submissions (letters, emails, faxes, etc) were given a unique identifier for tracking purposes and 

then each submission was carefully reviewed to capture all comments, if substantive (more 

description of this process is set forth below). All comments received can be tracked to the 

original submission. 

Second, BLM created a Comment Database. For each comment in a unique submission, BLM 

captured the name and address of the commenter, assigned a code to the comment, and captured 

the text of all substantive 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 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-67 

developed the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final EIS (PRMP/FEIS). Factual or 

grammatical errors which led to a change in text are not summarized but were incorporated into 

the PRMP/FIES. 

Finally, 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 because such comments are not substantive in nature, BLM did not respond to them. 

5.5.2. COMMENT ANALYSIS

During the 90-day formal DRMP/EIS public comment period, the Vernal Field Office received 

approximately 360 submissions at public meetings, by fax, by email, and by regular mail from 

the public, cooperating agencies, other federal agencies, Indian tribes, organizations, and 

businesses. The BLM carefully compiled, reviewed and analyzed, and addressed all of these 

submissions. 

The 60-day formal comment period for the ACEC Notice of Availability yielded 2094 

submissions. Similar to the DRMP/EIS, the substantive comments were compiled, analyzed, and 

addressed by the BLM. A summary of the comments received and the subsequent responses are 

provided in the attached CD. 

The 90-day formal comment period for the Supplemental DRMP/EIS Availability yielded 191 

submissions. Similar to the DRMP/EIS, the substantive comments were compiled, analyzed and 

addressed by the BLM. A summary of the comments received and the subsequent responses are 

provided in the attached CD. 

In addition to comments received during the formal public comment period, the Vernal Field 

Office received additional submissions after the close of the comment period which BLM 

maintained in its files. 

A summary of the comments received and the subsequent responses is provided in the attached 

CD. In some cases, the BLM has chosen to respond to specific non-substantive comments to 

clarify for the public the rationale behind management actions in the PRMP/FEIS. 

5.5.3. PUBLIC COMMENTS

During the DRMP/EIS public comment period, the Vernal Field Office received approximately 

3,110 substantive comments. The comment period for the ACEC NOA yielded 37 unique 

substantive comments. The comment period for the Supplemental DRMP/EIS yielded 583 

substantive comments. 

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 (See attached CD). The BLM considered every comment in the content 

analysis process, whether it came repeatedly from many people with the same message(s) or 

from a single person raising a technical or personal point. In analyzing comments, the BLM 

emphasized the content of the comment rather than the number of times a comment was 

received. The BLM responded to all substantive comments. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-68 

Respondents invested considerable time and effort to submit comments. Comments covered a 

wide spectrum of thoughts, opinions, ideas, and concerns. The most commonly addressed themes 

included: travel, specials designations (ACECs, W&SRs) and wilderness values, recreation, and 

minerals/energy development. 

While each person's viewpoint was diligently considered, the threshold analysis involved 

determining whether a comment was substantive or non-substantive in nature because NEPA 

requires that BLM respond only to substantive comments, BLM relied on the CEQ's regulations, 

to determine what constituted a substantive comment. 

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 DEIS 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 AO to determine if it 

warrants further consideration. If it does, the AO 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. 

Disagreements with 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 changes in the FEIS. If, after reevaluation, the AO 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 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-69 

unsupported personal preference or opinion. For additional clarification, types of non-substantive 

comments are as follows: 

Expressions of Personal Preferences or Opinion: Comments which 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 AO. 

The BLM has reviewed and considered all non-substantive comments that generally supported or 

opposed certain aspects of the plan, but has not provided formal responses to such comments. 

Although personal preferences and opinions may be considered by the BLM as it chooses the 

final agency's preferred action, they generally will not affect the analysis. 

Other. In addition to the categories of comments from the NEPA Handbook described above, a 

category named "other' was added for this PRMP/FEIS. Requests for copies of the DRMP/EIS, 

requests to be added to the project mailing list, and comments which are outside the scope of the 

project are classified as "other" comments. The comments are considered non-substantive and 

generally do not require further agency action, though BLM responded to such requests for 

copies of the DRMP/EIS by providing such copies wherever possible. 

The results of the content analysis were important to the development of the PRMP/FEIS. From 

the total submissions that BLM received on the DRMP/EIS, it extracted approximately 2,750 

individual substantive comments. As required by law, BLM has summarized these comments in 

this PRMP/FEIS, and has presented them, along with a response, according to the organizational 

outline of the PRMP/FEIS, i.e., by issue or resource topic, in the attached CD. 

Table 5.9. List of Government Agencies and Organizations that Submitted Substantive 

Comments on the DRMP/EIS 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individuals 

G Bureau of Indian Affairs, Uintah and Ouray 

Agency 

Chester D. Mills 

G Bureau of Reclamation 

G Carbon County Steven D. Burge, Michael S. Milovich, 

William D. Krompel 

G Daggett County Chad L. Reed, Craig W. Collett, 

Stewart Leith 

G Daggett County Chad L. Reed, Craig W. Collett, 

Stewart Leith 

G Dept. of Agriculture and Food Leonard Blackham 

G Duchesne County Larry S. Ross, W.R. Harrison, 

Kent R. Peatross 

G Duchesne County Chamber of Commerce, 

Economic Development Office 

Irene Hansen 

G National Park Service, Dinosaur National 

Monument 

Mary Risser 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-70 

Table 5.9. List of Government Agencies and Organizations that Submitted Substantive 

Comments on the DRMP/EIS 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individuals 

G National Park Service, Intermountain 

Region 

Cheryl Eckhardt 

G Regional Council on Workforce Services, 

Uintah Basin 

Mark Raymond 

G School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration 

LaVonne J. Garrison 

G State of Utah John M. Huntsman 

G Town of Rangely Ann Brady 

G U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services, Utah Field Office 

Diana Whittington, Betsy Herrmann 

G UBAOG 

G Uintah County-Vernal City Economic 

Development 

Bill Johnson 

G Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne 

Counties 

G US EPA Region VIII Larry Svoboda 

G USFS—Ashley National Forest Kevin Elliot 

G Utah DEQ – Division of Air Quality 

G Utah State Office of Education Margaret R. Bird 

G Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation 

Maxine Natchees, Lynn Becker 

G Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation 

Lynn Becker 

G Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce Steven R. Wallis 

G Wyoming Natural Gas Pipeline Authority Carla Hubbard 

O American Rivers Quinn McKew 

O Californians for Western Wilderness Michael Painter 

O Center for Native Ecosystems, The 

Wilderness Society and Native Plant 

Society 

Erin Robertson, Suzanne Jones, 

Tony Frates 

O Cliffs Mining Services Company Mark D. Dryer 

O Cripple Cowboy Cow Outfit, Inc. Jon D. Hill 

O Dominion Exploration & Production, Inc. David B. Oshel 

O Duchesne County Water Conservancy 

District 

Randy Crozier 

O Ecology Center of Southern California Anna Harlowe 

O Enduring Resources Alex Campbell 

O EOG Resources, Inc. Kurt D. Doerr 

O Howard County Bird Club Kurt Schwarz 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-71 

Table 5.9. List of Government Agencies and Organizations that Submitted Substantive 

Comments on the DRMP/EIS 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individuals 

O IPAMS Andrew A. Bremner 

O James W. Bunger and Associates, Inc. James W. Bunger 

O Julander Energy Renee C. Taylor 

O Julander Energy Company Fred Julander 

O Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC Carroll Estes 

O Lexco James M. Lekas 

O Maryland Alliance for Greenway 

Improvement and Conservation 

Robert DeGroot 

O National Outdoor Leadership School Jennifer Lamb 

O National Trust for Historic Preservation Michael Smith 

O Newfield Exploration Co. Gary D. Packer 

O Orion Reserves Limited Partnership Frederick A. Larson 

O Outdoor Industry Assoc., National Outdoor 

Leadership School, Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, The Wilderness 

Society, National Resources Defense 

Council, Outward Bound West, Colorado 

Plateau River guides, Living Rivers, 

Wasatch Mountain Club Dinosaur 

Expeditions, Grand Canyon Trust, Utah 

Rivers Council, River Runners Transport, 

Adrift Adventures, Uinta Mountain Club, 

Desolation Canyon Outfitters, Inc., Wild 

Utah Project, Holiday Expeditions 

Myrna Johnson, Jen Lamb, Scott, 

Steve Greene; Johanna Smith; 

Mike Wald; John DeHoff; 

Will Weisheit; Tim McCarvill; 

Bill Mertens; Merritt Fry Hedden; 

Ed Morrison; Robin Tierney; 

Chad Hamblin; Jeff Stag; 

Julia Grumper; Jim Catlin; 

Dee Holladay 

O Outdoor Industry Association Myrna Johnson 

O PacifiCorp Michael G. Jenkins 

O Questar J. Paul Matheny 

O Ranges West 

O Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Liz Thomas, Ray Bloxham 

O The Nature Conservancy, Moab Project 

Office 

Joel S. Tuhy, Dave Livermore 

O The Piney Valley Ranches Trust Dennis A. Winn 

O Trout Unlimited Corey Fisher 

O Uintah County Farm Bureau Federation Gawain Snow 

O Uintah Mountain Club Chad Hamblin, Lorna Condon, 

Scott Harthsorn, Gary Mott 

O Utah Environmental Congress Kevin Mueller 

O Utah Farm Bureau Federation Randy N. Parker 

O Utah Petroleum Association Lee J. Peacock 

O Utah Professional Paleontology Council c/o Sue Ann Bilbey 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-72 

Table 5.9. List of Government Agencies and Organizations that Submitted Substantive 

Comments on the DRMP/EIS 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individuals 

Utah Geological Survey 

O Utah Rivers Council Merritt Frey 

O Utah Wildlife Federation William R. Burbridge 

O Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership Constance E. Brooks 

O Western Gas Resources, Inc. Krista Mutch 

O Westport Oil and Gas Co. Raleen Weddle 

O Westport Oil and Gas Company, L.P. Carroll Estes 

O Wilderness Society, Wild Utah Project, 

Center for Native Ecosystems 

Suzanne Jones 

Note: G=Government, O=Organization 

Table 5.10. List of Businesses, Government Agencies, and Organizations that Submitted 

Substantive Comments on the ACEC NOA 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individuals 

B IPAMS Andrew Bremner 

G Uintah County Commission Michael McKee 

O The Wilderness Society Nada Culver 

O Center for Native Ecosystems Erin Robertson 

Note: B=Business, G=Government, I=Individual, O=Organization 

Table 5.11. List of Businesses, Government Agencies, and Organizations that Submitted 

Substantive Comments on the Supplemental DRMP/EIS 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individuals 

B Anadarko Brooke Bell 

B Bjork Lindley Little PC Kathleen Schroder 

B C.E. Brooks & Associates, P.C. Constance E. Brooks 

B EOG Resources, Inc. Bret A. Sumner, 

Bonnie Carson 

B FIML Natural Resources, LLC Mark D. Bingham, 

Carol Millenger 

B Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. Bret A. Sumner 

B Independent Petroleum Association of 

Mountain Stat 

Kathleen M. Sgamma 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-73 

Table 5.11. List of Businesses, Government Agencies, and Organizations that Submitted 

Substantive Comments on the Supplemental DRMP/EIS 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individuals 

B Moon Ranch, LLC Gordon L. Moon, 

Lamont W. Moon 

B Questar J. Paul Matheny 

B Utah Farm Bureau Federation Randy Parker 

G C.E. Brooks & Associates, P.C. Amelia Pergl 

G Daggett County Stewart Leith 

G Duchesne County Commission Mike Hyde 

G State of Utah John Harja 

G Sweetwater Country Conservation District Mary Thoman 

G Uintah County 

G United States Department of the Interior 

G United States Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Larry Svoboda 

G Utah State Office of Education, School Land 

Trust 

Larry Shumway 

G Ute Tribe- Energy & Minerals Department Mike James 

O Steven Manning 

O BCS Project David Sucec 

O Capital Trail Vehicle Association (CTVA) Don Gordon, 

Mike Hall 

O Coalition to Preserve Rock Art Jon Gum 

O Comcast John Carter 

O Howard County Bird Club Kurt R. Schwarz 

O National Outdoor Leadership School Aaron Bannon 

O National Wildlife Federation Kathleen C. Zimmerman 

O Public Lands Advocacy Claire M. Moseley 

O The Nature Conservancy Chris Montague 

O The Wilderness Society Nada Culver 

O Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 

Partnership 

Joel Webster 

O Uinta Mountain Club Tom Elder, Diane Ackerman 

O Utah Archeological Research Institute, Inc. Steven Manning 

O Utah Rock Art Research Association Troy Scotter 

O Wild Horse Observers Association Patience O'Dowd 

Note: B=Business, G=Government, O=Organization 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-74 

5.5.4. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

During the three public comment periods for the DRMP/EIS, comments were received from 

government agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals. 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 DRMP/EIS. 

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. 

There was a lot of critique on a specific alternative to which the BLM responded that the CEQ 

requires a reasonable range of alternatives. The BLM chose its final PRMP/FEIS management 

actions from this range of alternatives, not choosing one alternative as a whole. 

There were also many requests by Commenters for clarification, correction, or what the support 

for a resource decision or impact was. BLM responded by referencing where this was located in 

the document, and if necessary, made clarifications or revisions within the document. 

The interest of the public in the management of BLM lands in the Vernal planning area was 

manifest in the number and complexity of the submissions received. 

5.5.4.1. DEIS/RMP COMMENT PERIOD

The greatest number of comments on the DEIS/RMP concerned livestock grazing, wildlife and 

fisheries, special designations, minerals and energy, air quality, socioeconomic resources, and 

special status species: 

Livestock grazing comments included that the RMP/EIS was in violation of the Taylor Grazing 

Act, PRIA, FLPMA, Utah Rangeland Health Standards, County plans, and multiple use 

mandates. The BLM responded that they were in compliance with all of the federal requirements 

and during the planning process had worked with the counties. Comments questioned how and 

under what circumstances the AUMs would be decreased or increased. The BLM responded that 

an increase or decrease would only be done based on the health and quantity of forage. There 

were many comments on resource's impacts on grazing and grazing's impacts on resources. The 

BLM replied by referencing the section that this was addressed in within the PRMP/FEIS. 

Wildlife and fisheries comments included questions about the inclusion of current plans in the 

document, such as county, UDWR, and USFWS. The BLM stated that it had considered all of 

these plans, parts were incorporated into the final document, and there would be a continued 

cooperation with these groups for future management. There was a concern about the 

reintroduction of species into the planning area. The BLM responded that these would only be 

done with a site-specific NEPA and in coordination with UDWR. 

Special designation comments included many concerns regarding protection or restriction of 

designating lands with wilderness characteristics. BLM responded by stating their authority for 

managing these lands comes from FLPMA Section 202 and BLM'S Land-use planning 

Handbook. There were also a considerable amount of comments about rivers and segments that 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-75 

should or should not be included in the proposed PRMP/FEIS for Wild and Scenic designation. 

BLM replied by stating if it had been carried forward or not, referenced Appendix C where the 

process of suitability is documented, and explained that it was in conformance with both BLM 

and NEPA standards. Many Commenters questioned the ACEC designations and where the 

documentation for these decisions was. BLM responded that they followed the BLM Manual 

process, which is shown in Chapter 4 and Appendix G and the rationale for individual ACECs 

would be provided in the Record of Decision. 

Minerals and energy comments included that the RMP/EIS was not complying with the Energy 

and Policy Conservation Act to reduce impediments to energy development. The BLM 

responded that this had been discussed in the document and they believed that the mandate was 

met. There were many comments on resource's impacts on minerals and energy and mineral's 

and energy's impacts on resources. The BLM replied by referencing the section that this was 

addressed in within the PRMP/FEIS. 

Air quality comments included the request for maximum emissions and cumulative impact 

analysis and questioning the analysis that was done. The BLM responded by explaining that 

NEPA no longer requires a worst case scenario. References were given to the sections and 

appendices that further illustrate the analysis done on the planning area. If there was something 

missing from the document, it was added to the PRMP/FEIS. 

Socioeconomic comments included mostly concerns about aspects of the analysis, such as 

agriculture, tourism, oil, gas and mining, and local economies, being overstated, understated, or 

not incorporated at all. The BLM responded in many cases by revising or rewriting the section 

and adding new or updated information referenced by the commenter. 

Special status species comments included comments concerned about how the Special Status 

Species stipulations and restrictions would impact oil, gas, and mining. The BLM responded 

with an explanation of the management in the RMP/EIS and that there would also be sitespecific studies and exceptions reviewed when oil, gas, and mining developments were 

proposed. Commenters also inquired about management, impacts, and protection of specific 

Special Status Species. The BLM responded by referencing where this was located in the 

document, and if necessary, made clarifications or revisions within the document. 

5.5.4.2. ACEC COMMENT PERIOD 

All comments in this comment period were addressing ACEC designations. Some Commenters 

stated that BLM was not adequately protecting ACECs. The BLM responded that there had been 

35 nominations, 14 of which were found to meet the relevance and importance criteria, and were 

analyzed in the RMP/EIS. The BLM Manual 1613 provided the guidelines for this analysis 

which can be found in Chapter 4. Comments also questioned where the evaluation of the ACECs 

was in the document. The BLM referenced Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS and the Record of 

Decision, where the rationale for the final decision to designate or not designate an ACEC can be 

found. 

The overlapping of and difference between WSAs and ACECs was brought up by commenters 

for clarification. The BLM explained the difference between the two designations and that they 

were required to consider both policies for eligible lands. Furthermore, they could not designate 

WSAs as they do not have authority in the land-use planning process. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-76 

Commenters asked why the existing ACECs were carried forward without any communication to 

the public. The BLM answered that this is not required and that there was no change of 

circumstance with any of the existing ACECs. 

Specific ACECs were discussed in comments as lacking protection because they were not carried 

forward as potential ACECs in the DRMP/EIS as well as lacking analysis of threats and impacts 

in the document. The BLM stated that protective measures of the specific ACECs and analysis of 

threats and impacts were added in Chapter 4. 

5.5.4.3. SUPPLEMENT TO THE DEIS/RMP COMMENT PERIOD

The greatest number of comments on the DEIS/RMP concerned wilderness characteristics, 

grazing, cultural resources, process and procedure, and socioeconomics, in that order: 

Wilderness characteristics comments primarily included concerns about how the non-WSA lands 

were determined, what right BLM had to do this, and what authority they had to manage these 

areas. The BLM responded that FLPMA Section 201 gives BLM the authority to inventory for 

wilderness characteristics. Section 302 of FLPMA gives BLM general management authority for 

the public lands. Section 202 of FLPMA gives BLM the authority for planning how the public 

lands are to be managed. Commenters also critiqued BLM's overlapping of ACECs. The BLM 

replied that layering is a planning tool required by FLPMA. 

Grazing comments included concerns about the impacts of grazing on riparian areas. The BLM 

stated that Utah Rangeland Health Standards were met under all alternatives. Commenters 

questioned the grazing rights under Alternative E. The BLM responded that it did allow grazing 

as the BLM Policy for Wilderness Review includes grazing. Retirement of allocations was 

brought up by Commenters. The BLM explained that these would be handled on a case by case 

basis, how this process would proceed, and the retirements would not be permanent. 

Cultural resource comments focused mainly on the analysis of risk to cultural resources within 

the planning area by OHV use, vandalism, and impacts of other resources. The BLM described 

that they had integrated the protection of resource values such as cultural resources with its 

responsibilities for land-use planning and resource management under FLPMA and IM-2007-030 

to ensure that the affects of any activity or undertaking is taken into account. Any potential 

surface-disturbing activities based on future proposals will require compliance with Section 106 

and site-specific NEPA documentation. 

Process and procedure comments included requesting for justification of BLM's obligation to 

protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The BLM responded that FLPMA 

Section 201 gives BLM the authority to inventory for wilderness characteristics. Section 302 of 

FLPMA gives BLM general management authority for the public lands. Section 202 of FLPMA 

gives BLM the authority for planning how the public lands are to be managed. The BLM also 

stated that although there were state laws in place and BLM had worked to comply, they are 

bound by the federal laws. Commenters were concerned about the negative impacts Alternative 

E would have on existing rights for oil and gas. The BLM clarified that all valid, existing rights 

would hold and that Alternative E was not the preferred alternative, but one of a range 

alternatives. 

Socioeconomic comments mostly included concerns about the analysis of the impacts of the 

other resources on socioeconomics. From these many comments, the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-77 

has an expanded discussion of the economic impacts of mineral decisions, socioeconomic 

benefits from protecting lands with wilderness characteristics, oil and gas development, and 

environmental justice. 

5.5.5. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

The following tables present a subset of the comments received by the Vernal BLM during the 

comment period. The first set of tables (Tables 5.12a through 5.12f) provides all the comments 

submitted by the three Cooperating Agencies – the State of Utah, Ute Indian Tribe, Duchesne 

County, Uintah County, and Daggett County. The three counties submitted some letters 

collaboratively. The comments from these letters can be found in table 5.12f. The tables are 

organized by which draft being commented on, commenter, comment number, the resource 

category being addressed, the comment, the BLM's response, and if it resulted in a change in 

document. The second set of tables (Tables 5.13a through 5.14dd) provides 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. 

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 or Organization, Resource, Comment, 

Response. The first table is sorted and grouped by Commenter Name or Organization and the 

second table is sorted and grouped by resource. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ1 Table 3.2.5 Sensitive Areas to Be Considered in the 

Analysis: Brown's Park NWR and Ouray NWR are managed by the USFWS not the NPS. 

Table 3.2.5 of the 2004 Air Report revised to clarify that the Brown's Park the Ouray NWR are managed by thand not the NPS, and is now Table 3.2

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ2 The Uinta Basin is not within the air shed for which 

monitoring data is available in your document. Use of data from the Wasatch Front, an area which often has exceedances from local sources, is inappropriate. 

BLM defers the selection of backgquality monitoring data to the Utah DEQ

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ3 Additionally, the data used does not reflect the 

recent increase in oil and gas development emissions and associated increase in traffic-related emissions and fugitive dust. Baseline data from a Uintah Basin sources is required to accurately model the effects. 

See comment response AQ2. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ4 Also at question is the wind direction which may vary 

depending upon area of the Vernal Planning Area (VPA). 

It is not clear what the commenter is Predictive Meteorological Model (MMwell as numerous surface, upper precipitation data stations were usanalysis. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ5 Additional emission sources that were not mentioned 

include operations at oil wells such as the incidental flaring of produced gas, oil and gas production equipment, the Bonanza Power Plant and residential uses during the winter when inversions occur. 

Flaring, completion, and drilling emissincluded in the analysis. The BonanPlant was assumed to be represbackground air quality monitoriResidential sources are assumed represented in the back-ground monito

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ6 The Goal of an Implementation Plan is listed, but 

receives no further mention. 

Commenter does not provide enough ito respond to. The implementation pcompleted after the Record of Decisplan is issued. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ7 Cumulative effects should be quantitative and 

include past and existing emissions and particulate sources. To make projections, data on emissions is available from industry sources. 

A cumulative air quality analysis was Please see Chapter 4 of the DEIS and of the Air Quality TSD. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ63 The State of Utah is concerned that emissions 

generated by the drilling and processing of oil and gas wells in the Uinta Basin were not given more consideration. 

The impact of oil and gas operations wfocus of the air quality assessment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ64 The Vernal draft RMP and EIS does not address the 

cumulative impacts of the sources of air pollution throughout the area. One oil or gas well analyzed by itself might have a negligible effect on the surrounding air quality, but hundreds or thousands of wells in the area, collectively, will have a large impact. With approximately 6300 new wells anticipated during the RMP time frame, these emissions should be considered cumulatively. 

As required by CEQ regulations, a analysis was performed, which consideration the effects of past, prreasonable foreseeable actions, includgas development. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ65 Recent data regarding emission factors from wells in 

adjoining state indicate that average gas wells produce over one (1) Ton per year of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) per barrel per day (BPD). Associated equipment (dehydrators, heaters, 

etc.) produce over 10 Tons per year VOC per million cubic feet per day (MMCFD) and approximately one Ton per year of NOx per well per year. Oil wells produce on the average of 100-200 pounds of VOC per year per BPD. The draft RMP and EIS air quality analysis does not include any information regarding the impact of the proposed alternatives on ozone. VOC and NOx have been found to be precursors to the formation of 

EPA Region VIII, in their comments on Plateau RMP DEIS, said: "Running a regulatory ozone modeRPM-IV for purposes of the DEIS is iand we understand that BLM's nation& Technology Center may be reestimate potential ozone impacts conservative method such as VOCsource screening tables." This topic will be discussed further imeeting with the State of Utah and DEQ. Given the above, it is not cle
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

ozone. Ozone is a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and must be addressed in this analysis. 

possible ozone analysis would be dtopic will be discussed at a forthcominwith the State of Utah. See comment response AQ54. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ66 The 1990 Clean Air Act requires all states to write 

State Implementation Plans that address regional haze. The thousands of tons of pollution generated by projects proposed in this RMP could easily impact visibility in Class I areas in Utah and neighboring states. The RMP must address the effects of VOC and NOx emissions on regional haze. 

NOx emissions were included in the anpotential visibility impacts were estimcomment response AQ65 regarding ozone. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ67 The state requests a cooperating agency working 

group be assembled to work through these issues before the Final EIS is completed. 

BLM had an initial meeting with the Stato hear their concerns on the air quality the RMP DEIS on June 24, 2005. expressed a desire for further mediscuss some issues in more detmeetings were held in May and Junpart of the Four Corners Task Force. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

CR20 The State of Utah is concerned by the open-ended 

nature of the comment on page 2-7 which states that the BLM, as part of its normal management of cultural resources, will "reduce or eliminate imminent threats from natural or human-caused deterioration or conflict with other resources." What imminent threats? How will conflicts with the unstated threats be resolved? How cost-effective is it to reduce or eliminate natural deterioration? Most importantly, how will the balance between cultural resources protection and other legitimate resource uses be achieved, and how does this balancing process differ from the normal Section 106 consultation process 

The statement on page 2-7 of the Drefers to the BLM's ongoing policy resource stewardship and adherencmandates of federal legislation such alimited to, the National Historic PreserWhile Section 106 of the Act requires tconsider the avoidance, minimizmitigation of impacts to National Regisresources, Section 110 requires the Bactively manage for preservation such as known to exist, under their jurisdimanagement requires addressing threato the resources that compromise the
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

involving the State Historic Preservation Office? The state asks the BLM to consider the language recently added to the state historic law concerning the need for balance in the protection of cultural resources and to clarify the intent of this proposed management statement. 

for the National Register. These thcome from human-caused disturbnatural processes. The feasibility effectiveness of ameliorating natural dewould be assessed on a case-by-case in consideration of whether or deterioration is altering the characterisresource that render it eligible for thRegister. Note: The text from page 2.7 of the Drnow located in Table 2.1.4 (Cultural Rof the PRMP/FEIS under Managemento All Alternatives. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

CR21 Proposed cultural resources protections listed on 

page 2-43 indicate that oil and gas leasing would be "subject to timing and controlled surface use stipulations or no surface occupancy to protect cultural sites" for various areas within the VFO. No stipulations related to this are discussed in Appendix K. Please, clarify this proposal. How do timing restrictions protect cultural sites? How do these "stipulations" fit in with the Section 106 protection process, which involves the SHPO and discussions at the time of a proposal about mitigation methodologies? We are concerned that the BLM is prejudging cultural resource mitigation strategies through the use of unnecessarily restrictive stipulations. 

Appendix K in the PRMP/FEIS has beregarding stipulations for cultural resouTiming restrictions can aid in the prcultural resources from indirect effects such things as increased on-site eroaltered run-off patterns resulted from rucreated during wet weather condincreased site sedimentation from fuaccumulation in dry conditions; howeprotections are expected to be limprimary focus for protection of cultural is not on seasonal restrictions but odisturbance restrictions under the surface use and no surface stipulations. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Under all alternatives, the stipulationand NSO would be applied to leasethere are specific cultural resources been found through the Section 106 be eligible for the National Register Places, and for which the mitignecessary, has been identified as through the Section 106 consensus Protective measures for cultural resopart of standard lease terms applicasurface-disturbing activities. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

CR22 The discussion of the effects of minerals decisions 

on cultural resources (page 4-44) states, "shortdirect effects would entail surface disturbance and even destruction of archaeological sites and features if relevant cultural resource laws and agency guidelines are not followed, or if errors occur during the development process." The next sentence indicates that long-term direct effects include the "physical alteration or elimination of archaeological sites as they are mitigated through data recovery or other on-site means when avoidance of the sites is not possible." These descriptions are muddled and compare apples and oranges. The first sentence states that cultural resources will be affected by a failure to follow the law. Because the provisions of the final RMP are approved under the general assumption that the BLM and others will follow the law, including the Section 106 process, does this sentence mean therefore state that there are no short-term effects from mineral development? The second sentence implies there are unspecified difficulties with data recovery as a mitigation tool. If 

The presumption of the RMP/EIS is thaand BLM authorized undertakings wwith federal legislation, including Sectthe National Historic Preservation therefore, short-term effects on individresources determined eligible for thRegister of Historic Places would be not non-existent. However, the recognizes that occasional errors wherein resources slated for avoidinadvertently impacted or previously uresources, such as those below thsurface, are encountered during consan area that was inspected for surface of cultural materials. It is to these situations that the RMP statemencomment refers. Data recovery is used to mitigate adveto individual cultural resource stherefore, is not considered to be aeffect to the subject site itself. How
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

avoidance of a site is not possible, data recovery and other mitigation processes are employed to eliminate the adverse impact of the planned disturbance. Therefore, the resultant physical alteration or elimination of the site is not a negative effect. The State of Utah believes the discussion of impacts to cultural resources that is currently in the document represents a bias away from the correct implications of Section 106 and cultural resource mitigation. 

recovery that results in the eliminatphysical manifestation of the site doalter in the larger cultural landscape by a component of it. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC26 Some of the information presented in Table S.3 

Alternatives Comparison, page S-4, and is not found in Table 2.3 Alternatives, page 2-57. Table S.3 indicates that the Upper and Lower segments of the Green River are recommended, in all Alternatives, for Wild and Scenic River designation. However, these segments are not identified in Table 2.3. 

The segments have been identified 2.1.19 (Special Designations – Wild aRivers) of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC37 Figure 1 displays land ownership in the VFO. The 

map correctly identifies UDWR managed lands in the Book Cliffs and Diamond Mountain areas. However, the figure does not show UDWR managed lands in Duchesne and Wasatch counties. 

Wasatch County is outside the boundaVernal Field Office. Consequentlymanaged lands for Wasatch Countdepicted in Figure 1. Utah SITLA alands are given the same color kUDWR lands in Duchesne County discernable due to the map scale. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC38 Actions contemplated in the third, fourth, and fifth 

paragraphs are of concern to the State Engineer because of their potential effect on Utah's Colorado River depletion allotment. Under the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, Utah is allotted a depletion of 1,369,000 acre-feet per year from the Colorado River system. The actions contemplated by the BLM would increase the amount of water depleted. These depletions would be charged 

The actions BLM is contemplating are iimprove the watershed. Because the State of Utah has jurisdwater, any action BLM takes that wogetting a water right would be subject tby the State of Utah. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

against Utah's allotment. To promote the most efficient use of Utah's allotment, the BLM should identify and implement actions in which water saving can achieved to balance out their expected depletion increases. Actions such as the eradication of non-native phreatophytes and the removal of unneeded water impoundments should be explored and included in this RMP. 

Actions such as the eradication of species would be activity level planninin conjunction with the goals and contained in the RMP. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC39 All maps should color only the lands managed by 

BLM. It is confusing and misleading for the reader to have large blocks colored as in Fig. 29 - VRM. The map may represent how the BLM recognizes the view shed, but it is not representative of the area over which the BLM has control. 

BLM will work with contractor to cmaps. However, the maps containdocument can be used by individual correspond to larger, more detailed needed. The maps contained in the are intended only to show the brlandscape level decisions that wimplemented through the RMP. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC40 All maps need to have township-range descriptions. 

It is difficult to locate areas without identifiers. 

Township and range information cadded to the maps at the scale usobscuring underlying information. Tcontained in the document can be individual readers to correspond to ladetailed maps as needed. The maps cothe document are intended only to broad scale landscape level decisions be implemented through the RMP. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC41 The shaded relief background used in Fig 1-37 

makes some of the figures difficult to interpret. Figures that depict a multitude of assets, such as Minerals and Energy (Figs. 15-18) are complicated and hard to decipher. A more useful background would be a land ownership background, which includes township and range boundary lines. 

See comment response GC39. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

HZ2 The RMP should address hazardous materials 

issues that may arise due to proposed oil, gas, and mineral development. Management of waste water withdrawn to recover methane resources should also be addressed. No waste waters should be discharged until a UPDES permit is obtained. Such discharges must not exceed 1200 mg/l TDS under current rules. However, salinity in the Colorado river would be much improved if no waters exceeding 300 mg/l TDS were discharged. Such waters should also be managed to prevent thermal loading to surface waters. No waters which exceed 270C, nor which raise the temperature of the receiving water body 40C or more, shall be discharged to a warm water fishery. No waters which exceed 200C nor which raise the temperature of the water body 20C or more shall be discharged to a cold water fishery. 

The discussion of the potential imphazardous materials associated with and energy development can be found 4.5 of the PRMP/FEIS. Language acknowledging the hazardous nature of wastewater resumethane recovery operations has beethe section. As described in Section 3.5, the BLM EPA policy regarding hazardous materincludes wastewater discharge. Any permit requestor would have to requirement of either the State or appropriate, in order to be issued a pproposed language specific to requirements is not necessary arequirements may change in the futurepermit requirements are associated wiUtah requirements, and EPA has primlarge area of the Field Office in this prthe State. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG67 Statements such as "though [range] improvements 

could have adverse impacts if livestock move into areas that have received little grazing in the past" (page 2-100 under Alternative A) are inappropriate and too general to fit the on-the-ground situation. The State of Utah requests that the parties involved in range improvements work toward a real analysis of impacts at the time of range improvement 

The analysis in question is conduprogrammatic (landscape) level. impact analyses are conducted for improvements that have the potentiaresources at the time the improveproposed and their specific location aare known. The statement cited in the is located in Table 2.2.16 (Riparian Res
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

proposals, and that this impact statement in the DEIS be revised. 

the PRMP/FEIS and merely santicipated impacts of the general rangeland improvements on specspecies. More information about thescan be found in Section 4.15.2.4. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG68 Statements about the impacts of various levels of 

grazing in the "Nine Mile Acquired Area" (page 2-105) in relation to scenic values appear to have no basis in fact, and are too general. The impacts are tied to grazing levels described as "elimination," "limited," and "unlimited," and postulate effects of "preserve," "partially preserve," and "diminish" scenic quality. What are these statements based on? Are the effects of grazing being tied to VRM classifications, and if so, where is the supporting analysis? Are the effects of grazing being tied to the BLM's riparian policy, and if so, where is the consideration of the mitigation measures? The State of Utah requests that the BLM improve on this analysis, and discuss real on-the-ground issues in light of the BLM's riparian policy, no on unsupported assumptions. 

Table 2.1.8 (Livestock and Grazing Main the PRMP/FEIS for the Proposed RMhas been revised to read as follows: "Livestock grazing could be allowed in Mile Acquired Area if such use is coshort duration, and would not derecreation and/or riparian values alonand is in accordance with the GrAllotment Management Plan administePrice Field Office" 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG69 Page 2-18 outlines action common to all alternatives 

for livestock and grazing. The UDWR would like to suggest some additional management practices to be included in this section. Permittees using dogs in connection with their grazing operations in black-footed ferret recovery areas should be required to show proof that they have had them vaccinated for distemper. 

See comment response SS73. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG70 Page 2-16 discusses criteria for changing class of 

livestock. The UDWR suggests incorporation of the 

The BLM declines to make the wording changes for a variety o
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

following phrasing: Cattle are preferred within 10 miles of bighorn sheep habitat areas. 

including but not limited to, the followinThe BLM does not find the suggestenecessary or appropriate. The suggested wording change substantively contribute to or cdiscussion. The commenter did not provide any ratthe suggested change is necessary ocurrent data and analysis is incorrect. The suggested change expressed opinions or preferences. The suggested change had little relevaadequacy or accuracy of the RMP/FEIS

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG71 Livestock grazing seasons of use alternatives are 

discussed on page 2-48. The UDWR generally supports the seasons of use as outlined in Alternative A. However, we urge the BLM to consider converting critical/crucial deer winter range areas to the area 4 grazing system, May 1 to June 1. Periodic spring grazing in sagebrush areas can promote browse growth and limits competition with wintering big game animals. 

The BLM declines to make the wording changes for a variety oincluding but not limited to, the followinThe BLM does not find the suggestenecessary or appropriate. The suggested wording change substantively contribute to or cdiscussion. The commenter did not provide any ratthe suggested change is necessary ocurrent data and analysis is incorrect. The suggested change expressed opinions or preferences. The suggested change had little relevaadequacy or accuracy of the RMP/FEIS 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG71A Under all alternatives, many critical/crucial deer 

winter ranges are categorized as area 6 grazing, which allows for winter use. The UDWR 

Area 6 already provides for a sprintreatment between March 15 – ApriApril 30th, the graminoid species a
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

recommends the season of use be moved to a spring grazing system in these areas. This management scenario is consistent with goals outlined by the Utah Partners for Conservation and Development Group who define habitat restoration as 1) active management (i.e., restoration), and 2) passive management (i.e., changes in grazing programs, etc.). The BLM, as a partner in this group, has the obligation to lead the effort for range restoration through the application of appropriate land use activities. 

critical growth period where the risk of perennial grass species increases, proopportunity for invasive species to increwould defeat the obligation to lead thrange restoration through the appappropriate land use activities. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG72 It is unclear if this is referring to the few allotments 

which are solely on river bottoms or if this refers to any allotment which has a river in it. If this refers to any allotment which has a river within its boundaries, then there is a potential for discontinuing grazing on many allotments with trust lands within them and inhibiting TLA's ability to collect revenue from these lands. 

The Grazing in River Corridors toTable 2.1.8 (Livestock and Management) in the PRMP/FEIS considering discontinuing livestock uscorridors following the voluntary relinqua permit. It does not state that entire would be retired. The BLM only malands under its jurisdiction and does noauthority to make management pertaining to non-Bureau lands. As BLM would not make blanket deciwould apply to TLA lands. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG73 Introducing bison to the area would create 

unnecessary conflict with cattle operations in the area, including damage to fences. These bison would be competing with other ungulates and removing feed from trust lands without compensation to the agency. TLA would not support a bison introduction without compensation either in direct payment or hunting tags if the herd became a huntable unit. 

Bison emigration or reintroduction wouconsidered under those alternatives thait and in cooperation with UDWR. The RMP would follow the Book ClManagement Plan. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG74 Rangelands should be managed to control soil 

erosion to prevent the soil erosion rate from exceeding the tolerable (T) rate as determined through USDA/NRCS. Resources should be managed such that T is not exceeded from rangelands nor from roadways nor roadcuts, nor from riparian areas within rangelands. 

The RMP adopts the Utah RangelaStandards under all alternativesstandards include specific managemrelated to soil erosion. The BLM, by athese Standards, would be managinthese soil erosion goals. See MaCommon to All, Soil and Water Resospecific management prescriptions preventing undue soil erosion. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LR16 The State of Utah requests that language be added 

to the final RMP/EIS that is broad enough to cover likely scenarios for land exchange between the BLM and the Trust Lands Administration (TLA) without having to do plan amendments. 

The BLM declines to make the wording changes for a variety oincluding but not limited to, the followinThe BLM does not find the suggestenecessary or appropriate. The suggested wording change substantively contribute to or cdiscussion. The commenter did not provide any ratthe suggested change is necessary ocurrent data and analysis is incorrect. The suggested change expressed opinions or preferences. The suggested change had little relevaadequacy or accuracy of the RMP/FEIS

Draft RMP/EIS 

LR16A In this regard, the state recommends the BLM 

establish several "classes" of land, such as the following: lands the BLM would never consider available for exchange, such as historic sites or, special land formations; TLA lands the BLM would like to acquire for consolidation of management purposes, such as lands in Wilderness Study Areas or certain special designation areas; areas the BLM 

Table 2.1.7 (Lands and Realty Managthe PRMP/FEIS outlines general catland or situations in which land exchanbe considered under the RMP. There is always the opportunity of thhave a land exchange done legislativ
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

would like to dispose of for various reasons, such as small BLM parcels surrounded by TLA or fee lands; and all other lands, which should be considered available for exchange between these governmental agencies. These various classes should be broadly defined so that, when the time comes to consider an exchange, the initial step involving consideration of the public interest is considered accomplished and no plan amendment is therefore required. 

would not have to adhere to the RMP cit is hoped that BLM would have inpparcels proposed for exchange and acq

Draft RMP/EIS 

LR17 Land exchanges/acquisitions actions common to all 

alternatives (pg 2-16) should include an additional consideration. Lands with critical habitat values for big game and sensitive, threatened, and endangered wildlife species should only be considered for disposal or exchange after wildlife stipulations are worked out among UDWR and the parties to the exchange. 

Table 2.1.7 (Lands and Realty Managthe PRMP/FEIS under the subsectioManagement Actions Common Alternatives, note that lands contaspecies habitat would be retained ownership. Table 2.1.7 also idenexceptions may be considered for ebut the agency BLM would consult wihabitat is the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Servic

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME22 The DEIS/RMP fails to analyze the impacts on oil & 

gas development [of special designations] and comply with EPCA and IMs directing incorporation of EPCA into RMPs. It requires that management restriction be the least restrictive necessary to protect documented and supportable needs. 

The integration of EPCA into the discussed in Section 1.12. EPCA prohibit the use of special designmultiple overlapping prescriptions, buthat these prescriptions are the necessary to maintain sustained yieldbelieves it has met this mandate and identified special designations whdesignations are necessary. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME69 In general, the DRMP and the associated mineral 

report correctly identify the occurrence of the energy and mineral commodities in the VFO planning area, but significantly underrate the oil and gas development potential of the planning area. This 

Section 4.1.2 presents information [RFD] assumptions. Tables 4-1 thshows information about potential deover the life of the plan. Section 4.8.information about mineral's impac
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

failure to properly assess the potential for oil and gas development leads to a skewed analysis of impacts from other activities on these resources of the state. 

alternatives. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME70 Although the RFD appears to have been developed 

using generally accepted technical principles, the forecast for development is conservative to the point of being painfully low based upon the anticipated drilling proposals that have been submitted by industry to date. The RMP is intended to last 15-20 years, allowing only about 300 wells on average per year to be drilled under the maximum RFD under Alternative B. The current rate of filing for drilling permits statewide is running about 25% ahead of 2004, giving a potential of 1,375 permits statewide for 2005. The VFO will continue to be the focus of 80-85% of this activity, bringing a possible total of 1,170 new drilling applications for the VFO in 2005. Given this projection, the maximum RFD of roughly 6,500 wells under Alternative B could be permitted within the next 5.5 years. Further, this does not account for any accelerated industry activity with higher oil and gas prices, or improved and enhanced recovery. 

See comment response ME7. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME71 Oil and gas are not really treated as natural 

resources in this document, instead, the development of oil and gas is viewed as a negative impact to other natural resources. This comes to light in the Socioeconomics section where there is no mention of the costs imposed on oil and gas development as a result of restrictions due to protection of other resources such as visual, recreation, wildlife, etc. All time delays, access restrictions, and mitigation measures cost money – 

See comment response ME65. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

and ultimately could curtail oil and gas development. This reality is not addressed in the document. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME73 The DRMP implies that only those lands that fall 

along the course of known gilsonite veins, as depicted on the minerals and energy maps, would be available for prospecting and leasing even though the preferred alternative allows for prospecting and leasing of gilsonite veins not shown on the DRMP maps. For clarification, the maps should show a larger contiguous block of lands which includes all known gilsonite leasing areas that are open to gilsonite prospecting and leasing and not just the veins which may be visible on the surface. 

See comment response ME25. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME74 There is increasing interest in the development of tar 

sands and oil shale deposits as changing demands and technology are elevating the importance of this resource. Given the potential economic value of these resources and their known presence in the VFO, placing a high priority on these commodities in the final RMP is warranted. 

All decisions related to oil shale and leasing in this PRMP/FEIS are being dthe ongoing PEIS for Oil Shale and Leasing. For more information plSection 1.10.9. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME75 There is considerable renewed interest in reopening 

the White River Mine and the use of existing stockpiles as well as in reopening the tar sands mine and plant near Vernal. Given that these commodities require large acreage for development and given that the extraction technique will create large areas of surface disturbance, it would be prudent to consider how the development of these resources would impact other management prescriptions. While it is likely that development of oil shale resources of the Uinta Basin will take place over many decades, it is important to envision how this development might 

See comment response ME74. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

proceed and ensure that management impediments on this resource are not included in the RMP without proper attention given to the impacts to future development. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME76 The RMP/DEIS should incorporate the information 

gathered during the BLM's 2001 and 2005 calls for information and comments on coal resources in the VFO. The State of Utah will have more comments to provide once this information on coal resources has been incorporated into the document and has been reviewed. 

The Vernal Field Office put out information and comments on coal resoFederal Register notice dated March 8comments were received. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME77 State of Utah plans, as outlined by state law, look for 

certain analysis to be performed by the BLM as part of its analysis of the impacts of the management prescriptions proposed as part of the RMP. For example, Utah Code Section 63-38d-401(8)(m)(D) through (H) require the BLM to consider all restrictions and moratoria on mineral exploration or production to determine whether the restrictions are still necessary, or can be modified or eliminated. BLM is asked to demonstrate that any restrictions proposed are the least restrictive necessary, and is asked to analyze whether any "no-surface occupancy" restrictions effectively sterilize fluid minerals and gases under the area because directional drilling is not feasible from an economic, ecological, or engineering standpoint. The state cannot locate any such analyses in the draft RMP, and would ask the BLM to work with the state to insure that such analyses are conducted prior to the FEIS for the plan. 

See comment response ME22. 

Draft ME80 Please, clarify the analysis for spacing patterns on oil Establishing spacing for oil and gas de
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS and gas development to ensure accurate 

assessment of projected impacts. Table 4.1 on page 4-3 lists disturbance levels, but does not specify the spacing level used in the analysis. Analysis for Section 4.15 and 4.19 assumes a 160-acre spacing pattern for wells. Current leases allow for 40-acre spacing in some fields. Use of the 160-acre spacing level for analysis purposes may lead to an underestimation of the impacts to wildlife from disturbances and habitat fragmentation, which would occur in areas under a more intense spacing order. Allowable spacing under all alternatives should be identified, and analyses must be consistent with the actual and proposed spacing patterns. 

is beyond the scope of the RMP since reflective of reservoir parameteestablishes spacing for Federal and Imineral estate utilizing the processes oof Utah Board of Oil, Gas, and Mining to requests submitted by industry. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME81 The stipulation regarding no surface-disturbing 

activities on crucial elk calving and deer fawning habitat from May 15-June 30 cannot be found in the management common to all section or in Appendix K. Please, clarify that this timing restriction be will be implemented in all alternatives and list it in Section 

2.4.18.2.8 

Table 2.1.26 (Wildlife and Fisheries Rin the PRMP/FEIS) under the subsectHabitat Protection states: "In order to protect crucial elk calving fawning habitat, exploration, drilling, development activity would not be allMay 15 through June 30. Mainteproducing wells would be allowed." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME83 If the concern with wells is the total amount of 

surface disturbance allowed, has the BLM considered using well pads rather than the term "wells" to allow for possible additional drilling of multiple wells from the same pad, if it is economically feasible to do so. 

See comment responses ME47, ME8and ME174. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR18 The BLM is required by FLPMA, Section 202(c)() (9), 

BLM regulation 43 CFR § 1601.0-5(c), and Utah Code Section 63-38d-401, et. esq., to consider the 

See comment response PR3. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

planning efforts of local and state governments and make its planning documents consistent with them. The RMP is inconsistent with state and local plans in many instances, which we comment upon as resource-specific issues. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR19 The State of Utah requests that the policies and 

plans indicated by Utah Code Section 63-38d-401, et. esq., be shown in the listing of other plans to which the RMP has a relationship. 

The addition has been made as sugges

Draft RMP/EIS 

RE17 The UDWR proposes adding an additional recreation 

management action to the RMP. We encourage the BLM to ensure all developed recreation sites have bear-proof garbage containers and signs warning of the dangers of feeding bears. 

The BLM declines to implement the The BLM may install bear-proof containers in the future based on sievaluations. The BLM also will coeducation program as stated in Ta(Recreation Resource) in the PRMP/FE

Draft RMP/EIS 

RE19 The alternatives clearly list surface acres that will be 

designated as closed, open, or limited with regards to OHV travel. In each alternative, a given number of miles of routes in the "Limited" category is also listed. This is extremely misleading. According to BLM staff, travel planning has yet to be done, and is scheduled for sometime in the next two years. The Draft gives the impression to the OHV user that all the miles noted on the map are designated for OHV use when that is not the case. 

As stated in Table 2.1.15 (RecreatiMaintenance and Development), the Bmake future OHV route adjustments designated as Open and/or Limited access needs, recreational opportunnatural resource constraints. For puanalysis, County travel plan maps weidentify existing roads and trails. See comment response RE20. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

RE20 Designated "Open" areas have little if any logical 

basis. The areas appear to have been randomly selected, and are not bounded by any geophysical feature that would allow an OHV user to readily identify whether or not he/she is indeed within the Open area. The Division would suggest that BLM 

BLM Land-use planning Handbook, Appendix C authorizes managemendelineating a travel management netwon this authorization, the travel managewill be completed within five years of tof the ROD for the Final EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

expand the open areas to the edges of predetermined boundaries. Those boundaries could be natural features (i.e., streams, ledges, washes, etc) or man made (roads, canals, etc). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

RW18 The riparian strategies developed under alternative A 

are supported by UDWR (page 2-53). Healthy riparian systems are a limited habitat type in the VFO and support a great diversity of wildlife populations. These strategies will benefit sensitive species such as Colorado River cutthroat trout. The RMP should further define how often monitoring will occur. Monitoring is critical for these management strategies to be successful. 

See comment response RW8. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD56 The discussions concerning potential 

recommendations for addition to the Wild and Scenic River System in the draft RMP and EIS are confusing, contradictory and incomplete, and do not meet the requirements of federal or state law or BLM policy and direction. The counties believe it is imperative that the BLM properly disclose the reasons and rationale for determinations of eligibility and suitability for proposed additions to the NWSRS, and to fully meet the requirements of state and federal law in doing so. 

Appendix C of the EIS has been include additional information regaBLM's eligibility and suitability anadeterminations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD57 The counties are concerned that the designation of 

stream segments as "Wild & Scenic" could jeopardize the ability of local communities, industry, farmers, Indian tribes, and other water users to appropriate and develop water and to get change applications approved in order to meet their future water needs. Fundamentally, the counties are concerned that Wild & Scenic River designations 

See Response to Comment SD19-G-22
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

would: 1. limit the ability of communities to develop water needed for future growth 2. limit additional industrial growth including oil shale development 3. limit additional agricultural growth 4. affect water right settlements with the Northern Ute Tribe 5. affect completion of the Central Utah Project 6. affect operation of Flaming Gorge Reservoir 7. reduce funding to the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, or affect agreements already in place for the Endangered Fishes Recovery Program 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD59 State plans, as outlined by State law (U.C. §63-38d401(8)(a) through (b)), expand upon the 

requirements of the WSR Act by delineating the necessary analysis which must be conducted on river segments considered for possible inclusion in the NWSRS. These state requirements are not in opposition to the federal requirements, but are designed to fully flesh out studies that the federal agencies should perform, in order to assure that the full and complete nature of the proposal is made public. State law expands upon the requirements for study by requiring that river segments proposed for inclusion in the NWSRS contain water at all times, that the river segment contain an outstandingly remarkable value which is significant within a physiographic regional context, that the rationale and justification for the determination of the outstanding value is fully disclosed, all segments considered 

The State of Utah has worked as a CAgency throughout this planning procebeen intimately involved with the BLMscenic river planning process. The assisted Field Office specialists to help eligibility findings for each of the river and has provided social and economic and advice as the BLM determined whsegments to carry forward as suitabProposed RMP. BLM has committed cooperatively among Federal, State, governments and communities during planning wild and scenic river study pstatewide recommendations for inclussegments into the National Wild aRivers System would go forward to Prior to this post-planning phase, Bwork with affected partners to help 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

eligible are evaluated for suitability of designation, a "suitable" or "not suitable" decision is made for each segment, and that studies of the effects of designation on uses within the river corridor, and upstream and downstream from the corridor are analyzed and disclosed. 

stream flows necessary to prooutstandingly remarkable values for subject river segments were found sthis planning process. Thus, because no effects of this planning decision existing rights, and because suitability this planning process do not create rights for the BLM, the land-use planninscenic river suitability determinations by BLM to be consistent with the Utah 4-401. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD60 State law requires the BLM to fully disclaim any 

rights to water in the segments recommended for inclusion in the NWSRS as a result of adoption of the final Resource Management Plan. (U.C. §63-38d401(8)(a)(viii)c)). Although there is language on page 4-210 which discusses in-stream flows, this language does not address this State statutory requirement directly. Additionally, the paragraph at the top of page 2-28 which states that the BLM will develop additional and maintain existing water rights" is unsupported. We suggest that the BLM provide more detail and specifics for this statement, and more affirmative language clearly disclaiming any water rights. 

See Response to Comment SD19-G-22

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD61 We have concerns regarding the language at page 

4-210 which passively mentions the Colorado River Compact. Under the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, Utah is allotted a depletion of 1,369,000 acre-feet per year from the Colorado River system. Obviously, the Compact is of major significance to the state and any actions that may affect the compact are of concern. Utah Code §63-

Section 13(e) of the Wild and Scenic says: "Nothing contained in this Act shall be to alter, amend, repeal, interpret, modiconflict with any interstate compact maStates which contain any portion of th
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

38d-401(8)(a)(x)(A)and(B) require clear demonstration that including rivers in the NWSRS and terms and conditions for managing such rivers will not impair or otherwise interfere with interstate compacts. 

wild and scenic rivers system." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD62 We are concerned that the BLM is not stating, in a 

full and complete manner, the authority for protection of river segments while studies pursuant to Section 5(d) of the Act are underway and protection until Congress may act upon any recommendations made in planning documents pursuant to BLM planning authority. 

See Response to Comment SD19-G-22

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD63 The draft RMP indicates on page 2-29 that "new river 

segments found suitable" would be managed in accordance with the "Wild and Scenic River Act to prevent non-impairment of outstandingly remarkable values." We do not find the term "non-impairment" in either the Act or BLM policy direction. The Wild and Scenic Rivers guidelines of federal agencies indicate that Section 10(a) of the Act is interpreted to provide for a "nondegradation and enhancement policy for all designated river areas." However, this provision does not apply to rivers found suitable for recommendation during planning processes. The counties are concerned the statement of management found on page 2-29 is too simplistic, doesn't meet the intent of the statements found on page 3-84 or page 4-210, and fails to give the stakeholders or the public sufficient notice of criteria or process the BLM intends to employ as part of the proposed management for the river segments determined to be suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. We request that the BLM revise the 

Actions Common to all for Wild aRivers have been moved to Table 2.1.1Designations – Wild and Scenic RivePRMP/FEIS. The Actions Common tbeen revised to more clearly define intends to manage segments determinas a result of this planning process. Tphrasing should be "prevent impairmeof "prevent non-impairment." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

document to address these concerns. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD65 The discussion of Upper and Lower segments of the 

Green River in the draft RMP is incomplete. BLM assumes that the rationale, findings and protective management identified in the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs RMPs, completed in the 1980's still applies. Numerous significant recreation related facilities (i.e. campgrounds, picnic areas, boat ramps, vehicle parking), and other types of development, are now present along the Green River corridor, particularly the Upper segment. Much of this development has occurred since the Diamond Mountain RMP was completed and the ROD was signed. This development may affect not only the determination of suitability for these segments, but the current classification of "scenic" for the segment as well. The counties oppose simply carrying over the Upper and Lower segments of the Green River as recommended additions to the NWSRS from the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs RMPs. The counties believes that the BLM must consider all new information which has developed since the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs RMPs were finalized, to determine whether the segment still qualifies and should still be recommended, and to meet the requirements of the State law. 

The Upper and Lower Green River were identified as suitable for designaNational Wild and Scenic River SystDiamond Mountain RMP/EIS and carried forward in the Proposed RMP/FAppendix C of the PRMP/FEIS details undertaken in the eligibility review including the identification of ouremarkable values as well as the Considerations by eligible river segmBLM complied with all applicable Fedregulations, and policies in the Wild aRivers Study Process. Manual 8351, Wild and Scenic RiveProgram Direction for Identification, Eand Management, states: "In general, a wide range of agricultmanagement, silvicultural, and other pstructures could be compatible with svalues..." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD66 Table 5 includes "[m]anageability of the river if 

designated, and other means of protecting values" as a "Suitability Consideration." However, in the "Consideration Applied" column which is supposed to provide the information about manageability, the 

Appendix C of the EIS has been include additional information regaBLM's eligibility and suitability anadeterminations. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

document simply states "[m]anageability ... and other means of protecting values would be extrapolated from the impact analysis for the Vernal RMP/EIS." This analysis goes nowhere as an explanation, and is inadequate to meet the requirements of Federal law and BLM Manual 8351, and further, is not supported by the impact analysis information presented on pages 4-210 through 4-215. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD67 The draft RMP provides only cursory 

acknowledgment of the White River Dam project and fails to adequately represent its significance, and characterizes the impacts of an eligibility or suitability determination, and associated "protective management" on the proposed project in a contradictory manner. Statements found on pages 4-

212 and 4-213 illustrate the cursory analysis, as follows: "...a suitable decision for Segment 1 of the 

White River would be incompatible with the continuation of an existing permit for a dam site" and t]he suitability decision for Segment 1 of the White River would result in the discontinuance of the existing permit for the dam site." The White River is also described as part of Alternative D, on page 2-57, as follows: "[u]nder this alternative, suitability findings would not be made and eligibility would continue with BLM applying protective management to the free flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification of the river." The discussion of Alternative D on page 4-214, reaffirms that Segment 1 of the White River "would remain eligible." However, in a contradictory manner, the discussion also states, "Segment 1 has been identified for a potential dam site." Subsequently, the 

Alternatives B and D (No Action) are range of alternatives. There is an existway for a dam on the White River in sSegment 1 was carried forward fopurposes under the wild and scsituation. Also, see Response to Comment SD8-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

last paragraph on page 4-214 concludes the description of Alternative D, as follows: "Under this alternative, the continued eligibility decision for Segment 1 of the White River would be incompatible with continuance of the existing permit for the dam site. Because this permit would continue under this alternative, the free-flowing nature of Segment 1 would not be maintained and this segment would no longer be eligible as a Wild and Scenic River." Further, Appendix C, Wild and Scenic River Eligibility, Suitability, Classification and Review does not include any information regarding the White River Dam Project. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD69 The discussion of Alternative B on page 4-213 

includes the following statement, "If acquired lands along Nine Mile Creek are grazed, the outstandingly remarkable cultural and scenic values would be more at risk than with Alternatives A and C". Unfortunately, nowhere in the draft RMP and EIS is there other mention of this apparent concern, or other information that would enable the reviewer to grasp its relative significance. We strongly object to this unsupported assertion that grazing threatens the ORVs in the area, especially on lands that may be acquired. Grazing can be managed to protect cultural and riparian values. The BLM needs to carefully explain the potential difficulties of this area, and analyze them in terms of proper mitigation, rather than making unsupported blanket statements such as this. In addition, the discussion of Alternative A at pages 4-211 and 4-212, contains no reference to any "acquired lands along Nine Mile Creek." 

Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS has been correct and clarify the apparent contrad
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD70 As a matter of clarification, the document, at page S3, refers to sections of rivers, ranging from one to six 

rivers, which are recommended for Wild and Scenic River designation. Throughout the remainder of the document, the discussion of wild and scenic rivers refers to segments of rivers, rather than separate individual rivers. The confusion is immediately apparent when the reader looks to Table S.3, as directed by the text on page S-3. Clarity could be achieved by indicating the number of segments associated with the rivers, i.e., "Alternative C ... recommends 9 segments of six rivers." 

Table S.3 of the Executive SummaPRMP/FEIS has been corrected and clarified regarding the number of riversegments. Table S.3 is now called Tab

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD71 The information at page 2-29 does not fully 

characterize proposed interim management of WSRs, because the discussion of management of eligible segments, found at page 3-84, is not presented here. We recommend that information similar to that found at page 3-84 be included at page 2-29. 

Chapter 2 of the PRMP/FEIS has been be consistent with the information Section 3.14.3.2 regarding WSRs. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD72 The information presented in Table 2.3, at page 2-

57, does not include the Upper and Lower segments of the Green River. Additionally, the descriptions of the Alternatives, in Table 2.3, should reflect either a finding of "suitable," or a finding of "non-suitable," as BLM policy directs. (See BLM Manual 8351.33A). 

The Upper and Lower segments of River are discussed in Table 2.1.1Designations – Wild and Scenic RivePRMP/FEIS under the subsection Management Common to All Action Awhere it states: "Continue to manage previously recosegments of the Upper Green and LoRivers to protect their outstandingly rvalues and the tentative classifications time that a designation decision is mad
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Also as stated in Appendix C, determwhether or not each eligible segment will be made in the Record of DecisVernal RMP. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD73 The RMP, at Table 2.3 and elsewhere, must include 

information regarding management of segments found to be "non-suitable," as directed by Manual Section 8351.53B, which states "[f]or river segments determined nonsuitable in the RMP, the river shall be managed in accordance with the management objectives as outlined in the RMP." 

The management objectives for the outlined in Chapter 2 Management CAll. All segments would be managriparian objectives. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD74 Table 2.5 Summary of Impacts, at page 2-99, does 

not adequately characterize the impacts associated with wild and scenic river recommendations. The counties suggest that the impacts be more fully described. 

The impacts of special designationswild and scenic rivers, on each resourcare discussed in Chapter 4. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD78 Page 4-143 discusses the possibility of closing some 

SRMA areas to mineral leasing and establishing nosurface occupancy zones in others. It states that closing SRMAs to mineral leasing would have direct, long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources by preserving natural, undisturbed qualities of these recreation areas. Does closing the areas to leasing go beyond SRMA management prescriptions? Page 4-52 states "all SRMAs would be managed according to the philosophy of multiple-use." Can the recreation goals described here be accomplished without no-surface occupancy stipulations? Does this conflict with the policy directives of EPCA and the Presidents National Energy Policy? 

Closures of portions of SRMAs are relaof two factors: WSA lands within SRareas to be managed for primitive opportunities, including associated hvalue. A comparison of Figures 11-14 shown that the vast majority of proposareas are open to leasing under standand controlled surface use, or noccupancy stipulations. The BLM wenact closures or non-standard swhere opening an area to leasing under standard stipulations wincompatible with other resource vmanagement goals for the area. believes the SRMA alternativaccompanying stipulations are cons
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

EPCA and the NEP. Also, see Response to Comment concerning a range of reasonable alter

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD122 As part of the required analysis of the effects of the 

management requirements for other aspects of the proposed RMP on special designations, including ACECs, the DEIS states that the Proposed RMP's ACEC "management focuses on protecting specific, identified relevance and importance values." The statement is incomplete because it fails to focus on the parallel statutorily required analysis concerning effects from authorized multiple-use activities, which may cause irreparable damage to those relevant and important values. The statement should read that the plan's proposed ACEC management provisions will "protect and prevent irreparable damage to specific, identified relevance and importance values." 

See Response to Comment SD50-G-25

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD123 The discussion of ACEC management contains the 

general statement that ACECs would benefit from the "special management attention they would receive if designated." Special management attention is more than a coincidental benefit that flows from designation, it is a fundamental prerequisite to designation. The BLM must make a determination for each potential and proposed ACEC that special management attention is required to protect the identified relevant and important values. From the information in the DRMP, the State of Utah cannot determine the nature of the required special management attention for any of the potential or 

See Response to Comment SD50-G-25
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

proposed ACECs. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD124 The DRMP indicates that the lack of designation of 

some potential ACECs may place the relevant and important values "at some risk of irreparable damage during the life of the plan." This statement is completely backward. BLM must first make a determination that a threat of irreparable damage from some authorized multiple-use activity exists, and is directed toward the identified relevant and important value in order to complete the fundamental requirements for an ACEC. The identification of required threat of irreparable damage cannot be supported from simple hypothetical musings postulating that the lack of the very management structure (ACEC) BLM is trying to justify may result in damage to the resources. 

See Response to Comment SD50-G-25

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD125 The State of Utah cannot find in the DRMP/DEIS any 

analysis for ACECs of the differentiation between special management and standard multiple-use management, the level and type of multiple-use an area can sustain without risk or threat of irreparable damage to relevant and important values, what measures can be taken to protect the relevant and important values without placing restrictions on other resource uses, and whether or not designations other than ACEC will afford the protection determined necessary through the evaluation process. BLM Manual Section 1613.33E allows the BLM to decline to designate an ACEC where standard or routine management practices are sufficient to protect the resource or value from risks or threats of damage/degradation. 

The potential ACECs brought fodesignation into the Proposed RMP through a rigorous and stringent paccordance with FLPMA, the regulations at 43 CFR 1600, Land-usHandbook (H- 1601-1), and in accordBLM Manual 1613 and ACEC PProcedures Guidelines (45 FR 57318)G outlines the process the interdisciplunderwent to determine whether a ACEC had relevance and/or importanThe size of the proposed ACECs is limthe area(s) of geography where the and importance values are manaprotect and prevent irreparable damaProposed RMP, the potential ACECs do not have redundant special de
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

and/or other existing protections applie The potential ACECs carried forwarProposed RMP necessitate an ACEC dbecause special management pronecessary (outside of normal mmanagement) to specifically prorelevance and importance values within identified. The special management prthat have been proposed are narrowly protect the identified relevant and values; none of which are recogwilderness resources. For these reapotential ACEC decisions carried forwaProposed RMP are considered by Bconsistent with Utah Code 63j-4-401. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD126 The DEIS fails to analyze the balance between 

ACEC designation and the value of other multipleuses. The potential benefits of ACEC designation versus other resource uses is not evaluated for any of the potential and proposed ACECs. 

See Response to Comment SD125-G-

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD127 The State of Utah is concerned that the BLM views 

potential and proposed ACECs as convenient vehicles to generally focus agency management attention on an area, rather than a very focused management tool with strict criteria for creation. 

See Response to Comment SD125-G-

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD128 The State of Utah is concerned that the discussions 

and analyses of potential and proposed ACECs in the DRMP/DEIS don't meet the standards required by either state or federal law. The discussion as it is fails to provide sufficient information to allow the 

See Response to Comment SD125-G-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

purpose and need for each potential ACEC to be ascertained, and the impacts of its potential designation to be determined; the present discussion is merely a recitation that certain natural features or processes within the area are, a priori, important and relevant because of a simple regurgitation of the regulatory requirements, and no cogent and coordinated examination of the proposed management scheme exists. There is no discussion of the factors leading to a determination that the required important and relevant values are, in fact, important on a regional scale, as there is no discussion of the nature of the region to which the factors within the potential and proposed ACEC can be compared. Nor is there an application of the facts to the statutory requirements, instead there is only a restatement of factors which are part of the statutory and regulatory requirements that need to be demonstrated in order to create an ACEC. Finally, the statutory requirement to determine the probability of irreparable damage to the important and relevant values is completely AWOL. See comment SD129 for an example of the superficial nature of ACEC analysis. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD129 The discussions about the proposed relevance and 

importance of each potential and proposed ACEC contained in Appendix G contain three references to the "lush riparian vegetation" which is "rare" in the area. All of the areas to which these statements refer are located along the Green River and are part of the main watershed system of the area – the Green River drainage. In this generally arid area, all riparian areas are important and tend to look lush. What is 

The differences between how the ripawould be managed as ACECs, and would be managed if not designated aare discussed in Chapter 4. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the regional significance of these three riparian areas? How do they compare to riparian areas in the proposed and potential Bitter Creek ACEC? Further, given the BLM's general nationwide policy of protection for riparian areas because all riparian areas are important, what is the threat to these three areas that cannot be met through the protections offered by the nationwide policy, and how will the special management attention for these three riparian areas be different from the nationwide protections? 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD130 The analysis indicates that ACECs may benefit from 

"fire resources, soil and watershed actions, and vegetation resources (including riparian areas and woodlands)," yet be negatively affected by mineral activities and OHV use. No explanation is given for these statements. Vegetation, fire, and soil treatments may affect the appearance of the land as much as mineral development, yet the end result is healthier vegetation. The bias against mineral development is evident, because no mention is made concerning the balance of uses which results in the extraction of resources useful to society versus the potential benefits of the ACEC, and because the analysis fails to recognize the effect of proper mineral mitigation measures upon the ultimate effect on the relevant and important values. The state requests the BLM revisit these superficial analyses, consider mitigation part of the determination of effect, and consider the balance of uses as required. 

The distinction between fire resouwatershed, and vegetation managemeand minerals activity and OHV uschanges to the character of the including visual appearance, for tcategory of actions are of far shorter dumore consistent with the management of ACECs than those of the latter cactions. Also, see Response to Comment SD12

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD131 As the pros and cons of each potential and proposed 

ACECs, and those of SRMAs or WSRs, are weighed, the BLM should avoid any recommendations which 

See Response to Comment SD125-G-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

unduly restrict continued vegetation and wildlife treatment practices, uses associated with school trust lands, mineral development, and other management needs of state agencies. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD132 Existing ACECs must be reviewed for sufficiency and 

necessity prior to being carried forward in the new RMP. The simple statement in the RMP that the existing ACEC designations have been effective is insufficient and does not meet the requirements of the BLM's own Manual. There is no discussion as to whether it is the management of certain areas as ACECs or other laws and regulations that has protected the relevant and important values of these areas. 

See Response to Comment SD125-G-

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD133 The State of Utah is concerned that none of the 

Alternatives in the DRMP and EIS presented a "no ACEC" position, thereby indicating in a more detailed manner the need for all proposed and potential ACECs. The state would ask the BLM to correct this deficiency. 

See Response to Comment SD125-G-

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD134 The State of Utah is concerned that this potential 

and proposed ACEC does not meet the statutory requirements for an ACEC as no significant information about the area, or the need for the ACEC is given. The importance criteria discussion is merely a recitation of the requirements found in the BLM Handbook for qualities the BLM should find in an area in order to determine the existence of importance criteria. 

See Response to Comment SD125-G-

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD135 Alternatives A and C provide for restricted woodcutting in the old-growth pinyon pine area of 160 

acres, which is justified to protect these irreplaceable 

Vegetation/habitat treatments wouthroughout the rest of the ACEC. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

resources. But the management prescriptions for the proposed ACEC also provide for "enhancing habitat utilizing forest manipulation and tree spraying." Presumably "forest manipulation and tree spraying" would not occur in the area of the 1200 year old trees. Where would it occur? Forest manipulation and tree spraying are tools in the normal multipleuse regime for BLM lands. How does this simple statement of a proposed management requirement constitute a "detailed explanation" of special management for the resource, and what exact purpose does it serve? Because this management prescription is not for the old trees, the State of Utah is obligated to ask exactly what resource is to be protected by the BLM's management prescriptions from exactly what type of threat which may produce irreparable damage in what manner? Further, because the area of the old-growth trees is only 160 acres, why is ACEC management needed for the other acres of the proposed and potential ACEC? 

More detailed management provisionthe overarching parameters establishethe RMP would be included in management plan prepared for this ACSee comment response SD8-G9. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD136 The list of proposed management prescriptions for 

this area says that oil and gas leasing will be managed by timing and controlled surface use, except for the old tree area, which would be managed using no-surface occupancy provisions, and a Natural Area which would be managed as closed to leasing. Which category of leasing is this for the larger area – Category 1, 2, 3, or 4? What timing stipulations would be necessary in the ACEC? What controls on surface use? Is there a reason the Natural area is closed to leasing, as opposed to the use of no-surface occupancy? NSO provisions allow drainage of fluid resources from under the area, 

See Table 2.1.18 (Special Designationof Critical Environmental Concern (Athe PRMP/FEIS which describes unalternative the Bitter Creek ACEC established. Please compare Figures 11-18 with F24 to see the stipulations applying tmajority of lands within these proposed Timing buffers within the ACECs implemented primarily for the pro
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

while no-leasing may cause the creation of an area sterilized from drainage larger than the 400 acres involved. How is oil and gas leasing, and possibly exploration and production a threat that may produce irreparable damage to the 160 acres of old growth trees, cultural resources, or the wetlands which are cited as relevant and important values for this area? 

special status species and wildlife. C

surface use would be related to such fragile soils and steep slopes, visual and wildlife and special status speciPlease, see Appendix K for more iabout the nature of proposed ticontrolled surface use stipulations planning area. See comment response SD27-G-22. The Natural Area is the Book Cliffs InsArea and is managed under the wilderness. The area must be closed development as per regulation. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD137 There is no discussion about the geographic extent 

of the wetlands or the perched watertable. Do the wetlands extend throughout the entire 147,000+ acres of the potential ACEC? If not, how much acreage do they cover, and what is the nature of the other lands within the proposed area? The State of Utah is concerned that the proposed ACEC is much, much larger than necessary to protect the identified important and relevant values. 

The wetlands do not extend throughouproposed Bitter Creek ACEC but are lsmaller areas. Other relevant and values identified for this proposed Adiscussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix cultural/historical resources, watershecosystems/habitat for special statuThese other relevant and importaextend throughout the area identifieproposed ACEC. See comment response SD14-G13. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD138 The proposed management prescriptions for this 

area include Class 1, 2, or 3 VRM designations. The location of each proposed VRM classification, as illustrated on the maps is not tied to any of the relevant or important values discussed as the 

VRM classifications are not tied speACEC values but are tied to the visuafor the planning area and to management decisions. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

qualification reasons for the ACEC, leaving the reader to wonder what resources are being threatened by what type of threat which will cause irreparable damage in what manner? 

The relevant and important values ACECs include an old growth pinycultural resources, important watershecritical ecosystem for wildlife and migraSee Response to Comment SD27-G-22

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD139 The proposed and potential Coyote Basin ACEC is 

proposed solely for white-tailed prairie dog complexes. The DRMP indicates the prairie dog is relevant because it is "vulnerable to adverse change from a variety of current causes." What causes? What vulnerability? The reasoning means that the prairie dog had been petitioned for listing under the provisions of the ESA, a petition which was recently denied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Based upon an analysis of and respopublic comments, BLM has drodesignation of Coyote Basin in the RMP. Prairie dogs are extremely susceptiplague, and the white-tailed prairie suffered large-scale population decresult. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD140 A common problem with prairie dog complexes is the 

plague. How will ACEC management prevent this problem? 

ACEC designation will not, in and address the issue of plague in pcolonies. The integrated managementhe area as well as the research conduthe Research Natural Area designatcooperation with other agencorganizations will recognize the risk and implement measures to manage possible. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD141 Proposed management prescriptions for this ACEC 

include noxious weed control, restoring natural fire regime, maintaining or enhancing ferret habitat, and establishing a research and monitoring program. The analysis fails to show how the control of noxious weeds is important as a special management 

The potential ACECs analyzed for dinto the Proposed RMP have gone rigorous and stringent process in awith FLPMA, the planning regulations 1600, Land-use planning Handbook (Hand in accordance with BLM Manual 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

prescription for the prairie dog (the reason for the ACEC), independent of the BLM's stated desire to control noxious weeds everywhere. What is special about the noxious weed control in the area under discussion? Further, what does natural fire and enhancement of ferret habitat have to do with the prairie dogs? 

ACEC Policy and Procedures Guidelin57318). Appendix G outlines the printerdisciplinary team underwent to whether a nominated ACEC had and/or importance values. The sizproposed ACECs is limited only to the geography where the relevance and ivalues are manageable to protect anirreparable damage. In the Proposed potential ACECs generally do not have special designations and/or otheprotections applied. The potential ACECs carried forwarProposed RMP necessitate an ACEC dbecause special management pronecessary (outside of normal mmanagement) to specifically prorelevance and importance values within identified. The special management prthat have been proposed are narrowly protect the identified relevant and values; none of which are recogwilderness resources. For these reapotential ACEC decisions carried forwaProposed RMP are considered by Bconsistent with Utah Code 63j-4-401. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD142 There is no discussion anywhere about the potential 

for irreparable damage requiring the creation of this ACEC. This information must be included in the document. The State of Utah believes this proposed 

See Response to Comment SD27-G-22
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

ACEC is a solution looking for a problem and strongly opposes it. The state Division of Wildlife Resources, which has jurisdiction over prairie dogs as a wildlife species, sees no need for this proposed ACEC. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD143 The discussion of the relevant and important values 

of the proposed Nine Mile Canyon ACEC is inadequate in that it does not provide an actual description of said values, but rather it offers merely a recitation of the regulatory requirements for the nature of those values. How are these values significant in a regional context? What specifically are the qualities to be protected and managed through the ACEC? 

The inconsistencies in cited releimportant resource values have been Appendix G contains the correct list of 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD144 This proposed ACEC is described as an extension of 

an ACEC designated by the Book Cliffs RMP. Do the lands within the proposed extension lands have the same qualities as the land within the existing ACEC? Where are the extension lands in relation to the existing ACEC? Figures 22-24 give some indication but not a lot of detail. 

The lands within the proposed extencontain the same relevant and importas the existing ACEC. The proposed elocated at the west end of the existThe expansion area is representedifference between the proposed Canyon ACEC boundaries illustrated 22 and 24. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD145 The State of Utah does not believe the BLM has 

adequately justified the need for this ACEC designation to protect cultural resources given that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act already affords these resources protection and consideration such as mitigation. The BLM is also proposing an archaeological district for the cultural resources and did not analyze the need for the ACEC against the protection afforded by both Section 106 and an archaeological district. Further, 

See Response to Comment SD125-G-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the BLM has not identified any special management necessary for the area beyond the normal cultural resource management BLM would employ. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD146 The Main Canyon ACEC is proposed by the BLM to 

protect cultural resources and "natural systems." What natural systems – what does this mean? 

Natural Systems are defined under 45 as "Living or nonliving parts of thenvironment, considered either as individual elements or as group or such individual elements, and the actions, and interactions of such elchanges to them. The central features system or process may, for exacommunities of living plants, components of their habitat, or such structures as geological formationexemplify a natural process or system." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD146A What is the threat of irreparable harm to these 

"systems"? Under the ACEC some activities such as OHV use would be closed or otherwise restricted and portions of the area would be managed as VRM I (which also restricts acceptable surface uses). 

See Response to Comment SD27-G-22

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD146B Because these restrictions have the potential to 

close portions of the area to oil and gas development, the State of Utah is concerned that the potential to protect natural systems, without further clarification of the specific management provisions, will constitute management for non-impairment, in violation of state law and the case of Utah v. Norton. 

See Response to Comment SD16A-G-

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD147 The State of Utah requests an actual accounting and 

detailed description of the relevant and important values for this ACEC rather than a restatement of the regulatory requirement for the necessary quality of 

See Response to Comment SD16A-G-Appendix provides specific informatio
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

values in order for an ACEC to be designated. existing and nominated ACECs. R

Relevance and Importance may be rethe Administrative Record. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD148 Much of the area proposed for this ACEC is within 

the Winter Ridge WSA. What is the relationship between the two? Why is an ACEC necessary for the WSA lands? 

See Response to Comment SD104-G-3

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD149 The DRMP indicates that special management 

attention for this ACEC would include "permitting surface disturbance activities found to be complimentary or compatible with the goals and objects of the ACEC." Presumably those not found compatible would not be approved? What are the goals and objectives of the proposed and potential ACEC? 

The commenter is correct in the infesurface-disturbing activities that contragoals and objectives of this ACEC woapproved. The goals and objectives of are to manage for the maintenenhancement of the area's cultural/historical/traditional resourcnatural systems. See Appendix G and Table 2.1.18 Designations – Areas of Critical EnvConcern (ACECs)) of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD150 The State of Utah does not believe the BLM has 

adequately justified the need for this ACEC designation to protect cultural resources given that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act already affords these resources protection and consideration such as mitigation. The BLM has not identified any special management necessary for the area beyond the normal cultural resource management BLM would employ or what the threats of irreparable harm are. 

See Response to Comment SD125-G-

Draft SD151 The State of Utah requests that the BLM re-examine See Response to Comment SD104-G-3
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS and re-justify the need for this ACEC, especially in 

light of the proposed SRMA for the same area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD152 The VRM classification of I or II proposed for this 

area could prevent necessary prescribed burns or other vegetative management necessary for range and forest health, or the economic use of any state trust lands within the area. 

No VRM classification prevents vegetation treatments, including burns, which are considered short-duradisruptions. No BLM management including VRM classifications, apply to land inholdings. The BLM cannot imrestrictions or limitations on lands nojurisdiction. The BLM must also preasonable access to such inholdings. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD153 The BLM has failed to provide adequate justification 

of the proposed ACECs as the discussions of each ACEC do not include specific details or analysis of the identified relevant and important values in a regional context, nor do they include any substantive description of the threats of irreparable harm or elucidation of specific management needs to prevent said harm. The BLM has also failed to demonstrate why the ACECs are necessary relative to other protections afforded to identified values through other designations or laws. 

Threats to relevant and important valualternative. Any of the alternatives selected, even if there are risks or damage to relevant and importaresulting from that alternative. See Appthe PRMP/FEIS. Also, see Responses to Comments Sand SD50-G-25. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD154 The State of Utah believes that the BLM has not 

sufficiently divulged the proposed management prescriptions for the river segments discussed in the DRMP/DEIS, as required by the draft document stage by BLM Manual Section 8351.32C. The information found in the document on pages 4-211 through 4-214 consists simply of general statements about concerns, rather than an evaluation of identified impacts. Further, support for the alleged concerns cannot be found in the document. 

See Response to Comment SD59-G-25
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD155 The DRMP/DEIS does not contain the information 

necessary to demonstrate that the values identified for each proposed WSR segment are river-related, "outstandingly remarkable," or significant on a regional basis as required by the guidance Process and Criteria (1996) adopted by the BLM and other regional federal agencies or BLM IM 2004-196. The State of Utah requests that the BLM review these eligibility determinations with the state and local governments, in order to fully explore the rationale for each. 

See Response to Comment SD59-G-25

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD156 The statement on page 2-57 that river segments 

found to be eligible during the current RMP preparation process would continue to be managed to protect their eligibility under Alternative D (No Action) is not an accurate representation of federal law and does not comply with BLM policy and direction, or state law. BLM Manual 8351, Section 33 requires the BLM to assess in the RMP whether or not each river segment identified as eligible is also suitable for inclusion in the NWSR System. The Manual also states that if suitability cannot be determined as part of the RMP, a separate EIS may be required to make that determination. The projected schedule for completing the suitability evaluation should be set forth in the RMP. Alternative D (No Action), as represented on page 2-57, is therefore unacceptable and does not meet the requirements of BLM policy or state law. 

See Responses to Comments SDSD59-G-25,G-1. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD157 The information under Section 3.14.3.2, page 3-84, 

should more fully and accurately represent the specific management requirements found in Manual 

Chapter 3 in the PRMP/FEIS has been expand the discussion of marequirements for rivers determined elig
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Section 8351.32C, particularly regarding valid existing rights. 

NWSRS to include the more detailed ioutlined in Manual 8351, Section .32C. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD158 The meaning of the statement "to the extent that the 

BLM has the authority to do so" found on page 3-84 (Section 3.14.3.2) needs to be clarified. 

This statement merely refers to the faBLM does not have the authority restrictions on non-Bureau landholdareas found eligible and suitable designation, nor does it have the ausurp legal water rights or trrequirements of other agencies with over certain waterways. The BLM believe the statement requires clarificadocument as it already, as written, ackthere are limits to BLM's authority with waterways and water-related issues. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD159 The majority of the proposed ACECs encompass 

and isolate parcels of state trust lands. Management prescriptions applied to federal lands can significantly impact the land management goals of the Trust Lands Administration. The presence of trust lands within a designated ACEC can significantly impact the intent of the designation. The state, TLA, and BLM must ensure that any proposal by the BLM providing for restricted use of the public lands does not impact the economic potential of or interfere with TLA's ability to effectively manage its lands. These impacts must be analyzed and a plan of action to mitigate them proposed. 

State inholdings may or may not curraccess, depending upon whether or nvehicle routes lead to them. Undealternative scenarios, existing routes proposed for closure. The BLM's required by the Cotter decision (State Andrus, 10/1/79), is that "the State allowed access to the State school truthat those lands can be developed in that will provide funds for the common ." This decision confined the issue of situations directly involving economic generated for the school trust. The restrictions do not prohibit the Sreasonable access to its lands for purposes through separate permit auas specified by the Cotter decision. State sections may not have been idrecreational purposes due to resource 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

actual route conditions. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD160 The vast universe of acronyms and jargon begins to 

overwhelm the reader of the DRMP when the reader tries to understand the difference between an ACEC, VRM management area and now, a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). This is especially true if the reader compares Figures 21 through 24, and immediately notices that ACECs and SRMAs are proposed for the same geographic areas. The DRMP/DEIS does not define the reasons for the proposed SRMAs, nor the functional difference between an ACEC and an SRMA. 

Definitions of SRMAs and ACECs are the Glossary. Additional description of provided in Section 3.10.1. Information specific SRMAs included in the alternbe found in Chapter 3. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD161 What does the "integrated activity plan" that would 

be prepared for each SRMA according to pages 2-51 and 2-52 include besides recreation? Does this plan consider and include other resource uses? 

Activity Plans are defined under the Buse planning Handbook H-1601-1 as: "A type of implementation plan; an ausually describes multiple projects abest management practices to meeplan objectives. Examples of actiinclude interdisciplinary managemehabitat management plans, recreamanagement plans, and allotment maplans." This would include SRMAs. Furthermore, H-1601-1 further states: "Upon approval of the land-use plan, simplementation decisions are put into developing implementation (activity
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

project-specific) plans. An activity-typically describes multiple projects in will lead to on-the-ground action. Thtraditionally focused on single resource (habitat management plans, management plans, recreation maplans, etc.). However, activity-level increasingly interdisciplinary and are fmultiple resource program areas to shift to a more watershed-based or based approach to management. Thesplans are sometimes referred to as "ininterdisciplinary plans," "coordinated management plans," "landscape maplans," or "ecosystem management project-specific plan is typically prepaindividual project or several related pro

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD162 How does the proposed Brown's Park ACEC differ 

from the Brown's Park SRMA? What is the specific goal of the SRMA that is not accomplished by the ACEC? Conversely, if the ACEC is not appropriate for the area to address the management needs, what is the need for the SRMA? The State of Utah asks that the BLM respond to these issues for each proposed SRMA/ACEC combination, especially the proposed Nine Mile SRMA. 

SRMAs are not special designations are management tools for the mainteenhancement of recreational opACECs are a special designation and the focusing of special management athe maintenance and enhancement oand important resource values that mrelated to recreation, and, therefore, womanaged under a recreation managem

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD163 The discussion about the proposed Brown's Park 

SRMA on page 2-52 [of the DEIS] indicates that a portion of the area would be managed for primitive recreation, and closed to "surface-disturbing activities, except for activities that complement recreation values." The reference to "surfacedisturbing activities" is unclear and vague. What 

See Response to Comment SD14-G-13The Utah v. Norton Settlement Agreenot affect BLM's authority to manalands. This Agreement merely confusion by distinguishing between 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

exactly are "surface-disturbing activities"? Movement of livestock? Movement of wildlife? Seismic survey equipment? Cadastral survey equipment? The definition is important as the total management regime proposed by the BLM for this area has strong elements of non-use or non-impairment, including VRM I classification for some portions of the area. It would appear that the BLM is trying to manage this area for non-impairment, in violation of the ruling of Utah v. Norton. 

study areas established under FLPMA those lands required to be manag§603's non-impairment standard, and othat fall within the discretionary FLMPA management process. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD164 The discussion of this SRMA on page 2-51 [of the 

DEIS] indicates the activity plan would focus on maintaining a "frontier mystique of adventure and discovery," which is further defined to mean "unconfined recreation, limited facilities." What does this mean, especially in light of the fact that 90% of the area is leased for oil and gas? 

Much of the area encompassed by Cliffs SRMA is/would be leased under controlled surface use stipulations (witstipulations also in place) that would development options compatible with recreation goals. Portions of the SRalso be closed to leasing, including Ridge WSA and an area designated forecreation opportunities. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD165 This SRMA is proposed to be managed for "cultural 

values and scenic quality." How is this different from the ACEC proposed for the same area? 

See comment response SD162 regdistinction between SRMAs and ACcultural values and scenic quality of contribute to its recreational appeal These same resources have valuerecreational use, including experimental, educational, and tradition

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD166 Alternative A increases the acreage of the Nine Mile 

SRMA from 44,181 to 81,168. How is this increase justified and why is such a large area necessary? 

See Response to Comment SD8-G-9. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD167 The White River SRMA (western part) would be 

managed as no surface occupancy. How is this different from the ACEC proposed for the area? The 

A review of Table 2.1.14, Recreathose NSO stipulations are not proposecorrelation to the SRMA. Rather, Ta
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

State of Utah has concerns that the establishment of an SRMA outside of the 1/2-mile wide river corridor is inappropriate due to the demonstrated lack of recreational activity beyond the corridor. Why is it necessary outside the river corridor? Is it even necessary to have an SRMA in the area in light of the proposed WSR designation on the west segment of the White River SRMA? How are the proposed WSR and SRMA designations related to each other? 

and Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS revised to correct and clarify the contradiction. (Special Designations – Critical Environmental Concern (ACECPRMP/FEIS clearly indicates that manathe ACEC would include NSO for thportion of the area. The SRMA and WSR designations separate types of management tools. Snot special designations but tools for management of recreational opporareas of high recreation use. WSR deare special designations intended to particular river related values, which mrecreation, that require special maconsideration and action. WSR management would only applquarter mile from center-line on each river. Recreation use occurs outsidnarrow corridor and has therefore the proposed an SRMA in two alternatives. Also, see comment response SD8-G-9

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD168 Section 3.14.2.1 on page 3-80 discusses the Coyote 

Basin ACEC. Black-footed ferrets were released in 1999 under 10j status designation. However, this section is vague on that point. It only mentions ferrets as being raised for release but does not mention that ferrets are already successfully reproducing in the wild. The document fails to 

Chapter 3 in the PRMP/FEIS has been clarify 10j status of black-footed ferrets Basin. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

mention that the UDWR is also cooperating with the Vernal BLM and Utah State University in continuing the research project relating to the recovery of black-footed ferrets. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD169 Alternative C proposes to identify as suitable a 

22-mile reach of Argyle Creek from its headwaters to the Carbon County line. Said reach would be tentatively classified as "Recreational." A reading for the rationale of such a recommendation in Chapter 4, sections 13 and 14 fails to yield any specifics. More information on the values to be protected will be helpful. 

More information on the ORVs for Argcan be found in Appendix C: Wild aRiver Eligibility, Suitability, ClassificReview. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO25 The State of Utah is concerned about the 

inadequacy of baseline data used in the socioeconomic analysis. The BLM Planning Handbook (Appendix D) provides specific areas to be considered when incorporating social science into the planning process. Social science information should include economic, political, cultural and social structure of not only the counties within the VFO, but also the region and the Nation as a whole. The DEIS fails to do this. 

This information has been included in t3.12 in the PRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO26 The RMP makes broad statements about the 

socioeconomic profile of the planning area, broken down into discussions about each of the three counties, however, the draft seems to lack a detailed analysis of the situation on the ground. For instance, in the Socioeconomic section of Chapter 3, the draft includes only two conclusions regarding the region's history, geography, and economics; first, the majority of the planning area sustain a rural/small town lifestyle, second, the counties are economically 

Section 3.12 in the PRMP/FEIS has beto include the information made in the c
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

dependent on the development of the physical resources within the VFO. According to the BLM Planning Handbook, social values, beliefs, and attitudes; how people interact with the landscape; and sense-of-place issues should also be included. The VFO should elaborate on the socioeconomic baseline for the planning area and review it for inaccuracies. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO27 The DRMP fails to thoroughly analyze the social and 

economic impacts of the alternatives. The draft only analyzes the socioeconomic impacts of Lands and Realty, Forage, Minerals, and Recreation and OHV decisions. Additional resource management decisions, however, have the potential to have an impact on state and county economies, specifically special designations. Notably missing is an economic analysis of the lost shared mineral revenue from federal lands that have an economic impact on the community as well as other mineral sharing programs within the state. The development of mineral resources on federal lands and state trust lands would be negatively impacted by overly restrictive management prescriptions imposed by special designations. In its economic impact analysis, the RMP has excluded the significant state and local revenues generated through a variety of taxes paid that would be impacted by special designations. 

The PRMP/FEIS has been revised further analysis of effects on sociofrom proposed management actions resources, including special designatioPlease see response to SO3 regarding lands. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO28 During the scoping process, Uintah County provided 

the BLM with two studies related to the economic significance of mineral development, specifically oil and gas, in the Uintah Basin. These studies were Economic Impact Analysis of the Drilling and 

The PRMP/FEIS has been revised to recent State-commissioned study on of the oil and gas industry on the Uinta
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Completion of a Natural Gas Well in the Uintah Basin by the Utah Energy Group and The Uintah Basin Industry Impact Study by Pam Perlich of the University of Utah. The RMP fails to reflect the information contained in these documents. The State of Utah requests that the BLM review these studies and incorporate their findings into the RMP. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO29 Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties have 

estimated that up to 80% of the local economy is dependent directly or indirectly on access to, and utilization and extraction of natural resources on the 

public lands. The BLM is required by its own Planning Handbook, Section H-1601-H, and IM 2002-167 to assess the degree of local dependence on public land resources, and use this information as part of the decision-making process. The state is 

concerned that these requirements have not been met within the draft RMP and EIS. This issue should be examined in more detail. 

BLM feels that the intent of IM 2002-1Planning Handbook have been impSee comment response SO2 regardsame data sources. The PRMP/FEIS has been revised to to the USU social survey on attitudes oon public land management. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO30 Sections of the socioeconomic impacts analysis are 

overly generalized to the point that social and economic impacts specific to the planning area are not apparent. For example, in the "Lands and Realty" portion of the "Impacts Common to All" section, long term beneficial effects on the social goals of communities are described by accommodating community growth and development when it is determined that accommodating social goals is in compliance with other goals and objectives of the Proposed RMP. The portion of the plan does not reference specific areas of the DRMP/DEIS where this occurs or direct the reader to any specific management decisions that provide for community 

Section 4.12.2.2 has been rewritten in and the BLM believes that this addresses the commenter's concerns. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

growth. The section is vague and unspecific and should reflect specific management prescriptions in the plan rather than general statements. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SS23 The RMP must recognize all state and local sagegrouse plans as well as the WAFWA guidelines 

(Connelly et al., 2000). The RMP should discuss the need to cooperate with UDWR in creating conservation agreements and strategies for other state-sensitive wildlife species. 

In Table 2.1.21 (Special Status SpecPRMP/FEIS, Alternative C proposes tthe sage grouse under Connelly's GAlternative A proposes to manage grouse under the Strategic ManagemeSage Grouse (State of Utah, June 2002In Table 2.1.21 under the subsectioManagement Actions Common to Alternatives, it states: "BLM will work with UDWR and other implement conservation actions identiState Wildlife Action Plan (ComWildlife Conservation Strategy) (UDWwhich identified priority wildlife sphabitats, assessed threats to their suidentified long-term conservation act(per WO IM 2006-114)." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SS24 Special status species alternatives begin on page 

2-60. Alternative A represents the BLM's Best Management Practices (BMPs) that compare to USFWS guidelines for seasonal and spatial buffers, occupied nest protection, and unoccupied nest protection. The UDWR is concerned that not incorporating these guidelines may contribute to the decline of special status raptor species, including Ferruginous Hawks. A substantial portion of Ferruginous Hawk range in the Uintah Basin is 

Table 2.1.21 (Special Status SpeciePRMP/FEIS provides a range of raptor for seasonal and spatial buffers, occprotection, and unoccupied nest prodescribed in the various alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

already leased, therefore the three year unoccupied nest protection proposed under alternative B for existing leases may not be adequate to protect Ferruginous Hawk populations. The UDWR received a copy of a letter from the USFWS to the BLM dated October 15, 2003 expressing the same concerns regarding Ferruginous Hawk populations in the Uintah Basin. Any modifications to the spatial and seasonal buffers outlined in the BMPs should only be made after following the three criteria outlines in alternative A, and after consultation with the UDWR and the USFWS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SS26 The UDWR's Utah Sensitive Species List was 

revised in February 2005. The BLM should incorporate the new list into the RMP and adopt these species as BLM State Sensitive Species. The RMP should have flexibility in this adoption process, as the states sensitive species list will change periodically. 

IM UT-2007-078 updated the Utah BDirector's Sensitive Plant and AnimaLists as defined in the BLM 6840 ManuStatus Species Management). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SW19 Alternatives A and C indicate "Old fields would be 

irrigated and existing ditches and diversion structures would be restored on acquired lands in Bitter Creek and Rat Hole Drainages." This wording gives the impression that said lands are not being irrigated at present. If such is the case, and the lands have not been irrigated for five consecutive years, then the underlying water rights may be lost through non-use (See Sec. 73-1-4 UCA). The BLM is advised to review the above referenced section of the law and take appropriate action to confirm the legal status of the underlying water rights. 

The review of the status of the wateindividual users is outside the scodocument. However, the BLM does rerights on a regular basis as a matter land management. 

Draft SW20 The paragraph at the top of page 2-28 states that the The Bureau has need for water rights 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS BLM will "Develop additional and maintain existing 

water rights." We would appreciate more detail and specifics on this statement. 

and future use. These may include wildlife, public use, or conservation. Table 2.1.17 (Soil and Water ResourcPRMP/FEIS under the subsection Management Actions Common to All Ahas been revised to clarify the stafollows: "BLM implements multiple types of watpublic lands that require water rights State of Utah, such as livestock wateriwatering and habitat, wild horse recreation facilities, and fire suppreswill continue to implement actions to mcurrent water rights for these purposefiling proofs of beneficial use, filing claims, changing existing water rights uses and projects, and filing prnecessary to protect existing BLM waBLM will also file for new water accordance with and when allowed uwater law procedures. Situations in wwill file for new water rights include where existing water rights are insufficin place to support the water use, existing water rights cannot be chsupport the water use on public land. " 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SW21 Need enhanced management direction for vegetative 

resources and watershed values. Lands should be managed to: a) control soil erosion to prevent the soil erosion rate from exceeding the tolerable (T) rate as 

The BLM's approach to land mathrough the RMP is consistent with toutline provided in the comment. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

determined through USDA/NRCS; b) control runoff loading of dissolved or suspended pollutants; c) enhance management direction for the inventory and protection of riparian areas in accordance with current BLM policy; and d) establish standards for riparian management including: i) width of riparian vegetated buffers which may vary with perennial or intermittent streamflow, cubic feet per second of streamflow, and with adjacent topography; ii) minimum ground cover percentage; iii) recommended standards for summer stream shading, though these will vary with site orientation of the stream and adjacent topography; iv) recommended native vegetative species and varieties to encourage in riparian areas; v) listing of noxious weeds and invasive species and varieties to reduce or exclude from range, forest, or riparian lands; vi) appropriate consideration for water quality concerns related to activities on public lands, including but not limited to, the requirements mandated by the Clean Water Act and the state water classifications in the 303D state water inventories, as well as at-risk water quality due to naturally occurring formations; vii) appropriate conservation or restoration of at-risk watersheds; viii) appropriate management of numerous special status vegetative species in order to prevent additional listings of populations; ix) appropriate management of numerous special status vegetative species and their suitable habitats in order to protect, restore, and/or recover those species or varieties; and x) promoting the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed 

The tables in Chapter 2 of THE Poutline the BLM's goals, objectmanagement actions common to all afor the resources described in the comreader will find that these goals, objecactions are consistent with the spcomment, if not the specific details. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Approach, and the Colorado River Basis Salinity Control Act. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VE4 The State of Utah strongly requests that the BLM 

expand its discussion in the EIS allowing for a longterm and aggressive vegetative reclamation program using a wide variety of vegetation treatment tools. The BLM needs to specifically identify some of these tools that are currently omitted in its review of vegetation management in the West (in the DEIS), i.e., use of herbicide for cheatgrass control and chaining for better pinyon-juniper management. Without the use of a full vegetation management toolbox, the BLM will not be able to conduct effective restoration on a scale sufficient to stop or reverse the current rate of sagebrush steppe loss, nor will they be able to provide meaningful mitigation for development. The long-term vegetative reclamation program must be a collaborative effort involving the BLM, livestock operators, the oil and gas industry, and wildlife advocates if it is to be successful. 

Table 2.1.23 (Vegetation ResourcePRMP/FEIS provides for vegetation (specific to noxious weed control) alternatives using fire, mechanical, biochemical means without specifying any management tool that would fall undthese broad categories. This section to management of vegetation in genwithout specifying individual techniqprovides the BLM the opportunity to sthe entire range of available tools to uvegetation treatments in the most away for the location and vegetation in q

Draft RMP/EIS 

VE5 The EIS should expand the discussion on 

development of a mitigation bank as discussed between the BLM, Uintah County, the State of Utah (DWR), and industry representatives in order to ensure that this opportunity is maintained as an option. 

The concept and implementation of a bank is completely voluntary. The Brequire lessees and permittees to However, the concepts involved in a mitigation-banking program include ror habitat enhancement projects, addressed in the RMP. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VE6 We are concerned that the alternatives for rangeland 

improvements found on page 2-51 may not allow enough acreage for such improvements to occur, especially since the Vernal District has experienced catastrophic mortality of sagebrush steppe 

The acreage figures presented in TablTable 2.1.12) to which the comment specific to projected rangeland imprVegetation treatments are also incluother resource programs. Tabl
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

communities. The numbers of acres in the Uintah Basin (>200,000 acres) requiring pinyon/juniper removal, sagebrush rehabilitation, and cheatgrass control far exceed the figures presented in each of the alternatives. We encourage the BLM to add flexibility to the RMP to allow for additional rangeland improvement if target acreages are met prior to the next revision of the RMP. 

(Vegetation Resources) of the Pcommits to the restoration or rehabilitato 200,000 acres of sagebruscommunities under all alternatives. Athe acreages provided within the alternatives are projections used for cpurposes and do not represent absoluthe numbers of acres of vegetation thamay treat. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VE7 This paragraph should be changed to read: 

"Wyoming and mountain big sagebrush are declining..." The UDWR recommends adding discussion regarding the recent sagebrush mortality in the RMP. 

Section 3.16.1.3 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to include the following: "Wyoming and mountain big sdeclining...Beginning in the late 1990accelerated the decline which resulted die-off and die-back. Some areas had mortality while others had re-growtsagebrush in subsequent years. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VE8 Plateau®, green stripping, and use of non-natives 

must be considered in Section 3.16.2 for control of invasive species and noxious weeds. 

See comment response VE4. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI26 We are concerned about the lack of real discussion 

in the Draft EIS about the management of visual resources. The proposed management prescriptions laid out on page 2-62 do nothing more than indicate the aggregate amount of acreage to be managed in each VRM management class. The management "common to all" discussion on page 2-36 indicates only, in one simple sentence, that the objectives for each specific visual resource management class, outlined in BLM Handbook H-8410-1, and repeated on page J-3, would be implemented. 

Table 2.1.24 (Visual Resource Managthe PRMP/FEIS Section 2.4.16.1 ideGoals and Objectives for visual management. Section 3.17 provides a of the affected environment regardresources. Section 4.17 provides a disthe environmental consequences resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI27 We are concerned about the apparent lack of an 

updated visual inventory. This ties in with the rationale for the "Sensitivity Level Analysis" required by BLM Manual Handbook H-8410-1.III.A. - Factors to Consider. Many of these factors change over time, and a simple rollover of an older inventory would not accurately reflect these adjustments. In addition, the lack of updated inventory information makes interpretation of the differences between the inventory and management classes impossible to determine. The draft RMP needs to fully explain how the visual inventory was accomplished, so that differences in visual management prescriptions proposed in the various Alternatives may be compared to the inventory classes. This indicates to the reader exactly how the VRM management classes are assisting in the resource management goals of each Alternative. 

See comment response VI7A. Some major travel corridors were etheir visual sensitivity, (which is one of in visual sensitivity rating), becausincrease in use and visitation. Two are-inventoried because of both the increase in oil and gas activity and the increase of both user numbers anperception toward natural landscapes. of the re-inventories, both areas were VRM rating as seen in Figures 29 and are reflected in Alternatives A and D reThe alternatives provide a range classification from which management from for the final RMP and the VRM clawithin the final RMP will be consgeneral overall management direction. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI28 The maps on Figures 29-32 are hard to interpret 

concerning the VRM management classes, as the figures are not specific enough to determine the exact geographic location of most of the boundary lines. Because of this, the counties cannot determine if the criteria for VRM inventory have been correctly followed, and exactly where, on-the-ground, the BLM proposes to change management from one class to another, except for certain geographical areas which fully correspond to other proposed management designations. 

The BLM acknowledges that the scale 29-32 may not provide sufficient delineate VRM boundary lines for thclassifications; however, electronic filedefined and provide sufficient detail. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI29 The draft RMP purports to discuss the impacts of 

various resource management decisions on visual 

Minerals exploration and developpresently occurring in areas not desig
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

resources, but, in actuality, this discussion is either misleading or circular and non-responsive. As an example of a misleading statement, the discussion of VRM resources on pages 3-117 to 3-118 lays out the management criteria and requirements for the four VRM management classes. The discussion indicates that currently the only areas in the VFO managed as VRM management class I are Wilderness Study Areas, and one WSA equivalent, an Instant Study Area. It continues by stating that minerals exploration and development "is not presently exceeding VRM class objectives" throughout the Vernal Field Office, due to proper visual mitigation methods. Yet on page 4-122 the document indicates that VRM management classes I and II "allow little or no alteration to the line, form, color and texture that characterize the existing landscape," thereby raising the potential for greater impacts to minerals development. On page 4-123, the analysis clearly states that an increase in the number of acres of VRM Classes I and II would lead to a direct decrease in the number of available well locations, thereby leading to less production (and royalties). We ask for clarification of the correct standards for VRM management in the VFO, and that the VFO analyze VRM I and II designations as a possible withdrawal of the mineral resources. 

high VRM classes but in areas of loclassification (Class IV to be specific—32), where greater levels of visual inttolerated. Smaller areas are designateClass III and Class II, wherein slighrestrictions on visual alteration exist mitigation measures are used. As suchstatements referenced in the documecontradictory. Under Alternatives A changes in VRM classification across would increase the number of acres uI and II designation (with more VRunder Alternative C than A). More of tClass I and II areas would overlap desirable for minerals and energy explodevelopment. As such, under these athere would be greater impacts on mienergy development through restrictions related to visual management. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI30 We are concerned that the draft RMP is not specific 

about the sources and goals of many of the special management designations available to it, leading to circular and non-responsive reasoning in the analysis. For example on page 4-284 the impacts analysis for visual resources and special 

Table 2.1.18 (Special Designations – Critical Environmental Concern (ACECPRMP/FEIS provides information management foci for each proposed special designation. Many of these foccontrolling noxious weeds, limiting O
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

designations indicates that visual resources will be protected by designation of ACECs and Wild and Scenic River designations. This analysis proceeds under the general presumption that ACECs and WSR segments are "good" for visual resources, but fails to indicate the management prescriptions which actually accomplish this goal. 

designated routes, and establishing surface use stipulations on minerals aexploration and development would redintrusions and alteration of the landscan outcome would be beneficiapreservation of visual resourcedesignation under the Wild and Scenic and through the ACEC process conferresource management that protpreserves the important and relevant varea from the potential effects of awould otherwise be permitted by the general, emphasis is given to protaesthetic, scenic, wildlife, historic, archunique or distinctive, and/or scientific these areas. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI31 Which designation - ACEC, WSR, SRMA or VRM 

management - is being proposed for the protection of visual resources? The VRM discussion mentions the others, while the ACEC discussion mentions the use of VRM classifications. This lack of clarity in proposed management prescriptions doesn't meet the requirements of full disclosure under the provisions of NEPA, and doesn't allow us to determine whether or not the BLM is proposing duplicate prescriptions, contrary to the provisions of state law, and the BLM's Manual on designation of ACECs. 

Visual resources benefit from a different special management designjust VRM classification. While VRM clais specific to visual resources, ACEC, SRMA designation can also consiresource values, and the managemensuch designations typically include aafford protection to visual resourceancillary benefit. Overlapping of program decisions is nfor BLM, but is required by the FLPMANational BLM planning and prograregulations. The FLPMA direcmanagement of public lands be on thmultiple use (Section 102(a) (7)). As use agency, the BLM is required to laws, regulations and policies for man
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

and often competing land uses and conflicts and prescribe land uses throuuse plans. For example, 43 CFR Gprovides guidance and requiremDisposition; Occupancy and Use of puGroup 2800 for Rights-of-way; Group Coal Management; Group 6000 for DWilderness, and Group 8200 for Natupart 8351 for Wild and Scenic Riversuse management requires a balancmandates for these separate programsBLM's Land-use planning Handbook respecific decisions be made for each resuse (Appendix C, H-1601-1). The decisions must be included in eaalternatives analyzed during developmRMP. The RMP will include the required for each program. See comment response VI29. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI32 The counties and State of Utah cannot support any 

proposed VRM class management specifications that will prevent habitat enhancement, fuels reduction, and prescribed fire activities from occurring in the VFO. The RMP must choose VRM management classes which allow vegetation and habitat treatments that improve wildlife habitat and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fire events. 

The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are discand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an public lands must be coordinated and with County plans, to the maximupossible by law, and inconsistencies Federal and non-Federal governmenresolve to the extent practical (FLPMSec. 202 (c)(9)). As a consequence, w
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

and local plans conflict with Federal law be an inconsistency that cannot be rreconciled. Thus, while County and Federal processes, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as pracFederal agency planning process is noor subject to County plans, planning or planning stipulations. The BLM wthese conflicts in the FEIS/PRMP, sState and local governments have a understanding of the impacts of the State and local management oconsistency review of the PRMP with and County Master Plans is included 5. See also comment response VI1. classification precludes limited maactions, which may include fuels prescribed fire, and/or habitat enhaVRM Class I and II require tmanagement activities be conducted in have minimal impact on visual resourcelong term. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI38 State statute recognizes the need to protect the 

scenic resources of the state, and suggests that the BLM consider using VRM Class I management only for inventoried Class A scenery, or the equivalent, but also suggests that the BLM balance this type of protection against the needs of the other legitimate 

BLM IM-2000-96 (Use of Visual Management Class I Designation in WStudy Areas) states; ". . . all WSAs should be classified aand managed according to VRM 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

multiple-uses of the land. BLM Manual H-8410 provides that Inventory Class I should only be assigned to those areas where a management decision has been previously made to maintain a natural landscape. 

management objectives until such timCongress decides to designate the wilderness or release it for other usesis designated as wilderness, the a

continue to be managed as VRM Class 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI39 Some of the proposed VRM boundaries follow the 

boundaries of old Wilderness Inventory Areas (WIAs), causing concern that these provisions for VRM management are substitutes for non-use or non-impairment standards, in contradiction to state 

law and the case of Utah v. Norton. 

See comment response VI1B The BLM is required to apply maprescriptions based upon a consideration of resource values and needs. The BLM has done this indepeprevious designations within the plannis, however, no surprise that old Widentified for areas with high visuavalues. The BLM cannot ignore thesimply because they fall within areas WIAs. Further, the BLM does not mnon-impairment but for multiple-sustainable yield. Finally, the Utah v. Norton Settlement Adoes not affect BLM's authority to manlands. This Agreement merely confusion by distinguishing between study areas established under FLPMA those lands required to be manag§603's non-impairment standard, and othat fall within the discretionary FLMPA management process. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI40 The State of Utah is concerned about the need for 

VRM Class I management within WSAs. The nonimpairment management standards within WSAs is very strict, protecting the wilderness character and characteristics until Congress makes a decision, yet allows for certain activities. The BLM has not demonstrated any need for the VRM classification within the WSAs, and has not analyzed how permitted activities within the WSAs, as limited as they may be, may be affected by the VRM classification. The state requests the BLM identify a real world need for the classification prior to its establishment. 

See comment response VI38 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI41 The proposed stipulation for VRM Class II 

Management is described on page K-10 within Appendix K. The wording for the proposed stipulation is simply a restatement of the descriptions found in Appendix J, and offers no further clarification to the reader about the BLM's intentions to manage under the VRM Class II designation. The State of Utah is concerned that the wording will constitute a severe restriction on legitimate multiple-use activities, especially in light of the wording on page 4-122; restrictions severe enough to constitute management under non-impairment standards. The state looks forward to working with the BLM and local government to clarify the management prescriptions for VRM II under this proposed stipulation. 

See comment response VI1 and VI1E As stated in Appendix K (now J), the BClass objectives clearly describe thdisturbances allowed within each VRSite-specific project-level activities athe scope of the RMP's programmHowever, site-specific analyses of impamitigation of scenic quality and the would be conducted through other sNEPA processes and documents. The commenter should note that oiactivities have been performed in VRM The use of mitigation techniques suprofile tanks, low gloss matching painroads, staining disturbed rock cutplacement in relation to the Key OPoints and other techniques have all
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the construction and production of oil awell as the protection of view sheds. The alternatives provide a range classification from which management from for the final RMP and the VRM clawithin the final RMP will be consgeneral overall management direction. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI42 Appendix K contains a second proposed stipulation 

concerning the Book Cliffs on page K-10. The stipulation indicates that no surface occupancy or other surface disturbance will be allowed for a distance north of Highway 40 east of the Green River. This area is near Blue Mountain, not really all that close to the Book Cliffs. The state requests clarification of this, and a further description of what "no surface disturbance": means. No livestock? No hiking? 

The reason for Blue Mountain being within the Book Cliffs Planning area ithe boundary for the Book Cliffs Resowas defined as those lands both east of the Green River. Both "No Disturbance" and "No Surface Odefinitions can be found on in the GlossThe referenced stipulation is an existinfrom the Book Cliffs RMP, which is the to the Book Cliffs. Please note that this was not carried forward in Alternativcarried forward in the final RMP, definition of "No Surface DisturbancGlossary. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI43 Because a VRM management class is to be 

established only after a management decision is made, and the VRM proposed management regime lacks significant analysis and a range of alternatives, the State of Utah requests that a review of all detailed VRM analysis and proposed management decisions be undertaken in cooperation with the state and local government before the FEIS/FRMP is completed. 

See comment responses VI1F and VI-3The range of alternatives for VRM claas shown in Table 2.1.24 (Visual Management) of the PRMP/FEIS does sufficient range of options for VRM dfrom low proportions of VRM I and II deunder Alternatives B and D (No Actioproportions of those same designatiAlternatives A and C. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF70 The RMP does not apply enough focus on 

meaningful mitigation for habitat loss. The seasonal closures and other stipulations proposed for minerals development are the primary tools used to reduce oil and gas development impacts on wildlife. Without meaningful mitigation, however, these stipulations do not enhance, and may not fully protect the long-term viability of wildlife populations. The alternatives have been modified in regards to raptor management. All alternatives now propose to manage raptors under the August 2006 Best Management Practice for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in Utah. 

The commenter does not provide any information on or a definition of what "meaningful mitigation." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF71 The discussion of increases in forage allocations are 

inconsistently presented in Alternative A for all localities. The State of Utah believes that adequate forage must be provided for wildlife to meet the public's desire for the enjoyment of wildlife species. 

The commenter does not indicate inconsistencies are. As such, the BLM to address this comment. See Ta(Forage All Localities) of the PRMP/FE

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF72 The final RMP should adopt the Utah Strategic 

Management Plan for Sage-Grouse in conjunction with a full set of mitigation tools and habitat improvement techniques. Application of site-specific modifications to these guidelines should only be made with the full concurrence of the UDWR. Additionally, sage-grouse mitigation and stipulations should be consistent with the current draft BLM Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy. The final RMP must provide for adoption and implementation of an approved local sage-grouse conservation plan and strategy, currently being prepared by USU Wildlife Extension, local landowners, industry, governments, and agencies. Provisions should be made within the RMP for the adoption of future revisions of approved 

The management actions for protectiogrouse were based on the State of UtaManagement Plan for Sage Grouse (AA and B), and Connelly's Guidelines Greater Sage Grouse Populations Habitats (Section 4.15.2.5). In addition, Table 2.1.21 (Special Statuof the PRMP/FEIS states:  "BLM would continue to work with USothers to ensure that plans and agreeupdated as necessary to reflect scientific data." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

guidelines, strategies, stipulations, and plans as they become available. 

Table 2.1.21 further states: "Section 2.4.13.4.2.2 states that "In co

with the USFWS, DWR, and other develop habitat management conservation strategies for sensitive sp

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF73 The draft RMP does not contain any stipulations or 

mitigation measures to protect or enhance sagegrouse brooding and winter habitats in the planning area as outlined in the Utah Strategic Management Plan for Sage-Grouse. These guidelines should be incorporated, where appropriate, in all alternatives and practices including grazing, vegetation treatments, fire management, and oil and gas development. 

See comment response WF72. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF75 The State of Utah requests that the proposals to limit 

to surface disturbance to 560 acres per township within critical/crucial deer winter range be kept open for further discussion. 

Section 4.3.2.11.3 in the PRMP/FEIS (C) includes the 560 acres surface dproposal as part of the range of alterna

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF76 In areas such as the Book Cliffs, where summer 

range is a limiting factor for mule deer, impacts and disturbances to the range should be minimized or mitigated in the same manner as winter ranges. 

The commenter does not provide any information or explanation to substaassertion regarding mule deer summer 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF77 The UDWR is concerned that several plans, 

guidelines, assessments, and databases used in development of the RMP EIS were omitted, used in outdated form, or not fully integrated into the draft. The latest version of the UDWR's critical/crucial 

BLM has adopted the current Utah Species List under authority of IM UT In order to keep current with the latesthat is developed during the Final Eand after the ROD is signed, the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

wildlife distribution maps should be used, with reference to adoption of future updates as they become available. Resource assessments completed by either the UDWR or the BLM not referenced in the document include 2002 range trend studies, sage-grouse habitat delineation, raptor nest distribution and occupancy, and mule deer winter range delineation in the Book Cliffs. Additional wildlife and habitat plans produced by the UDWR, which should be referenced, include: the current Utah Sensitive Species List, wildlife management area habitat management plans, and game species management plans (deer, elk, bighorn sheep, bear, cougar). Interagency plans which are completed or in draft form and should be referenced include the following sensitive species conservation plans and strategies: Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the State of Utah, the Range-wide Conservation Agreement for Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta), Bluehead Sucker (Catastomus discobolus), and Flannelmouth Sucker (Catastomus latipinnis), Utah Strategic Management Plan for Sage-Grouse, 2002, Guidelines to Manage Sage-Grouse and their Habitats, and Utah Partners-in-Flight Avian Conservation Strategy. 

incorporated several statements in MaCommon to All under Special Status SWildlife that allow for consideratioinformation. They are as follows: 1) Implement the specific goals and obrecovery plans, conservation agreemstrategies, and approved activity level pwould continue to work with USFWS to ensure that plans and agreements aas necessary to reflect the latest scient2) BLM would continue to implement tgoals and objectives of all recoveconservation plans and strategies, alevel plans. 3) BLM would continue to work with Uothers to ensure that plans and agreeupdated as necessary to reflect scientific data. Recovery plans hfinalized for Uinta Basin hooklesshrubby reed–mustard, and clay reed-draft plan is being developed by the UUte ladies' tresses. A Conservation been prepared for Astragalus eqPenstemon goodrichii, Penstemon graPenstemon scarious var. albifluvis. 4) Where special status plant specieslisted T&E plant species, occur on pubthe planning area, BLM would collab
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

affected local, state, and federal ageresearchers in the implementation of recovery plans and conservation strprotect, stabilize, and recover such sptheir habitats. In addition to on-actions, strategies would be developed public education on species at-risk, sof the species to the human and communities, and reasons for measures that would be applied to involved. Continue or develop monitorin order to determine population dyntrends. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF78 Within the "Actions Common to All" section of the 

RMP EIS, the BLM should commit to implementation of goals and objectives of all current and future approved recovery and conservation plans, strategies, and activities. Future approved research or study results and species/habitat distribution coverages should automatically be updated for planning and action decisions. Failure to do so will diminish the quality of resource decisions based on old or less-than-accurate data. 

See comment response WF77. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF79 The UDWR urges the BLM to fully implement BLM 

Manual 6840 "to conserve listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend" and "to ensure that actions requiring authorization or approval by the Bureau of Land Management...are consistent with the conservation needs of special status species and do not contribute to the need to list any special status species...." Application of accepted guidelines and meaningful mitigation and stipulations are 

Table 2.1.26 (Wildlife and Fisheries Runder the subsection entitled MaActions Common to All Alternatives sta"Manage habitat to prevent the additional listing of species under the contribute to the recovery of thosalready listed." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

necessary to meet the stated goals of the Manual. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF79A The UDWR urges the BLM to incorporate the most 

current Utah Sensitive Species List, as approved by the Utah Wildlife Board, in development of current and future lists of special status species. 

BLM has adopted the current Utah Species List under authority of IM UT 2

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF81 Wildlife and fisheries actions common to all 

alternatives begin on page 2-36. The UDWR is in agreement that mitigation banking should be used as a method to compensate for habitat loss due to surface-disturbing activities. The UDWR views an effective banking system as a way to ensure that meaningful mitigation is completed. 

See comment response WF10. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF82 Reintroductions are discussed on page 2-38. The 

State of Utah maintains legal authority for wildlife management within the State. The UDWR collects public and intergovernmental comment on wildlife management, including species introductions, through a Regional Advisory Council process. Through this process, transplant lists and herd management plans for several species have been created with input from the public and interested parties. 

See comment response WF18A. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF82A As such, UDWR requests that BLM remove 

paragraph 3 on page 2-38 which states: "After analysis, reintroductions would be made in areas where they do not conflict with livestock or where such conflicts would not be avoided, coordination with permittees would be required," as this is not a BLM prerogative. The state will make these analyses as part of its public review process for reintroductions. 

The BLM declines to make the wording changes for a variety oincluding but not limited to, the followinThe BLM does not find the suggestenecessary or appropriate. The suggested wording change substantively contribute to or cdiscussion. The commenter did not provide any rat
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the suggested change is necessary ocurrent data and analysis is incorrect. The suggested change expressed opinions or preferences. The suggested change had little relevaadequacy or accuracy of the RMP/FEIS

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF83 The UDWR supports the decision to continue to 

allow placement of bear bait on public land through a permit process. Baiting is a legitimate hunting method for archery bear hunts. The UDWR requires notification from bear hunters of bait station locations for law enforcement and compliance purposes. 

Table 2.1.26 (Wildlife and Fisheries Rof the PRMP/FEIS under the subsectiMountain Lion and Black Bear states: "Placement of bear bait on public lrequire a permit." Any bear bait permit would be issued UDWR. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF85 The UDWR supports migration and reintroduction of 

bighorn sheep, bison, and moose in defined areas in the VFO. The UDWR has a legal role in managing wildlife populations, hunting, and fishing in Utah. The UDWR has a public process that allows for public comment on wildlife management activities in Utah. The UDWR encourages the BLM to clarify and define the "Southern Book Cliffs" under the bison reintroduction alternative. The UDWR encourages the BLM to define the bison reintroduction area to be the same as the Book Cliffs Bitter Creek/Little Creek sub-units (Unit 10 a,b). 

See comment response WF19. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF86 Chapter 3, specifically the special status species and 

wildlife sections, does not contain detailed information of local populations within the planning area. The UDWR, BLM, and other cooperators have 

See comment response WF77. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

numerous inventories and publications that offer information on wildlife populations. These documents should be discussed, referenced, and cited in the RMP. The UDWR recommends this chapter incorporate further analysis of current populations and management. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF87 The fish and wildlife resources section 3.19 begins 

on page 3-123. Multiple tables within this section confuse the herd unit numbers for Bonanza and Diamond Mountain sub-units. The Bonanza sub-unit number is 9d and Diamond Mountain is 9c. This discrepancy should be changed in Tables 3.19.1, 3.19.3, and 3.19.5. In addition, Table 3.19.2 appears to be incomplete for mule deer habitat in the VPA. 

Table 3.19.2 in the PRMP/FEIS text revised to correct and clarify the numbers and to complete the descriptideer habitat. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF88 Table 3.19.3 outlines management goals for mule 

deer. Some of the population objectives and buck-to-doe ratios are incorrect. The combined mule deer population objective for the South Slope Vernal, Diamond, and Bonanza sub-units is 13,000. The buck-to-doe ratio for South Slope Diamond Mountain (9c) and Book Cliffs Bitter Creek and Little Creek (10a) is 25-30:100. Table 3.19.5 outlines management goals for elk in the VPA. The listed bull age ratios are incorrect. The North Slope (Summit and West Daggett), North Slope Three Corners, South Slope Yellowstone, South Slope Vernal, and South Slope Bonanza sub-units are managed for 50% of bulls 21⁄2 years or older. The South Slope Diamond sub-unit (9c) is managed for bulls 3-4 years old. The Book Cliffs (Bitter Creek and Little Creek) and Nine Mile Anthro sub-units are managed for 5-6 year old bulls. Utah's statewide herd management plans for mule deer, elk, and other species should be 

Table 3.19.3 used 2002 goals for puanalysis of the Draft RMP. Updated gofound at the UDWR web site. The Ptext has been revised to correct the err
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

referenced and discussed in section 3.19. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF89 Section 3.19.1.3 discusses pronghorn in the VPA. 

This section displays population estimates for several herd units. The data referenced are not population estimates, but rather annual trend count numbers. These numbers are used for population trend and do not reflect population sizes. The section does not offer trend count data for the Book Cliffs and Nine Mile pronghorn herd units. Trend data for these units can be obtained by contacting the UDWR Vernal office at 435-781-6707. 

Section 3.19.1.3 in the PRMP/FEIS texrevised, and trend count data addsection. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF90 Bighorn sheep are discussed on page 3-127. The 

UDWR is unaware of any large bighorn sheep populations in the Nine-Mile Canyon area. The UDWR manages bighorn sheep populations in Desolation Canyon and on Range Creek, both of which are outside the VFO. The Ute Tribe has bighorn sheep populations in Desolation Canyon and in Hill Creek. 

Section 3.19.1.4 in the PRMP/FEIS texrevised to remove the reference to population within Nine-Mile Canyonsheep are in the UDWR Nine Mile which is outside of the VPA. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF91 Moose populations are outlined in section 3.19.1.5. 

This section does not mention that moose populations also occur in the North Slope wildlife management unit and does not offer population estimates for that unit. 

Section 3.19.1.5 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to include moose population ifor the North Slope wildlife managemen

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF92 Section 3.19.1.10 should include Brown's Park and 

Mallard Springs WMAs as additional important waterfowl and shorebird areas in the VFO. 

Section 3.19.1.10 in the EIS text revised to include these areas as imwaterfowl. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF93 Desert and mountain cottontails should be removed 

from section 3.19.1.12. Cottontail rabbits are managed by the UDWR as upland game species. 

The PRMP/FEIS has been revised to cottontail information from Section (Non-Game Species) to Section 3.19.1Species). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF94 Page 3-133 outlines habitat fragmentation concerns. 

The section cites a study on mule deer conducted in the Book Cliffs. This study was a four-year inventory (1998-2002), rather than two years as listed in the RMP. The UDWR initially recommended the study continue for five total years, however sufficient data were collected by the fourth year to meet the study objective. More information on fragmentation of mule deer habitat can be found in the study "Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and Management Strategies" by Vos, Conover, and Headrick (2003). 

Section 4.19.2 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to show that the inventory lengtyears. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF95 The RMP must develop stipulations and mitigation 

strategies designed to minimize potential impacts to wildlife, yet allow other resource uses to proceed. No mitigation or other stipulations are presented under alternative A in section 4.19.2.3.1. Mitigation strategies not presented in the document have been developed for several species including mule deer, elk, pronghorn, Greater Sage-grouse, bighorn sheep, white-tailed prairie dogs, Mountain Plovers, Burrowing Owls, and black-footed ferrets. These should be presented and further developed to include each of the species listed in sections 4.15 and 4.19. 

Stipulations for surface-disturbing relative to wildlife and special status soutlined in Appendix K. Spatial buseasonal mitigation for special staspecies are outlined in Appendix Amitigation measures for wildlife and spespecies also are developed at the prwhen the particular species involved nature of the potential impacts are knowPlease also see comment response W

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF96 Section 4.19 on page 4-305 should include an 

additional impact of grazing management decisions on wildlife. Livestock grazing in critical big game winter ranges, riparian areas, and sage-grouse areas has the potential to impact wildlife by changing vegetation composition and structure. These impacts are real and should be analyzed in the RMP. 

Section 4.19 in the PRMP/FEIS has beto include an analysis of the impacts oand grazing management actions on w

Draft WF97 The RMP confuses UDWR GIS data and Utah GAP Sections 4.19.2.5.2.1 and 4.19.2.5.2
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS Analysis data in section 4.19.2.5.2.1 on page 4-314 

and in section 4.19.2.5.2.2 on page 4-316. Utah State University developed GAP Analysis projected habitat occurrence data for several wildlife species during the mid-1990s. The UDWR GIS database includes, in part, habitat value designations as well as season of use designations for big game and other managed wildlife species 

PRMP/FEIS text have been revised to use of UDWR GIS data and Utah GAdata. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF98 The UDWR recommends that the RMP further 

address cumulative impacts in both the special status species section (4.22.9) and the wildlife and fisheries section (4.22.12). The RMP should provide more information regarding past activities and projected future activities in the Uintah Basin and the combined impacts these actions may have on wildlife populations. 

Sections 4.22.10 (special status spe4.22.12 (wildlife and fisheries) in the Phave been revised to provide more ion cumulative effects. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF99 The UDWR notes that the sage-grouse lek buffers 

subject to timing and controlled use on figure 11, figure 12, and figure 13 may be incorrect. USU completed a resource assessment for BLM and documented leks, winter use areas, and other grouse observations. The data displayed on figure 11 appear to represent all data points USU collected, many of which are not actual lek locations. This discrepancy occurred on the sage-grouse lek map BLM had in the administrative draft RMP and appears not to have been corrected. The UDWR maintains the most up-to-date database for sage-grouse leks and those data should be used for the RMP. 

Figures 11-13 in the PRMP/FEIS hrevised to correct sage grouse lek buffe

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF100 Placement of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the 

White River drainage would cause undue conflict 

BLM management decisions do not aptrust lands. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

with domestic sheep operations and would be harmful to the bighorn sheep. If domestic sheep were prohibited from the area to accommodate the bighorn sheep, TLA would lose a revenue source. Since cattle would not be an appropriate livestock kind for most of these allotments, a switch in livestock kind would not be available to make up for the loss. Compensation may be required if this occurs. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WH28 The analysis of wild horse impacts on wildlife and 

fisheries on page 4-324 is incomplete and does not address long-term impacts by wild horses on sagebrush steppe vegetation communities and existing riparian areas. The Utah DWR indicates that significant overgrazing of browse (needed by mule deer) occurs annually, especially around water collection ponds, in other areas of wild horse herds. Estimates of the effects of the Ute Tribal wild horses in Agency Draw indicate that a minimum of a 0.5-mile radius on browse damage can be seen around watering sites 

The potential impacts of wild horse madecisions on vegetation are analyzed 4.16.2.14. The analysis of potential impacts of management decisions on wildlife coSection 4.19.2.13 has been expandPRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WH29 No analysis is included in the DEIS of the impacts of 

wild horse trespass on state lands adjacent to Winter Ridge. 

The BLM is unaware of trespass issuelands, so an analysis of this potential inot included in the DEIS. See also response WH9. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WH30 The State of Utah (DWR) has documented three 

sage grouse leks on Winter Ridge, although no birds have been noted there for the last few years. It is inconsistent for the BLM, a major player in the local Sage Grouse Working Group, to be a proponent of restoring sage grouse habitat to prevent a listing, while at the same time considering a decision that 

See comment response WH17. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

might establish a wild horse herd in an area with three historic lek sites. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WH31 State of Utah (DWR) biologists have documented 

heavy summer and winter use of Winter Ridge by elk. This use has created competition for forage between the elk and the livestock permittee. This impacts of wild horses on available forage in light of this existing competition needs to be analyzed further in the DEIS. 

Analysis of impacts from competition between elk, livestock, and wild horses added in the PRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WH32 The potential riparian damage caused by wild horses 

and its impact on the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Recovery Program for Meadow Creek and the headwater streams in upper Willow Creek has not been sufficiently analyzed in the DEIS. 

The potential impacts of wild horse madecisions on riparian areas are oSection 4.11.2.2. The potential impachorse management decisions on spespecies is provided in Sections 4.14.15.2.2, as part of forage allocatpotential impact of wild horse madecisions on soil and water rescontained in Section 4.13.1.3. The cdoes not identify what is insufficient analysis in question. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WH33 The proposal to establish a wild horse herd of 

between 50 and 100 animals on Winter Ridge may countermand the previously agreed upon and funded efforts of the State of Utah, SITLA, and BLM to improve sage grouse habitat there in order to prevent listing of the grouse. 

See comment response WH17. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WH34 The Wild Horses and Burros Section 3.18 presents 

information regarding the Hill Creek Southeast/Agency Draw HMA on page 3-121. The UDWR believes the RMP should note that horses freely roam outside the HMA in the Buck Canyon/Bates Knolls vicinity. Wild horse use has 

The BLM has taken action to prevent wfrom moving up Buck Canyon to the Baarea. The fence has been built; howBLM is waiting for Uintah County to cattleguard. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

negatively impacted range conditions on UDWR lands in and near Chimney Rock and on Willow Creek. The RMP should also note that wild horse use on Winter Ridge and Bonanza has impacted range conditions in sage-grouse habitat. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WT1 With respect to Woodlands, it was a little difficult to 

follow the logic regarding the link between SRMAs and woodland benefit in Table 2.5. Perhaps very brief mention of SRMAs in Section 2.4.19.2, Management Common to All would help. 

Table 2.5 of the Draft RMP has beefrom the PRMP/FEIS. More detailed iabout the link between special de(including SRMAs) and woodland improvided in Sections 4.20.2.4 and 4.20PRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WT2 Woodlands and Forest Lands should be managed to 

control soil erosion to prevent the soil erosion rate from exceeding the tolerable (T) rate as determined through USDA/NRCS. Resources should be managed such that T is not exceeded on vegetated forest lands nor from roadways or road cuts, or from riparian areas within forested lands. 

The BLM is planning managePinyon/Juniper forested lands througsales, thinning and fire to decreascover, and increase shrub and herbaceto reduce erosion at levels of tolerabelow. Ponderosa and Douglas Fir aremanaged for diversity and cover anprescriptions for change if erosion bproblem. Roads and road cuts will alsite where (T) will be exceeded during events. Where sedimentation is identifproblem, conservation measures will be 

WSA Supp. 1 AQ The state encourages the BLM Vernal Field Office to 

impose these emissions standards as lease conditions for all new and relocated engines, and as conditions of approval for all new APDs. These standards would positively impact air quality, facilitate continued action, and would be consistent with neighboring state jurisdictions. 

The BLM will consider incorporating theCOAs. However, the state air quality agauthority for setting emissions standarBLM can not unilaterally impose emison any source without the permcooperation of the UDAQ. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 2 WSR The state is also concerned about suitability findings 

for those streams where there are significant water diversions upstream of the subject reach, most of which are for irrigation. The is particularly true for the Green and White river drainages. While federal reserved water rights are traditionally not asserted prior to designation, those stream reaches found suitable are managed as if they were designated. This "managed-as-if-designated" approach has the unfortunate and inaccurate potential to cause managers to believe a de facto federal reserved water right exists for those reaches, and thereby to impact the future management and utilization of valid existing water rights above, below and even within, the reaches. The state strongly believes that the suitability determination phase is the proper time to begin negotiations concerning the extent of any future federal reserved water rights, and requests the BLM to do so as the Final Vernal RMP is prepared. 

As a 

minimum, the State Engineer requests the BLM catalog all valid, existing water rights which may be affected by designation as part of the Final EIS. 

According the "Wild and Scenic River the State of Utah Process and CInteragency Use" (July 1996), Conallowed for the existence of sommodification of a riverway, the primpoundments or major dams above segment under review (including thosregulate the flow regime through the The existence of minor dams, diversion and rip-rap within the segment shthemselves render a reach ineligible. Barring congressional action, there is nwater rights or in-stream flows related tfindings made in a land-use plan decisCongress were to designate rivers National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systemdesignation would have no effect on exrights. Section 13(b) of the Wild and SAct states that jurisdiction over determined by established principles Utah, the State has jurisdiction oAlthough the Wild and Scenic Rivers AFederal reserved water right for designit does not require or specify any amonoted above, confirms that Utah has over water rights. The BLM would be adjudicate the water right, in the same any other entity, by application throprocesses. Thus, for congressionally rivers, the BLM may assert a Federawater right for appurtenant and unawater with a priority date as of thdesignation (junior to all existing rights)
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the minimum amount necessary to primary purpose of the reservation. Based on the information given in this the BLM declines to provide the requesof affected valid existing water righfederal water right would be junior texisting rights, and therefore have no them. 

WSA Supp. 3 GRA For these reasons, the state is extremely concerned 

about the tenor and content of statements in the Supplement which assert that grazing and wildlife are not mutually beneficial, and that elimination of grazing will automatically improve rangeland health. For example, within the discussion for Forage on pages 2-5 to 2-7, BLM proposes that, in the event of a loss of forage or a demonstrated conflict between livestock and wildlife, livestock numbers would be reduced.Similarly, the discussion of impacts on pages 4-31 to 4-32 indicates that "forage production would likely increase...resulting in creased feed...and an improvement in rangeland health," through a reduction in grazing AUMs. Further, on page 4-91, the Supplement states that "grazing is a threat to all listed and most sensitive species." The state opposes the implication, contained within these statements, that wildlife are, a priori, better for the health of the range than a proper, balanced program of grazing by livestock and use by wildlife. These statements contravene the principles mentioned above. 

The sections cited do not imply that wpriori, better than livestock. The alternatives present a range of forage between livestock and wildlife if adjuAUMs are made. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 4 WL On a related note, the state believes the BLM should 

only employ the term "critical habitat" when referring to the legal habitat designations for endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The state requests that the BLM use the "crucial habitat" designations mapped by the Division of Wildlife Resources solely as descriptive wildlife habitat designations, not as automatic exclusion zones for other multiple uses. 

Chapter 1 of the PRMP/FEIS pdiscussion of the terms "critical" vhabitat. 

WSA Supp. 6 WC The state does not believe that BLM has the authority 

to create a category of management based solely on the characteristics of wilderness. The characteristics of wilderness, or their constituent elements, were first recognized by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and passed to the BLM within the provisions of Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.The authority within Section 603 has now expired b its own terms. The state recognizes that recent court decisions have affirmed BLM's information about these characteristics in its documents prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Please see Response to ID No. G-14410. 

WSA Supp. 7 PRP The state cautions BLM against an overly broad 

reading of these decisions. Management authority must be derived solely from the specific provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, (e.g. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) or other specific federal legislation, and it is incumbent upon the BLM to carefully define its detailed legal rationale and reasoning for its proposed management policies, provisions and categories. 

See comment response 154-B-6. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 8 WC Thus, 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. 

Please see Response to ID No. G-174-C

WSA Supp. 10 CCR 

As more specifically set forth below, SITLA believes that the Supplement fails to address adequately these two major issues: the impact of BLM management decisions on state trust lands, and the need for a substantially more robust program for land tenure adjustments between the BLM and the State of Utah.BLM has an obligation to include in its planning an effective and timely means of addressing the impact of federal land actions on in-held state trust lands. 

The Supplement, along with the Dconstitutes the complete DRMP. Impadecisions on state trust lands are diSection 4.12 (Socioeconomics). Sectiothe Draft RMP provides a thorough diland tenure adjustments between the BState of Utah. 

WSA Supp. 12 WL The inability to implement habitat restoration projects 

on BLM lands with wilderness characteristics would impede the UPCD's ability to restore and maintain healthy watersheds. 

Habitat restoration projects will be able non-WSA lands with wilderness chaBLM has provided in the Proposed RMin Table 2.1.10, the following mdirection: "When compatible with the objectives for management of non-WSA wilderness characteristics: Permit vegfuel treatments using prescribed fire, and chemical treatments, and othcompatible with the Healthy Lands Initia

WSA Supp. 13 REC Red Mountain/Sand Pockets: This area is shown as 

being closed to OHV use, yet the document acknowledges the designated Red Mountain Trail.Also, there are several trails in the Sand Pockets area that are heavily used and may someday soon be connected to Steinke State Park. We recommend this 

Within the Range of Alternatives the Saarea would be Open, Limited, or ctherefore evaluates the area as "limAlternative B, Figure 26.) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

area be reclassified as "limited" rather than "closed". 

WSA Supp. 14 REC Nine Mile: There is an existing road that constitutes 

the north boundary of the southern portion of the Desolation Non WSA lands with wilderness characteristics area. This road continues east and south across Nine Mile Creek and the proceeds west into Carbon County to Horse Bench. This is a portion of an existing loop trail that is highly prized by OHV users. The Price Field Office's Draft RMP has their portion of this trail open to motorized use. We think the Vernal part of this trail should remain open to preserve continuity between the plans. 

Also, it is noted on this 

map that the route up Frank Canyon has been left open for motorized travel as part of this trail. 

The Vernal Field office will work closePrice field office where possible concerns dealing with a comprehenmanagement plan. Site specific NEPA will be required fotrails/routes. The Comprehensive travel managemethe VPA will be completed within 1-5 yRecord of Decision, and is therefore scope of this document. 

WSA Supp. 15 WC Each determination of wilderness characteristics notes 

that the VFO "determined appropriate setback distances for pipelines, roads, and other ROWs." Other Field Offices did not adopt this approach.Please explain the difference in approaches. With respect to setbacks, some but not all non-WSA areas identified as possessing wilderness characteristics were reduced in size because of buffers. Compare Diamond Mountain and Daniels Canyon. Please clarify if all proposed areas were treated similarly, and if not, why different treatment was appropriate. 

As protocol for all VFO wilderness chreviews, the Interdisciplinary Team appropriate set-back distances for pipeland other R-O-Ws. The VFO cannot other office approaches. 

All areas w

similarly. 

WSA Supp. 16 WC Where these analysis areas depend on the monument 

for satisfaction of the 5,000 acre criteria, the existence of a fence appears to detract from wilderness values.Please explain what kind of fence separates the Monument from adjacent BLM lands and why the 

A Vernal Field Office Interdisciplinreviewed the Non-WSA areas includimade disturbances, such as fencing. Wdetermined that the Human-made dwere substantially unnoticeable and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

existence of this fence does not compromise values dependant on adjacency. 

diminished the naturalness of the areawere then determined to have characteristics. 

WSA Supp. 17 AA Please clarify which area were excluded, why, and 

how the features or activities that contradict wilderness character would impact "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation" on adjacent lands. 

The Proposed RMP column in Table 2.1as Section 4.22 in the PRMP/EIS clanon-WSA lands with wilderness chawere brought forward. The rationadecision will be addressed in the FEISDecision. 

WSA Supp. 18 AA The review form does not identify any areas as having 

wilderness characteristics, but the attached map and Box 3.b. do. Please either substantiate any inference from the map that wilderness characteristics exist, or revise the map to indicate that no wilderness characteristics exist. 

Page 2-21 of the Supplement to the clearly identifies the non-WSA lwilderness characteristics that are aunder Alternative E. 

WSA Supp. 19 AA The review form indicates that a juniper removal 

project is scheduled for 2007. Please clarify how this will be undertaken to avoid interfering with the appearance of naturalness within the treatment area. 

See comment response 151-O-4. Any potential surface-disturbing prorequire site-specific NEPA anadocumentation. 

WSA Supp. 20 AA The map shows numerous routes in sections 27-28 

and 33-35 of T3N, R24E. Please discuss these routes and the extent to which they compromise the appearance of naturalness or "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation". 

The RMP is a programmatic docuconsiders management decisions ananalyses on a landscape level, not a level. 

WSA Supp. 21 AA It is difficult to distinguish external nominations from 

BLM internal nominations. The inability to distinguish areas complicated any attempt to evaluate VFO's analysis. Please be more specific regarding nomination areas and the location of features within 

All of the non-WSA lands with characteristics are external nominationsfor these lands are analyzed in Alternaare clearly portrayed in Figure 20. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

these areas. 

WSA Supp. 22 AA Cherry stemming roads that are "regularly used by 

trucks hauling water from the White River for oil and gas exploration and development" would not appear sufficient to protect "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation." Please clarify how regular truck use can occur without compromising these values. 

There are no non-WSA lands propoProposed RMP for the PRMP/FEIS waccess the White River. Should such roads exist to access the Wthe "cherry stemming" land mtechnique would be used by allowing iegress without compromising a designation. Cherry stemming localizewhere vehicle traffic is conducted to stretches along the river. "Oopportunities for solitude or a priunconfined type of recreation" is still pothe remaining portions of the river. 

WSA Supp. 23 AA Based on the review form, it appears that there are 58 

pending APDs within this area. This level of development does not appear compatible with "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation". Please clarify how VFO would protect "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation" in light of this level of development, including the ancillary facilities such as roads, pipelines and compressor stations that appear reasonably foreseeable. 

The area is question is not being brouas a non-wilderness area with characteristics in the Proposed RMRMP/EIS because of the lands arleased as well as the current and the hifor future development. 

WSA Supp. 24 AA It appears that an existing airstrip and several wells 

are within area 1, but have been cherry stemmed out.Please clarify how continued use of these facilities would be managed to protect "outstanding 

See comment response 189-O-23. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation." 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

CR16 The Ute Tribe requests that the Tribe be informed at 

least two weeks in advance of all future cultural resource surveys, so that Tribal elders can participate in the surveys. The Tribal elders can provide valuable information on locations of sacred areas, medicinal plants, and other areas of cultural importance to the Tribe that may potentially be impacted by surface disturbance on Tribal lands. The RMP/EIS should specify that Tribal elders would participate in evaluation of the cultural importance of a site to the Tribe, where surface-disturbing activities are proposed. 

The BLM declines to include languaproposed RMP that stipulates that would be given a 2-week advance cultural surveys and participate in evsite's cultural importance to the Trsurface disturbances are proposed. In accordance with the NationaPreservation Act, Executive Order 13federal legislation and BLM policy, Vernal Field Office (VFO) will continue with Native American Tribes regaundertaking of the VFO that has the paffect resources that are important to This consultation affords the Topportunity to identify for the BLM any and suggest any additional identifevaluation measured deemed approprundertaking. In addition BLM will coExecutive Order 13007, Indian sac
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

consultation and also comply with manand H-8120-1. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

CR18 The Ute Tribe requests that the following Tribal 

requirements and stipulations be included in the RMP and in Appendix K (surface stipulations applicable to all surface-disturbing activities), as appropriate, in order to ensure that disturbance to important cultural sites on Tribal lands is avoided: The Tribe shall be consulted prior to any surface disturbance on Tribal lands to ensure that habitats for plants of medicinal or cultural value are not disturbed. If a specific location contains such plants, no surface occupancy would be allowed; Cultural or archaeological sites that are determined by the Tribe to be important historical sites and/or gathering places would be unavailable for surface occupancy; No surface occupancy, including vehicular traffic, would be allowed in sacred areas or on Tribal hunting grounds on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation; and No vehicular traffic shall be allowed on Saturdays and Sundays between Memorial Day and Labor Day for annual summer religious festivals. 

Information related to these requestprovided as a part of the comments Tribe, so the VFO is unable to determthese areas are that the Tribe is about. A meeting was held with Tribal repreon 12-9-2005 to clarify the comments During the meeting it was stated that comments shown were in regard to Tsurface lands, except for the cucomment. As such, any access acrtrust surface would be negotiated with not needing to be addressed within the RMP. Mitigation to important cultural sdetermined after consultation with the T

Draft RMP/EIS 

CR19 The RMP states that the higher number of acres 

designated in SRMAs under Alternatives A and C would provide greater positive impacts to cultural resources. However, the document (at page 4-50) also states that the greater level of human activity associated with increased recreation in these SRMAs would result in increased levels of vandalism and looting of cultural resources. The Ute Tribe is 

Mitigation of impacts to importanresources and sacred sites would be at the time of site-specific proposals NEPA analysis process. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

concerned with the high level of recreation proposed under Alternatives A and C. We disagree that human activity in a "managed setting" would limit vandalism and looting of cultural resources of high importance to the Tribe. We believe that the greater volume of people using the area for recreation would result in increased adverse impact to cultural resources. Therefore, we recommend that cultural surveys be conducted in areas proposed for SRMAs, so that areas with important cultural and sacred sites would be identified and closed to recreational activities. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC36 Many of the proposed decisions/actions have the 

potential to negatively impact Tribal lands and resources. Therefore, we request that the BLM formally consult with the Ute Tribe on any land use decision or action (e.g., leasing for mineral development) that could directly or indirectly affect Tribal interests and resources. 

The BLM maintains regular and consultation with the Ute Tribe as responsibilities under the NationaPreservation Act, Executive Order 1existing BLM policy. Additionally, the the process of developing a working with the Tribe to outline the specific pand nature of said consultation. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG66 The draft RMP at page 4-317 states that rangeland 

improvements would include a variety of activities. The Ute Tribe supports these improvements, as they would also improve existing wildlife habitat and provide water during high-stress drought periods. The Tribe requests that the BLM notify the Ute Tribe Fish and Wildlife Department prior to initiating rangeland improvements in proximity to Tribal land. Cooperation between the BLM and Tribal biologists would result in the greatest benefit to wildlife that inhabit both BLM and Tribal lands. 

The BLM commits to continuing the exongoing consultation with the Ute Tribe actions that have the potential to aresources or concerns and actions topportunities for cooperative maregarding these resources and concern

Draft RMP/EIS 

LR14 The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation (Ute Tribe) has previously informed the 

Acreages under jurisdiction of the Ute included in Table 1.1; however, lang
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Vernal Office of the BLM of the need to have the RMP and EIS for the Vernal Field Office discuss the law relating to access to the surface estate of the Ute Tribe. Despite these previous requests, the RMP is completely silent concerning surface access to tribal lands. The Ute Tribe requires acknowledgements of its rights as a surface owner within the area of the RMP. Failure to set forth these rights within the text of the RMP will render the document incomplete and inadequate. 

been added to Section 1.4.1 of the Pclarifying the role of the Ute Tribe as surface estate within the area to be through the RMP. See comment response LR37. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LR37 The Ute Tribe is a Cooperating Agency in the 

revision of the RMP. Despite this status, the Ute Tribe does not believe that its concerns about land use affecting tribal lands have been addressed in the RMP process. As the owner or administrator of much of the surface area within the planning area, the Ute Tribe is entitled to consent to any rights-of-way or other surface uses of these lands. The Tribe is also interested in assuring the proper and efficient development of tribal minerals, while protecting the interests of the Tribe and its members. While BLM officials have been supportive of the Tribe's concerns in private conversations, the RMP does not include any discussion of those concerns, or analysis of how best to address those concerns. The Ute Tribe is frankly worried that the RMP process will be used to justify land development processes that are inconsistent with the special status of tribal lands. The Ute Tribe again requests that the RMP include a clear acknowledgement of the rights of the Ute Tribe 

to manage access to tribal lands, and a discussion of the process by which the Ute Tribe and the BLM will cooperate in the management of their respective 

The following language has been Section 1.4.1 of the PRMP/FEIS: "Decisions and actions of the RMP apply to BLM lands. In cases of split essuch as lands within the planning aresplit between the BLM and the UintaIndian Tribe, actions affecting the sube coordinated with the surfacUndertakings conducted on lands not partly administered by the BLM are sublaws, regulations, conditions, and polirelevant land management agency landowner." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

land bases. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME63 Page 3-39 identifies six RFD areas within the VPA 

that were evaluated for potential energy resources. It should be noted in the RMP/EIS that the Uintah & Ouray Indian Reservation is located in portions of the East and West Tavaputs Plateau, Monument ButteRed Wash, Altamont-Bluebell, and Tabiona-Ashley Valley RFD areas. Oil and gas, CBNG, tar sands, and mineral materials, such as sand gravel and building stone are potentially present within Reservation boundaries. The RMP/EIS should specify that all Tribal laws, regulations, conditions, and stipulations, would apply to energy and mineral resources, if operations are conducted on tribal land within the VPA. 

Section 1.4.1 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to read as follows:  "Decisions and actions of the RMP apply to BLM lands. In cases of split essuch as lands within the planning aresplit between the BLM and the UintaIndian Tribe, actions affecting the sube coordinated with the surfacUndertakings conducted on lands not partly administered by the BLM are sublaws, regulations, conditions, and polirelevant land management agency landowner." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME64 Page 4-98 states that under Alternatives A, B, and C, 

approximately 188,500 acres of split-estate lands (Tribal surface-Federal minerals) within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation would be available for minerals leasing. It is important to note that the Hill Creek Extension is known as a "Wildlife and Cultural Resource Protection Area" and was under a mineral development moratorium pursuant to Tribal Ordinance 83-02 and Resolution 83-184. The Tribe only granted exceptions for mineral development for projects in the Flat Rock area, because substantial financial compensation was received for surface use and access to Tribal lands. The Tribe wishes to minimize development in the southern portion of the Hill Creek Extension area, particularly south of Township 13 South. In addition, the Tribe is adamant 

The Vernal RMP planning area does nany BLM managed lands within the Extension in Grand County, so the coutside the scope of the RMP. For the remainder of BLM managed lathe Hill Creek Extension, the BLM hwith the Ute Tribe and BIA to appropriate leasing categories for BLM underlying the Hill Creek Extension. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

about not allowing any development in Grand County for a number of environmental and cultural reasons. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME65 Page 4-98 states that the impacts of leasing of 

minerals would be beneficial to the Ute Tribe, including rentals or fees from the use of surface permits or other rights-of-way. However, it does not state that there would also be adverse impacts, including those to cultural resources, e.g. sacred sites, medicinal plants, and ancestral hunting grounds. 

Section 4.8 in the PRMP/FEIS has beto add a footnote explaining that imminerals leasing are discussed in othechapters as part of the area analysis. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME66 The Ute Tribe requests that the following Tribal 

requirements and stipulations for surface disturbance resulting from mineral development be included in the RMP/EIS and in Appendix K (surface stipulations applicable to all surface-disturbing activities), in order to ensure that surface disturbance on Tribal lands is avoided, where possible, or minimized: All Tribal laws and regulations shall apply to all oil and gas activities, including the Tribal environmental regulations that are presently being drafted by the Tribe; No geophysical or seismic activities are allowed on Tribal lands without first obtaining a Mineral Access Permit from the Tribe, including payment for surface disturbance; Applications for new road construction on Tribal surface shall be submitted to the Tribe for approval. Access to pristine areas or areas with cultural resources or sacred sites shall be limited (or denied) and multiple well drilling pads may be required to minimize impacts to wildlife, endangered plants or medicinal plants, cultural or historic areas, artifacts, 

While the BLM supports the Tribe's comsuggested language is more applicabspecific proposals. Also, since the BLM surface management agency, it appropriate for the Tribe to deveconditions of approval based uporesource conditions and their desired objectives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

and important visual resources; All contents of any reserve pit or similar pits and associated pit liners located on Tribal land shall be removed upon well completion and disposed of in an appropriate facility; A fugitive dust control and road maintenance plan shall be submitted by the operator to the Tribe for approval prior to use of Tribal roads; this may require selected roads to be paved by the Lessee; Vehicular traffic and equipment for oil and gas operations shall be subject to maximum daily quotas, noise reduction and road usage curfews, as necessary, established by the Tribe to minimize impacts to the wilderness experience now enjoyed by Tribal members on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation; A written agreement between the Tribe and the operator is required prior to drilling a water well(s) on Tribal lands. All water removed from the well shall be purchased from the Tribe; Surface activities during wet or muddy periods or periods of high fire danger, may be curtailed or prohibited upon notice by the Tribe; No oil and gas development shall be conducted within 500 feet of a canyon rim or hilltop within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation to avoid or minimize impacts to visual resources. The construction of lowprofile oil and gas facilities may be required; The minerals underlying leases on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation are subject to claim by the Tribe; and All oil and gas activities shall be in full compliance 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

with Onshore Order No. 1 (25 CFR section 169) and other applicable rules and regulations, including the Tribe's right to receive full market value for all surface use of and access to Tribal lands (25 CFR Section 169). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME67 Pages 4-101 to 4-109 discuss the alternatives and 

mention that each alternative would affect royalties paid to the federal government and/or the State of Utah. As the Tribe owns some mineral rights in the Hill Creek Extension, it should be noted that royalties paid to the Tribe would be affected as well. 

The impacts to royalty payments alternative are associated with public i.e. leased by the BLM. As to the minheld in trust for the benefit of the Ute RMP does not impact royalties padetermination as to what Indian trust mavailable for leasing or not is a decimade by the Tribe, not the BLM. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME68 Pages 4-101 to 4-109 propose, under Alternatives A, 

B, and C, timing and controlled surface use for the Hill Creek Extension, which is located on the East Tavaputs Plateau. However, several hundred wells would be drilled under all alternatives in East Tavaputs Plateau, some of which would be on Tribal surface lands. The Ute Tribe requests that the number of potential wells on Tribal lands be clearly identified in the RMP/EIS and appropriate mitigation measures should be included. 

The mineral potential report identifiefuture development within a region, bspecific as to location. Therefore, cannot reflect the number of potential Tribal surface. Appropriate mitigation beyond what was identified in commwould be developed at the project prop

Draft RMP/EIS 

RW74 No leasing/activity should occur within one-half mile 

of any spring or riparian area. 

Appendix K outlines stipulations fodisturbing activities near riparian arestipulations apply to all alternatthroughout the planning area and isurface occupancy within active flopublic waters, or 100 meters of riparian 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD115 The Ute Tribe is evaluating specific areas on 

Reservation lands for possible designation as Tribal Wilderness Areas, including but not limited to the 

BLM declines to make the suggestechanges for a variety of reasons includlimited to, the following: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

lands south of Township 13 South, S.L.M. The RMP/EIS should include the following tribal stipulation in areas of potential surface disturbance on tribal lands: All lands on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation may be subject to additional future restrictions, i.e., Tribal Wilderness Designation. 

The BLM does not find the suggestenecessary or appropriate. The suggested wording change substantively contribute to or cdiscussion. The commenter did not provide any ratthe suggested change is necessary ocurrent data and analysis is incorrect. The suggested change expressed opinions or preferences. The suggested change had little relevaadequacy or accuracy of the RMP/FEISThe Vernal RMP only addresses sissues such as the Hill Creek Extensare Tribal surface and Federal mineralsDiscussions have been held between and Tribal representatives concerning issues on the Hill Creek Extension. 

comments have been provided by the illustrates surface management conceleasing of the Federal mineral estate. illustrating surface resource impacts weanalyzing the appropriate categstipulations for the leasing of the Fedeestate. Necessary information as to the area thproposed for additional future restrictiobeen provided, so it cannot be incluRMP decisions at this time. In the futu
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the Ute Tribe decide to provide differiuse restrictions other than what has alrprovided, that would not impact the maof existing leases. Future leases impacted after a plan amendment was to address the impacts to the mineral managed by BLM. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SS21 The Ute Tribe supports the use of Best Management 

Practices, timing limitations, controlled surface use, and no surface occupancy stipulations to protect special status plants and animals. In addition, the Tribe requests that the BLM consult with the Ute Tribe Natural Resources Department prior to implementing any actions that may affect special status species and/or habitats on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. 

BLM supports consultation wijurisdictional agencies as stated i1.4.1.2. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SS22 The Ute Tribe proposes the inclusion of the following 

stipulation for special status species and habitats in the RMP/EIS: No surface occupancy stipulations would be required for raptor and eagle nesting sites and special status plant species habitat (including threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species). 

BLM has incorporated surface use restthe management of wildlife. Please see K. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SW18 The Ute Tribe is concerned about the impacts of 

surface disturbance to soil and water quality, since these disturbances would likely affect the water quality on Tribal lands near disturbed areas. We are especially concerned about water quality degradation to Hill Creek from soil erosion and potential contamination of the stream with chemicals. Therefore, the Tribe recommends that the following stipulation be included in the RMP/EIS: 

The area around Hill Creek is desiControlled Surface Use under AlternaC, and E. Stipulations are in place (2.1.16 (Riparian Resources) usubsection entitled Management ComAction Alternatives that prohibit disturbance within 100 meters of ripawith exceptions for the following situthere are no practical alternatives; b) t
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

No surface occupancy shall be allowed in areas adjacent to Hill Creek. 

are fully mitigated; or c) the proposedesigned to enhance riparian resouagrees with your concerns related quality impacts to Hill Creek. Tadministered lands are subject to thpolicy stated in Table 2.1.16. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

TR14 No right-of-way may be granted across the lands of 

the Ute Tribe without its consent. 25 U.S.C. § 324; 25 C.F.R. § 169.3. Furthermore, such rights-of-way and surface uses require payment of not less than the fair market value of the rights granted. 25 C.F.R. § 169.12. Payment of the fair market value for surface use is in addition to any payment or bond for potential damage to the surface. 

The BLM acknowledges the Utjurisdictional authority and makes no cRMP to the contrary. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

TR69 The Ute Indian Tribe has implemented a Master 

Infrastructure Plan (MIP) to guide use and development of roads, pipelines, and other facilities in a portion of the RMP area known as the Hill Creek Extension. The Tribe is constructing or has constructed this infrastructure to accommodate foreseeable impacts and development in an effort to eliminate the need for producers to construct unnecessarily. The plan has been developed and implemented with strong consideration to the sensitive needs of wildlife, cultural and historic resources and other environmental concerns. A visual mitigation corridor is in place for the Hill Creek Canyon Corridor to maintain the pristine, recreational experience of the Tribal Members accessing the Towave Reservoir Recreation Area. It is the Tribe's expectation that our MIP will be incorporated into the RMP and that your agency will work with the Tribe to insure the integrity of the plan. Failure to set forth the 

The BLM will continue to work with regarding surface development on slands within the Hill Creek Extensionrecognizes the authority of the Tribe wto surface rights and surface developmthese lands, and the RMP would not nauthority. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

key points of the Plan within the text of the RMP will render the document incomplete and inadequate. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF69 The Ute Tribe requests that the BLM include the 

following stipulations in the RMP/EIS in order to minimize disturbance to game species of importance to the Tribe: Vehicular traffic shall be prohibited during the breeding and calving season and hunting seasons for deer, elk, bighorn sheep, and buffalo; and All bear and mountain lion lairs shall be protected to avoid or minimize any potential impacts to bears and mountain lions. 

BLM acknowledges the Tribe's however, the suggested language applicable to site-specific proposals. Athe BLM is not the surface managemeit seems more appropriate for the develop these conditions of approval bcurrent resource conditions and their duse objectives. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF210 The Ute Tribe has identified areas of no 

leasing/activity as Chandler Canyon, the Green River corridor and steep canyon country of the connected drainages. These areas provide important habitat for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, and are considered critical year-round range for bighorn. 

The Chandler Canyon area of the extension would be managed by the Btiming and controlled surface use sunder Alternatives A, B, C, and E. Maunder these stipulations would be cocoordination with the Ute Tribe. The Upper Green River Corridor is desno surface occupancy for line of sighcenterline, up to 1⁄2-mile along both sriver from Little Hole to the Colorado The Lower Green River Corridor is desno surface occupancy for line of sighcenterline, up to 1⁄2-mile along both sriver from the trust land boundary at the Carbon County line. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF211 The Ute Tribe has identified Wild Horse Basin as an 

area of no leasing/activity as it provides critical winter range and transitional spring and fall range for deer, 

Please, see the response to Comment the same stipulations apply to the WBasin-Moon Water Canyon-Chandler P
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

elk and bison. This designation of no leasing/no activity also extends to the area south of Wild Horse Basin and into the area including Moon Water Canyon and Chandler Point. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF212 The Wolf Flat project area provides critical winter 

habitat for big game. Limited activity, i.e. no new drilling of wells, should occur from December through March. Much of the area is also important bison calving habitat. Limited activity should occur during April and May. 

The Wolf Flat area of the Hill Creek would be managed by the BLM under controlled surface use stipulatioAlternatives A, B, C, and E. These sinclude timing limitations for deer and range from November 15 through AprAlternatives A and C and timing limitatiand elk winter range from December 115 under Alternative B. 

WSA Supp. 

1 WC 

Although the Vernal Supplemental RMP specifically recognizes that development would occur on valid and existing leases within wilderness characteristics areas, the document fails to recognize that development also has the potential to occur within wilderness characteristics areas on lands that are held in split estate. 

The supplement carried forward criterDRMP. One of the planning criteria 1.4.1.2 is that the revised RMP would valid existing rights 

WSA Supp. 

2 WC As discussed in the previous section, the Vernal 

Supplemental RMP clearly recognizes that oil and gas development would likely occur on valid and existing leases within wilderness characteristics areas, however, the document fails to analyze the impact of access restrictions in wilderness characteristics areas to development of lands adjacent to these areas. In some cases, Tribal lands, which include Tribal minerals, have been used o form the boundary of wilderness characteristics areas (see Desolation Canon and Wolf Point wilderness characteristics areas on Figure 20e). The BLM should recognize that ROWs 

BLM does not deny access to inholdthere is no other access. BLM also doeaccess if related to another right. SComments for Vernal RMP/EIS LR12A 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

could be necessary within wilderness characteristics areas to access Tribal lands/minerals. For example in order to access Tribal and Allottee minerals east of Willow Creek access could be needed through Wolf Point wilderness characteristics area. 

WSA Supp. 

3 MIN As discussed in Section 4.21.2.3 - Impacts of Lands 

and Realty Management Decisions on Non-WSALands with Wilderness Characteristics (see pg. 4-153), under Alternative E, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as ROW exclusion areas. Exclusion from future ROW development would protect the natural character of the landscape of all the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The Tribe recognizes that the BLM is encouraged to preserve land in its natural condition. The Tribe also recognizes that a parcel of land cannot be preserved in its natural character and mined at the same time.However, case law supports the Tribe's claimed right of access. In fact, without access the Tribe could not develop its minerals in any fashion and they would become economically ineffectual. Based upon this information, the Tribe requests that the BLM consider adding the following information to the Vernal Supplemental RMP.  Where necessary, the BLM would grant reasonable access across Federal lands with wilderness characteristics to provide for development of adjacent Tribal lands and minerals. 

The BLM does provide for reasonable anon-BLM managed lands under all aInformation will be added to Chapter 2, Realty, Management Common to alternatives, that states that reasonable non-BLM managed land would be including across BLM lands within avoexclusion areas for rights-of-way. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

 Where necessary, the BLM would grant reasonable access to Federal lands with wilderness characteristics to provide for development of Tribal/Indian Allotted minerals, which are held in split estate (i.e., Tribal minerals and Federal surface with wilderness characteristics areas). 

WSA Supp. 

4 SOC 

Although a brief statement regarding Environmental Justice is included in the comparison of impacts within the Vernal Supplemental RMP (see page 2-22), neither Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) nor Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) mention Environmental Justice. 

As required by EO 12898, the 

effects of implementing each alternative, including Alternative E, should be fully analyzed in detail. In the Environmental Justice section (see pg. 2-22), which is within Table 2.5 - Summary of Impacts, it states:  Indian tribes would benefit from revenues derived from rights-of-way grants to oil and gas industry, but traditions and religious sites could be adversely impacted. Minerals development could adversely reduce or replace tribal livestock grazing, decrease opportunities for hunting and gathering, and ceremonial worship. In addition to this statement, the BLM should include information regarding the potential adverse effects that managing lands in a manner that protects their wilderness values could have on Tribal members. 

All 

points emphasized within the summary comparison of 

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS has an discussion in Chapters 3 and 4 of EnJustice populations and the expected plan decisions on these populations. The commenter provides no evidence how managing lands to preserve, pmaintain wilderness characteristics wouadverse impact on Tribal members. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12b. Public Comments and Responses: Ute Indian Tribe 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

impacts should then be expanded upon in Chapter 4 of the Vernal Supplemental RMP in a manner comparable to that included in the Vernal Draft RMP/EIS 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ149 Regional haze is mentioned here as an adverse 

impact from compressors and generators associated with mineral extraction activities. Prescribed burns and naturally occurring wildfires are much more likely to generate regional haze; however, these adverse impacts are not mentioned in many sections of the document where the impacts of prescribed burns are listed. 

The general consensus among aprofessionals is that oil and gas is usuasignificant source of potential regiimpacts on a long-term basis. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ150 The cumulative effects of air quality associated with 

Alt D should be less than the three action alternatives due to the prescribed burning of about 105,525 fewer acres of land over the next decade under Alt D 

Other sources, such as activities assooil and gas, were also considered in the 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AQ151 DEIS states that "dust abatement measures need to 

comply with UAC regulation: compliance would be obtained through special stipulations as a requirement on new projects and through the use of dust abatement control techniques in problem 

Section 4.2.4 in the PRMP/FEIS descumulative impacts regarding a(including PM10 and PM2.5 dust eSection 4.2.3 in the PRMP/FEIS mitigation measures. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

areas." DEIS lacks information and sufficient analysis supporting a need for this change and does not expand upon what special stipulations would be required. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AT43 (AT-JJ) 

Last 2 sentences: are these comparisons really between alternatives B and D or are they between alternatives B and A as stated? 

The comparisons are between AlternatA as stated. Alternative B was coAlternative D (No Action) elsewheparagraph. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

FM2 This summary fails to address the relative merits of 

the four alternatives based on woodland and forest decisions. 

Section 4.4.2.8 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to summarize the effects of and forest management decisions management to each alternative summ

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC56 (GC-M) 

DCWCD would like to see further information given as to the Colorado River Compact and how it affects public land use. 

There is absolutely no effect whatwater rights or in-stream flows suitability findings made in a landdecision, barring Congressional actioCongress were to designate rivers National Wild and Scenic Rivers Sysuch designation would have no existing, valid water rights. Section 13Wild and Scenic River Act states that over waters is determined by eprinciples of law. In Utah, the jurisdiction over water. Although the Scenic Rivers Act implies a federawater right for designated rivers, it doesor specify any amount, and instead ethat only the minimum amount for pthe Act can be acquired. Because thUtah has jurisdiction over water, BLM required to adjudicate the right as other entity, by application throu
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

processes. Thus, for Congressionally rivers, BLM may assert a federal reseright to appurtenant and unappropriawith a priority date as of the date of d(junior to all existing rights), but ominimum amount necessary to fulfill tpurpose of the reservation. In practicefederal reserved water rights have nbeen claimed if alternative means osufficient flows are adequate to soutstandingly remarkable values. The BLM is fully evaluating and cpotential impacts related to these Scenic River decisions in this planninCongressional designation of suitable evaluated in the cumulative impacts athe FEIS. See Appendix C for a more discussion of how the suitability conare applied to each eligible river. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG8 The Forage policies of the RMP should be revised to 

be consistent with the livestock and grazing policies of Duchesne County, which are as follows: The cultural heritage of Duchesne County is based on agriculture and livestock. These industries formed the historic basis of the local economy from the beginning days of settlement until the development of significant oil and gas resources in the early 1970s. Livestock grazing influenced lifestyles, left its imprints on the landscapes, and is one of the oldest enduring and economically important cultural heritage resources in the west. Although farms and 

In accordance with FLPMA, the BLM and considered the general plans of Daggett, Uintah, and Carbon countdevelopment of the management awithin the RMP. Where feasible, pruconsistent with the purpose and need oand BLM's multiple-use/sustained yield the BLM developed a range of alternincluded them in the RMP/EIS. The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are disc
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

ranches in the County were established on a private land base, during parts of the year livestock is pastured on public rangeland. The combination of public rangeland and private farmland constitutes the economic base for many of the County's livestock operations. If either the grazing permit or the private land is lost or diminished, the economic viability of those operations can be jeopardized. Federal grazing permits issued under the Taylor Grazing Act (BLM) or the Granger-The Act (USFS) allow permittees the privilege to use publicly owned forage. It is the position of Duchesne County that: a. Public land agencies shall maintain livestock grazing permits and grazing allocations at present levels until a study of rangeland improvement justifies increased or decreased grazing.; b. The County recognizes grazing permits on public lands as an asset, which may be transferred by the permit owner. Such transactions must be processed by the land management agency within ninety days of proper notification. Any reduction in the size of the permit or forage allocation as a result of the transaction shall not be made without a specific scientific justification; c. When grazing permits are withdrawn from a livestock operator due to grazing violations, the permit shall not be reallocated to other uses and shall be made available for continued livestock use 

and independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an public lands must be coordinated and with County plans, to the maximupossible by law, and inconsistencies Federal and non-Federal governmenresolve to the extent practical (FLPMSec. 202 (c)(9)). As a consequence, wand local plans conflict with Federal will be an inconsistency that cannot bor reconciled. Thus, while County and Federal processes, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as pracFederal agency planning process is noor subject to County plans, planning or planning stipulations. The BLM wthese conflicts in the FEIS/PRMP, sState and local governments have a understanding of the impacts of the State and local management oconsistency review of the PRMP with and County Master Plans is included 5. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

before the commencement of the next grazing season; d. Access to public rangeland is vital to the permitholders and the management agency for planning, management, and development. Access shall be maintained and improved as management needs require; e. The permit-holder shall be compensated for the remaining value of improvements made on reduced allotments, unless the permit was canceled for noncompliance with grazing regulations. Said compensation will be provided for in accordance with Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which provides a reasonable compensation for the adjusted value, to be determined by the Secretary concerned, of his interest in authorized permanent improvements placed or constructed by the permittee or lessee on lands covered by such permit or lease, but not to exceed the fair market value of the terminated portion of the permittee's or lessee's interest therein; f. Livestock allocations shall not be converted to wildlife allocations as long as the land supports the grazing Animal Unit Months (AUM's) assigned to the allotment. The only justification for decreasing domestic livestock grazing AUM's is for there to be a valid and documented scientific finding that the range district will no longer support the AUM's in question. The BLM and Forest Service are expected to comply with and honor the domestic grazing preference on grazing districts. Duchesne County recognizes that 43 CFR part 4110.3 provides for changes in permitted use. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Conversion of allocated forage from one grazing animal to another would require a NEPA process that conforms with land-use plans; g. Management decisions shall be based on the individual range allotment condition and not on the overall condition of surrounding lands. Increases in available forage resulting from the conservation practices of livestock permit-holders shall not be allocated or credited to other uses; h. Forage allocation reductions resulting from forage studies, drought, or natural disasters shall be implemented on an allotment basis. Reductions shall be applied proportionately to all allocations unless it can be proven that a specific type of grazing animal is causing the land health degradation. Duchesne County recognizes that, in the event of fire, drought or natural disaster, a variety of emergency or interim actions may be necessary to minimize land health degradation, such as temporary reduced forage allocation for livestock and wildlife. Forage allocation reductions shall be temporary. Grazing allocations shall be restored when forage production is restored; i. Weed control efforts that affect forage allocations shall be discussed by the land management agency with livestock representatives, neighboring landowners, and the County weed specialist. After the discussion, a weed control plan shall be developed and implemented; j. Public land management agencies shall endeavor to inspect riparian and sensitive areas with livestock permittees approximately one week before livestock are admitted to the grazing allotment; 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

If riparian areas are damaged or degraded before the livestock enter the grazing allotment, the management agency and representatives shall make a record of the condition and appropriate mitigation shall be acceptable to all parties. A copy of the signed report shall be filed with the agency and provided to the permit-holder; k. Increases in available forage resulting from practices or improvements implemented by managing agency will be allocated proportionately to all forage allocations, unless the funding source specifies the benefactor; l. Changes in season of use or forage allocation must not be made without full and meaningful consultation with permittee. The permittee must be the first point of contact; m. The continued viability of livestock operations and the livestock industry shall be supported on federal and state lands within Duchesne County by management of the lands and forage resources and the optimization of animal unit months for livestock in accordance with the multiple-use provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq., and the provisions of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, 43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG107 (LG-S) (LG-22) 

Section 4.6.2.4 does not seem to exist in the document and the effects of livestock grazing decisions on fire management definitely needs to be addressed 

Section 4.7.2.1.1 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to remove the reference Sectand to impacts analysis of livestocmanagement actions on fire managstated in Section 4.4.2, the manageme
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

associated with livestock grazing wnegligible impacts on fire management

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG132 (LG-RR) 

It is noted that unallocated AUMs could be allocated to wildlife. The Duchesne County General Plan contains a policy that "The BLM and Forest Service are expected to comply with and honor the domestic grazing preference on grazing districts." As such, any unallocated AUMs should be considered first for domestic grazing. 

See comment response LG88. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LR1 "No lands acquired through land tenure adjustments 

would be classified or opened for agricultural entry or leasing in the RMP planning area." At a minimum, Duchesne County would request the addition of the bolded phrase into this sentence. However, Duchesne County questions whether such restrictions should be imposed across the board. 

The suggested wording change has bin Table 2.1.7 (Lands and Realty Maof the PRMP/FEIS under the subsectiLand Tenure Adjustments (LTAs). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LR2 Duchesne County requests that the Land Tenure 

Adjustments policies and Exchange/Acquisition policies of the RMP be revised to be consistent with Duchesne County policies, which are as follows: "Whereas more than fifty-percent of Duchesne County consists of public lands managed by federal and state agencies, further loss of private property will result in a diminution of the economic base and cultural values. It is the position of Duchesne County that: a. Private property shall be protected from coerced acquisition by federal, state and local governments; 

The Land Tenure Adjustments listed 2.1.7 (Lands and Realty ManagemePRMP/FEIS and Exchange/Acquisitiolisted in the same table do not conflielements of Duchesne County's pstated in the comment and do not prCounty's maintenance of those policieonly interested in acquiring private prowilling sellers. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

b. The County shall be compensated for loss of private lands or tax revenues due to land exchanges; c. Private lands shall not be converted to state or federal ownership in order to compensate for government activities outside of Duchesne County; d. Any conversion from private property to public lands shall result in no net loss of private property. No net loss shall be measured both in terms of acreage and fair market value; and e. A private property owner has a right to dispose of or exchange property as he/she sees fit within applicable law." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LR2A Duchesne County requests that the Land Tenure 

Adjustment policies listed on Page 2-15 and the Exchange/Acquisition policies on Pages 2-16 and 2-17 of the RMP be revised to be consistent with the above Duchesne County policies. 

The BLM declines to make the wording changes for a variety oincluding but not limited to, the followinThe BLM does not find the suggestenecessary or appropriate. The suggested wording change substantively contribute to or cdiscussion. The commenter did not provide any ratthe suggested change is necessary ocurrent data and analysis is incorrect. The suggested change expressed opinions or preferences. The suggested change had little relevaadequacy or accuracy of the RMP/FEIS
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are discand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an public lands must be coordinated and with County plans, to the maximupossible by law, and inconsistencies Federal and non-Federal governmenresolve to the extent practical (FLPMSec. 202 (c)(9)). As a consequence, wand local plans conflict with Federal law be an inconsistency that cannot be rreconciled. Thus, while County and Federal processes, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as pracFederal agency planning process is noor subject to County plans, planning or planning stipulations. The BLM wthese conflicts in the FEIS/DRMP, sState and local governments have a understanding of the impacts of the State and local management oconsistency review of the PRMP with and County Master Plans is included 5. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME9 Revise this section as follows: The BLM declines to make the 

wording changes for a variety o
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

 "...any lands known to contain federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or designated critical habitat; and..." 

including but not limited to, the followinThe BLM does not find the suggestenecessary or appropriate. The suggested wording change substantively contribute to or cdiscussion. The commenter did not provide any ratthe suggested change is necessary ocurrent data and analysis is incorrect. The suggested change expressed opinions or preferences. The suggested change had little relevaadequacy or accuracy of the RMP/FEIS

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME9A A plan of operation should not be required when the 

species is merely proposed as threatened or endangered. 

Since proposed species are in jeopimportant to treat them in such a way lead to the listing of the species. Requof operations would be one of the mhelp protect the species from listing. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME31 The analysis concludes that Alternative C would 

reduce long-term adverse impacts on the Oil, Gas and CBNG resources "by ensuring that the resource was available to support a viable, long-term mineral industry." This conclusion is based on the assumption that minerals that cannot be used today could be used in the future. However, there is no guarantee that lands deemed unsuitable for such use under Alternative C today will ever be made available for future resource extraction, that other sources of energy may be developed and the National immediate energy need. 

Section 4.8.2.1.3.1 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to delete the statement in ques

Draft ME31A The statements fail to consider EPCA directions See comment response ME22. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS requiring impediments to energy development be 

reduced and management restrictions be the least restrictive. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME34 If Alternative C would close 48,801 acres to oil and 

gas leasing, how can that acreage be included in the total number of acres available for oil and gas leasing in Table 4.8.1? 

The acreage closed to oil and gas leaAlternative C is included in the "Leasing" line item in Table 4.8.1, acreage open to leasing under standand controlled surface use, or noccupancy (NSO) stipulations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME35 In the alternatives there are proposed management 

prescriptions such as VRM, NSO, and oil and gas closures. If these are for recreational purposes they must be analyzed here. If they are for other resources then they should be removed. As written, when analyzing it is difficult to determine the purpose for the NSO's, etc. All actions proposed for recreation should be limited to management of recreation not other resources. 

See Table 2.1.3 (Recreation ResourcPRMP/FEIS. See Table 2.1.14 (Recreation – Recreation Management Areas (SRMPRMP/FEIS. See Table 2.1.18 (Special Designationof Critical Environmental Concern (ACEPRMP/FEIS. See Table 2.1.19 (Special Designatioand Scenic Rivers (SWR)) in the PRMPSee Table 2.1.20 (Special DesigWilderness Study Areas (WSA)) PRMP/FEIS. See Table 2.1.24 (Visual Resource Main the PRMP/FEIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Management decisions related to NSand gas closure are primarily related designations, special status species adecisions, and VRM classificatiostipulations and oil and gas closures mwith areas within which recreation is abut are not implemented specificalpurpose of recreation. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME42 The statement that none of the alternatives would 

result in more than a 0.4% net decrease in the number of predicted oil and gas wells is deceiving. Based on the information in Tables 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4 and 4.8.5, Alternatives A, B and C all provide more opportunity for oil and gas well drilling than Alternative D (No Action). However, the difference between Alternatives B and C is about 2.5%. 

Sections 4.8.3 and 4.8.4 in the PRMP/been revised to read: "Under all action alternatives there wnet increase in the number of predicteand CBNG wells as compared to the alternative." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME45 This text implies that Alternative B will have 

substantial impacts and jeopardize plant species when compared to the impacts of Alternative A, yet Tables 4.8.2 and 4.8.3 indicate that Alternative B anticipates only 13 more oil wells, 34 more gas wells and 2 more coal bed methane wells than Alternative A in the vast southern part of the VPA. The alarming text in this paragraph should be toned down. 

The small increase in the number betweens Alternatives A and B iimportant as are the locations of those wells. As stated in Section 4.15.2.3.2.1"...the increase in mineral and development is concentrated in the soof the VPA, which would place the Booendemics at substantial risk and potenin jeopardy to listed species and/or thpreviously candidate or sensitive sthreatened or endangered." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PA2 This section recognizes the benefits of 

paleontological studies associated with mineral development mitigation; however, such benefits are not mentioned in the analysis of Alternatives A and D 

Language acknowledging the scient(e.g., increasing the body of knowpaleontological investigations condassociation with minerals developmen
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

(No Action) that follow. added to the discussions of Alternative

Action), and E. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

RE41 (RE-U) 

Paragraph 2 line 7: The reference to "unmanaged OHV use" under Alt B is not logical given the data in Table 2.3 and elsewhere indicating that the amount of land open to unrestricted OHV use in Alt B is very similar to Alt A and C (yet "unmanaged OHV use" is not mentioned in the analysis under those alternatives). 

The PRMP/FEIS has been revised "unmanaged" from the text in 4.10.2.6.2.2. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

RE42 (RE-V) 

2nd paragraph: Why is it stated that there would be "minimal management of OHV use" only in Alt B when the amount of acreage open to OHV travel in Alt B is the same as ALT C and less than Alt A" The amount of acreage available in Alt B for limited OHV travel is very similar to that available in Alt A. 

This paragraph refers to the minimal lemanagement under Alternative B in mentioned: White River, Blue MountaiCanyon, Book Cliffs, Browns PMountain-Dry Fork, and Nine-Mile Under Alternative A, these areas designated as SRMAs and would higher level of OHV management. Whacres for Open, Limited, and Closed are roughly similar for Alternatives A aparagraph is an analysis of impacts use on the above-mentioned areas. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

RW3 It is the position of Duchesne County that the 

statutory requirement regarding the management of riparian areas is to provide "reasonable protection," not to prevent against any and all impacts. The intent is to "maintain function." Riparian area buffer zones of no surface disturbance should be determined in an adaptive and flexible manner and only when sitespecific analysis shows it is necessary to reasonably protect the area. RMP and Forest Plans must require that waters and riparian areas be managed so as to not impair function and reduce grazing allotments 

This is beyond the scope of the PRBLM must adhere to Executive Ord(1977) for Floodplains/Utah Management Policy which states that: "No new surface-disturbing activitieallowed within 100 meters of riparunless it can be shown that (1) thepractical alternatives or (2) all long-tercan be fully mitigated or (3) the abenefit and enhance the riparian area." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

based on AUM's (sic) or create expansion of NSO requirements on lands historically open to mineral development. In keeping with BLM IM 2003-233 and 2003-234, the riparian buffer distance should be set based on site specific analysis and should be no greater than the least amount necessary to accomplish the desired resource protection. Providing a blanket 100-meter buffer is not acceptable. 

The Proposed RMP includes the noted above in Appendix K. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD8 It is the position of Duchesne County that Special 

Recreation Management Areas are improper if they are used or managed to diminish the multiple usesustained yield mandate of FLPMA and NFMA, or provide BLM with an excuse to carry out wilderness non-impairment standards of land management. An RMP should specify the precise parameters of SRMA uses and management. SRMA's are not to be considered as strictly recreation areas to the exclusion or elimination of other uses. The RMP should specify the precise parameters of SRMA uses and management before Duchesne County will feel comfortable with Alternative A. Absent such assurances, Duchesne County supports Alternative B. 

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502BLM to consider reasonable alternatiwould avoid or minimize adverse ienhance the quality of the human enbased on the nature of the proposal athe case (CEQ 40 Most Asked QuesWhile there are many possible maprescriptions or actions, the BLM scoping process to determine a reasonalternatives that best addressed thconcerns, and alternatives identifiepublic. Public participation was essenprocess and full consideration was gpotential alternatives identified. The BLM determined that a single analyzing the protection of all Non-Wwith wilderness characteristics woprovide a reasoned choice amalternatives. Although the other alternot provide specific management presprotect Non-WSA, these alternatives adisclose the impacts of the proposed management prescriptions, uses and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the Non-WSA lands with characteristics. This gives the public thfully compare the consequences of prnot protecting the wilderness charactthese Non-WSA lands. If all acontained comparable protections of WSA lands with wilderness charactealternatives would have substantiaconsequences and would not be sdistinguishable. The BLM, in developing the PRMP/chose management actions from within of the alternatives presented in the Dand create a management plan that is addressing the current conditions in tharea based on FLPMA's multiple-use m

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD9 Under [Alternative B], 44,181 acres in Nine Mile 

Canyon would continue to be managed as a SRMA. Duchesne County does not support increasing this SRMA to 81,168 acres under Alternative A. 

The BLM concurs that the Nine Mboundary should not extend beyond rim and BLM has provided that determthe Proposed RMP. This revision is with the Price FEIS boundary. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD10 Duchesne County is opposed to the extension of the 

existing ACEC in Nine Mile Canyon beyond the upper rim of the canyon. On page 3-83 of the RMP/DEIS, it appears that the proposed expansion of the Nine Mile Canyon ACEC covers a total of 36,987 acres. On Page 2-56, it indicates that the Nine Mile Canyon ACEC (in Alternative A) would expand from 44,181 to 48,000 acres (an increase of 

See Response to Comment SD9-G-9. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

3,819 acres). This leads Duchesne County to conclude that the remaining 33,168 acres of ACEC expansion in Nine Mile Canyon would occur in Carbon County. If this is true and the ACEC boundaries stay within the canyon upper rim, Duchesne County would not object to Alternative A. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD11 Duchesne County asserts that the RMP/DEIS does 

not address all of the five criteria listed [below] and that no additional Wild and Scenic Rivers shall be designated in Duchesne County: i) It is clearly demonstrated that water is present and flowing at all times; (ii) It is clearly demonstrated that the required water-related value is considered outstandingly remarkable within a region of comparison consisting of one of the three physiographic provinces in the state. The rationale and justification for the conclusions shall be disclosed; (iii) The effects of the addition on the local and state economies, private property rights, agricultural and industrial operations and interests, tourism, water rights, water quality, water resource planning, and access to and across river corridors in both upstream and downstream directions from the proposed river segment have been evaluated in detail by the relevant federal agency; (iv) It is clearly demonstrated that the provisions and terms of the process for review of potential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by all federal agencies; and (v) The rationale and justification for the proposed addition, including a comparison with protections offered by other management tools, is clearly analyzed within the multiple-use mandate, 

The criteria the commenter is referrfrom Utah Code Section §63-38d-401. The State of Utah has worked as a CAgency throughout this planning procebeen intimately involved with the BLMscenic river planning process. The assisted Field Office specialists to help eligibility findings for each of the river and has provided social and economic and advice as the BLM determined whsegments to carry forward as suitabProposed RMP. BLM has committed cooperatively among Federal, State, governments and communities during planning wild and scenic river study pstatewide recommendations for inclussegments into the National Wild aRivers System would go forward to Prior to this post-planning phase, Bwork with affected partners to help stream flows necessary to prooutstandingly remarkable values for subject river segments were found sthis planning process. Thus, because no effects of this planning decision existing rights, and because suitability 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

and the results disclosed. All valid existing rights, including grazing leases and permits shall not be affected. 

this planning process do not create rights for the BLM, the land-use planninscenic river suitability determinations by BLM to be consistent with the Utah 4-401. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD12 The Duchesne County General Plan contains the 

following policies regarding ACEC's: All plans and management decisions must ensure that special designations do not influence the use of resource on lands not listed. The County opposes the use of a buffer zone management philosophy that dictates land use practices and influences decisions beyond the scope and boundaries of the designations. The County also opposes the imposition of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) classifications or Visual Resource Management (VRM) classifications as substitutes for former Wilderness Inventory Units or so-called Citizens' Proposed Wilderness Units, or as mean to displace formerly valid surface occupying multiple use activities. ACEC and VRM classifications are improper management tools unless narrowly drawn and tailored, both geographically and programmatically, to effect only those minimal restrictions that are actually necessary to prevent irreparable damage to valid and relevant resource values. Imposing ACEC classifications in the name of "protecting scenic values" is an improper use of the ACEC tool, which contradicts this County Policy. Special designations include wilderness 

The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are discand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an public lands must be coordinated and with County plans, to the maximupossible by law, and inconsistencies Federal and non-Federal governmenresolve to the extent practical (FLPMSec. 202 (c)(9)). As a consequence, wand local plans conflict with Federal law be an inconsistency that cannot be rreconciled. Thus, while County and Federal processes, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as pracFederal agency planning process is noor subject to County plans, planning or planning stipulations. The BLM wthese conflicts in the FEIS/DRMP, sState and local governments have a understanding of the impacts of the State and local management oconsistency review of the PRMP/FEIState and County Master Plans is i
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

designations, wild and scenic rivers, areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC), critical habitat, semiprimitive and non-motorized travel areas, and other designations that may result in non-use, restricted use, or environmental impacts on public and private lands. Special designations dictate practices that restrict access or use of the land that impact other resources or their use. Such designations cause resource waste, serious impacts to other important resources and actions, and are inconsistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. County support for the designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern shall be withheld until: (i) It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains historic, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or natural processes, which are unique or substantially significant; (ii) The regional values, resources, processes, or hazards have been analyzed by the federal agency for impacts resulting from potential actions which are consistent with the multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and that this analysis describes the rationale for any special management attention required to protect, or prevent irreparable damage to the values, resources, processes, or hazards; (iii) The difference between special management attention required for an ACEC and normal multipleuse management has been identified and justified, and that any determination of irreparable damage has been analyzed and justified for short and longterm horizons; 

Chapter 5. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

(iv) It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed designation is not a substitute for a wilderness suitability recommendation; and (v) The conclusions of all studies are submitted to the county for review, and the results, in support of or in opposition to, are included in all planning documents. (vi) Any impacts on private property rights are evaluated and mitigated. Based on these Duchesne County policies above, the County supports Alternative B for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD13 The Duchesne County General Plan contains the 

following policies regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers: County support for the addition of a river segment to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall be withheld until: (i) It is clearly demonstrated that water is present and flowing at all times; (ii) It is clearly demonstrated that the required waterrelated value is considered outstandingly remarkable within a region of comparison consisting of one of the three physiographic provinces in the state. The rationale and justification for the conclusions shall be disclosed; (iii) The effects of the addition on the local and state economies, private property rights, agricultural and industrial operations and interests, tourism, water rights, water quality, water resource planning, and 

See Response to Comment SD12-G-9
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

access to and across river corridors in both upstream and downstream directions from the proposed river segment have been evaluated in detail by the relevant federal agency; (iv) It is clearly demonstrated that the provisions and terms of the process for review of potential additions have been applied in a consistent manner by all federal agencies; and (v) The rationale and justification for the proposed addition, including a comparison with protections offered by other management tools, is clearly analyzed within the multiple-use mandate, and the results disclosed. All valid existing rights, including grazing leases and permits shall not be affected. Based on the policies listed above, Duchesne County is in support of Alternatives A or B in this section of the RMP. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD240 (SD-JJJ) 

1st paragraph: It states that, under Alternative A, the upper and lower segments of the Green River would be determined suitable for WSR status. However, on pg. 4-212 and 4-214, it implies that these Green River segments have already been determined to be suitable. Has suitability been determined for these segments; and if so, when? 

Chapter 4 in the PRMP/FEIS has been clarify the status of WSR river segmeAlternative A. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD241 (SD-KKK) 

Does the designation of a route as a backcountry byway actually result in regulation of surfacedisturbing activities as implied here? Or is it the SRMA designation that provides for such regulations. 

The Back Country Byway Program of a special designation program whereican regulate land uses in accordancmaintenance of the resource values fobyway was designated. 

Draft SD242 Contrary to EPCA and NEP policy, the designation of See Response to Comment SD14-G-13
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS (SD-LLL) Segments 1 and 2 of the White River as suitable for 

inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System would result in overlapping restrictions, since the lands 

adjacent to these river banks are frequently wetland 

habitats and within the 100-year floodplain, which are under NSO stipulations or closed to mineral development. We recommend that stipulations not necessary to accomplish desired protection be modified or dropped through the planning process. NEP, pp. 5-7; IM 2003-233, p.3. Preferred actions in the DEIS/RMP must be analyzed and developed in the context of these statutory and executive policies 

that promote and facilitate oil and gas development. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO6 In addition to tourism impacts on law enforcement 

and emergency services, tourism on public lands impacts the county road systems. 

There is no requirement in NEPA detailed analysis that the commenter This is outside the scope of the RMP Administrative Actions by the BLM do a specific planning decision to impleme

Draft RMP/EIS 

TR1 (TR-N) 

We request that the BLM articulate its policies regarding the granting of Title 5 rights of way to counties and provide a Title 5 right of way agreement template in an appendix of the RMP. 

The request is beyond the scopdocument. Title V rights-of-way aexplained in FLPMA. It is not necessarthat information in this document. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

TR2 This item talks about the elimination of "unneeded 

travel routes." This item should be modified to indicate who makes such a determination. 

Recreation management guidelindeveloped to help achieve and maintapublic lands as defined by the RangelaStandards. Refer to Table 2.1.13 (Resources) of the PRMP/FEIS under Health Standard 1 for the Management Guidelines. The BLM wildetermination of unneeded travel roTravel Management Plan which will be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

after the Record of Decision. The pubPRMP cooperating agencies will be iscoping for the plan. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

TR3 This item should be modified to indicate that 

determinations as to whether travel routes are "unneeded" would take into account county transportation plans and county comments. 

See comment response TR2. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

TR4 The RMP should include a discussion of BLM's 

policies regarding granting Title V rights-of-way. 

See comment response TR1. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

TR5 There are many roads on BLM land that are not 

officially "county roads," but are public (Class D) roads that have RS 2477 rights. Many of these appear on the Duchesne County Transportation Plan that has been provided to the BLM. Can the BLM recognize such rights in this part of the document? 

A "D" route does not equate to a Coassertion. The routes identified as "Dthe DRMP/DEIS are roads located lands and managed by the BLM unadjudicated. The DRMP/DEIS propdifferent alternatives to manage these rAs specified in the Draft RMP/DEIS Sthese issues are addressing RS 2477 and are beyond the scope of this planHowever, nothing extinguishes any ror alters in any way the legal rights the Counties have to assert and protect rights. See comment response TR8. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

TR7 Closing or restricting access over public lands is 

mentioned in this paragraph. Duchesne County requests that this paragraph make it clear that such closures or restrictions would not effect roads shown on county transportation plans or roads with RS 2477 rights. 

This clarification is provided for in SIssues Beyond the Scope of the PRMP
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

TR32 (TR-P) 

Construction of new roads across riparian areas does not create an irreversible loss of habitat. If such roads are deemed to no longer serve a public purpose after the activity they serve is completed, such roads can be removed and the habitat restored. 

Section 4.11.1 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to read as follows: "Depending upon the types of cmethods and materials used, roads briparian areas would result in a direriparian habitat at the site of the croloss of habitat would continue reclamation of the road occurs adiminishes to a point that riparian hreestablish itself." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VE1 Duchesne County has adopted a list of noxious 

weeds, which was provided to the BLM staff at the February 9, 2005 open house in Duchesne. The status column in this table may need to be amended accordingly. 

All of the plants listed in the comment aincluded in Table 3.16.6 except for which is discussed at the end of SectThe "Status" column of Table 3.16.6 revised to identify which of the plants by Duchesne County as noxious weeds

Draft RMP/EIS 

VE3 Alternative C would have lesser beneficial impacts 

on vegetation resources than Alternative A (not more). This is because Alternative C would not automatically provide for the same level of vegetation removal as Alternative A, which increases the chances for catastrophic wild fires (see Section 4.13.2.14.3). 

The woodland and forest species saproposed for Alternative A and Alternative C (Section 4.13.2.14.3). Tthis activity under Alternative A would term adverse impacts to soil and water because of surface disturbance and ssoil erosion and sedimentation in streaeffects would adversely affect the under Alternative A, and less so under C. In fact, the two alternatives are comparable in their effect on vegetPRMP/FEIS has been revised to ranalysis. 

Draft VI1 It is the position of Duchesne County that RMP's 

should not apply VRM classifications in such a way 

According to BLM Manual 8400.06Resource Management, VRM classes 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS as to diminish historically permitted or leased 

"domestic livestock grazing," "mineral exploration and production," "timber production," and principal and major uses of the land as mandated by FLPMA Section 1702(1). 

from, and conform to, the resource made in RMPs. This would include livestock grazing, mineral exploraproduction, timber production, etc. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI1A VRM classifications and goals must be limited to 

protecting against only damage that is permanent and irreparable, while recognizing and allowing for overall multiple use and quality of life for local communities (who enjoy the land and who rely on balanced, sustained-yield economic use of natural resources in the planning area) and visitors to public lands [see FLPMA Section 1702(1)]. 

The purpose of VRM classifications is protecting permanent and irreparable VRM classifications are assigned to pbased on scenic quality, sensitivity distance zones. The VRM classificatiobjective which prescribes the amount allowed in the characteristic landscapGlossary of Terms in BLM Manual 8400

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI1B VRM I and II classifications constitute de facto 

wilderness management in violation of the multiple use mandate of FLPMA, and required by BLM Manual H 8410 and NEPA to impose VRM restrictions. 

VRM classifications are not the mecdesignating wilderness areas. WildernAreas are managed by their own set oregulations (see BLM Manual H-8550Management Policy and Guidelines Under Wilderness Review). BLM 8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory, III(5), "Special Areas. Management objespecial areas such as Natural Areas, WAreas or Wilderness Study Areas, Scenic Rivers, Scenic Areas, Scenic Trails, and Areas of Critical EnvConcern (ACEC), frequently requirconsideration for the protection of values. This does not necessarily these areas are scenic, but rather than management objectives may be to re
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

natural landscape setting. The maobjectives for these areas may be ubasis for assigning sensitivity levels." Furthermore, BLM IM-2000-96 (Use Resource Management Class I DesWilderness Study Areas states: "... that all WSAs should be classified and managed according to VRM management objectives until such timCongress decides to designate the wilderness or release it for other usesis designated as wilderness, the acontinue to be managed as VRM Class 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI1C VRM analysis should be based on certain visual 

reference points. For example, analysis should be based on that which is visible from the resource that is intended to be protected. Classifications for VRM should not be "overly broad." All VRM's must be developed based on a specific point of reference such as a river, a stream, a road, etc. RMP's are legally flawed that lack such articulation of existing character and why retention of such is important, a statement of acreage affected, etc.. 

VRM classifications are made management goals and objectives. Ainventory may be used, it is not requireThe current classifications were brougfrom the Book Cliffs and Diamond RMPs. H1601-1 – Land-use planning Appendix C, I. Visual Resources statuse plan Decisions. Manage visuavalues in accordance with visual management (VRM) objectives (maclasses). Designate VRM managemefor all areas of BLM land, based on an of visual resources and maconsiderations for other land us
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

management classes may differ finventory classes, based on mapriorities for land uses (see BLM H8410-1 for a description of VRM classThe commenter is correct in stating classifications should be prescribed to seen from specific places only. CaObservation Points" (KOP), i.e. overlook, a frequented canyon rim, or a feature, the VRM classification given managed to protect that view shed point. Another way to protect an areWhite/Green River corridors or a Scewould be to manage for whatever classdetermined along the entire river corhas been analyzed in the past by pcomputer generated viewer from 3 feet river surface (similar to a canoeist) locmiddle of the waterway and then acomputer to generate a 360 degree vlength to be analyzed. The results dethe frequency of sightings, the distaand the areas observed. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI1D VRM I rating shall be restricted to Class I wilderness 

areas, congressionally designated wild and scenic river segments, and other areas where congressional decisions or legitimate administrative decisions have been made to preserve a natural landscape. 

 VRM Class I can be designated for othat are not national wilderness areasscenic river segments, and other congand administratively designated arlanguage of H-8410-1 states that in arthe natural landscape is to be includes areas such as WSAs, wild arivers, etc. This does not eliminate othescenic areas from designation as VR
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

BLM can designate other areas as VRland use objectives for that area important to maintain the natural sceand if the area proposed for VRM I dpossesses scenic quality and natural characteristics. The alternatives preseof VRM categories from which managselect from. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI1E RMP's are contrary to law to the extent they 

authorize VRM ratings beyond these parameters. VRM I ratings are illegal in WSA's (see BLM IM 2000-96 and BLM H-8550-1). Moreover, a VRM I classification on WSA's conflicts with FLPMA Section 1782(c), which expressly allows for the continuation of existing mining and grazing uses and mineral leasing in the manner and degree in which the same was conducted when FLPMA took effect. 

Visual Resource Management in clasareas does not preclude oil development, but it does mean that thto try harder to accommodate both concerns as well as the valid and exisThrough screening techniques topography, vegetation, coloratioadaptation of facilities, we have been in fully mitigating the visual concernVRM II areas. See comment response SD174 regaexisting rights. This would include band grazing uses. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI1F Duchesne County has adopted a policy in its 

General Plan stating, "Imposing VRM classifications that result in the prohibition of formerly valid surface occupying or surface-disturbing activities is an improper use of the VRM tool." Based on the above, Duchesne County expresses support of Alternative A, depicted on Figure 29 of the Draft EIS. This alternative contains no Class I VRM in Duchesne County and the only Class II VRM is 

BLM is aware that there are specific CState Plan decisions relevant to aspecland management that are discrete independent of, Federal law. Howevebound by Federal law. FLPMA requiredevelopment of resource managemenfor public land must be coordinated consistent with county plans to the extent possible by law, and resolve to practicable, inconsistencies between f
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

located along Nine Mile Canyon, east of Gate Canyon. Duchesne County opposes Alternatives B, C, and D, which designate more Class II VRM areas in the county. 

non-federal government plans (FLPMSec. 202 (c) (9)). As a consequence, wand local plans conflict with Federal law be an inconsistency that cannot be rreconciled. Thus, while county anplanning processes, under FLPMA, arto be as integrated and consistent as pthe federal agency planning process is by or subject to county plans, processes, or planning stipulations. identify these conflicts in the FEIS/Veso that the State and local governmecomplete understanding of the impaVernal RMP on State and local maoptions. A consistency review of the Vwith the State and County Master Planincluded in Chapter 5. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI25 Under Alternative C, the reduction in short-term 

adverse impact is recognized but the reduction in long-term beneficial impacts (associated with restrictions on fuel reduction in ACEC's) is not. 

Section 4.17.2.12.3 has been revisPRMP/FEIS as follows: "Alternative C would have similar imAlternative A, except that up to 552,66forest and woodlands would be avtreatments or harvesting. Forest and species salvage would be allowed only woodland or forest resource were twhich would reduce the short-termimpacts on visual resources. Excluding salvage within 242,760 acres of ACECs would reduce the long-term impacts on woodlands because this foload reduction would not be conducted 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the risk of catastrophic wildland fire." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF35 This conclusion does not appear to be adequately 

supported by findings in the chapter and is an overstatement of the potential impacts. 

Section 4.15.6 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to include supporting statemeconclusion reached in this section. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF36 Efforts have not been made in Alternative B to 

allocate forage to wild horses. 

The commenter is correct. Alterepresents part of the range of alterCEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.1). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF37 Alternative B should be amended to allow for UDWR 

involvement in analyzing exceptions to the dates as in Alternatives A and C. 

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502BLM to consider reasonable alternatiwould avoid or minimize adverse ienhance the quality of the human enbased on the nature of the proposal athe case (CEQ 40 Most Asked QuesWhile there are many possible maprescriptions or actions, the BLM scoping process to determine a reasonalternatives that best addressed thconcerns, and alternatives identifiepublic. Public participation was essenprocess and full consideration was gpotential alternatives identified. The BLM determined that a single analyzing the protection of all Non-Wwith wilderness characteristics woprovide a reasoned choice amalternatives. Although the other alternot provide specific management presprotect Non-WSA, these alternatives adisclose the impacts of the proposed management prescriptions, uses and the Non-WSA lands with 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

characteristics. This gives the public thfully compare the consequences of prnot protecting the wilderness charactthese Non-WSA lands. If all acontained comparable protections of WSA lands with wilderness charactealternatives would have substantiaconsequences and would not be sdistinguishable. The BLM, in developing the PRMP/chose management actions from within of the alternatives presented in the Dand create a management plan that is addressing the current conditions in tharea based on FLPMA's multiple-use m

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF54 Alt B does not include the 560 acres per township 

limitation for wildlife, according to Table 2.3 on pg 2-65. Alts A and C contain this limitation, while Alt B has a 10% habitat threshold. Duchesne Co. supports Alt B and the 10% threshold. 

Section 4.16.2.15.1 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to correct the analysis Alternative B. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WF55 This section is supposed to address the cumulative 

effects on wildlife and fisheries but seems to focus on the effects to vegetation. 

As described in the cumulative impac4.22.12), the impacts of the mentiongas exploration and development projimpact vegetation. Restated in anotheImpacts to vegetation and othedisturbances could have direct and impacts on wildlife and fisheries by impacting the habitat (e.g., vegetatwhich they depend for food, shreproduction. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 

1 WC On June 25, 2007, the Duchesne County

Commissioners approved Resolution #07-15, which amended the Duchense County General Plan to clarify the county's policies for the management and use of "non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics" in the Twin Knoll-Wrinkles Road area of Duchesne County, which encompasses the Desolation Canyon non-WSA area identified in the supplement. 

A copy of this 

Resolution was forwarded to Selma Sierra, State BLM Director, by letter dated June 25, 2007. At that time, the County Commissioner made it clear that Duchesne County plans call for multiple use of these public lands. The county also submitted maps and photos showing that existing roads, mining and energy operations, spring developments, grazing lease improvements and otter evidence of man's influence on the area raises the question whether such lands lying generally between Wrinkles Road and the Carbon County line and generally between the Sand Wash Road and the Uintah County line (Desolation Canyon non-WSA) actually possess wilderness character. We believe the answer to this question for much of the land protected under Alternative E is "no".In accordance with FLPMA, Duchesne County expects that the BLM will consider the county land-use plan, including the June 2007 amendment, in making land management decision that are consistent with local policies to the greatest degree possible under federal law. Proposed Alternatives A and B of the draft RMP come closest to consistency with local plans.

The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are disand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an RMlands must be coordinated and consCounty plans, to the maximum extent law, and inconsistencies between Fnon-Federal government plans be resextent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. As a consequence, where State and conflict with Federal law there winconsistency that cannot be rereconciled. Thus, while County and Federaprocesses, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as practical, agency planning process is not bosubject to County plans, planning proplanning stipulations. The BLM will ideconflicts in the FEIS/DRMP, so that the local governments have a complete unof the impacts of the DRMP on State management options. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Alternatives C and E are inconsistent with local plans and the multiple use mandate of FLPMA. 

WSA Supp. 

2 OTH Page 2-7, Table 2.3, Lands and Realty, bottom 

sentence: ":An easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed from the Utah/Colorado line to Watson in Evacuation Creek would no be pursued. 

The typographical error has been correProposed RMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supp. 

3 OTH Page 2-10, Table 2.3, Recreation: Seep Ridge, Book 

Cliff Divide, and Atchee Ridge Roads would not be designed as Back Country Byways. 

The typographical error has been correProposed RMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supp. 

4 WL Page 2-20, Table 2.3, Wildlife and Fisheries, 1st 

paragraph: 

Are the locations of the McCook and 

Monument Ride mule deer migration corridors mapped so the reader can determine the location of these corridors? 

The migration corridors are mapped iRMP. See List of Maps and Figures – F

WSA Supp. 

5 OTH Page 4-10, Section 4.3.2.3.6, 2nd sentence:

"Alternatives A, C, and E are likely to have the greatest beneficial impacts, because all three involve....". 

The language has been changed in thRMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supp. 

6 TRV Page 4-21, Section 4.3.2.8.5, Alternative E proposes a 

99.9% decrease in areas open to unrestricted OHV travel, closure of 392,818 acres to any OHV travel and closure of 228 miles of OHV routes. This action would be inconsistent with the Duchesne County general plan, which states that: "OHV's have become an important segment of the County's recreation industry.They provide an important tool and mode of transportation for farmers, ranchers and resource developers." Reducing the opportunities for OHV use to the degree proposed by Alternative E will negatively affect the area's motorized recreation industry. 

The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are disand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an RMlands must be coordinated and consCounty plans, to the maximum extent law, and inconsistencies between Fnon-Federal government plans be resextent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. As a consequence, where State and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

conflict with Federal law there winconsistency that cannot be rereconciled. Thus, while County and Federaprocesses, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as practical, agency planning process is not bosubject to County plans, planning proplanning stipulations. The BLM will ideconflicts in the FEIS/DRMP, so that the local governments have a complete unof the impacts of the DRMP on State management options. 

A consistency re

DRMP with the State and County Masincluded in Chapter 5. Additionally, research shows that there recreational industry benefits associateprotection of public land. (See section pages 4-68 and 4-69. 

WSA Supp. 

7 FIR Page 4-26, Section 4.4.2.5.4, Under Alternative E, it is 

inaccurate to state that forests and woodlands would be "managed to promote biodiversity and multiple use/sustained yield" when woodland harvesting or salvage would be not allowed and vegetation treatment would be limited to prescribed burns under certain conditions. 

The wording of this section will be revis"managed to promote biodiversity ause" 

WSA Supp. 

8 FIR Page 4-27, Section 4.4.2.7.5, at the end of this 

paragraph, it should be stated that Alternatives C and E have less beneficial impacts on fire management when compared to Alternative B. 

The BLM declines to make the suggestchange for a variety of reasons includlimited to, the following: 1. The BLM does not find the suggeste
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

necessary or appropriate. 2. The suggested wording change substantively contribute to or clarify the 3. The commenter did not provide anwhy the suggested change is necessthe current data and analysis is incorrec4. The suggested change expresseopinions or preferences. 5. The suggested change had little rethe adequacy or accuracy of the RMP/E

WSA Supp. 

9 GRA Page 4-31, Section 4.7.2.2.5 and Page 4-98 (Table 

4.14.1) Forage Management under Alternative E would be inconsistent with the Duchesne County landuse plan in that forage for livestock would be reduced 47.1% in favor of wildlife and wild horses. The county plan states as follows": "Livestock allocations shall not be converted to wildlife allocations as long as the land supports the grazing Animal Unit Months (AUM's) assigned to the allotment. The only justification for decreasing domestic livestock grazing AUM's is for there to be a valid and documented scientific finding that the range district will no longer support the AUM's in question. The BLM and Forest Service are expected to comply with and honor the domestic grazing preference on grazing districts." 

In accordance with FLPMA, the BLM reconsidered the general plans of Daggett, Uintah, and Carbon coundevelopment of the management within the RMP. Where feasible, prconsistent with the purpose and need and BLM's multiple-use/sustained yield the BLM developed a range of alternincluded them in the RMP/EIS. The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are disand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an RMlands must be coordinated and consCounty plans, to the maximum extent law, and inconsistencies between Fnon-Federal government plans be resextent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. As a consequence, where State and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

conflict with Federal law, there winconsistency that cannot be rereconciled. Thus, while County and Federaprocesses, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as practical, agency planning process is not bosubject to County plans, planning proplanning stipulations. The BLM will ideconflicts in the FEIS/PRMP, so that the local governments have a complete unof the impacts of the PRMP on State management options. 

A consistency re

PRMP with the State and County Masincluded in Chapter 5. 

WSA Supp. 

10 MOG Page 4-36, Section 4.8.2.1.5, this section should 

mention the amount of acreage in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that has already been leased (129,468 acres according to Page 4-220). This data gives the reader a more accurate indication of how Alternative E would impact energy and mineral resources. Alternative E, which proposes a 2% decrease in the amount of land available for energy development, is inconsistent with the Duchesne County land-use plan, which contains policies stating that: "Access to public lands for mineral development must be increased in the economic interest of the county citizens and government." "Development of the solid, fluid, and gaseous mineral 

Table 4.22.1 lists each non-WSA land wwilderness characteristics and provides number of acres already leased by alterThe BLM is aware that there are specific and State plan decisions relevant to asppublic land management that are discreand independent of, Federal law. HowevBLM is bound by Federal law. The FLPMrequires that the development of an RMlands must be coordinated and consisteCounty plans, to the maximum extent polaw, and inconsistencies between Fedenon-Federal government plans be resolextent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. 20As a consequence, where State and locconflict with Federal law there will be an 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

resources of the state should be encouraged.:" inconsistency that cannot be resolved o

reconciled. Thus, while County and Federal planninprocesses, under FLPMA, are required integrated and consistent as practical, thagency planning process is not bound bsubject to County plans, planning proceplanning stipulations. The BLM will idenconflicts in the FEIS/PRMP, so that the local governments have a complete undof the impacts of the PRMP on State anmanagement options. A consistency revPRMP with the State and County Masteincluded in Chapter 5. 

WSA Supp. 

11 MIN Page 4-39, Section 4.8.2.1.5.2, Locatable Minerals:

the statements in this paragraph seem inconsistent with Page 12 of the 2004 Mineral Potential Report, which blames the low level of development activity for locatable minerals on withdrawals rather than the lack of such resources in the ground. 

The paragraph states that "there is potential for the occurrence of locatabwithin the VPA". The BLM does nodevelopment activity for locatable minethe large area subject to the oil shale wi

WSA Supp. 

13 WL Page 4-42, Section 4.8.2.6.5, 2nd paragraph: It should 

be clear that if Alternative D does not specify what percentage of new surface-disturbing activity will be allowed in wildlife habitat areas and Alternative E will limit such disturbance to 2.4% or 560 acres per township, that Alternative E would have a much greater potential impact on energy and mineral resource development compared to Alternative D-No Action. 

Alternative D, which is the no action altewas formed from the Book Cliffs and DiaMountain RMP/FEIS. No percentage of surface-disturbing activity was calculatewildlife habitat areas. Therefore, an exarelationship cannot be made. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 

14 MOG Page 4-43, Section 4.8.2.8.2, management under 

Alternative E predicts a total of 6,117 oil, gas and CBNG wells, which appears in Table 4.12.1. However, this section (and Section 4.10.2.4.5) indicates that this is a 4% increase compared to 5,856 wells under Alternative D. 

Actually, Table 4.12.1 shows a predicted 

6,331 wells under Alternative D, making Alternative E management result in a decrease of 214 wells or a 3.4% decrease (see Table 4.12.1). It is Duchesne County's position that such a decrease would violate the county land-use plan and EPCA. 

Table 4.12.1 in the DRMP was inaccunumber of well potential by alternativewill be corrected to reflect the correct nuAlternatives A, B, C, and E all reflect a potential than Alternative D due to thavailability of lands within the Hill Creefor leasing, which is not the case in Alte

WSA Supp. 

15 GRA Page 4-47, Section 4.9.2.4.5, 2nd sentence: Why is it 

that surface disturbances associated with rangeland improvements are deemed beneficial as they would increase the potential of making new paleontological discoveries; while other types of surface disturbances are not found to have the same benefit? For example, in Section 4.9.2.7.5, on Page 4-48, Class I and II VRMmanagement under Alternative E is found to have the fewest adverse impact on paleontological resources.However, using the rationale from Section 4.9.2.4.5, Class I and II VRM would be less beneficial as there would be less surface disturbances and less chance to actually discover and study such paleontological resources. 

Section 4.9.2.4.5 indicates that "it is that the primary indirect impact woincrease the adverse potential for cotrampling of paleontological localities areas adjacent to fencing or reservoirs bedrock." This means that more surfacactivities have the greatest potential paleontological resources 

WSA Supp. 

17 REC Page 4-51, Section 4.10.2.3.5 and elsewhere 

throughout the supplement: It is the position of Duchesne County that the majority of citizens in our county and across the country do not participate in primitive, non-motorized forms of recreation due to age, mobility, health conditions and economic considerations. The majority needs motorized access 

The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are disand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an RMlands must be coordinated and cons
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

to enjoy recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. The Duchesne County public lands plan states that 12% of the county's land area is already wilderness and this area is highly inaccessible, which makes it off-limits for the majority of citizens. The plan states: "Wilderness designation is inconsistent with the philosophy of multiple use and sustained yield and adversely affects the County's economy in terms of grazing, tourism, timber industries, and water resources." Throughout the supplement, the benefits of protecting wilderness characteristics are mentioned without mentioning the detrimental impacts listed in the county plan. 

County plans, to the maximum extent law, and inconsistencies between Fnon-Federal government plans be resextent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. As a consequence, where State and conflict with Federal law there winconsistency that cannot be rereconciled. Thus, while County and Federaprocesses, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as practical, agency planning process is not bosubject to County plans, planning proplanning stipulations. The BLM will ideconflicts in the FEIS/DRMP, so that the local governments have a complete unof the impacts of the DRMP on State management options. 

A consistency re

DRMP with the State and County Masincluded in Chapter 5. 

WSA Supp. 

18 TRV Page 4-52, Section 4.10.2.4.5, 2nd paragraph, Page 

4-58, Section 4.10.2.8.5, Page 4-59, Section 4.10.2.11.5: Closure of 228 miles of vehicle routes under Alternative E would be inconsistent with the Duchesne County land-use plan, which states that "Access to and across public lands, including RS 2477 roads and rights of way, should remain open. All necessary action will be taken to protect access. 

See Response to Comment 10-6-TRV. With specific regards to RS 2477 roads, is given within the Draft RMP on pg 1-11 states: Revised Statute 2477 assertions, conceconstruction of roads across public landproposed by counties within the planninwould be addressed with current policy. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 

19 TRV Page 4-64, Section 4.11.2.12.5: In this section and 

elsewhere throughout the supplement, reference is made to "rehabilitating" roads after it is determined that they no longer serve the permitted purpose. To rehabilitate means to restore, repair, revitalize, recover, regenerate or re-establish. We believe it would be clearer to state that such roads should be obliterated and the land reclaimed to a more natural condition. The Duchesne County plan calls for analysis and county involvement in decisions to obliterate and reclaim roads. 

The BLM does not find the suggested cnecessary. As a cooperating agency in process and a local government entity, involve the county on decisions concernpurpose roads. 

WSA Supp. 

20 MOG Pages 4-66, 4-67, Section 4.12.3.2.5: The analysis in 

this Section 4.13.2.4.5 (Page 4-73) seems to be flawed in that it presumes Alternative E would increase the number of oil, gas and CBNG wells when compared to Alternative D, when actually Alternative E would result in 214 fewer wells according to Table 4.12.1 (6,331 wells in Alternative D versus 6,117 under Alternative E). 

See comment response 10-O-14. 

WSA Supp. 

21 SOC Pages 4-68 and 4-69, Section 4.12.3.3.3: Duchesne 

County disputes the findings of studies concluding that wilderness areas add positive economic benefits to local communities. These studies fail to take into account the negative impacts to the grazing, motorized travel, tourism and timber industries and to water resources needed to support the economy, when multiple use is not allowed. Our experience is that"high dollar recreation, such as hunting," referred to on Page 4-69, does not necessarily mean high dollars to the local economy (most hunters will outfit and supply themselves using sources outside the area, exploit the hunting opportunities locally, spending as little money as possible while here, and then return home). 

The cited studies concentrate on the economic benefits of wilderness; thnecessarily conclude that there are no even that the benefits always exceed The analysis in Chapter 4 explicitly stacited studies generally were done in the designated wilderness, and may or mato WSA's or non-WSA lands with characteristics. The Proposed RMPdiscusses in Chapter 4 the positive animpacts of all plan decisions, including from the decision to preserve, protect a106,178 acres for wilderness characteri
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 

22 SOC Page 4-69, Section 4.12.3.4.2: The findings under 

Alternative E are inconsistent with the socioeconomic statements in the Duchesne County land-use planwhich promote motorized access to and multiple use of public lands and conclude that additional wilderness designation shall be opposed. 

The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are disand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an RMlands must be coordinated and consCounty plans, to the maximum extent law, and inconsistencies between Fnon-Federal government plans be resextent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. As a consequence, where State and conflict with Federal law there winconsistency that cannot be rereconciled. Thus, while County and Federaprocesses, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as practical, agency planning process is not bosubject to County plans, planning proplanning stipulations. The BLM will ideconflicts in the Proposed RMP/Final Ethe State and local governments have understanding of the impacts of the RMP on State and local management consistency review of the Proposed RMState and County Master Plans is Chapter 5. 

WSA Supp. 

23 MOG Page 4-73, Section 4.13.2.4.5: The figure 1,499,461 

acres open for leasing under Alternative E appears to be inconsistent with the acreage figure given in Table 

The figures are not inconsistent. The acreage figure given in Table 4.12.1 discussed on page 4-66 of the Sup
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

4.12.1 (1,547,090 acres). acreage within the planning area open 

gas leasing subject to standard, tcontrolled surface use, or NSO stipul1,499,461 acreage figure given on pathe Supplement is acreage within tharea open to oil and gas leasing standard or timing and controlled sstipulations (did not include NSO areas)

WSA Supp. 

24 OTH Page 4-74, Section 4.13.2.6.5 (Alternative E should be 

singular). In the last sentence of this section, "These alternatives should be changed to "this alternative". 

The language has been changed in thRMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supp. 

25 SOL Page 4-79, Section 4.13.2.16.5, Page 4-103, Section 

4.16.2.8.5 (last paragraph), Page 4-105, Section 4.16.2.10.1 (last paragraph): Duchesne County disagrees that Alternative E would have greatest overall benefits to soil productivity and watershed health. Since Alternative E does not allow vegetation management (other than potential prescribed burns) the alternatives that allow a wider range of vegetation management actually hold more promise to benefit soils and watersheds compared to the "hands-off": approach of Alternative E. 

Several types of vegetation managemenallowed as described in Table 2.1.23 of SRMP/SEIS: "Management Common to large "tool-box" provides management soptions for soil and watershed health. 

WSA Supp. 

26 ACE Page 4-80, Section 4.14.1.3.1, paragraph 1, last 

sentence: Because Alternative C would designate both ACEC's... Second paragraph: Just because Alternatives B and D would not designate such ACEC's we question if pinyon pine habitat and watershed health could be enhanced by other management tools. Is an ACEC absolutely necessary to protect these resources or will other tools do the job? 

Through FLPMA, BLM has authority to ACECs where special management required to protect and prevent irreparato important cultural, historic, or scenic and wildlife resources; or other natural processes or to protect life and safety fhazards. Where ACEC values and characteristics coincide, the special massociated with an ACEC, if designatedprotect "wilderness characteristics: (IM
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

However, BLM policy directs that designation will not be used as a suwilderness suitability recommendations16513). Wilderness characteristics considered relevant or important vaevaluating or designing management fACECs. The RMP presents the various mstrategies for achieving the desired alternatives. Size and management pvary between the alternatives. If the pthe relevant and importance values the other resource uses then the Aproposed under all the alternatives. The relevant and important values of extend beyond the 160 acres within whGrowth Pinion Pine is located. Theinclude cultural resources, an important and a critical ecosystem for wildlife anbirds. 

As such, the area encompass

ACEC is larger than the 160-acre pinion 

WSA Supp. 

27 WSR Page 4-85, Section 4.14.1.3.6, last paragraph: Would 

this statement hold true if the White River were designated Wild and Scenic? 

The last paragraph in section 4.14.1.3.6 Neither Alternative B nor D – No Acdesignate the White River corridor as Accordingly, they would result in greaimpacts to the previously described along the corridor. However, they would fewer restrictions to oil and gas develoOHV use. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Commenter does not give specific poparagraph that he/she wants to knoabout. If the commenter is asking if WSR would provide protection the White Rivebe noted that the BLM does not desand Scenic rivers, it only identifies, findnon-eligible and recommends as scongress specific river segments. However, management prescriptions foRiver would add additional protections tRiver should it be found suitable as Record Of Decision. It would , howeverto Valid Existing Rights. 

WSA Supp. 

29 WC Page 4-97, Section 4.15.2.10: This section states that 

Alternative E protects 277,596 acres; however Table 4.15.2 implies that much less land is protected. Is this due to existing leases 

Table 4.15.2 does not imply toward Special Status Species; however, it doMineral Development. 

WSA Supp. 

30 ACE Page 4-104, Section 4.16.2.10.1: 

Alternative B seems 

to be left out of the analysis for the Coyote Basin and Four Mile Wash ACEC's. 

The commenter is correct that the Aanalysis has been left out of the analysbe updated in the Final EIS. Four Mile wash would not be designalternative B, and as a result would nowould have the same impact as alternat

WSA Supp. 

31 VEG Page 4-106, Section 4.16.2.12.1, last paragraph and 

Section 4.16.2.13.3: Closing 228 miles of travel routes and designating Class I and II VRM will likely be detrimental to vegetation resources long-term in that such closures and restrictions will make it more 

The benefits from closing 228 miles of twill reduce the amount of weed sintroduced and dispersed and will likethe impact to vegetation from redumanagement. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

difficult to control noxious weeds or manage vegetation for better habitat and reduce fuel loads.This is not mentioned in the supplement until the end of Section 4.16.2.16.5 on Page 4-108. 

WSA Supp. 

32 WC Page 4-109, Section 4.16.2.17.2 and elsewhere in the 

supplement: The amount of protection is overstated (277,596) due to the presence of valid, existing leases.

The commenter does not provide data the amount of valid and existing leases. 

WSA Supp. 

33 VRM Page 4-118, Section 4.17.2.10.3, last paragraph: It 

should be noted here that Alternative E has the fewest beneficial long-term impacts as beneficial vegetation treatment would be severely restricted in the areas deemed to have wilderness character. 

The BLM declines to make the suggestechange. The section is concerned with tof vegetation decisions on visual resourAlternative E emphasizes the protection WSA lands with wilderness characteristfact that vegetative treatments are severestricted in wilderness characteristics mAlternative E does have the greatest lonbeneficial impacts to visual resources aWSA lands with wilderness characterist

WSA Supp. 

34 VRM Page 4-113, Section 4.17.2.6.5, 4th paragraph: ...the 

long-term adverse impacts of light pollution adjacent to the Dinosaur National Monument would be mitigated, which would benefit night-time visual quality in that portion of the VPA near the monument. 

The BLM agrees that the recommended more accurately describe VRM impactshas been changed in the document. 

WSA Supp. 

35 WD Pages 4-118 and 4-119, Section 4.17.2.12.5: The 1st 

paragraph of this section notes that woodland salvage and harvesting would be prohibited under Alternative E. However, in the second paragraph, it gives the impression that woodland salvage and harvesting would be allowed. This apparent inconsistency should be clarified. 

Section 4.20.1-Impacts Common to the RMP and all Alternatives, states: resources would be treated or harvesteProposed RMP and all of the ahowever, under the Proposed RMP and E, non-WSA lands with wilderness chawould be managed with prohibitions oand timber harvesting and salvagprohibitions would have adverse iharvesting opportunities in the long term
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

The section has been revised in the RMP/Final EIS. The section number changed to Section 4.20.2.9-Alternative 

WSA Supp. 

36 VRM Page 4-120, Section 4.17.2.13.2: This section fails to 

account for the loss of benefits associated with the reduction in vegetation management options under Alternative E (as stated in Section 4.17.2.12.5). 

The sections quoted by the commenter impacts to visual resources and the benimpacts to visual quality. BLM states in Supplement on page 4-106 that Alternawould provide long-term beneficial impavegetation by limiting surface and vegetdisturbances. 

WSA Supp. 

37 OTH Page 4-122, Section 4.18.2.3.3: The acronym "HA"

(which means Herd Area), is not listed in the list of acronyms included in the RMP. 

The acronym has been included in acronyms in the Proposed RMP/Final E

WSA Supp. 

38 WHB Page 4-123 and 4-124, Section 4.18.2.5.3: This 

section correctly concludes that Alternatives C and E have more beneficial long-term impacts on wild horses than Alternative D; however, it fails to note that these two alternatives would have fewer long-term beneficial impacts than Alternative B, which provides for more rangeland improvements and vegetation treatments than Alternatives C or E (see Table 4.18.2). 

A goal and objective of the Proposed RMEIS is to provide for the interim managewild horses as the gathering and removhorses is completed. In the Proposed Rall wild horses are going to be removed Planning Area due to the complexity of sownership, manageability of the wild hothe continued presence of a the highly idisease – Equine Infectious Anemia (EIAAs stated in the "Dear Reader" letter at the Supplement to the Draft RMP/EIS, "Alternative E, the proposed decisions ththe lands outside of non-WSA lands witwilderness characteristics remain the sathose in Alternative C." The commenter look at both the DRMP and SDEIS to hacontext of the document including a des
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the alternatives, environment, and anticimpacts. Section 4.18.2.5.2 of the Draft EMP/EIS revised in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS short-term benefits. The section has alsrenumbered as 4.18.2.5.3 Section 4.18.2.5.3 of the Draft RMP/EIS renumbered as 4.18.2.5.4. 

WSA Supp. 

39 WHB Page 4-125, Section 4.18.2.7.2: This section fails to 

recognize that limited vegetation management options under Alternative E will prohibit some beneficial treatments from taking place to the benefit of wild horses. 

See comment response 10G-38. 

WSA Supp. 

40 GRA Page 4-125, Section 4.18.2.8.3: This section gives the 

reader the impression that Alternatives C and E provide the most range improvements. Table 4.18.2 shows that Alternative B actually provides the most range improvements. 

Table 4.18.2 indicates that Alternativeprovide more acres of vegetation treatof fencing, and miles of water pipeAlternatives C and E. However, AlternaE would allow the development wells/springs that Alternative B. 

WSA Supp. 

41 GRA Page 4-132, Section 4.19.2.6: This section favorably 

compares Alternatives C and E to Alternative D; however, it fails to recognize that Alternative C and E offer fewer rangeland improvements than Alternative B (see Table 4.19.8). 

See comment response 10-O-40. 

WSA Supp. 

42 WD Page 4-139, Section 4.20.2.2.3 and Page 4-142, 

Section 4.20.2.6.3: These sections maintain that Alternative E would have long term beneficial impacts on woodland resources by maintaining woodland productivity in those areas. However, if no woodland harvesting or salvage were allowed under Alternative

Section 4.20.2.2.3 is referring to the Lands and Realty Decisions on Resources. If ROWs and mining-relatdisturbances are prohibited under Altthen no adverse impacts would occur forealty decisions in non-WSA lands with 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

E, woodland productivity would actually drop to zero.How can woodland productivity be enhanced by making salvage and harvest impossible? 

characteristics. The last paragraph of Section 4.20.2.6142, states that there would be long-terimpacts on harvesting opportunities animpacts on resource protection and prodA Forest and woodland management be prepared after the Record of DecisioThis plan would provide guidance on: thforest and woodland management current conditions of the forest and resources; the current level of forest anmanagement activity; opportunities and increasing management activity; necessary to increase management apotential impediments to successfully management activity. 

WSA Supp. 

43 WD Pages -144, 4-145, and 4-212, Sections 4.20.2.10.5, 

4.20.2.12.5 and 4.21.2.13.5: Duchesne County does not agree that prohibitions on woodland harvesting and gathering have beneficial impacts on woodland resources. The decades of "hands-off" management of woodlands has led to insect infestation, build-up of fuels and degradation of habitat. Proposed woodland management under Alternative E would actually be detrimental to forest health (providing the least level of woodlands resource protection long-term). 

The sections referenced by the commethe impact of a variety of resourcactivities on Woodland Resources. Soresource program activities do provide impacts while others cause adversThese impacts are discussed in the Suthe Draft EIS. A Forest and woodland management be prepared after the Record of DecisioThis plan would provide guidance on: thforest and woodland management current conditions of the forest and resources; the current level of forest an
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

management activity; opportunities and increasing management activity; necessary to increase management apotential impediments to successfully management activity. 

WSA Supp. 

44 GRA Page 4-153, Section 4.21.2.4.1: This section focuses 

on removal of livestock from the Nine Mile--Desolation Canyon areas. It is not clear from this section how the other 24 non-WSA areas will be treated...will livestock be removed from all of them? Does the grazing restriction apply only to lands in Nine Mile Canyonitself or would it also affect the numerous grazing allotments in Duchesne County north of the canyon rim? 

As Page 4-153, Section 4.21.2.4.1 stathese alternatives, lands acquired in tharea would not be grazed by livestock riparian and watershed values." This oto lands acquired in Nine Mile as stated 

WSA Supp. 

45 MOG Pages 4-166 to Page 4-178, Table 4.21.1: Change 

heading "Oil & as Development Potential" to "Oil & Gas Development Potential". 

The FEIS will reflect this correction. 

WSA Supp. 

46 WC Page 4-166 to 4-178, Table 4.21.1, Bourdette Draw:

Why 0 acres affected when 5,744 acres are already leased? 

The term "Leased" does not pertain disturbance. 

Areas may have valid a

leases but do not have surface disturba

WSA Supp. 

47 WC Cold Springs Mountain: 8,764 acres vs. 8,674? 8,764 is the correct acreage. BLM wi

correction in the Final RMP. 

WSA Supp. 

48 WC Daniels Canyon: Why 0 acres affected when 322 

acres are already leased? 

Please see Response to ID No. G-146. 

WSA Supp. 

49 WC Diamond Mountain: Why 0 acres affected when 5,475 

acres are already leased? 

Please see Response to ID No. G-146. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 

50 REC Page 4-183, Sections 4.21.2.6.5 and 4.21.2.6.6: 

Are 

any of the areas proposed for SRMA's located within areas subject to existing energy leases? If so, the conclusions reached by these sections would not be true. 

In Section 1.4.1.2 of the Vernal DRMP/Planning Criteria, it is noted that "The rewould recognizes valid existing rights. Thus, all SRMAs are subject to Varights, and would be subject to existing resources. The Conclusions reached by the sectremain consistent with SRMA identificgoals and objectives for Each SRMA maintained and Valid existing righremoved as a result of SRMA identificat

WSA Supp. 

51 TRV Page 4-184, Section 4.21.2.7.1, end of 2nd paragraph:

While it is recognized that there would be long-term, adverse impacts associated with OHV trail widening and extension of the trail system, if the BLM can offer IHV riders sufficient, authorized trails to ride, thisshould reduce unauthorized cross country use, which would have long-term beneficial impacts on resources.Recent US Forest Service Travel Management Planning shows a 360% increase in OHV use in the Uintah Basin in the past eight years. Sufficient trails are needed to ensure that this increased use occurs in appropriate areas. 

Although this issue was raised during sapplication in the DRMP/EIS is limiManagement Actions Common to All Atravel routes can be added or deleteTravel Plan based on public dunacceptable impacts to resources. would be based on monitoring and sNEPA analysis. A comprehensive travel management completed within 1-5 years after the Decision. General Planning maps to provide a frathe Comprehensive plan have been inclthe Draft RMP (see figures 25-28Supplement (see figure 28e). 

WSA Supp. 

52 TRV Pages 4-186 and 4-187, Section 4.21.2.7.3: The 3rd 

and last paragraphs in this section appear to be repetitive. 

The document will be revised to comment. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 

53 WC pages 4-190, Section 4.21.2.8.6: This section fails to 

recognize that, under Alternative E, surface disturbance would be allowed in areas subject to valid, existing energy lease rights. 

As stated in Sections 4.21.2.8.5 Alternwith Alternative C, no surface disturbabe permitted on slopes between 21% without an approved erosion-controFurther, surface disturbance would not on slopes over 40%. However, alternative, no surface disturbance permitted that would impact the naturaof the non-WSA lands with characteristics. The effects of these acpreserve the wilderness characteristiWSA lands with wilderness characteristValid and existing lease rights are surface disturbance stipulations. 

WSA Supp. 

54 ACE Pages 4-198 and 4-199, Section 4.21.2.9.3: In the 

paragraph associated with the Mine Mile Canyon ACEC and Desolation Canyon, it should be noted that 66% of this area is currently leased for energy development. 

Comment noted The BLM declines to add the reclanguage. 

WSA Supp. 

55 WSA Pages 4-200 and 4-201, Sections 4.21.2.9.4 and 

4.21.2.9.5: In the last paragraph of each section, how can there be opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in the Cripple Cowboy and Bull Canyon areas when they are 85% and 89% leased for energy development, respectively, according to Table 4.21.1?

Leasing does not always mean intensive development. Stipulations and mitigatioincluded in lease sales to include NSO oconstraints on development. It is feasibllarge tract of land can be leased and stiopportunities for solitude and primitive rOne example would be along the White within the VPA. Although a large portion area around the White River is leased, rrunners report that a major reason they White River are the opportunities for sol
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

primitive recreation. 

WSA Supp. 

56 OTH Page 4-203, Section 4.21.2.10.6, 1st sentence:

"Alternative" should be plural. 

The typographical error has been correProposed RMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supp. 

57 OTH Page 4-208, Section 4.21.2.11.6: "150,001 acre"

should be plural. 

The typographical error has been correProposed RMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supp. 

58 OTH Page 4-213, Section 4.21.2.14.2: 1st line: ...would be 

managed by the following prescriptions: 12th bullet:Construction of wildlife watering facilities. 

The language has been changed in thRMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supp. 

59 WC Page 4-218, Section 4.21.6, 2nd paragraph: Does the 

estimate of 124,215 acres losing their wilderness character due to existing leases also take into account the potential leasing and development of SITLA lands that "checkerboard" the region? Duchesne Countyexpects that development of SITLA lands will result in the loss of even more wilderness character on adjoining BLM lands, which makes management of these areas for wilderness even less feasible or desirable. 

SITLA lands are not included in the deof Wilderness Character. 

WSA Supp. 

60 WC Page 4-219, Section 4.22, 2nd paragraph on this 

page: The list of other land management agencies in this paragraph fails to mention SITLA, which owns many sections of land abutting non-WSA lands managed by the BLM. 

Comment Noted. SITLA will be added. 

WSA Supp. 

61 REC Page 4-219, Section 4.22, last paragraph on this page:

Duchesne County questions the listing of "primitive forms of recreation:" to include hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing, when the majority of the population 

The activities can be and are accomboth motorized enthusiasts, and nonenthusiasts, and are therefore categorized within primitive forms of rec
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

uses motorized vehicles to participate in such activities. Creation of wilderness makes such activities difficult to participate in for the majority of citizens. 

not excluded from motorized forms of reThe commenter offers an opinion of wifollows: "Creation of wilderness makes sucdifficult to participate in for the majority oThis is a general opinion dealing philosophy of wilderness and is beyond of the Draft RMP and Supplement. 

WSA Supp. 

62 REC Page 4-221, Section 4.22.19, last paragraph on this 

page: Focusing on primitive forms of recreation and limiting motorized recreation may increase opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, but this occurs at the expense of the majority, who don't seek solitude or primitive recreation and need motorized access to enjoy these lands. 

Comment noted. The BLM considered a wide range of for motorized use, constructing/designating up to 800 additional motorized trails and 400 mimotorized trails (Alt A.) Acres and miles for motorized use (as OHV's) are clearly stated within the DRMS.1 within the executive summary oRMP, and additional OHV numbers within table S.4 as part of the SuppleBLM has Clearly offered opportMotorized use within the VPA. 

WSA Supp. 

63 WC Page 4-222, Section 4.22.19, 3rd sentence in 1st 

paragraph: Remove reference to "a more industrial landscape" and use "reduction of natural landscapes."

Comment noted. The BLM declines to make the suggestchanges for a variety of reasons includlimited to, the following: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12c. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

1. The BLM does not find the changes necessary or appropriate. 2. The suggested wording changsubstantively contribute to or clarify the 3. The commenter did not prrationale why the suggested change is or how the current data and analysis is 4. The suggested change personal opinions or preferences. 5. The suggested change had littlto the adequacy or accuracy of the RMP

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC139 (JSO-19) 

Oil shale needs to be added to land use and economic resources. 

Oil shale will be addressed in the proEIS. Please see Section 1.12 of the Pfor more information. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC140 (JSO-48) 

Is this document supposed to be good for 15 or 20 years? 

The RMP document is intended to be ras long as 20 years from the complHowever, the BLM will continually coaccuracy and applicability of the management needs within the planninwill update the RMP through addenda aThe BLM will consider the complete re
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the RMP approximately 15 years completion date, unless conditions require early consideration. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO57 (JPR-9) 

As cooperating partners, Uintah County and Duchesne County provided two socioeconomic reports for incorporation into the RMP. They were not included. They must be included before any alternative can be properly analyzed and the impacts disclosed. Reports were: #1 UEO Report addressing cost and related impacts of Drilling a well in Uinta and Duchesne counties, and #2 Uinta Basin Industry Impact Study 

See comment response SO2. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO62 (JSO-14) 

Outdated insufficient or incorrect data and graphs have been used to provide socio-economic information; additional information supplied to BLM was not generally incorporated. Accurate and comprehensive analysis of impacts is not included in all sections and is not consistent throughout document (some sections, like oil/gas mention number of jobs, other areas like grazing or agriculture do not). 

The PRMP/FEIS incorporates recprovided by the US Bureau of Laboand the State of Utah Division of OilMining. This data has been used in (November, 2007) study commissionState of Utah: The Structure and Impact of Utah's Oil and Gas ExploProduction Industry Phase I - The Uinta 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO63 (JSO-15) 

We provided you with specific data source; there is no reference or indication that it was ever used. (Uinta Basin Industry Impact Study) 

This document has been reviewedrelevant information has been incorpothe Final RMP/EIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO64 (JSO-16) 

We provided you with specific data source; there is no reference or indication that it was ever used. (UEO Report addressing cost and related impacts of Drilling a well in Uintah and Duchesne counties.) The Draft RMP drilling costs differ by more than 300% from this report, making it impossible to accurately analyze and disclose impacts. 

This document has been reviewedrelevant information has been incorpothe Final RMP/EIS. The BLM acidentified document as a valid information, and the socioeconomic anredone based upon the information pro
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO65 (JSO-17) 

You need to update data given economic changes--especially energy prices--since DEIS data was gathered. Failure to do so could constitute a flawed document. 

NEPA does not require agencies tstudies to be completed, but if thercurrent information please acknowledgthat it does not significantly modify the 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO66 (JSO-18) 

RMP does not adequately disclose the degree to which BLM lands affect local economy. "...these often-conflicted uses need to be addressed in terms of how they affect local communities..." Without a full economic and fiscal analysis of each alterative, this objective is not met. 

The socioeconomic impacts analysifound in Section 4.12 and its subsectioSee comment response S037. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO67 (JSO-20) 

The RFD "projects environmental impacts through the next 15-year period." RFD should address economic impacts, too. 

Similar to the RFD, the life of the expected to be 15-20 years. Aeconomic impacts from management under consideration in the PRMPdiscussed in Section 4.12.3.2 subsections. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO68 (JSO-21) 

Summary of Impacts, Discipline, Social and Economic Consideration: Mineral Development is erroneous. There is no reference as to where and how these numbers were calculated. Based on upon UEO report, these numbers need to be recalculated. It does not make sense to have $3.8 billion in cost to recoup $437 million in sales. 

This document has been reviewedrelevant information has been reviseFinal PRMP/FEIS. The BLM acidentified document as a valid information, and the socioeconomic anredone based upon the information proSee comment responses to SO31 and 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO69 (JSO-22) 

Recreation section. We question these numbers, are they for BLM managed land only? All 3 counties? Are oil field workers staying in local motels being counted as tourists? Again, there is not reference to check where these stats came from. 

It is unclear which statistic in the Section of Table 2.5 is being questioneSection 4.12.3.2 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to reflect the impact of oil workmotels. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO70 (JSO-23) 

The RFD is inadequate and not realistic. Estimates for new wells are extremely low. This number should be increased to a more realistic number. 

See comment responses ME47 and ME

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO71 (JSO-24) 

Note that a large portion of "tourism tax dollars" come from the oil and gas industry (local motels for housing for oil field workers etc). This should be made clear in all sections of the RMP discussing tourism impacts. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to clarify the relationship betwegas workers and "tourism tax dollars." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO72 (JSO-25) 

This data from 2000; table needs to be updated. Should use info from Utah Division of Travel not Utah Travel Council. Also this table reflects a percentage change, but does not say what it is changing from. 

Table 3.10.1 in the PRMP/FEIS has beto incorporate information from the Utaof Travel Development. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO73 (JSO-26) 

Update the population data. Although census from 2000, recognized agencies have more updated population data and this data should be used. 

There may be more up to date numbers, but the commenter did not pinformation to use. Population proje2020 are given and updated data has where applicable. Also, an RMP will never have current, information due to the length of time publish the document. The data is prcomparison purposes. See comment response SO53. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO74 (JSO-27) 

The information in this table is at least 3 years outdated and does not reflect present employment base. The table should be updated. In addition, numbers shown for 2001 are incorrect. See DWS latest fact sheet. 

An RMP will never have current, information due to the length of time publish the document. The data is prcomparison purposes. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO75 (JSO-28) 

Table needs to be updated with FY2004 data. Old data does not accurately show present impacts. 

Due to changes in recordation at thManagement Service, this informatiavailable for more recent years. Howe3.12.4 in the PRMP/FEIS has been incorporate new minerals revenue figur

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO76 (JSO-29) 

Charts from Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining are 2002; need to be updated with 2004. 

The charts following Table 3.12.PRMP/FEIS have been revised to refigures from the Utah Division of OilMining. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO77 (JSO-30) 

Gas and oil prices per barrel in RMP need to be adjusted to reflect current conditions. 

Section 3.12.2.2.3 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to reflect 2004 figures from Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO78 (JSO-31) 

Conflict between Tax Revenue text and Table 3.10.1 data. ($951,000 vs. $334,514). Use most current data. 

Section 3.12.2.2.4 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to reflect the correct tax revenSee response to SO6. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO79 (JSO-32) 

Data doesn't truly reflect actual tourism dollars (high % of industry in them). 

This has been noted in Sections 3.124.12.3.2 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO80 (JSO-33) 

ALL county revenue should be included in data. Show what portion of revenue goes to state and not county. 

Sections 3.12.2.2.3 and 4.12.3.2.PRMP/FEIS have been revised to indportion of county revenue goes the stat

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO81 (JSO-34) 

Chapter 4 deals with environmental consequences but fails to deal with economic ones. Chapter 4 should include economic impacts within each resource section. 

The socioeconomic impacts analysis is in Section 4.12 and its subsections. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO82 (JSO-35) 

Agriculture impacts to the local economy were omitted in Chapter 4. 

See Sections 4.12.2.1 and 4.12.3.1 for grazing as a result of BLM madecisions. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO83 (JSO-36) 

Need consistency in whether this plan is projecting for 15 or 20 years. 

15 to 20 years is the planned projected RMP which is reflected in the asignificant changes were found, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

amendment would be done. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO84 (JSO-37) 

Table 4.2 underestimates potential for development and needs to be re-analyzed to reflect a more accurate development scenario based on today's activity. 

The commenter does not provide an estimate of future development or an inwhat would be a "more accurate scenon today's activity." As such, the BLM to respond to this comment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO85 (SO-38) 

Last paragraph 2nd sentence should read "to the federal government and the State of Utah" rather than "or" 

Section 4.8.1.1 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to incorporate the change suthe comment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO86 (JSO-39) 

Inconsistency in number of wells between various sections of RMP and Mineral Potential Report. Figure of 6,530 more accurately reflects a minimum for wells, not a maximum. 

Errors in the numbers of wells betwesections will be corrected in the Fmaximum number of wells predicted iwas based on the best information athe time of the report. See comment response AT29. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO87 (JSO-40) 

"Tourism generates tax revenue that is used to support the local community, which would potentially decrease". This is irrelevant. Tourism tax dollars are not applicable to Uintah County BLM lands, nor are there tourist focal points. 

Potential tourism-related tax revenue cfrom a range of recreation opportunitielands including Backcountry Bywaysand trails in the planning area. Se4.10.2.6 for recreation opportunities in 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO89 (JSO-42) 

This statement does not adequately convey the layering of restrictions and their impacts on inhibiting development. Needs to be spelled out to laypeople. 

"Layering" is a planning tool. Under multiple-use mandate, the BLM manadifferent resource values and uses lands. Through land-use planning BLM and objectives for each of those values and prescribes actions to accompobjectives. Under the multiple-use coBLM does not necessarily manage eand use on every acre, but routinely many different values and uses on 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

areas of public lands. The process omany individual program goals, objecactions to the same area of public lanperceived as "layering". The BLM ensure that the goals and objectiveprogram (representing resource values are consistent and compatible for a land area. Inconsistent goals and objelead to resource conflicts, failure to adesired outcomes of a land-use litigation. Whether or not a particulamanagement is restrictive depends personal interest or desire to see tlands are managed in a particular manuses and values can be provided foacre. That is why land-use plans are through a public and interdisciplinary The interdisciplinary process helps ensresource values and uses are condetermine what mix of values and responsive to the issues identified for in the land-use plan. Layering of decisions is not optional for BLM, but by the FLPMA and National BLM plaprogram specific regulations. The FLPMA directs BLM to manage pfor multiple use and sustained yield 102(a) (7)). As a multiple-use agency, required to implement laws, regulapolicies for many different and often land uses and to resolve conflicts and land uses through its land-use plans. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Land-use planning Handbook reqspecific decisions be made for each resuse (See, Appendix C, Land-use Handbook "H-1601-1"). Specific decisbe included in each of the alternatives during development of the land-use each alternative is formulated, each decision is overlaid with other program and inconsistent decisions are idenmodified so that ultimately a compatiuses and management prescriptions reFor example, the BLM has separate pguidelines, as well as criteria, for eACECs and when the WSAs were eThese differing criteria make it possibsame lands will qualify as both an ACWSA but for different reasons. Threquired to consider these different pol

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO90 (JSO-43) 

Cost of drilling as stated in RMP is incorrect and results in need for reassessment of all alternatives. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to consider the cost of drilling b

data received by the BLM. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO91 (JSO-44) 

Data on state and local revenues from wells must be included as much wages, support jobs, etc. 

 See comment responses SO2 and SO

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO92 (JSO-45) 

Discrepancy in well numbers (6,312 v. 6,340) in document text vs table. Also well number from MPR of 6,530 not reflected in any alternative. 

Section 4.12.3.2.1 in the PRMP/FEIS revised so that the number of wells are throughout the RMP. The well number the maximum RFD. The maximum wells was adjusted by the percent of for development under each alternative

Draft SO93 All of the impacts are incorrect based on the See comment responses SO31 and SO
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS (JSO-46) information from the UEO. Draft RMP/EIS 

SO94 (JSO-47) 

Royalties and PILT not connected in any way and the statement that they are suggests that the preparer has no knowledge of BLM and local, or state revenue sources. 

Sections 4.12.3.2.2 thru 4.12.3.2.PRMP/FEIS have been revised to impacts of royalties and Payments Taxes (PILT). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO96 (JSO-49) 

All three of these sections have inaccurate well counts and extrapolations of impacts. Also they assume that PILT is a royalty payment, this is not correct. 

See comment response SO93. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO97 (JSO-50) 

Table 4.12.1 should be deleted and a new chart prepared with accurate and updated information. The table should also include additional fiscal items (state local revenues, direct/indirect jobs etc) needed for true analysis as required by FLPMA. 

An RMP will never have current, information due to the length of time publish the document. The data is prcomparison purposes. See comment responses SO31 and SO

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO98 (JSO-51) 

Section is inadequate and insufficiently detailed to specific locations and counties and does not tie wages to jobs. Also, references are not cited. 

The document has been revised references used have been cited the te

ACEC NOA 

1 ACE The BLM must make a determination for each 

potential and proposed ACEC that special management attention is required to protect the identified relevant and important values. It has failed to do so in the DEIS/RMP. 

The BLM determined that the potenidentified in the PRMP/FEIS have reimportant values and this provides thprotection. Where potential ACECs are special management attention would be the relevant and important values. 

ACEC NOA 

2 ACE Similarly, on page 4-203, the draft RMP indicates the 

lack of designation of some potential ACECs may place the relevant and important values "at some risk of irreparable damage during the life of the plan". This statement is completely backward. BLM must make a determination that a threat of irreparable damage from 

The ACEC evaluation appendix (Appenmodified, and a section added to discussing threats to the relevant and ACEC values; however, whether tcurrently exist does not preclude a potefrom being considered in the action alte
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

some authorized multiple-use activity exists, and is directed toward the identified relevant and important value in order to complete the fundamental requirements for an ACEC. 

nominated areas, where the BLM has to have relevant and important videntified as potential ACECs and are athe action alternatives. Threats to reimportant values are likely to vary by The PRMP/FEIS was revised from document to better address potential impacts associated with each alternativeOn August 27, 1980, the BLM promuACEC guidelines (45 Federal Regisclarifying the term "protects" – "To defeagainst damage or loss to the environmental resources of a podesignated ACEC. This includes damabe restored over time and that which is With regard to a natural hazard, protecprevent the loss of life or injury to peopldamage to property." Thus, BLM is to cpotential for both reparable and damage when protecting importancultural, or scenic values; fish aresources; or other natural systems throdesignation. This interpretation is conFLPMA's legislative history and impolicy. Section 2 of the guidelines clarifies that special places within the public lands. Iaddition to establishing in law such basimanagement policies that apply to allands, Congress has said that 'mananational resource lands [public lands] is 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

giving special attention to the protection for the purpose of ensuring that environmentally important and fragile lagiven early attention and protectioReport 94-583, on FLPMA). Thus, process is to be used to provide whatemanagement is required to protenvironmental resources that are mosi.e., those resources that make certaareas special places, endowed by natwith characteristics that set them apart. the ACEC process is to be used to prolife and property from natural hazards." 

ACEC NOA 

3 ACE The manual section (1613.22) further requires the 

BLM to consider whether the values within the proposed and potential ACEC are already afforded protection through other designations. BLM Manual Section l613.33E allows that BLM may decline to designate an ACEC "because standard or routine management prescriptions are sufficient to protect the resource or value from risks or threats of damage/degradation", which is clarified to mean that "the same management prescriptions would have been provided for the area in the absence of the important and relevant values". Examples of values that have been used to justify need for protection management are the species cultural resources, riparian and wetland areas and special status species. The counties cannot find any analysis of these factors within the draft RMP and EIS. In fact, the majority of the relevant and important values identified are already afforded such protection. 

See comment response 2-2. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

ACEC NOA 

4 ACE The failure to conduct the analysis required in section 

(1613.12) is evidenced by the proposal to create an ACEC in the Winter Ridge WSA and on the White River. These areas are currently protected by Interim Management Plan for WSAs and Provisions of the Threatened and Endangered Species Act. 

The BLM has separate policies and guwell as criteria, for establishing ACECs These differing criteria make it possibsame lands will qualify as both an ACWSA but for different reasons. Threquired to consider these different policThe values protected by WSA mprescriptions do not necessarily provalues found relevant and important evaluation, and vice versa. The reimportant values of ACECs within or WSAs were noted in the ACEC (Appendix I). The ACECs are evaranked based on the presence or absestated relevant and important valuesthese values includes wilderness chaAdditionally, the management prescriptACECs is limited in scope to protect tand important values, and the BLM mathe size of the ACEC areas is appprotection of the relevant and imporidentified. 

ACEC NOA 

5 ACE Further, BLM Manual Section 1613.22(A)(2) requires 

the BLM to consider the value of other resources when considering the protection of important and relevant values of a proposed and potential ACEC. The intent is that BLM balance the various multiple-uses within the proposed RMP, and consider whether the need for other multiple-uses in the area "outweigh" the need for the ACEC. The discussions in the draft RMP and EIS do not analyze any such balancing, and do not discuss 

The rationale for designation of individcarried forward into the PRMP/FEprovided in the Record of Decisincluding the identified benefits designation versus other resource analysis that forms the basis of the ratiofinal decision to designate or not deACEC can be found in Chapter PRMP/FEIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the potential benefits of ACEC designation versus other resource uses for any of the potential and proposed ACECs. As stated above, the impacts on RFD are not disclosed to a level that such analysis could be made. 

ACEC NOA 

6 ACE The counties are concerned that the draft RMP is not 

specific about the sources and goals of many of the special management designations available to it, leading to the circular and non¬responsive reasoning in the analysis. For example, on page 4-284, the impacts analysis for visual resources and special designations indicates that visual resources will be protected by designation of ACECs and Wild and Scenic River designations. This analysis proceeds under the general presumption that ACECs and WSR segments are "good" for visual resources, but fails to indicate the management prescriptions which actually accomplish this goal. On page 4-280 under a discussion of recreation, the draft RMP indicates that the designation of Special Recreation Management Areas would benefit scenic quality by "limiting surfacedisturbing activities". On the other hand, the explanation of management prescriptions for the proposed Bitter Creek ACEC indicates possible use of three of four existing VRM categories. Which designation ¬ACEC, WSR, SRMA or VRM management - is being proposed for the protection of visual resources? The VRM discussion mentions the others, while the ACEC discussion mentions the use of VRM classifications. This lack of clarity in proposed management prescriptions doesn't meet the requirements of full disclosure under the provisions of NEP A, and doesn't allow counties to determine 

The PRMP/FEIS has been revised to Proposed RMP that reflects the smanagement direction from all altemitigate impacts to resources "Layering" is planning tool. Under multiple-use mandate, the BLM mandifferent resource values and uses on pThrough land-use planning BLM sets objectives for each of those values and prescribes actions to accomplish those Under the multiple-use concept, the BLnecessarily manage every value and usacre, but routinely manages many diffeand uses on the same areas of public process of applying many individuagoals, objectives, and actions to the sapublic lands may be perceived as "layBLM strives to ensure that the goals and of each program (representing resouand uses) are consistent and compaparticular land area. Inconsistent objectives can lead to resource conflictachieve the desired outcomes of a lanand litigation. Whether or not a particumanagement is restrictive depends personal interest or desire to see that pare managed in a particular manner. N
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

whether or not the BLM is proposing duplicate prescriptions, contrary to the provisions of State law, and the BLM's Manual on designation of ACECs, as discussed above. 

and values can be provided for on every is why land-use plans are developed public and interdisciplinary procinterdisciplinary process helps ensuresource values and uses are condetermine what mix of values anresponsive to the issues identified for rthe land-use plan. Layering of program not optional for BLM, but is required by and National BLM planning and progrregulations. The FLPMA directs BLM to manage pfor multiple use and sustained yie102(a)(7)). As a multiple-use agency, required to implement laws, regulapolicies for many different and often land uses and to resolve conflicts anland uses through its land-use plans. Land-use Planning Handbook requires tdecisions be made for each resourc(See, Appendix C, Land-use Planning "H-1601-1"). Specific decisions must be each of the alternatives analyzdevelopment of the land-use plan. alternative is formulated, each program overlaid with other program deciinconsistent decisions are identified anso that ultimately a compatible mix omanagement prescriptions result. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 

1 PRP 

Adopting Alternative E would violate the restrictions of BLM's own Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275, which states, "it is no longer BLM policy to continue to make formal determinations regarding wilderness character, designate new WSAs through the land-useplanning process, or manage any lands --[except Section 603 WSAs] in accordance with the nonimpairment standard prescribed in the IMP [Interim Management Policy for WSAs]." 

See comment response 154-B-6. 

WSA Supp. 

2 PRP The proposed Alternative E's restrictive management 

standards that would effectively treat Subject Lands as if they are WSAs, are largely built around BLM's 1999 Utah Wilderness Reinventory. Yet in 2003 the Department of Interior promised the State of Utah,among other things, not to use the 1999 Utah Wilderness Reinventory to manage public lands "as if"they are, or may become, WSAs. Utah v. Norton settlement agreement of April 11, 203 at p. 13 para 14.

The Utah v. Norton Settlement Agreenot affect BLM's authority to manage pThis Agreement merely remedied codistinguishing between wilderness sestablished under FLPMA §603 and trequired to be managed under §6impairment standard, and other landwithin the discretionary FLMPA management process. See also comment response 154-B-6. 

WSA Supp. 

3 PRP The State of Utah's policy and plan for managing BLM 

lands is substantially set forth in Utah Code 63-38d401(6), (7) and (8). A copy of that portion of the Utah Code (Exhibit 2)( is enclosed for your reference. It is self evident that the management prescriptions and restrictions in the proposed Alternative E are not inconsistent with the standards and policies set forth in this State statutory provision. 

See comment response 150-B-2. 

WSA Supp. 

5 WSR The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act expressly provided that 

no pre-existing rights shall be impinged, etc.Therefore, BLM should conclude that no proposed segment in Uintah County is suitable for designation, for the addition reason that prohibitions on 

Barring congressional action, there is nwater rights or in-stream flows related tfindings made in a land-use plan decisCongress were to designate rivers National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

impoundment that accompany designations would violate the pre-existing rights of impoundment granted under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. 

designation would have no effect on exrights. Section 13(b) of the Wild and SAct states that jurisdiction over determined by established principles Utah, the State has jurisdiction oAlthough the Wild and Scenic Rivers AFederal reserved water right for designit does not require or specify any amonoted above, confirms that Utah has over water rights. The BLM would be adjudicate the water right, in the same any other entity, by application throprocesses. Thus, for congressionally rivers, the BLM may assert a Federawater right for appurtenant and unawater with a priority date as of thdesignation (junior to all existing rights)the minimum amount necessary to primary purpose of the reservation. 

WSA Supp. 

6 GRA The "close an entire grazing allotment" standard 

misses the mark of House Bill 264 and is inconsistent with Uintah County Public Land Policy and Plans by a serious margin. 

The BLM does not manage public land pending draft or proposed legislation. 

WSA Supp. 

7 GRA From time to time a bonafide livestock permitee in the 

VFO planning area, acting in good faith and not to circumvent the intent of the BLM's grazing regulations, may temporarily cease grazing operations without losing his or her permitted AUMs. It is proposed in Alternative E to transfer these AUMs to wildlife or to watersheds. This is contrary to BLM regulations that provide for non use, Utah State law, and Uintah County policy. 

The different alternatives present a rangallocations between livestock and adjustments in AUMs are made. The Vernal Field Office RMP deteallowable uses of the public lands as pin FLPMA. FLPMA states in section land-use planning provides for the use olands "regardless of whether such lands have been classified, withdrawn, set 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

otherwise designated for one or mFLPMA further provides in Section authority to issue management decisimplement newly developed or reviseplans. Such decisions, including those tone or more uses, are subject to recomodification and termination through the land-use plan. The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are disand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an RMlands must be coordinated and consCounty plans, to the maximum extent law, and inconsistencies between Fnon-Federal government plans be resextent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. As a consequence, where State and conflict with Federal law, there winconsistency that cannot be rereconciled. Thus, while County and Federaprocesses, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as practical, agency planning process is not bosubject to County plans, planning proplanning stipulations. The BLM will ideconflicts in the FEIS/PRMP, so that the local governments have a complete unof the impacts of the PRMP on State 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

management options. 

A consistency re

PRMP with the State and County Masincluded in Chapter 5. 

WSA Supp. 

8 GRA The RMP fails to articulate a legal or factual basis to 

reduce domestic livestock, and as written, Alternative E violates BLM grazing regulations. BLM may not implement an acres the board reduction in permitted grazing use in the RMP. Permitted use includes nonuse, and BLM may only reduce permitted grazing use when monitoring or field observations or ecological site inventory or other data demonstrate that grazing use is causing an unacceptable level or pattern of utilization, that rangeland health standards are not being met or that use exceeds livestock carrying capacity. Furthermore, changes in permitted use may only be effected by appealable decision after consultation, cooperation and coordination with the affected grazing permitee. 43 C.F.R. 4110.3, 4110.3-2, 4110.3-3. Alternative E's across the board elimination of grazing non-use, therefore is illegal. 

The Vernal Field Office RMP deteallowable uses of the public lands as pin FLPMA. FLPMA states in section land-use planning provides for the use olands "regardless of whether such lands have been classified, withdrawn, set otherwise designated for one or mFLPMA further provides in Section authority to issue management decisimplement newly developed or reviseplans. Such decisions, including those tone or more uses, are subject to recomodification and termination through the land-use plan. See comment response LG45A regardpolicy to manage the public lands on tmultiple use and sustained yield. While it is the goal of the BLM trangeland health while providing recognizing the need for domestic minerals, food, timber and fiber, threquirement in the Taylor Grazing Acother applicable law for the BLM to mnumber of domestic livestock AUMs. 

A

section 2 of the TGA, it is the objective oregulate the occupancy and use of tDistricts and to preserve these lands. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 

9 GRA The RMP proposes to exclude from forage allocations 

all land that produces less than 25 or 32 pounds of forage per year. See DEIS 2-11. The grazing rules require that such changes be made in consultation and coordination with the individual permitee rather than unilaterally throughout the planning area. In addition, the grazing rules require consultation with the permitee before amending the permit to exclude land. 43 C.F.R. 4110.4-2 

The Vernal Field Office RMP deteallowable uses of the public lands as pin FLPMA. FLPMA states in section land-use planning provides for the use olands "regardless of whether such lands have been classified, withdrawn, set otherwise designated for one or mFLPMA further provides in Section authority to issue management decisimplement newly developed or reviseplans. Such decisions, including those tone or more uses, are subject to recomodification and termination through the land-use plan. The BLM agrees that changes must consultation, coordination, and coopethe permittee. 43 C.F.R. §4110.2-3. Thmerely provided criteria to use adjustments are required. 

WSA Supp. 

10 GRA We object to the extent the Supplement attempts to 

authorize the retirement of grazing permits and their reallocation to wildlife. This violates the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. 315, FLPMA, 43 U.SC. 1742, and the terms of the Executive Orders No 6910, 54 I.D. 539 (1934), and No. 6964 ( Feb. 5, 1935), which withdrew public lands as chiefly valuable for grazing. 

Voluntary relinquishments of grazing ppreference, in whole or in part, by a pwriting to the BLM will be handled on case basis. The BLM will not recognizrelinquishments which are conditional BLM actions and BLM will not be bounRelinquished permits and the preference will remain available for apqualified applicants after BLM considaction would meet rangeland health stais compatible with achieving land-use and objectives. Prior to re-issuancrelinquished permit the terms and conbe modified to meet LUP goals and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

and/or site specific resource objectives. However, upon relinquishment, Bdetermine through a site specific evaassociated NEPA analysis that the pinvolved are better used for other Grazing may then be discontinued on ththrough an amendment to the existing new LUP effort. 

Any decision issued 

discontinuance of livestock grazinpermanent and may be reconsidered anthrough future LUP amendments and up

WSA Supp. 

11 GRA By the same token, BLM cannot purport to authorize 

wildlife grazing by retiring grazing permits in order to allocate the forage for wildlife. This action would also constitute a change in grazing use without following the procedures set out in BLM grazing rules. 43 C.F.R4110.3, 4110.4. It is also inconsistent with the grazing rules which provide for BLM to offer a vacant permit to other qualified pemitees. 

See comment response 190-O-10. The different alternatives present a rangallocations between livestock and adjustments in AUMs are made. 

WSA Supp. 

12 GRA Of particular concern is the proposal to transfer 

livestock AUMs associated with the BCCI to wildlife.This proposal is counter to provisions of Utah Statelaw and Uintah County Public Land Policy. 

See comment response 190-O-12. 

WSA Supp. 

13 ACE The ACEC concept gives BLM no authority to 

discontinue oil and gas development activities already approved under the existing Vernal and Diamond Mountain RMP's, this lies in the statutory definitions of ACEC's found in FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1702(a). 

The RMP and Supplement recognizexisting rights within the Vernal Planninwould not retroactively apply mprescriptions to existing rights that wowith the currently allowable accompanying those rights. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Also, Section 1.4.1.2, Development oCriteria, states that the Final EIS would valid existing rights. 

WSA Supp. 

14 ACE The conjunctive phrase "to protect and prevent 

irreparable damage to," mandates that ACECdesignation is not appropriate when relevant values are merely subject to some impairment. The threatened negative effect on a give relevant value must rise to the level of outright damage to that value.Thus, the ACEC concept does not authorize the Secretary to manage a piece of public land for mere non-impairment of a perceived wilderness characteristic, as if it were or one day may become a Section 603 WSA. Any such attempt to extend, de facto, the non-impairment management mandate to non 603 WSA's in the name of an ACEC, is therefore groundless. 

On August 27, 1980, BLM promulgated guidelines (45 Federal Register 57318) that the term "protects" means: "To guard against damage or loss to the environmental resources of a podesignated ACEC. This includes damabe restored over time and that which is With regard to a natural hazard, protecprevent the loss of life or injury to peopldamage to property." Thus, BLM is to consider the potentreparable and irreparable damage when important historic, cultural, or scenic vand wildlife resources; or other naturthrough ACEC designation. This interconsistent with FLPMA's legislative himplementing policy. Section 2 of the clarifies that ACECs are special plapublic lands. It states: "In addition to estlaw such basic protective managemethat apply to all the public lands, Cosaid that 'management of national reso[public lands] is to include giving specto the protection of ACECs, for the ensuring that the most environmentalland fragile lands will be given early atprotection' (Senate Report 94-583, oThus, the 

ACEC process is to be used 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

whatever special management is rprotect those environmental resourcemost important, i.e., those resources certain specific areas special places, enature or man with characteristics thaapart. In addition, the ACEC process is to protect human life and property frhazards." 

WSA Supp. 

15 ACE The term "important" in the phrase "important historic, 

cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes," shows that the values sought to be protected must have some objectively recognized importance in order to justify ACEC designations and protection. The Vernal RMP Administrative Draft fails to demonstrate or articulate how the values identified in the proposed ACEC's meet this "importance" threshold. 

BLM considered the acreage needed and prevent irreparable damage to reimportant values. Nominated ACECs or nominated ACECs that failed to relevance and importance criteria considered in the Draft RMP/EIS alterna

WSA Supp. 

16 ACE These other management tools combine with the 

ACEC proposals to further restrict oil and gas activities on public lands, raising the following additional legal problems under FLPMA: 1. Any combinations of the above-described management tools which eliminate one or major uses for two or more years on tracts of public land in excess of 100,000 acres, must be reported to the House and Senate for potential veto. 43 U.S.C. 1712(3)(2). 2. Regardless of the size of the affected land, any combination of the foregoing management tools which eliminate major uses such as oil and gas exploration arguably constitute a withdrawal triggering FLPMA's 

Comment noted. The lands closed to not proposed to be withdrawn. TheDepartment of the Interior would not be follow the FLPMA process noted in the the FEIS contains a decision to withfrom mineral entry that are 5,000 acres size, then the process noted would followed. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12d. Public Comments and Responses: Uintah County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

withdrawal provisions. 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG9 Brown's Park has always been an important winter 

range for wildlife, and Clay Basin and Brown's Park have been important to farming and ranching. In many areas range lands can continue to be improved with cooperation from the Division of Wildlife Resources. These efforts should not be limited by VRM's or ACEC's. 

VRM classification and ACEC designapreclude maintenance of rangeland range enhancements. Maintenance of health is listed in Table 2.1.6 ForLocalities) in the PRMP/FEI under the entitled Management Common to All A

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD6 Recently the area along the river [the Green River?] 

has had many recreational facilities put in to take care of public needs such as campgrounds, restrooms, boat ramps, etc. The Division of Wildlife Resources and private land owners divert water from the green River for wildlife refuge and irrigation. Currently the county has an approved application for water that could be sued for the Taylor Flat Subdivision. New diversions and right of way easements will have to be created. The river is currently being managed mostly for recreation. [Daggett County] believes that a proposed designation of "Recreational" is most appropriate for the Green River. Consideration must be given to 

The Upper Green River Segment was as suitable for designation in the Naand Scenic River System in the Mountain RMP/EIS and has been carriin the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Appendix C of the PRMP/FEIS details undertaken in the eligibility review including the identification of ouremarkable values as well as the Considerations by eligible river segmBLM complied with all applicable Fedregulations, and policies in the Wild aRivers Study Process. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

changes and development in use, since the analysis was done in 1980. Manual 8351, Wild and Scenic Rive

Program Direction for Identification, E

and Management, states: "In general, a wide range of agricultmanagement, silvicultural, and other pstructures could be compatible with svalues..." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD7 [Daggett County] questions if proper analysis and 

review were done on this in the 1991 Diamond Mountain RMP. It appears management of this area hasn't changed since this designation and that the area could be properly managed under normal BLM management practices. 

The analysis and rationale for the desthe Red Creek ACEC in the 1991 Mountain RMP were disclosed to the available for public comment and protethe EIS and the ROD. No substantive were raised at that time. The potential ACECs analyzed for dinto the Proposed RMP have gone rigorous and stringent process in awith FLPMA, the planning regulations 1600, Land-use Planning Handbook (Hand in accordance with BLM Manual ACEC Policy and Procedures Guidelin57318). Appendix G outlines the printerdisciplinary team underwent to whether a nominated ACEC had and/or importance values. The sizproposed ACECs is limited only to the geography where the relevance and ivalues are manageable to protect anirreparable damage. In the Proposed 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

potential ACECs generally do not have special designations and/or otheprotections applied. The potential ACECs carried forwarProposed RMP necessitate an ACEC dbecause special management pronecessary (outside of normal mmanagement) to specifically prorelevance and importance values within identified. The special management prthat have been proposed are narrowly protect the identified relevant and values; none of which are recogwilderness resources. For these reapotential ACEC decisions carried forwaProposed RMP are considered by Bconsistent with Utah Code 63j-4-401. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD14 [Daggett County] believes that the layering, with 

special designations and other management prescriptions will in many ways, limit how this area can be best managed. 

"Layering" is planning tool. Under multiple-use mandate, the BLM manadifferent resource values and uses lands. Through land-use planning BLM and objectives for each of those values and prescribes actions to accompobjectives. Under the multiple-use coBLM does not necessarily manage eand use on every acre, but routinely many different values and uses on areas of public lands. The process omany individual program goals, objec
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

actions to the same area of public lanperceived as "layering". The BLM ensure that the goals and objectiveprogram (representing resource values are consistent and compatible for a land area. Inconsistent goals and objelead to resource conflicts, failure to adesired outcomes of a land-use litigation. Whether or not a particulamanagement is restrictive depends personal interest or desire to see tlands are managed in a particular manuses and values can be provided foacre. That is why land-use plans are through a public and interdisciplinary The interdisciplinary process helps ensresource values and uses are condetermine what mix of values and responsive to the issues identified for in the land-use plan. Layering of decisions is not optional for BLM, but by the FLPMA and National BLM plaprogram specific regulations. The FLPMA directs BLM to manage pfor multiple use and sustained yield 102(a)(7)). As a multiple-use agency, required to implement laws, regulapolicies for many different and often land uses and to resolve conflicts and land uses through its land-use plans. Land-use Planning Handbook reqspecific decisions be made for each res
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

use (See, Appendix C, Land-use Handbook "H-1601-1"). Specific decisbe included in each of the alternatives during development of the land-use each alternative is formulated, each decision is overlaid with other program and inconsistent decisions are idenmodified so that ultimately a compatiuses and management prescriptions reFor example, the BLM has separate pguidelines, as well as criteria, for eACECs and when the WSAs were eThese differing criteria make it possibsame lands will qualify as both an ACWSA but for different reasons. Threquired to consider these different polThe values protected by WSA maprescriptions do not necessarily provalues found relevant and important evaluation, and vice versa. The relimportant values of ACECs within or aWSAs were noted in the ACEC (Appendix G). The ACECs are evalranked based on the presence or absestated relevant and important valuesthese values includes wilderness charAdditionally, the management prescrthe ACECs is limited in scope to prelevant and important values, and maintains that the size of the ACEC appropriate for protection of the rel
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

important values identified. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD15 Alternative B would be the preferred alternative of 

[Daggett County]. [T]here are 18,474 acres along the river corridor. Areas outside of this corridor are more rocky and rugged with pinions and junipers. There have been efforts made to reduce the pinion and juniper encroachment and this needs to continue. The state statute requires that potential and proposed ACEC's be limited in geographic size and that the proposed management prescriptions be limited in scope to the minimum necessary to specifically protect and prevent irreparable damage to the relevant and important values. [Daggett County] requests that BLM re-examine and re-justify the need for the Brown's Park ACEC. We feel that under the 18,474 SRMA the BLM could manage this area adequately. 

See Response to Comment SD12-G-9

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD255 (ASD-11) 

On page 1-8 under 1.4.1.1: Identification of Issues, Wilderness Characteristics it still shows that the BLM is planning to manage for wilderness characteristics in areas outside of WSA lands, which is counter to the Utah vs. Norton settlement. An ACEC or special management areas cannot be a surrogate for a former "wilderness" inventory area. Unfortunately, many of the proposed SMAs or ACECs are exactly that and fail to meet the criteria and policy. There is little evidence of positive action on the part of the BLM in these areas of Special designations to meet stated objectives. The Counties have made repeated attempts to get the data used to develop the need for maintaining or expanding the areas of 

See Response to Comment SD16A-G2
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

these Special Designations and still has not received the requested information and the RMP does not adequately document the need for maintaining or expanding the size of these special designations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD256 (ASD-12) 

The number, size, and frequency of special designations that limit or disallow "disturbances" illustrate our concern that the BLM is not managing these lands for multiple use. Policy is being set that constricts the economies of local areas to meet the desires of groups that do not live or in most cases even visit the area. 

Under FLPMA's multiple-use mandatemanages many different resource vuses on public lands. Through land-usBLM sets goals and objectives for eacvalues and uses, and prescribes accomplish those objectives. Under thuse concept, the BLM does not nmanage every value and use on every routinely manages many different vuses on the same areas of public lprocess of applying many individuagoals, objectives, and actions to the sapublic lands may be perceived as "layeBLM strives to ensure that the gobjectives of each program (reresource values and uses) are conscompatible for a particular land area. Ingoals and objectives can lead to conflicts, failure to achieve the desired of a land-use plan, and litigation. Whea particular form of management is depends upon a personal interest or see that public lands are managed in a manner. Not all uses and values can bfor on every acre. That is why land-use developed through a public and interdprocess. The interdisciplinary procensure that all resource values and considered to determine what mix of v
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

uses is responsive to the issues ideresolution in the land-use plan. Laprogram decisions is not optional for Brequired by the FLPMA and Natiplanning and program specific regulatioThe FLPMA directs BLM to manage pfor multiple use and sustained yield 102(a)(7)). As a multiple-use agency, required to implement laws, regulapolicies for many different and often land uses and to resolve conflicts and land uses through its land-use plans. Land-use Planning Handbook reqspecific decisions be made for each resuse (See, Appendix C, Land-use Handbook "H-1601-1"). Specific decisbe included in each of the alternatives during development of the land-use each alternative is formulated, each decision is overlaid with other program and inconsistent decisions are idenmodified so that ultimately a compatiuses and management prescriptions reFor example, the BLM has separate pguidelines, as well as criteria, for eACECs and when the WSAs were eThese differing criteria make it possibsame lands will qualify as both an ACWSA but for different reasons. Threquired to consider these different pol
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

The values protected by WSA maprescriptions do not necessarily provalues found relevant and important evaluation, and vice versa. The relimportant values of ACECs within or aWSAs were noted in the ACEC (Appendix G). The ACECs are evalranked based on the presence or absestated relevant and important valuesthese values includes wilderness charAdditionally, the management prescrthe ACECs is limited in scope to prelevant and important values, and maintains that the size of the ACEC appropriate for protection of the relimportant values identified. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO7 The BLM is required to incorporate social science 

and economic considerations into the planning process. The BLM is also required to manage the public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield and to meet the needs of present and future generations. The focus of an RMP should include a detailed analysis for each community based upon current conditions and trends, including projection of future trends. 

The RMP is a programmatic docuconsiders management decisions ananalyses on a landscape level, not a slevel. As such, the BLM has condsocioeconomic analysis at the individuarea level. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO8 The economic effect on Taylor Flat Subdivision and 

Brown's Park residences from management decisions was not analyzed. 

The RMP is a programmatic docuconsiders management decisions ananalyses on a landscape level, not a slevel. As such, the BLM has condsocioeconomic analysis at the individu
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

area level. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO9 The economic effect of proposed management on 

those outfitting and guiding was not addressed. 

The outfitting/guiding/angling induincluded as part of the Tourism industrdiscussed in Sections 3.12.2.2.4, 3.12.4.2.3, 4.12.2.3, and 4.12.3.3. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI2 The maximum VRM rating [Daggett County] can see 

a need for is VRM III. The area you are recommending for VRM I is in view of Taylor Flat Subdivision, which has 1000 lots that are sold and also in view of the Jarvie Ranch Historical Site. 

The alternatives present a range categories from which management caIt should be noted that VRM Class I is with Cold Spring Mountain WildernArea. While it is possible to look from Flats Subdivision into this WSA, this change the Cold Springs MountClassification, nor would it chaclassification for the subdivision or Ranch Historical Site. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI3 The Brown's Park area could have mineral 

development. Utility lines to the Taylor Flat Subdivision, range improvement programs, burning and chaining the pinion and juniper, watering trough's (sic) etc. that would be limited by VRM I designation. VRM I allow (sic) only "very limited management activity" and VRM III would allow more flexibility in management and the view sheds could still be protected and in some cases enhanced. 

See comment response VI2. 

WSA Supp. 

1 AA Managing the Subject Lands Under Alternative E 

Would Violate Federal Law, BLM Policy, and the State of Utah/Department of Interior Settlement Agreement of 2003. Daggett County's position on this point was set forth in 

Please see Response to ID No. G-9-CoComment Noted. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

its letter, dated April 2, 2007, jointly addressed to State BLM Director Selma Sierra and Vernal BLM Field Office Manager William Stringer. 

An extra copy of that 

letter (Exhibit A) {see attached letter} is enclosed for your reference. At the risk of repeating some of the points in that letter, Daggett County submits the following additional comments concerning the illegality of adopting Alternative E: By adding Alternative E, BLM has exceeded the true intent of the Kimball Decision. Although the Kimball decision itself rests on an adjudged violation of NEPA, Judge Kimball emphasized that NEPA itself is merely procedural, that NEPA does not mandate a particular management standard, but rather NEPA only imposed the duty to analyze the effect of whatever management standard is applied. BLM's duty under Kimball was to analyze the effects of current alternatives on only alleged wilderness characteristics that may be found in the Subject Lands, not to create a non-impairment management standard as to those characteristics. With all respect, the BML has turned the Kimball decision on its head by purporting to create the new Alternative E management standard. Adopting Alternative E would violate the restrictions of BLM's own Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275, which states "it is no longer BLM policy to continue to make formal determinations regarding wilderness character, designate new WSAs through the land-useplanning process, or manage any lands--{except Section 603 WSAs} in accordance with the nonimpairment standard prescribed in the IMP {Interim 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Management Policy for WSAs}." (Emphasis added.)Under the standard "if-it-walks-like-a-duck-and quacks-like-a-duck-it-must-be-a-duck" analysis, the prescriptions of proposed Alternative E are substantially similar, if not more restrictive, than the restrictions of the BLM IMP for WSAs. Thus the proposed Alternative E squarely contradicts the BLM's own IM 2003-275. The proposed Alternative E's restrictive management standards that would effectively treat the Subject Lands as if they are WSAs, are largely built around BLM's 1999 Utah Wilderness Reinventory. Yet in 2003 the Department of Interior promised the State of Utah, among other things, not to use the 1999 Utah Wilderness Reinventory to manage public lands "as if": they are or may become WSAs. Utah v Norton settlement agreement of April 11, 2003 at p. 13 Para 14. It has long been the County's position that if these lands had "wilderness character: they would have been included in previous inventories as possible wilderness. A more correct title would be "lands that have characteristics associated with the concept of wilderness." 

WSA Supp. 

2 PRP Managing the Subject Lands Under Alternative E 

Would Clash With State and Local Policies and Plans for Managing Those Lands, and Would Thus Violate the Consistency Requirement of FLPMA Section 202©(9). 

See comment response 9-G-12. The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are disand independent of, Federal law. Ho
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

The BLM is mandated by FLPMA at 43 U.S.C. 1712©(9) as follows: Land-use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act. The proposed Alternative E is inconsistent with Utah Law and with Daggett County's General Plan. State Public Lands Policies The State of Utah's policy and plan for managing BLM lands is substantially set forth in Utah Code 63-38d401(6), (7) and (8). It is self evident that the management prescriptions and restrictions in the proposed Alternative E are not inconsistent with the standards and policies set forth in this State statutory provision. There is no way for the BLM to reconcile these sharp inconsistencies; in other words, there is no way for the BLM to adopt Alternative E for the Subject Lands and meet its legal obligations of consistency under FLPMA Section 202 (c)(9). Daggett County's Policies Specific to the Subject Lands Several months ago, the Daggett County Planning Commission and the Daggett County Commission duly approved amendments to the Daggett County General 

BLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an RMlands must be coordinated and consCounty plans, to the maximum extent law, and inconsistencies between Fnon-Federal government plans be resextent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. As a consequence, where State and conflict with Federal law there winconsistency that cannot be rereconciled. Thus, while County and Federaprocesses, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as practical, agency planning process is not bosubject to County plans, planning proplanning stipulations. The BLM will ideconflicts in the FEIS/PRMP, so that the local governments have a complete unof the impacts of the PRMP on State management options. A consistency rePRMP with the State and County Masincluded in Chapter 5. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Plan to clarify Daggett County's policies for managing each of the Subject Land Areas that are now the subject of the Supplement. 

A copy of those plan 

amendments with a cover letter were sent to the BLM Vernal Field Office after they were adopted. Those plan amendments for each of the Subject Lands are incorporated herein by reference, and for your addition reference copies of those plan amendments (Exhibit B) are enclosed with this letter. Those County plan amendments are consistent with the above-mentions State Law and Policies for managing public lands. Under those plan amendments for the Subject Lands, it is clear that the proposed Alternative E standard for managing those Subject Lands are not consistent with Daggett County's plans and policies for managing the Subject Lands. In short, Daggett County's General Plan sets forth management specific plans that are directly and specifically applicable to each of the Subject Lands.Thus in accordance with FLPMA Section 202 (c)(9), Daggett County respectfully calls upon BLM to follow FLPMA by conforming its plan for managing the Subject Lands to Daggett County's plan for managing the Subject Lands. 

A first step toward meeting this 

statutory obligation is for the BLM to not adopt Alternative E for the Subject Lands. This same request also applies to the Alternative C for the Subject Lands, which is equally inconsistent with Daggett County's plan for managing the Subject Lands. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 

3 WC Managing the Subject Lands Under Alternative E 

Would Arbitrarily and Capriciously Ignore the Volumes of Documentation and Information Submitted by Daggett County Which Show the Subject Lands Lack True Wilderness Character. Daggett County has assembled and submitted extensive information which shows the Subject Lands have been subjected to past resource uses and impacts that are inconsistent with the notion of wilderness character, and that the Subject Lands are better suited to a continuation of those traditional multiple uses, all under the FLPMA 202 principles of sustained yield and avoidance of undue degradation, of course. A map is enclosed with this letter (Exhibit ____), that clearly shows the majority of the Subject Lands are currently under lease for extractive purposes. This alone both disqualifies those lands for consideration for designation as Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics and informs against their being managed under the Alternative E prescriptions proposed. Additionally, we provided information on December 31st, which contained detailed analyses of the Subject Lands. These analyses demonstrate that none of the Subject Lands qualify as having wilderness characteristics. The many attributes of the Subject Lands documented in these volumes, such as roads, mineral and energy development, extractive leasing, 

Please see Response to ID No. G-9-Co
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

existing leasing, livestock improvements, need for access for vegetated treatment, and other uses clearly show that the imprint of man and the previous resource allocations preclude any rational finding of solitude and naturalness necessary to rationally designate those areas as having wilderness characteristics. Do any of the Subject Lands possess wilderness character worthy of Alternative E management (even if Alternative E were not illegal and not inconsistent with State and Local Policies)? We believe the answer to this question is "no:" 

WSA Supp. 

4 SOC Economic studies/socio economics 

Utah State University & the University of Utah completed a number of economic and social-attitude studies regarding the use of and value attributed to public land resources by Utah residents. These studies assess: general attitude of the citizens toward the public lands, off-highway vehicle use on public lands, grazing on public lands, potential Wild and Scenic River designation, and economic impacts of oil and gas exploration. Recent information from that study shows that oil & gas exploration and production (E&P) accounts for 60 percent of all wages paid in the Uinta Basin. (See attachment A). The extractive industry is extremely important to the economic viability of the Uintah Basin both directly and indirectly. Studies show that this industry has and will sustain itself for many years to 

The results of the Utah State Univelands survey and the University of Utathe economic impacts of oil and gas din the Uintah Basin have been incorpthe Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Csummarizes the public lands survey ran Appendix has been added showinresults for the three counties in the plaData from the University of Utah study extensively incorporated into Chapter 4 The Proposed RMP/Final EIS recoimportance of the oil and gas indueconomic health of the Uintah Basinseeks to strike a reasonable compromidemands on resources and resource within the framework of the BLM's sustmultiple use mandate. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

come. (See attachment B). The Basin is very rich in its natural resources. The importance of the extraction industry reaches far beyond the Uintah Basin. The Rocky Mountains west will play an increasing roll in meeting the nation's needs for gas. The annual energy outlook 2004 with projections to 2025, clearly shows the increasing roll of the rocky mountain area in gas production. The Uintah Basin makes up a considerable portion of the area and its associated production. Page 4-68 and 4-69 of Alternative E. Daggett Countydisputes the findings of studies concluding that wilderness areas add positive economic benefits to local communities, especially for the limited retail capacity of our county. The positive economic benefit does not exist if oil and gas development is excluded from the same areas. Especially if oil and gas is precluded from these areas. Page 4-66 of Alternative E. The document states that minerals under Alternative E would increase the costs of developing the total predicted oil and gas wells by $.6 billion, compared to Alternative D-no action, because there would be more wells drilled under Alternative E. Such development would potentially create a total cost of development of $12.5 billion over 20 years, or approximately $623 million over one year.The paragraph itself demonstrates the socio economic values on these properties. It would appear the extractive industry has a far greater economic value to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the local economy than does the recreational industry.The document states that "

Alternative E would provide 

the least amount of oil and gas related jobs compared to other action alternatives and slightly more compared to Alternative D-no action." Once must assume this is based on the estimated number of wells for each alternative. 

Although this may be 

correct, it does not accurately reflect the impact of management prescriptions proposed in Alternative E.The addition of wells to be drilled on Indian Trust surface and the addition of lands available for oil and gas leasing in the Diamond Mountain area to the RFD prevents realistic comparison of other alternatives to Alternative D. It should be clear that the proposal to close wilderness characteristic areas to oil and gas leasing will drastically reduce future wells under Alternative E when you compare like acres. 

WSA Supp. 

5 AQ We feel it is important to install air quality monitoring 

stations. We are aware that there is an air quality monitoring station in Vernal. We do not believe that one air quality station accurately reflects the conditions of the Uintah Basin. We encourage BLM Vernal Field Office to request operators apply best available control technology and to install air quality monitoring stations within, or adjacent to, major field development to establish an air quality baseline and to detect deviations from such baseline. A proper baseline should be established. 

Absence of 

such a base line undermines the quality of any such worse-case scenarios. 

According to air quality expert 

1. BLM shares EPA's concern about monitoring in Eastern Utah and westablishing additional monitoring siregion as circumstances and resources 2. NEPA no longer requires "wcase scenarios. 3. The County is welcome to be cooperating agency on future NEPA ana
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Howard Vickers, "a slight variation in how data is presented can alter greatly and sometimes unfairly, the analysis of air quality." He states, "Small differences in data or modeling technique can produce substantial problems with the results." It is important to the County, as stake holder, that we be involved in any air quality analysis that is done so that we can be assure that proper modeling and data techniques are used. 

WSA Supp. 

6 WSR Daggett County's well thought out and documented 

position is that no river segments in the Vernal Field Office planning area should be recommended as suitable for designation in the Wild & Scenic River system on BLM lands. Moreover, Daggett County believes that BLM's process by which it attempted to study Wild & Scenic River suitability is procedurally flawed by its failure to follow NEPA procedures and Wild and Scenic guidelines for determining suitability.Additionally it failed to address and fully consider the impact on the Colorado River Compact. In 1922 the Colorado River Compact granted the liberal right of impoundment on rivers and streams that constitute part of the Colorado drainage system. The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act expressly provided that no pre-existing rights shall be impinged, etc. Therefore, BLM should conclude that no proposed segment in Daggett County is suitable for designation, for the additional reason that precipitations on impoundment that accompany designation would violate the preexisting rights of impoundment granted under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Furthermore, it is obvious BLM failed to consider for NEPA purposes, the impact 

Appendix J of the DRMP/DEIS details undertaken in the eligibility review including the identification of ouremarkable values as well as the Considerations by eligible river segmBLM complied with all applicable Feregulations, and policies in the Wild Rivers Study Process. The BLM is aware that there are splaws relevant to aspects of pmanagement that are discrete independent of, Federal law. Howevebound by Federal law. 

As a consequ

may be inconsistencies that cannot be The FLPMA requires that BLM's land-uconsistent with State and local plans "to practical" where State and local plans cFederal law there will be an inconsicannot be resolved. The BLM will ideconflicts in the FEIS/PRMP so that the local governments have a complete unof the impacts of the PRMP on State 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

of a suitability designation on the pre-existing right of impoundment provided under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Daggett County cannot support a position recommending any river segment in Daggett County as suitable. 

management options. The WSR Act states within the wild, recreational definitions that they are valid existing rights. 0 

WSA Supp. 

7 GRA UCA 63-38d-401 - Essentially states that if rangeland 

conditions improve that suspended AUMs would be returned to livestock before additional AUMs would be provided for wildlife. We are concerned that this has not and is not being adhered to with respect to the proposal presented in Alternative E. Because of the value of grazing, state law prohibits permanent closure of grazing allotments and conversion of livestock AUMs to wildlife or other uses.The correct standard is not whether BLM may permanently close an entire grazing allotment, but whether BLM may diminish a single grazing AUM for any reason other than rangeland conditions. The "close an entire grazing allotment" standard misses the mark of House Bill 264 and is inconsistent with Daggett County Public Land Policy and Plans by a serious margin. Those policies and plans are summarized as follows:  Domestic livestock and forage in the VFO planning area expressed in animal unit months, for permitted active use, as well as the wildlife forage included in that amount, should be no less than the maximum number of animal unit months sustainable by range conditions in grazing districts and allotments in the VFO planning area, based on an on-the-ground and 

In accordance with FLPMA, the BLM reconsidered the general plans of Daggett, Uintah, and Carbon coundevelopment of the management within the RMP. Where feasible, prconsistent with the purpose and need and BLM's multiple-use/sustained yield the BLM developed a range of alternincluded them in the RMP/EIS. The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are disand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an RMlands must be coordinated and consCounty plans, to the maximum extent law, and inconsistencies between Fnon-Federal government plans be resextent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. As a consequence, where State and conflict with Federal law, there winconsistency that cannot be rereconciled. While County and Federal planning 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

scientific analysis.  Where once available grazing forage in the VFO planning area has succeeded in pinion, juniper and woody vegetation and associated biomass, or where rangeland health in the Region has suffered for any other reason, a vigorous program of mechanical treatments such as chaining, logging, seeding, lopping, thinning, and burning and other mechanical treatments should be applied to remove the woody vegetation and biomass and stimulate the return of the grazing forage to its historic levels for the mutual benefit of livestock, wildlife and other agricultural industries in the VFO planning area.  The land which comprises the grazing district and allotments in the VFO planning area is still more valuable for grazing than for any other use which might exclude livestock grazing. Such other uses include, but are not limited to, conservation of AUMs to wildlife watershed or wilderness uses. 

Accordingly, 

animal month units in the VFO planning area may not be relinquished or retired in favor of conservation, wildlife, or other uses.  From time to time a bonafide livestock permitee in the VFO planning area, acting in good faith and not to circumvent the intent of the BLM's grazing regulations, may temporarily cease grazing operations without losing his or her permitted AUMs it is proposed in Alternative E to transfer these AUMs to wildlife or to watersheds this is counter to state law, BLM 

under FLPMA, are required to be as inteconsistent as practical, the Federplanning process is not bound by or County plans, planning processes, ostipulations. The BLM will identify these the FEIS/PRMP, so that the State governments have a complete underthe impacts of the PRMP on State management options. 

A consistency re

PRMP with the State and County Masincluded in Chapter 5. Voluntary relinquishments of grazing ppreference, in whole or in part, by a pwriting to the BLM will be handled on case basis. The BLM will not recognizrelinquishments which are conditional BLM actions and BLM will not be bounRelinquished permits and the preference will remain available for apqualified applicants after BLM considaction would meet rangeland health stais compatible with achieving land-use and objectives. Prior to re-issuancrelinquished permit the terms and conbe modified to meet LUP goals and and/or site specific resource objectives. However, upon relinquishment, Bdetermine through a site specific evaassociated NEPA analysis that the pinvolved are better used for other Grazing may then be discontinued on th
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

regulations that provide for non use and Daggett County policy. However, BLM-imposed suspensions of use or other reductions in domestic livestock animal unit months should be temporary and scientifically based on rangeland conditions.  The RMP fails to articulate a legal or factual basis to reduce domestic livestock and as written, Alternative E violates BLM grazing regulations. BLM may not implement an across the board reduction in permitted grazing use in the RMP. Permitted use includes nonuse, and BLM may only reduce permitted grazing use when monitoring or field observations or ecological site inventory or other data demonstrate that grazing use is causing an unacceptable level or pattern of utilization, that rangeland health standards are not being met or that use exceeds livestock carrying capacity. Furthermore, changes in permitted use may only be effected by appeal able decision after consultation, cooperation and coordination with affected grazing permitee. 43 C.F.R 4110.3, 4110.3-2, 4110.3-3. Alternative E's across the board elimination of grazing non-use, therefore, is illegal.  The transfer of grazing animal unit months (AUMs) to wildlife for supposed reasons of rangeland health imputed, in each AUM, a reasonable amount of forage for wildlife component.  Any grazing animal unit months that may have been reduced in the VFO planning area due to rangeland health concerns should be restored to livestock when 

through an amendment to the existing new LUP effort. 

Any decision issued 

discontinuance of livestock grazinpermanent and may be reconsidered anthrough future LUP amendments and up
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

rangeland conditions improve, not converted to wildlife use. Moreover, Daggett County wants the Subject Lands to be eligible for prescriptive uses of grazing that are flexible and adaptive to the full extent allowed by relevant BLM grazing regulations, in order to minimize rangeland fire danger, curb noxious week incursions, and otherwise promote rangeland health and to continue to sustain the social-economies base that grazing provides to the local economy. 

WSA Supp. 

8 GRA Of particular concern is the proposal to transfer 

livestock AUMs associated with the BVVI to wildlife this proposal is counter to provisions of Utah state law and Daggett County Public Land Policy. No where in the Environmental Assessment or the Record of Decision associates with the purchase of these lands is it proposed or even suggested that livestock AUMs would be or could be transferred to wildlife. The BCCI agreement lacks the same language. It has long been the County's position that such agreements were made without public input, were and are illegal, and never had local government input. 

Alternatives that 

directly or indirectly converts livestock AUMs to wildlife must not be selected. 

In accordance with FLPMA, the BLM reconsidered the general plans of Daggett, Uintah, and Carbon coundevelopment of the management within the RMP. Where feasible, prconsistent with the purpose and need and BLM's multiple-use/sustained yield the BLM developed a range of alternincluded them in the RMP/EIS. The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are disand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an RMlands must be coordinated and consCounty plans, to the maximum extent law, and inconsistencies between Fnon-Federal government plans be resextent practical (FLPMA, Title II Sec. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

As a consequence, where State and conflict with Federal law, there winconsistency that cannot be rereconciled. Thus, while County and Federaprocesses, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as practical, agency planning process is not bosubject to County plans, planning proplanning stipulations. The BLM will ideconflicts in the FEIS/PRMP, so that the local governments have a complete unof the impacts of the PRMP on State management options. 

A consistency re

PRMP with the State and County Masincluded in Chapter 5. Voluntary relinquishments of grazing ppreference, in whole or in part, by a pwriting to the BLM will be handled on case basis. The BLM will not recognizrelinquishments which are conditional BLM actions and BLM will not be bounRelinquished permits and the preference will remain available for apqualified applicants after BLM considaction would meet rangeland health stais compatible with achieving land-use and objectives. Prior to re-issuancrelinquished permit the terms and conbe modified to meet LUP goals and and/or site specific resource objectives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

However, upon relinquishment, Bdetermine through a site specific evaassociated NEPA analysis that the pinvolved are better used for other Grazing may then be discontinued on ththrough an amendment to the existing new LUP effort. 

Any decision issued 

discontinuance of livestock grazinpermanent and may be reconsidered anthrough future LUP amendments and up

WSA Supp. 

9 GRA The phrenology criteria described in Alternative A are 

an appropriate consideration in setting seasons of use for an allotment, but not as an across-the=board prescription for the entire planning area. 

As used, the 

RMP does not allow managers or permitees sufficient flexibility to accommodate yearly variations in weather, precipitation, and plant phrenology or variations in elevation, topography, or aspect within the identified areas. The RMP proposes to exclude from forage allocations all land that produces less than 25 or 32 pounds of forage per year. See DEIS 2-11. The draft RMP and DEIS do not analyze the effects of doing so eventhough much of the planning area is a high mountain desert and produces less than 25 pounds of forage a year. These criteria could remove significant volume of forage and acreage from livestock grazing. Range science does not support this proposal and the DEIS inadequately discloses and assesses the effects.. While livestock may use the steep slopes less, wildlife 

The BLM agrees that changes must consultation, coordination, and coopethe permittee. 43 C.F.R. §4110.2-3. Thmerely provided criteria to use adjustments are required. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

and wild horses graze these areas. By excluding these areas from the forage allocation and calculations, the RMP actually allocates significantly more forage for wildlife and wild horses than is disclosed in the RMP and imposes domestic grazing reductions by removing land from the permit. The grazing rules require that such changes be made in consultation and coordination with the individual permitee rather than unilaterally throughout the planning area. In addition, the grazing rules require consultation with the permitee before amending the permit to exclude land.43 C.F.R.4110.4-2. 

WSA Supp. 

10 GRA We object to the extent the Supplement attempts to 

authorize the retirement of grazing permits and their reallocation to wildlife. This violates the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. § 315, FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1742, and the terms of the Executive Orders No. 6910, 54 I.D. 539 (1934), and No. 6964 (Feb. 5, 1935), which withdrew public lands as chiefly valuable for grazing.Any such decision would also require amending the Presidential Executive Orders, which BLM cannot do, since authority to amend a withdrawal is limited to the Interior Secretary. The Tenth Circuit in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir.1999), aff'd on other grounds, 529 U.S. 728 (2000), held that BLM could not offer permits not to have domestic livestock graze public lands, since grazing permits are limited to domestic livestock. By the same token, BLM cannot purport to authorize wildlife grazing by retiring grazing permits in order to allocate the forage for wildlife. This action would also constitute a change in grazing use without following the procedures set out in the BLM grazing rules. 43 C.F.R. §§ 4110.3, 4110.4. It is also 

Voluntary relinquishments of grazing ppreference, in whole or in part, by a pwriting to the BLM will be handled on case basis. The BLM will not recognizrelinquishments which are conditional BLM actions and BLM will not be bounRelinquished permits and the preference will remain available for apqualified applicants after BLM considaction would meet rangeland health stais compatible with achieving land-use and objectives. Prior to re-issuancrelinquished permit the terms and conbe modified to meet LUP goals and and/or site specific resource objectives. However, upon relinquishment, Bdetermine through a site specific evaassociated NEPA analysis that the pinvolved are better used for other Grazing may then be discontinued on th
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

inconsistent with the grazing rules which provide for BLM to offer a vacant permit to other qualified permitees. 43 C.F.R. §4130.1-2. 

through an amendment to the existing new LUP effort. Any decision issued discontinuance of livestock grazinpermanent and may be reconsidered anthrough future LUP amendments and up

WSA Supp. 

13 LAR Of particular concern is the amount of land closed to 

oil and gas leasing for protection of wilderness character lands and ACEC's. 

A review of the Lands 

and Realty's section proposals does not list these closures to be reported as withdrawals. FLPMA defines a withdrawal as "withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws. ..."43 U.S.C. § 170(j). For tracts of lands greater than 5,000 acres, the Interior Secretary must provide Congress a variety of information in order to fully disclose the closure's impacts, costs, and need so that Congress can decide whether to disapprove the withdrawal. 

A withdrawal also requires public notice 

and hearing, and consultation with state and local governments. 43 U.S.C. at § 1714(c)(1)-(12), (h); 43 C.F.R. Parts 2300, 2310. By a 2006 Directive from the BLM Director, BLM cannot effect a de facto closure of thousands of acres of public lands to oil and gas leasing without following FLPMA's Section 204 withdrawal procedures: "Except for Congressional withdrawals, public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative actions are clearly justified in the national interest in 

Withdrawals are actions specific to minot leasing. Table 2.1.7 (Lands and Realty Maidentify which lands are being conwithdrawal in the Proposed RMP as alternatives. Table 2.1.7 also states thregarding withdrawals: Withdrawals Review existing withdrawals and classiBLM-administered lands on a case-byto determine their need and consistenintent of the withdrawals in accordsection 204(l) of FLPMA, and rcontinuing, modifying, or terminating as (Figure 6). Any lands becoming unencumwithdrawals or classifications would baccording to the decisions made in this RMP has not identified management pfor these lands, they would be manmanner consistent with adjacent or public lands within the planning arunencumbered lands fall within two management scenarios where futucriteria may not be clear, a plan amen
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

accordance with the Department of the Interior Land Withdrawal Manual 603 DM I, and the BLM regulations at 43 C.F.R 2310." BLM Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy (April 21, 2006). BLM formally adopted this policy through IM 2006-197. Consequently, the 2006 Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy with which BLM must comply, conditions the closure of lands available to mineral exploration and development on FLPMA's withdrawal procedures. This direction is consistent with legal precedent. See Mountain States Legal Foundations v. Andrus, 499 F. Supp. 383, 392-93 (D. Wyo. 1980) (BLM could not decline to issue leases in RARE II areas without complying with §204 of FLPMA): Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Hodel, 668 F. Supp. 1466, 1474 (D. Wyo. 1987) (Forest Service violated (FLPMA when it imposed an oil and gas leasing moratorium pending completion of its land-use plan). These decisions do not hold the BLM must offer public lands for mineral leasing, only that is must follow FLPMA's withdrawal and reporting procedures, when it wishes to foreclose that land use. 

be required. Non-WSA lands found either to have characteristics or likely to have characteristics will be managed accordirection established in this land-use pfor WSAs, there is no statutory or polirequiring BLM to protect the characteristics of these non-WSA landsThese non-WSA lands have many values, and the draft RMP/EIS conavailable information and a range of prescriptions for how the values and non-WSA lands would be managed. In B, most of the non-WSA lands are opegas leasing subject to standard conditions. On the other hand, Alterndesigned to provide maximum conseprotection of natural resources from dand use. Under Alternative C, some lands would be closed to leasing and WS

A lands would be leased subject to e

constraints like timing limitations or surface use or major constraints like occupancy. Alternative D reflects management direction, and 

Alternat

Preferred Alternative in the draft plan) to provide for a wide variety of resouincluding mineral resource developmenlevel of protection of natural resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12e. Public Comments and Responses: Daggett County 

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

WSA Supp. 

14 VRM VRM handbook requires the BLM to modify the VRM 

inventory classifications to fit the underlying land allocations. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 144 IBLA 70, 84 (1998) ("Visual Management Objective classes are developed through the RMP process for all bureau lands.) The approved VRM objective shall result from, and conform with, the resource allocation decision made in the RMP." BLM manual 8400.0-6 a.2 (emphasis supplied).) An existing lease is a resource allocation unless the lease is NSO. Our research shows that the existing leases in these areas are not NSO. Thus, any VRM class proposed must be adjusted to reflect previous resource allocations. The County opposes any VRM Class I or II's being applied to any lands which have not been determined by Congress to be designated as wilderness. Additionally, such designations should not extend beyond the specific tract to which the VRM Class is applied. As an example, to a view shed. 

The BLM disagrees that only formally delands by Congress can have VRM Classapplied. Chapter 2 of The Proposed RMP/Final Eprovides a summary of specific managedirectives for the area's visual resources3 and 4 provide additional information. TResource Management maps for each aillustrate the VFM Classes for lands admby the BLM. 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

AT7 The 2002 RFD was completed along with the mineral 

potential report in 2002. Since then BLM has provided additional direction on resource planning and incorporation of EPCA into planning. The draft 

The BLM incorporated EPCA into plannIn the PRMP/FEIS see: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

should be reviewed to insure compliance with these directives. Based on this review alternatives should be created or selected that fully embraces the direction including the selection of alternatives that are performance based or outcome based. 

Section 1.13 (Relationship to the 

National Energy Policy and The Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands' OResources and Reserves, and The ENature of Restrictions or ImpedimenDevelopment) Section 1.7 (How Vernal Field OfConsidered EPCA Inventory InformConcerns). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC23 It should be made clear in the Record Of Decision 

(ROD) and the final RMP that the total number of wells cited in reasonable foreseeable development do not represent a ceiling or cap on the number of wells that can be drilled in the VRA during the life of the plan. The ROD and RMP should state that the RFD well total were developed for the purpose of assessing impacts for decision making and that the total number of wells will be determined by NEPA analysis of field development projects of possible RMP revisions. This clarification is supported by case law. 

Additional text has been added Sectiothe PRMP/FEIS to describe the role oas a general metric used to assesimpact and does not represent a ceilnumber of wells that can be drilled withduring the life of the RMP. The additioas follows: "It should be noted that the total numbcited in the RFD report do not represlimits on the number of wells that could in the VPA during the life of the planwell totals were developed for the passessing impacts for decision-makingnumber of wells permitted will be dthrough site-specific NEPA analysis development projects." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC24 The information under Section 3.14.3.2, page 3-84, 

should more fully and accurately represent the specific management requirements found in Manual Section 8351.32C, particularly regarding valid existing rights. 

The specific management guidelines 8351, along with other guidaincorporated by reference in Section the PRMP/FEIS and do not require rethe RMP. Information contained i
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

3.14.3.2 does not conflict with or otherrejection of management policy oManual 8351. Additionally, as is meSection 1.9 as well as the introdChapters 2 and 4, all managemecontained within the PRMP/FEIS recoexisting rights and do not apply retrosaid rights. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC25 The meaning of the statement "to the extent that 

BLM has the authority to do so" needs to be clarified. 

Section 3.14.3.2 in the PRMP/FEIS revised to add language to clarify it relaauthority bestowed upon the BLM by FWild and Scenic Rivers Act, and BLM pstatement is also intended to acknowthe BLM does not manage all landwhich the proposed wild and scenic rand cannot impose restrictions on owners and land managers. The additias follows: 'It is BLM policy (8351 Manual, Sectiomanage eligible segments to protect flowing nature, outstandingly remarkaand tentative classifications to the eBLM has the authority to do so througthe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and BL

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC26 Some of the information presented in Table S.3 

Alternatives Comparison, page S-4, and is not found in Table 2.3 Alternatives, page 2-57. Table S.3 indicates that the Upper and Lower segments of the Green River are recommended, in all Alternatives, for Wild and Scenic River designation. However, these segments are not identified in Table 2.3. 

The segments have been identified 2.1.19 (Special Designations – Wild aRivers) of the PRMP/FEIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC27 The draft fails to address the impact of management 

restrictions on valid existing rights including oil and gas leases. Throughout the draft, restrictive conditions of approval are proposed, without analysis or disclosure of impacts or even clearly stating restrictions to be applied. 

Section 1.9 in the PRMP/FEIS states:  "All decisions made in the RMP and simplementation decisions will be subjeexisting rights." Valid existing rights are Administrative Actions by the BLM arequire a specific planning decision to As noted in Chapter 1 under Planniand as outlined in the BLM's Land-usManual (Section 1601.06G), all decisin land-use plans and simplementation decision are subjecexisting rights. The BLM will work subject to the agreement of holderexisting rights to modify proposed activities to reduce the effect of the activities on resource values and usmodifications may be necessary to mchoice of alternatives being consideland-use plan development and impleand may include appropriate srelocations, redesigns, or delay of actions. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

GC28 The impact analysis at 4.8.2.3.1 only addresses the 

impact from light and sound and NSO restrictions adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument. Appendix K indicates there are other areas that would be impacted. 

Section 4.8.2.3.1 of the Draft RMPaddresses impacts from light and sNSO restrictions for recreation purposthe monument since these are management decisions for this area ato recreation (the subject of Section Impacts from non-recreation ma
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

decisions on minerals and energy deare addressed in the remainder of Sincluding discussions of special statuand wildlife decisions for sensitidentified in Appendix K. Note: Section 4.8.2.3.1 of the Drafrenumbered as Section 4.8.2.4.1 PRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG58 The RMP proposes to exclude from forage allocation 

the land that produces less than 32 pounds of forage per year. The draft RMP and DEIS do not analyze the effects of doing so but given the fact that much of the planning area is a high mountain desert, this would remove significant volume of forage. The majority of range science does not support this proposal and the DEIS inadequately assesses the effects of adopting such a proposal. 

In Section 2.4.5.2 in the DRMP, number cited is 25 pounds per acequated to 32 acres per AUM. The cdoes not provide substantial informatiothese suitability criteria. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG59 The draft RMP fails to recognize current livestock 

grazing in these areas as legitimate and authorized land uses. 

The commenter does not identify which BLM allegedly fails to recognize agrazing areas. The RMP recognizes grazing as a legitimate and authorizpublic lands within the Vernal Plan(VPA) and provides for its continuance new RMP. See Table 2.1.8 (LiveGrazing Management) in the PRMPprovisions related to livestock and grathe VPA. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG60 Throughout the draft there are proposals to directly 

and indirectly convert livestock AUMs to wildlife and watersheds. State law (U.C. §§63-38d-401(6), (7) and (8)) broadly outlines criteria for state plans 

The Taylor Grazing Act, FLMPA, authorize the BLM to manage grazing multiple use and sustained yield and range of resource values. The 1995 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

concerning the management of federal lands located in Utah and the natural resources on those lands. The law contains provisions which generally disfavor diminishment of forage allocated to livestock grazing, the law also recognizes the state's interest in providing forage and habitat for wildlife, and the general provision that increases in forage ought to be shared among all users who participate in managing the forage of the area. Uintah and Duchesne County Plans also provide that livestock AUMs cannot be converted to other uses. 

policy (see Office of the Solicitor IM 3the subsequent clarification) authorize

to convert livestock AUMs to wildlife, the conversion does not constitute a withdrawal grazing on lands that hidentified as chiefly valuable for such a

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG61 There is no discussion of impacts of wild horse 

management decisions on livestock. 

The anticipated impacts of wmanagement decisions on livesaddressed in Section 4.7.1. See discussion of forage management delivestock found in Section 4.7.2.2. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG87 (PR14) 

At page 2-48 table 2.3 Alternatives, Livestock and Grazing Management, Season of Use, it is proposed to establish new seasons of use for designated Seasons of Use for Livestock Grazing. As proposed C and D of the Alternatives are inconsistent with the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) 43 U.S.C. 1752(b) and the terms of the ten-year grazing permits. To the extent that the proposal purports to change the season of use, it also conflicts with the Utah Rangeland Health Standards, which do not adopt a phenology criteria. BLM must follow rangeland health and is not at liberty to unilaterally change the standards. Even assuming BLM could and should change seasons of use in an RMP, it cannot do so without violating the requirement that it coordinate, consult, and cooperate with the permittee or lessee in doing so. 43 U.S.C. 1752 (d); 43 C.F.R. 

The PRMP/FEIS doesn't propose to cUtah Standards for Rangeland Helimitation on season of use proposed bis a common rangeland management pmaintain or improve range conditproposed seasons of use have been on an area specific basis (Figures 7 thto help assure that Rangeland Health continue to be met or are met in the futThe Guidelines for Grazing Managemeimplementing grazing management pra"meet the physiological requirements plants and facilitate reproductmaintenance of desired plants" (1proposed seasons of use will provide 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

4110.2-3. plant needs. The DRMP also include

providing for extended seasons of deferment and/or rest are provided fauthorization of use outside of the season of use when certain criteria (Section 2.4.7.2). There is no requirement in FLPMA tseasons of use as currently specified permits. Alternative D continues thgrazing management practices inclseasons of use as indicated on existipermits. FLPMA indicates that it is ththe United States to manage the publithe basis of multiple use and sustained in such a manner as to best meet thand future needs of the American peopermanently impairing the productivland. The proposed seasons of use wfor the use of the public lands while insure that no permanent loss of prodoccur. The BLM does not propose to vconsultation, coordination or crequirements as indicated in the regulations. The public participation associated with this RMP and EIS effas with that of the site specific envanalysis and administrative decisioinvolved with any changes to the seawill comply with the grazing requirements to consult, coordin
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

cooperate with the permittee and other publics. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

LG88 (PR16) 

The RMP attempts to authorize the retirement of grazing permits and their "reallocation" to wildlife. This violates the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. 315, The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (AFLPMA"), 43 U.S.C. 1752, and the terms of the Executive Orders Ns. Executive Order 6910, 54 I.D. 539 (1934), and Executive Order 6964 (Feb 5, 1935) which withdrew public lands that were determined to be chiefly valuable for (10th Cir. grazing. The Tenth Circuit in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 1999) aff'd on other grounds, 529 U.S. 728 (2000), held that BLM could not offer permits "not to graze" public lands, since grazing permits are limited to domestic livestock. By the same token, BLM cannot purport to retire grazing permits for wildlife. Any such decision would require amending the Presidential Executive Order, which BLM cannot do, since authority to amend a withdrawal is limited to the Interior Secretary. It is also inconsistent with the grazing rules, which provide for BLM to offer a permit to qualified permittees whose base property is nearby. 43 C.F.R. 4130.1-2. 

The PRMP/FEIS determines the allowof the public lands as provided for FLPMA states in Section 202(a) thaplanning provides for the use of the p"regardless of whether such lands have been classified, withdrawn, set otherwise designated for one or mFLPMA further provides in Section authority to issue management decisimplement newly developed or reviseplans. Such decisions, including texclude one or more uses, are reconsideration, modification and tthrough revision of the land-use plan. As provided for in FLPMA, the RMP pre- allocate retired livestock AUMs to meet the overall goals and objectives oThe Secretary has the discretion under use the land-use planning process to cto grazing, change levels of use, or to land to another public purpose in awith the relevant land-use plan. The AUMs from livestock to wildlife reflects of BLM to modify the levels of use aparticular instance to recognize the impwildlife values. These changes in use within the rangeland's ability to sallocations of use. Any AUMs allocaland-use plan, whether for livestock are within the productive capability of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

lands involved. FLPMA indicates that it is the policy of States to manage the public lands on tmultiple use and sustained yield. Whigoal of the BLM to enhance rangelawhile providing for and recognizing thdomestic sources of minerals, food, tfiber, there is no requirement in tGrazing Act (TGA) or other applicable BLM to "maximize the number of livestock AUMs" or to continue allochistorical levels." According to FLPMAmanage for "multiple uses" which best present and future needs of the Americwithout permanently impairing the prothe land. According to Section 2 of the the objective of the act to regulate the and use of the Grazing Districts and tthese lands. The Grazing Distrestablished through a classificatioestablished in the TGA. Under FLPMthe land are allocated during the planning process. The combinations proposed in the RMP are varied anacross the planning area takconsideration the current and future nepublic. This is consistent with both Fthe TGA. Also, see comment response LG4. 

Draft ME55 The DEIS/RMP fails to properly disclose the impacts Section 4.8 (Minerals and Energy R
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS of the proposed management prescriptions on 

mineral development. It appears that Table 5.1 on 5-3 and Table 4.8.1 on page 4-100 was an attempt to disclose these impacts as at 4.8.2.1.1.1 the text presents these changes form Alternative D, the no action alternative. These figures are simply a tabulation of acres assigned to each leasing category and not a disclosure of impacts required in IM 2004-089 on FRD. In the Chapter 4 analysis it is the only data presented to show impacts on oil and gas development with respect to the loss of wells and acreage for future development. IM 2004-089 requires the creation of a baseline of well numbers and acres that would be developed if such development were governed by BLMs standard lease form. As management prescriptions are proposed the baseline is to be reduced by the number of well and acres affected. The result of this analysis is a clear disclosure of the impact of proposed management restrictions on oil and gas development. 

discusses the effects of cultural, reacSpecial Status Species, Wildlife, adecisions on mineral development. Shas been revised to discuss impacts Designations on mineral development. Chapter 4.12 Socioeconomics discussor gain of revenue from oil and gas deby alternative. The reduction of wells imposed by maprescriptions can be seen in Ta(Alternative A), 4.8.3 (Alternative (Alternative C), 4.8.5 (Alternative D), (Alternative E). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME56 The tabulation of acres assigned to the mineral 

leasing categories in Tables 1 and 4.8.1 include 188,499 acres of split estate land where no management restrictions will be applied as a result of the RMP. Additionally approximately 80,000 of low mineral potential acres that were closed and moved to timing and controlled surface use, and heavily developed lands from controlled surface use to standard stipulation. These additions of acres mask the impacts of management decisions proposed in the draft, the preventing required analysis and 

The 188,500 acres (which represenCreek Extension) is proposed as open gas development with timing and surface use under all action a(Alternatives A, B, C and E). The acreCreek is not included in Alternative noted in Section 4.1.1 (Analytical AssThe 80,000 acres were included calculations and the analysis. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

disclosure. A map of current oil and gas leases and mineral occurrence potential was not included in the map section; this also hampers proper analysis and disclosure. 

A map of current oil and gas leases aoccurrence potential were not includDraft RMP due to space limitations utilized during alternative develop

analysis. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME57 The VFO is located primarily in the Uintah/Pieance 

oil and gas basin, one of seven areas identified as priority basins in the EPCA inventory. As a focus area the basin must be reviewed for appropriate levels of stipulations or unnecessary impediments to oil and gas production. The EPCA inventory must be integrated into the planning process to determine oil and gas leasing stipulations and restrictions. Page 1-15 of the RMP discusses the President's National Energy Policy, issued in May 2001, which directed the Secretary 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)." This includes the evaluation of lease mitigation requirements to determine whether they are consistently applied, science based, appropriate and effective. While the RMP states that the VFO conducted an extensive review of the inventory regarding energy resources within the planning area, nowhere in the document is this review apparent. Information, clarification, and justification for leasing stipulations are not found in the document. In addition, stipulations not necessary to accomplish desired protection must be dropped. Without further information the counties cannot determine if the 

See comment responses ME165 and M
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

stipulations and mitigation measures laid out in the draft are the least restrictive possible as required by EPCA. FLPMA provides that land must be managed in a manner that recognizes the nations need for domestic sources of minerals. 43USC 1701(a)(12). EPCA provides that proposed actions must be analyzed to determine if the proposed actions are the least restrictive necessary and documents the scientific basis for the restriction. The fact that the Vernal plan revision was classified as a TimeSensitive Plan to address energy resources under EPCA does not allow BLM to merely reference the data on leasing constraints without further evaluation as required by law. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

ME59 The analysis required in IM 2004-089 must be 

accomplished and management restriction reevaluated in accordance with IM 2003-233 to insure they are the least restrictive as required by EPCA. The reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) should be recalculated based on the most recent statistics on development. 

See comment responses ME165 and MThe RFD was developed from thPotential Report, which was completeusing the best available data. The RFD a measure for estimating relative totdisturbance by alternative and does noa cap or ceiling. As such, the BLM existing RFD to be sufficiently acevaluating the potential impact of madecisions on resources and land uses planning area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR4 The counties believe that the BLM has not 

sufficiently divulged the proposed management prescriptions for the river segments discussed in the draft RMP and EIS. BLM Manual Section 8351.32C 

Table 2.1.19 (Special Designation – Scenic Rivers) of the PRMP/FEIS subsection entitled Management ComAlternatives refers to new classifica
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

reads "public notification of protective management shall occur no later than publication and release of the draft RMP, or plan amendment." This section requires exactly what it says; that the proposed management conditions be discussed in the draft RMP and EIS in order that the effects of the management can be ascertained before the ROD is signed. The information found at pages 4-211 through 4-214 consists simply of general statements of "concerns," rather than an evaluation of identified impacts, and support for the concerns cannot be found within the RMP. 

establishes protective measures to 

impairment of outstandingly remarkawithin line of sight, up to 1⁄4-mile from on each side of the river, not to exceed per mile. BLM believes the non-istandard would allow for individual prbe evaluated on a case-by-case basisspecific management criteria could unnrestrict some proposals. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR5 Section 3.14.3.2 and Appendix C contain the VFO's 

reasons and rationale for a determination of eligibility for segments of rivers within the VFO. Table 4, page C-11, discusses the identified required "values" for each segment. The Table does not contain the information necessary to demonstrate that the values mentioned are river-related, "outstandingly remarkable," or significant on a regional basis. The information presented in the table does not satisfy the guidance provided at page 7 of the 1996 Process and Criteria document adopted by the Bureau of Land Management (Utah State Office), the USDA Forest Service (Intermountain Region), and the National Park Service (Rocky Mountain Region), which requires that "in order to determine regional significance of river resources, it is imperative that similar rivers be compared to each other." 

As discussed in Appendix C, interdisciplinary team used their pjudgment to review all nominations, andrainages within the planning area, to with a list of "potentially eligible" rivwere then further scrutinized. Table 4 summarizes the findings of the a thorough review involving input froentities, including cooperating agenciepublic at large. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR6 Table 4 does not meet the requirements of the law, 

or BLM policy; it merely describes attributes that may support designation of the proposed ORVs in general glowing terms. The counties request that the 

See comment response PR5. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

BLM review these eligibility determinations with the state and local governments, in order to fully explore the rationale for each. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR7 On page 2-57, the draft RMP suggests river 

segments found to be eligible during the current RMP preparation process would continue to be managed to protect their eligibility under the "noaction" alternative, Alternative D. The counties do not believe this is an accurate representation of federal law and does not comply with BLM policy and direction, or State law. 

The BLM has broad discretionary amanage the public lands. It is BLM's pManual Section 8351.33A) to maprotect the free-flowing character, classification, and identified ORVs of esuitable rivers. This protection occurs aof eligibility determination, so as not to constrain the suitability assesssubsequent recommendation to Coneligible rivers where a suitability dethas yet to be made, management is on a case-by-case basis as actions these rivers are proposed. For rivers dsuitable in the ROD for the Verprotection continues and resource (such as VRM, OHV and mineral deciare compatible with such protection arthe suitable river corridor as part of thEligible streams not determined suitalonger be managed to protect wild avalues, but will be managed in oaccording to the plan. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR8 Utah Code c63-38d-(8)(a)(A) and (B) require that 

federal agencies conduct all studies of rivers for possible inclusion in the NWSRS completely through the suitability phase. Alternative D, as represented at page 2-57, is unacceptable and does not meet the requirements of BLM policy or State law since it states that no suitability determinations would be 

Alternative D is the baseline (the Alternative) against which all of alternatives (the action alternaticompared, and is the current madirection. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

made. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR9 The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and BLM Manual 

Section 8351 require consideration of characteristics which "do" or "do not" make a river segment a worthy addition to the NWSRS. Unfortunately, Table 5 only contains a discussion of the "do" characteristics (the ORVs) under the "Consideration" heading. Table 5 fails to acknowledge related information found in Table 3 of Appendix C, which represents some of the "do not" characteristics. For example, information from Table 3 regarding Argyle Creek states "[t]he high percentage of private land adjacent to the stream has resulted in the construction of numerous ranch houses and summer homes in the corridor. A power line parallels the stream for approximately 7 miles." This information not only caused Argyle Creek to receive a proposed "recreational" classification, but should also be considered relevant to a suitability determination. 

The information from Appendix C Table to the characteristics that do not contrdetract a river segment's suitability designation has been added to Append5. Please note that the information frois added in other appropriate sectionLand Ownership within Table 5. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR10 The statement at page 4-210, which reads "In the No 

Action Alternative, a suitability determination would not be made," does not meet the requirements of State law. Utah Code 63-38d-(8)(a)(A) and (B) require that federal agencies conduct all studies of rivers for possible inclusion in the NWSRS completely through the suitability phase. 

See comment response PR8. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR13 BLM is proposing to manage the area under a nonimpairment standard, in violation of state law (U.C. 

63-38d-401(8)(c)() (ix) and 6(b)) and the settlement in the case of Utah v. Norton. 

The range of alternatives contained in clearly demonstrate that the BLM imultiple uses throughout the planning extent that they are compatible with and objectives of the plan and existing 

Draft PR15 The assignment of resources is a legitimate purpose See comment response LG87. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS of an RMP. In the RMP assignments of AUMs and a 

determination of season of use could be made but the proposals here establish dates for permitted use. The process for establishing the dates is within law and regulations cited above (in comment PR87). These alternatives should be rewritten to comply with RMP purposes and law and regulation. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PR17 A "not to designate" [ACECs] alternative was not 

provided, which fails the full range of alternatives test. 

There is no requirement in NEPA, FLPfederal legislation or BLM policy to eexhaustive range of alternatives that extremes in proposed options. Rathepolicy require BLM to consider a rrange of alternatives that meet the puneed of the undertaking, which in this purpose and need for the BLM to mlands and resources of the Vernal Pla(VPA) under a multiple use and sustaregime. The BLM is authorized to ACECs and other special managemwhere the need for such consideratThe range of alternatives considered iprovide for anywhere from 165,944 681,310 acres in ACECs. The BLM bethis range is sufficient to offer a variety for management and still meet the BLmanaging VPA lands for multiple sustained yield. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD40 This area has been layered with special designations 

and other management prescription without consideration to manageability of these designations and current use. 

See Response to Comment SD14-G-13

Draft SD41 The Wild and Scenic River Act give agencies no See Response to Comment SD19-G-22
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS authority to manage rivers, determined to be suitable 

for WSR designation, to protect their outstanding remarkable characteristics. Thus BLM lacks authority to manage the Upper Green River as provided in Chapter 2. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD42 Suitability of [the Upper Green River] segment 

should be re-analyzed in this document. A review of the Diamond Mountain RMP and ROD indicates no analysis of suitability for WSR designation was analyzed in them. In the Diamond Mountain Plan, at SEA 08 page 2-4, it indicates that the Upper Green River suitability determination was made prior to that RMP. 

The Diamond Mountain RMP/EIS RDecision at SEA08 on page 2-4 reAreawide Decision made concerning thsegments. The Upper Green River aGreen River segments were analyzDiamond Mountain RMP/EIS and Scenic Suitability Analysis reports may in Appendix 7, Special Emphasis Arereferenced RMP/EIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD43 The DEIS/RMP and the AMS are silent on the origin 

of the suitability designation. Research of determination history shows that suitability was determined in Wild and Scenic River Study Environmental Statement July 1980. This document addresses the Green and Yampa Rivers. 

See Response to Comment SD42-G-23

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD44 The 1980 EIS [for the Wild and Scenic River Study], 

which is the only analysis of impacts of a suitability determination, is woefully inadequate. A review of Chapter 3 beginning on page 229 indicates that impacts to private landowners with respect to current uses, agriculture, grazing and family residential occupancy, was not analyzed. Analysis was not made based on the assumption that scenic easement and/or agreement would be purchased or made, thus impacts would be eliminated. This has not happened. In short the analysis and disclosure of 

See Response to Comment SD19-G-22
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

impacts related to a suitability determination on this stream segment has not been made. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD45 The Wild and Scenic River Review in Utah, process 

and criteria for interagency use pages 2 and 3, suitability states "The purpose of the suitability component is to determine whether eligible rivers are appropriate additions to the national system by considering trade-offs between corridor development and river protection." It further states "suitability considerations include the environmental and economic consequences of designation and the manageability of the river if it is designated." Appendix E lists suitability factors to be considered in analysis. This analysis required for determination of suitability has not been accomplished in this DEIS/RMP nor in previous analysis of suitability. BLM has relied on faulty analysis that is 25 years old. 

Appendix C in the PRMP/FEIS has beto include additional information suitability determinations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD48 The apparent loss of focus of the BLM on the 

statutory rationale for an ACEC becomes important because in Handbook Section 1613.1, the characteristics of an ACEC are discussed. The first subsection (Section 1613.11) discusses the need for "relevance" and "importance," and the second (Section 1613.12) discusses the requirement for special management attention. Again, however, the regulatory requirement to discuss the need for special management attention does not focus on the statutory requirement to "protect and prevent irreparable damage" to resources; rather it only speaks to the need to "protect" the important and relevant values. This loss of focus has been carried through the entire DEIS/RMP from the proposed 

 See Response to Comment SD27-G-2
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

alternative through affected environment and into analysis. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD49 State statute requires that the BLM analyze the 

required relevant and important values of an ACEC on a regional basis, analyze the need to "protect and prevent irreparable damage to those relevant and important values" from activities which may occur in the area, requires the BLM to explain the need for "special" management for the ACEC and explain how this management is different from normal BLM management and authority, that the protections proposed by the required "special management" do not duplicate or constitute simple restatements of protections afforded by other federal and State laws, and contain other analytical and procedural requirements. (See Utah Code 63-38d-401(8)(c). 

See Response to Comment SD12-G-9 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD50 The discussion of ACEC management (page 4-203) 

contains the general statement that ACECs would benefit from the "special management attention they would receive if designated." Special management attention is more than a coincidental benefit that flows from designation. It is a fundamental prerequisite to designation. The BLM must make a determination for each potential and proposed ACEC that special management attention is required to protect the identified relevant and important values. It has failed to do so in the DEIS/RMP. 

The FLPMA states that in developing plans the BLM shall give prioritdesignation and protection ACEC. The full consideration to the designapreservation ACEC during this land-usprocess. Nominations for ACECs from were specifically solicited during thperiod. A total of 35 ACEC nominareceived and the relevance and impeach were determined. Fourteen of nominations were found to meet both of relevance and importance and all tincluded for special management as ACECs in Alternative B. The BLM Manual 1613.23 states t
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

completing the analysis of the effectalternative, the manager selects the plan alternative which best meets thcriteria and the guidance applicable to The preferred alternative reflects tproposals for designation and manaACECs." The BLM has full discretselection of ACECs for the various aIn the selection of the preferred altecomparison of estimated effects and associated with the alternative development and selection of the alternative. Should BLM choose not designate ACECs, BLM Manual 1613 .33E direction in this process. Rationaproposing designation of a potential ACpreferred alternative must be providethe reasons for the decision not special management attention must be forth. Such reasoning may include: Special management attention is not protect the potential ACEC because sroutine management prescriptions are to protect the Relevance and Importanfrom risks or threats of damage/degradThe area is being proposed for designaanother statutory authority such as and would require no further ma
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

attention. The manager has concluded that nmanagement attention is justified eitheof exposure to risks of damage to safety is greater if the area is designatare no reasonable special managemewhich can be taken to protect the resirreparable damage or to restore it tcondition. BLM ACEC guidance (Areas oEnvironmental Concern; Policy and PGuidelines, 45 FR 57318, 57319 (Aug. allows a manager to exercise discreprotect a potential ACEC througdesignation, but that decision hadocumented through the planning procmanager decides to provide the protection through another form omanagement, the documentation wspecifics of the special management Rationale for all ACEC decisions will bin the Record of Decision and supanalysis in the EIS. If the decision is the resources with relevant and importin whole or in part, to another use whicresult in damage or loss to such resauthorized officer must first find that toverriding public need for such other uspublic benefits of such other use oupublic benefits of use appropriate wdesignation, and that such other use 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

meet the present and future needAmerican people. In addition, any allosuch other use will include all feasibland management to prevent, minimizor restore any consequent damagresource, and these requirements specified in the documentation. The BLM, in developing the PRMP/chose management actions from within of the alternatives presented in the Dand create a management plan that is addressing the current conditions in tharea based on FLPMA's multiple-use m

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD51 On page 4-203, the draft RMP indicates that the lack 

of designation of some potential ACECs may place the relevant and important values "at some risk of irreparable damage during the life of the plan." This statement is completely backward. BLM must make a determination that a threat of irreparable damage from some authorized multiple-use activity exists, and is directed toward the identified relevant and important value in order to complete the fundamental requirements for an ACEC. The identification of required threat of irreparable damage cannot be supported from simple hypothetical musings postulating that the lack of the very management structure (ACEC) BLM is trying to justify may result in damage to the resources. 

The BLM followed the ACEC designatiooutlined in BLM Manual 1613 and animplications of designating or not dareas as ACEC. In particular, in ChaptDRMP/DEIS analyzes the impacts oand future uses on the relevance and ivalues associated with potential ACECalternatives. Appendix G of the RMP/Final EIS provides information the interdisciplinary team review. The rationale for designation of individcarried forward into the PRMP/FEIprovided in the Record of Decision (Ranalysis that forms the basis of the rathe final decision to designate or not an ACEC can be found in Chapter 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

PRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD52 BLM Manual section 1613.22 requires the BLM to 

consider whether the values within the proposed and potential ACEC are already afforded protection through other designations. BLM Manual Section 1613.33E allows that BLM may decline to designate an ACEC "because standard or routine management prescriptions are sufficient to protect the resource or value from risks or threats of damage/degradation," which is clarified to mean that "the same management prescriptions would have been provided for the area in the absence of the important and relevant values." Examples of values that have been used to justify need for protection management are the special cultural resources, riparian and wetland areas and special status species. The counties cannot find any analysis of these factors within the draft RMP and EIS. In fact the majority of the relevant and important values identified are already afforded such protection. 

See Response to Comment SD51-G-25

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD53 BLM Manual Section 1613.22(A)(2) requires the 

BLM to consider the value of other resources when considering the protection of important and relevant values of a proposed and potential ACEC. The intent is that BLM balance the various multiple-uses within the proposed RMP, and consider whether the need for other multiple-uses in the area "outweigh" the need for the ACEC. The discussions in the draft RMP and EIS do not analyze any such balancing, and do not discuss the potential benefits of ACEC designation versus other resource uses for any of 

See Responses to Comment SD24Comment SD8-G-9. The projected RFD for each alternative for restrictions resulting from closures with special designations, special statprotections, and other resource decisions. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

the potential and proposed ACECs. The impacts on RFD are not disclosed to a level that such analysis could be made. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD54 The majority of the ACEC boundaries extend well 

beyond the boundaries of what is reasonable to protect the relevant and important values identified. 

See Response to Comment SD14-G-13

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD55 The counties are concerned that the BLM views 

potential and proposed ACECs as convenient vehicles to generally focus agency management attention on an area, rather than a very focused management tool with strict criteria for creation of particular concern is that most of these areas mirror proposed WSAs. 

The potential ACECs analyzed for dinto the Proposed RMP have gone rigorous and stringent process in awith FLPMA, the planning regulations 1600, Land-use Planning Handbook (Hand in accordance with BLM Manual ACEC Policy and Procedures Guidelin57318). Appendix G outlines the printerdisciplinary team underwent to whether a nominated ACEC had and/or importance values. The sizproposed ACECs is limited only to the geography where the relevance and ivalues are manageable to protect anirreparable damage. In the Proposed potential ACECs generally do not have special designations and/or otheprotections applied. The potential ACECs carried forwarProposed RMP necessitate an ACEC dbecause special management pronecessary (outside of normal mmanagement) to specifically prorelevance and importance values within identified. The special management pr
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

that have been proposed are narrowly protect the identified relevant and values; none of which are recogwilderness resources. For these reapotential ACEC decisions carried forwaProposed RMP are considered by Bconsistent with Utah Code 63j-4-401. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD56 The discussions concerning potential 

recommendations for addition to the Wild and Scenic River System in the draft RMP and EIS are confusing, contradictory and incomplete, and do not meet the requirements of federal or state law or BLM policy and direction. The counties believe it is imperative that the BLM properly disclose the reasons and rationale for determinations of eligibility and suitability for proposed additions to the NWSRS, and to fully meet the requirements of state and federal law in doing so. 

Appendix C of the EIS has been include additional information regaBLM's eligibility and suitability anadeterminations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD57 The counties are concerned that the designation of 

stream segments as "Wild & Scenic" could jeopardize the ability of local communities, industry, farmers, Indian tribes, and other water users to appropriate and develop water and to get change applications approved in order to meet their future water needs. Fundamentally, the counties are concerned that Wild & Scenic River designations would: 1. limit the ability of communities to develop water needed for future growth 2. limit additional industrial growth including oil shale development 

See Response to Comment SD19-G-22
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

3. limit additional agricultural growth 4. affect water right settlements with the Northern Ute Tribe 5. affect completion of the Central Utah Project 6. affect operation of Flaming Gorge Reservoir 7. reduce funding to the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, or affect agreements already in place for the Endangered Fishes Recovery Program 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD58 The counties acknowledge the VFO is required to 

conduct Wild and Scenic Rivers studies as part of the RMP process. However, the counties also understand and support the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act's standards of classification, eligibility and suitability and the requirement for proper analysis in the assignment of such designations. 

See Response to Comment SD19-G-22

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD59 State plans, as outlined by State law (U.C. §63-38d401(8)(a) through (b)), expand upon the 

requirements of the WSR Act by delineating the necessary analysis which must be conducted on river segments considered for possible inclusion in the NWSRS. These state requirements are not in opposition to the federal requirements, but are designed to fully flesh out studies that the federal agencies should perform, in order to assure that the full and complete nature of the proposal is made public. State law expands upon the requirements for study by requiring that river segments proposed for inclusion in the NWSRS contain water at all times, that the river segment contain an outstandingly remarkable value which is significant within a physiographic regional context, that the rationale and justification for the determination of the outstanding 

The State of Utah has worked as a CAgency throughout this planning procebeen intimately involved with the BLMscenic river planning process. The assisted Field Office specialists to help eligibility findings for each of the river and has provided social and economic and advice as the BLM determined whsegments to carry forward as suitabProposed RMP. BLM has committed cooperatively among Federal, State, governments and communities during planning wild and scenic river study pstatewide recommendations for inclussegments into the National Wild aRivers System would go forward to Prior to this post-planning phase, B
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

value is fully disclosed, all segments considered eligible are evaluated for suitability of designation, a "suitable" or "not suitable" decision is made for each segment, and that studies of the effects of designation on uses within the river corridor, and upstream and downstream from the corridor are analyzed and disclosed. 

work with affected partners to help stream flows necessary to prooutstandingly remarkable values for subject river segments were found sthis planning process. Thus, because no effects of this planning decision existing rights, and because suitability this planning process do not create rights for the BLM, the land-use planninscenic river suitability determinations by BLM to be consistent with the Utah 4-401. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD60 State law requires the BLM to fully disclaim any 

rights to water in the segments recommended for inclusion in the NWSRS as a result of adoption of the final Resource Management Plan. (U.C. §63-38d401(8)(a)(viii)c)). Although there is language on page 4-210 which discusses in-stream flows, this language does not address this State statutory requirement directly. Additionally, the paragraph at the top of page 2-28 which states that the BLM will develop additional and maintain existing water rights" is unsupported. We suggest that the BLM provide more detail and specifics for this statement, and more affirmative language clearly disclaiming any water rights. 

See Response to Comment SD19-G-22

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD61 We have concerns regarding the language at page 

4-210 which passively mentions the Colorado River Compact. Under the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, Utah is allotted a depletion of 1,369,000 acre-feet per year from the Colorado River system. Obviously, the Compact is of major significance to the state and any actions that may 

Section 13(e) of the Wild and Scenic says: "Nothing contained in this Act shall be to alter, amend, repeal, interpret, modiconflict with any interstate compact ma
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

affect the compact are of concern. Utah Code §63-38d-401(8)(a)(x)(A)and(B) require clear demonstration that including rivers in the NWSRS and terms and conditions for managing such rivers will not impair or otherwise interfere with interstate compacts. 

States which contain any portion of thwild and scenic rivers system." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD62 We are concerned that the BLM is not stating, in a 

full and complete manner, the authority for protection of river segments while studies pursuant to Section 5(d) of the Act are underway and protection until Congress may act upon any recommendations made in planning documents pursuant to BLM planning authority. 

See Response to Comment SD19-G-22

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD63 The draft RMP indicates on page 2-29 that "new river 

segments found suitable" would be managed in accordance with the "Wild and Scenic River Act to prevent non-impairment of outstandingly remarkable values." We do not find the term "non-impairment" in either the Act or BLM policy direction. The Wild and Scenic Rivers guidelines of federal agencies indicate that Section 10(a) of the Act is interpreted to provide for a "nondegradation and enhancement policy for all designated river areas." However, this provision does not apply to rivers found suitable for recommendation during planning processes. The counties are concerned the statement of management found on page 2-29 is too simplistic, doesn't meet the intent of the statements found on page 3-84 or page 4-210, and fails to give the stakeholders or the public sufficient notice of criteria or process the BLM intends to employ as part of the proposed management for the river segments determined to be suitable for inclusion in the 

Actions Common to all for Wild aRivers have been moved to Table 2.1.1Designations – Wild and Scenic RivePRMP/FEIS. The Actions Common tbeen revised to more clearly define intends to manage segments determinas a result of this planning process. Tphrasing should be "prevent impairmeof "prevent non-impairment." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

NWSRS. We request that the BLM revise the document to address these concerns. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD64 Table 2.3, page 2-57, contains no information 

regarding the rationale related to wild and scenic river considerations, nor proposed protective management, for any of the various segments listed in the table. The counties request that the BLM revise the RMP to address these concerns. 

See Response to Comment SD24-G-25

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD65 The discussion of Upper and Lower segments of the 

Green River in the draft RMP is incomplete. BLM assumes that the rationale, findings and protective management identified in the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs RMPs, completed in the 1980's still applies. Numerous significant recreation related facilities (i.e. campgrounds, picnic areas, boat ramps, vehicle parking), and other types of development, are now present along the Green River corridor, particularly the Upper segment. Much of this development has occurred since the Diamond Mountain RMP was completed and the ROD was signed. This development may affect not only the determination of suitability for these segments, but the current classification of "scenic" for the segment as well. The counties oppose simply carrying over the Upper and Lower segments of the Green River as recommended additions to the NWSRS from the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs RMPs. The counties believes that the BLM must consider all new information which has developed since the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs RMPs were finalized, to determine whether the segment still qualifies and should still be recommended, and to meet the 

The Upper and Lower Green River were identified as suitable for designaNational Wild and Scenic River SystDiamond Mountain RMP/EIS and carried forward in the Proposed RMP/FAppendix C of the PRMP/FEIS details undertaken in the eligibility review including the identification of ouremarkable values as well as the Considerations by eligible river segmBLM complied with all applicable Fedregulations, and policies in the Wild aRivers Study Process. Manual 8351, Wild and Scenic RiveProgram Direction for Identification, Eand Management, states: "In general, a wide range of agricultmanagement, silvicultural, and other pstructures could be compatible with svalues..." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

requirements of the State law. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD66 Table 5 includes "[m]anageability of the river if 

designated, and other means of protecting values" as a "Suitability Consideration." However, in the "Consideration Applied" column which is supposed to provide the information about manageability, the document simply states "[m]anageability ... and other means of protecting values would be extrapolated from the impact analysis for the Vernal RMP/EIS." This analysis goes nowhere as an explanation, and is inadequate to meet the requirements of Federal law and BLM Manual 8351, and further, is not supported by the impact analysis information presented on pages 4-210 through 4-215. 

Appendix C of the EIS has been include additional information regaBLM's eligibility and suitability anadeterminations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD67 The draft RMP provides only cursory 

acknowledgment of the White River Dam project and fails to adequately represent its significance, and characterizes the impacts of an eligibility or suitability determination, and associated "protective management" on the proposed project in a contradictory manner. Statements found on pages 4-

212 and 4-213 illustrate the cursory analysis, as follows: "...a suitable decision for Segment 1 of the 

White River would be incompatible with the continuation of an existing permit for a dam site" and t]he suitability decision for Segment 1 of the White River would result in the discontinuance of the existing permit for the dam site." The White River is also described as part of Alternative D, on page 2-57, as follows: "[u]nder this alternative, suitability findings would not be made and eligibility would 

Alternatives B and D are part of the alternatives. There is an existing right a dam on the White River in segment 11 was carried forward for analysis under the wild and scenic river situationAlso, see Response to Comment SD8-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

continue with BLM applying protective management to the free flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification of the river." The discussion of Alternative D on page 4-214, reaffirms that Segment 1 of the White River "would remain eligible." However, in a contradictory manner, the discussion also states, "Segment 1 has been identified for a potential dam site." Subsequently, the last paragraph on page 4-214 concludes the description of Alternative D, as follows: "Under this alternative, the continued eligibility decision for Segment 1 of the White River would be incompatible with continuance of the existing permit for the dam site. Because this permit would continue under this alternative, the free-flowing nature of Segment 1 would not be maintained and this segment would no longer be eligible as a Wild and Scenic River." Further, Appendix C, Wild and Scenic River Eligibility, Suitability, Classification and Review does not include any information regarding the White River Dam Project. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD68 On pages 4-211 and 4-212, the discussion of 

Alternative A contains contradictory statements. For example, on page 4-211, the RMP states that "where mineral leasing [is] allowed with standard stipulations or timing and controlled surface use, or where other mineral development would be allowed within the corridor of the White River (Segments 1 and 3) .... the outstandingly remarkable values of these rivers would be at risk." Segment 1 of the White River is addressed again under this same alternative, at page 4-212, which states that "the White River (Segments 1 and 2) would largely be protected from 

Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS has been correct and clarify the apparent contrad
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

disturbance related to mineral development by either being closed to mineral leasing or by no surface occupancy stipulations." Based on this information, Segment 1 of the White River is both "at risk" and "largely protected" from mineral development under Alternative A. The same language, and thus the same apparent contradiction, exists in the discussion of Alternative C. No information, which offers any clarity, exists elsewhere in Chapters 2, 3 or 4 of the RMP. The counties request that the RMP be revised to correct these issues concerning the White River. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD69 The discussion of Alternative B on page 4-213 

includes the following statement, "If acquired lands along Nine Mile Creek are grazed, the outstandingly remarkable cultural and scenic values would be more at risk than with Alternatives A and C". Unfortunately, nowhere in the draft RMP and EIS is there other mention of this apparent concern, or other information that would enable the reviewer to grasp its relative significance. We strongly object to this unsupported assertion that grazing threatens the ORVs in the area, especially on lands that may be acquired. Grazing can be managed to protect cultural and riparian values. The BLM needs to carefully explain the potential difficulties of this area, and analyze them in terms of proper mitigation, rather than making unsupported blanket statements such as this. In addition, the discussion of Alternative A at pages 4-211 and 4-212, contains no reference to any "acquired lands along Nine Mile Creek." 

Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS has been correct and clarify the apparent contrad

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD70 As a matter of clarification, the document, at page S3, refers to sections of rivers, ranging from one to six 

rivers, which are recommended for Wild and Scenic 

Table S.3 of the Executive SummaPRMP/FEIS has been corrected and clarified regarding the number of river
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

River designation. Throughout the remainder of the document, the discussion of wild and scenic rivers refers to segments of rivers, rather than separate individual rivers. The confusion is immediately apparent when the reader looks to Table S.3, as directed by the text on page S-3. Clarity could be achieved by indicating the number of segments associated with the rivers, i.e., "Alternative C ... recommends 9 segments of six rivers." 

segments. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD71 The information at page 2-29 does not fully 

characterize proposed interim management of WSRs, because the discussion of management of eligible segments, found at page 3-84, is not presented here. We recommend that information similar to that found at page 3-84 be included at page 2-29. 

Chapter 2 of the PRMP/FEIS has been be consistent with the information Section 3.14.3.2 regarding WSRs. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD72 The information presented in Table 2.3, at page 2-

57, does not include the Upper and Lower segments of the Green River. Additionally, the descriptions of the Alternatives, in Table 2.3, should reflect either a finding of "suitable," or a finding of "non-suitable," as BLM policy directs. (See BLM Manual 8351.33A). 

The Upper and Lower segments of River are discussed in Table 2.1 Designations – Wild and Scenic RivePRMP/FEIS under the subsection Management Common to All Action Awhere it states: "Continue to manage previously recosegments of the Upper Green and LoRivers to protect their outstandingly rvalues and the tentative classifications time that a designation decision is madAlso as stated in Appendix C, determwhether or not each eligible segment will be made in the Record of Decis
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Vernal RMP. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD73 The RMP, at Table 2.3 and elsewhere, must include 

information regarding management of segments found to be "non-suitable," as directed by Manual Section 8351.53B, which states "[f]or river segments determined nonsuitable in the RMP, the river shall be managed in accordance with the management objectives as outlined in the RMP." 

The management objectives for the outlined in Chapter 2 Management CAll. All segments would be managriparian objectives. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD74 Table 2.5 Summary of Impacts, at page 2-99, does 

not adequately characterize the impacts associated with wild and scenic river recommendations. The counties suggest that the impacts be more fully described. 

The impacts of special designationswild and scenic rivers, on each resourcare discussed in Chapter 4. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD75 The draft correctly lists the purposes for which an 

SRMA designation would be used. SRMAs are for the purpose of managing recreational activities. Throughout the draft, SRMAs have been used to place restrictions on other resources and permitted uses. In Brown's Park an SRMA was used to justify a VRM I. This has been accomplished without an analysis of need or impacts or even discussion on the specific goal of the SRMA. 

The West Cold Springs and the DiamoWSAs are protected by VRM Class 1. associated with a SRMA identification. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD76 In looking at Figures 21 through 24, one immediately 

notices that ACECs and SRMAs are proposed for the same geographic areas. The draft RMP and EIS does not define the reasons for the proposed SRMAs, nor the functional difference between an ACEC and an SRMA. 

Definitions of SRMAs and ACECs are the Glossary. Additional description of provided in Chapter 3. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD77 This section lists some of the things that would be 

included in an integrated activity plan for recreation. The draft RMP does not discuss what would 

Table 2.1 (Recreation ResourcesPRMP/FESI is related to recreation objectives and; therefore, corre
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

constitute the remaining portion of the integrated activity plan. Does the plan only integrate recreational activities, or does the plan propose to consider other resource uses? 

possibilities, but does not limit those p

for comprehensive integrated actplanning. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD78 Page 4-143 discusses the possibility of closing some 

SRMA areas to mineral leasing and establishing nosurface occupancy zones in others. It states that closing SRMAs to mineral leasing would have direct, long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources by preserving natural, undisturbed qualities of these recreation areas. Does closing the areas to leasing go beyond SRMA management prescriptions? Page 4-52 states "all SRMAs would be managed according to the philosophy of multiple-use." Can the recreation goals described here be accomplished without no-surface occupancy stipulations? Does this conflict with the policy directives of EPCA and the Presidents National Energy Policy? 

Closures of portions of SRMAs are relaof two factors: WSA lands within SRareas to be managed for primitive opportunities, including associated hvalue. A comparison of Figures 11-14 shown that the vast majority of proposareas are open to leasing under standand controlled surface use, or noccupancy stipulations. The BLM wenact closures or non-standard swhere opening an area to leasing under standard stipulations wincompatible with other resource vmanagement goals for the area. believes the SRMA alternativaccompanying stipulations are consEPCA and the NEP. Also, see Response to Comment concerning a range of reasonable alter

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD79 The counties object to the proposed areas of critical 

environmental concern (ACECs) when such proposals will impact forage allocations to livestock or grazing use. First, the expansions are not documented. Second, the expansions are justified based on wildlife and/or wildlife habitat for big game 

Special designations would not altegrazing. Management of livestock areas of special designations would be with the management provisions oChapter 2, Table 2.3, Appendix F, and L. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

species, which are numerous. These factors alone do not merit establishment or expansion of ACEC's. If the RMP were to assure current land users, especially livestock permittees that the ACEC will not be managed to the detriment of grazing, it would be less problematic. 

Also, see Appendix G for informatiorelevant and important values conseach proposed ACEC. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD80 Throughout the DEIS/RMP the outstanding 

remarkable values listed for this section of [the Lower Green] river are recreation and fish, yet the tentative classification for this segment of river is "scenic". A tentative classification of "recreational" is the only one supported by the eligibility finding and suitability analysis. 

Recreation as a value and a rdesignation for a wild and scenic rivnecessarily synonymous. Viewing the considered a passive form of recreFinal EIS carries forward the decisioDiamond Mountain RMP ROD. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD81 This segment of the river should be reanalyzed for 

suitability due to the flawed analysis and in light of recent decisions regarding management for the segment of the river south of T12S. Here it was provided that the river adjoining the Naval Oil Shale Reserve (NOSR) would not be managed as Wild & Scenic. This was done in an agreement with Department or Interior and ratified by Congress. It was recently agreed by the Secretary of Interior and ratified by Congress that on the river segment adjoining NOSR lands to the south of the subject segment, that 1/4 mile was adequate to protect such values as proposed by this ACEC. 

The area to which the commenter refsouth of the VFO's proposed ACEC/WLower Green River. This area is outside the scope of the Vas it relates to lands not managed by B

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD82 The attributes of both the Upper and Lower sections 

of the river are the same with the possibility of the Naval Oil Shale Reserve being even more remote than the area proposed suitable in the Lower Green 

See Response to Comment Sconcerning the Naval Oil Shale Reserv
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

segment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD83 On page 55, Table 2.3 Alternatives, Special 

Designations, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - it is proposed to manage both sides of the Lower Green (line of sight) up to 1⁄2 mile as an ACEC to protect high value scenic resources and riparian ecosystems. 

See Response to Comment SD81-G-27

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD84 It was recently agreed by the Secretary of Interior 

and ratified by Congress that on the river segment adjoining NOSR lands to the south of the subject segment, that 1/4 mile was adequate to protect such values as proposed by this ACEC. 

See Response to Comment SD81-G-27

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD85 The DEIS/RMP contains no analysis that indicates 

this subject area is threatened by irreparable damage and that the riparian ecosystems are unique to the region, or even the immediate area. Meaningful analysis of impacts on RFD and socioeconomics are missing. 

See Responses to Comments SD1SD51-G-25. The RFD scenarios described alternative incorporate potential reductupon restrictions related closing minerals exploration and developmenfor ACEC designation or other allocatioThe impacts analysis for socioeconbeen expanded and clarified in ChaptProposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD86 Analyze and then rewrite these alternatives including 

ones not to designate. 

See Response to Comment SD8-G-9. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD87 The alternatives as presented are clearly an attempt 

to manage this area to a non-imparement standard and circumvent multiple-use. 

See Response to Comment SD8-G-9. 

Draft SD88 In Alternative A, sections of Nine Mile Creek are The statements in question should ref
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

RMP/EIS proposed not to be identified as suitable for inclusion 

in the Wild & Scenic River System. There appears to be an error in the description of the first section discussed. Nine Mile Creek between the Green River and the Duchesne County line is not in Duchesne County. The outstanding ORVs identified for this section are not dependent on the river for their existence and not directly river-related as required in IM 2004-196. There is lack of detailed analysis of the need for a WSR designation, how the ORVs meet the above analysis, what management prescription will be applied and impacts on current development leases or permits. Alternative A is the only acceptable alternative, as lack of analysis, location and need to protect the ORV fail to support designation. The ORVs used to support designation have other laws or regulations to protect them or are currently protected. 

portion of Nine Mile Creek in DuchUintah counties, from the Green RiDuchesne-Carbon County LineAlternatives C and E the river segmenfound suitable for inclusion in the NWSChapter 2 in the PRMP/FEIS has been clarify that suitable rivers/river corridomanaged to protect their ouremarkable values, tentative classificafree-flowing nature. Specific resource and management prescriptions woutside of eligible river corridors are alternative maps, whether or not such iis described in the wild and scenic riveChapter 2. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD89 It is proposed to designate 98,000 acres in Nine Mile 

Canyon as an ACEC. As written the alternative proposed here fails to clearly show that the Lears Canyon ACEC is included in the Nine Mile Canyon ACEC proposed in Alternative C and D. 

Table 2.1 (Special Designations – Critical Environment Concern (ACECPRMP/FEIS has been revised to show Canyon ACEC is a separate and not Nine Mile Canyon ACEC for all alternat

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD90 There is no analysis of the need to retain the existing 

ACECs. The requirement in BLM manual 1613.21(A)(I) for reconsideration of existing is not met by the brief comment at 3.14.1.1.1 where it states "Based on a current analysis of the areas, the present designations have been effective in protecting the relevant values they exhibit, and these will be carried forward as ACECs in the Vernal RMP." This analysis, if it exists, should be presented 

The analysis and rationale for the desACECs in the 1991 Diamond Mounwere disclosed to the public and avpublic comment and protest through ththe ROD. No substantive objections wat that time. The potential ACECs analyzed for dinto the Proposed RMP have gone 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

in the draft for analysis and disclosure. rigorous and stringent process in a

with FLPMA, the planning regulations 1600, Land-use Planning Handbook (Hand in accordance with BLM Manual ACEC Policy and Procedures Guidelin57318). Appendix G outlines the printerdisciplinary team underwent to whether a nominated ACEC had and/or importance values. The sizproposed ACECs is limited only to the geography where the relevance and ivalues are manageable to protect anirreparable damage. In the Proposed potential ACECs generally do not have special designations and/or otheprotections applied. The potential ACECs carried forwarProposed RMP necessitate an ACEC dbecause special management pronecessary (outside of normal mmanagement) to specifically prorelevance and importance values within identified. The special management prthat have been proposed are narrowly protect the identified relevant and values; none of which are recogwilderness resources. For these reapotential ACEC decisions carried forwaProposed RMP are considered by Bconsistent with Utah Code 63j-4-401. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD91 Management decisions [for ACECs] must be 

disclosed in the DEIS/RMP. 

ACEC management plans will be subsequent to the RMP and the desACECs through the Record of Decision

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD92 At Section 3.14.2.9 the draft discusses the Nine Mile 

Canyon expansion ACEC but does not disclose the values to be protected, the impacts on existing development, leases and permits. 

The final sentence of Section 3.14.DRMP/DEIS identifies the values to be as "significant cultural resources, speplant species, and high quality sceneryThe analysis of impacts from the expaincluded in those disclosed in ChaAlternative C, which is the only alternawhich the expansion would be impleme

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD93 The DEIS fails to analyze management decisions [for 

the Nine Mile Canyon ACEC] to insure they are the least restrictive yet protect identified and substantiated values as required by EPCA. 

Appendix G in the PRMP/FEIS has beto clarify the relevance and importanNine Mile Canyon ACEC. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD94 On page G-8, Table 1, Relevance and Importance 

Summary, all areas list the values needing protection as Fremont, Ute, Archaic Rock Art and Structures, and Special Status Plant Habitat. There are current laws and regulations that protect these values plus management prescriptions proposed in this DEIS/RMP. It is likely that these are the reason for the condition of existing values, not the ACEC. The fact that these values are currently protected is not analyzed in the draft as well as the threat of irreparable damage. This lack of recognition of existing protections, and analysis of impact of the proposed designation on oil and gas development and other resources, and uses, renders all alternatives presented here as unacceptable. 

See Response to Comment SD50-G-25
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD95 ACECs proposed here must be analyzed, impacts 

disclosed, and an alternative not to designate proposed. Such analysis and disclosure must include management prescription carried forward from the Diamond Mountain RMP and those that will be applied in this RMP. 

See Response to Comment SD51-G-25

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD96 The Goals and Objectives at 2.4.11.1 are proper 

uses of an SRMA, however, the guidelines at 2.4.11.2.1 and 2.4.11.2.2 step outside these goals and objectives, and are not proper use of an SRMA. SRMAs are not for the purpose of enforcement of rangeland standards or the management of resource development. The issues of light and sound should be addressed in NEPA analysis of a proposed project not in the RMP. It should be made clear throughout the text that all SRMA management will be limited to those presented in 2.4.11.1 and that SRMAs are for the management of recreation to protect other resources and not the protection of other resources. 

The management actions related in (Recreation Resources) is consistenBLM's policy on recreation managemedirectly related to proper management Although SRMA identification is not, itself, an enforcement tool for standards, the BLM policy is to recreation on Bureau lands, both woutside of SRMAs, within parameters with Rangeland Health Standards. Egeneral parameters related to issues osound intrusion around a nationally monument (for which recreational oppoprimary component) surrounded by BLconsistent with the BLM's overall magoals and with SRMA identification. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD97 There is no analysis of the need to expand the size 

of the SRMA. It should be limited to areas that have considerable recreational use and not expanded to areas receiving casual use. 

The decision to expand the size of under two of the alternatives was maalternative development in response to issues and public comment on cultural 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD98 The DEIS/RMP fails to address the impacts of 

individual and collective special designations placed on this area. The impacts to RFD was not analyzed or disclosed except for a collective listing of acres and well numbers affected. There is no discussion that this area has high potential for oil & gas. 

The Mineral Potential Report and RForeseeable Development Scenario dpotential for oil and gas developmeplanning area. The information documents was considered during development. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Additionally, EPCA and guidelines providing for its incorporation into an RMP provides that management restrictions must be the least restrictive while providing protections where it is documented that protection is needed. This analysis has not been done. There are areas of NSO located in VRM III & IV that are NSO for oil and gas with no apparent reason for the restriction. NSOs are proposed in Nine Mile Canyon without analysis of impacts or consideration of existing rights and existing development. The layering of special designations in the Canyon is an attempt to manage the area to a non-impairment standard and to circumvent multipleuse. 

Chapter 1 of the PRMP/FEIS explainEPCA was incorporated during the process of the RMP 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD99 More than 25 development projects have taken place 

with the Browns Park/Upper Green River area since the 1980 eligibility and suitability analysis was completed. The 1980 analysis is used in the DEIS to support special designations in the area, and was not updated to account for changes in the landscape resulting from these development projects. A determination of eligibility and suitability based upon these changes of use and development and current conditions and state law must be made in the DEIS/RMP. It is clear that the majority of use and values on this segment of the river is recreational in nature as opposed to classifications of scenic that exist in the RMP. Proper analysis would show that with existing or proposed protection, a WSA designation would not be needed to protect existing values. 

The Upper Green and Lower segmeGreen River were determined elisuitable in the Diamond Mountain RMThe findings were based on developwas in place at that time. Any developublic lands within the river corridor wto be consistent with the Diamond Moudecision, so findings should not have since 1994. However; the ouremarkable values and tentative clafor these river segments were reassesVernal RMP planning effort. (Refer to C), and existing developments were consideration in the suitability analysisthat these river segments were brougas suitable in all alternatives for the VeThis is because these river segments thoroughly analyzed in the EIS for the Mountain RMP, and because no objec
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

approach was raised during scopinVernal RMP. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD100 There are no management prescriptions for this 

segment of the river and thus no analysis or disclosure of impacts of management restrictions that are to be applied. This should be done in the DEIS/RMP. 

See Response to Comment SD72-G-25As such, management prescriptioincluded in the RMP (e.g., Appendincluded in the analysis of impacts frodesignations decisions on other resouses. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD110 At page 2-29 under 2.4.13.3.1.2. It is proposed that 

Red Creek watershed (24,475 acres) be managed to protect the high value watershed and wildlife habitat resources by continuing the designation. The wording here is not consistent with that in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 where it provides that Browns Park, Red Mountain, Dry Fork, and Lower Green River corridor would continue to be managed as ACEC's for the protection of high value watersheds and Class I fishery Chapter 3 and historical, cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife resources. 

See Response to Comment SD8-G-9. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD111 Section 1613.21 of Chapter 1 of the ACEC 

Handbook provides that existing ACEC's must be analyzed in RMP planning. There is no analysis in the DEIS/RMP that indicates a need for the continuation of existing ACEC's. The only attempt to justify continuing existing ACEC's is at 3.14.1.1.1. It states "based on current analysis of the areas, the present designation has been effective in protecting the relevant values they exhibit, and these will all be carried forward as ACEC's in the Vernal RMP." There is no reference to this analysis in the AMS, which by regulation is to drive the formation of 

See Response to Comment SD51-G-25
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

alternatives. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD112 Other than brief ambiguous statements in the draft 

that say that relevance and importance criteria exist there is no analysis that supports the need for existing ACEC's in Brown Park and Red Creek or the need to carry them forward. To the contrary in the AMS at 5.4 Current ACEC's there is a listing of Completed or Under Consideration Work Projects in these ACEC's None of the projects would require a ACEC designation to be accomplished. In fact these projects could be accomplished on any lands not covered by an ACEC. A review of the management prescription in the Diamond Mountain RMP indicates the work project is consistent with that plan. Current activities and proposed work on this ACEC is not consistent with the values identified as relevant and important. In the DEIS/RMP BLM claims there is a need to continue the existing ACEC in Red Creek and Browns Park, but it offers no analysis of need or impacts and substantiates the need with work projects that are not ACEC management prescriptions. BLM has fallen short of substantiating the need for ACEC, in these areas. 

See Response to Comment SD90-G-24

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD113 At Table 2.3, Page 56, Alternative A, it is proposed 

an ACEC to mange Browns Park to develop a comprehensive integrated activity plan that would address protection of scenic, wildlife, cultural and historical values. It goes on to place restriction on oil and gas development, OHV and other uses by establishing a VRM class I and II for the area. The development of an activity plan is not a basis for an ACEC designation and would not pass the relevance and importance as other protections exist for the 

The development of a comprehensive activity plan is not the basis upon ACEC would be established but wouplan under which the ACEC, establishespecial management attention on thand important scenic, wildlicultural/historical values of the area, managed. VRM Class I and II allocatnot be enacted for the sole purpose ooil and gas development and OHV u
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

values to be protected. In addition the restrictions listed are not supportive of the need for a plan development. 

part of the overall strategy to manage in part, for its high scenic value. The relevant and importance criteriACEC are discussed in Chapter Appendix G. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD114 SRMA, Table 2.3 on Page 52, Alternative A provides 

for an SRMA to provide for outstanding scenic vistas and enhancement of resources and associated activities such as riparian, fisheries, special status species, water quality, water based recreation, hunting, trail system for hiking, biking, horseback riding and OHV use, camping, cultural and historical interpretation and facility development that goes on to establish non-impairment standards for a portion of the area. As with the ACEC's, here again is an attempt to layer restrictions and management to circumvent multiple use requirements and manage to a non-impairment standard. Protection of scenic vistas, enhancement of resources, riparian, fisheries, special status species and water quality are not recreational use and are already protected under other proposed management prescriptions, law or regulation. They have no place in an SRMA. 

Scenic vistas (including riparian fisheries, special status speccultural/historical sites are all resocontribute significantly to the recreationthe area. As such, management resources is appropriate within a SRother regulations may provide a mprotection for such resources, they do na comprehensive strategy that maresources for the maintenance and enhof recreational opportunity. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SD383 (SO32a) 

There is no analysis of the impacts on RFD or socioeconomic impacts from the proposed Nine Mile Canyon SRMA. 

There is no requirement in NEPA detailed analysis that the commenter This is outside the scope of the RMP Section 4.12 of the PRMP/FEIS states: "If impacts to some aspect of the socisituation are not mentioned in this anaa negligible effect should be assumed." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

Draft RMP/EIS 

SO21 The draft attempts but falls short of analyzing the 

socioeconomic impacts of Lands and Realty, Forage, Minerals, and Recreation and OHV decisions. Notably missing is an economic analysis of the lost shared mineral revenue from federal lands that have an economic impact on the community as well as other mineral sharing programs within the state. Socioeconomic impacts must be reanalyzed and the results used to reassess impacts of proposed management decisions and a preferred alternative selected based on this new analysis. 

The anticipated socioeconomic impacalternative can be found in Section 4.1subsections. Further qualitative and qclarifications have been provided PRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI26 We are concerned about the lack of real discussion 

in the Draft EIS about the management of visual resources. The proposed management prescriptions laid out on page 2-62 do nothing more than indicate the aggregate amount of acreage to be managed in each VRM management class. The management "common to all" discussion on page 2-36 indicates only, in one simple sentence, that the objectives for each specific visual resource management class, outlined in BLM Handbook H-8410-1, and repeated on page J-3, would be implemented. 

Table 2.1.24 (Visual Resource Managthe PRMP/FEIS Section 2.4.16.1 ideGoals and Objectives for visual management. Section 3.17 provides a of the affected environment regardresources. Section 4.17 provides a disthe environmental consequences resources. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI27 We are concerned about the apparent lack of an 

updated visual inventory. This ties in with the rationale for the "Sensitivity Level Analysis" required by BLM Manual Handbook H-8410-1.III.A. - Factors to Consider. Many of these factors change over time, and a simple rollover of an older inventory would not accurately reflect these adjustments. In addition, the lack of updated inventory information makes interpretation of the differences between the inventory and management classes impossible to 

See comment response VI7A. Some major travel corridors were etheir visual sensitivity, (which is one of in visual sensitivity rating), becausincrease in use and visitation. Two are-inventoried because of both the increase in oil and gas activity and the increase of both user numbers anperception toward natural landscapes. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

determine. The draft RMP needs to fully explain how the visual inventory was accomplished, so that differences in visual management prescriptions proposed in the various Alternatives may be compared to the inventory classes. This indicates to the reader exactly how the VRM management classes are assisting in the resource management goals of each Alternative. 

of the re-inventories, both areas were VRM rating as seen in Figures 29 and are reflected in Alternatives A and D reThe alternatives provide a range classification from which management from for the final RMP and the VRM clawithin the final RMP will be consgeneral overall management direction. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI28 The maps on Figures 29-32 are hard to interpret 

concerning the VRM management classes, as the figures are not specific enough to determine the exact geographic location of most of the boundary lines. Because of this, the counties cannot determine if the criteria for VRM inventory have been correctly followed, and exactly where, on-the-ground, the BLM proposes to change management from one class to another, except for certain geographical areas which fully correspond to other proposed management designations. 

The BLM acknowledges that the scale 29-32 may not provide sufficient delineate VRM boundary lines for thclassifications; however, electronic filedefined and provide sufficient detail. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI29 The draft RMP purports to discuss the impacts of 

various resource management decisions on visual resources, but, in actuality, this discussion is either misleading or circular and non-responsive. As an example of a misleading statement, the discussion of VRM resources on pages 3-117 to 3-118 lays out the management criteria and requirements for the four VRM management classes. The discussion indicates that currently the only areas in the VFO managed as VRM management class I are Wilderness Study Areas, and one WSA equivalent, an Instant Study Area. It continues by stating that minerals exploration 

Minerals exploration and developpresently occurring in areas not desighigh VRM classes but in areas of loclassification (Class IV to be specific—32), where greater levels of visual inttolerated. Smaller areas are designateClass III and Class II, wherein sligh

restrictions on visual alteration exist mitigation measures are used. As suchstatements referenced in the documecontradictory. Under Alternatives A changes in VRM classification across 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

and development "is not presently exceeding VRM class objectives" throughout the Vernal Field Office, due to proper visual mitigation methods. Yet on page 4-122 the document indicates that VRM management classes I and II "allow little or no alteration to the line, form, color and texture that characterize the existing landscape," thereby raising the potential for greater impacts to minerals development. On page 4-123, the analysis clearly states that an increase in the number of acres of VRM Classes I and II would lead to a direct decrease in the number of available well locations, thereby leading to less production (and royalties). We ask for clarification of the correct standards for VRM management in the VFO, and that the VFO analyze VRM I and II designations as a possible withdrawal of the mineral resources. 

would increase the number of acres uI and II designation (with more VRunder Alternative C than A). More of tClass I and II areas would overlap desirable for minerals and energy explodevelopment. As such, under these athere would be greater impacts on mienergy development through restrictions related to visual management. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI30 We are concerned that the draft RMP is not specific 

about the sources and goals of many of the special management designations available to it, leading to circular and non-responsive reasoning in the analysis. For example on page 4-284 the impacts analysis for visual resources and special designations indicates that visual resources will be protected by designation of ACECs and Wild and Scenic River designations. This analysis proceeds under the general presumption that ACECs and WSR segments are "good" for visual resources, but fails to indicate the management prescriptions which actually accomplish this goal. 

Table 2.1.18 (Special Designations – Critical Environmental Concern (ACECPRMP/FEIS provides information management foci for each proposed special designation. Many of these foccontrolling noxious weeds, limiting Odesignated routes, and establishing surface use stipulations on minerals aexploration and development would redintrusions and alteration of the landscan outcome would be beneficiapreservation of visual resourcedesignation under the Wild and Scenic and through the ACEC process conferresource management that protpreserves the important and relevant v
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

area from the potential effects of awould otherwise be permitted by the general, emphasis is given to protaesthetic, scenic, wildlife, historic, archunique or distinctive, and/or scientific these areas. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI31 Which designation - ACEC, WSR, SRMA or VRM 

management - is being proposed for the protection of visual resources? The VRM discussion mentions the others, while the ACEC discussion mentions the use of VRM classifications. This lack of clarity in proposed management prescriptions doesn't meet the requirements of full disclosure under the provisions of NEPA, and doesn't allow us to determine whether or not the BLM is proposing duplicate prescriptions, contrary to the provisions of state law, and the BLM's Manual on designation of ACECs. 

Visual resources benefit from a different special management designjust VRM classification. While VRM clais specific to visual resources, ACEC, SRMA designation can also consiresource values, and the managemensuch designations typically include aafford protection to visual resourceancillary benefit. Overlapping of program decisions is nfor BLM, but is required by the FLPMANational BLM planning and prograregulations. The FLPMA direcmanagement of public lands be on thmultiple use (Section 102(a) (7)). As use agency, the BLM is required to laws, regulations and policies for manand often competing land uses and conflicts and prescribe land uses throuuse plans. For example, 43 CFR Gprovides guidance and requiremDisposition; Occupancy and Use of puGroup 2800 for Rights-of-way; Group Coal Management; Group 6000 for DWilderness, and Group 8200 for Natupart 8351 for Wild and Scenic Riversuse management requires a balanc
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

mandates for these separate programsBLM's Land-use Planning Handboothat specific decisions be made for eacand use (Appendix C, H-1601-1). Thdecisions must be included in eaalternatives analyzed during developmRMP. The RMP will include the required for each program. See comment response VI29. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI32 The counties and State of Utah cannot support any 

proposed VRM class management specifications that will prevent habitat enhancement, fuels reduction, and prescribed fire activities from occurring in the VFO. The RMP must choose VRM management classes which allow vegetation and habitat treatments that improve wildlife habitat and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fire events. 

The BLM is aware that there are specand State plan decisions relevant to public land management that are discand independent of, Federal law. HoBLM is bound by Federal law. Threquires that the development of an public lands must be coordinated and with County plans, to the maximupossible by law, and inconsistencies Federal and non-Federal governmenresolve to the extent practical (FLPMSec. 202 (c)(9)). As a consequence, wand local plans conflict with Federal law be an inconsistency that cannot be rreconciled. Thus, while County and Federal processes, under FLPMA, are requireintegrated and consistent as pracFederal agency planning process is noor subject to County plans, planning or planning stipulations. The BLM w
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

these conflicts in the FEIS/PRMP, sState and local governments have a understanding of the impacts of the State and local management oconsistency review of the PRMP with and County Master Plans is included 5. See also comment response VI1. classification precludes limited maactions, which may include fuels prescribed fire, and/or habitat enhaVRM Class I and II require tmanagement activities be conducted in have minimal impact on visual resourcelong term. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI33 The VRM I proposed for primitive recreation values is 

not shown on map 29. A shape file recently received from the BLM indicates that this is an area on the south side of the river and appears to be the entire north slope of the mountains that make up the visual barrier when looking south from the river. The majority of the area proposed as a VRM I are within full view of the Taylor Flats subdivision and in some cases less than a mile from it. The area is also within sight and sound of recreational activities, and vehicle traffic along the river and residential activity on Taylor Flats, which has been divided into one thousand lots. The existing uses of [the area's classified as VRM I], and the fact the area receives very little recreational use, demonstrates poor analysis of need and planning for this proposal and 

The West Cold Springs and the DiamoWSAs are protected by VRM class 1. associated with the Taylor Flat area. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

should be struck from all alternatives. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI34 As with other VRM classes proposed in the area, a 

VRM I here would prevent needed wildlife habitat improvement in an area BLM has proposed to protect crucial habitats. 

See comment response SD99. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI35 The proposal to establish a VRM I here is counter to 

direction provided in BLM's VRM handbook which provides that a VRM I is only to be applied where previous management decisions have been made to manage an area for it's natural landscapes such as wilderness areas. A VRM I has also been applied to the two WSA's in the area. These are inappropriate as they are inconsistent with provisions of the IMP, which guide management of WSA's. There are uses allowed in the IMP that would be prohibited under a VRM I. 

See comment response VI1D 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI36 In all alternatives this area is to be managed as a 

VRM II. Neither the DEIS/RMP nor the AMS justifies the need for change from the VRM III and VRM IV that is currently applied to the area. The condition of the area at this time would support that the current VRM III and VRM IV adequately protect the area. 

BLM visual inventories use scenic qvisual sensitivity to evaluate the visuacondition of an area. As described Handbook H-8410-1 Visual Resource a more protective VRM Class may be aan area if the VRM inventory process dthat an area has become more visualland management decisions have beepreserve or maintain the area's landscenic quality. See comment response VI14. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

VI37 A VRM II applied to this area is inconsistent with 

existing developments and uses within the area and ignores the existence of road and utility corridor that 

This statement merely refers to the faBLM does not have the authority restrictions on non-Bureau landhold
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.12f. Public Comments and Responses: Duchesne, Uintah, and Daggett Counties (Collaborative Co

Comment 

Period 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to Comment 

crosses it. Much of the area is private or state land, which BLM does not control. There is a strong possibility that private property rights would be impacted. There is a possibility on need for holders of water rights to develop those rights or to construct or reconstruct diversions for those rights; in many cases a VRM I or II could impact those rights. 

areas that contain VRM I or II desigdoes it have the authority to usurp lrights. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

WH24 The expansions of the HMAs are proposed without 

proper analysis of need, the availability of forage, manageability of impacts on vegetation, soils and riparian areas and impacts on wildlife and their habitats. 

The Wild Horse and Burro Act authBLM to manage Wild Horses on public Table 2.1.25 of the PRMP/FEIS oumanagement goals and measures thaimplemented under the alternatives iappropriately manage wild horse herds forage availability and quality. The impacts of wild horse management devegetation, soils, riparian areas, and wdiscussed in Sections 4.11.2.2, 4.16.2.14, and 4.19.2.13, respectively. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Adequacy and Analysis 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

WSA Supplement 

US EPA G-6 47 Table 4-1, Disturbance Assumptions, page 4-3:

The basis assumption is that surface disturbance can be reclaimed within one year after completion of operations. Soil conditions, annual precipitation, and presence or absence of invasive plant species may lengthen reclamation time significantly. 

The sentence has been reInterim reclamation will osurface disturbance within of operations. 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD130 The analysis indicates that ACECs may benefit 

from "fire resources, soil and watershed actions, and vegetation resources (including riparian areas and woodlands)," yet be negatively affected by mineral activities and OHV use. No explanation is given for these statements. Vegetation, fire, and soil treatments may affect the appearance of the land as much as mineral development, yet the end result is healthier vegetation. The bias against mineral development is evident, because no mention is made concerning the balance of uses which results in the extraction of resources useful to society versus the potential benefits of the ACEC, and because the analysis fails to 

The distinction between watershed, and vegetatioand minerals activity achanges to the characincluding visual appearcategory of actions are and more consistent wobjectives of ACECs thcategory of actions. Also, see Response to Co
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

recognize the effect of proper mineral mitigation measures upon the ultimate effect on the relevant and important values. The state requests the BLM revisit these superficial analyses, consider mitigation part of the determination of effect, and consider the balance of uses as required. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD143 The discussion of the relevant and important 

values of the proposed Nine Mile Canyon ACEC is inadequate in that it does not provide an actual description of said values, but rather it offers merely a recitation of the regulatory requirements for the nature of those values. How are these values significant in a regional context? What specifically are the qualities to be protected and managed through the ACEC? 

The inconsistencies in important resource valueAppendix G contains the 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD168 Section 3.14.2.1 on page 3-80 discusses the 

Coyote Basin ACEC. Black-footed ferrets were released in 1999 under 10j status designation. However, this section is vague on that point. It only mentions ferrets as being raised for release but does not mention that ferrets are already successfully reproducing in the wild. The document fails to mention that the UDWR is also cooperating with the Vernal BLM and Utah State University in continuing the research project relating to the recovery of black-footed ferrets. 

Chapter 3 in the PRMP/Fto clarify 10j status of Coyote Basin. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SD320 

(JSD60) 

Please change this section to state: "Manage to protect high value wetland, wildlife, 

Table 2.1 (Special DesCritical Environmental CoPRMP/FEIS has been resuggested change. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

and plant habitat resources," On page 3- 79, Table 3.14.1, it is stated for Pariette Wetlands that this is "Special status bird and plant species' habitat, a wetlands ecosystem, Significant population of the federally threatened plant species Sclerocactus glaucus." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SD322 

(JSD62) 

The section on "Currently Designated ACECs" states that the management relevance and importance criteria (which include plan fish, and wildlife resources) are detailed in Chapter 3 of the Diamond Mountain RMP and ROD. As Chapter 3 of the Diamond RMP and ROD document provides little discussion on ACECs, their management relevance and importance, this discussion needs to be fully presented and expanded within this current RMP/EIS. 

The inconsistencies in important resource valueAppendix G contains the 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 SD32 VRM Classes 2 and 3 are proposed here 

without discussion of need and what they are intended to protect. Approximately one half of the ACEC is VRM Class 2 and the other half Class 3. Given the definition of VRM Class 2 which states: "A low level of change in landscape characteristics, and activities not attracting the attention of the casual observer," it appears this would prevent development of existing leases and also on future leasing. The impacts to oil & gas and other permittee's was not analyzed or disclosed. The impacts of a VRM II must be analyzed in Chapter 4 and reflected in reasonable foreseeable 

Based on the analysis opublic comments, BLM proposed VRM classes with overall management 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

development, and be analyzed to insure they are the least restrictive necessary. As written it implies that the area would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to standard lease terms or controlled surface use. Oil and gas leasing and development are two different things given the fact that much of this area is VRM II. Being able to develop a lease in the majority of the area described here is questionable at best and not analyzed. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 SD38 When Alternative D includes an ACEC 

designation in the Lower Green River Expansion of only 1,700 acres less than Alternatives A and C, how could Alternative D "not have the benefits" described for Alternatives A and C? It should provide the same benefits but to a slightly lesser degree. 

Chapter 4 in the PRMP/F to indicate that Alternativbenefit than Alternatives A

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-24 SD89 It is proposed to designate 98,000 acres in Nine 

Mile Canyon as an ACEC. As written the alternative proposed here fails to clearly show that the Lears Canyon ACEC is included in the Nine Mile Canyon ACEC proposed in Alternative C and D. 

Table 2.1 (Special DesCritical Environment ConPRMP/FEIS has been Lears Canyon ACEC is a of the Nine Mile Caalternatives. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-24 SD93 The DEIS fails to analyze management 

decisions [for the Nine Mile Canyon ACEC] to insure they are the least restrictive yet protect identified and substantiated values as required by EPCA. 

Appendix G in the Prevised to clarify the releof the Nine Mile Canyon A

Draft RMP/EIS 

J.C. Brewer I111 SD215 (SD-JJ) Black-footed ferrets were introduced in Coyote Basin under 10-J status and do not require 

special protections. The population of prairie dogs is not being threatened by current 

Section 3.14.2.1 in the revised to clarify 10j sferrets in Coyote Basin. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

activities. All other values listed under Alternative A, B or C can be achieved by other means. This proposed ACEC does not meet the test of Relevance under 43 CFR 1610.7-2. Drop from further consideration. 

See Appendix G for adthe relevance and imporACEC. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Questar O-12 SD329 

(LSD-4) 

The DEIS does not contain sufficient information to explain why the Nine Mile Canyon Expansion ACEC was created and why this area is more restricted under Alternative A than under B or D. There is no explanation of the 'importance criteria' for this area. 

The inconsistencies in important resource valueAppendix G contains the 

Draft RMP/EIS 

IPAMS O-14 SD329 

(LSD-4) 

The DEIS does not contain sufficient information to explain why the Nine Mile Canyon Expansion ACEC was created and why this area is more restricted under Alternative A than under B or D. There is no explanation of the 'importance criteria' for this area. 

The inconsistencies in important resource valueAppendix G contains the 

Draft RMP/EIS 

IPAMS O-14 SD331 

(LSD-6) 

No support is given for the statement that the Coyote Basin ACEC provides a 'crucial habitat' for special species 

Appendix G in the Pexpanded to include morationale behind proposed 

Draft RMP/EIS 

EOG Resources 

O-17 SD200 

(SD-V) 

Alternative A would designate acreage along the White and Green River corridors as ACECs to protect unique geologic and high-value riparian areas. With closures in large portions of this proposed ACECs, oil and gas development would be precluded from potentially thousands of acres; however, EOG is not sure about the 

specifics impacts as no mapping or description of the dividing line between the western and eastern parts is presented. 

Figures 22-24 in the Prevised to show the bouand current ACECs for thA written description of described in Appendix G. 

Draft EOG O-17 SD211 Under Alternative B, the Nine Mile Canyon area See Response to Comme
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS Resources (SD-FF) would continue under the current program. 

There are current and existing laws and procedures in place to protect cultural resource areas. Therefore, additional protection is unwarranted. The analysis needs to address the detrimental impacts that implementation of these alternatives would have on oil and gas development. 

Chapter 4 in the PRMP/Fto clarify the anticipatedesignations on mindevelopment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SD381 

(MECCC) 

Appendix K states that the 71,000-acre Bitter Creek ACEC is established to protect 71,000 acres containing pinyon pines. This acreage differs from the 68,834 acres designated as the potential Bitter Creek ACEC on page 3-81 of the draft RMP/EIS. Please correct. 

The Proposed RMP/Finato correct acreage aprovided for the differenc

Draft RMP/EIS 

Julander Energy 

O-34 SD288 

(JSD32) 

There is no discussion of white-tailed prairie dogs or black-footed ferrets in this appendix, though there is a lot of discussion of various spatial and seasonal restrictions for raptors. This is further evidence that the BLM is not proposing any special management for whitetailed prairie dogs and that ACECs are not justified. 

Appendix K has bePRMP/FEIS to include ad

Draft RMP/EIS 

Center for Native Ecosystems 

O-38 SD260 

(JSD-4) 

Prescriptions for the Coyote Basin ACEC are vague. Noxious weeds would be controlled but the primary weed in this area is cheatgrass, and we are unaware of any effective control strategy. Natural fire regimes would be restored, but we are not sure how this will be possible since it is overrun with cheatgrass, which alters fire regimes and is often better able to out-compete natives after fire. Page 4-232 says prescribed burns would take place in 

Table 2.1 (Special DesCritical Environmental Cbeen revised to clarify thCoyote Basin ACEC alternatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

desert shrublands, but also says fire won't take place in black–footed ferret habitat, which is confusing. The main special management that could benefit prairie dogs (the reason for ACEC designation) consists of "implementing actions to maintain or enhance...habitat". What ARE the actions? What about prohibiting actions that reduce habitat? Instead, BLM proposed to continue to lease habitat with standard lease terms, or perhaps with timing limitations, but does not spell out what the stipulations would be in place where. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Enduring Resources 

O-40 SD177 

(JPR-2) 

SDTemp1 

NEPA and BLM policy require that the BLM make available for public comment the information upon which the decision to designate ACECs were reached, including the underlying analysis for the proposed and existing. 

Information on the evaluaof ACEC designations Appendix G of the Dravailable for public revieinformation in this appendin the PRMP/FEIS. Addipublic input were providprocess as well as the pfor the Vernal SupplemeEIS. Section 4.21.2.9 anACECs. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 SD305 

(JSD47) 

The proposed Lower Green River ACEC Expansion fails to meet regulatory criteria of importance and relevance. There is no documentation in Chapters 3 or 4, or in Appendix G, that verifies that this area has "substantial significance due to qualities that make them fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable exemplary and unique". Appendix G states that the significance of these importance resources 

See Responses to 13,SD27-G-22. Additional information Appendix G and Chapterproposed Lower Green R
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

has been recognized (no citation given). Without such supporting documentation, this area should be eliminated from consideration as an ACEC. Figure 22 shows many areas of overlap in current and proposed ACECs. This is inconsistent with the text in the RMP, since the stated goal is not to re-propose or layer additional restriction onto the existing ACEC areas within the planning area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 SD306 

(JSD48) 

The RMP should include a table that clearly identifies the stipulations for each proposed ACEC under all the alternatives. The table should approximate the following: 

 Standard T&CSU NSO closed 

ACEC1 ACEC2 etc 

This information has beEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 SD309 

(JSD50b) 

Appendix K states that the Bitter Creek ACEC is 71,000 acres. Page 3-81 says it is 68,834 acres. Please correct this contradiction. 

The Proposed RMP/Finato correct acreage aprovided for the differenc

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Co. 

O-44 SD296 

(JSD40) 

Even if ACEC designation was supported, BLM has not provided the requisite legal or factual support for the management actions it has proposed. The draft RMP does not adequately describe the Coyote Basin management requirements, and the limited management descriptions provided are inappropriate and unnecessary for the protection of the whitetailed prairie dog in the White River corridor. The RMP fails to provide information as to 

See Responses to CoSD8-G-9, The white-tailed prairie sensitive species under Manual 6840 provides gallow actions that wouaddition, the 1999 Reintroduction Plan Amportions of the Coope
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

resource use limitations, particularly with respect to oil and gas production. The RMP indicates that the appendices list all the surface use stipulations in the Vernal Planning area. However, Appendix K does not contain any timing limitation stipulation or controlled surface use stipulations for white-tailed prairie dogs. BLM needs to address this. 

Reintroduction and Mafooted Ferret in Coyote Utah that are consisamendment affords mitigprairie dog. Appendix K incorporate mitigating mtailed prairie dog. 

ACEC NOA 

The Wilderness Society 

O-1 6 BLM did not recognize the economic benefits to 

be gained from designation of ACECs. In considering the designation of ACECs, BLM did not adequately recognize either the potential benefits to local economies from protecting these areas or the potential costs from permitting oil and gas and ORV use to continue at the expense of protecting special places. In fact, in discussing socioeconomic analysis, the Draft RMP/EIS did not discuss this aspect of ACEC designation at all. See, DEIS, Sections 3.12 and 4.12. 

Information on the econoACECs had been added section of Chapter 4. 

ACEC NOA 

Uintah County Commission 

G-2 6 The counties are concerned that the draft RMP is 

not specific about the sources and goals of many of the special management designations available to it, leading to the circular and non¬responsive reasoning in the analysis. For example, on page 4-284, the impacts analysis for visual resources and special designations indicates that visual resources will be protected by designation of ACECs and Wild and Scenic River designations. This analysis proceeds under the general presumption that ACECs and WSR segments are "good" for visual resources, but fails to indicate the management prescriptions 

The PRMP/FEIS has beeProposed RMP that refmanagement direction frmitigate impacts to resour"Layering" is planning multiple-use mandate, thdifferent resource values lands. Through land-use pand objectives for each of and prescribes actions objectives. Under the muBLM does not necessari
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

which actually accomplish this goal. On page 4-280 under a discussion of recreation, the draft RMP indicates that the designation of Special Recreation Management Areas would benefit scenic quality by "limiting surface-disturbing activities". On the other hand, the explanation of management prescriptions for the proposed Bitter Creek ACEC indicates possible use of three of four existing VRM categories. Which designation ¬ACEC, WSR, SRMA or VRM management - is being proposed for the protection of visual resources? The VRM discussion mentions the others, while the ACEC discussion mentions the use of VRM classifications. This lack of clarity in proposed management prescriptions doesn't meet the requirements of full disclosure under the provisions of NEP A, and doesn't allow counties to determine whether or not the BLM is proposing duplicate prescriptions, contrary to the provisions of State law, and the BLM's Manual on designation of ACECs, as discussed above. 

and use on every acre, many different values aareas of public lands. Thmany individual program actions to the same area perceived as "layering". ensure that the goals aprogram (representing resare consistent and comland area. Inconsistent golead to resource conflictsdesired outcomes of a litigation. Whether or nomanagement is restrictpersonal interest or deslands are managed in a pauses and values can be acre. That is why land-usthrough a public and inThe interdisciplinary proceresource values and usdetermine what mix of responsive to the issues in the land-use plan. decisions is not optional fby the FLPMA and Natioprogram specific regulatioThe FLPMA directs BLM for multiple use and su102(a)(7)). As a multiple-urequired to implement policies for many differen
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

land uses and to resolve land uses through its landLand-use Planning Haspecific decisions be maduse (See, Appendix CHandbook "H-1601-1"). Sbe included in each of thduring development of each alternative is formdecision is overlaid with oand inconsistent decisiomodified so that ultimateuses and management pre

ACEC NOA 

Uintah County Commission 

G-2 2 Similarly, on page 4-203, the draft RMP indicates 

the lack of designation of some potential ACECs may place the relevant and important values "at some risk of irreparable damage during the life of the plan". This statement is completely backward. BLM must make a determination that a threat of irreparable damage from some authorized multiple-use activity exists, and is directed toward the identified relevant and important value in order to complete the fundamental requirements for an ACEC. 

The ACEC evaluation awas modified, and a sectdiscussing threats to the ACEC values; howevercurrently exist does not ACEC from being consalternatives. All nominated has determined to have values, are identified as paddressed in the action relevant and important valalternative. The PRMP/Fthe draft document to bthreats and impacts aalternative. On August 27, 1980, the ACEC guidelines (45 Feclarifying the term "prote
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

guard against damage oenvironmental resources designated ACEC. This can be restored over tiirreparable. With regard protect means to prevent to people, or loss or damBLM is to consider threparable and irreparprotecting important histovalues; fish and wildlife natural systems through Ainterpretation is consilegislative history and impSection 2 of the guidelineare special places withistates: "In addition to esbasic protective managemto all the public lands, C'management of national lands] is to include giving protection of ACECs, for tthat the most environmfragile lands will be givprotection' (Senate RepoThus, the ACEC process whatever special managprotect those environmenmost important, i.e., thoscertain specific areas specnature or man with charaapart. In addition, the A
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

used to protect human natural hazards." 

ACEC NOA 

IPAMS B-3 12 We have also noted that the draft RMPEIS does 

not contain any discussion, in Chapter 4, Section 4.8 (Minerals and Energy Resources), on the effects of designation of new ACECs on mineral leasing and development. Since the impacts of the additional stipulations for ACECs would be exceptionally restrictive, a discussion of the impacts to mineral development from designation of new ACECs must be included in Chapter 4 of the RMP/EIS. 

This information has beeDesignations section of th

ACEC NOA 

IPAMS B-3 11 The RMP should include a table (that shows the 

oil and gas leasing stipulations for each ACEC), similar to the one included below, that clearly identifies the stipulations for each proposed ACEC under all alternatives. 

This information has beeDesignations section of th

ACEC NOA 

IPAMS B-3 10 Figure 22 (Special Designations – Alternative A) 

shows many areas of overlap in current and proposed ACECs. This is inconsistent with the text in the RMP since the stated goal is not to re-propose or layer additional restrictions onto the existing ACEC areas within the planning area. 

The BLM has separate pas well as criteria, for esWSAs. These differing cthat the same lands will qand a WSA but for differerequired to consider these The values protected bprescriptions do not necvalues found relevant aevaluation, and vice veimportant values of ACEC
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

WSAs were noted in (Appendix I). The ACECranked based on the presstated relevant and impothese values includes wilAdditionally, the managethe ACECs is limited in relevant and important maintains that the size appropriate for protectioimportant values identifiehas been inserted into theasily understand diffePropose Plan and the alte

ACEC NOA 

IPAMS B-3 9 The 'importance criteria" given in the draft RMP 

for the Lower Green River Expansion ACEC state that the relevant values "have substantial significance due to qualities that make them fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, and unique." There is no documentation in Chapter 3, 4 and Appendix G, of any documents that verify these qualities. Appendix G also states that the significance of these important resources has been recognized (no citation is given). Without any supporting documentation for these statements in the draft RMP, therefore the Lower Green RiverExpansion ACEC should be eliminated from consideration as an ACEC. 

The Proposed RMP dnominated Lower Green Ran ACEC. The Nine Mile not designated. Chapter include protective measurand important resources. 

ACEC NOA 

IPAMS B-3 7 The 'importance criteria" given in the draft RMP 

for the Nine Mile Canyon Expansion ACEC state that the relevant values "have 

The Proposed RMP contithe existing Nine Mile Ccarried forward from th
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

substantial significance due to qualities that make them fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, and unique." There is no documentation in Chapter 3, 4 or Appendix G, of any relevant documents that verify these qualities. Appendix G also states that the significance of these important resources has been recognized (no citation is given). The draft RMP does not contain adequate data to support the designation of the proposed ACEC. Without any supporting documentation of the draft RMP of the "importance" of this area, the Nine Mile Canyon Expansion ACEC should be eliminated from consideration as an ACEC 

Resource Area RMP of Canyon Expansion was n4 has been revised measures that protect rresources. 

ACEC NOA 

IPAMS B-3 6 The USFWS requires that black footed ferret 

surveys be conducted prior to commencing construction and drilling operations in prairie dog colonies, provided that a minimum of 200 acres of white-tailed prairie dog colonies with a minimum density of 8 burrows/acre are present (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989). It is not indicated in the draft RMP whether these purportedly critical areas meet the USFWS criteria, information that must be included in the RMP. The USFWS, BLM, and Utah DWR are closely monitoring the released black-footed ferret populations. Therefore, the white-tailed prairie dog and blackfooted ferrets are more than sufficiently protected, and the overlapping restrictions that would result from designating an ACEC in the Coyote Basin are completely 

The Proposed RMP doCoyote Basin or Coyote ACEC. Chapter 4 has bprotective measures thaimportant resources. Tcontinues the designatioMile Canyon ACEC that wthe Diamond Mountain R1993. The Nine Mile Candesignated. Chapter 4 include protective measurand important resources. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

unnecessary. 

ACEC NOA 

IPAMS B-3 5 Coyote Basin- Under Alternatives A and B the 

Coyote Basin ACEC would include 87,743 acres and 47,659 acres, respectively. The draft RMP claims this ACEC would protect a high value "critical" ecosystem for the white-tailed prairie dog and numerous special status wildlife species. No documentation is provided to verify that this area contains "critical" white-tailed prairie dog habitat and no mention is made that the US Fish and Wildlife Service decided against listing the white-tailed prairie dog as a threatened or endangered species because it was found to be in abundance and in no threat of extinction. In addition, page 3-80 states that this proposed ACEC provides "crucial habitat for the pronghorn, as well as for several special status species including the ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, sage grouse, long-billed curlew, grasshopper sparrow short-eared owl, big freetailed bat, black-footed ferret, and ringtail cat." Many of these species occur throughout the West, which does not support the conclusion that the proposed ACEC provides "crucial habitat" for these species. In addition, no supporting data are provided to even support the assertion of the area provides crucial 

The BLM used the scopand objectively determine alternatives that best aconcerns, and alternativpublic. 

As a result, five 

Alternative E in the SuAction Alternative (D) wanalysis. The managemactions outlined in these various levels or degreresource protection to give fully compare the comanagement prescription The PRMP/FEIS has been identify the Proposed Rmanagement prescriptions 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

habitat for these species. 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 30 Page 4-104, Section 4.16.2.10.1: 

Alternative B 

seems to be left out of the analysis for the Coyote Basin and Four Mile Wash ACEC's. 

The commenter is correcanalysis has been left ouwill be updated in the FinaFour Mile wash would noalternative B, and as a reswould have the same impa

Table 5.13c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Alternatives Development 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 AT100 

(RAT10) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "Soil types and climatic variations would be major determinates to reclamation that would range from ten years or longer to permanent scarring of the landscape." There is no record of oil and gas development "permanently scarring" the landscape. 

Section 4.14.3 in the Pcompletely rewritten. The comment has been dewording change is not lon
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 AQ1 Table 3.2.5 Sensitive Areas to Be Considered 

in the Analysis: Brown's Park NWR and Ouray NWR are managed by the USFWS not the NPS. 

Table 3.2.5 of the 2004 revised to clarify that thand the Ouray NWR USFSW and not the NPS

Draft RMP/EIS 

USFS—Ashley National Forest 

G-19 AQ103 Please add existing deposition and lake ANC 

conditions relating to the High Uintas Wilderness to the Affected Environment discussion for the area, including the larger area considered in the cumulative effects analysis. The High Uintas Wilderness is in the same State defined airshed as most of the oil and gas development (www.utahsmp.net/GRAPHICS/UTAirs1.jpg). 

Section 3.2.3 in the Finato make some of the chThe 4th paragraph of this follows: "In addition to these requPark Service (NPS) OrgNPS to protect the natlands it manages from thpollution. In 1978, the (USFS) Air Monitoring Prto protect all USFS maadverse effects of air pUSFS became a primanational visibility moniInteragency Monitoring Environments (IMPROVenactment of the RegiUSFS has provided regrepresenting all visibility-pI areas where practical." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

USFS—Ashley National Forest 

G-19 AQ140 There seem to be discrepancies between this 

table (which does not identify air quality concerns) and information in the Air Quality Assessment Report (Trinity, 8/04). For example: At least 1 day >5% would occur in the High Uintas Wilderness and Flaming Gorge NRA 

Table 4.2.7 in the PRMP/so that it is consistent witSee comment response A
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

(p. 113,Trinity report) under all alternatives. The narrative (p. 110, Cumulative) states that, "Visibility for BLM sources only showed no impacts >1.0 deciview for any sensitive area. Some sensitive areas exceeded the 1.0 deciview threshold for inventory sources only and inventory plus BLM sources." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah DEQ – Division of Air Quality 

G-31 AQ68 The DRMP-EIS incorrectly lists the UDAQ 

emission inventory data as the source information for the NAAQS table. Emission inventory data are not monitoring data. 

Table 3.2.1 in the Preplaced so that it noAmbient Air Quality SAmbient Air Quality Data. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah DEQ – Division of Air Quality 

G-31 AQ72 The following statement is incorrect: 

"The NAAQS represent maximum acceptable concentrations that generally may not be exceeded except annual standards, which may never be exceeded." Please refer to the applicable standard to determine the form of the standard, and to show if a violation has occurred. For example some standards are based upon three-year averages, and some standards are based on the 4th highest maximum concentration. 

Section 3.2.3 in the Prevised to read as follows"Air quality in a given pollutant concentrations is generally expressed million (ppm) or microg(μg/m3). One measure concentration in compand/or state ambient air National Ambient Air (NAAQS) and Utah Air health-based criteria acceptable concentrationa margin of safety) at all public has access. The Nby the EPA and are ouFederal Regulations (40 does not meet the NAAQnonattainment area on basis. The State of U
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

NAAQS as state air qualthe EPA passed a suite Clean Air Rules of 200America's air quality. TNonroad Diesel Rule and potentially improve the fVPA." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah DEQ – Division of Air Quality 

G-31 AQ73 Table 3.2.2 is incorrect. The table implies that 

only a handful of emission sources are located in Daggett, Duchesne, and Grand and Uintah counties. Is this table referring to a certain size of emission sources? Please specify the criteria that were used to develop the table. 

Table 3.2.2 (Emission Sthe Draft RMP has bePRMP/FEIS. The text t(Section 3.2.4) has beefollows: "The VPA covers DagUintah Counties and pCurrently, emission souconsist of mostly oil afacilities and mining sfugitive dust sources asites, construction actividetailed listing of emisaround the VPA, along wspecific sources were quality modeling, is avaand Nicholls, 2006, tabuis found in Appendix C)." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

US EPA Region VIII 

G-32 AQ86 Visibility. 

Section 4.2.2.6.7.4 explains that the screening analysis for visibility showed reduction in visibility at Class I areas due to BLM sources alone. The Technical Support Document is consistent with this statement. Table 4.2.7 

Table 4.2.7 and the accPRMP/FEIS EIS have bthe presentation of the reand refined visibility analy
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

shows cumulative visibility impacts and combines results of the screening analysis with results of a refined analysis. BLM conducted a refined analysis in cases where the screening analysis showed impacts. An error in the text accompanying Table 4.2.7 refers to "the screening visibility analysis" and could lead the reader to believe that a screening analysis resulted in no perceptible visibility impacts. Table 5-65 of the Technical Support Document reveals the results of the screening analysis of cumulative visibility impacts. The analysis showed potential days of visibility reductions greater than 1.0 deciview (dv) at the Arches National Park Class I area (one day) and at the Class II Dinosaur National Monument (three days). (Additional days of reduced visibility were modeled for sources in the Glenwood Springs planning area. One of the three days of cumulative impact greater than 1.0 dv at Dinosaur National Monument resulted only when emissions from BLM sources were added to those of the inventory sources. In other words, the potential impact of the BLM sources tipped the balance and caused potential cumulative impacts to exceed 1.0 dv. Please revise the text accompanying table 4.2.7 to show that the screening analysis showed potential visibility impacts that disappeared in the refined analysis. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

US EPA Region VIII 

G-32 AQ89 Section 3.2.2, Baseline Air Quality page 3-4: 

According to the first sentence of section 3.2.2 

Section 3.2.2 in the Prevised to make the cha
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

of the DEIS, the Vernal Planning Area is "designated as being in attainment" for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. (Section 4.2 begins with a similar sentence. The area technically is "unclassifiable" in the case of PM10 and "unclassifiable/attainment" for other pollutants (see 40 CFR Part 81). Please revise this portion of the DEIS. Also, please revise "air-born" to "airborne." 

This section now reads a"The VPA is located in a unclassifiable for unclassifiable/attainment pollutants [See 40 CFR EPA Region VIII, 2005)." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

US EPA Region VIII 

G-32 AQ91 Section 3.2.4, Regional Air Emissions, page 3-

5: This section of the DEIS generally describes the emissions inventory for the planning area. It covers point sources but does not mention such emissions as dust from construction activities and roadways, which were included in the modeling effort according to the Air Quality Assessment Report. Please revise this section to address fugitive dust emissions. 

Section 3.2.4 in the Prevised. See comment rethe revised text. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

US EPA Region VIII 

G-32 AQ92 Section 3.2.4.2, National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, page 3-4: Please revise the reference to NAAQS as "absolute" upper limits. Alternative wording could be: "The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Utah Air Quality Standards are health-based criteria for the maximum acceptable concentrations of air pollutants at all locations to which the public has access." 

Section 3.2.4.2 in the Prevised to make the chan

Draft RMP/EIS 

US EPA Region VIII 

G-32 AQ93 Section 4.2.2.4.1.1, Direct Effects of 

Prescribed Fire and Criteria Pollutants, page 4-10: Please correct the typographical error in 

Section 4.2.2.5.1.1 in the revised to make the chan
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

identifying carbon dioxide (CO2) as a criteria pollutant and include carbon monoxide (CO) as a criteria pollutant that wildland fires and prescribed fires emit. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

US EPA Region VIII 

G-32 AQ94 Air Quality – Technical Support Document (Air 

Quality Assessment Report). 1) National Park Service Reference. Please correct the date in the footnote to Table 3-24. 

The footnote to Table 3-2revised to make the chan

Draft RMP/EIS 

US EPA Region VIII 

G-32 AQ95 Air Quality – Technical Support Document (Air 

Quality Assessment Report). 2) Increment Comparison Results. The value for three-hour SO2 under "GMA BLM Sources Only" (Glenwood Springs Management Area) in Table 5-12 differs by an order of magnitude from the corresponding values in tables 5-13 through 5-16 and might be a typographical error. Please check this value and revise if necessary. 

The TSD has been rchange(s) as suggested. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vicki Stamper 

I-99 AQ17 The Near-Field Analysis Used Different 

Compressor Stack Parameters than Used in the Far-Field Analysis, Which Likely Meant the NO2 Concentrations Were Underestimated in the Near-Field Analysis Table 3-19 (page 34 of the 2004 Air Report) shows the stack parameters used for compressors in the near-field analysis, and the parameters vary greatly from the compressor stack parameters used in the farfield analysis (see Table 3-10, page 23 of 2004 Air Report) or the parameters identified as typical for compressor engines in Table 3-4 of the 2004 Air Report (page 18 of 2004 Air 

Table 3-19 of the 2004 revised to correct the modeling was done witparameters and does not 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Report). Specifically, the near-field analysis assumed a compressor stack height of 1.83 meters (m), an exit velocity of1.83 meters per second (m/s), ambient temperature of the plume (294.3 K), and a stack diameter of 0.13 m. The far-field analysis used stack parameters for compressors of 6.1 m stack height, 0.9 m stack diameter, 30 m/s exit velocity, and 755 K exit temperature, which appear to be much more appropriate for compressor engines. These differences could have resulted in lower modeled concentrations, and thus the modeling must be redone with the correct compressor engine stack parameters. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vicki Stamper 

I-99 AQ23 While the BLM placed receptors within close 

proximity to the road when only modeling impacts from the road, there were no receptors within the modeled well field area for the modeling assessment of all particulate matter impacts (i.e., due to roads, well construction, and operation). Because most of the particulate emissions are fugitive emissions, the highest impacts will occur within close proximity to the sources. Thus, to provide a complete picture of the ambient air particulate matter impacts that could occur as a result of all particulate sources, receptors should have been included within the grouping of wells, as well as outside of the grouping of wells. 

A separate analysis of road only was done at Region 8. To address ththe placement of receptonear-field analysis to refnear-field analysis was umade in the analysis are this document. Please nof the analysis (5 x 5 wechanged. 

Draft Vicki I-99 AQ27 The estimate of the Number of Compressors The commenter has mis
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS Stamper Engines Used in the CALPUFF Modeling 

Seems to be in Error. The CALPUFF analysis, done primarily for the far-field modeling assessment, assumed that at most only 69 compressor engines would be necessary for the full development allowed under the Vernal DRMP along with other reasonably foreseeable gas development in the area. (Table 3-8, page 22 of the 2004 Air Report, as well as Table D- 10 of Appendix D of the Air Report). There are several flaws in this analysis. This total number of needed compressors conflicts with Table A-4 of the Vernal DRMP/EIS (page 4-5), which includes projected numbers of compressors from oil and gas development on all lands within the Vernal Field Office Area. Specifically, Table A4 indicates a total of 167 compressor stations will be needed due to future mineral production activity in the Vernal Field Office area. It is not clear what size of compressor stations was assumed for the date in Table A4 -clearly if it was smaller than 1,000 horsepower (as assumed in the Air Report), then more compressor engines would be needed. However, if smaller compressor engines were projected, then this calls into question the assumed 1,000 hp size of all compressors for the Air Report and analyses. Assuming larger compressor engines would mean the compressor engines would be more 

The units for the line "Coacres, not number of sheadings of table). The 2004 Air Report change the table number with the other tables in C
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

dispersed, thus likely resulting in lower nearfield impacts. But, if more numerous, smaller compressor engines are expected, this should be modeled to reflect maximum potential near field impacts. In any case, the number of compressor engines modeled for the Vernal air analysis needs to be reconciled with the projection of more than double the amount of compressor stations in Table A-4 of the DRMP/EIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vicki Stamper 

I-99 AQ36 The DRMP/EIS Failed to Include a Proper 

Cumulative PSD Increment Analysis. The DRMP/EIS did not include a proper cumulative evaluation of prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increment consumption. While the DRMP/EIS did include certain sources that have either begun operation or had been modified since the "monitoring baseline date," the analysis did not include ml sources which consume the available PSD increment. In general, those sources which commenced construction or which have increased emissions after the applicable PSD "minor source baseline date" consume the available increment. Major sources which commenced construction after the major source baseline date also consume the available increment. [See definition of "baseline concentration" in 40 C.F.R. 52.21(b)(13).] To determine the inventory necessary to assess whether Vernal sources 

will cause or contribute to PSD increment 

Section 4.2.2.6.4 in the revised to replace the baseline date" with "moorder to avoid confu"baseline" as used in con2nd sentence of this sfollows: "The first group referrsources", included new sources that have commthe monitoring base year The analysis of incremesole responsibility of Sthave been delegated authe Clean Air Act. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

violations, the PSD minor source baseline dates for the area should have first been determined. The PSD baseline dates define the sources that need to be modeled, and thus using background monitoring concentrations does not provide a realistic analysis of increment consumption. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vicki Stamper 

I-99 AQ43 On pages 19-20 of the 2004 Air Report, 

adjustments made to the inventory sources are discussed. Apparently, the BLM removed several sources from the inventory based on the distance of those sources to the receptor of maximum modeled concentration for five Class I areas (Arches and Canyonlands National Parks and the Maroon Bells, Mt. Zirkel, and West Elk Wilderness Areas). It is not clear what pollutant concentration was used for this "analysis," although the 2004 Air Report does indicate that particulate emissions were examined. As a result of this "screening" analysis by the BLM, large and/or nearby sources of air pollution were removed from the source inventory. These include, among others, the Hunter and Huntington coal-fired power plants, Sunnyside Cogen, the Ouray compressor stations (located within the Vernal Field Office ), and the Moab compressor stations. In addition, no sources in western Colorado that could be impacting the Vernal Field Office area should have been removed from the inventory for the analysis of impacts in the Vernal Field Office area which runs to the border of Colorado. The removal of 

The 2004 Air Report has how the analysis was perThe commenter misuadjustments to inventory The analysis of sourcewas done only to selecinventory sources for fubased on particulate mamodeling of inventory Class I areas that had matter impacts. Those sources selected process were given furtheinformation provided to Tsources were eliminated results of the sourceanalysis. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

western Colorado sources without any consideration of impacts on the Vernal Field Office area is nonsensical and very likely resulted in an underestimate of ambient impacts in the Vernal Field Office area. This approach to determine whether a source can be excluded from a cumulative analysis based on its distance from a particular Class I area is not consistent with other commonly used methods for determining whether a cumulative air quality analysis is necessary, nor does it seem scientifically defensible -especially to examine the impacts due to only one pollutant or only at certain Class I areas. Further, considering the large area and number of sources being modeled, it does not seem appropriate to discount the impact of anyone source based on apparent insignificance when, cumulatively, such sources can have a significant impact on an area. In addition, the 2004 Air Report admits that the inventory of sources likely left out some significant sources, in stating "Based on the results of the focused BLM analysis...it is almost certain that some sources included in the modeling should have been screened out, and that some sources not included in the modeling likely should have been." [Emphasis added.] (page 19 of Air Report). As stated in the definition of "Significantly" in the NEP A regulations at 40 C.F .R. § 1508.27, "significance exists if it is reasonable to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by. ..breaking [an action] down into small component parts." The EIS is required to include an analysis of significant environmental consequences, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.1 and 1502.16, and thus the RMP/EIS must include an adequate analysis of the cumulative impacts on air quality. 

WSA Supplement 

US EPA G-6 14 Visibility. Section 4.2.2.6.7.4 explains that the 

screening analysis for visibility showed no reduction in visibility at Class I areas due to BLM sources alone. The Technical Support Document is consistent with this statement. Table 4.2.7 shows cumulative visibility impacts and combines results of the screening analysis with results of a refined analysis. BLM conducted a refined analysis in cases where the screening analysis showed impacts. An error in the text accompanying table 4.2.7 refers to "the screening visibility analysis" and could lead the reader to believe that a screening analysis resulted in no perceptible visibility impacts. Table 5-65 of the Technical Support Document reveals the results of the screening analysis of cumulative visibility impacts. The analysis showed potential days of visibility reductions greater than 1.0 deceive (dv) at the Arches National Park Class I area (one day) and at the Class II area of Dinosaur National Monument 

Table 4.2.7 and the text changed to reflect the appVisibility modeling for Clacourtesy to the responsibhave no visibility protect Law. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

(three days). (Additional days of reduced visibility were modeled for sources in the Glenwood Springs planning area.) One of the three days of cumulative visibility impact greater than 1.0 dv at Dinosaur National Monument resulted only when emissions from BLM sources were added to those of the inventory sources. In other words, the potential impact of the BLM sources tipped the balance and caused potential cumulative impacts to exceed 1.0 dv. Please revise the text accompanying table 4.2.7 to show that the screening analysis showed potential visibility impacts that disappeared in the refined analysis. 

WSA Supplement 

US EPA G-6 37 Section 3.2.2, Baseline Air Quality page 3-4: 

According to the first sentence of section 3.2.2 of the DEIS, the Vernal Planning Area is "designated as being in attainment" for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. (Section 4.2 begins with a similar sentence.)The area technically is "unclassifiable" in the case of PM10 and "unclassifiable/attainment"for other pollutants (see 40 CFR Part 81). Please revise this portion of the DEIS. Also, please revise "air-born" to "airborne.) 

This change has been RMP and final EIS. 

WSA Supplement 

US EPA G-6 38 Section 3.2.4.2, Criteria for Background 

Concentrations, pages 3-4 through 3-8 The DEIS presents different data on existing air quality (Table 3.2.1) and background concentrations for modeling purposes (Table 3.2.6). The two tables present data on the same 

The tables have changed of background data in thfinal EIS ( see table 3.2.6. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

pollutants from different air monitoring stations. In the case of PM10, Table 3.2.1 gives an annual concentration of 3.3 ug/m3, while Table 3.2.6 gives an annual concentration of 10 ug/m3. Table 3.2.1 gives an annual NO2 concentration of 41 ug/m3 (0.022 ppm) and Table 3.2.6 gives an annual NO2 concentration of 10 ug/m3 (0.005 ppm). Please revise the Final EIS to clarify the reasons for using different sources of data. 

WSA Supplement 

US EPA G-6 39 Section 3.2.4. Regional Air Emissions. Page 3.5

This section of the DEIS generally, describes the emissions inventory for the planning area. It covers point sources but does not mention such emissions as dust from construction activities and roadways, which were included in the modeling effort according to the Air Quality Assessment Report. Please revise this section to address fugitive dust emissions 

Fugitive dust emissions section 3.2.4. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Cultural Resources 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 CR21 Proposed cultural resources protections listed 

on page 2-43 indicate that oil and gas leasing would be "subject to timing and controlled surface use stipulations or no surface occupancy to protect cultural sites" for various areas within the VFO. No stipulations related to this are discussed in Appendix K. Please, clarify this proposal. How do timing restrictions protect cultural sites? How do these "stipulations" fit in with the Section 106 protection process, which involves the SHPO and discussions at the time of a proposal about mitigation methodologies? We are concerned that the BLM is prejudging cultural resource mitigation strategies through the use of unnecessarily restrictive stipulations. 

Appendix K in the Prevised regarding stipresources. Timing restrictions can acultural resources from by such things as incrfrom altered run-off parutted roads created conditions and increasefrom fugitive dust aconditions; however, thexpected to be limited. protection of cultural seasonal restrictions but restrictions under the cand no surface occupancUnder all alternatives, thand NSO would be applthere are specific cultura

been found through the Sbe eligible for the NationPlaces, and for which necessary, has been idthrough the Section 10Protective measures for part of standard lease tsurface-disturbing activitie

Draft IPAMS O-14 CR30 The DEIS states that no alternative benefits Section 4.3.2.13 in the P
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Cultural Resources 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS cultural resources. While the underlying 

assumption of this statement is that cultural resources are better off left alone, the section should also acknowledge that proper identification of cultural resource sites, data collection at those sites, and recording of sites that cannot be avoided, are all activities that would contribute to the body of scientific knowledge and understanding of the cultures that once occupied the vernal planning area. 

the following additional la"It should be noted, hoidentification of sites aimpacts through data rassociation with the Seland uses have the positithe body of knowledge behaviors and occupaPlanning Area." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 CR30 The DEIS states that no alternative benefits 

cultural resources. While the underlying assumption of this statement is that cultural resources are better off left alone, the section should also acknowledge that proper identification of cultural resource sites, data collection at those sites, and recording of sites that cannot be avoided, are all activities that would contribute to the body of scientific knowledge and understanding of the cultures that once occupied the vernal planning area. 

Section 4.3.2.13 in the Pthe following additional la"It should be noted, hoidentification of sites aimpacts through data rassociation with the Seland uses have the positithe body of knowledge behaviors and occupaPlanning Area." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 CR30 The DEIS states that no alternative benefits 

cultural resources. While the underlying assumption of this statement is that cultural resources are better off left alone, the section should also acknowledge that proper identification of cultural resource sites, data collection at those sites, and recording of sites that cannot be avoided, are all activities that would contribute to the body of scientific knowledge and understanding of the cultures 

Section 4.3.2.13 in the Pthe following additional la"It should be noted, hoidentification of sites aimpacts through data rassociation with the Seland uses have the positithe body of knowledge behaviors and occupa
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Cultural Resources 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

that once occupied the vernal planning area. Planning Area." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 CR52 

(RCR11) 

4.3.2.11 Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions of Cultural Resources The RMP incorrectly assumes that land use per se harms cultural resources. As written, the RMP treats wildlife and wild horse grazing as having no impact but livestock grazing as having an adverse impact. This is inaccurate and biased. 

Section 4.3.2.5 in the PRimpacts of trampling imSection 4.3.2.11 descimpacts from wildlife and 

in Section 4.3.2.11 has be"It should be noted, howterm adverse impacts might occur from wildlife Area. These impacts are trampling of archaeoloanimals such as wild hoThese potential impactcomparable to those dgrazing. Because of behavior, wild horses greater impact on cutrampling, as evidenced vegetation damage and areas where wild horses 

Table 5.13f. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Fire Management 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft Duchesne G-9 FM2 This summary fails to address the relative 

merits of the four alternatives based on 

Section 4.4.2.8 in the Prevised to summarize th
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13f. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Fire Management 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS County woodland and forest decisions. and forest manageme

management to each alte

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 FM2 This summary fails to address the relative 

merits of the four alternatives based on woodland and forest decisions. 

Section 4.4.2.8 in the Prevised to summarize thand forest managememanagement to each alte

Draft RMP/EIS 

Center for Native Ecosystems 

O-38 FM12 

(JFM3) 

Because of the extent of cheatgrass infestation in the Vernal FO, prescribed fire must be used with caution. Page 3-22 indicates "unplanned fire is not desired at all... in the desert shrub type where the risk of cheatgrass...is high after an area has been burned or treated". ...However this is one of the few places in the document that acknowledges that fire must be used with caution in light of the cheatgrass. On page 2-99, fire is considered to be a benefit to special status species. Page 4-232 makes a reference to cheatgrass but does not fully analyze how fire in areas with cheatgrass could affect special status species. This should be addressed in the final draft. 

Section 4.15.1.1 in the revised to clarify the impcheatgrass and how firstatus species. The fobeen inserted: "If prescribed fires were intended dense woodlawould have adverse impspecies by directly destrof special status plant scontributing to the risk owhich is higher following 

WSA Supplement 

US EPA G-6 48 Section 4.2.2.5.1.1, Direct Effects of 

Prescribed Fire and Criteria Pollutants, Page 4-10: Please correct the typographical error in identifying carbon dioxide (CO2) as a criteria pollutant and include carbon monoxide (CO) as a criteria pollutant that wildland fires and prescribed fires emit. 

The language in the amended to list the correcarbon monoxide. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah G-1 LG68 Statements about the impacts of various 

levels of grazing in the "Nine Mile Acquired Area" (page 2-105) in relation to scenic values appear to have no basis in fact, and are too general. The impacts are tied to grazing levels described as "elimination," "limited," and "unlimited," and postulate effects of "preserve," "partially preserve," and "diminish" scenic quality. What are these statements based on? Are the effects of grazing being tied to VRM classifications, and if so, where is the supporting analysis? Are the effects of grazing being tied to the BLM's riparian policy, and if so, where is the consideration of the mitigation measures? The State of Utah requests that the BLM improve on this analysis, and discuss real on-the-ground issues in light of the BLM's riparian policy, no on unsupported assumptions. 

Table 2.1.8 (LivestManagement) in the Proposed RMP column read as follows: "Livestock grazing could Mile Acquired Area if sucshort duration, and worecreation and/or riparian and is in accordance wAllotment Management the Price Field Office" 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 LG107 

(LG-S) 

(LG22) 

Section 4.6.2.4 does not seem to exist in the document and the effects of livestock grazing decisions on fire management definitely needs to be addressed 

Section 4.7.2.1.1 in the revised to remove the refand to impacts analysis management actions on stated in Section 4.4actions associated with lhave negligible impacts o

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 LG16 "Maintain or improve the total forage 

resource using techniques that are compatible with the use and development of other resources and which would meet or 

Table 2.1.6 (Forage – PRMP/FEIS (under the Goals and Objectives, read as follows: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

exceed Utah BLM Rangeland Health Standards." Add after "would": "make substantial progress and" The grazing rules recognize that making progress towards meeting rangeland health standards is compliance. 43 I.E. §4180.1. The RMP generally omits this key qualifier, which is problematic because in many cases it will take many years to "achieve" range health standards. 

"Maintain or improve the using techniques that aruse and development owhich would meet, maktoward, or exceed Utah BStandards." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 LG28 The Counties object to these limits on 

changes in livestock for several reasons. First, the grazing rules govern such changes and require monitoring data and other relevant information. 43 C.F.R. § 4130.3-2. Second, the limits on crucial deer range or wild horse areas are not within the scope of the rules. Similarly the limits on conversions and range improvements in WSAs are not required in the IMP. Strike or rewrite these provisions. 

The allocation of resourcof BLM lands is a funcPlanning process. conversions will be analybasis considering the criplan. This is an appropriaallocates uses of the management of the BLM and other relevant informanalyze the impacts of and make the decision aapprove the proposed coThe subsection entitled Class of Livestock, in the 2.1.8 (Livestock and Ghas been revised to read
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

"Prior to the authorizaconversions in WSAs, tnecessary rangeland imwould be assessed." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 LG30 Strike this bullet. Replace with 

"conversions in WSAs would be made when in compliance with H-8550-1 IMP Chapter 3 Guidelines for Specific Activities -D. The Interim Management Plan (IMP) is to direct activities within the WSAs until such time as congress acts on the designations." It is very specific in the analysis and provisions for such conversions and should not be replaced with language that is inconsistent with the IMP and that is vague. 

The subsection entitled Class of Livestock, in the 2.1.8 (Livestock and Ghas been revised to incochange. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 LG31 Strike this paragraph as it is not consistent 

with the WSA IMP. If not struck it should be provided that such designations should not be more restrictive than requirements of the IMP. 

The subsection entitled Class of Livestock, in the 2.1.8 (Livestock and Ghas deleted the bullet iteit consistent with the WSA 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Bill Robinson I-173 LG86 It should be noted that section 3.7 contains 

serious errors. In the first part of this section it states that "comprehensive grazing allotment information is summarized in Appendix N." Appendix N does not exist. The reader has no way of knowing which allotments make part of what areas. 

Appendix L in the PRMP/to correct grazing allotme
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Bill Robinson I-173 LG119 

(LGEE) 

The BLM in its DRMP/DEIS fails to acknowledge the significant benefits that properly managed sheep grazing can have on the condition of the range and environment. There is a sizeable amount scientific research that shows that sheep grazing can improve wildlife habitat (see Comment letter I-173for references). These studies need to be properly addressed before the BLM continues in its unjustified position regarding sheep grazing and then require a change from sheep to cattle grazing. 

The following references the PRMP/FEIS: Jeffery C. Mosely, PrescrEnhance Wildlife HabitaRangelands. "Sheep Repp. 79-91; K.M. Havstad, Sheep GrImprovement Tool, " She1994, pp. 72-78; B.E. Olson and J.R. Lacfor Controlling RangelResearch Journal," 1994See comment response L

Draft RMP/EIS 

Bill Robinson I-173 LG123 

(LG-II) 

The DRMP fails to identify what allotments are located within what area. Thus, a permittee has no way of knowing with any certainty what the DRMP is proposing will be the season of use for their permits. A permittee has no actual notice of exactly how their permit and the season of use will be affected. This eliminates the effectiveness of a comment period for the permittees to make substantive comments. The BLM should remedy this error and seek to address a season of use for each allotment instead of the macro-level treatment that is currently within the 

The addition of allotmnames in Figures 7 – 10 figures unreadable so a has been added to the Allotment Table). This allotments fall within warea. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

DRMP/DEIS. This would best serve the environment and allow for the best and proper management of the range of resources within the VPA. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County Water Conservancy District 

O-10 LG107 

(LG-S) 

(LG22) 

Section 4.6.2.4 does not seem to exist in the document and the effects of livestock grazing decisions on fire management definitely needs to be addressed 

Section 4.7.2.1.1 in the revised to remove the refand to impacts analysis management actions on stated in Section 4.4actions associated with lhave negligible impacts o

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County Water Conservancy District 

O-10 LG108 

(LG-T) 

DCWCD would question the assumption that management decisions for livestock and grazing, forage and wild horse resources would always result in a loss of vegetative cover and result in wind and water erosion. With proper management, livestock grazing can actually have beneficial effects. 

Section 4.13.1.3 in the revised to eliminate th"always" and to reflevegetation loss is possibl

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 LG82 

(RAT8) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "This alternative would provide resource protection for livestock grazing by maintaining forage utilization at proper use, while allowing low impact to rangeland health. However, there would be see a 3-4 percent anticipated loss of AUMs from mineral development and the least number of acres treated for improvements under rangeland improvement management 

Section 4.7.2.6.1 in the revised as suggested. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

actions." It is not accurate to state that livestock grazing harms rangeland health. The RMP provides little resource protection for grazing and leaves an operator vulnerable to conflicts with big game and wild horses, inability to manage or use riparian areas and water resources, while being subject to arbitrary standards that are applied without regard to the site. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 LG83 

(RAT9) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by the strikethrough deletions: "Alternative D-No Action would provide the least number of acres for fire treatment, and produce the greatest long-term adverse impacts to rangeland health. This alternative would provide for rangeland improvements greater than Alternative A, but less than Alternatives B and C." This paragraph contradicts most other portions of the DEIS. It is not clear why the BLM would conclude Alternative D would not benefit rangeland health when elsewhere it has the largest number of acres subject to vegetation treatment. Moreover, rangeland health standards are enforced by rule and apply to Alternative D. The statement is inaccurate. 

Section 4.7.2.6.4 in the revised as suggested. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 LG220 

(RLG18) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "Use would be allowed in both quantity and timing that would not result in a downward shift in rangeland health and/or production. BLM would work cooperatively to affect effect a grazing strategy specific to a grazing permittee's individual grazing allotment(s), commit to fund and implement appropriate range improvements; and make changes to the grazing authorizations as appropriate within the limits of the existing permit and in accordance with the grazing regulations. In the case of drought, the last recourse for BLM would be to temporarily close the range, or portions of it, to livestock grazing." 

The Fire, Drought, ansubsection of Table 2.1(Management Common the PRMP/FEISPRMP/Fto read as follows: "Use would be allowed timing that would not resin rangeland health. cooperatively to affect specific to a grazing grazing allotment(s), cimplement appropriate and make changes to the as appropriate within the permit and in accordaregulations. In the case recourse for BLM would the range, or portions of i

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 LG239 

(RLG38) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "Restore, maintain and/or improve rangeland conditions and productivity to maintain, meet or make substantial progress towards meeting rangeland health standards while meeting forage obligations in grazing permits and grazing preference decisions, as well as wildlife and wild horse habitat. while providing for its use and development. Maintain, improve, and/or restore habitat for 

Table 2.1.12 (Rangeland PRMP/FEISPRMP/FEIS read as follows: Restore, maintain and/oconditions and productivimake substantial progrrangeland health stanforage obligations in grazing preference decishabitat. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

wildlife; provide optimum forage for livestock; maintain healthy watersheds and vegetation communities; and promote sustained yield and multiple use." The change would reflect both the rules and FLPMA policies that livestock grazing is a principal multiple use to be protected. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 LG250

A (-

LG49) 

RE: Alternative A—Delete the following statement: "..phenology-based use system would have minimal impacts on rangeland health. 137,838 AUMs allocated to livestock, a 5.7% AUM reduction compared to alternative D." The RMP fails to document or justify the livestock grazing reduction. 

Table 2.2.7 (Livestock PRMP/FEIS for Alternativas follows: "Phenology-based use positive impacts on rangeThe reduction is based oof AUMs from the TNC, astated in Table 2.1.6 (FoNo other reductions are p

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 LG251 

(RLG50) 

RE: Alternative A—Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "It is projected that about Rangeland improvements would treat 34,640 acres of forage rangeland would be treated, build 69 miles of fence, construct 812 guzzlers/reservoirs, and develop 51 spring/wells for long term beneficial impacts on livestock and wildlife/ wild horse grazing." 

The BLM declines to wording changes for a including but not limited toThe BLM does not find tnecessary or appropriateThe suggested wordinsubstantively contribute discussion. The commenter did not why the suggested changthe current data and analThe suggested change 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

The acres of rangeland are not equal to forage. The discussion is confusing, since it refers to range improvements in terms of acres and then refers to structures, which are also range improvements. In addition, these projected projects should not be considered a ceiling. Finally the RMP never explains the reasons for reducing both range improvements and vegetation treatment from what is planned for Alternative D or the Current Direction and Alternative A. 

opinions or preferences. The suggested change the adequacy or accuracy Table 2.2.7 (Livestock PRMP/FEIS has been the suggested change for 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 LG276 

(RLG75) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "Rangeland improvements that include vegetation treatments and fencing may would have short-term adverse impacts on vegetation caused by construction, surface disturbances, but would have long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation by improving distribution of grazing animals, restricting livestock, restoring natural vegetation communities, and eliminating weeds. Guzzlers and reservoir development would tend to have long-term adverse impacts on vegetation by concentrating livestock and attracting wildlife and wild horses in those areas, with subsequent disturbance and degradation of vegetation communities. These effects are mitigated in 

Section 4.16.2.7.4 in the revised to read as follows"Rangeland improvemvegetation treatments anshort-term adverse imcaused by construction, term beneficial impactimproving distribution restoring natural vegetaeliminating weeds. Gudevelopment would tenadverse impacts on vegelivestock and attracting win those areas, with suand degradation of veget
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

AMPs or grazing plans." Range improvements do not "restrict livestock" as written but facilitate proper grazing by encouraging livestock to water and graze outside of riparian areas. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 LG283 Add the following statement: 

Grazing is an important economic and cultural resource and the BLM goal is to maintain and enhance the industry by retaining full historic grazing preference through management prescriptions and forage for wildlife and wild horses. 

Table 2.1.8 (LivestManagement) in the Phas been changed to rea"Achieve appropriate utillivestock and wildlife prescriptions and adminis

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 LG290 Modify the following statement as indicated 

by bolded additions: "Activities associated with the exploration and development of mineral resources would have impacts on livestock grazing that would result in: 1) the temporary loss of vegetation and/or the loss of land available for grazing; 2) the possible disruption of livestock practices; and 3) the possible loss of grazing capacity due to changes in land management. These are minor, unless well densities are higher than projected, and are routinely mitigated. Reclamation can result in more palatable forage Livestock grazing and the development of oil and gas and coal bed methane, deposits are assumed to be 

Section 4.7.2.3 in the Prevised to read as follows"Activities associated witdevelopment of mineral impacts on livestock grain: 1) the temporary losthe loss of land availabpossible disruption of livethe possible loss of grachanges in land managemunless well densities are and are routinely mitigaresult in more palatagrazing and the developmcoal bed natural gas, debe generally compatible 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

generally compatible uses in most cases, as exploration activity would be short-term and extraction activities and impacts are expected to have relatively small footprints for equipment and machinery. Development of phosphate, Gilsonite, tar sands, and oil shale resources would result in the longterm removal of lands from grazing activity to a greater extent than the above resource extraction processes. Presently, it does not appear that there is a viable market for tar sands or oil shale. In general, livestock grazing on rangeland would be expected to continue at some level during the development of oil and gas, and coal bed resources, which mitigates displacement." 

exploration activity wouextraction activities and imhave relatively small foand machinery. DeveloGilsonite, tar sands, anwould result in the long-from grazing activity to a above resource extrageneral, livestock grazinbe expected to continue the development of oil aresources, which mitigate

Draft RMP/EIS 

Center for Native Ecosystems 

O-38 LG180 

(JLG-7)

Allowing grazing to threaten special status species under all of the alternatives is irresponsible and violates NEPA. The Grazing in River Corridors section on page 2-19 is completely vague and non-committal about how grazing in this most potentially damaging area will be addressed. Page 2-32 presents two yellow-billed cuckoo prescriptions that are completely contradictory: "Fence riparian areas to reduce or eliminate grazing pressure on young trees, especially willow and cottonwood;" and "Apply rotation grazing or consider eliminating hot-season grazing in riparian areas to allow young trees to become established." Which is it, will grazing be allowed or not in riparian areas? 

Additional management riparian corridors can be (Riparian Resources) in table provides infmanagement prescriptiongrazing within riparian coThe prescriptions recuckoo are not contradicwould be implemented basis, applying the appropriate to the situcreates its own levedisturbance, may be lesituations that rotation restrictions, which are 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

BLM must seriously consider impacts of grazing on each special status species and provide real mitigation. 

disturbance. The analysis of anticipatmanagement decisions provided in Sections 4Anticipated mitigation fostatus species from all aSection 4.15.3. Section 4.15.3 in the Prevised to add additional and other activities for spSection 4.15.3. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ranges West O-43 LG149 

(ALG16) 

What is the definition of the terms phenology, billed use, adjudicated and permitted as used in this table? These terms are used again on page 2-86, Table 2.5, and 4-166 to specify available livestock AUMs. There apparently is no explanation in this draft RMP (that I could find) to discuss these so-called "systems" for allocating livestock forage. 

The terms are used in RMP as simple headings by alternative, for the actions related to livestocof use that are ou"Phenology" refers to livestock grazing based requirements of forage/vrefers to management permittees are actually phenology. "Adjudicated" of livestock grazing baadjudication of seasons refers to the managemeseasons of use as outlipermits. Clarification of added as a footnote to and Grazing Managemen
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ranges West O-43 LG156

A 

(ALG23) 

The differences in wording regarding key species vs. woody species are significant and could lead to very troublesome interpretations by staff. 

Table 2.1.6 (Riparian PRMP/FEIS and SectioPRMP have been rediscrepancy between wspecies. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ranges West O-43 LG161 

(ALG28) 

The analysis of impacts to soil and water and vegetation resources indicates that the AUM allocation (Alt A) and the grazing use limits of 30% "riparian vegetation" would adversely impact soils and vegetation. Yet on page 2-108 the AUM allocations and the "30% riparian vegetation" use limit would be 

beneficial to habitat and wildlife resources. These are contradictory conclusions and illogical. Grazing under Alternative A is subject to Rangeland Health Standards which assures healthy riparian and upland habitat or soils and vegetation. 

Table 2.2.14 (Soils and the PRMP/FEIS has beedescribe the impacts (30more beneficial than the The Preferred Alternative read as follows: "30% forage utilization obenefit soils through redand trampling and subseq

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ranges West O-43 LG164 

(ALG31) 

The last sentence of this paragraph does not compute: "Minor indirect impacts as a result of implementation of Alternative A would occur to the ranching community but not individual ranchers due to the reduction in AUMs". In the 5th paragraph, last sentence, it states just the opposite. 

Section 4.7.2.2.1 in the revised to clarify the analThe point of the statemthe reduction in AUMs wpermit holders and would one holder. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ranges West O-43 LG166 

(ALG33) 

This is an inappropriate assumption regarding Alternative C. Rangeland health standards apply equally to all alternatives as per the CFRs and BLM policy. 

Section 4.7.2.2.3 in the revised to delete the sta"...rangeland health woul

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ranges West O-43 LG167 

(ALGContradictory statements in 2nd paragraph, next to last sentence and 3rd paragraph, Section 4.7.2.6.3 in the 

revised to correct the c
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Grazing and Livestock 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

34) last sentence. Either Alternative D will 

maintain rangeland health or it won't. 

as suggested 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ranges West O-43 LG171 

(ALG39) 

1st paragraph, last sentence- Biased statement that assumes any foraging subjects soils to erosion. No science base to this statement. Rangeland ecosystems evolved with large animal grazing and animal foraging on vegetation is a natural and fundamental biological process. Grazing is functionally positive or negative to vegetation depending on many things such as intensity and timing. 

Section 4.13.1.3 in the revised to clarify that forato impact soils but that it 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ranges West O-43 LG172 

(ALG40) 

This paragraph is eco-bio gobbledygook with only a selective-science basis. Grazing is a fundamental biologic process at the base of the natural food chain. It is not something man invented to assault nature. Herbivory is functional to plants in many ways that the author of this paragraph apparently never noticed, such as enhanced seed germination and transport, planting, fertilizing, tillering and subsequent increase in reproductive stalks. The effects of grazing can range from positive to negative depending on amount, timing, species of plant and the grazing animal, etc. The statement in this paragraph is, at best, unprofessional and more likely dangerous. 

 Section 4.15.1.2 in the modified for clarity. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13h. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Hazardous Materials 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 HZ2 The RMP should address hazardous materials 

issues that may arise due to proposed oil, gas, and mineral development. Management of waste water withdrawn to recover methane resources should also be addressed. No waste waters should be discharged until a UPDES permit is obtained. Such discharges must not exceed 1200 mg/l TDS under current rules. However, salinity in the Colorado river would be much improved if no waters exceeding 300 mg/l TDS were discharged. Such waters should also be managed to prevent thermal loading to surface waters. No waters which exceed 270C, nor which raise the temperature of the receiving water body 40C or more, shall be discharged to a warm water fishery. No waters which exceed 200C nor which raise the temperature of the water body 20C or more shall be discharged to a cold water fishery. 

The discussion of the phazardous materials assand energy developmeSection 4.5 of the PRMP/Language acknowledghazardous nature of wasmethane recovery operato the section. As described in Section to EPA policy regarding which includes wastewateAny permit requestor worequirement of either thappropriate, in order to bproposed language srequirements is not nrequirements may changthe permit requirements State of Utah requiremprimacy over a large arethis program, not the Stat

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 HZ4 

(RHZ-1) 

We suggest the following revisions to this paragraph "Where appropriate, the RMP would address will identify hazardous materials issues that are regulated by the state but which may arise due to proposed oil, gas, and mineral development." 

Section 1.7.4 of the Prevised as follows: "Where appropriate, the identify hazardous matearise due to proposed development." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13h. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Hazardous Materials 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Table 5.13i. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Lands and Realty 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 LR1 "No lands acquired through land tenure 

adjustments would be classified or opened for agricultural entry or leasing in the RMP planning area." At a minimum, Duchesne County would request the addition of the bolded phrase into this sentence. However, Duchesne County questions whether such restrictions should be imposed across the board. 

The suggested wording cin Table 2.1.7 (Lands anof the PRMP/FEIS under Land Tenure Adjustments 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 LR6 In the last sentence, the stated acreage of 

35,462 does not match the acreage shown on Figure 6, which states 54,031 acres. There should be a table developed which lists these tracts by their location as it is not possible to determine from the map which tracts these are. 

Table 2.1.7 (Lands and Rthe PRMP/FEIS under tDisposals has been be acreage stated on Figurland suitable for disposal time a specific dispoproposed, and the potedisposal or exchange wi

site-specific NEPA proces

Draft UBAOG G-22 LR7 Non-federal lands to be acquired through both Table 2.1.7 (Lands and R
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13i. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Lands and Realty 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS Bureau-and public-initiated exchanges must 

have at least one of the following characteristics: Add after "exchanges must": "be in the public interest and have at least one of the following characteristics" FLPMA does not recognize efficiency as a criterion for land acquisition; instead it must be in the public interest. 

the PRMP/FEIS under tExchanges/Acquisitions suggested. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 

G-26 LR14 The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation (Ute Tribe) has previously informed the Vernal Office of the BLM of the need to have the RMP and EIS for the Vernal Field Office discuss the law relating to access to the surface estate of the Ute Tribe. Despite these previous requests, the RMP is completely silent concerning surface access to tribal lands. The Ute Tribe requires acknowledgements of its rights as a surface owner within the area of the RMP. Failure to set forth these rights within the text of the RMP will render the document incomplete and inadequate. 

Acreages under jurisdictiincluded in Table 1.1; hbeen added to Section 1clarifying the role of the surface estate within the through the RMP. See comment response L

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 

G-30 LR37 The Ute Tribe is a Cooperating Agency in the 

revision of the RMP. Despite this status, the Ute Tribe does not believe that its concerns about land use affecting tribal lands have been addressed in the RMP process. As the owner or administrator of much of the surface area within 

The following language Section 1.4.1 of the PRM"Decisions and actions apply to BLM lands. In lands, such as lands wi
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13i. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Lands and Realty 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

the planning area, the Ute Tribe is entitled to consent to any rights-of-way or other surface uses of these lands. The Tribe is also interested in assuring the proper and efficient development of tribal minerals, while protecting the interests of the Tribe and its members. While BLM officials have been supportive of the Tribe's concerns in private conversations, the RMP does not include any discussion of those concerns, or analysis of how best to address those concerns. The Ute Tribe is frankly worried that the RMP process will be used to justify land development processes that are inconsistent with the special status of tribal lands. The Ute Tribe again requests that the RMP include a clear acknowledgement of the rights of the Ute Tribe to manage access to tribal lands, and a discussion of the process by which the Ute Tribe and the BLM will cooperate in the management of their respective land bases. 

that are split between the Ouray Indian Tribe, actionmust be coordinated wiUndertakings conducted partly administered by ththe laws, regulations, conthe relevant land managlandowner." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

IPAMS O-14 LR13 

(LLR-1) 

(JLR-5) 

Lands managed by the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources have also not been accurately portrayed within Figure 1 (Land Ownership) of the RMP. The School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) website contains an accurate map of these lands within the planning area. Alternatively, a map can be obtained directly from the Division. These lands need to be accurately portrayed because of development restrictions inherent to them. 

Figure 1 has been updaof Utah's land ownership obtained from the SITLA 

Draft Lexco O-24 LR13 Lands managed by the State of Utah Division of Figure 1 has been upda
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13i. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Lands and Realty 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS (LLR-1) 

(JLR-5) 

Wildlife Resources have also not been accurately portrayed within Figure 1 (Land Ownership) of the RMP. The School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) website contains an accurate map of these lands within the planning area. Alternatively, a map can be obtained directly from the Division. These lands need to be accurately portrayed because of development restrictions inherent to them. 

of Utah's land ownership obtained from the SITLA 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 LR13 

(LLR-1) 

(JLR-5) 

Lands managed by the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources have also not been accurately portrayed within Figure 1 (Land Ownership) of the RMP. The School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) website contains an accurate map of these lands within the planning area. Alternatively, a map can be obtained directly from the Division. These lands need to be accurately portrayed because of development restrictions inherent to them. 

Figure 1 has been updaof Utah's land ownership obtained from the SITLA 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Enduring Resources 

O-40 LR18 

(JLR-1) 

DEIS says" This RMP recognizes existing right of way corridors...and would designate additional corridors subject to physical barriers and sensitive resource values." What are "sensitive resource values"? 

Sensitive resource valuespecies, cultural and palesensitive soils, riparian VRM classification, etc. Language has been a(Lands and Realty MPRMP/FEIS under the Transportation/Utility Cofollows: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13i. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Lands and Realty 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

"Sensitive resource valuare not limited to, threatspecies habitat, culturaresources, sensitive soilspossessing high scenic critical environmental con

Table 5.13j. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals and Energy 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 ME24 It is impossible to find a corresponding 

classification (combined hydrocarbon areas) on the maps. What are combined hydrocarbon areas; are they the combined areas set forth in figures 11-14? Are they oil shale and tar sands? Do they include oil and gas and coal bed methane? The acreage figures on page 2-7 for open standard lease, open controlled surface and open NSO, don't reconcile with the combination of the other numbers on page 2-7 for the other minerals. In short, the whole Minerals section is confusing when it comes to clear classification of mineral classes' types and when it comes to acreage figures. 

Figures 15-18 in the Prevised to correct the ashow Special Tar Sand ACombined Hydrocarbon designated as Special Tare not shown in Figures be implied from leasing natural gas is considereand gas estate. All decisions related to oleasing in this PRMP/FEIthe ongoing PEIS for Oil Leasing. For more infSection 1.10.9. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13j. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals and Energy 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 ME26 This paragraph fails to mention that these 

resources are located in an EPCA focus area. 

Section 3.8.1.1.1 in the revised mineral and elocated in the EPCA focu

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 ME37 Here it states "operators have 

demonstrated a willingness to comply with spatial and temporal restrictions." Strike this sentence as it is not true. The restrictions have been a point of contention since they were imposed and throughout the RMP process. Such acceptance does not equal an analysis of impacts such as affect on RFD and socioeconomics. 

Section 4.8.2.7 in the Prevised to read as follows"Operators have complied 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 ME39 When reviewing protection of raptors in 

the guidelines, BMP, Matrix, Appendix K, and here, the ability to modify Raptor Guidelines and Practices is confusing. In Appendix K, modifications are not permitted. Perhaps some wordsmithing would help, as it appears the word modification used in Appendix K stipulation descriptions are the same as discussed here. 

All sections in the PRraptors have been revised 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 

G-26 ME63 Page 3-39 identifies six RFD areas within 

the VPA that were evaluated for potential 

energy resources. It should be noted in the RMP/EIS that the Uintah & Ouray Indian Reservation is located in portions of the East and West Tavaputs Plateau, Monument Butte-Red Wash, AltamontBluebell, and Tabiona-Ashley Valley RFD areas. Oil and gas, CBNG, tar sands, and 

Section 1.4.1 in the Prevised to read as follows "Decisions and actions apply to BLM lands. In lands, such as lands withat are split between the Ouray Indian Tribe, action
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13j. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals and Energy 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

mineral materials, such as sand gravel and building stone are potentially present within Reservation boundaries. The RMP/EIS should specify that all Tribal laws, regulations, conditions, and stipulations, would apply to energy and mineral resources, if operations are conducted on tribal land within the VPA. 

must be coordinated wiUndertakings conducted partly administered by ththe laws, regulations, conthe relevant land managlandowner." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 

G-26 ME65 Page 4-98 states that the impacts of 

leasing of minerals would be beneficial to the Ute Tribe, including rentals or fees from the use of surface permits or other rights-of-way. However, it does not state that there would also be adverse impacts, including those to cultural resources, e.g. sacred sites, medicinal plants, and ancestral hunting grounds. 

Section 4.8 in the PRMP/to add a footnote explaiminerals leasing are resource chapters as par

WSA Supplement 

Ute TribeEnergy & Minerals Department 

G-172 3 As discussed in Section 4.21.2.3 - Impacts 

of Lands and Realty Management Decisions on Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (see pg. 4-153), under Alternative E, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as ROW exclusion areas.Exclusion from future ROW development would protect the natural character of the landscape of all the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The Tribe recognizes that the BLM is encouraged to preserve land in its natural condition. The Tribe also recognizes that a 

The BLM does provide foall non-BLM managealternatives. Information w2, Lands and Realty, Maall action alternatives, thaaccess to non-BLM maprovided including acroavoidance and exclusion a
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13j. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals and Energy 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

parcel of land cannot be preserved in its natural character and mined at the same time. However, case law supports the Tribe's claimed right of access. In fact, without access the Tribe could not develop its minerals in any fashion and they would become economically ineffectual. Based upon this information, the Tribe requests that the BLM consider adding the following information to the Vernal Supplemental RMP.  Where necessary, the BLM would grant reasonable access across Federal lands with wilderness characteristics to provide for development of adjacent Tribal lands and minerals.  Where necessary, the BLM would grant reasonable access to Federal lands with wilderness characteristics to provide for development of Tribal/Indian Allotted minerals, which are held in split estate (i.e., Tribal minerals and Federal surface with wilderness characteristics areas). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13k. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Leasable 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

WSA Supplement 

Utah State Office of Education, School Land Trust 

G-169 7 We are concerned about the cutting off of 

access and how it devalues in-held school land. For the BLM not to develop oil & gas in its sections also makes it impractical for development to occur on ours, which amounts to an unconstitutional taking. This is true where there are known resourcse, and may become true for areas in which no drilling has occurred. 

Alternative E would 

directly harm us inthis area because "about 187,000 acres of State of Utah lands could be rendered uneconomic to lease because they would be surrounded by unleaseable federal lands." (4-31) This includes about 19,200 acres with coal resources that are currently unleased, which would be eliminated from further consideration for coal leasing. If the BLM decides that large areas of its land are off limits for drilling, that can effectively prevent feasible drilling on our in-held sections, amounting to a taking of the mineral value of our subsurface resources. The BLM should consider whether it will allow directional drilling from leases on school sections to access oil and gas lands on BLM proproty, with no surface occupancy of the BLM property. The BLM has stated "Oil and gas development in 

The BLM does provide foall SITLA lands under all awill be added to Chapter Management Common to that states that reasonabwould be provided includwithin avoidance and excof-way as specified by thv. Andrus, 10/1/79). The BLM will consider directional drilling from leato access oil and gas landup to the lease holder to dof directional drilling projethe resource that coudependent upon a numbeof the subsurface, capequipment, skill level economics of directional v
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13k. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Leasable 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

these areas would require directional drilling to extract hyrdrocarbon resources."(4-48). Analysis should be made onhow feasible this would be, and what proportion of the resources could be reached in this way. 

Table 5.13l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Oil and Gas 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 ME31 The analysis concludes that Alternative C would 

reduce long-term adverse impacts on the Oil, Gas and CBNG resources "by ensuring that the resource was available to support a viable, long-term mineral industry." This conclusion is based on the assumption that minerals that cannot be used today could be used in the future. However, there is no guarantee that lands deemed unsuitable for such use under Alternative C today will ever be made available for future resource extraction, that other sources of energy may be developed and the National immediate energy need. 

Section 4.8.2.1.3.1 in the revised to delete the state

Draft Duchesne G-9 ME42 The statement that none of the alternatives 

would result in more than a 0.4% net decrease 

Sections 4.8.3 and 4.8
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Oil and Gas 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS County in the number of predicted oil and gas wells is 

deceiving. Based on the information in Tables 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4 and 4.8.5, Alternatives A, B and C all provide more opportunity for oil and gas well drilling than Alternative D. However, the difference between Alternatives B and C is about 2.5%. 

have been revised to read"Under all action alternanet increase in the numband CBNG wells as comalternative." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

USFS—Ashley National Forest 

G-19 GC88 

(LGC-3) 

Clarify what NEPA analysis would occur for those areas considered available for oil and gas leasing. Will it be site-specific? 

Section 4.8.1.2 in the Padditional NEPA analylocatable minerals. Similadded to Section 4.8.1.1 NEPA analysis requiredevelopment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 ME17 1st sentence Insert between "applied to leases" 

and "in the form" "issued after the date of this RMP" 2nd sentence strike "generally reflect the minimum requirements" and replace with "are necessary to protect the resource and would contain provisions/criteria to allow for waiver and modification if warranted." 

Section 2.4.8.2.1 in the revised to read as follows"Mitigation of oil and gunder the plan and appafter the record of decstipulations would adheformat. Stipulations gminimum requirements nminimize the impacts to tcontain provisions/criteriand modification if warran

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 ME31 The analysis concludes that Alternative C would 

reduce long-term adverse impacts on the Oil, Gas and CBNG resources "by ensuring that the resource was available to support a viable, long-term mineral industry." This conclusion is based on the assumption that minerals that cannot be used today could be used in the 

Section 4.8.2.1.3.1 in the revised to delete the state
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Oil and Gas 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

future. However, there is no guarantee that lands deemed unsuitable for such use under Alternative C today will ever be made available for future resource extraction, that other sources of energy may be developed and the National immediate energy need. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 ME42 The statement that none of the alternatives 

would result in more than a 0.4% net decrease in the number of predicted oil and gas wells is deceiving. Based on the information in Tables 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4 and 4.8.5, Alternatives A, B and C all provide more opportunity for oil and gas well drilling than Alternative D. However, the difference between Alternatives B and C is about 2.5%. 

Sections 4.8.3 and 4.8have been revised to read"Under all action alternanet increase in the numband CBNG wells as comalternative." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 ME44 This section implies that water used for drilling 

may impact the species. Given the number of wells proposed in the RFD to be drilled each year, the amount needed would be approximately 181 acre feet each year. As this water is taken from various locations throughout the VPA as well as the fee and Indian lands, the impact would be small and that fact should be listed here. 

Section 4.15.1.3 in the revised to show the acre-The commenter does ncalculated 181 acre- estimates that approximawater per well is needtrends. With an estanticipated during the life total 4,897 acre -feet of w

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 GC23 It should be made clear in the Record Of 

Decision (ROD) and the final RMP that the total number of wells cited in reasonable foreseeable development do not represent a ceiling or cap on the number of wells that can be drilled in the VRA during the life of the plan. The ROD and RMP should state that the RFD well total were 

Additional text has been the PRMP/FEIS to descras a general metric usimpact and does not repnumber of wells that caVPA during the life of th
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Oil and Gas 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

developed for the purpose of assessing impacts for decision making and that the total number of wells will be determined by NEPA analysis of field development projects of possible RMP revisions. This clarification is supported by case law. 

text is as follows: "It should be noted thawells cited in the RFD rupper limits on the numbe drilled in the VPA durThe RFD well totals wepurposes of assessing making. The total numbebe determined through analysis of field developm

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 ME55 The DEIS/RMP fails to properly disclose the 

impacts of the proposed management prescriptions on mineral development. It appears that Table 5.1 on 5-3 and Table 4.8.1 on page 4-100 was an attempt to disclose these impacts as at 4.8.2.1.1.1 the text presents these changes form Alternative D, the no action alternative. These figures are simply a tabulation of acres assigned to each leasing category and not a disclosure of impacts required in IM 2004-089 on FRD. In the Chapter 4 analysis it is the only data presented to show impacts on oil and gas development with respect to the loss of wells and acreage for future development. IM 2004-089 requires the creation of a baseline of well numbers and acres that would be developed if such development were governed by BLMs standard lease form. As management prescriptions are proposed the baseline is to be 

Section 4.8 (Minerals andiscusses the effects of c

Special Status Speciesdecisions on mineral devhas been revised to discDesignations on mineral dChapter 4.12 Socioecoloss or gain of revenudevelopment by alternativThe reduction of wells imprescriptions can be (Alternative A), 4.8.3 (Alternative C), 4.8.5 (Al(Alternative E). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Oil and Gas 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

reduced by the number of well and acres affected. The result of this analysis is a clear disclosure of the impact of proposed management restrictions on oil and gas development. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Questar O-12 ME42 The statement that none of the alternatives 

would result in more than a 0.4% net decrease in the number of predicted oil and gas wells is deceiving. Based on the information in Tables 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4 and 4.8.5, Alternatives A, B and C all provide more opportunity for oil and gas well drilling than Alternative D. However, the difference between Alternatives B and C is about 2.5%. 

Sections 4.8.3 and 4.8have been revised to read"Under all action alternanet increase in the numband CBNG wells as comalternative." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

IPAMS O-14 ME42 The statement that none of the alternatives 

would result in more than a 0.4% net decrease in the number of predicted oil and gas wells is deceiving. Based on the information in Tables 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4 and 4.8.5, Alternatives A, B and C all provide more opportunity for oil and gas well drilling than Alternative D. However, the difference between Alternatives B and C is about 2.5%. 

Sections 4.8.3 and 4.8have been revised to read"Under all action alternanet increase in the numband CBNG wells as comalternative." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

IPAMS O-14 ME54 Appendices A and H must be rewritten; and, 

rather than instituting blanket stipulations, we recommend that BLM commit to developing stipulations (as well as the associated exception, waiver, and modification) for surfacedisturbing activities resulting from oil and gas operations in cooperation with the oil and gas industry, other agencies, and other key stakeholders. 

Appendices A and H in been updated to reflect Their Associated Habitats 096. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Oil and Gas 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

WSA Supplement 

EOG Resources, Inc. 

B-144 13 EOG's non-federal lease holdings in the Kings 

Canyon area include Section 32, T10S-R19E and Section 32, T11S-R19E, both of which are partially bordered by areas determined by the BLM to exhibit wilderness characteristics. 

Access 

to each of these sections through areas not determined to have wilderness character may not be possible because of topographic features that preclude road construction or the nearby boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation boundary.  Implementation of the restrictions associated with Alternative E could unreasonably restrict EOG from accessing the non-federal leases described above, and/or possibly other nonfederal leases that lie within the administrative boundary of the Vernal FO. The proposed restrictions include precluding the issuance of rights-of ways (ROWs) in areas determined to have wilderness characteristics. BLM cannot preclude EOG's right of access to its leases.  The BLM must not indirectly disallow to its leases by the imposition of a designation that would exclude the issuance of ROWs. By possibly disallowing access to valid leases, the BLM selection of Alternative E would constitute an indirect taking and breach of EOG's lease terms. 

The BLM does provide foall SITLA lands under all awill be added to ChapteManagement Common to that states that reasonabwould be provided includwithin avoidance and excof-way as specified by thv. Andrus, 10/1/79). (From Universal CommenThe BLM's authority foprotect or enhance wildederived directly from FLU.S.C. §1712). This section of BLM's orSecretary of the Interiopublic lands for multiple uNothing in this section coauthority to manage la"achieve integrated conbiological, economic, a(FLPMA, Section 20§1712(c)(2))) Further, FLPthe term "multiple use" mis appropriate for every athat the Secretary can "muse of the land for some oor related services over provide sufficient latitude fin use. . . ." (FLPMA, Se
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Oil and Gas 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

§1702(c))) The FLPMA Secretary of the Interior to as a mechanism for alincluding wilderness chamongst the various resprovides uses for current aThe BLM has long acknSection 603 (43 U.S.C. §time wilderness review hinventory of public lands iSection 201 (43 U.S.C. 2006, the Utah District CBLM retained authority determined to have wildea manner substantially swhich such lands are proteThe BLM is aware that tlaws relevant to aspmanagement that are independent of, Federal bound by Federal law. 

As 

may be inconsistenciereconciled. The FLPMA reuse plans be consistent plans "to the extent praclocal plans conflict with Fan inconsistency that caBLM will identify theFEIS/PRMP so that tgovernments have a comthe impacts of the PRMmanagement options. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals – Oil and Gas 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 14 Page 4-43, Section 4.8.2.8.2, management under 

Alternative E predicts a total of 6,117 oil, gas and CBNG wells, which appears in Table 4.12.1.However, this section (and Section 4.10.2.4.5) indicates that this is a 4% increase compared to 5,856 wells under Alternative D. 

Actually, Table 

4.12.1 shows a predicted 6,331 wells under Alternative D, making Alternative E management result in a decrease of 214 wells or a 3.4% decrease (see Table 4.12.1). It is Duchesne County's position that such a decrease would violate the county land-use plan and EPCA. 

Table 4.12.1 in the DRMP number of well potential bwill be corrected to reflect Alternatives A, B, C, and well potential than Alteproposed availability of lanExtension for leasing, whAlternative D. 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 20 Pages 4-66, 4-67, Section 4.12.3.2.5: The 

analysis in this Section 4.13.2.4.5 (Page 4-73) seems to be flawed in that it presumes Alternative E would increase the number of oil, gas and CBNG wells when compared to Alternative D, when actually Alternative E would result in 214 fewer wells according to Table 4.12.1 (6,331 wells in Alternative D versus 6,117 under Alternative E). 

See comment response 1

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 45 Pages 4-166 to Page 4-178, Table 4.21.1:

Change heading "Oil & as Development Potential" to "Oil & Gas Development Potential". 

The FEIS will reflect this c
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Other 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

USFS—Ashley National Forest 

G-19 GC89 

(LCG-4) 

Why are Wilderness and SSS subheadings of Soil and Water? These would be better relocated in separate sections so they can be readily found. 

Table 2.1.20 (Special DeStudy Areas) has been the PRMP/FEIS. Table 2.1.21 (Special Stagiven its own table in the 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 GC13 Add "Duchesne County Public Land 

Implementation Plan." 

Section 1.10 in the PRMPto include the addition as 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 GC15 We have previously asked that a 

description of surface-disturbing activities be included in the glossary. 

The glossary in the Prevised to include a disturbance activities." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 GC25 The meaning of the statement "to the 

extent that BLM has the authority to do so" needs to be clarified. 

Section 3.14.3.2 in the revised to add language the authority bestowed FLPMA, the Wild and SBLM policy. This statemacknowledge that the BLlands through which thscenic rivers pass arestrictions on other lamanagers. The additiona'It is BLM policy (8351 Mmanage eligible segmenflowing nature, outstvalues, and tentative extent that BLM has ththrough FLPMA, the WAct, and BLM policy." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

PacifiCorp O-7 GC132 

(NAT3) 

The VFO should conduct a review of the Western Regional Corridor Planning Partnership Priority Corridors (dated July 

The following language Section 1.4.1 of the PRM
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Other 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

2003) and include in the final RMP a discussion of any proposed corridors under Alternatives A, B, C, and D. The final RMP should also note that designated corridors apply only to BLM lands and do not include those portions that cross state and private lands. 

"Decisions and actions apply to BLM lands. In lands, such as lands withat are split between the Ouray Indian Tribe, actionmust be coordinated wiUndertakings conducted partly administered by ththe laws, regulations, conthe relevant land managlandowner." Presently, BLM is doing a which when complete, wthere are inconsistencies 

Draft RMP/EIS 

EOG Resources 

O-17 GC57 

(GC-N) 

The statements in Appendix K prior to the tabular presentation conflict with the actual approach to defining exceptions, modifications and waivers for a number of resource concerns listed in the table. The possibility for exception, modification, and waiver is defined as "none" for a number of resources. This arbitrary designation of "none" indicates a lack of flexibility which will likely result in less production of essential oil and gas supplies. 

Appendix K has beeidentified surface stPRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 GC128 

(R-GC6) 

The draft RMP and DEIS fail to define or properly use a number of key terms including "surface-disturbing activities" or "surface disturbance," "habitat fragmentation," and "habitat loss." These 

See comment responsurface-disturbing activitieSee comment respons
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Other 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

terms are used throughout the RMP and appear to contradict federal law, rules, BLM policy or case law. The Glossary should include the following definitions: Surface disturbance or surface-disturbing activities-"Disturbance from development activities that involve the removal of vegetation and topsoil, or overburden where there is a physical change to the surface, in connection with activities for mineral and energy development, rightsof-way, and road construction or reconstruction. It does not include incidental disturbances associated with the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of fences or corrals or stock tanks, livestock or wildlife grazing, or recreation uses." Habitat Fragmentation – "An event that creates a greater number of habitat patches that are smaller in size than the original contiguous tract(s) of habitat." Habitat Loss – "The permanent or effectively permanent removal of habitat cover needed by a particular wildlife species." (This definition of habitat loss corresponds to how this concept is used in mainstream habitat management and avoids the need to attempt to define or regulate human disturbance or disruptive activities. The latter terms should not be regulated.) 

habitat fragmentation. The glossary in the Prevised to include a defand "sustained yield." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Other 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Sustained yield or sustainability "means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple uses." (This definition is appropriately taken from FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. §1702(h).) 

WSA Supplement 

US EPA G-6 25 Section2 .3.2.6. Surface Stipulation 

Applicable to All Surface-Disturbing Activities: We believe there is a typographical error, and this should be Appendix K, not Appendix L. Appendix L contains information related to the Vernal Resource Area grazing allotments. 

The error has been corrRMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 2 Page 2-7, Table 2.3, Lands and Realty, 

bottom sentence: ":An easement for the old Uintah Railroad bed from the Utah/Colorado line to Watson in Evacuation Creek would no be pursued. 

The typographical error haProposed RMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 3 Page 2-10, Table 2.3, Recreation: Seep 

Ridge, Book Cliff Divide, and Atchee Ridge Roads would not be designed as Back Country Byways. 

The typographical error haProposed RMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 5 Page 4-10, Section 4.3.2.3.6, 2nd sentence:

"Alternatives A, C, and E are likely to have the greatest beneficial impacts, because all three involve....". 

The language has been cRMP/Final EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Other 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 24 Page 4-74, Section 4.13.2.6.5 (Alternative E 

should be singular). In the last sentence of this section, "These alternatives should be changed to "this alternative". 

The language has been cRMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 37 Page 4-122, Section 4.18.2.3.3: The 

acronym "HA" (which means Herd Area), is not listed in the list of acronyms included in the RMP. 

The acronym has been acronyms in the Proposed 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 56 Page 4-203, Section 4.21.2.10.6, 1st 

sentence: "Alternative" should be plural. 

The typographical error haProposed RMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 57 Page 4-208, Section 4.21.2.11.6: "150,001 

acre" should be plural. 

The typographical error haProposed RMP/Final EIS. 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 58 Page 4-213, Section 4.21.2.14.2: 1st line:

...would be managed by the following prescriptions: 12th bullet: Construction of wildlife watering facilities. 

The language has been cRMP/Final EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13n. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Paleontology 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 PA2 This section recognizes the benefits of 

paleontological studies associated with mineral development mitigation; however, such benefits are not mentioned in the analysis of Alternatives A and D that follow. 

Language acknowledging (e.g., increasing the bopaleontological investigassociation with minerabeen added to the discuA, D, and E. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 PA2 This section recognizes the benefits of 

paleontological studies associated with mineral development mitigation; however, such benefits are not mentioned in the analysis of Alternatives A and D that follow. 

Language acknowledging (e.g., increasing the bopaleontological investigassociation with minerabeen added to the discuA, D, and E. 

Table 5.13o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Process and Procedure 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 PR19 The State of Utah requests that the policies and 

plans indicated by Utah Code Section 63-38d401, et. esq., be shown in the listing of other plans to which the RMP has a relationship. 

The addition has been ma

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 PR31 

(JPR-7) 

The document should include the FWS Ouray National Wildlife Refuge as one of the entities with which the BLM will coordinate management in the VPA. 

The document will be amUSF&WS. 

Draft Uintah, G-25 PR9 The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and BLM The information from A
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Process and Procedure 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS Daggett, 

and Duchesne Counties 

Manual Section 8351 require consideration of characteristics which "do" or "do not" make a river segment a worthy addition to the NWSRS. Unfortunately, Table 5 only contains a discussion of the "do" characteristics (the ORVs) under the "Consideration" heading. Table 5 fails to acknowledge related information found in Table 3 of Appendix C, which represents some of the "do not" characteristics. For example, information from Table 3 regarding Argyle Creek states "[t]he high percentage of private land adjacent to the stream has resulted in the construction of numerous ranch houses and summer homes in the corridor. A power line parallels the stream for approximately 7 miles." This information not only caused Argyle Creek to receive a proposed "recreational" classification, but should also be considered relevant to a suitability determination. 

relative to the characcontribute to or detracsuitability for WSR desigto Appendix C Table 5. information from Table appropriate sections sucwithin Table 5. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Recreation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 RE41 

(RE-U) 

Paragraph 2 line 7: The reference to "unmanaged OHV use" under Alt B is not logical given the data in Table 2.3 and elsewhere indicating that the amount of land open to unrestricted OHV use in Alt B is very similar to Alt A and C (yet "unmanaged OHV use" is not mentioned in the analysis under those alternatives). 

The PRMP/FEIS has be"unmanaged" from th4.10.2.6.2.2. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 RE11 We need to further expand this to include 

special use permits for commercial operations on BLM ground. 

Table 2.1.3 (RecreatioPRMP/FEIS has been uinformation. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ranges West 

O-43 RE45 

(ARE-3) 

Why is recreation given special socioeconomic condition here and other cultural activity such as grazing and mineral or energy discussions on pages 3-35 thru 3-46 do not even recognize socioeconomic characteristics or importance. This discussion of recreation socioeconomics does not belong in chapter 3.10 but should be part of Chapter 3.12. Treat all resource uses similarly. 

The PRMP/FEIS text hcombine the socioeconoSection 3.10.4 with the socioeconomic descri3.12.2.2.4. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Riparian 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

USFS—Ashley National Forest 

G-19 RW32 

(LRW-3)

Paragraph 1 change to read "would be a result of surface-disturbing activities both within and outside of the riparian zones." 

Section 4.11 of the Prevised to include surfawithin and outside of ripa

Draft RMP/EIS 

USFS—Ashley National Forest 

G-19 RW37 

(LRW-8)

Address the effects of authorized and unauthorized OHV use and dispersed camping to riparian areas. 

Section 4.11.2.7.1 in threvised to include an anriparian resources. Addituse has also been 4.11.2.7.1. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 RW10 The DEIS needs to disclose the fact that it has 

no current assessment of the Book Cliffs riparian zones. Twenty-year-old data are not meaningful or reliable. Riparian areas will recover (and change) relatively quickly. There have been major changes in the area and the DEIS cannot assume that area remains in "poor ecological condition." In the Book Cliffs area, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation purchased ranches and grazing permits in the early 1990's and the area has only been lightly grazed by livestock on those permits. If the riparian zones have not improved, then BLM needs to disclose the fact that this has not occurred due to domestic livestock grazing. 

As stated in Section wetland inventory has riparian and wetland res(as of 2003). A comprehriparian conditions has yefull interdisciplinary team

completed, the conditioriparian resources could of the PRMP/FEIS has ba statement that states th"...current riparian condCliffs are being assessecould have changed riparian/wetland assessm

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 RW52 

(RRW1) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "Management actions to meet riparian objectives would include alternative sources of water, fencing, herding, change of livestock class, temporary closures, and/or changes of 

The management actions (Riparian Resources) omeet riparian objectiveincludes herding of livestaction that would be appNowhere in this section that the livestock grazing 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Riparian 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

season. Additional management actions would include reductions in big game and/or wild horse numbers." Herding is very expensive and not reasonable alternative without proper infrastructure (fencing and water). Herding is not a substitute for structural range improvements. An essential component of riparian management is to provide alternative sources of water to facilitate distribution of livestock and big game / wild horses. The prescription omits significant factors of big game and wild horses and unfairly targets the livestock industry. It also implies that BLM will not support nor fund the range improvements necessary to properly manage the rangeland resources. 

targeted for application oresources managemecommenter does not information on what "sigbeen omitted from prescriptions. Table 2.1.16 under thManagement Common to has been revised to read "Appropriate managemeriparian objectives coherding, change of livesclosures, and/or change o

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 RW53 

(RRW2) 

RE: Alternative A (Pages 2-53 and 2-54)— Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "Key streamside herbaceous riparian vegetation, where stream bank stability is dependant dependent upon it, would have a minimum stubble height at the end of the growing season capable of trapping and assuring retention of sediment during high flows. Management actions could be based on residual stubble height of key herbaceous species measured from the green line or utilization of current year's growth at the end of the growing season. An initial management 

Table 2.1.6 (Riparian PRMP/FEIS has been spelling error in Table 2.A). The BLM declines to mawording changes for a including but not limited toThe BLM does not find tnecessary or appropriateThe suggested wordinsubstantively contribute discussion. The commenter did not why the suggested chang
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Riparian 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

action would be to set a stubble height of 4 inches or 30% utilization on key herbaceous species measured from the green line if riparian conditions in that reach are to be maintained and 6 inches stubble height on key herbaceous species measured from the green line or <20% utilization if riparian conditions need to be improved. This initial stubble height or utilization level would need to be jointly monitored by the permittee and BLM to verify if it provides for maintenance or improvement objectives, with adjustments in allowable utilization or stubble height being made as needed." Make the same changes for Alternative A, same pages. Make the same changes on Page 2-86 under Alternative A. Make the following changes on Page 2-86 for Alternative D: "Upland utilization and riparian vegetation utilization measurements are specified in allotment management and grazing plans, rather than in the RMP unspecified, and proper use would potentially be maintained." The alternatives incorrectly use the stubble height and utilization standards 

the current data and analThe suggested change opinions or preferences. The suggested change the adequacy or accuracy 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Riparian 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

interchangeably. They are not interchangeable and as written, they are not defined properly. The RMP should adopt the stubble height standard as revised. This comment applies throughout the document, which refers to riparian grazing use standards in terms of (4" stubble on key herbaceous species or 6" stubble height or 30% to 20% utilization presumably on woody species. See e.g. 2-53, page 2-86 and 2-93. The riparian standards stated on page 4-238, 4.15.2.2.1 Alternative A (also see line 2 page 4-239) are equally problematicequally problematic. The differences in wording regarding key species vs. woody species are significant and could lead to very troublesome interpretations by staff. Monitoring needs to be jointly done by BLM and the permittee. The RMP discussion is inaccurate. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 RW59 

(RRW8) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded: "Approximately 16,000 acres of riparian zones are found along the Green and White Rivers and Bitter, Evacuation, Sweetwater, and Willow Creeks in the Book Cliffs portion of the VPA. As of 1982, 470 acres of riparian zones in the Book Cliffs portion of the VPA were identified as being in poor ecological condition (BLM 1984). These data are not current and are probably not an accurate indicator of current conditions. BLM will continue to complete the range health assessments for each allotment. The Diamond 

Section 3.11.1 of the Prevised to include clarriparian data for the acknowledgment that phave been conducted, comprehensive VPA winventories (Section 3.follows: "Approximately 16,000 aare found along the Greand Bitter, Evacuation, SCreeks in the Book Cliffs of 1982, 470 acres of ripa
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Riparian 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Mountain portion of the VPA contains 60,300 acres of riparian lands (2 percent of the inventoried lands), with 15,650 acres of the 60,300 acres in public lands. There are 540 miles of perennial and intermittent streams in the VPA (BLM 1993b). The BLM manages its riparian zones for multiple uses, including recreation, grazing, wildlife habitat, and other uses." The DEIS needs to disclose the fact that it has no current assessment of the Book Cliffs riparian zones. Twenty-three year old data are not meaningful nor reliable. Riparian areas will recover (and change) relatively quickly. The DEIS cannot assume that area remains in "poor ecological condition." Nor is it accurate for the RMP to imply that the poor ecological conditions are due to domestic livestock grazing or that they still exist. For instance, in the Book Cliffs area, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation purchased ranches and grazing permits in the early 1990's and the area has not been grazed by livestock since that purchase. If the riparian zones have not improved, then BLM needs to disclose the fact that these resource conditions are not due to continued domestic livestock grazing and BLM must pursue wildlife (elk) reductions and vegetation projects. BLM and permittees have been actively monitoring rangeland health conditions over the last several years. A significant percent are in functioning condition. In the areas that are at 

Cliffs portion of the VPbeing in poor ecological However, current ripariaBook Cliffs are being aconditions could have chriparian/wetland asses

below). The Diamond MVPA contains 60,300 acr

percent of the inventorieacres of the 60,300 acres are 540 miles of perestreams in the VPA (Bmanages its riparian zoincluding recreation, graand other uses." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Riparian 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

risk or not functioning, we find that there is major wildlife use, especially on willows. In other cases, road crossings may funnel runoff to create an arroyo effect that prevents the establishment of vegetation. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 RW61 

(RRW10) 

Not all upland surface disturbance will accelerate erosion. Utah non-point source best management practices and BLM BMPs also limit surface erosion. Any sedimentation will 

depend on the site, soils, slope and proximity to a water body. The general statement as written is inaccurate. 

Section 4.11 of the Prevised for clarification surface disturbance covegetation that could acc

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 RW72 

(RRW21) 

Modify the following statements as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "Proper functioning condition (PFC) is the minimum acceptable goal for riparian areas. Riparian-wetland areas would be maintained, restored, and managed protected, and/or expanded to achieve PFC with respect to soils, vegetation, and hydrology/water quality. Thus, 

riparian management would have short-and long-term, direct, beneficial impacts to soils and water through proper and well-timed grazing. where use of streamside vegetation is reduced." The RMP should focus on well-timed grazing rather than reducing livestock grazing. 

Section 4.13.1.7 of the revised to read as follows"Proper functioning cominimum acceptable goRiparian-wetland areas restored, and managed respect to soils, hydrology/water qualitmanagement would have direct, beneficial impactwhere use of streamreduced." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Riparian 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

WSA Supplement 

Comcast O-148 5 The riparian goal of PFC is totally inadequate 

because PFC is only a minimal hydraulic evaluation, is highly subject and biased. PFC does not address habitat or water quality.Regarding stubble height standards, they are ineffective because they are typically not enforced, do not represent use in riparian areas and little strips of sedges do not filter sediment.For filtering sediment, intact riparian areas with vegetated stream banks and fully vegetated riparian areas are needed to reduce erosion and filter sediment. These deficiencies should be addressed by closing all riparian areas to livestock. 

See Table 2.1 pages 2-19 2-19 has been revised Corridors, 4th sentence – the word removed to reflect that aftexhausted those riparian to grazing. Comment note

Table 5.13r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Scope 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

WSA Supplement 

US EPA G-6 36 Table 2.5, Summary of Impacts for Environmental 

Justice, Page 2-83: This section should also address impacts to individual tribal members. The adverse impacts to human health referenced in Alternative D need to be discussed in Alternatives A, B, and C. 

This table in the Proposed 2.2, has been modifiepotential environmental risWellfield development wimmediate area of a Tribacommunity, however, is lomiles to the north at the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Scope 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Potential downsides to the the risks associated wdevelopment. These risks traffic through the town, aas flaring, dust, spills, weto water resources. 

Table 5.13s. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Designation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD157 The information under Section 3.14.3.2, page 3-

84, should more fully and accurately represent the specific management requirements found in Manual Section 8351.32C, particularly regarding valid existing rights. 

Chapter 3 in the PRMP/Fto expand the discusrequirements for rivers dthe NWSRS to includinformation outlined in .32C. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD167 The White River SRMA (western part) would be 

managed as no surface occupancy. How is this different from the ACEC proposed for the area? The State of Utah has concerns that the establishment of an SRMA outside of the 1/2-mile wide river corridor is inappropriate due to the demonstrated lack of recreational activity beyond the corridor. Why is it necessary outside the river corridor? Is it even necessary to have an SRMA in the area in light of the proposed WSR designation on the west segment of the 

A review of Table 2.3, RNSO stipulations are ncorrelation to the SRMA. Chapter 4 of the PRMP/Fto correct and clarify the (Special Designations Environmental Concern PRMP/FEIS clearly indicof the ACEC would includportion of the area. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13s. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Designation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

White River SRMA? How are the proposed WSR and SRMA designations related to each other? 

The SRMA and WSR separate types of manaare not special designintegrated managemeopportunities in areas oWSR designations are intended to recognize pvalues, which may increquire special managemaction. WSR management wouquarter mile from center-river. Recreation use onarrow corridor and has proposed an SRMA in twAlso, see comment respo

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-24 SD383 

(SO32a)

There is no analysis of the impacts on RFD or socioeconomic impacts from the proposed Nine Mile Canyon SRMA. 

There is no requiremendetailed analysis that the This is outside the scope Section 4.12 of the PRMP"If impacts to somsocioeconomic situation this analysis, then a negassumed." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 SD366A 

(RSD30) 

This statement suffers from an all inclusive and thus inaccurate generalization. It also confuses the difference between vegetation treatments and water projects. It is assumed that the 

The commenter is coreferred to are specific to geared at range improveA. The same assumpti
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13s. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Designation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

acreage figure refers to acres to be treated and not acres affected potentially by water projects. The RMP also omits water projects and fences, which are essential to distribution and management of grazing. 

description of the other aline of Table 2.5. The table for all alternatives hinclude numbers for poAlso, clarification has Vegetation section of Tabthat the acres referred to vegetation treatments range/forage improvemenNote: Table 2.5 of the renumbered as Table 2.2 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah G-1 SO25 The State of Utah is concerned about the 

inadequacy of baseline data used in the socioeconomic analysis. The BLM Planning Handbook (Appendix D) provides specific areas to be considered when incorporating social science into the planning process. Social science information should include economic, political, cultural and social structure of not only the counties within the VFO, but also the region and the Nation as a whole. The DEIS fails to do this. 

This information has bSection 3.12 in the PRMP
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah G-1 SO26 The RMP makes broad statements about the 

socioeconomic profile of the planning area, broken down into discussions about each of the three counties, however, the draft seems to lack a detailed analysis of the situation on the ground. For instance, in the Socioeconomic section of Chapter 3, the draft includes only two conclusions regarding the region's history, geography, and economics; first, the majority of the planning area sustain a rural/small town lifestyle, second, the counties are economically dependent on the development of the physical resources within the VFO. According to the BLM Planning Handbook, social values, beliefs, and attitudes; how people interact with the landscape; and sense-of-place issues should also be included. The VFO should elaborate on the socioeconomic baseline for the planning area and review it for inaccuracies. 

Section 3.12 in the Prevised to include the incomment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah G-1 SO27 The DRMP fails to thoroughly analyze the 

social and economic impacts of the alternatives. The draft only analyzes the socioeconomic impacts of Lands and Realty, Forage, Minerals, and Recreation and OHV decisions. Additional resource management decisions, however, have the potential to have an impact on state and county economies, specifically special designations. Notably missing is an economic analysis of the lost shared mineral revenue from federal lands that have an economic impact on the community as well as other mineral sharing 

The PRMP/FEIS has befurther analysis of effecfrom proposed manageresources, including specPlease see response to trust lands. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

programs within the state. The development of mineral resources on federal lands and state trust lands would be negatively impacted by overly restrictive management prescriptions imposed by special designations. In its economic impact analysis, the RMP has excluded the significant state and local revenues generated through a variety of taxes paid that would be impacted by special designations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah G-1 SO28 During the scoping process, Uintah County 

provided the BLM with two studies related to the economic significance of mineral development, specifically oil and gas, in the Uintah Basin. These studies were Economic Impact Analysis of the Drilling and Completion of a Natural Gas Well in the Uintah Basin by the Utah Energy Group and The Uintah Basin Industry Impact Study by Pam Perlich of the University of Utah. The RMP fails to reflect the information contained in these documents. The State of Utah requests that the BLM review these studies and incorporate their findings into the RMP. 

The PRMP/FEIS has bethe recent State-commiimpact of the oil and gas Basin. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah G-1 SO29 Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties have 

estimated that up to 80% of the local economy is dependent directly or indirectly on access to, and utilization and extraction of natural resources on the public lands. The BLM is required by its own Planning Handbook, Section H-1601-H, and IM 2002-167 to assess the degree of local dependence on public land 

BLM feels that the intenthe Planning Handimplemented. See comregarding these same daThe PRMP/FEIS has beeto the USU social suresidents on public land m
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

resources, and use this information as part of the decision-making process. The state is concerned that these requirements have not been met within the draft RMP and EIS. This issue should be examined in more detail. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah G-1 SO30 Sections of the socioeconomic impacts 

analysis are overly generalized to the point that social and economic impacts specific to the planning area are not apparent. For example, in the "Lands and Realty" portion of the "Impacts Common to All" section, long term beneficial effects on the social goals of communities are described by accommodating community growth and development when it is determined that accommodating social goals is in compliance with other goals and objectives of the Proposed RMP. The portion of the plan does not reference specific areas of the DRMP/DEIS where this occurs or direct the reader to any specific management decisions that provide for community growth. The section is vague and unspecific and should reflect specific management prescriptions in the plan rather than general statements. 

Section 4.12.2.2 has beeand the BLM believeaddresses the commente

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Office 

G-5 SO1 The unemployment rate for Duchesne County 

should be closer to 7.1% rather than the 1.7% stated in the RMP. 

Section 3.12.2.1 in the revised to correct this num
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah State Office of Education 

G-6 SO3 The RMP has no analysis of the economic 

impacts of the decisions on Utah trust lands or on the economic impact on schools, the University of Utah, and Utah State University. 

Section 4.12 in the Prevised to include an anaSITLA lands. An analyAlternative E on SITLA to Section 4.12.3.1.5. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO63 

(JSO15) 

We provided you with specific data source; there is no reference or indication that it was ever used. (Uinta Basin Industry Impact Study) 

This document has beerelevant information has the Final RMP/EIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO64 

(JSO16) 

We provided you with specific data source; there is no reference or indication that it was ever used. (UEO Report addressing cost and related impacts of Drilling a well in Uintah and Duchesne counties.) The Draft RMP drilling costs differ by more than 300% from this report, making it impossible to accurately analyze and disclose impacts. 

This document has beerelevant information has the Final RMP/EIS. Thidentified document as information, and the sowas redone based uprovided. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO68 

(JSO21) 

Summary of Impacts, Discipline, Social and Economic Consideration: Mineral Development is erroneous. There is no reference as to where and how these numbers were calculated. Based on upon UEO report, these numbers need to be recalculated. It does not make sense to have $3.8 billion in cost to recoup $437 million in sales. 

This document has beerelevant information has Final PRMP/FEIS. The identified document as information, and the sowas redone based uprovided. See comment responses 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO69 

(JSO22) 

Recreation section. We question these numbers, are they for BLM managed land only? All 3 counties? Are oil field workers staying in local motels being counted as tourists? Again, there is not reference to check 

It is unclear which statiSection of Table 2.5 is beSection 4.12.3.2 in the revised to reflect the im
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

where these stats came from. local motels. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO71 

(JSO24) 

Note that a large portion of "tourism tax dollars" come from the oil and gas industry (local motels for housing for oil field workers etc). This should be made clear in all sections of the RMP discussing tourism impacts. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the revised to clarify the reand gas workers and "tou

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO72 

(JSO25) 

This data from 2000; table needs to be updated. Should use info from Utah Division of Travel not Utah Travel Council. Also this table reflects a percentage change, but does not say what it is changing from. 

Table 3.10.1 in the Prevised to incorporate infoDivision of Travel Develo

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO73 

(JSO26) 

Update the population data. Although census from 2000, recognized agencies have more updated population data and this data should be used. 

There may be more unumbers, but the commthat information to use. for 2020 are given and uused where applicable. Also, an RMP will nevedate information due to takes to publish the doprovided for comparison See comment response S

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO75 

(JSO28) 

Table needs to be updated with FY2004 data. Old data does not accurately show present impacts. 

Due to changes in recorManagement Service, tavailable for more recent 3.12.4 in the PRMP/FEIS incorporate new minerals 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO76 

(JSOCharts from Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining are 2002; need to be updated with The charts following 

PRMP/FEIS have been 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

29) 2004. figures from the Utah Di

Mining. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO77 

(JSO30) 

Gas and oil prices per barrel in RMP need to be adjusted to reflect current conditions. 

Section 3.12.2.2.3 in the revised to reflect 2004 Division of Oil, Gas and M

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO78 

(JSO31) 

Conflict between Tax Revenue text and Table 3.10.1 data. ($951,000 vs. $334,514). Use most current data. 

Section 3.12.2.2.4 in the revised to reflect the figures. See response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO79 

(JSO32) 

Data doesn't truly reflect actual tourism dollars (high % of industry in them). 

This has been noted in S4.12.3.2 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO80 

(JSO33) 

ALL county revenue should be included in data. Show what portion of revenue goes to state and not county. 

Sections 3.12.2.2.3 anPRMP/FEIS have been rportion of county revenue 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO85 

(SO38) 

Last paragraph 2nd sentence should read "to the federal government and the State of Utah" rather than "or" 

Section 4.8.1.1 in the Prevised to incorporate the the comment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO86 

(JSO39) 

Inconsistency in number of wells between various sections of RMP and Mineral Potential Report. Figure of 6,530 more accurately reflects a minimum for wells, not a maximum. 

Errors in the numbers of sections will be correctmaximum number of welwas based on the best ithe time of the report. See comment response A

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO90 

(JSO43) 

Cost of drilling as stated in RMP is incorrect and results in need for reassessment of all alternatives. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the revised to consider the upon data received by the 

Draft Uintah G-15 SO92 Discrepancy in well numbers (6,312 v. 6,340) 

in document text vs table. Also well number 

Section 4.12.3.2.1 in the revised so that the n
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS County (JSO45) from MPR of 6,530 not reflected in any alternative. consistent throughout 

number of 6,530 is the maximum number of welpercent of area open foeach alternative. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO94 

(JSO47) 

Royalties and PILT not connected in any way and the statement that they are suggests that the preparer has no knowledge of BLM and local, or state revenue sources. 

Sections 4.12.3.2.2 thPRMP/FEIS have been impacts of royalties and Taxes (PILT). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah County 

G-15 SO98 

(JSO51) 

Section is inadequate and insufficiently detailed to specific locations and counties and does not tie wages to jobs. Also, references are not cited. 

The document has bereferences used have bee

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 SO16 This same level of analysis should be applied 

to oil and gas development as it has a positive effect on the same sectors of the economy. The loss of jobs and tax revenue will be made up several times over by development. 

Sections 4.12.2.3 anPRMP/FEIS have been tourism tax revenues. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 SO17 The impact to Daggett County discussion 

should be struck as the increase in wells is only 4.5. This impact is a great exaggeration as are others where mineral development is discussed. 

Section 4.12.2.2 in the revised to incorporate the These sentences have FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 SO18 This sentence should be changed to read 

"Under Alternative A 1,798,378 acres would be open in leasing categories 1 and 2 to oil and gas and coal bed methane. CBNG should be added here as acres are not correct if you don't. It should be noted that categories 1 and 2 are used here with no indication of where 

1,776,782 acres would band 2 oil and gas (whnatural gas) leasing Alternative A. Section PRMP/FEIS has been correct acreages for mine
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

they are in the text or on the maps. This comment applies to Alternative "C" and "D" in this section. Nowhere does this section discuss volumes of production. 

CBNG production wapproximately 2% of the therefore a detailed anaoil and natural gas dedevelopment will not PRMP/FEIS. See Section 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 SO19 The Counties question the findings in the last 

two sentences of Section 4.12.3.1 on page 4-175. If Alternative C were to be selected, Table 2.3 indicates that livestock forage would decrease from 146,161 AUMs under Alternative D to 77,294 AUMs. Such a reduction would have an impact on the livestock industry and its ability to expand in the future to serve a growing population. Such reductions ignore provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act and withdrawals. 

Sections 4.12.2.1 anPRMP/FEIS have been details on AUM demand. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Thomas M. Power 

I-33 SO108 The DEIS projects that oil and gas 

development under the preferred alternative would result in 215,000 new jobs being created. Given that the total employment in the planning area is about 23,000, this would represent almost a ten-fold increase in employment over the next 20 years. That 

would be an oil and gas boom of monumental proportions. 

Based on the data avaisocioeconomic section haFEIS. See Section 4.12employment numbers. responses SO31and SO5

Draft RMP/EIS 

Thomas M. Power 

I-33 SO109 Analysis of how mineral extraction 

employment has actually changed with oil and gas drilling in the Uinta Basin indicates that about one annual job is associated with a new well being drilled and about one operation and 

Based on the data avaisocioeconomic section haFEIS. See responses to SO54. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

maintenance job is associated with every 6 wells brought into production. The DEIS, in contrast, estimates that there are 30 jobs associated with each well drilled and 24 jobs associated with every 6 wells brought into production. The job impact estimates based on the actual experience in the Uinta Basin used in the report (Power 2005: The Economic Impact of Expanded Oil and Gas Development in Utah's Uinta Basin) used to prepare my comments are confirmed by studies elsewhere in Utah and the Mountain West. There is no evidence to support the DEIS oil and gas job multipliers. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Thomas M. Power 

I-33 SO112 Although school districts in the Uinta Basin 

collect considerable property tax revenues from oil and gas developments, the Utah state school equalization program largely offsets those oil and gas tax revenues by reducing the payments the state government makes to those school districts. The intent of the Utah school equalization program is to assure that approximately the same resources are available to support the education of a student regardless of how rich or poor the school district's tax base is. Statistical analysis of that program confirms that it is largely successful in offsetting the "windfall" that certain school districts otherwise would receive from the oil and gas developments within their taxing jurisdictions. For that reason, expanded oil and gas development in the Uinta Basin will not dramatically improve the financial 

Contributions to local ahave been revised in ththe equalization progspecifically analyze reimpacts to local school di
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

condition of local schools. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Thomas M. Power 

I-33 SO31 I submit the report entitled The Economic 

Impact of Expanded Oil and Gas Development in Utah's Uinta Basin as my comment on the draft RMP/EIS. 

The most recent State-simpact of oil and gas devBasin has been incorpora

Draft RMP/EIS 

Bill Robinson I-173 SO41 

(SO-L) 

The DRMP/DEIS fails to conduct a proper economic analysis. The DRMP/DEIS in this case failed to properly include and assess the environmental impacts on the local economies that would be affected in particular with regard to the effect that reduced livestock grazing will have on the local economy. The alternatives of the DRMP/DEIS, besides the no action alternative, all consider reducing the number of AUMs for livestock, or calls for the reduction of only livestock use of the range. The BLM must consider the economic and historic contribution of ranching and livestock grazing to the local economy and balance that against the harm that will be caused to the economy if that grazing is reduced. 

Section 4.12.3.1 in the revised to assess the enthe local economies. Thno reduction in AUM's acurrent situation (the No A

Draft RMP/EIS 

Bill Robinson I-173 SO42 

(SO-M) 

The DRMP/DEIS acknowledges the historic and economic contributions grazing and ranching has on local communities. The DRMP/ DEIS however, is devoid of discussion or analysis of the impacts that reduced or eliminated or retired grazing preferences would have on local economies or on small businesses. 

Section 4.12.3.1 in the revised to assess the impacts of grazing ancommunities. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Farm Bureau 

O-9 SO19 The Counties question the findings in the last 

two sentences of Section 4.12.3.1 on page 4-175. If Alternative C were to be selected, 

Sections 4.12.2.1 anPRMP/FEIS have been 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Federation Table 2.3 indicates that livestock forage would 

decrease from 146,161 AUMs under Alternative D to 77,294 AUMs. Such a reduction would have an impact on the livestock industry and its ability to expand in the future to serve a growing population. Such reductions ignore provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act and withdrawals. 

details on AUM demand. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Questar O-12 SO99 

(LSO1) 

Local and state revenue through oil and gas taxes is not discussed. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten and impacts to local governmdecisions affecting the othe Vernal planning area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

IPAMS O-14 SO16 This same level of analysis should be applied 

to oil and gas development as it has a positive effect on the same sectors of the economy. The loss of jobs and tax revenue will be made up several times over by development. 

Sections 4.12.2.3 anPRMP/FEIS have been tourism tax revenues. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

IPAMS O-14 SO99 

(LSO1) 

Local and state revenue through oil and gas taxes is not discussed. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten and impacts to local governmdecisions affecting the othe Vernal planning area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SO45 

(SO-P) 

(JSO3) 

Tables 3.12.3 and 3.12.7 in Chapter 3 should indicate that the "Mining" category includes oil and gas employment. 

Tables 3.12.3 and 3.12have been revised to indcategory includes oil and 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SO47 

(SO-R) 

(JSO4) 

The draft RMP/EIS fails to effectively address the full realm of positive economic benefits associated with current and future oil and gas activities. While Section 4.12 provides a brief 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten. Threvision represents the industry to the Vernal pla
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

comparison of wells to be drilled, industry jobs that would be created, industry sales, and federal royalties under each alternative, what appears to have been excluded is the highly significant state and local revenue generated due to a variety of taxes paid. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SO48 

(SO-S) 

(JSO5) 

The socioeconomic analysis contained in Section 4.12 of the draft Vernal RMP/EIS does not adequately describe the long-term incremental and cumulative differences in public sector revenues of the four alternatives. Specifically, the section fails to discuss the property tax revenues that each alternative would generate and the various community facilities and services that this significant source of revenue funds for residents in the Vernal planning area. As an example, according to the Uintah County Treasurer's office, fully 57.6% of that county's 2004 property tax revenue was derived from the oil and gas and mining industries. Accordingly, management decisions that influence the level of oil and gas activity have direct and significant impacts on local government fiscal conditions in the VPA and indirect impacts on the quality of life of Vernal planning area residents. These impacts must be disclosed in the draft RMP/EIS. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten and impacts to local governmdecisions affecting the othe Vernal planning area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SO49 

(SO-T) 

(JSO7) 

The Draft RMP/EIS does not address Utah severance taxes. Severance taxes on natural gas are assessed on a sliding scale, 3% on the first $1.50/Mcf, and 5% percent thereafter. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten and impacts to local goseverance taxes) of the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

The draft RMP/EIS does not estimate the differences in severance taxes for each alternative. Given that oil and gas production from the Vernal planning area was a substantial portion of the state's total, it is important to understand the implications of each alternative for State of Utah severance tax revenues. 

affecting the oil and gas planning area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SO50 

(SO-U) 

(JSO8) 

The absence of a more complete fiscal assessment will impede the ability of the public, local governments, and BLM decisionmakers to assess the effects of each alternative on local government revenues and on their ability to provide public services, which directly affect the quality of life of Vernal planning area residents. Moreover, the limited scope fiscal analysis in the Draft RMP/EIS does not fulfill the BLM's charge to assess the degree of local dependence on resources from public lands, or fulfill the agency's obligations outlined in Land-use Planning Handbook (H-1601-H) or Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-167. 

Section 4.12 in the Prevised to expand the dimpacts to state and locaThe BLM will review the survey of rural counties cof Utah. The BLM has recfrom this study received DEIS. The BLM has incoPRMP/FEIS as appropria

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SO51 

(SO-V) 

(JSO9) 

The Draft RMP/EIS assumes development costs of $600,000 per well. This figure is dated and does not account for other types of development taking place in the Vernal planning area. The deeper formations being developed cost more than the figure used above and the analysis should reflect this fact. This number should be revised to ensure that any economic analysis accounts for the 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten. incorporates recent data Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Oil, Gas and been used in the recestudy commissioned by Structure and Economic and Gas Exploration an
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

activities in the planning area. Regardless of this oversight, the impact analysis does not address the extent these expenditures would occur in the local economy, nor do they address how the economy would be impacted both locally and nationally. Indirect employment as a result of industry expenditures and the additional tax revenue this spending activity would generate are important impacts the Draft RMP/EIS should disclose. A study was prepared that estimated that eighty-one percent (81%) of the expenditures for development benefited the local economy. On that assumption, the numbers should be reworked to reflect this significant detail. 

Phase I - The Uinta Basin

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SO52 

(SO-W)

The statement in Section 4.12.2.2, paragraphs 3 and 4 that areas open to (minerals) exploration "would have an adverse impact on the recreation and tourism industries" and that "the quality of the recreational experience would be degraded along with possible decreases to visual quality..." is incorrect. In much of the Vernal planning area, mineral exploration and development activity would occur in remote areas that are not popular for recreation or visually sensitive. At present, mineral development and recreational activities generally take place in separate geographic areas and co-exist quite successfully in the Vernal planning area. As examples, no mineral development would occur within the recreationally significant 

Section 4.12.2.2 in the revised to delete the stain the comment. See also comment respo
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, Dinosaur National Monument, nor along much of the Green River (due to NSO and CSU stipulations intended to protect recreational, scenic, and other natural resources values of the river corridor). In addition, despite the substantial increase in oil and gas exploration and development that has occurred in the Vernal planning area over the last 15 years, tourism has increased rather than decreased. This fact directly contradicts the baseless statement that mineral development hurts the tourist economy and employment in the Vernal planning area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SO54 

(SO-Y) 

(JSO12) 

The draft RMP/EIS states that the rationale for decreasing mineral development is to increase recreation and OHV opportunities in the Vernal Planning Area. According to the information presented in Table 4.12.1, the economic value of oil and gas sales in the Vernal planning area is currently $189.53 million and $248.68 million, respectively. Royalties are currently more than $8.6 million annually. According to the draft RMP/EIS recreation currently provides a total tax benefit at approximately $1.6 million. The revenues from royalties, alone, are more than five times the tax benefits from recreation. Under Alternative D (existing conditions) the total number of jobs, based on the average number of employees per well, is estimated to 

The jobs created per wethe FEIS. Based on date Labor Statistics, and the of Oil, Gas and Mining, it project an increase apjobs per well drilled than suggested in the UEO stuone well. The impact anabe rewritten to reflect thFEIS will continue to refvalue provided by mineUintah Basin. See also comment respo
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

be 215,260 over the next 20 years, while there are 1,578 jobs attributable to recreation. We question the rationale for increasing recreational opportunities at the expense of oil and gas development, which would decrease the revenues to the state, counties, and Tribes, as well as decrease the supply of oil and gas to the public. In addition, a decrease in future oil and gas development is contrary to the President's Energy Policy. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 SO45 

(SO-P) 

(JSO3) 

Tables 3.12.3 and 3.12.7 in Chapter 3 should indicate that the "Mining" category includes oil and gas employment. 

Tables 3.12.3 and 3.12have been revised to indcategory includes oil and 

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 SO47 

(SO-R) 

(JSO4) 

The draft RMP/EIS fails to effectively address the full realm of positive economic benefits associated with current and future oil and gas activities. While Section 4.12 provides a brief comparison of wells to be drilled, industry jobs that would be created, industry sales, and federal royalties under each alternative, what appears to have been excluded is the highly significant state and local revenue generated due to a variety of taxes paid. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten. Threvision represents the industry to the Vernal pla

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 SO48 

(SO-S) 

(JSO5) 

The socioeconomic analysis contained in Section 4.12 of the draft Vernal RMP/EIS does not adequately describe the long-term incremental and cumulative differences in public sector revenues of the four alternatives. Specifically, the section fails to discuss the property tax revenues that each alternative would generate and the various community 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten and impacts to local governmdecisions affecting the othe Vernal planning area. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

facilities and services that this significant source of revenue funds for residents in the Vernal planning area. As an example, according to the Uintah County Treasurer's office, fully 57.6% of that county's 2004 property tax revenue was derived from the oil and gas and mining industries. Accordingly, management decisions that influence the level of oil and gas activity have direct and significant impacts on local government fiscal conditions in the VPA and indirect impacts on the quality of life of Vernal planning area residents. These impacts must be disclosed in the draft RMP/EIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 SO49 

(SO-T) 

(JSO7) 

The Draft RMP/EIS does not address Utah severance taxes. Severance taxes on natural gas are assessed on a sliding scale, 3% on the first $1.50/Mcf, and 5% percent thereafter. The draft RMP/EIS does not estimate the differences in severance taxes for each alternative. Given that oil and gas production from the Vernal planning area was a substantial portion of the state's total, it is important to understand the implications of each alternative for State of Utah severance tax revenues. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten and impacts to local goseverance taxes) of the affecting the oil and gas planning area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 SO50 

(SO-U) 

(JSO8) 

The absence of a more complete fiscal assessment will impede the ability of the public, local governments, and BLM decisionmakers to assess the effects of each alternative on local government revenues and on their ability to provide public services, 

Section 4.12 in the Prevised to expand the dimpacts to state and locaThe BLM will review the survey of rural counties c
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

which directly affect the quality of life of Vernal planning area residents. Moreover, the limited scope fiscal analysis in the Draft RMP/EIS does not fulfill the BLM's charge to assess the degree of local dependence on resources from public lands, or fulfill the agency's obligations outlined in Land-use Planning Handbook (H-1601-H) or Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-167. 

of Utah. The BLM has recfrom this study received DEIS. The BLM has incoPRMP/FEIS as appropria

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 SO51 

(SO-V) 

(JSO9) 

The Draft RMP/EIS assumes development costs of $600,000 per well. This figure is dated and does not account for other types of development taking place in the Vernal planning area. The deeper formations being developed cost more than the figure used above and the analysis should reflect this fact. This number should be revised to ensure that any economic analysis accounts for the activities in the planning area. Regardless of this oversight, the impact analysis does not address the extent these expenditures would occur in the local economy, nor do they address how the economy would be impacted both locally and nationally. Indirect employment as a result of industry expenditures and the additional tax revenue this spending activity would generate are important impacts the Draft RMP/EIS should disclose. A study was prepared that estimated that eighty-one percent (81%) of the expenditures for development benefited the local economy. On that assumption, the numbers should be reworked to reflect this 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten. incorporates recent data Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Oil, Gas and been used in the recestudy commissioned by Structure and Economic and Gas Exploration anPhase I - The Uinta Basin
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

significant detail. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 SO52 

(SO-W)

The statement in Section 4.12.2.2, paragraphs 3 and 4 that areas open to (minerals) exploration "would have an adverse impact on the recreation and tourism industries" and that "the quality of the recreational experience would be degraded along with possible decreases to visual quality..." is incorrect. In much of the Vernal planning area, mineral exploration and development activity would occur in remote areas that are not popular for recreation or visually sensitive. At present, mineral development and recreational activities generally take place in separate geographic areas and co-exist quite successfully in the Vernal planning area. As examples, no mineral development would occur within the recreationally significant Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, Dinosaur National Monument, nor along much of the Green River (due to NSO and CSU stipulations intended to protect recreational, scenic, and other natural resources values of the river corridor). In addition, despite the substantial increase in oil and gas exploration and development that has occurred in the Vernal planning area over the last 15 years, tourism has increased rather than decreased. This fact directly contradicts the baseless statement that mineral development hurts the tourist economy and employment in the Vernal planning area. 

Section 4.12.2.2 in the revised to delete the stain the comment. See also comment respo
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 SO54 

(SO-Y) 

(JSO12) 

The draft RMP/EIS states that the rationale for decreasing mineral development is to increase recreation and OHV opportunities in the Vernal Planning Area. According to the information presented in Table 4.12.1, the economic value of oil and gas sales in the Vernal planning area is currently $189.53 million and $248.68 million, respectively. Royalties are currently more than $8.6 million annually. According to the draft RMP/EIS recreation currently provides a total tax benefit at approximately $1.6 million. The revenues from royalties, alone, are more than five times the tax benefits from recreation. Under Alternative D (existing conditions) the total number of jobs, based on the average number of employees per well, is estimated to be 215,260 over the next 20 years, while there are 1,578 jobs attributable to recreation. We question the rationale for increasing recreational opportunities at the expense of oil and gas development, which would decrease the revenues to the state, counties, and Tribes, as well as decrease the supply of oil and gas to the public. In addition, a decrease in future oil and gas development is contrary to the President's Energy Policy. 

The jobs created per wethe FEIS. Based on date Labor Statistics, and the of Oil, Gas and Mining, it project an increase apjobs per well drilled than suggested in the UEO stuone well. The impact anabe rewritten to reflect thFEIS will continue to refvalue provided by mineUintah Basin. See also comment respo

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 SO107 

(RSO7) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by strikethrough deletions: "The Forest Management Plan for the Ashley 

Section 4.22.4 in the Prevised to read as follows"Additionally, if drilling for 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

National Forest could have a cumulative impact with respect to social and economic conditions by either increasing or decreasing tourism visitation based on allowable activities. Additionally, if drilling for oil and gas is allowed on the forest, it could affect the regional economy by reducing tourism and potentially increasing the oil and gas sector of the economy." 

on the forest, it could economy potentially incresector of the economy. likely to lose some of its and gas-related actividetract from the natural e

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 SO107

A 

(RSO7) 

The discussion of cumulative social and economic impacts entirely omits the role of agriculture. BLM appears to forget that ranching forms part of the economic backbone of these counties. 

Section 4.22.4 in the Prevised to add informaagriculture in the counties

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 SO45 

(SO-P) 

(JSO3) 

Tables 3.12.3 and 3.12.7 in Chapter 3 should indicate that the "Mining" category includes oil and gas employment. 

Tables 3.12.3 and 3.12have been revised to indcategory includes oil and 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 SO47 

(SO-R) 

(JSO4) 

The draft RMP/EIS fails to effectively address the full realm of positive economic benefits associated with current and future oil and gas activities. While Section 4.12 provides a brief comparison of wells to be drilled, industry jobs that would be created, industry sales, and federal royalties under each alternative, what appears to have been excluded is the highly significant state and local revenue generated due to a variety of taxes paid. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten. Threvision represents the industry to the Vernal pla

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 SO48 

(SO-S) 

(JSOThe socioeconomic analysis contained in Section 4.12 of the draft Vernal RMP/EIS does not adequately describe the long-term Section 4.12.3.2 in the 

extensively rewritten and impacts to local governm
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

5) incremental and cumulative differences in 

public sector revenues of the four alternatives. Specifically, the section fails to discuss the property tax revenues that each alternative would generate and the various community facilities and services that this significant source of revenue funds for residents in the Vernal planning area. As an example, according to the Uintah County Treasurer's office, fully 57.6% of that county's 2004 property tax revenue was derived from the oil and gas and mining industries. Accordingly, management decisions that influence the level of oil and gas activity have direct and significant impacts on local government fiscal conditions in the VPA and indirect impacts on the quality of life of Vernal planning area residents. These impacts must be disclosed in the draft RMP/EIS. 

decisions affecting the othe Vernal planning area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 SO49 

(SO-T) 

(JSO7) 

The Draft RMP/EIS does not address Utah severance taxes. Severance taxes on natural gas are assessed on a sliding scale, 3% on the first $1.50/Mcf, and 5% percent thereafter. The draft RMP/EIS does not estimate the differences in severance taxes for each alternative. Given that oil and gas production from the Vernal planning area was a substantial portion of the state's total, it is important to understand the implications of each alternative for State of Utah severance tax revenues. 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten and impacts to local goseverance taxes) of the affecting the oil and gas planning area. 

Draft Utah O-42 SO50 The absence of a more complete fiscal Section 4.12 in the P
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS Petroleum 

Association 

(SO-U) 

(JSO8) 

assessment will impede the ability of the 

public, local governments, and BLM decisionmakers to assess the effects of each alternative on local government revenues and on their ability to provide public services, which directly affect the quality of life of Vernal planning area residents. Moreover, the limited scope fiscal analysis in the Draft RMP/EIS does not fulfill the BLM's charge to assess the degree of local dependence on resources from public lands, or fulfill the agency's obligations outlined in Land-use Planning Handbook (H-1601-H) or Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-167. 

revised to expand the dimpacts to state and locaThe BLM will review the survey of rural counties cof Utah. The BLM has recfrom this study received DEIS. The BLM has incoPRMP/FEIS as appropria

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 SO51 

(SO-V) 

(JSO9) 

The Draft RMP/EIS assumes development costs of $600,000 per well. This figure is dated and does not account for other types of development taking place in the Vernal planning area. The deeper formations being developed cost more than the figure used above and the analysis should reflect this fact. This number should be revised to ensure that any economic analysis accounts for the activities in the planning area. Regardless of this oversight, the impact analysis does not address the extent these expenditures would occur in the local economy, nor do they address how the economy would be impacted both locally and nationally. Indirect employment as a result of industry expenditures and the additional tax revenue this spending activity would generate are important impacts the Draft RMP/EIS should 

Section 4.12.3.2 in the extensively rewritten. incorporates recent data Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Oil, Gas and been used in the recestudy commissioned by Structure and Economic and Gas Exploration anPhase I - The Uinta Basin
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

disclose. A study was prepared that estimated that eighty-one percent (81%) of the expenditures for development benefited the local economy. On that assumption, the numbers should be reworked to reflect this significant detail. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 SO54 

(SO-Y) 

(JSO12) 

The draft RMP/EIS states that the rationale for decreasing mineral development is to increase recreation and OHV opportunities in the Vernal Planning Area. According to the information presented in Table 4.12.1, the economic value of oil and gas sales in the Vernal planning area is currently $189.53 million and $248.68 million, respectively. Royalties are currently more than $8.6 million annually. According to the draft RMP/EIS recreation currently provides a total tax benefit at approximately $1.6 million. The revenues from royalties, alone, are more than five times the tax benefits from recreation. Under Alternative D (existing conditions) the total number of jobs, based on the average number of employees per well, is estimated to be 215,260 over the next 20 years, while there are 1,578 jobs attributable to recreation. We question the rationale for increasing recreational opportunities at the expense of oil and gas development, which would decrease the revenues to the state, counties, and Tribes, as well as decrease the supply of oil and gas to the public. In addition, a decrease 

The jobs created per wethe FEIS. Based on date Labor Statistics, and the of Oil, Gas and Mining, it project an increase apjobs per well drilled than suggested in the UEO stuone well. The impact anabe rewritten to reflect thFEIS will continue to refvalue provided by mineUintah Basin. See also comment respo
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

in future oil and gas development is contrary to the President's Energy Policy. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Petroleum Association 

O-42 SO59 

(JSO6) 

Oil and gas-related sales and use taxes are significant. The oil and gas industry makes significant contributions to sales and use tax revenues in their purchases of substantial quantities of goods and services. Also oil and gas industry workers spend their earnings in local communities, thereby also adding to the sales tax revenue. The draft RMP does not estimate this contribution or project the impacts of each alternative on sales and use tax revenues. 

The sales tax information PRMP/FEIS based on inhave provided. In contributions from indiscussed. 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS101 

(JSS59) 

Species-specific analyses should be provided under each resource use to allow easy referencing. As currently written, it is difficult to determine if all effects for all species have been properly analyzed; for example, there is no discussion of sage grouse in the Fire and Woodland Management or Forage Allocation sections. In addition, the effects discussions are too generalized. Recommend using headings under each resource use, e.g., Mexican Spotted 

Section 4.15.1 in the Prevised to clarify the impa
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Owl, Bald Eagle, Canada Lynx, Listed Fish Species, etc. This will also provide a more comprehensive analysis and discussion of species-specific effects from resource use activities. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS102 

(JSS60) 

This entire discussion appears focused on listed species. Analysis of effects to all special status species should be included in this section. 

Section 4.15.1 includes a the impacts to all speciaon impacts to habitat species. The links betweand the special status spTable 3.15.2 of the PRMPSection 4.15.1 I the Prevised to clarify this link detail regarding potentiaspecial status species. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS109 

(JSS67) 

Black-footed ferret: Include habitat loss and fragmentation as potential impacts. 

Table 4.15.1 in the Prevised to include fragmentation as potenfooted ferrets. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS110 

(JSS68) 

Bald Eagle: Habitat loss and fragmentation on deer winter ranges can also negatively impact bald eagles by reducing their forage resource of carrion. 

Table 4.15.1 in the Prevised to include fragmentation as potenwinter range Bald Eagles

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS114 

(JSS72) 

3rd paragraph: Provide a reference for the following statement "According to data supplied by the BLM, the USFWS believes that the ferruginous hawk population could be lost in the Uintah Basin..." 

Section 4.15.2.6.1.1 in been revised to include statement cited in the com

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

G-12 SS117 

(JSS3rd paragraph: Note that the Bald Eagle is also managed under authority of the Endangered Section 4.15.3 of the P

revised to provide a 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Service 75) Species Act and Eagle Protection Act. It is also 

likely that nest sites will occur on BLM land during the implementation of this RMP revision. We recommend including management of Bald Eagle nest sites. 

Endangered Species Act Act. Protections for eagle nAppendices H and K. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS81 

(JSS38) 

Edit the 3rd paragraph,  "In collaboration with the USFWS, DWR, and other partners, develop and implement habitat management plans or conservation strategies for sensitive species." 

Table 2.1.21 (Special SPRMP/FEIS has been suggested wording chang

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS82 

(JSS39) 

Add Mexican Spotted Owl to this list. Include the following commitments: 1) Establish Protected Activity Centers (PACs) at all known Mexican Spotted Owl nest sites, 2) Maintain habitat to support small mammal populations as a prey base for Mexican spotted owls in occupied and suitable owl habitats, and 3) Retain large down logs, large trees, and snags as prey habitats in occupied and suitable Mexican spotted owl habitats. 

Table 2.1.21 (Special SPRMP/FEIS has been rMexican Spotted Owl. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS83 

(JSS40) 

Edit the Bald Eagle discussion to read: "Protect and restore cottonwood bottoms for Bald Eagle winter habitat... as well any new roost and nest sites.... " 

Table 2.1.21 (Special SPRMP/FEIS has been suggested wording chang

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS85 

(JSS42) 

The UDWR is currently the lead in developing a multi-state Conservation Agreement for the roundtail chub, flannelmouth sucker, and bluehead sucker. As this should be final during the lifetime of this RMP, we recommend you 

Section 2.4.1.4.4.3 in threvised to add the Consethe roundtail chub, flanbluehead sucker. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

manage them as Conservation Agreement Species. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS91 

(JSS48) 

There are 12 listed and 4 candidate species within the VPA, not 15 and 1. See also page 4-231. 

These changes have 3.15.1 of the PRMP/FEIS

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS94 

(JSS51) 

Identify the occurrence of 7 Bald Eagle nest sites in Utah. Closest known nests to the project area are northwest of Manila, and on the Duchesne River between Duchesne and Bridgeland. There is the potential for bald eagle nest sites to occur on BLM lands in the Vernal Field Office area. 

Table 3.15.1 in the Prevised to include inforpresence of these nesoccurrence of nests in tplanning area. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 SS99 

(JSS56) 

Provide a list of the 17 listed and 28 sensitive species. 

Section 4.15 in the PRMPto reflect the Utah Sensitauthority of IM UT 2007-0

Draft RMP/EIS 

Questar O-12 SS120 

(LSS-2) 

Alternative A in Appendix K states that no exemptions or waivers will be allowed but the section on raptor nests claims there may be. Same contradiction in sage grouse section 

Appendix K and Sect4.8.2.5.1.2 in the PRrevised to correct inconsthe comment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Newfield Exploration Co. 

O-13 SS27 

(SS-A) 

The BLM should limit the scope of the sage grouse stipulations to ACTIVE leks and define active vs. inactive leks. Newfields leases contain a lek that is surrounded by development and has been inactive for several years. Do you intend these stipulations to apply to maintenance and operations of existing facilities near an inactive lek? Within 0.5 mile of active leks, do you intend to require operations to retrofit existing equipment with best available 

These stipulations do noand work-over operationsthe scope of the sage terms of lek activity has FEIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

technology to reduce noise. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

IPAMS O-14 SS120 

(LSS-2) 

Alternative A in Appendix K states that no exemptions or waivers will be allowed but the section on raptor nests claims there may be. Same contradiction in sage grouse section 

Appendix K and Sect4.8.2.5.1.2 in the PRrevised to correct inconsthe comment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

IPAMS O-14 SS128 

(LSS10) 

Text is inconsistent in amount of acreage available to oil and gas than stated in Table S.1 and Table 4.8.1 

Tables S.1 and Table 4.have been revised to cdescribed in the commen

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SS36 

(SS-J) 

This section states that "although most of the riparian zone is listed as NSO, this stipulation could be waived if necessary for transmission lines, roads and surface occupancy." The conditions for granting of a "waiver" in Chapter 4 of the draft RMP/EIS are inconsistent with the stipulation for riparian floodplains described in Appendix K, which does not grant a waiver to NSO. It allows an "exception," which is defined in Appendix K as a one-time exemption from a stipulation. 

Section 4.15.1.3 in the Pthe statement to read athan a waiver. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 SS39 

(SS-M) 

This section states that the number of acres open to oil and gas leasing on Vernal BLM lands is 1,776,782 acres. However, Table S.1 and Table 4.8.1 state that the acres open to oil and gas leasing are 1,843,265 acres. These numbers are not consistent. Please correct and give the precise area of the acres in question for further identification, evaluation and consistency review. 

Section 4.15.2.3.1.1 in been revised to correcdescribed in the commen

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas 

O-28 SS42 The RMP states that the Ferruginous Hawk 

population could be irretrievably lost due to 

Section 4.15.6 in the Prevised to add the followi
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Company (SS-P) impacts from surface disturbance for mineral 

development, habitat fragmentation, and habitat loss. The draft RMP/EIS provides no evidence that mineral development has or would cause declines in Ferruginous Hawk populations. Provide the data in the EIS to support this statement or delete the statement 

"As a species Ferrugincharacteristics that seem susceptible to disturbancsolitude when nestindependence on primary and/or ground squirrels). showed Ferruginous Hsolitude by proving that tis significantly further frhabitation than other syand Thurow (1985) docHawk sensitivity to humthey found that 33% of were deserted and the fledging success. In abundance, sensitivity to and larger buffer zones protect nesting pairs. Hdocumented Ferruginouwalking and vehicularecommended a buffer zattempts. (Reproductive Chronology of FerruNorthwestern Utah FroStates Department of InField Office. Page 5 ParaMining disturbance is lin(Olendorff 1993). Pairs petroleum wells experiethan those that nest fuapparently are not a distu
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

been found to nest fartsecondary roads than S(Bechard et al. 1990)" "Olendorff (1993) attributto the effects of cultivatioand controlling small mamin nesting habitats, with most serious." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 SS36 

(SS-J) 

This section states that "although most of the riparian zone is listed as NSO, this stipulation could be waived if necessary for transmission lines, roads and surface occupancy." The conditions for granting of a "waiver" in Chapter 4 of the draft RMP/EIS are inconsistent with the stipulation for riparian floodplains described in Appendix K, which does not grant a waiver to NSO. It allows an "exception," which is defined in Appendix K as a one-time exemption from a stipulation. 

Section 4.15.1.3 in the Pthe statement to read athan a waiver. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 SS39 

(SS-M) 

This section states that the number of acres open to oil and gas leasing on Vernal BLM lands is 1,776,782 acres. However, Table S.1 and Table 4.8.1 state that the acres open to oil and gas leasing are 1,843,265 acres. These numbers are not consistent. Please correct and give the precise area of the acres in question for further identification, evaluation and consistency review. 

Section 4.15.2.3.1.1 in been revised to correcdescribed in the commen

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore 

O-29 SS42 

(SS-P) 

The RMP states that the ferruginous hawk population could be irretrievably lost due to impacts from surface disturbance for mineral 

Section 4.15.6 in the Prevised to add the followi
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

LLC development, habitat fragmentation, and habitat 

loss. The draft RMP/EIS provides no evidence that mineral development has or would cause declines in Ferruginous Hawk populations. Provide the data in the EIS to support this statement or delete the statement 

"As a species Ferrugincharacteristics that seem susceptible to disturbancsolitude when nestindependence on primary and/or ground squirrels). showed Ferruginous Hsolitude by proving that tis significantly further frhabitation than other syand Thurow (1985) dohawk sensitivity to humthey found that 33% of were deserted and the fledging success. In abundance, sensitivity to and larger buffer zones protect nesting pairs. Hdocumented ferruginous walking and vehicularecommended a buffer zattempts. (Reproductive Chronology of FerruNorthwestern Utah FroStates Department of InField Office. Page 5 ParaMining disturbance is lin(Olendorff 1993). Pairs petroleum wells experiethan those that nest fuapparently are not a distu
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

been found to nest fartsecondary roads than S(Bechard et al. 1990)" "Olendorff (1993) attributto the effects of cultivatioand controlling small mamin nesting habitats, with most serious." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 SS152B 

(R-SS2) 

Research does not support the assumption of adverse impacts from mineral development. Comments submitted to the USFWS opposing the listing of the sage grouse strongly suggest that neither livestock grazing nor oil and gas development are directly connected to reported declines in sage grouse. Certainly recent drought is a factor, which is largely ignored. This discussion needs to be modified to reflect other scientific viewpoints. 

The potential impacts of msage grouse habitat thaDraft EIS are due to ththat habitat. Citations rdrought, mineral, and gragrouse habitat will be proThe section the commaddresses impacts of mspecial status species. resource decisions are dthe document. Information and referencethe Final EIS to support tto sage-grouse habdevelopment. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Center for Native Ecosystems 

O-38 SS53 

(JSS10) 

Graham's and White River penstemon not listed in the oil-shale endemics page 4-233 says that Graham's penstemon is in severe decline, but only lists the reed-mustards as species restricted to oil shale formations. 

Clay reed mustard is not Section 4.15.1.3 in the revised to read: "This threat is particularly 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13u. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

mustard, White RiveGraham's beardtongue, ageologic formations conta

Draft RMP/EIS 

Center for Native Ecosystems 

O-38 SS55 

(JSS12) 

The draft RMP concludes that "The potential impacts to Uintah Basin hookless cactus, clay reed mustard, shrubby reed mustard, Graham's beardtongue, and White River beardtongue are expected to be high with oil, gas and coal bed methane development". Clearly the BLM is violating ESA, NEPA, FLPMA, and APA by allowing high levels of impacts in habitat for extremely narrowly distributed listed and candidate plant species under the preferred alternative. 

Although the potential edevelopment are expecte

stipulations for oil and gfor movement of drilling and/or minimize impacts determination regarding mitigation measures are with ESA, NEPA, FLPMdetermined at the site-spEIS has been amended regarding the range of avoptions for these specprojected impacts implementation of these m

Table 5.13v. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 TR32 

(TR-P) 

Construction of new roads across riparian areas does not create an irreversible loss of habitat. If such roads are deemed to no longer serve a public purpose after the activity they serve is completed, such roads can be removed and the habitat restored. 

Section 4.11.1 in the Prevised to read as follows"Depending upon the methods and materials uriparian areas would res
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13v. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

riparian habitat at the sitloss of habitat would reclamation of the roadiminishes to a point threestablish itself." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 TR67 

(RTR10) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "Access to public lands is provided throughout the VPA. BLM must provide access to inholdings or access pursuant to a permit or lease. In situations when BLM is not required to grant a right-of-way pursuant to law or regulation, BLM can close or limit access, Access should be closed or restricted, where necessary, to protect public health and safety and to protect significant resource values." 

Section 3.6.6 in the Prevised to read as follows "Access to public lands the VPA. Access should where necessary, to prosafety and to protect values. Easements can access to public lands forange, cultural/historicaspecial management areneeds. Note that all valrights are acknowledgemanagement actions approval of the Final Decision do not apply leases and rights." 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 52 Pages 4-186 and 4-187, Section 4.21.2.7.3:

The 3rd and last paragraphs in this section appear to be repetitive. 

The document will be comment. 

WSA Supplement 

Steven Manning 

O-180 4 In this same section, as referenced above, 

motorized use is discussed separately from OHV use. However, in nearly all the discussions throughout the Supplement, there is very little if any discussion of the impacts, or even the existence of something called 

The glossary will be udefinition of OHV and the travel within the Proposed Additionally, clarification wof a comprehensive trave
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13v. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

"motorized travel", which we assume is different from OHV travel. This designation leads to many questions: How is motorized travel defined? Is it different from OHV travel?In what category are licensed passenger vehicles (automobiles and light trucks) placed? Is travel limited to existing roads or designated roads? What is the difference between existing and designated? How will each Alternative in so-called "non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics" impact licensed passenger vehicles traveling on existing roads? 

will be completed within Record of Decision as per 

Table 5.13w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Vegetation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 VE7 This paragraph should be changed to read: 

"Wyoming and mountain big sagebrush are declining..." The UDWR recommends adding discussion regarding the recent sagebrush mortality in the RMP. 

Section 3.16.1.3 in the revised to include the follo"Wyoming and moundeclining...Beginning in taccelerated the decline wdie-off and die-back. sagebrush mortality while on the sagebrush in subs
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Vegetation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 VE1 Duchesne County has adopted a list of 

noxious weeds, which was provided to the BLM staff at the February 9, 2005 open house in Duchesne. The status column in this table may need to be amended accordingly. 

All of the plants listed already included in TaTamarisk, which is discSection 3.16.2. The "Sta3.16.6 has been revised plants are listed by Dnoxious weeds. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 VE3 Alternative C would have lesser beneficial 

impacts on vegetation resources than Alternative A (not more). This is because Alternative C would not automatically provide for the same level of vegetation removal as Alternative A, which increases the chances for catastrophic wild fires (see Section 4.13.2.14.3). 

The woodland and foresproposed for AlternativAlternative C (Section 4.1this activity under Alterlong-term adverse imparesources because of susubsequent soil erosion streams. These effects wthe vegetation under Alteunder Alternative C. In faare probably comparabvegetation. The PRMP/Fto reflect this analysis. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 VE23 

(JVE-8) 

Last paragraph, 3rd sentence: "However, some areas of tamarisk are currently protected as critical habitat for the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, which further complicates its management." Although southwestern willow flycatchers have been possibly identified along the White River near Ouray (genetics testing has not yet been completed), the VPA does not contain any designated critical habitat for the species. 

The commenter is correcArea contains no designthe southwestern willow 3.16.2 of the PRMP/FEIreflect the issue made in 

Draft U.S. Fish G-12 VE-6 "Unique features within the planning area Section 1.4 of the PRMP
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Vegetation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS and Wildlife 

Service 

include...the Pariette Wetlands, which provide habitat for over 100 species of wildlife." What about plants? 

to acknowledge the plaPariette Wetlands. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 VE3 Alternative C would have lesser beneficial 

impacts on vegetation resources than Alternative A (not more). This is because Alternative C would not automatically provide for the same level of vegetation removal as Alternative A, which increases the chances for catastrophic wild fires (see Section 4.13.2.14.3). 

The woodland and foresproposed for AlternativAlternative C (Section 4.1this activity under Alterlong-term adverse imparesources because of susubsequent soil erosion streams. These effects wthe vegetation under Alteunder Alternative C. In faare probably comparabvegetation. The PRMP/Fto reflect this analysis. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Westport Oil and Gas Company 

O-28 VE9 

(VE-A) 

There appear to be several errors in calculating vegetation disturbance. For example, adding the acres of disturbance for standard stipulations and timing limitations and controlled surface use does not equal 1,776,782. "Estimated surface disturbance 

by individual well development" does not total 18,971 acres. According to Table 4-1, surface disturbance would be less than 5 acres per well. The percent increase and increase of disturbance between Alternative A and Alternative D also should be recalculated. Table 4.16.6 shows 18,971 acres as total disturbance under Alternative A. This total is obtained by combining the short- and long- term disturbance. However, 

Section 4.16.2.5.1 in the revised to correct the erro
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Vegetation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

some short-term disturbance would continue over the life of the project and be included as long-term disturbance. As a result of this overlap, the two totals cannot be added together. These errors need to be corrected. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Onshore LLC 

O-29 VE9 

(VE-A) 

There appear to be several errors in calculating vegetation disturbance. For example, adding the acres of disturbance for standard stipulations and timing limitations and controlled surface use does not equal 1,776,782. "Estimated surface disturbance 

by individual well development" does not total 18,971 acres. According to Table 4-1, surface disturbance would be less than 5 acres per well. The percent increase and increase of disturbance between Alternative A and Alternative D also should be recalculated. Table 4.16.6 shows 18,971 acres as total disturbance under Alternative A. This total is obtained by combining the short- and long- term disturbance. However, some short-term disturbance would continue over the life of the project and be included as long-term disturbance. As a result of this overlap, the two totals cannot be added together. These errors need to be corrected. 

Section 4.16.2.5.1 in the revised to correct the erro

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 VE38 

(R-VE8) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions: "Impacts to livestock and grazing resources would occur under all of the proposed alternatives. The impacts could include 

Section 4.7.1 in the Prevised to include the bol
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Vegetation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

those caused by road and trail construction and maintenance, wellpad construction, vehicle traffic, accidental spills of potentially hazardous materials, and noxious weed infestations. These impacts are generally mitigated as part of the conditions of approval." The RMP overstates the impacts on livestock grazing from energy development. The amount of land used for energy is relatively small and disruption occurs for a relatively short period of time. In some cases, dust will benefit the plants as well. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 VE39A 

(R-VE9) 

The RMP omits the role of wildlife and wind in facilitating noxious weed problems. These factors exist in the planning area and have little or nothing to do with energy development. 

Wind has been added as the spread of noxious wof the PRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 VE46 

(R-VE16) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "Decisions making lands unavailable for upland surface disturbance and riparian corridor disturbance may benefit would be beneficial to riparian resources. Beneficial impacts may would result from stubble height requirements, utilization levels, reduced use, and season of use changes that are proposed in some of the 

Section 4.11 in the Finrevised to include the changes. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Vegetation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

alternatives." This statement may not be accurate where natural erosion is the major or only factor in sedimentation. Similarly, limiting surface disturbance for vegetation treatments may prevent improvement of upland vegetation, which will also not benefit riparian resources. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Ranges West 

O-43 VE15 

(AVE-4) 

The juniper common to the Vernal Resource Area is Utah juniper (Juniperus utahensis) not western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Someone needs to take range plants class. 

Section 4.15.1.4 in the revised to clarify that thVRA is Utah juniper and n

WSA Supplement 

US EPA G-6 45 Section 3.16.2, Invasive Species and Noxious 

Weeds, pages 3-112 and 3-113: The document notes," Of particular management concern are potential and existing populations of invasive species in the oil and gas fields that are receiving increased activity and interest". However, the document does not analyze the options and effectiveness of various invasive species. 

Section XXX provides fo(specific to noxious wealternatives using fire, mechemical means without smanagement tool that wthese broad categories. Tto management of vegetwithout specifying indiviprovides the BLM the opthe entire range of availavegetation treatments in way for the location and veThe text has been edited clarification of vegetation t"The VFO is aware of tnoxious and invasive we
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Vegetation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

within the planning area aWeed Management Plan, full spectrum of tools and integrated weed manageaddress more specifically enforced, Strategies aemployed. The Programmatic EStatement for VegetatioHerbicides in 17 Western few new herbicides for including Plateau®, whicopportunity to treat cheatgThe Record of DecisioMeasures and Standard Obe employed by all vegetwill be addressed in the VPlan." The Programmatic EnvVegetation Treatments oWestern States addressemanagement techniques acumulative effects of a treatments including mecchaining. 

WSA Supplement 

US EPA G-6 52 Section 4.16 Vegetation, page 4-273: The use 

of chemical treatments should be limited near "Waters of the United States". 

Section XXX provides fo(specific to noxious wealternatives using fire, mechemical means without smanagement tool that w
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Vegetation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

these broad categories. Tto management of vegetwithout specifying indiviprovides the BLM the opthe entire range of availavegetation treatments in way for the location and veThe text has been edited clarification of vegetation t"The VFO is aware of tnoxious and invasive wewithin the planning area aWeed Management Plan, full spectrum of tools and integrated weed manageaddress more specifically enforced, Strategies aemployed. The Programmatic EStatement for VegetatioHerbicides in 17 Western few new herbicides for including Plateau®, whicopportunity to treat cheatgThe Record of DecisioMeasures and Standard Obe employed by all vegetwill be addressed in the VPlan." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13w. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Vegetation 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

The Programmatic EnvVegetation Treatments oWestern States addressemanagement techniques acumulative effects of a treatments including mecchaining. 

Table 5.13x. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Visual Resource Management 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 VI25 Under Alternative C, the reduction in shortterm adverse impact is recognized but the 

reduction in long-term beneficial impacts (associated with restrictions on fuel reduction in ACEC's) is not. 

Section 4.17.2.12.3 has PRMP/FEIS as follows: "Alternative C would haAlternative A, except thaof forest and woodlands treatments or harvestingspecies salvage would the woodland or fothreatened, which would adverse impacts on visuawoodland salvage withproposed ACECs would beneficial impacts on woform of fuel load red
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13x. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Visual Resource Management 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

conducted to reduce thwildland fire." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

G-2 VI25 Under Alternative C, the reduction in shortterm adverse impact is recognized but the 

reduction in long-term beneficial impacts (associated with restrictions on fuel reduction in ACEC's) is not. 

Section 4.17.2.12.3 has PRMP/FEIS as follows: "Alternative C would haAlternative A, except thaof forest and woodlands treatments or harvestingspecies salvage would the woodland or fothreatened, which would adverse impacts on visuawoodland salvage withproposed ACECs would beneficial impacts on woform of fuel load redconducted to reduce thwildland fire." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 VI19 The same descriptions should be provided 

for VRM I, III, IV as for VRM II was. 

The Final EIS text has bdescriptions for all VRM in Appendix K. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 VI21 How can 35,900 acres of mineral 

withdrawals under Alternative D lead to a higher level of visual protection than 36,267 acres of such withdrawals under the three action alternatives? 

Section 4.17.2.3.2 in the revised to reflect that AltE provide more acreage resources that does Alter

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 VI22 It is not correct to say that Alternative B 

does not specify management actions on slopes greater than 40%. Table 2.3, Page 2-54, states that an approved, engineered 

Section 4.17.2.8 in the revised to clarify the staslope management action
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13x. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Visual Resource Management 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

plan is required under Alternative B for surface disturbance on slopes greater than 20% (which should include slopes over 40%). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 VI23 It is not logical that Alternative B would have 

greater negative OHV impacts on visual quality than Alternative D. Alternative B has much fewer acres open to unrestricted OHV use and both of these alternatives maintain existing roads if they continue to serve a public purpose. 

The text in question haSection 4.17.2.7.4 of the 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 VI24 In the analysis of Alternative B, the longterm beneficial visual impacts associated 

with woodland forest management are not recognized. 

Section 4.17.2.12.2 has PRMP/FEIS as follows: "The long-term beneficial would be similar to thAlternative A." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

O-9 VI21 How can 35,900 acres of mineral 

withdrawals under Alternative D lead to a higher level of visual protection than 36,267 acres of such withdrawals under the three action alternatives? 

Section 4.17.2.3.2 in the revised to reflect that AltE provide more acreage resources that does Alter

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

O-9 VI22 It is not correct to say that Alternative B 

does not specify management actions on slopes greater than 40%. Table 2.3, Page 2-54, states that an approved, engineered plan is required under Alternative B for surface disturbance on slopes greater than 20% (which should include slopes over 40%). 

Section 4.17.2.8 in the revised to clarify the staslope management action

Draft Utah Farm O-9 VI23 It is not logical that Alternative B would have The text in question ha
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13x. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Visual Resource Management 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS Bureau 

Federation 

greater negative OHV impacts on visual quality than Alternative D. Alternative B has much fewer acres open to unrestricted OHV use and both of these alternatives maintain existing roads if they continue to serve a public purpose. 

Section 4.17.2.7.4 of the 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 34 Page 4-113, Section 4.17.2.6.5, 4th 

paragraph: ...the long-term adverse impacts of light pollution adjacent to the Dinosaur National Monument would be mitigated, which would benefit night-time visual quality in that portion of the VPA near the monument. 

The BLM agrees that twould more accurately dThe text has been change

WSA Supplement 

Utah State Office of Education, School Land Trust 

G-169 9 It should be noted that in creating protected 

view-shed corridors, the BLM has no rights to control what is done on school lands, even if they can see it. We are concerned that the BLM states that "Indirect impacts of visual resource decisions on mineral development would be adverse. A decrease in the number of potential oil and gas wells would lead to a decrease in royalties paid to the federal government and/or the state of Utah." 

Non-BLM lands could be RMP decisions both posThe analysis in Chapter 4 been modified accordinglyFor specifics regarding trevenue see comment 120The BLM does provide foall SITLA lands under all aInformation has been adChapter 2, Lands and Common to all action altereasonable access to provided including acroavoidance and exclusion as specified by the CoAndrus, 10/1/79). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13x. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Visual Resource Management 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

The results of the Utah lands survey and the Univthe economic impacts of oin the Uintah Basin have the Proposed RMP/Finsummarizes the public laan Appendix has been aresults for the three countData from the University extensively incorporated inThe Proposed RMP/Finaimportance of the oil aneconomic health of the Useeks to strike a rebetween demands on reprotection, within the frasustained yield, multiple u

Table 5.13y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wilderness Characteristics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

WSA Supplement 

EOG Resources, Inc. 

B-144 8 Many of the WCAs in the Vernal Resource 

Area (i.e. Desolation Canyon WCA) overlap with proposed ACECs (i.e. Nine Mile Canyon, Lower Green River and Four Mile WashACECs). In reviewing WCAs, it is important 

Layering of program decisBLM, but is required by National BLM planning regulations. The FLPmanagement of public la
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wilderness Characteristics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

for BLM to concurrently examine proposed ACECs. Many of the proposed ACECs are overbroad, and appear to cover solely wilderness characteristics. BLM has not identified other nationally significant resources and values within these ACECs.Rather, the resources identified are common throughout Utah and the Intermountain West.In sum, wilderness characteristics standing alone do not provide BLM with basis to designate an ACEC.  For example, in the Vernal DRMP/EIS, BLM explained that the relevance criteria for the Four Mile Wash ACEC was high value scenery, riparian ecosystem and special status fish. BLM explains that the importance criteria include "spectacular scenery" and home to endangered fish in the Green River.These resources are not nationally significant and can be found common throughout the Vernal resource area and Utah. The relevance and importance of this ACEC is confined to the Green River and is properly covered by the Lower Green River ACEC and/or the proposed protection of the Green River as a wild and scenic river. The purported protection of the lands on the plateau up from the Green River for "scenery"is an unlawful attempt to protect lands as an ACEC for "wilderness characteristics". This scenery is not nationally or regionally significant. 

multiple use (Section 102use agency, the BLM is laws, regulations and poland often competing, lanconflicts and prescribe lanuse plans. For example, provides guidance anDisposition; Occupancy aGroup 2800 for Rights-oCoal Management; GrouWilderness, and Group 82part 8351 for Wild and Suse management requiremandates for these separaBLM prepares overlays rights-of-way, coal, wilderdesignation areas, etcinformation to identify conon the public lands. Each meet the requirements lawfor the particular program. BLM's Land-use Planning specific decisions be maduse (Appendix C, H-1decisions must be inclualternatives analyzed durland-use plan. 

As each a

each program decision is program decisions and incidentified and modified to objectives of the alterconflicts between progr
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wilderness Characteristics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Accordingly, designation of the Four Mile 

Wash ACEC would be unwarranted and unlawful. Since BLM has provided no further basis that resources to the west of the canyon rim are nationally significant, BLM should reduce the boundary of the ACEC to only the canyon rims. 

comment have been anaalternatives in the Final EIThe Final EIS includes theach program and BLM that the allowable uses compatible and meet tselected plan. The balance is within the some alternatives propoothers do not. 

Also s

prescriptions vary betweeprotection of the relevant "outweighs" the other reACEC was proposed undThrough FLPMA, BLM haACECs where special mrequired to protect andamage to important cultvalues; fish and wildlife natural systems or proceand safety from natural values and wilderness cthe special managemenACEC, if designated, "wilderness characterisHowever, BLM policy ddesignation will not be uwilderness suitability reco16513). Wilderness chaconsidered relevant or i
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wilderness Characteristics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

evaluating or designing mACECs. On August 27, 1980, BACEC guidelines (45 Fethat clarify that the term defend or guard against important environmental ror designated ACEC. This can be restored over tiirreparable. With regard protect means to prevent to people, or loss or damaThus, BLM is to considereparable and irreparprotecting important histovalues; fish and wildlife natural systems through Ainterpretation is consilegislative history and Section 2 of the guidelineare special places within p"In addition to establishprotective management pthe public lands, Con'management of national lands] is to include giving protection of 

ACECs, for t

that the most environmfragile lands will be giveprotection' (Senate RepoThus, the ACEC process 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13y. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wilderness Characteristics 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

whatever special managprotect those environmenmost important, i.e., thoscertain specific areas specnature or man with charaapart. In addition, the Aused to protect human natural hazards." Relevance and Importanexpanded in the final EIS. Please see Response to 1. 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 47 Cold Springs Mountain: 8,764 acres vs. 

8,674? 

8,764 is the correct acreacorrection in the Final RMP

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 60 Page 4-219, Section 4.22, 2nd paragraph on 

this page: The list of other land management agencies in this paragraph fails to mention SITLA, which owns many sections of land abutting non-WSA lands managed by the BLM. 

Comment Noted. SITLA will be added. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.13z. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Woodlands 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

WSA Supplement 

Duchesne County Commission 

G-10 35 Pages 4-118 and 4-119, Section 4.17.2.12.5:

The 1st paragraph of this section notes that woodland salvage and harvesting would be prohibited under Alternative E. However, in the second paragraph, it gives the impression that woodland salvage and harvesting would be allowed. This apparent inconsistency should be clarified. 

Section 4.20.1-Impacts CoRMP and all Alternativeresources would be treatthe Proposed RMP and however, under the Alternative E, non-WSA characteristics would prohibitions on woodland and salvage. These pradverse impacts on harvthe long term. The section has been reRMP/Final EIS. The secchanged to Section 4.20.2

Table 5.14aa. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild Horses and Burros 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WH28 The analysis of wild horse impacts on wildlife 

and fisheries on page 4-324 is incomplete and does not address long-term impacts by wild horses on sagebrush steppe vegetation communities and existing riparian areas. The Utah DWR indicates that significant overgrazing of browse (needed by mule deer) occurs annually, especially around water collection 

The potential impacmanagement decisions analyzed in Section 4.16.The analysis of potential management decisions oSection 4.19.2.13 has b
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14aa. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild Horses and Burros 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

ponds, in other areas of wild horse herds. Estimates of the effects of the Ute Tribal wild horses in Agency Draw indicate that a minimum of a 0.5-mile radius on browse damage can be seen around watering sites 

PRMP/FEIS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WH31 State of Utah (DWR) biologists have 

documented heavy summer and winter use of Winter Ridge by elk. This use has created competition for forage between the elk and the livestock permittee. This impacts of wild horses on available forage in light of this existing competition needs to be analyzed further in the DEIS. 

Analysis of impacts from between elk, livestock, been added in the PRMP

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 WH14 Strike this entire alternative. This alternative 

says the permits would be offered on the former HMA of Hill Creek. Neither the text nor maps indicate where this is. Issuing this permit would only add to the management problems in the HMA. 

Only Alternative B would wild horse grazing in ththese permits would oNorthern Ute Tribe. Figurto show the Hill Creek He

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 WH5 After 1st sentence use would be allowed within 

allocations made in the land-use plan, and overall herd numbers would be confined to management limits established as an appropriate management level. Add: "BLM would remove wild horses when appropriate management levels are exceeded or when wild horses are found outside the herd management areas." The RMP needs to commit to removal and 

Table 2.1.1 (ManagemAlternatives) of the PRMentitled Fire, Drought, anbeen revised to read as fo"Wild or feral horses wremoved. Forage allocatuntil removal." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14aa. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild Horses and Burros 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

active management of wild horses. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 WH68 

(RWH17) 

Modify the following statement as indicated by 

bolded additions and strikethrough deletions: "If forage allocation reductions are necessary to maintain, meet or make significant progress towards or sustain rangeland health in the Bonanza, Diamond Mountain, Book Cliffs (excluding wild horse herd areas), and Blue Mountain localities or the Bonanza Wild Horse Herd Area, AUMs allocated to big game and wild horses would be reduced proportionately to the role they play with those allocated to livestock. If reductions are necessary in the Hill Creek and Winter Ridge Wild Horse Herd Areas big game and wild horses would be reduced proportionally with AUMs allocated to livestock and wild horses. However, AUMs allocated to pronghorn would not be reduced below 502 AUMs in the Bonanza locality and 239 AUMs in the Bonanza Wild Horse Herd Area locality unless antelope numbers have played a role in the area not meeting rangeland health standards. ... Reductions in forage allocation for wildlife in the Bonanza, Book Cliffs, and Blue Mountain localities would not be specified under the No Action Alternative. There would be no reductions in forage allocation for wildlife in the Diamond Mountain locality on crucial habitat; on non-crucial habitat, allocations would be reduced equally with livestock under the No Action Alternative. 

Section 4.19.2.3.1 of the revised as follows: "Under Alternative A, reductions are necessary make significant progrehealth in the Bonanza loto live stock and pronghproportionally though probe reduced below 502 would be more benefAlternative D since Anecessary actions whecriteria are met. If, however, additional for

increases would be dbetween livestock and big AUMs going to pronghocase, the impacts of Alteapproximately the same would provide additional f
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14aa. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild Horses and Burros 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF87 The fish and wildlife resources section 3.19 

begins on page 3-123. Multiple tables within this section confuse the herd unit numbers for Bonanza and Diamond Mountain sub-units. The Bonanza sub-unit number is 9d and Diamond Mountain is 9c. This discrepancy should be changed in tables 3.19.1, 3.19.3, and 3.19.5. In addition, table 3.19.2 appears to be incomplete for mule deer habitat in the VPA. 

Table 3.19.2 in the PRMrevised to correct and numbers and to complemule deer habitat. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF88 Table 3.19.3 outlines management goals for 

mule deer. Some of the population objectives and buck-to-doe ratios are incorrect. The combined mule deer population objective for the South Slope Vernal, Diamond, and Bonanza sub-units is 13,000. The buck-to-doe ratio for South Slope Diamond Mountain (9c) and Book Cliffs Bitter Creek and Little Creek (10a) is 25-30:100.Table 3.19.5 outlines management 

Table 3.19.3 used 2002 analysis of the Draft RMbe found at the UDPRMP/FEIS text has beeerrors. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

goals for elk in the VPA. The listed bull age ratios are incorrect. The North Slope (Summit and West Daggett), North Slope Three Corners, South Slope Yellowstone, South Slope Vernal, and South Slope Bonanza sub-units are managed for 50% of bulls 21⁄2 years or older. The South Slope Diamond sub-unit (9c) is managed for bulls 3-4 years old. The Book Cliffs (Bitter Creek and Little Creek) and Nine Mile Anthro sub-units are managed for 5-6 year old bulls. Utah's statewide herd management plans for mule deer, elk, and other species should be referenced and discussed in section 3.19. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF89 Section 3.19.1.3 discusses pronghorn in the 

VPA. This section displays population estimates for several herd units. The data referenced are not population estimates, but rather annual trend count numbers. These numbers are used for population trend and do not reflect population sizes. The section does not offer trend count data for the Book Cliffs and Nine Mile pronghorn herd units. Trend data for these units can be obtained by contacting the UDWR Vernal office at 435-781-6707. 

Section 3.19.1.3 in the been revised, and trend csection. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF90 Bighorn sheep are discussed on page 3-127. 

The UDWR is unaware of any large bighorn sheep populations in the Nine-Mile Canyon area. The UDWR manages bighorn sheep populations in Desolation Canyon and on Range Creek, both of which are outside the VFO. The Ute Tribe has bighorn sheep 

Section 3.19.1.4 in the been revised to removsheep population withiBighorn sheep are in the (#11), which is outside of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

populations in Desolation Canyon and in Hill Creek. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF91 Moose populations are outlined in section 

3.19.1.5. This section does not mention that moose populations also occur in the North Slope wildlife management unit and does not offer population estimates for that unit. 

Section 3.19.1.5 in the revised to include moose for the North Slope wildlif

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF92 Section 3.19.1.10 should include Brown's Park 

and Mallard Springs WMAs as additional important waterfowl and shorebird areas in the VFO. 

Section 3.19.1.10 in threvised to include these waterfowl. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF93 Desert and mountain cottontails should be 

removed from section 3.19.1.12. Cottontail rabbits are managed by the UDWR as upland game species. 

The PRMP/FEIS has beecottontail information fro(Non-Game Species) (Upland Species). 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF94 Page 3-133 outlines habitat fragmentation 

concerns. The section cites a study on mule deer conducted in the Book Cliffs. This study was a four-year inventory (1998-2002), rather than two years as listed in the RMP. The UDWR initially recommended the study continue for five total years, however sufficient data were collected by the fourth year to meet the study objective. More information on fragmentation of mule deer habitat can be found in the study "Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and Management Strategies" by Vos, Conover, and Headrick (2003). 

Section 4.19.2 in the Prevised to show that the four years. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF96 Section 4.19 on page 4-305 should include an 

additional impact of grazing management decisions on wildlife. Livestock grazing in critical 

Section 4.19 in the Prevised to include an analivestock and grazing m
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

big game winter ranges, riparian areas, and sage-grouse areas has the potential to impact wildlife by changing vegetation composition and structure. These impacts are real and should be analyzed in the RMP. 

wildlife. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF97 The RMP confuses UDWR GIS data and Utah 

GAP Analysis data in section 4.19.2.5.2.1 on page 4-314 and in section 4.19.2.5.2.2 on page 4-316. Utah State University developed GAP Analysis projected habitat occurrence data for several wildlife species during the mid-1990s. The UDWR GIS database includes, in part, habitat value designations as well as season of use designations for big game and other managed wildlife species 

Sections 4.19.2.5.2.1 anPRMP/FEIS text have bthe use of UDWR GIS analysis data. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF98 The UDWR recommends that the RMP further 

address cumulative impacts in both the special status species section (4.22.9) and the wildlife and fisheries section (4.22.12). The RMP should provide more information regarding past activities and projected future activities in the Uintah Basin and the combined impacts these actions may have on wildlife populations. 

Sections 4.22.10 (specia

4.22.12 (wildlife and PRMP/FEIS have been rinformation on cumulative 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 WF99 The UDWR notes that the sage-grouse lek 

buffers subject to timing and controlled use on figure 11, figure 12, and figure 13 may be incorrect. USU completed a resource assessment for BLM and documented leks, winter use areas, and other grouse observations. The data displayed on figure 11 appear to represent all data points USU collected, many of which are not actual lek 

Figures 11-13 in the Prevised to correct sage gr
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

locations. This discrepancy occurred on the sage-grouse lek map BLM had in the administrative draft RMP and appears not to have been corrected. The UDWR maintains the most up-to-date database for sage-grouse leks and those data should be used for the RMP. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 WF35 This conclusion does not appear to be 

adequately supported by findings in the chapter and is an overstatement of the potential impacts. 

Section 4.15.6 in the Prevised to include supporconclusion reached in this 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 WF36 Efforts have not been made in Alternative B to 

allocate forage to wild horses. 

The commenter is crepresents part of the raCEQ regulations (40 CFR 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 WF54 Alt B does not include the 560 acres per 

township limitation for wildlife, according to Table 2.3 on pg 2-65. Alts A and C contain this limitation, while Alt B has a 10% habitat threshold. Duchesne Co. supports Alt B and the 10% threshold. 

Section 4.16.2.15.1 in been revised to correct Alternative B. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 WF144 

(JWF34) 

We commend the BLM for the commitment to "pursue a partnership between industries, local governments, USFWS, UDWR, BLM, and others to establish a raptor management fund to be utilized for raptor population monitoring and habitat enhancement." We recommend you also include, at a minimum, the Forest Service and NRCS. We offer our assistance in establishing this partnership. 

Table 2.1.21 (Special SPRMP/FEIS has been rUSFS and NRCS. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 WF147 

(JWF37) 

1st sentence: All the raptor species found in the VPA are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We recommend you reword the 

Section 3.19.1.11 In the been revised to incluprotection of raptors und
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

sentence to reflect that all have federal protection and several have additional state protection. 

Treaty Act. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 WF148 

(JWF38) 

 2" paragraph: The BLM proposes employment of a raptor database using information from an ongoing study, which intends to determine the nesting requirements and seasonally important rapt or habitats located on public lands within the VPA. Using this database to track nest sites and important raptor habitat location, the document outlines the next step: "oil and gas development maps will be used to develop predictive models for raptor/energy conflicts, and to develop mitigation measures for unleased parcels." We believe this approach, as proposed, will fail to protect raptors because: 1) the utility of the ongoing study has yet to be determined, and it may not provide the level of information necessary, and 2) virtually all the habitat for the most sensitive raptor species in the VPA has already been leased for development, so there will be few acres with mitigation applied. 

Section 3.19.1.11 in the revised to the delete the f"Oil and gas developmendevelop predicted moddevelopment conflicts, anmeasures for unleased pa

Draft RMP/EIS 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

G-12 WF152 

(JWF41) 

The discussion of Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife and Fisheries does not detail what the overall impact will be from all resource decisions on wildlife and fisheries. The section is copied from two paragraphs in the Special Status Species cumulative impacts section, but there is no further determination of what the impact would be to fish and wildlife resources. 

Section 4.22.12 in the PRrevised to include a analysis of cumulative imfisheries. 

Draft UBAOG G-22 WF21 There is no indication of the type of disturbance Alternative A in Table 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS that is to be reclaimed. One assumption would 

be surface disturbance if so. There is nothing in the text to support the need for 1.5:1 mitigation ratio. It must not be based on habitat loss as such habitat should be avoided to the extent possible. When area disturbance is located outside sage brush habitat when reclamation is complete often habitat is created or forage plants are established where they did not exist prior. This issue has been one of long-time contention. The 1.5:1 ratio is the result of a negotiation that began with a 3:1 ratio and bargained down. The bottom line is that reclamation should be based on the amount of habitat lost. The goals expressed in CHS, to double and triple mule deer and elk populations would appear to be a driving force behind forced increases in habitat. 

Fisheries Resources) of been revised to reflect a 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 WF3 There should be a clear distinction between 

introduction, reintroduction and emigration. Glossary should provide a definition of each. Emigration should not be handled as a reintroduction. The Uintah County Plan provides that animals outside of their permitted area are in trespass. Such animals should be removed. To allow emigration requires planning and forage adjustments after the fact and is not sound management. Emigration requires the same analysis and disclosure as do other decisions. 

The Glossary of the Finato clarify the meanin"reintroduction," and "emThe commenter was not "permitted area" means. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 WF31 Strike "would" in the first sentence. Replace 

with - "may". 

Table 2.3 in the Final EIS the suggested changes. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Not all reintroduction efforts will uniformly benefit wildlife habitat. For example, increased prairie dog populations to support the blackfooted ferret will have significant and adverse impacts on rangeland vegetation. While this is justified under the ESA, the RMP cannot ignore the damage done and resulting increase in sediment and erosion, loss of native vegetation, etc. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 WF34 The DEIS does not define and appears to 

misuse the term "habitat fragmentation." The discussion incorrectly states that agriculture uses fragment habitat. Agriculture in the planning area is primarily ranching and it does not "fragment habitat." Second, the alleged fragmentation is probably due to private land ownership along water bodies. Unless the land uses prevent life processes, it is inaccurate to describe the habitat as fragmented. Moreover, fragmentation means different things to different species and the broad-brush discussion incorrectly assumes that habitat changes have an equal effect. 

The Section 3.19.2 in the revised to include a fragmentation. Otherwisenot provide any addisubstantiate or support concerning habitat fragVPA. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 WF35 This conclusion does not appear to be 

adequately supported by findings in the chapter and is an overstatement of the potential impacts. 

Section 4.15.6 in the Prevised to include supporconclusion reached in this 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 WF36 Efforts have not been made in Alternative B to 

allocate forage to wild horses. 

The commenter is crepresents part of the raCEQ regulations (40 CFR 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 WF8 "During periods of prolonged dryness or 

drought, to the extent that wildlife grazing ungulate populations cannot be sustained due to competition for water and available forage, and overall animal health is compromised. BLM would enter into discussions with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) regarding herd numbers and overall management options to combat the effects of drought." Remove "and overall animal health is compromised." Remove "combat" on last line and add "ensure that rangeland health is maintained and to address." 

Table 2.1.1 (ManagemAlternatives under the suDrought, and Natural revised to incorporate the 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Laird Fetzer Hamblin 

I169 WF132 (JWF22) EIS states that in the VPA there are 15 species of plants and animals federally listed as T&E and 1 candidate species. EIS states that there 

are 28 species considered by Utah to as sensitive to becoming endangered. Both of these lists are incomplete for the federal and state species documented to or expected to exist in the VPA. 

At the time of Draft RMP of federal and state speccomplete, based on infothe USFWS and Utah DWThe Final EIS has been latest and most current Tspecies designations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Laird Fetzer Hamblin 

I171 WF118 (JWF-8) A small population of mountain plovers on Myton Beach is in need of special protection. 

Any use of the area that directly or indirectly affects the plovers or their habitat should be avoided. This study shows a steady decline in numbers. Evaluation of the condition of habitat 

Table 2.1.21 (Special SPRMP/FEIS has been follows: "Manage non-listed senshabitats upon which the
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

there should be undertaken immediately. May be due to increase in oil and gas production. Livestock grazing should be discontinued in on Myton Beach. 

manner as to preclude theither threatened or eEndangered Species Actmanagement is put forManual." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

IPAMS O-14 WF155 

(LWF-3) 

The restriction on operations in sage grouse habitats is inconsistent in Appendix K and the timing restrictions. Add 'active lek' to restrictions. 

Appendix K in the Prevised to correct the inco

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 WF190 

(RWF16) 

-Alternative A, Alternative D The RMP does not define surface disturbance. If the term is defined as the actual construction of a road, where vegetation is removed and soil is mixed or removed, this may be reasonable. If the term is used to apply to any activity that scuffs dirt, then it is unreasonable. The RMP fails to document the scientific basis for prohibiting surface-disturbing activities along migration corridors. 

The EIS text has been definition of surface distuof the wildlife and factions. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 WF194

A 

(RWF20) 

The term surface-disturbing needs to be defined as recommended on page 5 of these comments. EPCA, Executive Orders and BLM Policy require more detailed analysis and documentation than what is found in the draft 

RMP with respect to wildlife management conditions and the imposition of overlapping conditions. This standard needs to be limited to surface-disturbing activities and to only apply to significant impacts. The RMP must ensure that restrictions have a scientific basis. For example, it is shown that big game become accustomed to incidental uses of a road by motor vehicles or 

The Glossary of the Prevised to include the disturbance, in the contfisheries management ac
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14bb. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

even drilling in the distance. If the activity involves 6 acres out of 18,000 acres it is not a significant activity. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 WF199

A 

(RWF25) 

-Alternative D If Alternative D is the same as A, the conclusion makes no sense. 

The comparison of Altemade within the context and byways. As stated in long-term impacts on populations (both beneficbe similar for Alternatives has been revised to sunder Alternative D wAlternative A (as it is state

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 WF202 

(RWF28) 

The RMP discussion should also address changes in big game and wildlife populations and trends. Elk numbers, for example, in this region are reportedly increasing and this upward trend will continue for the next decade. If UDWR has increased its herd objectives that fact is also relevant to the issue of where rangeland conditions are not maintaining or achieving rangeland health standards and the contributing factors. 

Section 3.19 in the EIS and trend count data add

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 WF207 

(RWF33) 

Add the following statement at the top of the table: These range improvements are only projected and are not a ceiling. 

Table 4.19.8 in the Prevised to add languaclarification purposes. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14cc. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Water Resources 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SW20 The paragraph at the top of page 2-28 states 

that the BLM will "Develop additional and maintain existing water rights." We would appreciate more detail and specifics on this statement. 

The Bureau has need present and future uselivestock, wildlife, public uTable 2.1.17 (Soil and WPRMP/FEIS under the Management Actions Alternatives has been statement as follows: "BLM implements multipon public lands that reqthe State of Utah, such wildlife watering and watering, recreation suppression. BLM will cactions to maintain its c

these purposes, such beneficial use, filing diligexisting water rights tprojects, and filing protprotect existing BLM watfile for new water rights iwhen allowed under procedures. Situations in new water rights inclexisting water rights are place to support the watewater rights cannot be cwater use on public land. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

USFS—Ashley 

G-19 SW47 

(LSW-5) 

Mention the directives for floodplains under EO 11988. 

Executive Order NoManagement; May 24, 19
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14cc. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Water Resources 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

National Forest 

 the References in the PR

Draft RMP/EIS 

USFS—Ashley National Forest 

G-19 SW49 

(LSW-7) 

Clarify how the aquifers described in the RMP mesh with those mapped by the USGS and Ashley NF. 

Information has been adddenoting the relationship described in the RMP anUSGS and Ashley Nationthat such information is a

Draft RMP/EIS 

UBAOG G-22 GC21 What is the definition of "active flood plains"? The glossary in the Fina

to include a definition of the existing definition of F

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 SW58 

(RSW1) 

Add the bolded statement where indicated: "Eliminate or reduce discharge of pollutants into surface waters and achieve water quality that provides protection and propagation of fish, amphibians, wildlife, livestock, and recreation in and on the water. Implement best management practices adopted by Utah Division of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") to limit surface discharges into water." The Utah DEQ has jurisdiction over water quality, both point and non-point sources of water pollution. BLM's only regulatory option is to implement the "best management practices" for non-point sources, which are designed to reduce sedimentation and erosion into streams. 

The suggested wording Table 2.1.17 ((Soil and order to clarify that the Bauthority of and adheres the DEQ (and the EPA) u

Draft RMP/EIS 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership 

O-33 SW64 

(RSW7) 

Any CBNG water disposal is governed by Utah DEQ. The other effects are accidental spills or unlawful actions that presumably are prevented through enforcement procedures. Disposal by 

Section 4.7.2.3.2 does noaccidental as suggested statement in this sectdisposal as a potential 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14cc. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Water Resources 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

definition is not accidental. unquantified adverse im

reference to accidental spfrom the text, as accideunplanned actions. 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD56 The discussions concerning potential 

recommendations for addition to the Wild and Scenic River System in the draft RMP and EIS are confusing, contradictory and incomplete, and do not meet the requirements of federal or state law or BLM policy and direction. The counties believe it is imperative that the BLM properly disclose the reasons and rationale for determinations of eligibility and suitability for proposed additions to the NWSRS, and to fully meet the requirements of state and federal law in doing so. 

Appendix C of the EIS include additional inforBLM's eligibility and sudeterminations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD63 The draft RMP indicates on page 2-29 that 

"new river segments found suitable" would be managed in accordance with the "Wild and Scenic River Act to prevent non-impairment of outstandingly remarkable values." We do not find the term "non-impairment" in either the Act or BLM policy direction. The Wild and Scenic 

Actions Common to all Rivers have been mo(Special Designations Rivers) of the PRMPCommon to All have bclearly define how BLM segments determined su
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Rivers guidelines of federal agencies indicate that Section 10(a) of the Act is interpreted to provide for a "nondegradation and enhancement policy for all designated river areas." However, this provision does not apply to rivers found suitable for recommendation during planning processes. The counties are concerned the statement of management found on page 2-29 is too simplistic, doesn't meet the intent of the statements found on page 3-84 or page 4-210, and fails to give the stakeholders or the public sufficient notice of criteria or process the BLM intends to employ as part of the proposed management for the river segments determined to be suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. We request that the BLM revise the document to address these concerns. 

planning process. The cbe "prevent impairmentnon-impairment." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD66 Table 5 includes "[m]anageability of the river if 

designated, and other means of protecting values" as a "Suitability Consideration." However, in the "Consideration Applied" column which is supposed to provide the information about manageability, the document simply states "[m]anageability ... and other means of protecting values would be extrapolated from the impact analysis for the Vernal RMP/EIS." This analysis goes nowhere as an explanation, and is inadequate to meet the requirements of Federal law and BLM Manual 8351, and further, is not supported by the impact analysis information presented on pages 4-210 through 4-215. 

Appendix C of the EIS include additional inforBLM's eligibility and sudeterminations. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD67 The draft RMP provides only cursory 

acknowledgment of the White River Dam project and fails to adequately represent its significance, and characterizes the impacts of an eligibility or suitability determination, and associated "protective management" on the proposed project in a contradictory manner. Statements found on pages 4-212 and 4-213 illustrate the cursory analysis, as follows: "...a suitable decision for Segment 1 of the White River would be incompatible with the continuation of an existing permit for a dam site" and t]he suitability decision for Segment 1 of the White River would result in the discontinuance of the existing permit for the dam site." The White River is also described as part of Alternative D, on page 2-57, as follows: "[u]nder this alternative, suitability findings would not be made and eligibility would continue with BLM applying protective management to the free flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification of the river." The discussion of Alternative D on page 4-214, reaffirms that Segment 1 of the White River "would remain eligible." However, in a contradictory manner, the discussion also states, "Segment 1 has been identified for a potential dam site." Subsequently, the last paragraph on page 4-214 concludes the description of Alternative D, as follows: "Under this alternative, the continued eligibility decision for Segment 1 of the White River would be incompatible with 

Alternatives B and D aralternatives. There is an a dam on the White Segment 1 was carried purposes under the wsituation. Also, see Response to Co
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

continuance of the existing permit for the dam site. Because this permit would continue under this alternative, the free-flowing nature of Segment 1 would not be maintained and this segment would no longer be eligible as a Wild and Scenic River." Further, Appendix C, Wild and Scenic River Eligibility, Suitability, Classification and Review does not include any information regarding the White River Dam Project. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD69 The discussion of Alternative B on page 4-213 

includes the following statement, "If acquired lands along Nine Mile Creek are grazed, the outstandingly remarkable cultural and scenic values would be more at risk than with Alternatives A and C". Unfortunately, nowhere in the draft RMP and EIS is there other mention of this apparent concern, or other information that would enable the reviewer to grasp its relative significance. We strongly object to this unsupported assertion that grazing threatens the ORVs in the area, especially on lands that may be acquired. Grazing can be managed to protect cultural and riparian values. The BLM needs to carefully explain the potential difficulties of this area, and analyze them in terms of proper mitigation, rather than making unsupported blanket statements such as this. In addition, the discussion of Alternative A at pages 4-211 and 4-212, contains no reference to any "acquired lands along Nine Mile Creek." 

Chapter 4 of the PRMP/Fto correct and clarify the a

Draft State of G-1 SD70 As a matter of clarification, the document, at Table S.3 of the Execu
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

RMP/EIS Utah page S-3, refers to sections of rivers, ranging 

from one to six rivers, which are recommended for Wild and Scenic River designation. Throughout the remainder of the document, the discussion of wild and scenic rivers refers to segments of rivers, rather than separate individual rivers. The confusion is immediately apparent when the reader looks to Table S.3, as directed by the text on page S-3. Clarity could be achieved by indicating the number of segments associated with the rivers, i.e., "Alternative C ... recommends 9 segments of six rivers." 

PRMP/FEIS has been coclarified regarding the nusegments. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

State of Utah 

G-1 SD71 The information at page 2-29 does not fully 

characterize proposed interim management of WSRs, because the discussion of management of eligible segments, found at page 3-84, is not presented here. We recommend that information similar to that found at page 3-84 be included at page 2-29. 

Chapter 2 of the PRMP/Fto be consistent with thSection 3.14.3.2 regardin

Draft RMP/EIS 

Duchesne County 

G-9 SD240 

(SDJJJ) 

1st paragraph: It states that, under Alternative A, the upper and lower segments of the Green River would be determined suitable for WSR status. However, on pg. 4-212 and 4-214, it implies that these Green River segments have already been determined to be suitable. Has suitability been determined for these segments; and if so, when? 

Chapter 4 in the PRMP/Fto clarify the status of under Alternative A. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne 

G-23 SD45 The Wild and Scenic River Review in Utah, 

process and criteria for interagency use pages 2 and 3, suitability states "The purpose of the suitability component is to determine whether 

Appendix C in the Prevised to include aregarding suitability deter
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Counties eligible rivers are appropriate additions to the 

national system by considering trade-offs between corridor development and river protection." It further states "suitability considerations include the environmental and economic consequences of designation and the manageability of the river if it is designated." Appendix E lists suitability factors to be considered in analysis. This analysis required for determination of suitability has not been accomplished in this DEIS/RMP nor in previous analysis of suitability. BLM has relied on faulty analysis that is 25 years old. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-24 SD88 In Alternative A, sections of Nine Mile Creek are 

proposed not to be identified as suitable for inclusion in the Wild & Scenic River System. There appears to be an error in the description of the first section discussed. Nine Mile Creek between the Green River and the Duchesne County line is not in Duchesne County. The outstanding ORVs identified for this section are not dependent on the river for their existence and not directly river-related as required in IM 2004-196. There is lack of detailed analysis of the need for a WSR designation, how the ORVs meet the above analysis, what management prescription will be applied and impacts on current development leases or permits. Alternative A is the only acceptable alternative, as lack of analysis, location and need to protect the ORV fail to support designation. The ORVs used to support designation have other laws or regulations to protect them or are currently 

The statements in questhe portion of Nine Mile CUintah counties, from thDuchesne-Carbon CoAlternatives C and E the be found suitable for incluChapter 2 in the PRMP/Fto clarify that suitable rivbe managed to protecremarkable values, tentatfree-flowing nature. allocations and manawithin and outside of eligshown on alternative mapinformation is described river section of Chapter 2
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

protected. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 SD56 The discussions concerning potential 

recommendations for addition to the Wild and Scenic River System in the draft RMP and EIS are confusing, contradictory and incomplete, and do not meet the requirements of federal or state law or BLM policy and direction. The counties believe it is imperative that the BLM properly disclose the reasons and rationale for determinations of eligibility and suitability for proposed additions to the NWSRS, and to fully meet the requirements of state and federal law in doing so. 

Appendix C of the EIS include additional inforBLM's eligibility and sudeterminations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 SD63 The draft RMP indicates on page 2-29 that 

"new river segments found suitable" would be managed in accordance with the "Wild and Scenic River Act to prevent non-impairment of outstandingly remarkable values." We do not find the term "non-impairment" in either the Act or BLM policy direction. The Wild and Scenic Rivers guidelines of federal agencies indicate that Section 10(a) of the Act is interpreted to provide for a "nondegradation and enhancement policy for all designated river areas." However, this provision does not apply to rivers found suitable for recommendation during planning processes. The counties are concerned the statement of management found on page 2-29 is too simplistic, doesn't meet the intent of the statements found on page 3-84 or page 4-210, and fails to give the stakeholders or the public sufficient notice of criteria or 

Actions Common to all Rivers have been mo(Special Designations Rivers) of the PRMPCommon to All have bclearly define how BLM segments determined suplanning process. The cbe "prevent impairmentnon-impairment." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

process the BLM intends to employ as part of the proposed management for the river segments determined to be suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. We request that the BLM revise the document to address these concerns. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 SD64 Table 2.3, page 2-57, contains no information 

regarding the rationale related to wild and scenic river considerations, nor proposed protective management, for any of the various segments listed in the table. The counties request that the BLM revise the RMP to address these concerns. 

See Response to Comme

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 SD66 Table 5 includes "[m]anageability of the river if 

designated, and other means of protecting values" as a "Suitability Consideration." However, in the "Consideration Applied" column which is supposed to provide the information about manageability, the document simply states "[m]anageability ... and other means of protecting values would be extrapolated from the impact analysis for the Vernal RMP/EIS." This analysis goes nowhere as an explanation, and is inadequate to meet the requirements of Federal law and BLM Manual 8351, and further, is not supported by the impact analysis information presented on pages 4-210 through 4-215. 

Appendix C of the EIS include additional inforBLM's eligibility and sudeterminations. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne 

G-25 SD67 The draft RMP provides only cursory 

acknowledgment of the White River Dam project and fails to adequately represent its significance, and characterizes the impacts of 

Alternatives B and D aralternatives. There is an a dam on the White Segment 1 was carried 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Counties an eligibility or suitability determination, and 

associated "protective management" on the proposed project in a contradictory manner. Statements found on pages 4-212 and 4-213 illustrate the cursory analysis, as follows: "...a suitable decision for Segment 1 of the White River would be incompatible with the continuation of an existing permit for a dam site" and t]he suitability decision for Segment 1 of the White River would result in the discontinuance of the existing permit for the dam site." The White River is also described as part of Alternative D, on page 2-57, as follows: "[u]nder this alternative, suitability findings would not be made and eligibility would continue with BLM applying protective management to the free flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification of the river." The discussion of Alternative D on page 4-214, reaffirms that Segment 1 of the White River "would remain eligible." However, in a contradictory manner, the discussion also states, "Segment 1 has been identified for a potential dam site." Subsequently, the last paragraph on page 4-214 concludes the description of Alternative D, as follows: "Under this alternative, the continued eligibility decision for Segment 1 of the White River would be incompatible with continuance of the existing permit for the dam site. Because this permit would continue under this alternative, the free-flowing nature of Segment 1 would not be maintained and this 

purposes under the wsituation. Also, see Response to Co
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

segment would no longer be eligible as a Wild and Scenic River." Further, Appendix C, Wild and Scenic River Eligibility, Suitability, Classification and Review does not include any information regarding the White River Dam Project. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 SD68 On pages 4-211 and 4-212, the discussion of 

Alternative A contains contradictory statements. For example, on page 4-211, the RMP states that "where mineral leasing [is] allowed with standard stipulations or timing and controlled surface use, or where other mineral development would be allowed within the corridor of the White River (Segments 1 and 3) .... the outstandingly remarkable values of these rivers would be at risk." Segment 1 of the White River is addressed again under this same alternative, at page 4-212, which states that "the White River (Segments 1 and 2) would largely be protected from disturbance related to mineral development by either being closed to mineral leasing or by no surface occupancy stipulations." Based on this information, Segment 1 of the White River is both "at risk" and "largely protected" from mineral development under Alternative A. The same language, and thus the same apparent contradiction, exists in the discussion of Alternative C. No information, which offers any clarity, exists elsewhere in Chapters 2, 3 or 4 of the RMP. The counties request that the RMP be revised to correct these issues concerning the White River. 

Chapter 4 of the PRMP/Fto correct and clarify the a
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 SD69 The discussion of Alternative B on page 4-213 

includes the following statement, "If acquired lands along Nine Mile Creek are grazed, the outstandingly remarkable cultural and scenic values would be more at risk than with Alternatives A and C". Unfortunately, nowhere in the draft RMP and EIS is there other mention of this apparent concern, or other information that would enable the reviewer to grasp its relative significance. We strongly object to this unsupported assertion that grazing threatens the ORVs in the area, especially on lands that may be acquired. Grazing can be managed to protect cultural and riparian values. The BLM needs to carefully explain the potential difficulties of this area, and analyze them in terms of proper mitigation, rather than making unsupported blanket statements such as this. In addition, the discussion of Alternative A at pages 4-211 and 4-212, contains no reference to any "acquired lands along Nine Mile Creek." 

Chapter 4 of the PRMP/Fto correct and clarify the a

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 SD70 As a matter of clarification, the document, at 

page S-3, refers to sections of rivers, ranging from one to six rivers, which are recommended for Wild and Scenic River designation. Throughout the remainder of the document, the discussion of wild and scenic rivers refers to segments of rivers, rather than separate individual rivers. The confusion is immediately apparent when the reader looks to Table S.3, as directed by the text on page S-3. Clarity could be achieved by indicating the number of segments associated with the rivers, i.e., 

Table S.3 of the ExecuPRMP/FEIS has been coclarified regarding the nusegments. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

"Alternative C ... recommends 9 segments of six rivers." 

Draft RMP/EIS 

Uintah, Daggett, and Duchesne Counties 

G-25 SD71 The information at page 2-29 does not fully 

characterize proposed interim management of WSRs, because the discussion of management of eligible segments, found at page 3-84, is not presented here. We recommend that information similar to that found at page 3-84 be included at page 2-29. 

Chapter 2 of the PRMP/Fto be consistent with thSection 3.14.3.2 regardin

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

O-9 SD38 When Alternative D includes an ACEC 

designation in the Lower Green River Expansion of only 1,700 acres less than Alternatives A and C, how could Alternative D "not have the benefits" described for Alternatives A and C? It should provide the same benefits but to a slightly lesser degree. 

Chapter 4 in the PRMP/F to indicate that Alternativbenefit than Alternatives A

Draft RMP/EIS 

EOG Resources 

O-17 SD231 

(SD-ZZ) 

EOG requests that development of valid and existing leases and associated rights to access leases within a Wild and Scenic River designation would be protected. The clarity of this analysis should be improved addressing the valid existing rights issue more forthrightly and by consistently accounting for stipulations in Appendix K and Section 4.14.2 so that the source and nature of those restrictive measures proposed in the DEIS can be understood. 

See Response to Commpotential impacts of reAppendix K were incorpocontained in Chapter 4. 

Draft RMP/EIS 

EOG Resources 

O-17 SD233 

(SDBBB) 

BLM Manual 8351, in Section .51 Management Designated WSRs, states "reasonable mining claim and mineral lease access will be permitted" in designated scenic river corridors. Because BLM manual 8351 allows for some flexibility in how W&SRs are to be managed, 

Chapter 2 in the PRMP/Fto clarify that suitable rivbe managed to protecremarkable values, tentatfree-flowing nature. allocations and mana
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP 

Table 5.14dd. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Comment 

Period 

Commenter 

Name 

Comment 

Number & 

Resource 

Category 

Comment Text Response to 

and the stipulations described in Appendix K provide a broad, relatively non-specific range of management within each proposed W&SR corridor, there is no clear description of how these areas would be managed under each alternative. This lack of proposed management prescription associated with each specially designated area makes it impossible for EOG to determine how the proposed designations would affect its current and future leases and development potential. 

within and outside of eligshown on alternative mapinformation is described river section of Chapter 2

Draft RMP/EIS 

Utah Rivers Council 

O-26 SD175 

(PR-I) 

Seven suitability factors for Wild and Scenic Rivers were considered, but in many cases the "notes" section was left unresolved and vague. More importantly, the basis for rejecting segments as unsuitable was not provided, except in the cases where the limited nature of federal land ownership may make management a challenge. Nowhere in the draft RMP does the Vernal BLM share how they evaluated the factors to come to a decision about suitability. Because of this disconnect, the DRMP's suitability determinations are not supported by substantial evidence on the record and so are not defensible. In addition the seven factors that were considered are incomplete. We respectfully request that the VFO conduct in depth suitability analysis of all the rivers and streams found eligible for protection using the approach recommended by the Interagency Wild & Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council and involving the public throughout the process. 

The WSR suitability expanded to address thmore detail. However, alclearly discussed for segment, there is no "runsuitable" in this appenRMP/EIS. The actual suitability and the rationabe made in the record RMP/EIS. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-499 

5.6. 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 5.15). The individuals, groups, organizations, and agencies included in the mailing list for 

the Vernal 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 Vernal RMP website at 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vernal/planning.html/, the Vernal Field Office, the public room 

in the BLM Utah State Office, and the public libraries listed on the distribution list. 

Table 5.15. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Utah State Office 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

White River Field Office 

Meeker, CO 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Craig, CO 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Grand Junction, CO 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Moab, UT 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Rock Springs, WY 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Price, UT 

Federal Agencies (Required) 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Reston, VA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Environmental Quality 

Arlington, VA 

National Park Service 

Washington, DC 

Office of Environmental Compliance 

Department of Energy 

Washington, D.C. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Reston, VA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

Washington, DC 

Office of Surface Mining 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Environmental Affairs Program 

Reston, VA 

Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Washington, DC 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-500 

Table 5.15. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8 

Denver, CO 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resources Library 

Washington, DC 

Minerals Management Service 

Environmental Division 

Herndon, VA 

Federal Depository Library System 

Government Printing Office 

Washington DC 

Additional Federal Agencies 

Mineral Management Service 

P.O. Box 25165 

Denver, CO 80225 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Provo Service Center 

302 E 1860 S 

Provo, UT 84606-6154 

Federal Highway Administration 

Utah Division 

2520 W. 4700 South 

Suite 9A 

Salt Lake City, UT 84118 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Chief, Planning Diving 

1325 J Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Grand Junction Office 

2597 B 3⁄4 Road 

Grand Junction, CO 81503 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

Environment, Safety, and Occupational 

Health 

1660 Air force, Pentagon 

Washington DC 20330-1660 

Betsy Hermman 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2369 W. Orton Cir. 

Suite 50 

West Valley City, UT 84119 

Federal Depository Library System 

Government Printing Office 

732 North Capitol Street NW 

Washington DC 20401 

Bureau of Reclamation 

302 E. 1860 South 

Provo, UT 84606-7317 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Fort Duchesne, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Ecological Services 

Denver, CO 

National Park Service 

Salt Lake City, UT 

National Park Service 

Dinosaur National Park 

Dinosaur, CO 

Ashley National Forest 

Vernal, UT 

Corps Of Engineers 

Grand Junction, CO 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-501 

Table 5.15. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

State Agencies (Required) 

Carolyn Wright 

RDCC Coordinator, Public Lands Section 

Public Lands Policy Coordination Office 

5110 State Office Building 

PO Box 141107 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-1107 

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration 

Lavonne Garrison 

675 East 500 South, Suite 500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84102 

Utah State Historic Preservation Office 

Matt Seddon 

300 South Rio Grande Street 

Salt Lake City, UT 84101 

Additional State Agencies 

Utah Division of History 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Utah Division of Water Resources 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

Northeast Region 

Vernal, UT 

State Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Utah State Parks & Recreation 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Utah Division of Workforce Services 

Vernal, UT 

Local Government 

Uintah County Commissioners 

Vernal, UT 

Daggett County Commissioners 

Manila, UT 

Duchesne County Commissioners 

Duchesne, UT 

Uintah & Ouray Tribal Business Committee 

Fort Duchesne, UT 

Uintah County Planning Office 

Vernal, UT 

Uintah County Road Department 

Vernal, UT 

Uintah County Public Lands Committee 

Vernal, UT 

Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce 

Vernal, UT 

Duchesne County Planning & Zoning 

Duchesne, UT 

Roosevelt City Corporation 

Roosevelt, UT 

Naples City 

Naples, UT 

Naples Police Department 

Naples, UT 

Tribal 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Towaoc, CO 

Confederated Tribes Of The 

Goshute Reservation 

Ibapah, UT 

Laguna Pueblo 

Laguna, NM 

Southern Ute Tribal Council 

Ignacio, CO 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-502 

Table 5.15. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Santa Clara Pueblo 

Espanola, NM 

Hopi Tribal council 

Kykotsmovi, AZ 

Navajo Nation 

Window Rock, AZ 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation 

Brigham City, UT 

White Mesa Ute Council 

White Mesa, UT 

Zia Pueblo 

Zia Pueblo, NM 

Ute Indian Tribe 

Fort Duchesne, UT 

Eastern Shoshone Business Council 

Fort Washakie, WY 

Other Organizations 

Action Target, Inc. 

Provo, UT 

National Trust For Historic Preservation 

Washington, DC 

AE 

Vernal, UT 

Natural Gas Resources Defense Council 

Washington, DC 

AEC Oil & Gas Company 

Denver, CO 

Nature Conservancy Of Utah 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Alton N. Moon & Sons 

Duchesne, UT 

Nine Mile Canyon Coalition 

Price, UT 

American Gilsonite Company 

Bonanza, UT 

Northeastern Utah Visitors Center 

Vernal, UT 

Anadarko Petroleum CO 

Denver, CO 

Oil & Gas Accountability Project 

Durango, CO 

Ashley Valley Veterinary 

Vernal, UT 

Oregon Episcopal School 

Portland, OR 

Bar F Partnership 

Myton, UT 

OSO Energy Resources Corporation 

Durango, CO 

Bar Lazy J Ranch 

Vernal, UT 

Ouray Construction Inc. 

Vernal, UT 

Basin Sports 

Vernal, UT 

Ouray, Ute Wildlife Refuge 

Randlett, UT 

Beecher Films 

Salt Lake City, UT 

People For The West 

Vernal, UT 

Bennion Land And Livestock LLC 

Vernal, UT 

Petroglyph 

Denver, CO 

Bill Barrett Corporation 

Denver, CO 

Petroleum Exploration 

Wheatridge, CO 

Biology And Environmental Studies 

Keene, NH 

Piney Valley Ranches Trust 

Craig, CO 

BJ Services 

Jensen, UT 

PLC-UC 

Vernal, UT 

Bjork, Lindley, & Little 

Denver, CO 

Provo Area-BOR 

Provo, UT 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-503 

Table 5.15. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Blackhawk Engineer 

Helper, UT 

Public Land Policy Coordination Office 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Booz-Allen-Hamilton 

Falls Church, VA 

Public Lands Advocacy 

Denver, CO 

Bork, Lindley, Danielson & Little, Pc 

Denver, CO 

QEP Uinta Basin, Inc 

Vernal, UT 

Brown's Park 

Maybell, CO 

Questar E&P 

Denver, CO 

Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC 

Cheyenne, WY 

Questar Market Resources Group 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Buys & Associates 

Littleton, CO 

Questar Regulated Services, Co. 

Salt Lake City, UT 

C. W. McCoy Sheep CO. 

C/O Paul W. McCoy 

Vernal, UT 

Raftopoulos Brothers 

Craig, CO 

C.E. Brooks & Associates 

Denver, CO 

Red Man Pipe & Supply 

Vernal, UT 

Californians For Western Wilderness 

San Francisco, CA 

Rising Sun 4x4 Club Of Colorado 

Littleton, CO 

Carroll/Carroll Davidson Partnership Ltd. 

Meeker, CO 

Robert H. Williams, Family Trust 

Vernal, UT 

Center For Native Ecosystems 

Denver, CO 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Missoula, MT 

Center For Natural Resources 

Denver, CO 

Rocky Mountain Power 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Chacoi, Inc. 

Paonia, CO 

Ruperstrain Cyber Services 

Flagstaff, AZ 

Chew Livestock 

Jensen, UT 

Rural Public Lands County Council 

Washington, DC 

Chivers Ranch Inc. 

Vernal, UT 

School & Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Citizens Oil & Gas Support Center 

Durango, CO 

School Of Aquatic And Fishery Sciences 

Seattle, WA 

Colorado State University Library 

Fort Collins, CO 

Searle Brothers C/O Larry Searle 

Vernal, UT 

Colton Ranch Inc. 

Bountiful, UT 

Shenandoah Energy 

Vernal, UT 

Cook Livestock 

Vernal, UT 

Siddoway Diamond Mountain Association 

Vernal, UT 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-504 

Table 5.15. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Craig's Roustabout Services 

Jensen, UT 

Sierra Club 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Cripple Cowboy Cow Outfit, Inc 

Rangely, CO 

Simper Lumber, Inc. 

Vernal, UT 

Daggett County Library 

Manila, UT 

Simplot Phosphates LLC 

Vernal, UT 

Davidson Yellow Jacket Ranch, Ltd. 

Meeker, CO 

Smiling Lake Consulting 

Evergreen, CO 

Dept Of Bioengineering 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

Moab, UT 

Dept Of Integrative Biology 

Provo, UT 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Deseret News 

Salt Lake City UT 

Stewart Mach & 

Vernal, UT 

Diamond Mountain Rustlers 

Myton, UT 

Stone Art CO. 

Orem, UT 

Dinaland Snow 

Vernal, UT 

Stonegate Resources, LLC 

Park City, UT 

Dinosaurland Travel Board 

Vernal, UT 

Strawberry River Livestock, Inc. 

Duchesne, UT 

Director Of Conservation Program 

Flagstaff, AZ 

Stuntz Valley Ranch L C 

Jensen, UT 

Duchesne County Water District 

Roosevelt, UT 

SWT Consulting 

Stanford, CA 

Duchesne County Library 

Roosevelt, UT 

The Access Fund 

Boulder, CO 

Earth Justice 

Denver, CO 

The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company 

Rifle, CO 

Elcan And Associates, Inc. 

Mobile, AL 

The Cliffs Synfuel Corp. 

Rifle, CO 

Elmer R. Moon & Sons 

Duchesne, UT 

The National Outdoor Leadership School 

Lander, WY 

Environment Preservation Foundation 

Salt Lake City, UT 

The Nature Conservancy 

Salt Lake City, UT 

EOG Resources 

Denver, CO 

The Salt Lake Tribune 

Salt Lake City, UT 

EOG Resources, Inc. 

Big Piney, WY 

The Shipley Group 

Woods Cross, UT 

EOG Resources, Inc. 

Denver, CO 

The Wilderness Society 

Denver, CO 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-505 

Table 5.15. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Forum 

Bountiful, UT 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 

Partnership 

Boulder, WY 

FIML Natural Resources 

Denver, CO 

Thunder Ranch, L.L.C. 

Jensen, UT 

Flying C Ranches 

Bluffdale, UT 

Titan Energy Resources 

Park City, UT 

Forest Guardians 

Santa Fe, Nm 

TRC Mariah Association Inc 

Laramie, WY 

Forestry & Lands, Utah 

Vernal, UT 

Tri W Pipe & Supply 

Roosevelt, UT 

Fulbright & Jaworski LLP 

Denver, CO 

Uintah Basin Grazing Association 

Talmage, UT 

Gardner Family Trust 

Vernal, UT 

Uintah Basin Grazing Association 

Mountain Home, UT 

Goodrich MUC CO 

Vernal, UT 

Uintah Basin Standard 

Roosevelt, UT 

Grant L. Hacking Family LLC 

Vernal, UT 

Uintah County Library 

Vernal, UT 

Hacking Land & Livestock 

Vernal, UT 

Uintah Engineering & Land 

Vernal, UT 

Halliburton 

Vernal, UT 

Uintah Mountain Club 

Vernal, UT 

Hawk Watch International 

Salt Lake City, UT 

US Steel Corp. 

Pittsburgh, PA 

High Country News 

Paonia, CO 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

Page, AZ 

Hiko Bell Mining & Oil Company 

Vernal, UT 

USU Uintah Basin 

Vernal, UT 

Hoy Mountain Ranch, L.L.C. 

Vernal, UT 

Utah Cattlemen's Association 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Hunt Oil Company 

Cody, WY 

Utah Environmental Congress 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Hunter Education Instructors 

Vernal, UT 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

Sandy, UT 

Hunting Ray 

Jensen, UT 

Utah Natural Heritage Program 

Salt Lake City, UT 

J R Day Investments 

Coalville, UT 

Utah Rivers Council 

Salt Lake City ,UT 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-506 

Table 5.15. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

J. Willard Marriott Library 

Government Documents Dept. 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Utah Rock Art Research Association 

Salt Lake City, UT 

John Siddoway Livestock & Investment Company 

 Salt Lake City, UT 

Utah Shared Access Alliance 

Spanish Fork, UT 

KN Energy 

Vernal, UT 

Utah Snowmobile Association 

Salt Lake City, UT 

KNEU Radio 

Roosevelt, UT 

Utah State University 

Logan, UT 

KVEL Radio 

Vernal, UT 

Utah Water User Association 

Murray, UT 

LCD Trust 

Randlett, UT 

Utah Wilderness Coalition 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Leland N. Sowards Partnership 

West Valley City, UT 

Vantage Energy 

Englewood, CO 

Lexco, Inc 

Vernal, UT 

Vermillion Ranch Limited Partners 

 Rock Springs, WY 

Litmus Epollc 

Littleton, CO 

Vernal Express 

 Vernal, UT 

Lonesome Horse Ranch 

Vernal, UT 

Vincent Brothers Sunshine Ranch 

Jensen, UT 

Magic Valley ATV Riders 

Twin Falls, ID 

Wasatch Mountain Club 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Marta Corp. 

Vernal, UT 

Western Land Exchange Project 

Seattle, WA 

McCall Saddle 

Vernal, UT 

Western Watershed Project 

Mender, UT 

McDermott, Will & Emery 

Washington, D.C. 

Western Wildlife Conservancy 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Merrick & CO 

Aurora, CO 

White Mesa Ute Council White 

Mesa, UT 

Montgomery & Neal, LLC 

Prineville, OR 

Wild Scenic Rivers Programs 

Washington, DC 

Moon Ranch L.L.C. 

Duchesne, UT 

Wilderness Society 

Denver, CO 

Morapos Creek Sheep CO. 

Meeker, CO 

Willow Creek Land And Livestock Inc. 

Dutch John, UT 

Naples Police Department 

Naples, UT 

WP Wells Petroleum, Inc. 

Genesse Center I 

Golden, CO 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-507 

Table 5.15. Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

National Outdoor Leadership School 

Lander, WY 

ZCM Drilling 

Vernal, UT 

National Outdoor Leadership School 

Vernal, UT 

Ziegler Chemical & Mineral Corp. 

Bonanza, UT 

Ziegler Chemical & Mineral Corp. 

Jericho, NV 

5.7. LIST OF PREPARERS

The BLM Vernal FO DRMP/EIS was written and produced by a team composed of BLM Vernal 

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 with additional 

participation, comments, and critique from the cooperating agencies. Table 5.16 lists the team 

members, job titles, and responsibility associated with the RMP/EIS. 

Table 5.16. List of Preparers 

Name Position Planning Role 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

Laura Burch Environmental Planner Socioeconomics, Hazardous Materials 

Catherine Chatfield GIS Specialist GIS 

Tonya Dombroski, Ph.D Environmental Chemist Air Quality 

Sheri Ellis Cultural Resources Lead 

Fire Management, Lands and Realty, 

Cultural Resources 

Jason Green Environmental Planner Recreation, Transportation 

Janet Guinn Project Coordinator Formatting 

Dave Harris NEPA Specialist Recreation, Visual, Woodlands 

Susan Martin Ecologist Vegetation, TES Plants 

Kristin Knippenberg 

Resource Specialist, Technical 

Editor Editing/Minerals 

Brian Nicholson Ecologist Riparian and Soils and Watershed 

Mathew Petersen Principal Ecologist QA/QC 

Deb Reber Natural Resources Planner Project Manager/ QA/QC 

Jan Reed Ecologist Livestock Grazing 

Mathew Seddon, Ph. D Anthropologist Cultural Resources 

Thomas Sharp Ecologist Wildlife, Special Status Species 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-508 

Table 5.16. List of Preparers 

Name Position Planning Role 

Bureau of Land Management 

Howard Cleavinger Associate Field Manager Project Manager 

Kelly Buckner 

Planning and Environmental 

Coordinator Project Manager, QA/QC, writer/editor 

Denise Ohler 

Environmental Administrative 

Assistant QA/QC, writer/editor 

Craig Nichols 

National Air Quality Modeler – BLM 

NOC Air Quality 

Blaine Phillips Archaeologist Cultural Resources, SHPO Consultation 

Stephanie Howard 

Planning and Environmental 

Coordinator Environmental Justice 

Troy Suwyn Fire Management Officer Fire Management 

Jo-Ann Stroh IT Specialist GIS 

Kyle Smith Cartographic Technician GIS 

Merlin Sinfield Civil Engineering Technician Hazardous Materials 

Naomi Hatch Branch Chief – Lands and Minerals Lands & Realty 

Marc Stavropoulos Supervisor Range 

Forage, Livestock Grazing, Wild Horse & 

Burros 

Jerry Kenzcka AFM for Lands and Minerals Minerals and Energy Resources 

Robin Hansen Geologist Paleontology 

Chuck Patterson/ 

Jason West Recreation Planner 

Recreation, Special Designations, Visual 

Resource Management, 

Tim Faircloth AFM for Renewable Resources Riparian and Wetlands 

Bill Stevens Recreation Planner Socioeconomics 

Steve Strong Natural Resource Specialist Soil and Water Resources 

Amy Torres Wildlife Biologist 

Special Status Species, Section 7 

Consultation, Wildlife and Fisheries 

Clayton Newberry/ 

Jesse Salix Botanist Special Status Species, Vegetation 

David Palmer Forester Woodlands and Timber 

5.8. RECORD OF DECISION

Following publication by the EPA and BLM of a Notice of Availability of the PRMP/FEIS in the 

Federal Register on August 15, 2008 and distribution of the PRMP/FEIS, a 30-day protest period 

runs. In addition, a 60-day Governor's Consistency Review period runs concurrently with 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. However, approval shall be withheld on any portion of a plan being protested until final 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-509 

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 

RMP. Among other decisions, the proposed ACEC designations and OHV categories (limitations 

and closures) will be approved when the ROD is signed. 

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. 

5.9. VERNAL RMP/EIS MEETING AND COORDINATION LOG

Contractor Interviews

• Contractor met with Daggett County Commission to identify planning issues and discuss 

Coop. Agency Status – November 6, 2001. 

• Contractor met with Uintah County Commission to identify planning issues and discuss 

Coop. Agency Status – November 2001. 

• Contractor met with Duchesne County Commission to identify planning issues and 

discuss Coop. Agency Status – November 9, 2001. 

Coordination Meetings and Other Contacts

• Met with State Legislators (Evans, Snow, and Seitz) – July 20, 2001. 

• Met with Daggett County Commission – August 21, 2001. 

• Met with FWS (Dan Alonzo). Discussed plan and EPCA – August 28, 2001. 

• Partners Meeting at BLM, briefed on plan – September 4, 2001. 

• Met with EPA and FWS in SLC, briefed on plan – September 14, 2001. 

• Uinta Basin Partners, briefed group on planning schedule and progress – October 9, 

2001. 

• Oil and Gas Working Group, briefed group on planning schedule and progress – October 

10, 2001. 

• Ute Tribe, briefed Business Committee on plan and expressed desire to work closely 

with them – October 11, 2001. 

• Met with Uintah County – November 9, 2001. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-510 

• Met with Daggett County – November 20, 2001. 

• Met with Fish & Wildlife Service – November 28, 2001. 

• Met with Environmental Protection Agency – November 28, 2001. 

• Met with Oil and Gas Working Group – November 29, 2001. 

• State Legislators (Beverly Evans, Gordon Snow, Dan Price) – November 30, 2001. 

• Met with Daggett County – January 8, 2002. 

• Met with Environmental Protection Agency – January 14, 2002. 

• Fish & Wildlife Service – January 14, 2002. 

• Utah State University on Resource Assessments, all County Commissioners Invited 

(Rich Etchberger) – January 18, 2002. 

• Met with Uintah County – January 29, 2002. 

• Met with Duchesne County – January 31, 2002. 

• Met with Uintah County – February 6, 2002. 

• Ute Business Committee (SWCA attended) – February 6, 2002. 

• Uintah County Public Lands Committee – February 11, 2002. 

• Duchesne County – March 20, 2002. 

• Duchesne County Public Lands Committee – March 20, 2002. 

• Utah State University (Resource Assessment Progress Report), County Commissioners 

Invited – April 18, 2002. 

• Duchesne County (SWCA attended). County was given copies of Scoping Comments 

and Summary, Draft Mineral Potential Report, and Planning Bulletins – April 30, 2002. 

• Duchesne County (Moore and Howell) – May 3, 2002. 

• Uintah County – May 7, 2002. 

• Uintah County (SWCA attended). County was given copies of Scoping Comments and 

Summary, Draft Mineral Potential Report, and Planning Bulletins – May 15, 2002. 

• Daggett County (SWCA attended). County was given copies of Scoping Comments and 

Summary, Draft Mineral Potential Report, and Planning Bulletins – May 15, 2002. 

• Fish & Wildlife Service (Dan Alonzo) – May 22, 2002. 

• Forest Service (Ashley, Bert Kulesza) – May 22, 2002. 

• Uintah County Public Lands Committee – June 10, 2002. 

• State of Utah (John Harja) on Wild & Scenic Rivers – June 10, 2002. 

• Uinta Basin Partners – June 12, 2002. 

• Uintah County Commission and members of Public Lands Committee – June 24, 2002. 

• Fish & Wildlife Service (Salt Lake City) – July 2, 2002. 

• Ute Business Committee (Coop. Agency Agreement) – July 9, 2002. 

• Utah State University (Resource Assessment Progress Report), All County 

Commissioners invited – July 12, 2002. 

• Uinta Basin Association of Governments – July 16, 2002. 

• Joint meeting with Meeker and Craig Field Offices – July 16, 2002. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-511 

• State of Utah (Wild & Scenic Rivers) – July 23, 2002. 

• Joint meeting with Grand Junction, Meeker, Craig, & Moab Field Offices on SUWA's 

proposed wilderness areas – July 30, 2002. 

• Ute Business Committee (Wild & Scenic Rivers) – August 27, 2002. 

• RAC (Discussion of Raptor Best Management Practices Scenarios) – August 27, 2002. 

• Alternative Development Meeting with Counties, FWS, Resource Specialists, and 

Contractor – October 7, 2002. 

• Alternative Development Meeting with Counties, FWS, Resource Specialists, and 

Contractor – October 8, 2002. 

• Alternative Development Meeting with Counties, FWS, Resource Specialists, and 

Contractor – October 22, 2002. 

• Alternative Development Meeting with Counties, FWS, Resource Specialists, and 

Contractor – October 23, 2002. 

• Alternative Development Meeting with Counties, FWS, State of Utah and Contractor – 

Oct. 28, 2002. 

• Duchesne County Commission to discuss coordination problems – October 28, 2002. 

• Alternative Development Meeting with Counties and Contractor – November 4, 2002. 

• Uintah County Commission to discuss coordination problems and give them a copy of 

the AMS and Mineral Potential Report – November 4, 2002. 

• Alternative Development Meeting with Counties, State of Utah, and Contractor – 

November 5, 2002. 

• EPA in Vernal F. O. to discuss air quality modeling for the RMP effort – November 6, 

2002. 

• The working draft of Chapter 2 and alternative matrix was sent to Uintah County and 

UBAG for their use and review – November 22, 2002. 

• Copies of 20 Wilderness Determination forms were sent to Uintah County – December 

2, 2002. 

• A draft copy of the Paleontological section of the AMS was sent to Uintah County – 

December 3, 2002. 

• Draft copies of the Livestock Grazing and Alternative Energy sections of the AMS were 

sent to Uintah County and UBAG for their review – December 18, 2002. 

• Brief Utah Division of Wildlife Resources on alternatives for the plan – December 4, 

2002. 

• Met with State of Utah DEQ to review protocol for Air Quality Modeling for RMP. 

Attended by BLM (Utah & Colo.), SWCA (Deb Reber), Trinity Consultants (YuShan 

Huang), and the Uinta Basin Association of Governments (Clayton Chidester) – 

December 14, 2002. 

• Met with State of Colorado DEQ to review protocol for Air Quality Modeling for RMP. 

Attended by BLM (Utah & Colo.), and Trinity Consultants (YuShan Huang). Clayton 

Chidester was invited but did not attend. – December 16, 2002. 

• Uinta Basin Partners Meeting, briefed those in attendance on progress on RMP. – 

January 8, 2003. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-512 

• Met with Park Service to discuss the Alternatives for the RMP that could impact the 

Monument. – January 8, 2003. 

• Met with Senator Beverly Evans and the Uinta Basin Association of Governments to 

brief them and answer questions about the status and progress of the RMP – January 16, 

2003. 

• Briefed new BIA Superintendent on RMP effort – January 22, 2003. 

• Briefed Utah Division of Wildlife Resources on alternatives for the plan – January 27, 

2003. 

• Met with Clayton Chidester and Dave Allison (UGAOG) to discuss issues related to the 

RMP – January 28, 2003. 

• Daggett County Commission, updated them on progress of RMP effort – February 3, 

2003. 

• Duchesne County Commission, updated them on progress of RMP effort – February 6, 

2003. 

• Meeting between BLM, EPA, Forest Service, Park Service, FWS, and Air Quality 

Subcontractor for RMP to discuss protocol for air quality analysis for RMP. Clayton 

Chidester (UBAG) was invited to attend but declined – February 11, 2003. 

• Uintah County Commission, updated them on progress of RMP effort – February 12, 

2003. 

• BLM met with John Harja (State Of Utah) and Cathryn Collis (SWCA) to discuss 

alternative presentation in the RMP – February 13, 2003. 

• Met in Uintah County Building to discuss county concerns about RMP schedule. The 

meeting was attended by County Commissioners from all three counties, UBAG, State 

of Utah, Senator Beverly Evans, and BLM. The BLM State Director and Vernal Field 

Office Manager were both in attendance – February 14, 2003. 

• Worked with Uinta Basin Association of Governments (Clayton Chidester) to scan, or 

copy, 1979 wilderness files, 1999 wilderness inventory files, and externally generated 

proposed wilderness files – February 18, 19, 20, 25,26, 27, 2003. 

• Partners Meeting, held at Fire Center. RMP update was presented. Commissioners from 

Daggett and Duchesne Counties were present – March 12, 2003. 

• Partners Meeting, held at BLM's new fire building. RMP update was presented and an 

offer was made to meet and discuss the plan in more detail with anyone that was 

interested. – April 9, 2003. 

• Uintah County Public Lands Committee meeting, attended to respond to any questions 

committee members may have about the RMP. – April 14, 2003. 

• State Resource Development Coordination Committee (RDCC) meeting at DNR 

Building in SLC. Briefed the members on the top five issues in the RMP: Oil and Gas, 

OHV, Raptors, Special Designations, and Wild Horses. A question-and-answer session 

was held following the briefing. – April 16, 2003. 

• Question-and-answer session with counties and State on draft alternatives for RMP, 

attending were Louise Sainsbury, Clayton Chidester, Dave Allison, Mike McKee, 

LaVonne Garrison, and John Harja. Held at BLM office – April 24, 2003. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-513 

• Question-and -answer session with counties and State on draft alternatives for RMP, 

attending were Louise Sainsbury, Clayton Chidester, Dave Allison, Mike McKee, and 

LaVonne Garrison. Held at BLM office – May 6, 2003. 

• Question-and-answer session with counties and State on draft alternatives for RMP, 

attending were Louise Sainsbury, Clayton Chidester, Dave Allison, and Scott 

Chamberland. Held at BLM office – May 12, 2003. 

• Question-and-answer session with counties and State on draft alternatives for RMP, 

attending were Louise Sainsbury, Clayton Chidester, Dave Allison, Mike McKee, Diana 

Whittington. Raptor Management was the topic of discussion for the meeting. BLM 

gave the counties copies of the Alternative Matrix for the RMP that we had been using at 

the last five meetings to record county comments and concerns. They were going to 

review the comments, make needed corrections, and send it back to BLM through the 

County Commissioners as their official comments on the draft alternatives. Meeting was 

held at the Vernal BLM office – May 27, 2003. 

• May 28, 2003 – Meeting with the Ute Business Committee at Fort Duchesne, Utah. The 

purpose of the meeting was to keep the Business Committee informed and involved in 

the BLM-Resource Management Plan. The meeting included a presentation and 

discussion of the following topics: 

• Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

• Wild & Scenic Rivers 

• Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Designated Travel 

• Oil and Gas leasing Categories 

• Wild Horses 

• Hill Creek Extension federal subsurface minerals issues 

• Question-and-answer session with the counties and State on the draft alternatives for the 

RMP. The focus of the meeting was to present modifications to the RMP that were 

required following the Wilderness Settlement. Attending were Louise Sainsbury, 

Clayton Chidester, Dave Allision, Mike McKee, and Val Payne. The meeting was held 

at the BLM Office – June 3, 2003. 

• Met with John Harja and Val Payne on Friday June 6, 2003, at the SWCA Office in SLC 

to explain the changes that were made to the alternatives in the RMP that were required 

as a result of the Wilderness Settlement. Dave Howell, Deb Reber, Dave Moore, Steve 

Knox, and Maggie Kelsey were also in attendance. 

• Joint meeting with the Ashley National Forest and the Vernal Field Office leadership 

teams on June 20, 2003 to discuss a variety of cross boundary issues, but with particular 

emphasis on the RMP and edge matching on resource management.
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Chapter 5 

Vernal RMP 5-514 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

Dinosaur National Monument

John Jarvie Historical Site

Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area

Ouray National Wildlife Refuge

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

W A S A T C H

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

FLAMING GORGE RES.

Moon Lake

GREEN RIVER

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Clawson

Ballard

Randlett

Hiawatha

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington

Huntington

Orangeville

Green River

East Carbon

Castle Dale

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Land Ownership

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 1

Salt Lake

City

P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n

15

70

UTAH

Plan Area

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Exterior Boundary

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

(Includes Private Lands)

Land Ownership Status

Bureau of Land Management

US Forest Service

USFS Wilderness Area

National Park Service

US Fish & Wildlife National Wildlife Refuge

Indian Reservatin

State

State Parks and Recreation

State Wildlife Reserve/Management Area

Private
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Fire Management Categories

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Fire data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 2

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Fire Management Categories

A- Fire is not desired at all

B- Unplanned fire is not desired because of

current conditions

C- Wildland fire is desired, but there are

significant constraints

D- Wildland fire is desired, and there are few

or no constraints
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Fire Regime

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Fire data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 3

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Fire Regime (Frequency/Severity)

1-35 years/Mixed Severity

0-35 years/Stand Replacement

35-100 years/Mixed Severity

35-100 years/Stand Replacement
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Fire Condition Classes

*See Section 4.6.2 for fire condition class descriptions.

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Fire data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 4

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Fire Condition Classes*

1 (Low Risk)

2 (Moderate Risk)

3 (High Risk)

100 (No Class)
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Forage Assignment Localities

and Riparian Inventory

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Fire data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 5

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Riparian and Wetland Inventory Data

Bonanza Wild Horse Herd Management Area

Hill Creek Wild Horse Herd Management Area

Winter Ridge Wild Horse Herd Area

Proposed Herd Expansion Area

Forage Assignment Localities

Blue Mountain

Bonanza

Bonanza HMA

Book Cliffs

Diamond Mountain
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Lands and Realty

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 6

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Wilderness Study Area

Transportation/Utility Corridor

Existing Withdrawals

Proposed Mineral Withdrawals

Land Tenure Adjustments

Lands Considered for Acquisition (42,550 acres)

Lands Considered for Disposal (32,067 acres)
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National

Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow

Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Seasons of Use- Proposed RMP

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Grazing data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 7

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Grazing Seasons

Area 1- Special Resources

Area 2- 6/1 to 10/31 or 5/1 with Deferment

Area 3- 5/1 to 11/30

Area 4- 5/1 to 6/1

Area 5- 5/1 to 6/1 and 10/1 to 2/28

Area 6- 10/1 to 4/1 or 5/1 with Deferment

Area 7- 4/1 to 5/31 and/or 9/1 to 10/31
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National

Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow

Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Seasons of Use- Alternative A

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Grazing data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 8

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Grazing Seasons

Area 1- Special Resources

Area 2- 6/1 to 10/31 or 5/1 with Deferment

Area 3- 5/1 to 11/30

Area 4- 5/1 to 6/1

Area 5- 5/1 to 6/1 and 10/1 to 2/28

Area 6- 10/1 to 4/1 or 5/1 with Deferment

Area 7- 4/1 to 5/31 and/or 9/1 to 10/31
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National

Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow

Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Seasons of Use- Alternative B

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Grazing data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 9

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Grazing Seasons

Area 1- Special Resources

Area 2- 5/19 to 10/7

Area 3- 5/31 to 11/1

Area 4- 4/25 to 5/26 and 11/1 to 12/31

Area 5- 4/10 to 5/26 and 10/1 to 1/30

Area 6- 10/26 to 5/8

Area 7- 5/20 to 12/1
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National

Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow

Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Seasons of Use- Alternatives

C and E

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Grazing data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 10

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Grazing Seasons

Area 1- Special Resources

Area 2- Summer 6/15 to 8/31

Area 3- Summer 6/15 to 8/31

Area 4- Fall-Winter 10/1 to 3/1

Area 5- Fall-Winter 10/1 to 3/1

Area 6- Fall-Winter 10/1 to 3/1

Area 7- Fall 10/1 to 11/30
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National

Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow

Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Seasons of Use- Alternative D

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Grazing data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 11

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Grazing Seasons

Area 1- Special Resources

Area 2- 5/19 to 10/7

Area 3- 6/3 to 10/6

Area 4- 6/1 to 10/31

Area 5- 4/3 to 6/15 and 10/31 to 1/30

Area 6- 3/10 to 4/24 and 6/23 to 8/30 and

10/21 to 2/28

Area 7- 5/26 to 10/20
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Oil and Gas LeasingProposed RMP

*See Appendix K for seasonal stipulations related to the lease categories.

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Lease data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 12

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Split Estate Lands

Oil and Gas Leasing*

Standard Stipulations

Timing and Controlled Surface Use

No Surface Occupancy

No Leasing
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Oil and Gas LeasingAlternative A

*See Appendix K for seasonal stipulations related to the lease categories.

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Lease data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 13

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Split Estate Lands

Oil and Gas Leasing*

Standard Stipulations

Timing and Controlled Surface Use

No Surface Occupancy

No Leasing
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Oil and Gas Leasing- Alternative B

*See Appendix K for seasonal stipulations related to the leases.

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Lease data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 14

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Split Estate Lands

Oil and Gas Leasing*

Standard Stipulations

Timing and Controlled Surface Use

No Surface Occupancy

No Leasing
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Oil and Gas LeasingAlternative C

*See Appendix K for seasonal stipulations related to the lease categories.

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Lease data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 15

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Split Estate Lands

Oil and Gas Leasing*

Standard Stipulations

Timing and Controlled Surface Use

No Surface Occupancy

No Leasing
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Oil and Gas LeasingAlternative D

*See Appendix K for seasonal stipulations related to the lease categories.

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Lease data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 16

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Split Estate Lands

Oil and Gas Leasing*

Standard Stipulations

Timing and Controlled Surface Use

No Surface Occupancy

No Leasing
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

8 4 0 8

Miles

Oil and Gas Leasing- Alternative E

*See Appendix K for seasonal stipulations related to the lease categories.

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Lease data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 17

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Split Estate Lands

Oil and Gas Leasing*

Standard Stipulations

Timing and Controlled Surface Use

No Surface Occupancy

No Leasing
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National

Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow

Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Mineral Materials/Phosphate/

Gilsonite- Proposed RMP

Note: No color on public land means there is no potential for the

resource. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Mineral data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 18

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Mineral Materials Disposals

Open

Closed

Phosphate Leasing

Open

Closed

Gilsonite Leasing

Open

Closed
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National

Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow

Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Mineral Materials/Phosphate/

Gilsonite- Alternative A

Note: No color on public land means there is no potential for the

resource. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Mineral data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 19

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Mineral Materials Disposals

Open

Closed

Phosphate Leasing

Open

Closed

Gilsonite Leasing

Open

Closed
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National

Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow

Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Mineral Materials/Phosphate/

Gilsonite- Alternative B

Note: No color on public land means there is no potential for the

resource. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Mineral data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 20

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Mineral Materials Disposals

Open

Closed

Phosphate Leasing

Open

Closed

Gilsonite Leasing

Open

Closed
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National

Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow

Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Mineral Materials/Phosphate/

Gilsonite- Alternative C

Note: No color on public land means there is no potential for the

resource. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Mineral data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 21

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Mineral Materials Disposals

Open

Closed

Phosphate Leasing

Open

Closed

Gilsonite Leasing

Open

Closed
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National

Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow

Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Mineral Materials/Phosphate/

Gilsonite- Alternative D

Note: No color on public land means there is no potential for the

resource. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Mineral data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 22

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Mineral Materials Disposals

Open

Closed

Phosphate Leasing

Open

Closed

Gilsonite Leasing

Open

Closed
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Tabiona - Ashley Valley

East Tavaputs Plateau

Monument Butte - Red Wash

Altamont - Bluebell

West Tavaputs Plateau

Manila - Clay Basin

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Reasonably Foreseeable

Development (RFD) Areas

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 24

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

RFD Area

Altamont - Bluebell

East Tavaputs Plateau

Manila - Clay Basin

Monument Butte - Red Wash

Tabiona - Ashley Valley

West Tavaputs Plateau
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Hill Creek Extension Indian

and Federal Minerals

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 25

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Hill Creek Extension

Indian Minerals

Federal Minerals
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Bitter

Creek

White River

Diamond Mountain

Desolation Canyon

Rat Hole

Wolf Point

Cripple Cowboy

Lower Flaming Gorge

Lower

Bitter Creek

Sweet Water

Bourdette Draw

Mountain

Home

Dead Horse Pass

Cold Spring Mountain

Moonshine Draw

Diamond Breaks

Bull Canyon

Mexico

Point

Wild Mountain

Hells

Hole

Canyon

Hideout Canyon

Beach Draw

Daniels Canyon

Stunz Draw

Vivas Cake Hill

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness

Characteristics

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Wilderness data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 26

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Proposed Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness

Characteristics for the Proposed RMP

Proposed Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness

Characteristics for Alternative E
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

Browns

Park

Red MountainDry Fork Complex

Blue

Mountain

Pelican

Lake

Fantasy

Canyon

White

River

Nine

Mile

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Special Recreation Management

Areas- Proposed RMP

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 27

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Proposed SRMA
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

Browns

Park

Red MountainDry Fork Complex

Blue

Mountain

Pelican

Lake

Fantasy

Canyon

White

N River ine

Mile

Book

Cliffs

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Special Recreation Management

Areas- Alternatives A, B, C, D and E

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 28

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Existing SRMA (Proposed for

Alternatives B and D)

Proposed SRMA for Alternative A

Proposed SRMA for Alternatives C and E
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

Lower Green

River Corridor

ACEC

Browns

Park ACEC

Pariette

Wetlands

ACEC

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

Red Creek

Watershed ACEC

Red Mountain- Dry Fork ACEC

Lears

Canyon

ACEC

Nine Mile

Canyon ACEC

Upper

Green River

(W&S)

Lower

Green

River

(W&S)

Diamond

Breaks WSA

West Cold

Spring WSA

Daniels

Canyon WSA

Bull

Canyon

WSA

Winter

Ridge WSA

Book Cliffs

Mountain

Browse ISA

Flume Canyon

WSA

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Special DesignationsProposed RMP

*ACEC= Area of Critical Environmental Concern.

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 29

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

ACEC Proposed for Designation*

Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Suitable Segment

Wilderness Study Area
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

Lower Green

River ACEC

Browns

Park ACEC

Pariette

Wetlands

ACEC

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

Red Creek

Watershed ACEC

Red Mountain- Dry Fork ACEC

Lears

Canyon

ACEC

Nine Mile

Canyon ACEC

Bitter

Creek

ACEC

Upper

Green River

(W&S)

White River (W&S)

Lower

Green

River

(W&S)

Diamond

Breaks WSA

West Cold

Spring WSA

Daniels

Canyon WSA

Bull

Canyon

WSA

Winter

Ridge WSA

Book Cliffs

Mountain

Browse ISA

Flume Canyon

WSA

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Special DesignationsAlternative A

*ACEC= Area of Critical Environmental Concern.

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 30

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Proposed ACEC*

Existing ACEC (Not Carried Forward)*

Wilderness Study Area
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

Lower Green

River ACEC

Browns

Park ACEC

Pariette

Wetlands

ACEC

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

Red Creek

Watershed ACEC

Red Mountain- Dry Fork ACEC

Lears

Canyon

ACEC

Nine Mile

Canyon ACEC

Upper

Green River

(W&S)

Lower

Green

River

(W&S)

Winter

Ridge WSA

Book Cliffs

Mountain

Browse ISA

Daniels

Canyon WSA

Bull

Canyon

WSA

Diamond

Breaks WSA

West Cold

Spring WSA

Coyote Basin

ACEC

Flume Canyon

WSA

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Special Designations- Alternatives

B and D

*ACEC= Area of Critical Environmental Concern.

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 31

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Currently Found Suitable for

Wild and Scenic River Designation

Proposed ACEC* for Alternative B

Existing ACEC for Alternative D*

Wilderness Study Area
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

Lower Green

River ACEC

Browns

Park ACEC

Pariette

Wetlands

ACEC

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

Red Creek

Watershed ACEC

Red Mountain- Dry Fork ACEC

Lears

Canyon

ACEC Nine Mile

Canyon ACEC

Coyote Basin- Snake John ACEC

Coyote Basin- Shiner ACEC

Coyote Basin- Kennedy Wash

ACEC

Coyote Basin- Coyote Basin ACEC Coyote Basin- Myton Bench

ACEC

White

River

ACEC

Main

Canyon

ACEC

Bitter

Creek

Bitter Creek/ ACEC

P.R. Spring ACEC

Four Mile

Wash ACEC

Middle Green

River ACEC

Upper

Green River

(W&S)

Middle Green

River (W&S)

Bitter

Creek (W&S)

Evacuation

Creek (W&S)

White River

(W&S)

Nine Mile

Creek 1 (W&S)

Nine Mile

Creek 2 (W&S)

Argyle Creek

(W&S)

Lower

Green

River

(W&S)

Diamond

Breaks WSA

Cold Spring Mountain WSA

Daniels

Canyon

WSA

Bull

Canyon

WSA

Winter

Ridge WSA

Book Cliffs

Mountain

Browse ISA Flume Canyon

WSA

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Special Designations- Alternatives

C and E

*ACEC= Area of Critical Environmental Concern. All Coyote Basin

ACECs are a part of the Coyote Basin Complex ACEC. Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 32

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Proposed Wild and Scenic River

Proposed ACEC*

Existing ACEC*

Wilderness Study Area
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Travel/OHV Areas- Proposed RMP

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Travel/OHV data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS-Figure 33

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Travel Route

OHV Designations

Managed-Open

Limited

Closed
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Travel/OHV Areas- Alternative A

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Travel/OHV data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS-Figure 34

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Travel Route

OHV Designations

Managed-Open

Limited

Closed
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Travel/OHV Areas- Alternative B

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Travel/OHV data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS-Figure 35

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Travel Route

OHV Designations

Open- Managed

Limited

Closed
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

Travel/OHV Areas- Alternative C

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Travel/OHV data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS-Figure 36

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Travel Route

OHV Designations

Open- Managed

Limited

Closed

10 5 0 10

Miles
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Travel/OHV Areas- Alternative D

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Travel/OHV data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS-Figure 37

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Travel Route

OHV Designations

Open-Managed

Limited

Closed
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Travel/OHV Areas- Alternative E

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Travel/OHV data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 38

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Travel Route

OHV Designations

Open- Managed

Limited

Closed
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Visual Resource ManagementProposed RMP

EIS- Figure 39

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Visual resource data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Visual Resource Management Classes

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Visual Resource ManagementAlternative A

EIS- Figure 40

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Visual resource data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Visual Resource Management Classes

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Visual Resource ManagementAlternative B

EIS- Figure 41

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Visual resource data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Visual Resource Management Classes

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Visual Resource ManagementAlternative C

EIS- Figure 42

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Visual resource data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Visual Resource Management Classes

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Visual Resource ManagementAlternative D

EIS- Figure 43

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Visual resource data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Visual Resource Management Classes

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Visual Resource ManagementAlternative E

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Visual resource data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 44

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Visual Resource Management Classes

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

Bonanza

Hill

Creek

Hill

Creek

Winter

Ridge

Dinosaur

National Monument

John Jarvie

Historical Site

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

Wild Horse Herd Areas and

Herd Management Areas

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Wild Horse data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

10 5 0 10

Miles

EIS- Figure 45

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Herd Area

Proposed RMP and Alternative B – No HMAs designated

Alternative A – Hill Creek and Winter Ridge would be

designated as HMAs

Alternatives C and E – All Herd Areas would be

designated HMAs

Alternative D – Hill Creek Herd Area would continue to

be designated an HMA
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o

o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushesne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Deer, Elk and Lynx –

Winter Range/Corridor/Zone

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Wildlife data comes from the Utah DWR, 7-1-2006.

Surface disturbing activities are not excluded in these areas. All timing and controlled surface use limitations are subject to waivers,

exceptions, and/or modification identified in Appendix K.

EIS- Figure 46

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Mule Deer Migration Corridor

Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range

Elk Crucial Winter Range

Lynx Linkage Zone
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for use of any of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 47

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Wildlife Fragments

Outside of the 660' Road Effects Zone

Outside of the 1,320' Road Effects Zone

Outside of the 2,640' Road Effects Zone
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie Historical Site

Dinosaur National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Areas Open to WoodcuttingProposed RMP

Note: No color on public land means there is no potential for the

resource or it is closed to wood cutting. No warranty is made by

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for use of any of the data

for purposes not intended by the BLM.

Woodland data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 48

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Areas Open to Woodcutting
U i n t a B a s i n

U i n t a M o u n t a i n s

B o o

k

C l i f f s

John Jarvie

Historical Site

Dinosaur

National Monument

E M E R Y

U I N T A H

G R A N D

D U C H E S N E

S U M M I T

C A R B O N

D A G G E T T

Starvation

Res. Pelican

Lake

Steinaker

Res.

Flaming Gorge Res.

Moon Lake

Green River

White River

Hill Creek

Willow Creek

Strawberry Rv.

Uinta River

Left Fork River

Rock Creek

North Fork Dushes ne River

W Y O M I N G

C

O

L

O

R

A

D

O

Elmo

Price

Neola

Myton

Vernal

Naples

Manila

Maeser

Helper

Tabiona

Ballard

Randlett

Duchesne

Altamont

Sunnyside

Roosevelt

Cleveland

Whiterocks

Wellington East Carbon

Fort Duchesne

10 5 0 10

Miles

Areas Open to WoodcuttingAlternatives A, B, C, D and E

Note: No color on public land means there is no potential for the

resource or it is closed to wood cutting. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for use of any of the data for

purposes not intended by the BLM.

Woodland data comes from the BLM, Utah, Vernal Field Office.

EIS- Figure 49

Plan Area

Ashley National Forest

Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

Areas Open to Woodcutting

Open for Alternatives A, B, C and D

Open for Alternatives B and D

Open for Alternative E
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

APPENDIX A. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR RAPTORS AND 

THEIR ASSOCIATED HABITATS IN UTAH, AUGUST 2006 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Raptors, or Birds of Prey, are found on public lands throughout Utah. Approximately 31 species 

of raptors utilize public lands for at least a portion of their life cycle. These include 20 diurnal 

raptors, including the eagles, hawks, falcons, osprey, turkey vulture and California condor; and 

11 mostly nocturnal owl species. At least 16 of the diurnal raptors are known to nest, roost and 

forage on public lands; while 2 others are probable nesters within the southern part of the state. 

The California condor is known to utilize public lands for roosting and foraging, but is not 

currently known to nest within the state. The rough-legged hawk is a winter resident that uses 

public lands for foraging. All of the owl species nest, roost and forage on public lands in Utah. 

Eight of Utah’s raptors are considered to be Special Status Species by the BLM, and currently 

receive enhanced protection, in addition to the regulatory authority provided by the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which covers all raptor species. The bald eagle and Mexican spotted 

owl are listed as Federally threatened species and are afforded the protection, as well as the 

Section 7 consultation requirements, of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The bald eagle is 

currently being proposed for delisting by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Both the bald eagle and 

golden eagle are protected by the provisions of the Eagle Protection Act. The California condor 

is a Federally endangered species, however, the birds found in southern Utah are part of an 

Experimental Non-essential Population reintroduced to northern Arizona under Section 10(j) of 

the Endangered Species Act. The BLM is required to treat the condor as a species proposed for 

listing for Section 7 purposes of the ESA. The northern goshawk is managed by a multi-agency 

Conservation Agreement. The ferruginous hawk, short-eared owl and burrowing owl are listed as 

Wildlife Species of Concern by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR, May 12, 

2006), and are therefore recognized as BLM state-sensitive species under the Bureau’s 6840 

Manual. The BLM’s 6840 Policy states that “BLM shall...ensure that actions authorized, funded, 

or carried out...do not contribute to the need for the species to become listed”. 

Future raptor management on BLM lands in Utah will be guided by the use of these Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), which are BLM-specific recommendations for implementation 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office’s “Guidelines for Raptor Protection 

From Human and Land Use Disturbances” (“Guidelines”). The “Guidelines” were originally 

developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1999, and were updated during 2002 to reflect 

changes brought about by court and policy decisions and to incorporate Executive Order 13186, 

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. The “Guidelines” were 

provided to BLM and other land-managing agencies in an attempt to provide raptor management 

consistency, while ensuring project compatibility with the biological requirements of raptors, and 

encouraging an ecosystem approach to habitat management. 

These Best Management Practices, or specific elements of the BMP’s which pertain to a 

proposal, should be attached as Conditions of Approval to all BLM use authorizations which 

have the potential to adversely affect nesting raptors, or would cause occupied nest sites to 

become unsuitable for nesting in subsequent years. 

Vernal RMP A-1
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

Raptor management is a dynamic and evolving science, and consequently, as the science 

evolves, these BMP’s will undergo subsequent revision. As more information becomes available 

through implementation of these raptor BMP’s, and as our knowledge of raptor life cycle 

requirements increases, findings will be incorporated into future revisions of the BMP document. 

Additionally, BLM and the Department of Energy are initiating a 3-year Raptor Radii study 

which will test traditional spatial and seasonal nest buffers during actual oil and gas development 

activities for a select suite of species. Study results would be incorporated into new BMP 

revisions as well. 

To adequately manage raptors and their habitats, and to reduce the likelihood of a raptor species 

being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), BLM-authorized or proposed 

management activities and/or land disturbing actions would be subject to the criteria and 

processes specified within these BMPs. The implementation of raptor spatial and seasonal 

buffers under the BMPs would be consistent with Table 2 of the “Guidelines”, included here as 

Attachment 2. As specified in the “Guidelines”, modifications of spatial and seasonal buffers for 

BLM-authorized actions would be permitted, so long as protection of nesting raptors was 

ensured. State and/or Federally-listed, proposed, and candidate raptor species, as well as BLM 

state-sensitive raptor species, should be afforded the highest level of protection through this 

BMP process; however, all raptor species would continue to receive protection under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Modification of the buffers for threatened or endangered species 

would be considered pending results of Section 7 Consultation with USFWS. 

As stated in the “Guidelines”, spatial and seasonal buffers should be considered as the best 

available recommendations for protecting nesting raptors under a wide range of activities statewide. However, they are not necessarily site-specific to proposed projects. Land managers 

should evaluate the type and duration of the proposed activity, the position of topographic and 

vegetative features, the sensitivity of the affected species, the habituation of breeding pairs to 

existing activities in the proposed project area, and the local raptor nesting density, when 

determining site-specific buffers. The BLM would be encouraged to informally coordinate with 

UDWR and USFWS anytime a site-specific analysis shows that an action may have an adverse 

impact on nesting raptors. The coordination would determine if the impact could be avoided or 

must be mitigated, and if so, to determine appropriate and effective mitigation strategies. 

Potential modifications of the spatial and seasonal buffers identified in the “Guidelines” may 

provide a viable management option. Modifications would ensure that nest protection would 

occur, while allowing various management options which may deviate from the suggested 

buffers within the “Guidelines”, which, if adequately monitored, could provide valuable 

information for incorporation into future management actions. 

Seasonal raptor buffers from Attachment 2 should be reviewed by local raptor nesting authorities 

who are knowledgeable of raptor nesting chronologies within their local area. For those nesting 

raptors for which local nesting chronologies remain uncertain, the seasonal buffers provided in 

Attachment 2 should serve as the default. However, for those raptor species whose known 

nesting chronologies differ from the seasonal buffers provided in Attachment 2, the local 

seasonal buffers may be utilized as a modification of the “Guidelines”. 

Criteria that would need to be met, prior to implementing modifications to the spatial and 

seasonal buffers in the “Guidelines”, would include the following: 

Vernal RMP A-2
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

Completion of a site-specific assessment by a wildlife biologist or other qualified individual. See 

example (Attachment 1) 

Written documentation by the BLM Field Office Wildlife Biologist, identifying the proposed 

modification and affirming that implementation of the proposed modification(s) would not affect 

nest success or the suitability of the site for future nesting. Modification of the “Guidelines”

would not be recommended if it is determined that adverse impacts to nesting raptors would 

occur or that the suitability of the site for future nesting would be compromised. 

Development of a monitoring and mitigation strategy by a BLM biologist, or other raptor 

biologist. Impacts of authorized activities would be documented to determine if the 

modifications were implemented as described in the environmental documentation or Conditions 

of Approval, and were adequate to protect the nest site. Should adverse impacts be identified 

during monitoring of an activity, BLM would follow an appropriate course of action, which may 

include cessation or modification of activities that would avoid, minimize or mitigate the impact, 

or, with the approval of DWR and F&WS, BLM could allow the activity to continue while 

requiring monitoring to determine the full impact of the activity on the affected raptor nest. A 

monitoring report would be completed and forwarded to UDWR for incorporation into the 

Natural Heritage Program (NHP) raptor database. 

In a further effort to provide additional support and expertise to local BLM Field biologists, a 

network of biologists from various agencies with specific expertise in raptor management has 

been identified and included as Attachment 3. The personnel identified have extensive 

backgrounds in raptor management issues and are available, upon request, to assist BLM Field 

biologists on a case by case basis. Field biologists are encouraged to use this network, via 

informal conference, with one or more of the individuals identified. This coordination should be 

clearly distinguished from the consultation process required under Section 7 of the ESA. 

Individuals on the expert panel should not be expected to provide formal advise, but should serve 

as a sounding board for discussing potential affects of a proposal, as well as potential mitigation 

measures on specific projects which may be useful to BLM biologists. 

II. HABITAT ENHANCEMENT: 

As recommended in the “Guidelines”, raptor habitat management and enhancement, both within 

and outside of buffers, would be an integral part of these BMPs, with the understanding that in 

order for raptors to maintain high densities and maximum diversity, it is necessary that the 

habitat upon which they and their prey species depend be managed to promote healthy and 

productive ecosystems. Habitat loss or fragmentation would be minimized and/or mitigated to 

the extent practical and may include such measures as; drilling multiple wellheads per pad, 

limiting access roads and avoiding loop roads to well pads, effective rehabilitation or restoration 

of plugged and abandoned well locations and access roads that are no longer required, 

rehabilitation or restoration of wildland fires to prevent domination by non-native invasive 

annual species, vegetation treatments and riparian restoration projects to achieve Rangeland 

Health Standards, etc. 

In some cases, artificial nesting structures, located in areas where preferred nesting substrates are 

limited, but where prey base populations are adequate and human disturbances are limited, may 

enhance some raptor populations, or may serve as mitigation for impacts occurring in other 

areas. 

Vernal RMP A-3
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

III. PROTECTION OF NEST SITES AND BUFFER ZONES: 

As stated in the “Guidelines”, protection of both occupied and unoccupied nests is important 

since not all raptor pairs breed every year, nor do they always utilize the same nest within a 

nesting territory. Individual raptor nests left unused for a number of years are frequently 

reoccupied, if all the nesting attributes which originally attracted a nesting pair to a location are 

still present. Nest sites are selected by breeding pairs for the preferred habitat attributes provided 

by that location. 

Raptor nest buffer zones are established for planning purposes because the nest serves as the 

focal point for a nesting pair of raptors. The buffer should serve as a threshold of potential 

adverse affect to nest initiation and productivity. Actions proposed within these buffer zones are 

considered potentially impacting and, therefore, trigger the need for consideration of site-specific 

recommendations. 

Seasonal (temporal) buffer zones are conservation measures intended to schedule potentially 

impacting activities to periods outside of the nesting season for a particular raptor species. These 

seasonal limitations are particularly applicable to actions proposed within the spatial buffer zone 

of a nest for short duration activities such as, pipeline or powerline construction, seismic 

exploration activity, vegetative treatments, fence or reservoir construction, permitted recreational 

events, etc., where subsequent human activity would not be expected to occur. 

Spatial buffer zones are those physical areas around raptor nest sites where seasonal conservation 

measures, or surface occupancy restrictions may be applied, depending on the type and duration 

of activity, distance and visibility of the activity from the nest site, adaptability of the raptor 

species to disturbance, etc. Surface occupancy restrictions should be utilized for actions which 

would involve human activities within the buffer zone for a long duration (more than one nesting 

season) and which would cause an occupied nest site to become unsuitable for nesting in 

subsequent years. 

UNOCCUPIED NESTS: 

All Activities, including All Mineral Leases: Surface-disturbing activities, occurring outside of 

the breeding season (seasonal buffer), but within the spatial buffer, would be allowed during a 

minimum three-year nest monitoring period, as long as the activity would not cause the nest site 

to become unsuitable for future nesting, as determined by a wildlife biologist. Facilities and other 

permanent structures would be allowed, if they meet the above criteria. 

Some examples of typical surface disturbing actions, occurring outside of the seasonal buffer, 

which may not be expected to affect nest production or future nesting suitability, would include; 

pipelines, powerlines, seismographic exploration, communication sites, an oil or gas well with 

off-site facilities which does not require routine visitation, recreation events, fence or reservoir 

construction, vegetative treatments, and other actions with discreet starting and ending times, and 

for which subsequent human activity or heavy equipment operation within the spatial buffer 

would not be expected to occur, or could be scheduled outside of the seasonal buffer in 

subsequent years. 

Surface disturbing activities that would be expected to potentially affect nest production or nest 

site suitability, include; oil and gas facilities requiring regular maintenance, sand and gravel 

operations, road systems, wind energy projects, mining operations, and other actions requiring 

Vernal RMP A-4
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

continual, random human activity, or heavy equipment operation during subsequent nesting 

seasons. 

A nest site which does not exhibit evidence of use, such as; greenery in the nest, fresh 

whitewash, obvious nest maintenance or the observed presence of adults or young at the nest, for 

a period of three consecutive years, (verified through monitoring), would be deemed abandoned 

and all seasonal and spatial restrictions would cease to apply to that nest. All subsequent 

authorizations for permanent activities within the spatial buffer of the nest could be permitted. If 

the nest becomes reoccupied after authorized activities are completed, conservation measures 

would be considered to reduce potential adverse affects and to comply with the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act and the Eagle Protection Act. 

The three-year non-use standard varies from the “Guidelines” suggested seven-year non-use 

standard before declaring nest abandonment. This variation is based upon a similar standard 

which has been applied for over 20 years in two administrative areas within Utah. Empirical 

evidence would suggest the three-year non-use standard has been effective in conserving raptor 

species. The three-year standard has been applied without legal challenge or violation of “Take” 

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Eagle Protection Act. 

Because prey base populations are known to be cyclic, and because raptor nest initiation or 

nesting success can be affected by drought and other random natural events, care should be taken 

when applying the 3-year non-activity standard. The 3-year nest occupancy monitoring 

requirement should be viewed as a minimum time period during those years of optimal raptor 

nesting conditions. During sub-optimal raptor nesting years, when nesting habitat may be 

affected by drought, low prey base populations, fire, or other events, the monitoring standard 

should be increased to allow raptors the opportunity to reoccupy nesting sites when nesting 

conditions become more favorable. 

OCCUPIED NESTS:

All Activities: Land use activities which would have an adverse impact on an occupied raptor 

nest, would not be allowed within the spatial or seasonal buffer. 

IV. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES: 

Alternatives, including denial of the proposal, should be identified, considered and analyzed in a 

NEPA document anytime an action is proposed within the spatial buffer zone of a raptor nest. 

Selection of a viable alternative that avoids an impact to nesting raptors should be selected over 

attempting to mitigate those impacts. If unavoidable impacts are identified, mitigation measures 

should be applied as necessary to mitigate adverse impacts of resource uses and development on 

nesting raptors. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures should be mandatory 

and should be included as a Condition of Approval. 

V. SPECIFIC STRATEGIES TO BE IMPLEMENTED REGARDING OTHER RESOURCE 

USES:

The following are management strategies designed to reduce or eliminate potential conflicts 

between raptors and other resource uses. This is a list of examples and is not intended to be an 

all-inclusive list. In all cases, when an activity on BLM lands is proposed, and a NEPA 

Vernal RMP A-5
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

document developed, the site-specific analysis process identified in Attachment 1 may be 

implemented to identify and either avoid or mitigate impacts to raptors from the proposal. These 

strategies apply to both BLM and applicant-generated proposals. The strategies are as follows: 

A. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Excavation and studies of cultural resources in caves and around cliff areas should be delayed 

until a qualified biologist surveys the area to be disturbed or impacted by the activity for the 

presence of raptors or nest sites. If nesting raptors are present, the project should be rescheduled 

to occur outside of the seasonal buffer recommended by the “Guidelines”. 

B. FORESTRY AND HARVEST OF WOODLAND PRODUCTS

Timber harvest would be subject to NEPA analysis and would be conducted in a manner that 

would avoid impacts to raptor nests. This could also apply to areas identified for wood gathering 

and firewood sales. 

C. HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION/HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECTS

Hazardous fuels reduction projects and shrubsteppe restoration projects should be reviewed for 

possible impacts to nesting raptors. Removal of trees containing either stick nests or nesting 

cavities, through prescribed fire, or mechanical or manual treatments, should be avoided. 

It is important to note that certain raptor species are tied to specific habitat types, and that 

consideration must be made on a site-specific basis when vegetation manipulation projects are 

proposed, to determine which raptor species may benefit and which may be negatively affected 

by the vegetation composition post-treatment. 

D. LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Manage rangelands and riparian areas in a manner that promotes healthy, productive rangelands 

and functional riparian systems. Rangeland Health Assessments should be conducted on each 

grazing allotment, and rangeland guidelines should be implemented where Rangeland Health 

Standards are not being met, to promote healthy rangelands. 

Locations of sheep camps and other temporary intrusions would be located in areas away from 

raptor nest sites during the nesting season. Placement of salt and mineral blocks would also be 

located away from nesting areas. 

Season of use, kind of livestock, and target utilization levels of key species affect vegetative 

community attributes (percent cover, composition, etc.) and influence small mammal and avian 

species diversity and density. While not all raptor species would be affected in the same way, 

livestock management practices which maintain or enhance vegetative attributes, will preserve 

prey species density and diversity which will benefit the raptor resource. 

E. OHV USE

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) that are developed for OHV use would not be 

located in areas that have important nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat for raptors. 

Vernal RMP A-6
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

Off highway vehicle use would be limited to designated roads, trails and managed open areas. 

Lands categorized as “Open” for OHV use should not be in areas important to raptors for 

nesting, roosting, and foraging 

When proposals for OHV events are received, the area to be impacted, would be surveyed by a 

qualified wildlife biologist to determine if the area is utilized by raptors. Potential conflicts 

would be identified and either avoided or mitigated prior to the issuance of any permit. 

F. OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 43 CFR 3101.1-2, allows for well site location and 

timing to be modified from that requested by the lessee to mitigate conflicts at the proposed site, 

and states that the location can be moved up to 200 meters and the timing of the actual drilling 

can be delayed for up to 60 days to mitigate environmental concerns. The regulation also allows 

BLM to move a location more than 200 meters, or delay operations more than 60 days to protect 

sensitive resources, with supporting rationale and where lesser restrictions are ineffective. The 

Site Specific Analysis (Attachment 1) would provide the supporting rationale. Provisions are 

also present within Sections 3 and 6 of the Standard Lease Form which require compliance with 

existing laws and would allow the BLM to impose additional restrictions at the permitting phase, 

if the restrictions will prevent violation of law, policy or regulation, or avoid undue and 

unnecessary degradation of lands or resources. 

G. REALTY

Lands proposed for disposal which includes raptor nesting, roosting, or important foraging areas 

would be analyzed and evaluated for the relative significance of these resources before a decision 

is made for disposal or retention. 

A priority list of important raptor habitat areas, especially for Federally listed or state sensitive 

raptor species, on state and private lands should be developed and utilized as lands to be acquired 

by BLM when opportunities arise to exchange or otherwise acquire lands. 

Lands and realty authorizations would include appropriate conservation measures to avoid and/or 

mitigate impacts to raptors. 

H. RECREATION

Development of biking trails near raptor nesting areas would be avoided. 

Rock climbing activities would be authorized only in areas where there are no conflicts with cliff 

nesting raptors. 

In high recreation use areas where raptor nest sites have been made unsuitable by existing 

disturbance or habitat alteration, mitigation should be considered to replace nest sites with 

artificial nest structures in nearby suitable habitat, if it exists, and consider seasonal protection of 

nest sites through fencing or other restrictions. 

Dispersed recreation would be monitored to identify where this use may be impacting nesting 

success of raptors. 

Vernal RMP A-7
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

I. WILD HORSE PROGRAM

In areas where wild horse numbers are determined to be in excess of the carrying capacity of the 

range, removal of horses, as described in the various herd management area plans, would 

continue, to prevent further damage to rangelands. 

VI. INVENTORY AND MONITORING 

A) Each Field Office should cooperatively manage a raptor database, with UDWR and 

USFWS, as part of the BLM Corporate database. Raptor data should be collected and 

compiled utilizing the Utah Raptor Data Collection Standards developed by the Utah 

State Office, so that personnel from other agencies can access the data. Appropriate 

protocols for survey and monitoring should be followed, when available. This database 

should be updated as new inventory and monitoring data becomes available. The data 

should also be forwarded to UDWR and the Natural Heritage Program, which has been 

identified as the central repository for raptor data storage for the State of Utah. 

B) Use of Seasonal Employees and volunteers, as well as “Challenge Cost Share” projects, 

should be utilized to augment the inventory and monitoring of raptor nests within a 

planning area, with the data entered into the above-mentioned databases at the close of 

each nesting season. Project proponents, such as energy development interests, would be 

encouraged to participate and help support an annual raptor nest monitoring effort within 

their areas of interest. 

C) Active nest sites should be monitored during all authorized activities that may have an 

impact on the behavior or survival of the raptors at the nest site. A qualified biologist 

would conduct the monitoring and document the impacts of the activity on the species. A 

final report of the impacts of the project should be placed in the EA file, with a copy 

submitted to the NHP. The report would be made available for review and should identify 

what activities may affect raptor-nesting success, and should be used to recommend 

appropriate buffer zones for various raptor species. 

D) As data are gathered, and impact analyses are more accurately documented, “adaptive 

management” principles should be implemented. Authorization of future activities should 

take new information into account, better protecting raptors, while potentially allowing 

more development and fewer restrictions, if data indicates that current restrictions are 

beyond those necessary to protect nesting raptors, or conversely indicates that current 

guidance is inadequate for protection of nesting raptors. 

Vernal RMP A-8
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

ATTACHMENT 1 

Site Specific Analysis Data Sheet 

Observer(s)______________________________ Date____________________________ 

1. Conduct a site visit to the area of the proposed action and complete the raptor nest site 

data sheet according to BLM data standards. 

2. Area of Interest Documentation (Bold items require completion, other information is optional) 

State Office Management Unit __________________ 

Project ID# 

Location (Description) 

Legal T , R , Sec. , 1/4, 1/4, or UTM Coordinates 

Latitude Longitude 

Photos Taken Y ( ) N ( ) 

Description of photos: 

Raptor Species Confirmed Unconfirmed 

Distance From Proposed Disturbance to: Nest 

Perch 

Roost 

Line of Site Evaluation From: Nest 

Perch 

Roost 

Extent of Disturbance: Permanent Temporary ______ 

Vernal RMP A-9
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

Distance from Nest/Roost ____________ Acreage _________________ 

Length of Time Timing Variations Disturbance Frequency __________ 

Other Disturbance Factors: Yes No (If yes, explain what and include distances from nest to 

disturbances) 

Approximate Age of Nest: New Historical: (Number of Years) 

Evidence of Use (Describe): 

Habitat Values Impacted: 

Proportion of Habitat Impacted (Relate in terms of habitat available): 

 

Estimated Noise Levels of Project (db): ____________ 

Available Alternative(s) (e.g., location, season, technology): 

Associated Activities: 

Vernal RMP A-10
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

Cumulative Effects of Proposal and Other Actions in Habitat Not Associated With the 

Proposal: 

Potential for site Rehabilitation: High Low_________ 

 Notes/Comments: 

 

Summary of Proposed Modifications: 

Possible modifications to the spatial and seasonal buffers within the FWS “Guidelines” include 

the following: 

 

Rationale: 

 

Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures: 

Possible mitigation measures related to the proposal include the following: 

Rationale: 

Vernal RMP A-11
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

Summary of Alternatives Considered: 

Possible alternatives to the proposal include the following: 

Rationale: 

Recommendation to FO Manager Based on Above Findings: 

________________________________ _______________ 

Field Office Wildlife Biologist Date 

Vernal RMP A-12
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

ATTACHMENT 2 

Nesting Periods and Recommended Buffers for Raptors in Utah 

Species Spatial 

Buffer 

(miles) 

Seasonal 

Buffer 

Incubation, 

# Days 

Brooding 

# Days 

PostHatch 

Fledging, 

# Days 

PostHatch 

Post-fledge 

Dependency 

to Nest, # 

Days1

Bald eagle 1.0 1/1-8/31 34-36 21-28 70-80 14-20 

Golden eagle 0.5 1/1-8/31 43-45 30-40 66-75 14-20 

N. Goshawk 0.5 3/1-8/15 36-38 20-22 34-41 20-22 

N. Harrier 0.5 4/1-8/15 32-38 21-28 42 7 

Cooper’s hawk 0.5 3/15-8/31 32-36 14 27-34 10 

Ferruginous hawk 0.5 3/1-8/1 32-33 21 38-48 7-10 

Red-tailed hawk 0.5 3/15-8/15 30-35 35 45-46 14-18 

Sharp-shinned hawk 0.5 3/15-8/31 32-35 15 24-27 12-16 

Swainson’s hawk 0.5 3/1-8/31 33-36 20 36-40 14 

Turkey vulture 0.5 5/1-8/15 38-41 14 63-88 10-12 

California condor 1.0 NN yet 56-58 5-8 weeks 5-6 

months 

2 months 

Peregrine falcon 1.0 2/1-8/31 33-35 14-21 35-49 21 

Prairie falcon 0.25 4/1-8/31 29-33 28 35-42 7-14 

Merlin 0.5 4/1-8/31 28-32 7 30-35 7-19 

American kestrel NN2 4/1-8/15 26-32 8-10 27-30 12 

Osprey 0.5 4/1-8/31 37-38 30-35 48-59 45-50 

Boreal owl 0.25 2/1-7/31 25-32 20-24 28-36 12-14 

Burrowing owl 0.25 3/1-8/31 27-30 20-22 40-45 21-28 

Flammulated owl 0.25 4/1-9/30 21-22 12 22-25 7-14 

Great horned owl 0.25 2/1-9/31 30-35 21-28 40-50 7-14 

Long-eared owl 0.25 2/1-8/15 26-28 20-26 30-40 7-14 

N. saw-whet owl 0.25 3/1-8/31 26-28 20-22 27-34 7-14 

Short-eared owl 0.25 3/1-8/1 24-29 12-18 24-27 7-14 

Mex. Spotted owl 0.5 3/1-8/31 28-32 14-21 34-36 10-12 

N. Pygmy owl 0.25 4/1-8/1 27-31 10-14 28-30 7-14 

W. Screech owl 0.25 3/1-8/15 21-30 10-14 30-32 7-14 

Common Barn-owl NN2 2/1-9/15 30-34 20-22 56-62 7-14 

1 Length of post-fledge dependency period to parents is longer than reported in this table. Reported dependency periods 

reflect the amount of time the young are still dependent on the nest site; i.e. they return to the nest for feeding. 2

 Due to 

apparent high population densities and ability to adapt to human activity, a spatial buffer is not currently considered 

necessary for maintenance of American kestrel or Common barn-owl populations. Actions resulting in direct mortality of 

individual bird or take of known nest sites is unlawful 

Vernal RMP A-13
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

ATTACHMENT 3 

Utah Raptor Management Experts From Various Agencies

The following list of personnel from various agencies in Utah, are recognized experts in the field 

of raptor ecology or have extensive field experience in managing raptor resources with 

competing land uses. The list is provided to inform BLM field biologists and managers of this 

network of specialized expertise that may be able to assist, as time permits, with specific raptor 

management issues. Individuals in this Utah Raptor Network, also have well established contacts 

with an informal extended network of highly qualified raptor ecologists outside the state (i.e. 

USGS, State Wildlife Agencies, and Universities etc.) which could provide an additional 

regional perspective. 

It should be pointed out that this list is not intended to replace or interfere with established lines 

of communication but rather supplement these lines of communication. 

Utah BLM David Mills david_mills@blm.gov 435-896-1571 

Utah BLM Steve Madsen steve_c_madsen@blm.gov 801-539-4058 

Utah DWR Dr. Jim Parrish jimparrish@utah.gov 801-538-4788 

Utah DWR (NERO) Brian Maxfield brianmaxfield@utah.gov 435-790-5355 

 

USFWS Laura Romin laura_romin@usfws.gov 801-975-3330 

USFWS Diana Whittington diana_whittington@usfws.gov 801-975-3330 

USFS Chris Colt ccolt@fs.fed.us 801-896-1062 

HawkWatch Intl Jeff Smith jsmith@hawkwatch.org 801-484-6808 

Vernal RMP A-14
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

ATTACHMENT 4 

References Cited 

Code of Federal Regulations; 43 CFR 3101.1-2, Leasing Regulations. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA); 16 U.S.C. 1513-1543 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); 16 U.S.C. 703-712 

Romin, Laura A. and James A. Muck, 2002, “Utah Field Office Guidelines For Raptor 

Protection From Human And Land Use Disturbances.” U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management; 1997. U.S. 

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; 6840 Manual. 

Vernal RMP A-15
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix A 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Vernal RMP A-16
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix B 

 

Vernal RMP B-1

APPENDIX B. HYDRAULIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR PIPELINE 

CROSSINGS OF STREAM CHANNELS

Pipeline crossings of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream channels should be 

constructed to withstand floods of extreme magnitude to prevent breakage and subsequent 

accidental contamination of runoff during high flow events. Surface crossings must be 

constructed high enough to remain above the highest possible stream flows at each crossing, and 

subsurface crossings must be buried deep enough to remain undisturbed by scour throughout 

passage of the peak flow. To avoid repeated maintenance of such crossings, hydraulic analysis 

should be completed in the design phase to eliminate costly repair and potential environmental 

degradation associated with pipeline breaks at stream crossings. 

SURFACE CROSSINGS

Pipelines that cross stream channels on the surface should be located above all possible flood 

flows that may occur at the site. At a minimum, pipelines must be located above the 100-year 

flood elevation, and preferably above the 500-year flood elevation. Procedures for estimating 

100-year and 500-year flood magnitudes are described in the U.S. Geological Survey’s National 

Flood Frequency Program (Jennings, et al. 1994). Two sets of relationships for estimating flood 

frequencies at ungauged sites in Utah are included in the NFF program: Thomas and Lindskov 

(1983) use drainage basin area and mean basin elevation for flood estimates for six Utah regions 

stratified by location and basin elevation. Thomas et al (1997) also use drainage area and mean 

basin elevation to estimate magnitude and frequency of floods throughout the southwestern U.S., 

including five regions that cover the entire state of Utah. Results from both sets of equations 

should be examined to estimate the 100- and 500-year floods, since either of the relations may 

provide questionable results if the stream crossing drains an area near the boundary of a flood 

region or if the data for the crossing approach or exceed the limits of the data set used to develop 

the equations. 

Estimating the depth of flow, or conversely the elevation of the pipeline at the crossing, may be 

approached a number of ways. The simplest procedure would be based solely on a field 

reconnaissance of the site, using basic geomorphic principles. Identification of the bank-full 

elevation and the active floodplain (i.e., floodplain formed by the present flow regime) provides 

inadequate conveyance for extreme flood events. Past floodplains/present terraces also must be 

identified, since these represent extreme floods in the present flow regime, especially in arid and 

semi-arid environments. Pipeline crossings should be constructed to elevate the pipeline above 

the level of the highest and outermost terrace at the crossing. This level represents the 

geomorphic surface likely to be associated with the maximum probable flood. Since this method 

is entirely based on a geomorphic reconnaissance of the site, no flood-frequency analysis is 

required and no recurrence interval is assigned to the design elevation. While this is the simplest 

approach to design of the crossing, it likely will result in the most conservative estimate (i.e., 

highest elevation) for suspension of the pipeline. 

A slightly more intensive approach to crossing design is based on the Physiographic Method 

described by Thomas and Lindskov (1983) for estimating flood depths at ungauged sites. The 

procedure utilizes regional regression equations (similar to the flood-frequency equations 

described above) to estimate depth of flow associated with a specified recurrence-interval flood. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix B 

 

Vernal RMP B-2

Flood depth is then added to a longitudinal survey of the stream channel in the vicinity of the 

crossing, resulting in a longitudinal profile of the specified flood. Elevation of the flood profile at 

the point of pipeline crossing is the elevation above which the pipeline must be suspended. While 

this procedure requires a field survey and calculation of actual flood depths, it may result in a 

lower crossing elevation (and possibly lower costs) for the pipeline. Also, since the regional 

regression equations estimate flood depth for specified recurrence-interval floods, it is possible 

to place a recurrence interval on the crossing design for risk calculations. 

It may be possible to reduce pipeline construction costs associated with channel crossings even 

further with a water-surface-profile model of flow through the crossing site. The water-surfaceprofile model requires a detailed survey of both the longitudinal channel profile and several cross 

sections along the stream. Design flows (e.g., 100-year and 500-year floods) are calculated for 

the channel at the crossing (with the regional regression equations described above) and routed 

through the surveyed channel reach utilizing a step-backwater analysis. The step-backwater 

analysis uses the principles of conservation of mass and conservation of energy to calculate 

water-surface elevations at each surveyed cross section. Since the computation utilizes a detailed 

channel survey, it is probably the most accurate method to use; however, it is likely the most 

expensive method for the same reason. The step-backwater computations require an estimate of 

the Manning n-value as an indicator of resistance to flow, and assume fairly stable channel 

boundaries. Estimates of the n-value for ungauged sites are a matter of engineering judgment, but 

n-values typically are a function of slope, depth of flow, bed-material particle size, and bedforms 

present during the passage of the flood wave. Guidance is available in many hydraulic references 

(e.g., Chow 1959). The assumption of fairly stable channel boundaries is not always met with 

sand-bed channels, and is an issue of considerable importance for designing subsurface pipeline 

crossings as well (see below). 

SUBSURFACE (BURIED) CROSSINGS

Since many of the pipelines are small and most of the channels are ephemeral, it is commonplace 

to bury the pipelines rather than suspending them above the streams. The practice of burying 

pipelines at channel crossings likely is both cheaper and easier than suspending them above all 

flood flows; however, an analysis of channel degradation and scour should be completed to 

ensure the lines are not exposed and broken during extreme runoff events. Without such an 

analysis, pipeline crossings should be excavated to bedrock and placed beneath all alluvial 

material. 

Buried pipelines may be exposed by stream bed lowering resulting from channel degradation, 

channel scour, or a combination of the two. Channel degradation occurs over a long stream reach 

or larger geographic area, and is generally associated with the overall lowering of the landscape. 

Degradation also may be associated with changes in upstream watershed or channel conditions 

impacting the water and sediment yield of the basin. Channel scour is a local phenomenon 

associated with passage of one or more flood events and/or site-specific hydraulic conditions that 

may be natural or man-caused in origin. Either process can expose buried pipelines to excessive 

forces associated with extreme flow events, and an analysis of each is required to ensure integrity 

of the crossing. 

Detection of long-term channel degradation must be attempted, even if there is no indication of 

local scour. Plotting bed elevations against time permits evaluation of bed-level adjustment and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix B 

 

Vernal RMP B-3

indicates whether a major phase of channel incision has passed or is ongoing. However, 

comparative channel survey data are rarely available for the proposed location of a pipeline 

crossing. In instances where a gauging station is operated at or near the crossing, it’s usually 

possible to determine long-term aggradation or degradation by plotting the change in stage 

through time for one or more selected discharges. The procedure is called a specific gauge 

analysis and is described in detail in the Stream Corridor Restoration manual published by the 

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998). When there is no gauging 

station near the proposed pipeline crossing, nearby locations on the same stream or in the same 

river basin may provide a regional perspective on long-term channel adjustments. However, 

specific gauge records indicate only the conditions in the vicinity of the particular gauging 

station and do not necessarily reflect river response farther upstream or downstream of the 

gauge. Therefore, it is advisable to investigate other data in order to make predictions about 

potential channel degradation at a site. 

Other sources of information include the biannual bridge inspection reports required in all states 

for bridge maintenance. In most states, these reports include channel cross-sections or bed 

elevations under the bridge, and a procedure similar to specific gauge analysis may be attempted. 

Simon (1989, 1992) presents mathematical functions for describing bed level adjustments 

through time, fitting elevation data at a site to either a power function or an exponential function 

of time. Successive cross sections from a series of bridges in a basin also may be used to 

construct a longitudinal profile of the channel network; sequential profiles so constructed may be 

used to document channel adjustments through time. 

In the absence of channel surveys, gauging stations, and bridge inspection reports (or other 

records of structural repairs along a channel), it may be necessary to investigate channel 

aggradation and degradation using quantitative techniques described in Richardson et al. (2001) 

and Lagasse et al. (2001). Techniques for assessing vertical stability of the channel include 

incipient motion analysis, analysis of armoring potential, equilibrium slope analysis, and 

sediment continuity analysis. Geomorphic indicators of recent channel incision (e.g., obligate 

and facultative riparian species on present-day stream terraces elevated above the water table) 

also may be helpful for diagnosing channel conditions. 

In addition to long-term channel degradation at the pipeline crossing, local scour of the crossing 

must be addressed for pipeline safety. Local scour occurs when sediment transport through a 

stream reach is greater than the sediment load being supplied from upstream and is usually 

associated with changes in the channel cross section. Local scour can occur in natural channels 

wherever a pipeline crosses a constriction in the channel cross section (contraction scour). 

Equations for calculating contraction scour generally fall into two categories, depending on the 

inflow of bed-material sediment from upstream. In situations where there is little to no bedmaterial transport from upstream (generally coarse-bed streams with gravel and larger bed 

materials), contraction scour should be estimated using clear-water scour equations. In situations 

where there is considerable bed-material transport into the constricted section (i.e., for most 

sand-bed streams), contraction scour should be estimated using live-bed scour equations. Livebed and clear-water scour equations can be found in many hydraulic references (e.g., Richardson 

and Davis 2001). In either case, estimates of local scour in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing 

must be added to the assessment of channel degradation for estimating the depth of burial for the 

crossing. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix B 

 

Vernal RMP B-4

Even in the absence of contraction scour, local scour will still occur in most sand-bed channels 

during the passage of major floods. Since sand is easily eroded and transported, interaction 

between the flow of water and the sand bed results in different configurations of the stream bed 

with varying conditions of flow. The average height of dune bedforms is roughly one-third to 

one-half the mean flow depth, and maximum height of dunes may nearly equal the mean flow 

depth. Thus, if the mean depth of flow in a channel was 5 feet, maximum dune height could also 

approach 5 feet, half of which would be below the mean elevation of the stream bed (Lagasse et 

al. 2001). Similarly, Simons, Li and Associates (1982) present equations for antidune height as a 

function of mean velocity, but limit maximum antidune height to mean flow depth. 

Consequently, formation of antidunes during high flows not only increases mean water-surface 

elevation by one-half the wave height, it also reduces the mean bed elevation by one-half the 

wave height. Richardson and Davis (2001) report maximum local scour of one to two times the 

average flow depth where two channels come together in a braided stream. 

Pipeline crossings that are buried rather than suspended above all major flow events should 

address all of the components of degradation, scour, and channel-lowering due to bedforms 

described above. In complex situations or where consequences of pipeline failure are significant, 

consideration should be given to modeling the mobile-bed hydraulics with a numerical model 

such as HEC-6 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1993) or BRI-STARS (Molinas 1990). The 

Federal Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration manual (FISRWG 1998) summarizes the 

capabilities of these and other models, and provides references for model operation and user 

guides where available. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-1

APPENDIX C. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS REVIEW, VERNAL FIELD 

OFFICE

RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The 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 freeflowing condition, as well as their immediate environments. It 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 planning, for the use and development of water and 

related land resources. A “Wild and Scenic River (WSR)” review is being conducted as part of 

the Vernal Resource Management Plan Revision. 

The first phase of the review is to inventory all potentially eligible rivers within the planning 

area, to determine which of those rivers are eligible for designation into the NWSRS. In order to 

be eligible, a river must be “free-flowing,” and possess at least one “outstandingly remarkable 

value.” The inventory to determine eligibility is part of the “analysis of the management 

situation.” 

Next, all eligible rivers are taken through the land use planning process to determine their 

suitability for Congressional designation into the NWSRS. One planning alternative would 

manage all eligible rivers as suitable, another alternative would manage no eligible rivers as 

suitable, and other alternatives would manage some rivers or river segments as suitable and other 

rivers or river segments as not suitable. Actual “suitability” determinations will be made in the 

Record of Decision (ROD) for the land use plan. 

There is also a reporting phase where “suitability” determinations are reported to Congress. 

There is no specific time requirement for completion of this phase; however, it is assumed that 

reporting will be done some time following completion of the land use plan. Only the Congress 

or the Secretary of Interior, upon an official request by a state, can designate a river into the 

NWSRS. 

CURRENT GUIDANCE

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 

• Wild and Scenic River Reference Guide, 

• Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordination Council 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction for 

• Identification, Evaluation, and Management; BLM Manual 8351 

• Wild and Scenic River Review in the State of Utah, 

• “Process and Criteria” for Interagency Use, July 1996 

IDENTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE RIVERS

To determine eligibility, the Vernal Field Office (VFO) conducted an inventory of “all 

potentially eligible rivers.” This included all rivers nominated during the “scoping” process or 

that appeared on local or national river lists. These rivers were automatically identified and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-2

considered as potentially eligible. In addition, all rivers within the planning area were mapped 

and reviewed by agency and non-agency subject matter specialists and members of the interested 

public to identify any additional rivers that could be potentially eligible. All rivers determined to 

be eligible are considered further for suitability in the planning process. 

To be eligible, a river must be free flowing. The WSR Act defines “free-flowing” as any river or 

section of river, existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, rip-rapping. However, minor structures existing at the time any river is proposed 

for inclusion in the NWSRS will not automatically bar its consideration from such inclusion, 

provided that it will not be construed to authorize, intend, or encourage future construction of 

such structures within components of the NWSRS 

Another screening criterion to determine if a river segment may be eligible for inclusion in the 

NWSRS is that the river must possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable” scenic, 

recreational, geological, fish, wildlife, historical, cultural, or other similar values including 

ecological value(s). 

The size of a river is NOT a criterion of eligibility. To be eligible, rivers do not have to be 

outstanding white-water or boatable. Flow must simply be sufficient to sustain the outstandingly 

remarkable value that makes a river or river segment eligible for consideration. 

A “tentative classification” of wild, scenic or recreational is determined for any eligible river. 

Tentative classifications are based on the evidence of man’s activities and the condition of the 

river and the adjacent lands at the time of the inventory. 

A “wild” river is “free of impoundments,” with shorelines or watersheds essentially primitive, 

and unpolluted waters. A “scenic” river may have some development, and may be accessible in 

places by roads or railroads. A “recreational” river is considered as a river or section 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. (Refer to Table 1). 

Table 1. Classification Criteria for Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Areas. 

Attribute Wild Scenic Recreational 

Water 

Resource 

Development 

Free of impoundment. Free of impoundment. Some existing impoundment 

or diversion. 

The existence of low dams, 

diversions or other 

modifications of the 

waterway is acceptable, 

provided the waterway 

remains generally natural 

and riverine in appearance. 

Shoreline 

Development 

Essentially primitive. 

Little or no evidence of 

human activity. 

The presence of a few 

inconspicuous 

structures, particularly 

those of historic or 

cultural value, is 

Largely primitive and 

undeveloped. No 

substantial evidence of 

human activity. 

The presence of small 

communities or dispersed 

dwellings or farm 

structures is acceptable. 

Some development. 

Substantial evidence of 

human activity 

The presence of extensive 

residential development and 

a few commercial structures 

is acceptable. 

Lands may have been 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-3

Table 1. Classification Criteria for Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Areas. 

Attribute Wild Scenic Recreational 

acceptable. 

A limited amount of 

domestic livestock 

grazing or hay 

production is 

acceptable. 

Little or no evidence of 

past timber harvest. No 

ongoing timber harvest. 

The presence of grazing, 

hay production or row 

crops is acceptable. 

Evidence of past or 

ongoing timber harvest is 

acceptable, provided the 

forest appears natural 

from the riverbank. 

developed for the full range 

of agricultural and forestry 

uses. 

May show evidence of past 

and ongoing timber harvest. 

Accessibility Generally inaccessible 

except by trail. 

No roads, railroads or 

other provision for 

vehicular travel within 

the river area. A few 

existing roads leading 

to the boundary of the 

river area is 

acceptable. 

Accessible in places by 

road. 

Roads may occasionally 

reach or bridge the river. 

The existence of short 

stretches of conspicuous 

or longer stretches of 

inconspicuous roads or 

railroads is acceptable. 

Readily accessible by road 

or railroad. 

The existence of parallel 

roads or railroads on one or 

both banks as well as bridge 

crossings and other river 

access points is acceptable. 

Water Quality Meets or exceeds 

Federal criteria or 

federally approved 

State standards for 

aesthetics, for 

propagation of fish and 

wildlife normally 

adapted to the habitat 

of the river, and for 

primary contact 

recreation (swimming) 

except where 

exceeded by natural 

conditions. 

No criteria prescribed by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972 have made it a national goal that all waters of the 

United States be made fishable and swimmable. 

Therefore, rivers will not be precluded from scenic or 

recreational classification because of poor water quality 

at the time of their study, provided a water quality 

improvement plan exists or is being developed in 

compliance with applicable Federal and State laws. 

DOCUMENTATION PROCESS

DATA SOURCES

• Maps of Vernal Planning Area at 1:100,000 scale 

• National Rivers Inventory (NPS 1995) 

• American Rivers Listing (Huntington and Echevarria 1991) 

• “A Citizen’s Proposal to Protect the Wild Rivers of Utah” 

• Rivers or river segments identified by Federal Agencies, State, Indian Tribes, other local 

governments 

• Rivers or river segments identified in the public scoping process 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-4

WSR SYSTEM ID TEAM

The Vernal Field Office used a team of interdisciplinary specialists to review all potentially 

eligible rivers. The VFO coordinated with the Price and Richfield Field Offices, as well as the 

Ashley National Forest and the BLM in Colorado regarding river segments that crossed 

boundaries. Opportunities to provide input on river eligibility were provided to State, tribal and 

local governments, and to interested members of the public. Considerations involved the 

following: 

All rivers that were nominated during RMP scoping or that were on national or local rivers lists 

were considered to be potentially eligible and were inventoried. In addition, the interdisciplinary 

team reviewed a 1:100,000 scale map of all rivers and associated reaches (tributaries) in the 

Vernal Planning Area to assure that no potentially eligible rivers were missed. 

The team identified the regions of comparison to include the following sub-units of the Colorado 

Region Plateau: Uintah Mountain Section, Uintah Basin Section, Tavaputs Plateau Section, and 

Northern Canyon lands Section. 

The team reviewed all potentially eligible river segments and noted any “free-flowing” and 

“outstandingly remarkable values.” 

In order to identify outstandingly remarkable values, rivers within the planning area were 

compared with other rivers in the regions of comparison. 

Tentative classifications of wild, recreational, or scenic were made for all rivers that were “freeflowing” with at least one “outstandingly remarkable value 

“Preliminary” findings of eligibility were provided to State, tribal and local governments for 

additional input. They were asked to identify any differences of opinion regarding the findings 

and if there were any additional potentially eligible rivers that should be considered. 

“Preliminary” findings were also made available to the interested public through an RMP 

planning bulletin (#3). They were asked to identify any differences of opinion regarding the 

findings and if there were any additional potentially eligible rivers that should be considered. 

SUMMARY OF THE ELIGIBILITY REVIEW 

# There were 89 river segments identified as potentially eligible and inventoried. Refer to 

the list below. 

# There were 9 river segments determined to be eligible (free-flowing with at least one 

outstandingly remarkable value.) Refer to Tables 2, 3, and 4.

The following list identifies all rivers potentially eligible and considered through the wild and 

scenic river review. It includes all rivers listed, nominated, or identified by VFO specialists 

(WSR System ID Team) or identified by others including State, tribal or local governments, or 

interested members of the public. 

1. Allen Draw 

2. Anderson Hollow 

3. Argyle Creek 

4. Ashley Creek 

5. Beaver Creek 

6. Bender Draw 

7. Big Draw 

8. Big Springs 

9. Big Brush Creek 

10. Birch Creek 

11. Bitter Creek 

12. Blair Draw 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-5

13. Bowery Draw 

14. Castle Peak Creek 

15. Clay Basin Creek 

16. Collier Hole 

Creek 

17. Cow Creek 

18. Crouse Creek 

19. Crow Creek 

20. Crumb Canyon 

21. Cub Creek 

22. Deep Creek 

23. Diamond Gulch 

24. Dry Fork Creek 

25. Duchesne 

26. Dutch John 

Canyon 

27. East Cottonwood 

Canyon 

28. Eight Mile Flat 

Creek 

29. Evacuation Creek 

30. Ford Creek 

31. Four Mile Creek 

32. Galloway Creek 

33. Garden Creek 

34. Gorge Creek 

35. Goslin Creek 

36. Green River 

37. Grindstone Wash 

38. Halfway Hollow 

Creek 

39. Jack Canyon 

40. Jackson Creek 

41. Jesse Ewing 

Canyon 

42. Jones Hole Creek 

43. Jones Hollow 

44. Kettle Creek 

45. Lake Creek 

46. Lambson Draw 

47. Little Davenport 

Creek 

48. Little Brush 

Creek 

49. Logge Canyon 

50. Lower Water 

Hollow 

51. Marshall Draw 

52. Martin Draw 

53. Milk Creek 

54. Mill Canyon 

55. Minnie Maud 

Creek 

56. Mosby Creek 

57. Mine Mile Creek 

58. O-WI-Yu-Kuts 

Creek 

59. Pariette Draw 

60. Pigeon Creek 

61. Pinnacle Canyon 

62. Pot Creek 

63. Eat Hole 

64. Red Creek 

65. Rock Creek 

66. Sage Creek 

67. Sand Wash Creek 

68. Sears Creek 

69. Sheep Wash 

Creek 

70. Simons Creek 

71. Smelter Creek 

72. South Branch 

Diamond Gulch 

73. Spring Creek 

74. Steinaker Creek 

75. Sweet Water 

Creek 

76. Ten Mile Creek 

77. Tolivers Creek 

78. Twelve Mile Wash 

Creek 

79. Uintah 

80. Upper Water 

Hollow 

81. Water Canyon 

82. Wells Draw Creek 

83. West Fork Willow 

Creek 

84. White River 

85. White Rocks 

86. Willow Spring 

Draw 

87. Willow Creek 

(Brown’s Park) 

88. Willow Creek 

(Indian Canyon) 

89. Yellowstone 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-6

Table 2. Eligible Rivers - Free-flowing Determination 

Segment Name Reason for 

Consideration* Segment Description 

Freeflowing 

Yes/No 

Reason for 

Free-flowing 

Determination 

Argyle Creek E, F Head waters to Carbon 

County line 

Yes Natural flow 

Bitter Creek F From the Utah State line to 

where Bitter Creek enters 

private property 

Yes Natural flow 

Evacuation Creek F From the Utah State line to 

its confluence with the White 

River 

Yes Natural flow 

Upper Green River A, B, E Between Little Hole and the 

Utah State line 

Yes Natural flow 

Middle Green River A, B, E Between Dinosaur National 

Monument and the public 

land boundary north of 

Ouray 

Yes Natural flow 

Lower Green River A, B, E Between the public land 

boundary south of Ouray 

and the Carbon County line 

Yes Natural flow 

Nine Mile Creek, 

Segment A 

E, F Within Duchesne County 

between the Carbon County 

line and the confluence with 

Gate Canyon 

Yes Natural flow 

Nine Mile Creek, 

Segment B 

E, F Within Duchesne County 

between the Green River 

and the Carbon County line 

Yes Natural flow 

White River, 

Segment A 

A, B, E, F Between the Colorado State 

line and its confluence with 

Asphalt Wash. 

Yes Natural flow 

White River, 

Segment B 

A, B, E, F Between Asphalt Wash to 

where the river leaves 

Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 23 

E., SLBM. 

Yes Natural Flow 

White River, 

Segment C 

A, B, E, F From where the river leaves 

Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 23 

E., SLBM to the Indian Trust 

Land boundary. 

Yes Natural Flow 

* Reasons for Consideration 

A - Nationwide Rivers Inventory List 

B - American Rivers Outstanding Rivers List 

C - 1970 USDA/USDI List 

D - Published Guidebooks (i.e. American Whitewater Affiliation List) 

E - Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans 

F - Officially identified by Federal Agencies, State, Indian tribes, other local governments 

G - Identified in public scoping during the RMP Process
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-7

Table 3 Eligible Rivers – Tentative Classification 

Eligible River 

Segment 

Tentative 

Classification 

Description of Classified 

Segment Reason for Classification 

Argyle Creek Recreational All BLM-managed portions of 

Argyle Creek from the Head 

waters to Carbon County line 

The entire segment is paralleled 

by a county road. The high 

percentage of private land 

adjacent to the stream has 

resulted in the construction of 

numerous ranch houses and 

summer homes in the corridor. A 

power line parallels the stream 

for approximately 7 miles. 

Bitter Creek Scenic All BLM-managed portions of 

Bitter Creek between the 

Utah State line and where it 

enters private property. 

A two track road parallels the 

creek for much of its length, 

however, it is hidden from view 

much of the way and does not 

attract attention. Other than the 

road there are few other 

improvements within the corridor. 

Evacuation 

Creek 

Recreational All BLM-managed portions of 

Evacuation Creek between 

the Utah State line and its 

confluence with the White 

River. 

An improved dirt road parallels 

the creek much of its length. Two 

bridges and a suspended pipeline 

cross the creek An old railroad 

grade follows the corridor through 

the southern part of the segment. 

However, there are sections 

along the northern part of the 

segment that appear wild with no 

man made intrusions evident. 

Upper Green 

River 

Scenic All BLM-managed portions of 

the Green River between 

Little Hole and the Utah State 

line. 

An improved dirt road parallels 

the river for a short distance near 

the John Jarvie Historic Site and 

BLM’s Bridge Hollow and Indian 

Crossing Campgrounds. A bridge 

crosses the river at this point. All 

four of these improvements can 

readily be seen from the river. 

There are other improvements 

within the corridor such as the 

Allan Ranch and improvements 

associated with the Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources Browns 

Park Waterfowl Refuge. 

However, much of the corridor is 

free from intrusions and is wild in 

appearance. 

Middle Green 

River 

Recreational All BLM managed portions of 

the Green River between the 

boundary of Dinosaur 

National Monument and the 

public land boundary north of 

Ouray. 

There are many intrusions along 

the river corridor. Irrigated fields, 

homes, corrals, fences, roads, a 

gravel pit and numerous oil and 

gas wells. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-8

Table 3 Eligible Rivers – Tentative Classification 

Eligible River 

Segment 

Tentative 

Classification 

Description of Classified 

Segment Reason for Classification 

Lower Green 

River 

Scenic All BLM managed portions of 

the Green River between the 

public land boundary south of 

Ouray and the Carbon 

County line. 

Very few intrusions are visible 

from the river. Oil and gas wells 

can be seen near Parget Draw. 

Roads access the river corridor at 

Parget Draw, near Willow Creek, 

Moon Bottom, Four Mile Draw, 

Nine Mile Creek, and both sides 

of the river at Sand Wash. BLM 

has a ranger station, campground 

and boat ramp at Sand Wash. A 

buried pipeline crosses the river 

near Four Mile Draw. 

Nine Mile 

Creek, 

Segment A 

Recreational The segment within 

Duchesne County between 

the Carbon County line and 

the confluence with Gate 

Canyon 

Intrusions exist along the river 

corridor; irrigated fields, homes, 

corrals, fences, roads, and a 

buried natural gas pipeline 

parallels the corridor 

Nine Mile 

Creek, 

Segment B 

Scenic The segment that lies within 

Duchesne County between 

the Green River and Gate 

Canyon 

Irrigated fields and a road parallel 

the stream for three miles on the 

western end of the corridor. A 

road crosses the stream near the 

Green River. 

White River, 

Segment A 

Scenic Between the Colorado State 

line and its confluence with 

Asphalt Wash. 

Access and roads exists in 

places along this segment. A 

bridge crosses private land. 

White River, 

Segment B 

Wild Between Asphalt Wash to 

where the river leaves 

Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 23 

E., SLBM. 

The shoreline is essentially 

undeveloped; points of primitive 

road access 

White River, 

Segment C 

Scenic From where the river leaves 

Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 23 

E., SLBM to the Indian Trust 

Land boundary. 

Access and roads exists in 

places along this segment. There 

is a pipeline across the river 

Table 4. Eligible Rivers - Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

Segment Name and 

Description Description of Values Present 

Argyle Creek 

Head waters to Carbon 

County line. 

Scenic values were identified as an outstandingly remarkable riverrelated value for Argyle Creek. 

Scenic; Much of the corridor is Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

Class II. The area is characterized by steep wooded side canyons, high 

canyon walls, and vertical cliff faces. 

Bitter Creek 

From the Utah State line to 

where Bitter Creek enters 

private property. 

Fish, Wildlife/Habitat, Cultural, Historic and Recreation were identified 

as outstanding remarkable river related values for Bitter Creek. 

Fish: This stream segment supports a population of brook trout. 

Wildlife/Habitat: The corridor along this segment of Bitter Creek 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-9

Table 4. Eligible Rivers - Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

Segment Name and 

Description Description of Values Present 

supports a large population of deer and elk. It is also an important area 

for black bear, cougar coyote, beaver, muskrat, porcupine, bobcat, gray 

fox and red fox. 

Cultural: This area was known formerly and presently to Tribal people 

as highly significant culturally and spiritually. 

Historic: The Book Cliff area has a colorful past of Indians, mountain 

men, traders, cattlemen, cowboys, and outlaws. A number of historic 

sites still exist along Bitter Creek and add interest to a visit: These 

include ranch buildings and homesteads. 

Recreational: the presence of numerous waterfowl and wildlife species 

provide good opportunities for fishing, hunting, waterfowl viewing, and 

camping. 

Evacuation Creek 

From the Utah State line to 

its confluence with the White 

River. 

Historic values were identified as an outstanding remarkable river 

related value for Evacuation Creek. 

Historic: The southern one half of the segment parallels the abandoned 

narrow gauge railroad grade that ran between Mack Colorado and 

Watson, Utah. The town site of Watson is on Evacuation Creek. 

Around the turn of the century Watson was a busy railroad town. Trains 

stopped here before going on to the Gilsonite mining camp of Rainbow. 

In the spring each year wool and lambs from several thousand head of 

sheep were shipped to market along this route. 

Upper Green River 

Between Little Hole and the 

Utah State line. 

Scenic, Recreational, Fish, Wildlife/Habitat and Cultural values were 

identified as outstanding remarkable river values for the Green River. 

Scenic: The upper portion of the segment presents striking, abrupt 

contrasts, sometimes flowing through a deep, narrow gorge, 

sometimes between low, rolling hills, and sometimes across an almost 

flat-bottomed valley. Most of the segment winds placidly through pine 

and shrub covered canyons. In places reddish rock walls rise or stair 

step away from the river. The river is an appealing clear green color 

with deep holes and small rapids or riffles. 

Recreational: The slow moving river and the presence of numerous 

waterfowl and wildlife species provide good opportunities for fishing, 

hunting, waterfowl viewing, floating and camping. 

Fish: The upper half of the segment contains prime trout habitat and is 

a continuation of the blue ribbon trout fishery that begins directly below 

Flaming Gorge Dam. 

Wildlife/Habitat: A large portion of the segment is managed to provide 

high quality nesting and migration habitat for Canada geese, ducks and 

other migratory birds. A variety of shore and songbirds is also seen. 

The area also provides crucial winter habit for both deer and elk. 

Cultural: Browns Park has a colorful past of Indians, mountain men, 

traders, cattlemen, cowboys, and outlaws. A number of historic sites 

still exist in Browns Park, and add interest to a visit: these include 

ranch buildings, homesteads, and the remains of several outlaw 

cabins. Several sites have been nominated for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Middle Green River 

Between Dinosaur National 

Fish were identified as an outstanding remarkable river value for the 

Green River. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-10

Table 4. Eligible Rivers - Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

Segment Name and 

Description Description of Values Present 

Monument and the public 

land boundary north of 

Ouray. 

Fish: Two endangered fish are found in this segment of the Green 

River. They are the humpback chub and the Colorado squaw fish 

Lower Green River 

Between the public land 

boundary south of Ouray 

and the Carbon County line. 

Recreational and Fish values were identified as outstanding 

remarkable river values for the Green River. 

Recreational: The slow moving river and the presence of numerous 

waterfowl and wildlife species provide good opportunities for fishing, 

hunting, waterfowl viewing, floating and camping. This segment also 

provides fine canoeing in an attractive pastoral setting. 

Fish: Two endangered fish are found in this segment of the Green 

River. They are the humpback chub and the Colorado squawfish. 

Nine Mile Creek, Segment A 

Within Duchesne County 

between the Carbon County 

line and the confluence with 

Gate Canyon. 

Scenic and Cultural values were identified as outstanding remarkable 

river values for Nine Mile Creek. 

Scenic: Nine Mile Canyon consists of steep walls combined with 

alluvial bottomlands, farmed with irrigation from the creek. Scenery 

varies from the aspen groves to the desert environment and vertical 

brown, tan and gray cliffs. A perennial stream, balanced rocks and 

small window arches can be seen from the canyons’ road. 

Cultural: Archaeologically the area of Nine Mile Canyon is significant 

internationally, nationally and locally. Its prehistoric rock art is world 

renowned. The remains of the Fremont culture are probably more 

visible in Nine Mile Canyon than anywhere else. Over 1000 sites have 

been recorded in the canyon over the last 100 years. Nine Mile Canyon 

has been proposed for an archeological district on the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

Nine Mile Creek, Segment B 

Within Duchesne County 

between the Green River 

and Gate Canyon 

Same as Segment A. 

White River, Segment A 

Between the Colorado state 

line and its confluence with 

Asphalt Wash. 

Recreational, Scenic (Geologic), Fish, Wildlife/Habitat and Historic 

values were identified as outstanding remarkable river values for the 

White River. 

Recreational: The White River is a favorite canoeing destination for 

people from all over the state and beyond. The river’s Class II rapids 

are exciting enough to attract advanced kayakers, yet gentle enough to 

bring novice canoers and families to float through remarkable solitude. 

Scenic (Geologic): Towering 800 foot sandstone cliffs line the White 

River. Broad sloping terraces, sandstone walls, butte’s, pinnacles and 

eroded towers create fascinating shapes and textures. The rivers fossil 

beds display a unique variety of ancient life forms. 

Fish: The White River provides critical habitat for the endangered 

Colorado River squaw fish. Other threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

fish species in the river include razorback sucker, flannel mouth sucker 

and the bony tail chub. 

Wildlife/Habitat: Threatened, endangered, or sensitive animal species 

in the river corridor include the Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Peregrine Falcon 

and the Bald Eagle. Other wildlife that can be found in the corridor 

include mule deer, pronghorn antelope, cougar, beaver, muskrat, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-11

Table 4. Eligible Rivers - Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

Segment Name and 

Description Description of Values Present 

porcupine, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, red fox, and resident and migratory 

birds such as Golden Eagle, Canadian Goose, Mallard Duck and 

Flycatchers. 

Historic: Many pivotal historic events occurred in the White River. 

Canyon. Chronicles of early explorers such as Friar Velez de 

Escalante, John Wesley Powell, Frederick Dellenbaugh, and Kit 

Carson described the unique topography of the White River. 

White River, Segment B 

Between Asphalt Wash to 

where the river leaves 

Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 23 

E., SLBM. 

Same as Segment A. 

White River, Segment C 

From where the river leaves 

Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 23 

E., SLBM to the Indian Trust 

Land boundary. 

Same as Segment A. 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SUITABILITY

DETERMINATION OF SUITABILITY

Rivers determined to be eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

(NWSRS) are further evaluated to determine their suitability for inclusion into the national 

system. 

The purpose of the suitability step of the study process is to determine whether eligible rivers 

would be appropriate additions to the NWSRS. By considering tradeoffs between corridor 

development and river protection, it is designed to help the manager determine the best approach 

for managing the river corridor. 

This resource management plan evaluates impacts that would result if the eligible rivers were 

determined suitable and managed to protect their free-flowing nature, tentative classification, 

outstandingly remarkable values, and water quality. It also addresses impacts that would result if 

the eligible rivers are not determined suitable, and those values are not managed for. Alternatives 

considered include no action, which does not address suitability and leaves rivers eligible; an 

alternative where all eligible rivers would be determined suitable; an alternative where no 

eligible rivers would be determined suitable; and an alternative where portions of eligible rivers 

would be determined suitable. 

In addition to the impact analysis addressed by the Proposed RMP and alternatives, suitability 

considerations listed below are applied to each eligible river in Table 5. These considerations go 

beyond BLM management actions addressed in the Proposed RMP and action alternatives, and 

consider implications of actual congressional designation on each eligible river segment. General 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-12

effects of congressional designation are also addressed in the cumulative impacts section of the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Characteristics that would or would not make it a worthy addition to the NWSRS include: 

• Land ownership and current use 

• Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be diminished if not designated 

• Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including administration and cost sharing 

• Manageability of the river if designated, and other means of protecting values 

• The estimated costs of administering the river area, including costs for acquiring lands 

• The extent to which administration costs would be shared by local and state governments 

Public comment received on the Draft RMP/DEIS has been used to improve the documentation 

of impacts that would result from the Proposed RMP and various alternatives, as well as the 

documentation of the suitability considerations presented in this appendix. The actual 

determination of whether or not each eligible segment is suitable is a decision to be made in the 

Record of Decision for the Vernal RMP. 

SUITABILITY CONSIDERATIONS BY ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENT

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

Argyle Creek 

Characteristics which would or would not 

make it a worthy addition to the NWSRS 

Scenic values were identified as an outstandingly remarkable 

river-related value for Argyle Creek. This scenic area is 

characterized by steep wooded side canyons, high canyon 

walls, and vertical cliff faces. 

Land ownership and current use Of the 22 miles of shoreline in this segment, 4 miles are BLM, 

1.7 are state and 16.7 are private. Within the river corridor, 

32% of the land is federal (BLM), 8% is State, and 60% is 

private. 

Livestock grazing occurs along its banks. The entire segment 

is paralleled by a county road. The high percentage of private 

land adjacent to the stream has resulted in the construction of 

numerous ranch houses and summer homes in the corridor. A 

power line parallels the stream for approximately 7 miles. 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated 

Congressional designation of Argyle Creek into the NWSRS 

would provide permanent protection specifically of free-flowing 

condition of the river, its water quality and its outstandingly 

remarkable scenic values. Failure to include of Argyle Creek in 

the NWSRS could result in deterioration of these values, 

especially if mineral development occurs. 

Inclusion of a river into the NWSRS could preclude dams or 

other water-related projects if they would occur within the 

designated segment and have direct and/or adverse effects on 

the outstandingly remarkable values (high quality scenery) or 

free-flowing condition. None are currently proposed. Other 

projects on federal lands within the designated river area such 

as construction of roads, pipelines or other structures may be 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-13

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

allowed with the Congressional classification of “recreational”, 

but only if it is determined that they would not negatively affect 

the scenic quality of the area. Of course, this is subject to valid 

existing rights. Water-related projects proposed outside the 

segment would be precluded only if they would invade or 

unreasonably diminish scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife 

values within the designated segment. None are currently 

proposed. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 

Failure of Congress to include this river segment in the 

NWSRS could result in degradation of the values for which the 

river was determined eligible, depending upon the 

management prescriptions selected through this planning 

effort. However, even if ACEC or VRM Class II designations 

are made, such prescriptions are temporary and could be 

changed through plan amendment or plan revision. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including administration and cost 

sharing 

State and local governments are unsupportive of 

congressional designation of this stream. Local and State 

agencies, water users, and municipalities oppose designation 

primarily due to their concerns that current and potential water 

use of this or any eligible stream could be affected. 

There are no contiguous National Park Service or Forest 

Service segments, so there would be no federal partners to 

manage the river. Some private citizens and regional and 

national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of 

this stream for congressional designation, and may be willing 

to volunteer their services. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

Manageability of Argyle Creek if designated would be 

constrained due to the low percentage of public lands within 

the stream corridor. Any development of State or private lands 

within the corridor would diminish the overall scenic qualities of 

the area, but would probably not exceed standards for the 

recreational tentative classification. In addition, the free-flowing 

nature of this stream could be at risk due to the high 

percentage and possible development of State and private 

lands within the corridor. Other means of protection of federal 

lands within the corridor considered through this planning 

process include possible ACEC designation and/or the 

adoption of VRM Class II management prescriptions. 

However, such management prescriptions are subject to 

change with revised land use plans. Therefore, the protection 

they afford the river values is subject to change. 

The estimated costs of administering the 

river, including costs for acquiring lands 

The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. State lands within the river corridor 

(8% of the segment) could be identified for possible acquisition 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-14

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

through exchange, so no funding would be needed for that. 

However, 60% of the corridor of the segment is private, and 

funding would be necessary for purchase if the management 

plan were to identify acquiring the lands as a need and the 

private landowners were willing to sell. The high percentage of 

private lands would make acquisition prohibitive. 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

governments 

State and local governments would not share costs of 

managing the river 

Bitter Creek 

Characteristics which would or would not 

make it a worthy addition to the NWSRS 

The fish and wildlife habitat, cultural, historic and recreational 

values are outstandingly remarkable and make this a worthy 

addition to the NWSRS. This stream segment supports brook 

trout, and the river corridor supports a large population of deer 

and elk, and is also an important area for black bear, cougar 

coyote, beaver, muskrat, porcupine, bobcat, gray fox and red 

fox. This area was known formerly and presently to Tribal 

people as highly significant culturally and spiritually due to the 

river. The Book Cliffs area has a colorful past of Indians, 

mountain men, traders, cattlemen, cowboys, and outlaws. A 

number of historic sites still exist along Bitter Creek and add 

interest to a visit: These include ranch buildings and 

homesteads. In addition to the recreation opportunities related 

to the historical sites, the presence of numerous waterfowl and 

wildlife species supported by the creek provide good 

opportunities for fishing, hunting, and waterfowl viewing. 

Land ownership and current use Of the 20.4 miles of shoreline in this segment, 7.3 miles are 

BLM, 0.3 are State, 7.9 are Tribal, 4.6 are UDWR, and 0.3 are 

private. Within the river corridor, 65% of the land is BLM, 6% is 

State, 14% is UDWR, 14% is Tribal, and 1% is private. 

This river is used extensively for recreation, including, floating, 

fishing, hunting, wildlife and waterfowl viewing, and for 

exploring historical sties. Livestock grazing occurs along its 

banks. 

A two-track road parallels Bitter Creek for much of its length; 

however, it is mostly hidden from view and does not attract 

attention. Other than the road there are few other 

developments within the corridor. 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated 

Congressional designation of Bitter Creek into the NWSRS 

would provide permanent protection specifically of free-flowing 

condition of the river, its water quality and its outstandingly 

remarkable scenic values. Failure to include of Bitter Creek in 

the NWSRS could result in deterioration of these values, 

especially if mineral development occurs. 

Inclusion of a river into the NWSRS could preclude dams or 

other water-related projects if they would occur within the 

designated segment and have direct and/or adverse effects on 

the outstandingly remarkable values (fish and wildlife habitat, 

cultural, historic and recreational values) or free-flowing 

condition. None are currently proposed. Other projects on 

federal lands within the designated river area such as 

construction of roads, pipelines or other structures would only 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-15

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

be allowed if it is determined that they would not negatively 

affect the outstandingly remarkable values or scenic tentative 

classification. Of course, this is subject to valid existing rights. 

Water-related projects proposed outside the segment would 

be precluded only if they would invade or unreasonably 

diminish scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife values within the 

designated segment. None are currently proposed. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 

Failure of Congress to include this river segment in the 

NWSRS could result in degradation of the values for which the 

river was determined eligible, depending upon the 

management prescriptions selected through this planning 

effort. However, even if ACEC or VRM Class I or II 

designations are made, such prescriptions are temporary and 

could be changed through plan amendment or plan revision. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including sharing of 

administration of the river 

State, local and Tribal governments are unsupportive of 

congressional designation of this stream. Local and State 

agencies, water users, and municipalities oppose designation 

primarily due to their concerns that current and potential water 

use of this or any eligible stream could be affected. 

There are no contiguous National Park Service or Forest 

Service segments, so there would be no federal partners to 

manage the river. Some private citizens and regional and 

national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of 

this stream for congressional designation, and may be willing 

to volunteer their services. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

Manageability of Bitter Creek if designated would be 

constrained due to the percentage of public lands within the 

stream corridor. Any development of State, private, UDWR, 

Tribal or private lands within the corridor would diminish the 

overall qualities of the area, and could exceed standards for 

the scenic tentative classification. In addition, the free-flowing 

nature of this stream could be at risk due to the high 

percentage and possible development of State, private and 

Tribal lands within the corridor. Other means of protection of 

federal lands within the corridor that have been considered 

through this planning process include possible ACEC 

designation and/or the adoption of VRM Class I or II 

management prescriptions. However, even if adopted, such 

management prescriptions are subject to change with revised 

land use plans. Therefore, the protection they afford the river 

values is subject to change. 

The estimated costs of administering the 

river, including costs for acquiring lands and 

interests 

The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. State lands (6% of the segment) 

could be identified for possible acquisition through exchange, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-16

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

so no funding would be needed for that. However, 1% of the 

segment is private, and funding would be necessary for 

purchase if the management plan were to identify acquiring 

the lands as a need and the private landowners were willing to 

sell. 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

governments 

State, local and Tribal governments would not share costs of 

managing the river 

Evacuation Creek 

Characteristics which would or would not 

make it a worthy addition to the NWSRS 

The creek’s outstandingly remarkable historic values make it a 

worthy addition to the NWSRS. The southern one half of the 

segment parallels the abandoned narrow gauge railroad grade 

that ran between Mack Colorado and Watson, Utah. The town 

site of Watson is on Evacuation Creek. Around the turn of the 

century Watson was a busy railroad town. Trains stopped here 

before going on to the Gilsonite mining camp of Rainbow. In 

the spring each year wool and lambs from several thousand 

head of sheep were shipped to market along this route. 

Land ownership and current use Of the 25.4 miles of river in this segment, 7.1 miles are BLM, 

1.3 are state and 17.0 are private. Within the river corridor, 

32% of the land is federal (BLM), 6% is State, and 62% is 

private. 

This river is used by recreationists for exploring historical sties. 

Livestock grazing occurs along its banks. 

An improved dirt road parallels Evacuation Creek for much of 

its length. Two bridges and a suspended pipeline cross the 

Creek An old railroad grade is within the corridor of the 

southern part of the segment. 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated 

Congressional designation of Evacuation Creek into the 

NWSRS would provide permanent protection specifically of 

free-flowing condition of the river, its water quality and its 

outstandingly remarkable historic values. Failure to include 

Evacuation Creek in the NWSRS could result in deterioration 

or loss of these values, especially if mineral development 

occurs. Other than where it intersects with the White River, 

only minimal means of protection of federal lands within the 

corridor are being considered in the Vernal RMP/EIS. 

Inclusion of a river into the NWSRS could preclude dams or 

other water-related projects if they would occur within the 

designated segment and have direct and/or adverse effects on 

the outstandingly remarkable historic values or free-flowing 

condition. None are currently proposed. Other projects on 

federal lands within the designated river area such as 

construction of roads, pipelines or other structures may be 

allowed with the Congressional classification of “recreational”, 

but only if it is determined that they would not negatively affect 

the historic values of the area. Of course, this is subject to 

valid existing rights. Water-related projects proposed outside 

the segment would be precluded only if they would invade or 

unreasonably diminish scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife 

values within the designated segment. None are currently 

proposed. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-17

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 

Failure of Congress to include this river segment in the 

NWSRS could result in degradation of the values for which the 

river was determined eligible. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including sharing of 

administration of the river 

State and local governments are unsupportive of 

congressional designation of this stream. Local and State 

agencies, water users, and municipalities oppose designation 

primarily due to their concerns that current and potential water 

use of this or any eligible stream could be affected. 

There are no contiguous National Park Service or Forest 

Service segments, so there would be no federal partners to 

manage the river. Some private citizens and regional and 

national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of 

this stream for congressional designation, and may be willing 

to volunteer their services. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

Manageability of Evacuation Creek if designated would be 

constrained due to the low percentage of public lands within 

the stream corridor. Any development of State or private lands 

within the corridor would diminish the overall qualities of the 

area, but would probably not exceed standards for the 

recreational tentative classification. In addition, the free-flowing 

nature of this stream could be at risk due to the high 

percentage and possible development of State and private 

lands within the corridor. Other than where it intersects with 

the White River, only minimal means of protection of federal 

lands within the corridor are being considered in the Proposed 

RMP/FEIS. 

The estimated costs of administering the 

river, including costs for acquiring lands and 

interests 

The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. State lands within the river corridor 

(6% of the segment) could be identified for possible acquisition 

through exchange, so no funding would be needed for that. 

However, 62% of the corridor of the segment is private, and 

funding would be necessary for purchase if the management 

plan were to identify acquiring the lands as a need and the 

private landowners were willing sell. The high percentage of 

private lands would make acquisition prohibitive. 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

governments 

State and local governments would not share costs of 

managing the river. 

Upper Green River 

Characteristics which would or would not 

make it a worthy addition to the NWSRS 

The river’s scenic, recreational, fish wildlife/habitat and 

cultural/historic values are outstanding remarkable and make it 

a worthy addition to the NWSRS. The upper portion of the 

segment presents striking, abrupt contrasts, sometimes 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-18

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

flowing through a deep, narrow gorge, sometimes between 

low, rolling hills, and sometimes across an almost flatbottomed valley. In places red rock walls rise or stair step 

away from the river. The river is an appealing clear green color 

with deep holes and small rapids or riffles. The presence of 

numerous waterfowl and wildlife species provide good 

opportunities for fishing, hunting, waterfowl viewing, and 

floating. The segment contains prime trout habitat and is a 

continuation of the blue ribbon trout fishery that begins directly 

below Flaming Gorge Dam. The segment provides high quality 

nesting and migration habitat for Canada geese, ducks and 

other migratory birds, and helps to provide crucial winter habit 

for both deer and elk. This segment has supported a colorful 

past of Indians, mountain men, traders, cattlemen, cowboys, 

and outlaws. A number of historic sites still exist in along the 

river within Browns Park, and are an attraction to recreation 

users. These include ranch buildings, homesteads, and the 

remains of several outlaw cabins. Several sites have been 

nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic 

Places. These values are not only regional in importance, but 

are clearly of national significance. 

Land ownership and current use Of the 22.0 miles of shoreline in this segment, 12.0 miles are 

BLM, 3.7 are UDWR, 5.2 are USFS, 0.8 are state and 0.3 are 

private. Within the river corridor, 67% of the land is federal 

(BLM), 16% is UDWR, 12% is USFS, 3% is State, and 2% is 

private. 

This river is used extensively for recreation, including, floating, 

fishing, hunting, wildlife and waterfowl viewing, and for 

exploring historical sites. Livestock grazing occurs along its 

banks. 

An improved dirt road parallels the river for a short distance 

near the John Jarvie Historic Site and BLM’s Bridge Hollow 

and Indian Crossing Campgrounds. A bridge crosses the river 

at this point. All four of these improvements can readily be 

seen from the river. There are other developments within the 

corridor such as the Allan Ranch and developments 

associated with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

Browns Park Waterfowl Refuge. 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated. 

Congressional designation would provide permanent 

protection specifically of free-flowing condition of the river, its 

water quality and outstandingly remarkable values. 

Inclusion of a river into the NWSRS could preclude dams or 

other water-related projects if they would occur within the 

designated segment and have direct and/or adverse effects on 

the outstandingly remarkable values or free-flowing condition. 

None are currently proposed. Other projects on federal lands 

within the designated river area such as construction of roads, 

pipelines or other structures would only be allowed if it is 

determined that they would not negatively affect the scenic, 

fish and wildlife habitat, cultural, historic and recreational 

values of the area, and are in keeping with the Congressional 

classification of “scenic”. Of course, this is subject to valid 

existing rights. Water-related projects proposed outside the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-19

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

segment would be precluded only if they would invade or 

unreasonably diminish scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife 

values within the designated segment. None are currently 

proposed. 

Local municipalities, industries and other water users have 

expressed concerns that existing water rights could be 

affected and that opportunities for future water development 

could be foreclosed, not only within the designated river 

segments but also upstream or downstream of these 

segments. However, for the reasons discussed below, 

congressional designation of the Green River into the NWSRS 

would be expected to have no effect on water use, allocation, 

or flow regimes. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 

Under normal operations, reservoir releases through Flaming 

Gorge power plant, the primary influence of river flows outside 

of spring run-off flows, range from 800 to 4,600 cubic feet per 

second (cfs). These flows adhere to the interim operating 

criteria for Flaming Gorge Dam established by the Bureau of 

Reclamation in September 1974. Under these criteria, the 

Bureau of Reclamation agreed to provide (1) a minimum flow 

of 400 cfs at all times; (2) flows of 800 cfs under normal 

circumstances and for the foreseeable future; and (3) flows 

exceeding 800 cfs when compatible with other Colorado River 

Storage Project reservoir operations. These minimum flows 

are maintained to enhance the use of the river for fishing, fish 

spawning, and boating. 

Currently, however, the Bureau of Reclamation is evaluating 

recommendations by the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program, a cooperative effort between the 

States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, several federal 

agencies, and environmental, energy and water user 

organizations, to modify releases to better facilitate recovery of 

endangered fish (identified as components of the outstandingly 

remarkable fish value for the Green River). These 

recommendations, if implemented, would honor the minimum 

flow requirements while providing water releases of sufficient 

magnitude and, with the proper timing and duration, to assist 

in the recovery of the endangered fishes and their designated 

critical habitat. The BLM supports these recommendations and 

recognizes that the proposed minimum flow release from 

Flaming Gorge dam would be sufficient to maintain and/or 

enhance the values for which the river is eligible. 

Because this minimum flow release would be adequate to 

maintain the outstandingly remarkable values, BLM sees no 

need for and would not pursue a federal reserved water right 

in any recommendation that is forwarded to Congress. 

Failure of Congress to include the Upper Green River in the 

NWSRS could result in degradation of the values for which the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-20

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

river was determined eligible, depending upon the 

management prescriptions selected through this planning 

effort. However, even if ACEC or VRM Class II designations 

are made and no surface occupancy stipulations applied to 

mineral leasing, such prescriptions are temporary and could 

be changed through plan amendment or plan revision. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including sharing of 

administration of the river 

There has been some State and local government support for 

designation of this segment in the past, and bills have been 

introduced into Congress for the purpose of such designation. 

However, there is currently no county support for designation. 

Local agencies, water users, and municipalities oppose 

designation primarily due to their concerns that current and 

potential water use of this or any eligible stream could be 

affected. However, there is no current or foreseen water use of 

the Upper Green River that would in fact be affected. 

There is strong support from the environmental community for 

congressional designation. Some private citizens and regional 

and national conservation groups have promoted the suitability 

of this stream for congressional designation, and may be 

willing to volunteer their services. 

The Forest Service supports designation of their portion of the 

river segment and would share in its administration. 

The State of Utah has also expressed concerns regarding the 

designation of the Green River. They are supportive of 

designating portions of the Green River only if the Department 

of Interior does not seek to acquire a federal reserved water 

right to ensure a minimal instream flow for the river. The State 

recognizes that the proposed minimum flow releases from 

Flaming Gorge Dam would be sufficient to maintain and/or 

enhance the river values which make the river eligible for 

designation and that no change in water use or allocation 

would be necessary. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

 

The BLM would be capable of managing this river segment if it 

were designated, particularly with adequate funding. 

Congressional designation of the Green River into the NWSRS 

would Utah BLM’s ability to compete for agency dollars, and 

with increased funding and focused management, the 

agency’s ability to deal with recreational and other 

management of the area would improve. Designation would 

promote national and public recognition of the values 

associated with this river and further the goals and policy 

established by Congress in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

On the other hand, the free-flowing nature of this river 

segment is not currently at risk, and the identified 

outstandingly remarkable values could be effectively managed 

without congressional designation with the protective land use 

prescriptions being considered in the Proposed RMP/FEIS, 

including closure or no surface occupancy for oil and gas 

leasing, ACEC designation, and VRM Class I or II. However, 

such management prescriptions are subject to change through 

plan amendment or revision. Therefore, the protection they 

would afford the river values is subject to change. 

The estimated costs of administering the The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-21

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

river, including costs for acquiring lands and 

interests 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. State lands within the river corridor 

(3% of the segment) could be identified for possible acquisition 

through exchange, so no funding would be needed for that. 

However, 2% of the corridor of the segment is private, and 

funding would be necessary for purchase if the management 

plan were to identify acquiring the lands as a need and the 

private landowners were willing sell. 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

governments 

State and local governments would not share costs of 

managing this river segment. 

Middle Green River 

Characteristics which would or would not do 

or do not make it a worthy addition to the 

NWSRS 

The existence of two endangered fish within this segment of 

the Green River make it a worthy addition to the NWSRS. 

They are the humpback chub and the Colorado squaw fish 

Land ownership and current use Of the 47.5 miles of shoreline in this segment, 20.3 are BLM, 

1.6 are state and 25.6 are private. Within the river corridor, 

31% of the land is BLM, 30% is State, and 32% is private. 

This river segment is used for recreation, including, floating, 

fishing, hunting, wildlife and waterfowl viewing. Livestock 

grazing occurs along its banks. There are many intrusions 

along the river corridor including irrigated fields, homes, 

corrals, fences, roads, a gravel pit and numerous oil and gas 

wells. 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated 

Congressional designation would provide permanent 

protection specifically of free-flowing condition of the river, its 

water quality and outstandingly remarkable values. 

Inclusion the Middle Green River into the NWSRS could 

preclude dams or other water-related projects if they would 

occur within the designated segment and have direct and/or 

adverse effects on the outstandingly remarkable values or 

free-flowing condition. None are currently proposed. Other 

projects on federal lands within the designated river area such 

as construction of roads, pipelines or other structures would 

only be allowed if it is determined that they would not 

negatively impact the fish outstandingly remarkable values of 

the area, and are in keeping with the Congressional 

classification of “recreational”. Water-related projects proposed 

outside the segment would be precluded only if they would 

invade or unreasonably diminish scenic, recreational, fish or 

wildlife values within the designated segment. None are 

currently proposed. 

Local municipalities, industries and other water users have 

expressed concerns that existing water rights could be 

affected and that opportunities for future water development 

could be foreclosed, not only within the designated river 

segments but also upstream or downstream of these 

segments. However, for the reasons discussed below, 

congressional designation of this portion of the Green River 

into the NWSRS would be expected to have no effect on water 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-22

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

use, allocation, or flow regimes. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 

Under normal operations, reservoir releases through Flaming 

Gorge power plant, the primary influence of river flows outside 

of spring run-off flows, range from 800 to 4,600 cubic feet per 

second (cfs). These flows adhere to the interim operating 

criteria for Flaming Gorge Dam established by the Bureau of 

Reclamation in September 1974. Under these criteria, the 

Bureau of Reclamation agreed to provide (1) a minimum flow 

of 400 cfs at all times; (2) flows of 800 cfs under normal 

circumstances and for the foreseeable future; and (3) flows 

exceeding 800 cfs when compatible with other Colorado River 

Storage Project reservoir operations. These minimum flows 

are maintained to enhance the use of the river for fishing, fish 

spawning, and boating. 

Currently, however, the Bureau of Reclamation is evaluating 

recommendations by the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program, a cooperative effort between the 

States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, several federal 

agencies, and environmental, energy and water user 

organizations, to modify releases to better facilitate recovery of 

endangered fish (identified as components of the outstandingly 

remarkable fish value for the Green River). These 

recommendations, if implemented, would honor the minimum 

flow requirements while providing water releases of sufficient 

magnitude and, with the proper timing and duration, to assist 

in the recovery of the endangered fishes and their designated 

critical habitat. The BLM supports these recommendations and 

recognizes that the proposed minimum flow release from 

Flaming Gorge dam would be sufficient to maintain and/or 

enhance the outstandingly remarkable fish values for which 

the river is eligible. 

Because this minimum flow release would be adequate to 

maintain the outstandingly remarkable fish values, BLM sees 

no need for and would not pursue a federal reserved water 

right in any recommendation that is forwarded to Congress. 

Failure of Congress to include the Middle Green River in the 

NWSRS would have little effect on the outstandingly 

remarkable fish values, as they would continue to be protected 

by the Endangered Species Act. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including sharing of 

administration of the river 

The county, local agencies, water users, and municipalities 

oppose designation primarily due to their concerns that current 

and potential water use of this or any eligible stream could be 

affected. The State of Utah has also expressed concerns 

regarding the designation of the Green River. It is supportive 

of designating portions of the Green River only if the 

Department of Interior does not seek to acquire a federal 

reserved water right to ensure a minimal instream flow for the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-23

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

river. The State recognizes that the proposed minimum flow 

releases from Flaming Gorge Dam would be sufficient to 

maintain and/or enhance the river values which make the river 

eligible for designation and that no change in water use or 

allocation would be necessary. 

The National Park Service manages a contiguous segment to 

the north, and may share administrative costs. Some private 

citizens and regional and national conservation groups have 

promoted the suitability of this river segment for congressional 

designation, and may be willing to volunteer their services. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

Manageability of the Middle Green River if designated would 

be constrained due to the low percentage of public lands 

within the stream corridor. Any development of State or private 

lands within the corridor would diminish the overall scenic 

qualities of the area, but scenery is not an outstandingly 

remarkable value for this segment. Such development would 

probably not exceed standards for the segment’s recreational 

classification. 

If this segment is not designated into the NWSRS, its freeflowing nature could be at some risk due to the high 

percentage and possible development of State and private 

lands within the corridor. However, the outstandingly 

remarkable fish values would be protected by the Endangered 

Species Act, probably involving a required minimum flow. 

Another means of protection of some of the federal lands 

within the corridor is a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing. However, even if adopted, this management 

prescription is subject to change with revised land use plans. 

Therefore, the protection it affords is subject to change. 

The estimated costs of administering the 

river, including costs for acquiring lands and 

interests 

The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. State lands within the river corridor 

(30% of the segment) could be identified for possible 

acquisition through exchange, so no funding would be needed 

for that. However, 32% of the corridor of the segment is 

private, and funding would be necessary for purchase if the 

management plan were to identify acquiring the lands as a 

need and the private landowners were willing sell. The high 

percentage of private lands would make acquisition prohibitive. 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

governments 

State and local governments would not share costs of 

managing this river segment. 

Lower Green River 

Characteristics which do or do would or 

would not make it a worthy addition to the 

NWSRS 

Recreational and fish values were identified as outstandingly 

remarkable on this segment of the Green River, and make it a 

worthy addition to the NWSRS. The river and the presence of 

numerous waterfowl and wildlife species provide good 

opportunities for fishing, hunting, waterfowl viewing, camping, 

rafting and canoeing in an attractive pastoral setting. The two 

endangered fish species found in this segment of the Green 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-24

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

River are the humpback chub and the Colorado squawfish. 

Land ownership and current use Of the 29.6 miles of shoreline in this segment, 26.8 are BLM, 

and 2.8 are private. Within the river corridor, 77% of the land is 

BLM, 20% is State, and 3% is private. 

This river is used extensively for recreation, including 

canoeing, floating, fishing, hunting, wildlife and waterfowl 

viewing, and for exploring historical sites. Livestock grazing 

occurs along its banks. 

Very few intrusions are visible from the river. Oil and gas wells 

can be seen near Parget Draw. Roads access the river 

corridor at Parget Draw, near Willow Creek, Moon Bottom, 

Four Mile Draw, Nine Mile Creek, and both sides of the river at 

Sand Wash. BLM has a Ranger Station, Campground and 

Boat Ramp at Sand Wash. A buried pipeline crosses the river 

near Four Mile Draw. 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated. 

Congressional designation would provide permanent 

protection specifically of free-flowing condition of the river, its 

water quality and outstandingly remarkable values. 

Inclusion of a river into the NWSRS could preclude dams or 

other water-related projects if they would occur within the 

designated segment and have direct and/or adverse effects on 

the outstandingly remarkable values or free-flowing condition. 

None are currently proposed. Other projects on federal lands 

within the designated river area such as construction of roads, 

pipelines or other structures would only be allowed if it is 

determined that they would not negatively affect the 

outstandingly remarkable fish and recreational values of the 

area, and are in keeping with the Congressional classification 

of “scenic”. Of course, this is subject to valid existing rights. 

Water-related projects proposed outside the segment would 

be precluded only if they would invade or unreasonably 

diminish scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife values within the 

designated segment. None are currently proposed. 

Local municipalities, industries and other water users have 

expressed concerns that existing water rights could be 

affected and that opportunities for future water development 

could be foreclosed, not only within the designated river 

segments but also upstream or downstream of these 

segments. However, for the reasons discussed below, 

congressional designation of the Lower Green River into the 

NWSRS would be expected to have no effect on water use, 

allocation, or flow regimes. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 

Under normal operations, reservoir releases through Flaming 

Gorge power plant, the primary influence of river flows outside 

of spring run-off flows, range from 800 to 4,600 cubic feet per 

second (cfs). These flows adhere to the interim operating 

criteria for Flaming Gorge Dam established by the Bureau of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-25

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

Reclamation in September 1974. Under these criteria, the 

Bureau of Reclamation agreed to provide (1) a minimum flow 

of 400 cfs at all times; (2) flows of 800 cfs under normal 

circumstances and for the foreseeable future; and (3) flows 

exceeding 800 cfs when compatible with other Colorado River 

Storage Project reservoir operations. These minimum flows 

are maintained to enhance the use of the river for fishing, fish 

spawning, and boating. 

Currently, however, the Bureau of Reclamation is evaluating 

recommendations by the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program, a cooperative effort between the 

States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, several federal 

agencies, and environmental, energy and water user 

organizations, to modify releases to better facilitate recovery of 

endangered fish (identified as components of the outstandingly 

remarkable fish value for the Green River). These 

recommendations, if implemented, would honor the minimum 

flow requirements while providing water releases of sufficient 

magnitude and, with the proper timing and duration, to assist 

in the recovery of the endangered fishes and their designated 

critical habitat. The BLM supports these recommendations and 

recognizes that the proposed minimum flow release from 

Flaming Gorge dam would be sufficient to maintain and/or 

enhance the values for which the river is eligible. 

Because this minimum flow release would be adequate to 

maintain the outstandingly remarkable values, BLM sees no 

need for and would not pursue a federal reserved water right 

in any recommendation that is forwarded to Congress. 

Failure of Congress to include the Lower Green River in the 

NWSRS could result in degradation of the recreational values 

for which the river was determined eligible, depending upon 

the management prescriptions selected through this planning 

effort. However, even if ACEC and VRM Class II designations 

are made and no surface occupancy stipulations applied to 

mineral leasing, such prescriptions are temporary and could 

be changed through plan amendment or plan revision. Failure 

of Congress to include the Lower Green River in the NWSRS 

would have little effect on the outstandingly remarkable fish 

values, as they would continue to be protected by the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including sharing of 

administration of the river 

The county, local agencies, water users, and municipalities 

oppose designation primarily due to their concerns that current 

and potential water use of this or any eligible stream could be 

affected. 

The State of Utah has also expressed concerns regarding the 

designation of the Green River. They are supportive of 

designating portions of the Green River only if the Department 

of Interior does not seek to acquire a federal reserved water 

right to ensure a minimal instream flow for the river. The State 

recognizes that the proposed minimum flow releases from 

Flaming Gorge Dam would be sufficient to maintain and/or 

enhance the river values which make the river eligible for 

designation and that no change in water use or allocation 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-26

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

would be necessary. 

Members of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation Ute 

Tribal Council have expressed concerns pertaining to the 

effects of designation on potential use of Tribal lands. 

The environmental community is strongly supportive of 

designation of this segment of the Green River. Some private 

citizens and regional and national conservation groups have 

promoted the suitability of this stream for congressional 

designation, and may be willing to volunteer their services. 

The Price Field Office supports designation of a contiguous 

segment of the Green River and would share administration of 

the river. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

The BLM would be capable of managing this river segment if it 

were designated, particularly with adequate funding. 

Congressional designation of the Green River into the NWSRS 

would Utah BLM’s ability to compete for agency dollars, and 

with increased funding and focused management, the 

agency’s ability to deal with recreational and other 

management of the area would improve. Designation would 

promote national and public recognition of the values 

associated with this river and further the goals and policy 

established by Congress in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

On the other hand, the free-flowing nature of this river 

segment is not currently at risk, and the recreational 

outstandingly remarkable values could be effectively managed 

without congressional designation with the protective land use 

prescriptions being considered in the Proposed RMP/FEIS, 

including no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing, ACEC 

designation, and VRM Class II. However, such management 

prescriptions are subject to change through plan amendment 

or revision. Therefore, the protection they would afford the 

river values is subject to change. Failure of Congress to 

include the Lower Green River in the NWSRS would have little 

effect on the outstandingly remarkable fish values, as they 

would continue to be protected by the Endangered Species 

Act. 

The estimated costs of administering the 

river, including costs for acquiring lands and 

interests 

The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. Approximately 3% of the corridor of 

the segment is private, and funding would be necessary for 

purchase if the management plan were to identify acquiring 

the lands as a need and the private landowners were willing 

sell. 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

governments 

State and local governments would not share costs of 

managing the river. 

Nine Mile Creek, Segment A 

Characteristics which would or would not do 

or do not make it a worthy addition to the 

NWSRS 

Scenic and cultural values were identified as outstandingly 

remarkable, and make this segment a worthy addition to the 

NWSRS. The steep, brown, tan and gray walls of Nine Creek 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-27

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

Canyon were created over time by the perennial creek, and 

frame the excellent, varied scenery from aspen groves to 

desert flora. Balanced rocks and small window arches can be 

seen. The alluvial bottomlands were historically farmed with 

irrigation from the creek. Nine Mile Canyon is significant 

internationally, nationally, and locally. Its prehistoric rock art is 

world renowned. The remains of the Fremont culture are 

properly more visible in Nine Mile canyon than anywhere else. 

Over 1000 sites have been recorded in the canyon over the 

last 100 years. Nine Mile Canyon has been proposed for an 

archeological district on the National register of Historic 

Places. 

Land ownership and current use Of the 16.4 miles of shoreline in this segment, 11.3 are BLM, 

2.3 are State and 2.8 are private. Within the river corridor, 66% 

of the land is BLM, 18% is State, and 16% is private. 

This creek is integral to this world-class cultural area, which is 

a destination area for visitors exploring cultural sites. Livestock 

grazing occurs along its banks, and there is some oil and gas 

exploration activity in the area. 

Intrusions exist along the river corridor; irrigated fields, homes, 

corrals, fences, roads, and a buried natural gas pipeline 

parallels the corridor 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated 

Congressional designation of Nine Mile Creek, Segment A into 

the NWSRS would provide permanent protection specifically of 

free-flowing condition of the river, its water quality and its 

outstandingly remarkable scenic and cultural values. Failure to 

include this river segment in the NWSRS could result in 

deterioration of these values, especially if mineral 

development occurs. 

Inclusion of this stream into the NWSRS could preclude dams 

or other water-related projects if they would occur within the 

designated segment and have direct and/or adverse effects on 

the outstandingly remarkable values (scenic and cultural) or 

free-flowing condition. None are currently proposed. Other 

projects on federal lands within the designated river area such 

as construction of roads, pipelines or other structures would 

only be allowed if it is determined that they would not 

negatively affect the outstandingly remarkable values or 

recreational tentative classification. Of course, this is subject to 

valid existing rights. Water-related projects proposed outside 

the segment would be precluded only if they would invade or 

unreasonably diminish scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife 

values within the designated segment. None are currently 

proposed. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 

Failure of Congress to include this river segment in the 

NWSRS could result in degradation of the values for which the 

river was determined eligible, especially scenic values, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-28

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

depending upon the management prescriptions selected 

through this planning effort. However, even if ACEC or VRM 

Class II designations are made or portions of the corridor are 

closed to leasing, such prescriptions are temporary and could 

be changed through plan amendment or plan revision. Cultural 

values are protected to some degree by various laws and 

regulations. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including sharing of 

administration of the river 

State and local governments are unsupportive of 

congressional designation of this stream. Local and State 

agencies, water users, and municipalities oppose designation 

primarily due to their concerns that current and potential water 

use of this or any eligible stream could be affected. 

There are no contiguous National Park Service or Forest 

Service segments, so there would be no federal partners to 

manage the river. Some private citizens and regional and 

national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of 

this stream for congressional designation, and may be willing 

to volunteer their services. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

Manageability of Nine Mile Creek Segment A, if designated, 

would be constrained due to the percentage of public lands 

within the stream corridor. Any development of State or private 

lands within the corridor would diminish the overall scenic 

qualities of the area. Such development would probably not 

exceed standards for the segment’s recreational classification. 

If this segment is not designated into the NWSRS, its freeflowing nature and scenic outstandingly remarkable values 

could be at some risk due to the high percentage and possible 

development of State and private lands within the corridor. 

However, the outstandingly remarkable cultural values would 

be protected to some degree by cultural laws and regulations. 

Other means of protecting relevant and important values within 

the corridor that are being considered in this plan revision 

effort include designating the corridor as VRM Class II and 

closing it oil and gas leasing. However, even if adopted, these 

management prescriptions are subject to change with revised 

land use plans. Therefore, the protection they afford is subject 

to change. 

The estimated costs of administering the 

river, including costs for acquiring lands and 

interests 

The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. State lands (18% of the segment) 

could be identified for possible acquisition through exchange, 

so no funding would be needed for that. However, 16% of the 

segment is private, and funding would be necessary for 

purchase if the management plan were to identify acquiring 

the lands as a need and the private landowners were willing to 

sell. 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

governments 

State and local governments would not share costs of 

managing the river. 

Nine Mile Creek, Segment B 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-29

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

Characteristics which do or do would or 

would not make it a worthy addition to the 

NWSRS 

Scenic and cultural values were identified as outstandingly 

remarkable, and make this segment a worthy addition to the 

NWSRS. The steep, brown, tan and gray walls of Nine Creek 

Canyon were created over time by the perennial creek, and 

frame the excellent, varied scenery from aspen groves to 

desert flora. Balanced rocks and small window arches can be 

seen. The alluvial bottomlands were historically farmed with 

irrigation from the creek. Nine Mile Canyon is significant 

internationally, nationally, and locally. Its prehistoric rock art is 

world renowned. The remains of the Fremont culture are 

properly more visible in Nine Mile canyon than anywhere else. 

Over 1000 sites have been recorded in the canyon over the 

last 100 years. Nine Mile Canyon has been proposed for an 

archeological district on the National register of Historic 

Places. 

Land ownership and current use Of the 6.5 miles of shoreline in this segment, 0 are BLM, 0.5 

are State and 6.0 are private. Within the river corridor, 19% of 

the land is BLM, 16% is State, and 65% is private. 

This creek is integral to this world-class cultural area, which is 

a destination area for visitors exploring cultural sites. Livestock 

grazing occurs along its banks, and there is some oil and gas 

exploration activity in the area. 

Irrigated fields and a road parallel the stream for three miles 

on the western end of the corridor. A road crosses the stream 

near the Green River. 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated 

Congressional designation of Nine Mile Creek, Segment B into 

the NWSRS would provide permanent protection specifically of 

free-flowing condition of the river, its water quality and its 

outstandingly remarkable scenic and cultural values. Failure to 

include this river segment in the NWSRS could result in 

deterioration of these values, especially if mineral 

development occurs. 

Inclusion of this stream into the NWSRS could preclude dams 

or other water-related projects if they would occur within the 

designated segment and have direct and/or adverse effects on 

the outstandingly remarkable values (scenic and cultural) or 

free-flowing condition. None are currently proposed. Other 

projects on federal lands within the designated river area such 

as construction of roads, pipelines or other structures would 

only be allowed if it is determined that they would not 

negatively affect the outstandingly remarkable values or 

recreational tentative classification. Of course, this is subject to 

valid existing rights. Water-related projects proposed outside 

the segment would be precluded only if they would invade or 

unreasonably diminish scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife 

values within the designated segment. None are currently 

proposed. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-30

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

Failure of Congress to include this river segment in the 

NWSRS could result in degradation of the values for which the 

river was determined eligible, especially scenic values, 

depending upon the management prescriptions selected 

through this planning effort. However, even if ACEC or VRM 

Class II designations are made or portions of the corridor are 

no surface occupancy for leasing, such prescriptions are 

temporary and could be changed through plan amendment or 

plan revision. Cultural values are protected to some degree by 

various laws and regulations. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including sharing of 

administration of the river 

State and local governments are unsupportive of 

congressional designation of this stream. Local and State 

agencies, water users, and municipalities oppose designation 

primarily due to their concerns that current and potential water 

use of this or any eligible stream could be affected. 

There are no contiguous National Park Service or Forest 

Service segments, so there would be no federal partners to 

manage the river. Some private citizens and regional and 

national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of 

this stream for congressional designation, and may be willing 

to volunteer their services. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

Manageability of Nine Mile Creek Segment B, if designated, 

would be constrained due to the low percentage of public 

lands within the stream corridor. Any development of State or 

private lands within the corridor would diminish the overall 

scenic qualities of the area. Such development would probably 

not exceed standards for the segment’s recreational 

classification. 

If this segment is not designated into the NWSRS, its freeflowing nature and scenic outstandingly remarkable values 

could be at some risk due to the high percentage and possible 

development of State and private lands within the corridor. 

However, the outstandingly remarkable cultural values would 

be protected to some degree by cultural laws and regulations. 

Other means of protecting relevant and important values within 

the corridor that are being considered in this plan revision 

effort include designating portions of the corridor as VRM 

Class II, ACECs, and closing it oil and gas leasing. However, 

even if adopted, these management prescriptions are subject 

to change with revised land use plans. Therefore, the 

protection they afford is subject to change 

The estimated costs of administering the 

river, including costs for acquiring lands and 

interests 

The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. State lands (16% of the segment) 

could be identified for possible acquisition through exchange, 

so no funding would be needed for that. However, 65% of the 

segment is private, and funding would be necessary for 

purchase if the management plan were to identify acquiring 

the lands as a need and the private landowners were willing to 

sell. Because of the very large percentage of private lands, 

costs of acquisition would be prohibitive. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-31

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

governments 

State and local governments would not share costs of 

managing the river. 

White River, Segment A 

Characteristics which would or would not 

make it a worthy addition to the NWSRS 

Recreational, scenic/geologic, fish and wildlife/habitat and 

historic values were identified as outstandingly remarkable, 

and make the White River a worthy addition to the NWSRS. 

The White River is a favorite canoeing destination for people 

from all over the State and beyond. The river’s Class II rapids 

are exciting enough to attract advanced kayakers, yet gentle 

enough to bring novice canoers and families to float through 

remarkable solitude. Towering 800-foot sandstone cliffs were 

cut by the White River. Broad sloping terraces, sandstone 

walls, butte’s, pinnacles and eroded towers create fascinating 

shapes and textures. Fossil beds exposed by the river display 

a unique variety of ancient life forms. The White River provides 

critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River squaw fish. 

Other threatened, endangered, or sensitive fish species in the 

river include razorback sucker, flannel mouth sucker and the 

bony tail chub. Threatened, endangered, or sensitive animal 

species in the river corridor include the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo, 

Peregrine Falcon, and the Bald Eagle. Other wildlife that can 

be found in the corridor and utilize the river include mule deer, 

pronghorn antelope, cougar, beaver, muskrat, porcupine, 

bobcat, coyote, gray fox, red fox, and resident and migratory 

birds such as Golden Eagle, Canadian Goose, Mallard Duck 

and Flycatchers. Many pivotal historic events occurred in the 

White River. Canyon. Chronicles of early explorers such as 

Friar Velez de Escalante, John Wesley Powell, Frederick 

Dellenbaugh, and Kit Carson described the unique topography 

of the White River. 

Land ownership and current use Of the 24 miles of shoreline in this segment, 8 are BLM, 1 is 

State, 5 are Tribal, and 10 are private. Within the river corridor, 

41% of the land is BLM, 8% is Indian Trust, 10% is State, and 

41% is private. 

This river segment is used extensively for recreation, including 

canoeing, floating, fishing, hunting, wildlife and waterfowl 

viewing, and for exploring historical sties. Livestock grazing 

occurs along its banks, and there is some oil and gas 

exploration activity in the area. 

Access and roads exist in places along this segment. A bridge 

crosses private land. 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated 

Congressional designation of the White River, Segment A into 

the NWSRS would provide permanent protection specifically of 

free-flowing condition of the river, its water quality and its 

recreational, scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife/habitat, and 

historic outstandingly remarkable values. Failure to include this 

river segment in the NWSRS could result in deterioration of 

these values, especially if mineral development or dam 

development occurs. 

Inclusion of this river segment into the NWSRS could preclude 

dams or other water-related projects if they would occur within 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-32

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

the designated segment and have direct and/or adverse 

effects on the outstandingly remarkable values or free-flowing 

condition. No dam construction would be allowed on the 

currently permitted dam site on this segment. Other projects 

on federal lands within the designated river area such as 

construction of roads, pipelines or other structures would only 

be allowed if it is determined that they would not negatively 

affect the outstandingly remarkable values or scenic tentative 

classification. Because scenery is one of the outstandingly 

remarkable values, it is unlikely that such developments would 

be allowed. Of course, this is subject to valid existing rights. 

Water-related projects proposed outside the segment would 

be precluded only if they would invade or unreasonably 

diminish scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife values within the 

designated segment. None are currently proposed. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 

Failure of Congress to include this river segment in the 

NWSRS could result in degradation of the values for which the 

river was determined eligible, especially the free-flowing 

nature (due to the potential damming of the river segment), 

and the scenic values, depending upon the management 

prescriptions selected through this planning effort. However, 

even if ACEC, VRM Class II, and no surface occupancy for 

leasing designations are made, such prescriptions are 

temporary and could be changed through plan amendment or 

plan revision. Fish values would continue to be protected by 

the Endangered Species Act under any circumstances. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including sharing of 

administration of the river 

State and local governments, and the Ute Tribe are 

unsupportive of congressional designation of this river 

segment. Opposition to designation is primarily due to 

concerns that current and potential water use of this or any 

eligible stream could be affected. There is strong support for 

designation from the environmental community. 

There are no contiguous National Park Service or Forest 

Service segments, so there would be no federal partners to 

manage the river. Some private citizens and regional and 

national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of 

this stream for congressional designation, and may be willing 

to volunteer their services. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

The BLM would be capable of managing this river segment if it 

were designated, particularly with adequate funding. 

Congressional designation of the White River into the NWSRS 

would improve Utah BLM’s ability to compete for agency 

dollars, and with increased funding and focused management, 

the agency’s ability to deal with recreational and other 

management of the area would improve. Designation would 

promote national and public recognition of the values 

associated with this river and further the goals and policy 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-33

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

established by Congress in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Without congressional designation, the free-flowing nature of 

this river segment would be at risk from potential development 

of a dam. However, because adequate flow must be allowed 

to maintain the endangered fish species, there could be 

enough flow to maintain recreational values as well. Other 

outstandingly remarkable values could be effectively protected 

without congressional designation with the protective land use 

prescriptions being considered in the Vernal RMP/EIS, 

including no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing, ACEC 

and VRM Class II designation. However, such management 

prescriptions are subject to change through plan amendment 

or revision. Therefore, the protection they would provide is 

also subject to change. Outstandingly remarkable fish values 

would be largely protected by the Endangered Species Act 

under any circumstances. 

The estimated costs of administering the 

river, including costs for acquiring lands and 

interests 

The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. State lands (10% of the segment) 

could be identified for possible acquisition through exchange, 

so no funding would be needed for that. However, 41% of the 

segment is private, and funding would be necessary for 

purchase if the management plan were to identify acquiring 

the lands as a need and the private landowners were willing to 

sell. 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

governments 

State and local governments would not share costs of 

managing this river segment. 

White River Segment B 

Characteristics which would or would not 

make it a worthy addition to the NWSRS 

Recreational, scenic/geologic, fish and wildlife/habitat and 

historic values were identified as outstandingly remarkable, 

and make the White River a worthy addition to the NWSRS. 

The White River is a favorite canoeing destination for people 

from all over the State and beyond. The river’s Class II rapids 

are exciting enough to attract advanced kayakers, yet gentle 

enough to bring novice canoers and families to float through 

remarkable solitude. Towering 800-foot sandstone cliffs were 

cut by the White River. Broad sloping terraces, sandstone 

walls, butte’s, pinnacles and eroded towers create fascinating 

shapes and textures. Fossil beds exposed by the river display 

a unique variety of ancient life forms. The White River provides 

critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River squaw fish. 

Other threatened, endangered, or sensitive fish species in the 

river include razorback sucker, flannel mouth sucker and the 

bony tail chub. Threatened, endangered, or sensitive animal 

species in the river corridor include the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo, 

Peregrine Falcon and the Bald Eagle. Other wildlife that can 

be found in the corridor and utilize the river include mule deer, 

pronghorn antelope, cougar, beaver, muskrat, porcupine, 

bobcat, coyote, gray fox, red fox, and resident and migratory 

birds such as Golden Eagle, Canadian Goose, Mallard Duck 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-34

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

and Flycatchers. Many pivotal historic events occurred in the 

White River Canyon. Chronicles of early explorers such as 

Friar Velez de Escalante, John Wesley Powell, Frederick 

Dellenbaugh, and Kit Carson described the unique topography 

of the White River. 

Land ownership and current use All 10 shoreline miles in this segment are managed by BLM. 

Within the river corridor, 99.6% of the land is BLM and 0.4% is 

State. 

This river segment is used extensively for recreation, including 

canoeing, floating, fishing, hunting, wildlife and waterfowl 

viewing, and for exploring historical sties. Livestock grazing 

occurs along its banks, and there is substantial oil and gas 

exploration activity on the table lands above the river canyon. 

This segment of the river appears primitive in nature with few 

human developments. 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated 

Congressional designation of the White River, Segment B into 

the NWSRS would provide permanent protection specifically of 

free-flowing condition of the river, its water quality and its 

recreational, scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife/habitat, and 

historic outstandingly remarkable values. Failure to include this 

river segment in the NWSRS could result in deterioration of 

these values, especially if mineral development or dam 

development upstream in Segment A occurs. 

Inclusion of this river segment into the NWSRS could preclude 

dams or other water-related projects if they would occur within 

the designated segment and have direct and/or adverse 

effects on the outstandingly remarkable values or free-flowing 

condition. There is no dam development proposed on this 

segment. Other projects on federal lands within the designated 

river area such as construction of roads, pipelines or other 

structures would only be allowed if it is determined that they 

would not negatively affect the outstandingly remarkable 

values or wild tentative classification. Because scenery is one 

of the outstandingly remarkable values, it is unlikely that such 

developments would be allowed. Of course, this is subject to 

valid existing rights. Water-related projects proposed outside 

the segment would be precluded only if they would invade or 

unreasonably diminish scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife 

values within the designated segment. Development of a dam 

upstream (currently proposed within Segment A) would be 

allowed only if those parameters could be met. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 

Failure of Congress to include this river segment in the 

NWSRS could result in degradation of the values for which the 

river was determined eligible, especially the free-flowing 

nature (due to the potential damming of a portion of an 

upstream segment), and the scenic values, depending upon 

the management prescriptions selected through this planning 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-35

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

effort. However, even if the river corridor was designated as an 

ACEC with VRM Class II management, and was closed to 

mineral leasing, such prescriptions are temporary and could 

be changed through plan amendment or plan revision. Some 

fish and wildlife values would continue to be protected by the 

Endangered Species Act under any circumstances. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including sharing of 

administration of the river 

State and local governments, and the Ute Tribe are 

unsupportive of congressional designation of this river 

segment. Opposition to designation is primarily due to 

concerns that current and potential water use of this or any 

eligible stream could be affected. There is strong support for 

designation from the environmental community. 

There are no contiguous National Park Service or Forest 

Service segments, so there would be no federal partners to 

manage the river. Some private citizens and regional and 

national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of 

this stream for congressional designation, and may be willing 

to volunteer their services. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

The BLM would be capable of managing this river segment if it 

were designated, particularly with adequate funding. 

Congressional designation of the White River into the NWSRS 

would improve Utah BLM’s ability to compete for agency 

dollars, and with increased funding and focused management, 

the agency’s ability to deal with recreational and other 

management of the area would improve. Designation would 

promote national and public recognition of the values 

associated with this river and further the goals and policy 

established by Congress in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Without congressional designation, the free-flowing nature of 

this river segment is somewhat at risk from potential 

development of a dam upstream in Segment A. However, 

because adequate flow must be allowed to maintain the 

endangered fish species, there could be enough flow to 

maintain recreational values as well. Other outstandingly 

remarkable values could be effectively managed without 

congressional designation with the protective land use 

prescriptions being considered in this planning effort, such as 

no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing, ACEC and VRM 

Class I or II designation. However, such management 

prescriptions are subject to change through plan amendment 

or revision. Therefore, the protection they would provide is 

also subject to change. Fish values would be protected by the 

Endangered Species Act in any case. 

The estimated costs of administering the 

river, including costs for acquiring lands and 

interests 

The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. State lands (0.4% of the segment) 

could be identified for possible acquisition through exchange, 

so no funding would be needed for that. 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

State and local governments would not share costs of 

managing the river segment. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-36

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

governments 

White River Segment C 

Characteristics which would or would not 

make it a worthy addition to the NWSRS 

Recreational, scenic/geologic, fish and wildlife/habitat and 

historic values were identified as outstandingly remarkable, 

and make the White River a worthy addition to the NWSRS. 

The White River is a favorite canoeing destination for people 

from all over the state and beyond. The rivers Class II rapids 

are exciting enough to attract advanced kayakers, yet gentle 

enough to bring novice canoers and families to float through 

remarkable solitude. Towering 800-foot sandstone cliffs were 

cut by the White River. Broad sloping terraces, sandstone 

walls, butte’s, pinnacles and eroded towers create fascinating 

shapes and textures. Fossil beds exposed by the river display 

a unique variety of ancient life forms. The White River provides 

critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River squaw fish. 

Other threatened, endangered, or sensitive fish species in the 

river include razorback sucker, flannel mouth sucker and the 

bony tail chub. Threatened, endangered, or sensitive animal 

species in the river corridor include the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo, 

Peregrine Falcon and the Bald Eagle. Other wildlife that can 

be found in the corridor and utilize the river include mule deer, 

pronghorn antelope, cougar, beaver, muskrat, porcupine, 

bobcat, coyote, gray fox, red fox, and resident and migratory 

birds such as Golden Eagle, Canadian Goose, Mallard Duck 

and Flycatchers. Many pivotal historic events occurred in the 

White River. Canyon. Chronicles of early explorers such as 

Friar Velez de Escalante, John Wesley Powell, Frederick 

Dellenbaugh, and Kit Carson described the unique topography 

of the White River. 

Land ownership and current use Of the 10 miles of shoreline in this segment, 6 are BLM, 4 are 

State, and <1 are Tribal. Within the river corridor, 56% of the 

land is BLM, 43% is State, 1% is Tribal, and <1% is private. 

This river segment is used extensively for recreation, including 

canoeing, floating, fishing, hunting, wildlife and waterfowl 

viewing, and for exploring historical sties. Livestock grazing 

occurs along its banks, and there is some oil and gas 

exploration activity in the area. 

Access and roads exist in places along this segment. 

Uses, including reasonably foreseeable uses, 

that would be enhanced or curtailed if 

designated; and values that would be 

diminished if not designated 

Congressional designation of the White River, Segment C into 

the NWSRS would provide permanent protection specifically of 

free-flowing condition of the river, its water quality and its 

recreational, scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife/habitat and 

historic outstandingly remarkable values. Failure to include this 

river segment in the NWSRS could result in deterioration of 

these values, especially if mineral development or dam 

development upstream in Segment A occurs. 

Inclusion of this river segment into the NWSRS could preclude 

dams or other water-related projects if they would occur within 

the designated segment and have direct and/or adverse 

effects on the outstandingly remarkable values or free-flowing 

condition. There is no dam development proposed on this 

segment. Other projects on federal lands within the designated 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-37

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

river area such as construction of roads, pipelines or other 

structures would only be allowed if it is determined that they 

would not negatively affect the outstandingly remarkable 

values or scenic tentative classification. Because scenery is 

one of the outstandingly remarkable values, it is unlikely that 

such developments would be allowed. Of course, this is 

subject to valid existing rights. Water-related projects 

proposed outside the segment would be precluded only if they 

would invade or unreasonably diminish scenic, recreational, 

fish or wildlife values within the designated segment. 

Development of a dam upstream (currently proposed within 

Segment A) would be allowed only if those parameters could 

be met. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act infers a federal 

reserved water right upon designation, rather than establishing 

an amount, it actually imposes a limit, expressing that any 

such right is to be the minimum necessary for the purposes of 

the Act. Such a right would have to be adjudicated through the 

State and would be junior to any existing rights. 

Failure of Congress to include this river segment in the 

NWSRS could result in degradation of the values for which the 

river was determined eligible, especially the free-flowing 

nature (due to the potential damming of a portion of an 

upstream segment), and the scenic values, depending upon 

the management prescriptions selected through this planning 

effort. However, even if the river corridor was designated as an 

ACEC with VRM Class II management, and was closed to 

mineral leasing, such prescriptions are temporary and could 

be changed through plan amendment or plan revision. Some 

fish and wildlife values would continue to be protected by the 

Endangered Species Act under any circumstances. 

Interest of federal, public, state, tribal, local, 

or other public entity in designation or nondesignation, including sharing of 

administration of the river 

State and local governments, and the Ute Tribe are 

unsupportive of congressional designation of this river 

segment. Opposition to designation is primarily due to 

concerns that current and potential water use of this or any 

eligible stream could be affected. There is strong support for 

designation from the environmental community. 

There are no contiguous National Park Service or Forest 

Service segments, so there would be no federal partners to 

manage the river. Some private citizens and regional and 

national conservation groups have promoted the suitability of 

this stream for congressional designation, and may be willing 

to volunteer their services. 

Manageability of the river if designated, and 

other means of protecting values 

Manageability of White River Segment C, if designated, would 

be constrained due to the high percentage of non-public lands 

within the stream corridor. Any development of State, Tribal, or 

private lands within the corridor would diminish the overall 

scenic qualities of the area. Such development could exceed 

standards for the segment’s scenic classification. 

Without congressional designation, the free-flowing nature of 

this river segment is somewhat at risk from potential 

development of a dam upstream in Segment A. However, 

because adequate flow must be allowed to maintain the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix C 

Vernal RMP C-38

Table 5. Suitability Considerations by Eligible River Segment. 

Suitability Considerations Consideration Applied to Eligible River 

endangered fish species, there could be enough flow to 

maintain recreational values as well. Possible ACEC 

designation is also being considered for this area in the land 

use planning process, and if designated could have some 

protective value for the outstandingly remarkable values. 

However, such management prescriptions are subject to 

change through plan amendment or revision. Therefore, the 

protection they would provide is also subject to change. Most 

outstandingly remarkable fish values would be protected by 

the Endangered Species Act in any event. 

The estimated costs of administering the 

river, including costs for acquiring lands and 

interests 

The initial costs of administration for the first three years would 

involve management plan preparation. Yearly administration 

costs thereafter would involve plan implementation, and may 

include additional studies and monitoring as well as additional 

BLM presence in the area. State lands (43% of the segment) 

could be identified for possible acquisition through exchange, 

so no funding would be needed for that. However, <1% of the 

segment is private, and funding would be necessary for 

purchase if the management plan were to identify acquiring 

the lands as a need and the private landowners were willing to 

sell. Because of the high percentage of private lands, costs 

could be prohibitive. 

The extent to which administration costs 

would be shared by local and state 

governments 

State and local governments would not share costs of 

managing the river segment. 

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix D 

Vernal RMP D-1

APPENDIX D. NATIONAL REGISTRY SITES AND DISTRICTS 

PROPOSED National Register Sites & Districts: VFO Land Use Plan 

SITE # Description County Notes 

No site 

number 

Little Hole National Register District. Dagget Proposed. 

No site 

number 

Rainbow town site. Uintah One of the Gilsonite towns. 

Also a train stop. Other 

Gilsonite towns may be 

included (i.e. Bonanza, 

Ignatio, Little Bonanza, 

Rector, and Watson) as well 

as Gilsonite mining camps 

(i.e. Harrison and China Wall). 

42UN1801 Uintah Railway. Uintah Colorado portion is currently 

listed. 

42UN1802 Dragon town site. Uintah One of the Gilsonite towns. 

Also a train stop. 

42UN251; 

42UN252; 

42UN479 

Blue Mountain Petroglyph National 

Register District. 

Uintah Archaic Period horizontal 

petroglyphs, unique to district. 

42UN419; 

42UN420; 

42UN422 

Archaic period/Fremont period 

pictograph/petroglyph sites. 

Uintah Steinaker area. 

42DC539-543 Castle Peak Traditional Properties. Duchesne 

42UN967 Ute/Fremont petroglyph site along 

the Green River. 

Uintah Displays several periods of 

Ute occupation in the central 

basin. 

42UN1076 Rock shelter. Uintah This shelter has not been 

vandalized to date. May 

provide a cultural and 

environmental chronology for 

the Book Cliffs. 

42UN1017 Ute Petroglyph Site, known as the 

“Augusi Panel.” 

Uintah Special site in 19th century 

Ute lore. 

42UN1619 Large (40+ acre) Fremont village 

site. 

Uintah 

42UN2558 White River Stage Stop. Uintah A stop along the stage route 

from Dragon to Vernal. 

Note: The Gilsonite towns, mining camps, and railroad would also be eligible as a Cultural Landscape Theme nomination, 

probably as one nomination. 

Note: Ute-affiliated sites will need to be closely coordinated with the Ute Tribe’s various bands. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix D 

Vernal RMP D-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix E 

Vernal RMP E-1

APPENDIX E. WITHDRAWAL AND CLASSIFICATIONS IDENTIFIED IN 

THE DIAMOND MOUNTAIN AND BOOK CLIFFS RMPS

Withdrawal Type/ 

Serial Number Acreage Segregative Effect 

Reclamation

U-011167 

U-026185 

U-1361 

U-18619 

U-42905 

U-42919 

957 

80 

220 

70 

80 

6,161 

Public Land and Mining Laws 

Public Water Reserves

U-41597 (#107) 

U-41628 (#107) 

U-41659 (#107) 

U-41660 (#107) 

U-52455 (#107) 

U-63972 (#107) 

40 

40 

171 

200 

960 

182 

Public Land Laws & 

Nonmetalliferous Mining Location 

(U-0144914) 

U-63973 (#107) 

U-63974 (#107) 

(U-0143422) 

U-63975 (#16) 

(U-41551C) 

U-41556 (#152) 

U-0141806 (#107) 

80 

280 

263 

40 

Public Land Laws & 

Nonmetalliferous Mining Location 

Water Power (Powersite Classifications)

U-42950 (#42) 

U-42951 (#107) 

U-42984 (CL #93) 

U-42995 (#411) 

U-42948 (#107) 

Book Cliffs 

3,346 

48 

9,218 

277 

750 

6,633 

Public Land Laws 

Watershed Protection

U-42874 750 

Public Land Laws, Mining Laws, 

and the Mineral Leasing Laws 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix E 

Vernal RMP E-2

Withdrawal Type/ 

Serial Number Acreage Segregative Effect 

Recreation/Administrative Site Classifications

U-5338 

U-060709 

U-041339 

None Identified in Book Cliffs 

307 

112 

40 

Public Land Laws 

Public Land Laws 

National Science Foundation

U-11462 2,312 

Public Land Laws, Mining laws, and 

Mineral Leasing Laws 

Oil Shale

U-2036 & U-49399 

Total Acres 

Unknown Public Land and Mining Laws 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix F 

Vernal RMP F-1

APPENDIX F. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING 

MANAGEMENT

BLM has developed the following Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and their companion 

rules-Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM in Utah 

([BLM-UT-GI-97-001-4000] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT, UTAH STATE OFFICE 1997). 

FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

As provided by regulations, developed by the Secretary of the Interior on February 22, 1995, the 

following conditions must exist on BLM lands: 

1. Watersheds are in, or making significant progress toward, properly functioning physical 

condition, including their upland, riparian –wetland, and aquatic components; soil and 

plant conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release of water that 

are in balance with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, and 

timing and duration of flow. 

2. Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are 

maintained, or there is significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities. 

3. Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, or is making 

significant progress towards achieving established BLM management objectives such as 

meeting wildlife needs. 

4. Habitats; are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for 

Federal threatened and endangered Species, Federal proposed, Category 1 and 2 Federal 

candidate and other special status Species. 

In 1997, the BLM in Utah developed rules to carry out the Fundamentals of Rangeland health. 

These are called Standards for Rangeland health and Guidelines for grazing management. 

Standards spell out conditions to be achieved on BLM Lands in Utah, and Guidelines describe 

practices that will be applied in order to achieve the Standards. 

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH

Standard 1. Upland soils exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site 

productivity, considering the soil type, climate, and landform. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix F 

Vernal RMP F-2

As indicated by: 

1. Sufficient cover and litter to protect the soil surface from excessive water and 

2. wind erosion, promote infiltration, detain surface flow, and retard soil moisture loss by 

evaporation. 

3. The absence of indicators of excessive erosion such as rills, soil pedestals. and actively 

eroding gullies. 

4. The appropriate amount, type, and distribution Of vegetation reflecting the presence of 

(1) the Desired Plant Community IDPCI, where identified in a land use plan, or (2) where 

the PVC is not identified, a community that equally sustains the desired level of 

productivity and properly functioning ecological conditions. 

Standard 2. Riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition. Stream channel 

morphology and functions are appropriate to soil type, climate and landform. 

As indicated by: 

1. Stream bank vegetation consisting of or showing a trend toward species with root masses 

capable of withstanding high stream flow events. Vegetative cover adequate to protect 

stream banks and dissipate stream flow energy associated with high-water flows. protect 

against accelerated erosion. capture sediment. and provide for groundwater recharge. 

2. Vegetation reflecting: Desired Plant Community. maintenance of riparian and wetland 

soil moisture characteristics, diverse age structure and composition. high vigor. large 

woody debris when site potential allows. and providing food. cover and other habitat 

needs for dependent animal species. 

3. Revegetating point bars: lateral stream movement associated with natural sinuosity: 

channel width. depth, pool frequency and roughness appropriate to landscape position. 

4. Active floodplain. 

Standard 3. Desired species, including native, threatened. 

As indicated by: 

1. Frequency, diversity, density, age classes, and productivity of desired native species 

necessary to ensure reproductive capability and survival. 

2. Habitats connected at a level to enhance species survival. 

3. Native species reoccupy habitat niches and voids caused by disturbances unless 

management objectives call for introduction or maintenance of nonnative species. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix F 

Vernal RMP F-3

4. Appropriate amount, type, and distribution of vegetation reflecting the presence of (1) the 

Desired Plant Community DPC, where identified in a land use plan conforming to these 

Standards, or (2) where the DPC is identified a community that equally sustains the 

desired level of productivity and properly functioning ecologic processes. 

Standard 4. BLM will apply and comply with water quality standards established by the State of 

Utah (R.317-2) 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 {R.317-2) for surface and groundwater. 

As indicated by: 

1. Measurement of nutrient loads, total dissolved solids, chemical constituents, fecal 

coliform, water temperature and other water quality parameters. 

2. Macro-invertebrate communities that indicate water quality meets aquatic objectives. 

Because BLM Lands provide forage for grazing of wildlife, wild horses and burros, and 

domestic livestock, the following rules have been developed to assure that such grazing is 

consistent with the Standards listed here. 

1. BLM will continue to coordinate monitoring water quality activities with other Federal, 

State and technical agencies. 

GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT

1. Grazing management practices will be implemented that: 

• Maintain sufficient residual vegetation and litter on both upland and riparian sites to 

protect the soil from wind and water erosion and support ecological functions; 

• Promote attainment or maintenance of proper functioning condition riparian/wetland 

areas, appropriate stream channel morphology, desired soil permeability and permeability 

and infiltration, and appropriate soil conditions and kinds and amounts of plants and 

animals to support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow. 

• Meet the physiological requirements of desired plants and facilitate reproduction and 

maintenance of desired plants to the extent natural conditions allow; 

• Maintain viable and diverse populations of plants and animals appropriate for the site, 

• Provide or improve within the limits of site potentials, habitat for Threatened or 

Endangered Species; 

• Avoid grazing management conflicts with other species that have the potential of 

becoming protected or special status species; 

• Encourage innovation, experimentation and the ultimate development of alternatives to 

improve rangeland management practices; 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix F 

Vernal RMP F-4

• Give priority to rangeland improvement projects and land treatments that offer the best 

opportunity for achieving the Standards. 

2. Any spring or seep developments will he designed and constructed to protect ecological 

process and functions and improve livestock, wild horse and wildlife distribution. 

3. New rangeland projects for grazing will be constructed in a manner consistent with the 

Standards. Considering economic circumstances and site limitations, existing rangeland 

projects and facilities that conflict with the achievement or maintenance of the Standards 

will be relocated and/or modified. 

4. Livestock salt blocks and other nutritional supplements will be located away from 

riparian/wetland areas or other permanently located, or other natural water sources. It is 

recommended that the locations of these supplements be moved every year. 

5. The use and perpetuation of native species will be emphasized. However, when restoring 

or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands nonintrusive, nonnative plant species 

are appropriate for use where native species (a) are not available, (b) are not 

economically feasible, (c) can not achieve ecological objectives as well as nonnative 

species, and/or (d) cannot compete with already established native species 

6. When rangeland manipulations are necessary, the best management practices, including 

biological processes, fire and intensive grazing, will be utilized prior to the use of 

chemical or mechanical manipulations. 

7. When establishing grazing practices and rangeland improvements, the quality of the 

outdoor recreation experience is to be considered. Aesthetic and scenic values, water, 

campsites and opportunities for solitude are among those considerations. 

8. Feeding of hay and other harvested forage (which does not refer to miscellaneous salt, 

protein, and other supplements) for the purpose of substituting for inadequate natural 

forage will not be conducted on BLM lands other than in (a) emergency situations where 

no other resource exists and animal survival is in jeopardy, or (b) situations where the 

Authorized Officer determines such a practice will assist in meeting a Standard or 

attaining a management objective. 

9. In order to eliminate, minimize, or limit the spread of noxious weeds, (a) only hay cubes, 

hay pellets, or certified weed-free hay will be fed on BLM lands, and (b) reasonable 

adjustments in grazing methods, methods of transport, and animal husbandry practices 

will be applied. 

10. To avoid contamination of water sources and in advertent damage to non-target species, 

aerial application of pesticides will not be allowed within 100 feet of a riparian wetland 

area unless the product is registered for such use by the EPA. 

11. On rangelands where a standard is not being met, and conditions are moving toward 

meeting the standard, grazing may be allowed to continue. On lands where a standard is 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix F 

Vernal RMP F-5

not being met, conditions are not improving toward meeting the standard or other 

management objectives, and livestock grazing is deemed responsible, administrative 

action with regard to livestock will be taken by the Authorized Officer pursuant to CUR 

4180.2(c). 

12. Where it can he determined that more than one kind of grazing animal is responsible for 

failure to achieve a Standard, and adjustments in management are required. those 

adjustments will be made to each kind of animal, based on interagency cooperation as 

needed. in proportion to their degree of responsibility. 

13. Rangelands that have been burned, reseeded or otherwise treated to alter vegetative 

composition will be closed to livestock grazing as follows: (I) burned rangelands, 

whether by wildfire or prescribed burning, will be ungrazed for a minimum of one 

complete growing season following the burn; and (2) rangelands that have been reseeded 

or otherwise chemically or mechanically treated will be ungrazed for a minimum of two 

complete growing seasons. 

14. Conversions in kind of livestock (such as from sheep to cattle) will be analyzed in light of 

Rangeland Health Standards. Where such conversions are not adverse to achieving a 

Standard, or they are not in conflict with BLM land use plans, the conversion will be 

allowed. 

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix F 

Vernal RMP F-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix G 

Vernal RMP G-1

APPENDIX G. ACEC EVALUATIONS FOR THE VERNAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

Section 202 (c) (3) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that 

priority be given to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern 

(ACECs). FLPMA Section 103 (a) defines ACECs as public lands where special management 

attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development 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. 

The BLM requested nominations for areas that the public believed met ACEC criteria in the 

Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 48, March 12, 2001, Notice of Intent, Environmental Impact 

Statement, Vernal Resource Management Plan, Utah. 

Nominations for ACECs were reviewed by an interdisciplinary team of BLM specialists to see if 

they meet mandatory relevance and importance criteria. 

RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE CRITERIA

To be considered for designation as an ACEC, an area must meet the requirements of relevance 

and importance as described in the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 1610.7.2). The 

definitions for relevance and importance are as follows: 

RELEVANCE

An area is considered relevant if it contains one or more of the following: 

1. A significant historic, cultural or scenic value (for example: rare or sensitive 

archaeological resources and religious or cultural resources important to Native American 

Indians). 

2. A fish and wildlife resource (for example: habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened 

species, or habitat essential for maintaining species diversity). 

3. A natural process or system (for example: endangered, sensitive, or threatened plant 

species; rare, endemic, or relict plants or plant communities ; rare geologic features). 

4. A natural hazard (for example: areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding, landslides, 

unstable soils, seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by human action 

may meet the relevance criteria if it is determined through the resource management 

planning process that it has become part of the natural process. 

IMPORTANCE

The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have substantial 

significance to satisfy the importance criteria. This generally means it is characterized by one or 

more of the following: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix G 

Vernal RMP G-2

1. Has more than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, consequence, 

meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar 

resource. 

2. Have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change. 

3. Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority 

concerns or to carry out the mandates of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

4. Have qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management 

concerns about safety and public welfare. 

5. Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property. 

CURRENTLY DESIGNATED ACECS

The Diamond Mountain RMP/ROD designated seven ACECs totaling 165,944 acres. These are: 

Browns Park, Lears Canyon, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, Pariette Wetlands, Red Creek Watershed, 

Lower Green River, and Nine Mile Canyon. These will all be carried forward as ACECs in the 

Vernal RMP. 

POTENTIAL ACECS BEING CONSIDERED IN THE VERNAL RMP 

External nominations were received as part of the RMP scoping process. BLM’s 

interdisciplinary team completed the relevance and importance review of all nominated ACECs. 

Seven areas totaling 476,679 acres were determined to have relevance and importance and were 

identified as potential ACECs. In some cases the interdisciplinary team review resulted in 

additional resource concerns and different boundary configurations for some potential ACECs 

from what was identified in the nominations. 

On December 17, 2001, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) submitted ACEC 

nominations for Bitter Creek, Cliff Creek, Cliff Ridge, Coyote Basin, and the Lower Green 

River. Of these, Coyote Basin, Bitter Creek, and the Lower Green River were determined to 

meet the mandatory criteria and are considered as potential ACECs in this planning effort. Some 

of these potential ACECs were modified by BLM resource specialists to better meet resource 

needs. 

On February 10, 2003, SUWA submitted proposals for Main Canyon, Lower Bitter Creek, White 

River, Sweetwater Watershed, Dragon/Atchee/Davis Canyons and Nine Mile Canyon. White 

River and Main Canyon were determined to meet the mandatory criteria. Sweetwater Watershed 

was integrated into a previous BLM proposal and became the Bitter Creek potential ACEC. 

SUWA’s nomination for Nine Mile Canyon resulted in a potential ACEC for Nine Mile Canyon 

that is an expansion of the existing Nine Mile Canyon ACEC. 

On January 21, 2003, the Center for Native Ecosystems submitted proposals to protect the whitetailed prairie dog and its associated ecosystem in Coyote Basin, Kennedy Wash, Myton Bench, 

Shiner, and Snake John. These nominations were integrated into a previous BLM proposal and 

became the potential Coyote Basin Complex Research Natural Area/ACEC. 

The seven potential ACECs and the two potential expansion ACECs are discussed below: 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix G 

Vernal RMP G-3

BITTER CREEK AND BITTER CREEK-P.R. SPRINGS

Relevance Criteria: The area has relevance due to the existence of an old growth forest, 

significant cultural and historic resources, important watershed, and critical ecosystem for 

wildlife and migratory birds. 

Importance Criteria: The relevant values described above have substantial significance due to 

qualities that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, and unique. 

The ancient pinyon forest is over 1200 years old, and includes the Utah champion pinyon, which 

is irreplaceable. Within the unit is the ancestral home of the Northern Ute Tribe when they were 

relocated from Colorado in the late 1800s. Many features, including graves, are within the 

potential ACEC, but specific locations are not known. Also in the potential ACEC is the most 

extensive wetland in the multi-state Book Cliffs. It exists because of a uniquely perched water 

table. This wetland and surrounding watershed is unique as a critical ecosystem for migratory 

birds and a wide variety of wildlife. 

WHITE RIVER

Relevance Criteria: The area has relevance due to the existence of unique geological 

formations, high value scenery, significant historical events, and riparian ecosystem.

Importance Criteria: The relevant values described above have substantial significance due to 

qualities that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, and unique. An area of 

unique, spectacular rock spires, named “Goblin City” by the John Wesley Powell 1869 

expedition is a major destination point for White River boaters. A cottonwood grove campsite, 

now used by boaters, is the place where Powell Expedition members camped and explored the 

nearby fragile geological formations. The river and adjacent landscape provide spectacular 

scenery viewed by increasing numbers of visitors from several states. The lush riparian 

vegetation is rare in this desert ecosystem. 

MIDDLE GREEN RIVER

Relevance Criteria: This area has relevance due to the existence of an important riparian 

ecosystem and high value scenery. 

Importance Criteria: The relevant values described above have substantial significance due to 

qualities that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, and unique. The river and 

adjacent landscape provide spectacular scenery viewed by increasing numbers of visitors from 

many states and countries. The lush riparian vegetation is rare in this desert ecosystem. 

COYOTE BASIN

Relevance Criteria: This area has relevance due to the existence of an important white-tailed 

prairie dog complex. 

Importance Criteria: This area is a critical ecosystem for the white-tailed prairie dog, and is

one of 25 white-tailed prairie dog complexes nominated for ACEC status in the Western states. It 

has substantial significance due to qualities that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, and unique. This species occupies only an estimated eight percent of the area it once 

occupied, and most of this is on BLM administered lands. The white-tailed prairie dog is 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix G 

Vernal RMP G-4

particularly vulnerable to adverse change from a variety of current causes. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is currently being petitioned to list this species. 

FOUR MILE WASH

Relevance Criteria: This area has relevance due to the existence of high value scenery, 

important riparian ecosystem, and special status fish. 

Importance Criteria: The relevant values described above have substantial significance due to 

qualities that make them fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, and unique. This 

exemplary canyon and adjacent landscape provides spectacular scenery viewed by increasing 

numbers of visitors from many states and countries. The lush riparian vegetation is rare in this 

desert ecosystem. 

Critical habitat for four endangered fish is located within the potential ACEC: These include the 

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychochelius lucius), Bonytail (Gila elegans), Humpbacked chub (Gila 

cypha), and the Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). 

MAIN CANYON

Relevance Criteria: This area has relevance due to the existence of important cultural and 

historic resources, and natural systems. 

Importance Criteria: The relevant values described above have substantial significance due to 

qualities that make them fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, and unique. Within the 

area there are numerous sites associated with the historic Northern Ute migration route along 

Main Canyon. In addition, there is a recently discovered historic inscription from the early 

French fur trade era. This area has been the focus of several past proposals to manage it in a way 

that would accentuate its exemplary natural systems. It is a part of a larger area that was first 

proposed as a Book Cliffs National Conservation Area, and then became the focus of a 1998 

cooperative project of the BLM and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) known as 

the Book Cliffs Conservation Initiative. Most of the potential ACEC is within the Winter Ridge 

Wilderness Study Area. 

NINE MILE CANYON EXPANSION

Relevance Criteria: This area has relevance due to the existence of significant cultural 

resources, special status plant species, and high quality scenery. 

Importance Criteria: The relevant values described above have substantial significance due to 

qualities that make them fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, and unique. This area 

is an extension of the currently designated Nine Mile Canyon ACEC, where the significance of 

these important resources has been recognized. 

LOWER GREEN RIVER EXPANSION

Relevance Criteria: This area has relevance due to the existence of significant riparian habitat 

and outstanding scenic values. 

Importance Criteria: The relevant values described above have substantial significance due to 

qualities that make them fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, and unique. This area 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix G 

Vernal RMP G-5

is an extension of the currently designated Lower Green River Corridor ACEC, where the 

significance of these important resources has been recognized. 

RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE SUMMARY - ALL AREAS

Currently designated ACECs and nominated areas that were evaluated by BLM resource 

specialists for relevance and importance are listed in the table below, along with determinations 

and rationale. Those nominated areas that do not meet both relevance and importance criteria are 

not considered as potential ACECs in the Vernal RMP/EIS. 

Table 1. Relevance and Importance Summary – All Areas 

Nominator Nominated Area or Currently 

Designated ACEC Determination and Rationale 

SUWA (Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance) 

Dragon/Atchee/Davis Canyons 

(nominated area) 

Scenic, cultural resources and 

natural systems have 

relevance, but do not qualify 

under the importance criteria 

because they do not have 

substantial significance 

SUWA Cliff Creek (nominated area) Cultural resources and natural 

systems have relevance, but 

do not qualify under the 

importance criteria because 

they do not have substantial 

significance. 

SUWA Cliff Ridge (nominated area) Scenic values and natural 

systems have relevance, but 

do not qualify under the 

importance criteria because 

they do not have substantial 

significance. 

SUWA Main Canyon (nominated 

area) 

Cultural, historic resources 

and natural systems meet 

relevance and importance 

criteria. 

SUWA Lower Bitter Creek (nominated 

area) 

The natural system has 

relevance, but does not quality 

under the importance criteria 

because it does not have 

substantial significance. 

BLM Browns Park (currently 

designated ACEC) 

High value scenery, wildlife 

habitat, cultural, and historic 

resources meet relevance and 

importance criteria. 

BLM Lears Canyon (currently 

designated ACEC) 

Relict plant communities meet 

relevance and importance 

criteria. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix G 

Vernal RMP G-6

Table 1. Relevance and Importance Summary – All Areas 

Nominator Nominated Area or Currently 

Designated ACEC Determination and Rationale 

TNC (The Nature 

Conservancy) 

Red Mountain-Dry Fork 

(currently designated ACEC) 

Relict plant communities, high 

value archaeological and 

paleontological sites, 

watershed, and crucial deer 

and elk habitat meet relevance 

and importance criteria 

BLM Pariette Wetlands (currently 

designated ACEC) 

Special status bird and plant 

habitat, wetlands ecosystem 

meet relevance and 

importance criteria. 

BLM Red Creek Watershed 

(currently designated ACEC) 

Regionally significant critical 

watershed meets relevance 

and importance criteria. 

BLM/SUWA Lower Green River (currently 

designated ACEC and 

nominated area) 

Significant riparian habitat and 

outstanding scenic values 

meet relevance and 

importance criteria. 

BLM/SUWA Nine Mile Canyon (currently 

designated ACEC and 

nominated area) 

Nationally significant Fremont, 

Ute, Archaic rock art and 

structures, and special status 

plant habitat meet relevance 

and importance criteria. 

BLM/SUWA Bitter Creek (nominated area) State significant old growth 

forest, cultural and historic 

resources, watershed, critical 

ecosystems for migratory birds 

meet relevance and 

importance criteria. 

SUWA White River (nominated area) Unique geologic formations, 

high value scenic vistas, and 

riparian ecosystem meet 

relevance and importance 

criteria. 

BLM Middle Green River 

(nominated area) 

High value riparian ecosystem 

meets relevance and 

importance criteria. 

CNE (Center for Native 

Ecosystems)/SUWA 

Coyote Basin-Myton Bench 

(nominated area) 

Critical ecosystem for whitetailed prairie dog meets 

relevance and importance 

criteria. 

BLM Four Mile Wash (nominated 

area) 

High value scenery, riparian 

ecosystem, special status fish 

meets relevance and 

importance criteria. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-1

APPENDIX H. DISTURBANCES AND FRAGMENTATION OF WILDLIFE 

HABITAT

Table 1. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed in Mule Deer Overall 

Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

824,429 

(44%) 

1,081,950 

(58%) 

1,223,754 

(66%) 

919,844 

(49%) 

917,636 

(54%) 

782,971 

(42%) 

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

777,539 

(42%) 664,264 

(36%) 

555,025 

(30%) 

677,370 

(36%) 

582,623 

(35%) 664,542 

(36%) 

No Surface 

Occupancy 

83,416 

(4%) 46,353 (2%) 31,654 (2%) 37,706 

(2%) 135,302 (8%) 46,777 

(3%) 

No Leasing 177,376 

(10%) 70,413 (4%) 52,547 (3%) 228,060 

(12%) 52,547 (3%) 366,511 

(20%) 

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

389,668 

(87%) 

424,810 

(94%) 

434,727 

(97%) 

390,473 

(87%) 

422,877 

(94%) 

344,561 

(77%) 

Phosphate 75,466 

(83%) 

86,981 

(96%) 

86,982 

(96%) 

62,829 

(69%) 83,856 (93%) 51,321 

(56%) 

Gilsonite 1,666 

(98%) 838 (100%) 840 (99%) 834 (98%) 817 (100%) 789 (93%) 

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-2

Table 2. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Mule Deer Crucial 

Winter Range Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 28 (0.01%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 169,394 

(50%) 0 (0%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

305,867 

(82%) 

344,153 

(93%)

346,085 

(93%)

312,705 

(84%)

127,612 

(37%) 

270,021 

(72%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

10,272 

(3%) 8,374 (2%) 9,217 (2%) 6,395 (2%) 28,477 (8%) 6,272 

(2%)

No Leasing 54,814 

(15%) 

19,148 

(5%)

16,373 

(4%)

52,575 

(14%) 16,368 (5%) 94,775 

(26%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

117,184 

(85%) 

132,201 

(95%)

132,328 

(95%)

121,481 

(87%)

132,152 

(95%) 

105,962 

(76%)

Phosphate 58,384 

(87%) 

64,307 

(95%)

64,309 

(95%)

41,192 

(61%) 62,299 (92%) 35,276 

(52%)

Gilsonite 258 

(100%) 129 (100%) 129 (100%) 129 (100%) 129 (100%) 129 (100%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-3

Table 3. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed in Mule Deer Migration 

Corridor Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4,668 (10%) 0 (0%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

47,091 

(100%) 

47,090 

(100%)

47,090 

(100%)

42,869 

(91%) 40,945 (87%) 42,868 

(91%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1,477 (3%) 0 (0%)

No Leasing 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4,221 (9%) 0 (0%) 4,225 (9%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Phosphate 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Gilsonite 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-4

Table 4. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Rocky Mountain Elk 

Overall Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

321,433 

(28%) 

448,471 

(40%)

574,923 

(51%)

390,428 

(34%)

463,704 

(46%) 

317,256 

(28%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

586,641 

(52%) 

606,289 

(54%)

494,851 

(44%)

520,524 

(46%)

414,245 

(41%) 

484,097 

(43%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

48,284 

(4%) 

16,727 

(1%)

12,337 

(1%)

10,711 

(1%) 74,971 (7%) 14,729 

(1%)

No Leasing 178,614 

(16%) 

61,383 

(5%)

50,760 

(4%)

211,208 

(19%) 50,750 (5%) 316,055 

(28%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

224,303 

(84%) 

255,461 

(96%)

259,570 

(97%)

222,187 

(83%)

233,229 

(87%) 

186,244 

(70%)

Phosphate 73,530 

(85%) 

83,177 

(96%)

83,553 

(96%)

60,656 

(70%) 80,052 (93%) 50,642 

(59%)

Gilsonite 558 (98%) 297 (100%) 297 (99%) 293 (98%) 295 (98%) 288 (95%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-5

Table 5. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Rocky Mountain Elk 

Crucial Winter Range Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 185 (0.1%) 67,688 

(19%)

67,688 

(19%)

67,688 

(19%)

129,926 

(45%) 

3 

(0%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

269,022 

(74%) 

250,181 

(68%)

252,886 

(69%)

193,400 

(53%) 97,291 (34%) 241,237 

(66%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

14,384 

(4%) 3,150 (1%) 3,905 (1%) 976 (<1%) 18,071 (6%) 861 

(<1%)

No Leasing 82,042 

(22%) 

44,514 

(12%)

41,055 

(11%)

103,470 

(28%) 41,061 (14%) 123,703 

(34%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

56,094 

(86%) 

62,322 

(96%)

62,367 

(96%)

53,663 

(82%) 58,926 (91%) 48,177 

(74%)

Phosphate 26,706 

(91%) 

27,403 

(33%)

27,779 

(33%)

11,333 

(19%) 25,088 (31%) 10,263 

(35%)

Gilsonite 97 (100%) 49 (100%) 49 (100%) 49 (100%) 49 (100%) 48 (100%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-6

Table 6. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Pronghorn Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 530,979 

(69%)

649,626 

(85%)

663,164 

(86%)

546,664 

(71%)

400,846 

(55%) 

498,336 

(65%) 

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface 

Use 

195,420 

25%) 95,327 (12%) 85,534 (11%) 185,579 (24%)

284,341 

(39%) 

193,690 

(25%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

20,207 

(3%) 18,994 (2%) 18,753 (2%) 19,047 (2%) 44,178 (6%) 22,247 (3%)

No Leasing 21,923 

(3%) 4,531 (1%) 1,027 (<1%) 17,188 (2%) 4,392 (1%) 53,087 (7%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

168,851 

(92%)

174,474 

(95%)

174,723 

(95%)

171,584 

(94%)

174,473 

(95%) 

162,619 

(89%)

Phosphate 27,910 

(87%) 31,554 (98%) 31,554 (98%) 31,539 (98%) 30,710 (96%) 

27,902 

(87%)

Gilsonite 642 (97%) 321 (100%) 332 (97%) 332 (97%) 332 (95%) 317 (95%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-7

Table 7. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Bighorn Sheep Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

93,023 

(21%) 

180,612 

(42%)

252,009 

(58%)

160,509 

(37%) 192,076 (55%) 108,882 (25%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

228,616 

(53%) 

197,498 

(46%)

155,057 

(36%)

147,311 

(34%) 78,464 (23%) 171,397 (39%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

32,740 

(8%) 

14,997 

(3%) 2,996 (1%) 10,970 (3%) 52,445 (15%) 7,407 (2%)

No Leasing 80,663 

(19%) 

39,947 

(9%)

22,993 

(5%)

114,263 

(26%) 24,971 (7%) 145,148 (34%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

55.563 

(85%) 

57,475 

(86%)

65,535 

(99%)

45,161 

(68%) 57,475 (86%) 

42,672 

(54%) 

Phosphate 10,574 

(79%) 

13,288 

(99%)

13,288 

(99%)

8,272 

(62%) 11,775 (88%) 5,561 (42%)

Gilsonite 504 (98%) 254 (100%) 256 (100%) 250 (97%) 239 (93%) 225 (88%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-8

Table 8. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Moose Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

46,365 

(41%) 

48,246 

(42%)

73,223 

(64%)

39,131 

(34%) 45,992 (40%) 34,088 (30%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

29,070 

(25%) 

53,405 

(47%)

35,057 

(31%)

59,747 

(52%) 41,324 (36%) 38,587 (34%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 3,328 (3%) 3,328 (3%) 3,393 (3%) 3,300 (3%) 22,420 (20%) 3,300 (3%)

No Leasing 35,261 

(31%) 8,961 (8%) 2,267 (2%) 11,762 (10%) 4,204 (4%) 37,963 (33%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

24,715 

(80%) 

28,615 

(93%)

28,702 

(93%)

28,425 

(93%) 28,614 (93%) 24,526 (80%)

Phosphate 12,802 

(90%) 

14,101 

(99%)

14,101 

(99%)

12,905 

(90%) 12,976 (91%) 11,606 (81%)

Gilsonite 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-9

Table 9. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Black Bear Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

60,254 

(24%) 

105,186 

(42%)

172,813 

(70%)

98,456 

(40%) 83,403 (42%) 80,544 (33%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

128,388 

(52%) 

135,115 

(55%)

70,795 

(29%)

87,354 

(35%) 93,337 (47%) 84,625 (34%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

11,429 

(5%) 2,798 (1%) 2,798 (1%) 2,680 (1%) 19,902 (10%) 2,680 (1%)

No Leasing 47,815 

(19%) 4,648 (2%) 1,341 (1%) 59,256 (24%) 1,340 (1%) 79,876 (32%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

24,287 

(83%) 

28,104 

(96%)

28,190 

(96%)

27,425 

(94%) 21,573 (74%) 24,167 (82%)

Phosphate 4,972 

(99.5%) 

4,972 

(100%)

4,972 

(100%)

2,680 

(54%) 4,586 (92%) 2,680 (54%)

Gilsonite 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-10

Table 10. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Ring-necked Pheasant 

Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

26,251 

(48%) 

33,987 

(62%)

33,900 

(61%)

31,444 

(57%) 10,515 (22%) 25,030 (46%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

11,996 

(22%) 4,573 (8%) 10,256 (19%)

6,463 

(12%) 16,565 (34%) 11,882 (22%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

16,116 

(29%) 

12,876 

(23%)

10,704 

(19%)

12,877 

(23%) 21,536 (44%) 12,219 (22%)

No Leasing 624 (1%) 3,700 (7%) 275 (<1%) 4,352 (8%) 271 (1%) 5,818 

(10%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

16,381 

(66%) 

16,565 

(67%)

19,197 

(78%)

16,321 

(66%) 12,439 (50%) 0 (0%)

Phosphate 887 

(100%) 887 (100%) 887 (100%) 887 (100%) 821 (93%) 276 (31%)

Gilsonite 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-11

Table 11. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Rio Grande Turkey 

Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

88,683 

(56%) 

104,743 

(66%)

106,247 

(67%)

93,098 

(59%) 70,461 (48%) 81,894 (51%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

37,991 

(24%) 

25,620 

(16%)

24,115 

(15%)

37,252 

(23%) 45,765 (31%) 42,415 (27%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

9,625 

(6%) 7,140 (4%) 7,139 (4%) 7,150 (4%) 10,202 (7%) 12,395 (8%)

No Leasing 22,538 

(14%) 

21,571 

(14%)

21,571 

(14%)

21,572 

(14%) 21,573 (15%) 22,370 (14%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

33,249 

(87%) 

34,194 

(89%)

34,195 

(89%)

34,183 

(89%) 33,368 (87%) 31,386 (82%)

Phosphate 65 (12%) 533 (100%) 533 (100%) 533 (100%) 533 (100%) 65 (12%)

Gilsonite 167 

(100%) 84 (100%) 84 (100%) 84 (100%) 84 (100%) 84 (100%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-12

Table 12. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Blue Grouse Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

16,686 

(7%) 

80,282 

(35%)

145,218 

(63%)

72,786 

(32%) 54,131 (33%) 50,010 (22%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

158,930 

(69%) 

135,586 

(59%)

72,863 

(32%)

97,427 

(42%) 91,480 (55%) 96,557 (42%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 6,130 (3%) 2,572 (1%) 2,572 (1%) 2,522 (1%) 8,204 (5%) 3,251 (1%)

No Leasing 49,400 

(21%) 

12,551 

(5%)

10,338 

(4%)

58,258 

(25%) 12,542 (8%) 81,161 (35%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

4.977 

(74%) 

5,980 

(89%)

5,980 

(89%)

5,837 

(87%) 6,153 (92%) 4,330 (64%)

Phosphate 16,490 

(72%) 

21,598 

(95%)

21,598 

(95%)

21,591 

(95%) 20,600 (90%) 16,484 (72%)

Gilsonite 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-13

Table 13. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Chukar Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

23,267 

(17%) 

42,956 

(32%)

64,330 

(47%)

27,199 

(20%) 28,955 (23%) 19,577 (15%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

43,147 

(31%) 

73,361 

(54%)

59,147 

(44%)

77,585 

(57%) 59,862 (47%) 46,388 (34%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

17,146 

(12%) 8,576 (6%) 9,066 (7%) 7,254 (5%) 31,867 (25%) 12,289 (9%)

No Leasing 55,981 

(40%) 

10,652 

(8%) 3,003 (2%) 23,508 (17%) 5,789 (5%) 57,312 (42%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

22,498 

(64%) 

30,177 

(85%)

30,408 

(86%)

24,449 

(69%) 22,612 (64%) 15,932 (45%)

Phosphate 23,388 

(65%) 

34,695 

(96%)

34,695 

(96%)

33,737 

(93%) 33,636 (93%) 22,436 (62%)

Gilsonite 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-14

Table 14. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Greater Sage-Grouse 

Wintering Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative 

D (No 

Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

98,067 

(41%)

146,696 

(62%)

165,220 

(70%) 96,844 (41%) 143,220 (61%) 

96,032 

(41%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface 

Use 

98,679 

(42%) 81,510 (34%) 63,445 (27%) 121,534 (51%)

80,390 

(34%) 

90,094 

(38%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

4,832 

(2%) 5,245 (2%) 5,343 (2%) 5,343 (2%) 10,398 (4%) 5,725 (2%)

No Leasing 35,095 

(15%) 3,125 (1%) 2,568 (1%) 12,855 (5%) 2,568 (1%) 44,724 (19%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

71,668 

(87%) 79,027 (96%) 79,121 (96%) 77,223 (93%) 75,971 (96%) 

69,494 

(84%)

Phosphate 16,100 

(64%) 5,790 (23%) 23,962 (96%) 14,359 (57%) 23,419 (94%) 

6,498 

(26%)

Gilsonite 148 

(100%) 74 (100%) 74 (100%) 74 (100%) 72 (100%) 74 (100%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-15

Table 15. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Greater Sage-grouse 

Brooding Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

288,942 

(36%) 

456,122 

(56%)

490,288 

(60%)

348,154 

(43%) 346,050 (48%) 286,941 (35%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

412,653 

(51%) 

324,955 

(40%)

291,468 

(36%)

399,432 

(49%) 319,379 (44%) 386,075 (48%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

21,092 

(3%) 

10,988 

(1%)

11,181 

(1%)

11,101 

(1%) 29,982 (4%) 11,313 (1%)

No Leasing 91,085 

(11%) 

22,755 

(3%)

21,883 

(3%)

56,133 

(7%) 22,720 (3%) 129,772 (16%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

183,838 

(88%) 

203,209 

(97%)

203,201 

(97%)

198,885 

(95%) 203,208 (97%) 177,359 (85%)

Phosphate 50,184 

(81%) 

36,942 

(59%)

61,413 

(97%)

49,324 

(79%) 59,553 (96%) 39,059 (63%)

Gilsonite 456 

(100%) 228 (100%) 228 (100%) 228 (99%) 223 (97%) 228 (100%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-16

Table 16. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In White-tailed Prairie 

Dog/Black-footed Ferret Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

104,308 

(84%) 

112,274 

(90%)

114,783 

(92%)

95,528 

(77%) 69,283 (56%) 95,522 (77%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

18,753 

(15%) 

10,805 

(9%) 8,296 (7%) 27,537 (22%) 48,241 (39%) 23,292 (19%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 1,083 (1%) 1,083 (1%) 1,083 (1%) 1,097 (1%) 6,638 (5%) 5,328 (4%)

No Leasing 13 (0.01%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 13 (<1%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

48,195 

(99%) 

48,204 

(99%)

48,204 

(99%)

48,197 

(99%) 48,204 (93%) 46,360 (95%)

Phosphate 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Gilsonite 93 (97%) 46 (100%) 93 (100%) 46 (97%) 46 (97%) 46 (100%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-17

Table 17. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Mexican Spotted Owl 

(Canyon) Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

1,234 

(11%) 

5,443 

(52%)

7,136 

(68%)

5,256 

(50%) 1,667 (28%) 1,069 (10%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

2,335 

(22%) 

3,833 

(37%)

2,802 

(27%)

2,722 

(26%) 2,886 (49%) 5,932 (57%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 

1,286 

(12%) 63 (1%) 175 (2%) 62 (1%) 1,007 (17%) 62 (1%)

No Leasing 6,002 

(55%) 

1,129 

(11%) 355 (3%) 2,428 (23%) 355 (6%) 3,405 (32%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 97 (81%) 112 (95%) 113 (95%) 75 (64%) 112 (95%) 62 (52%)

Phosphate 225 (68%) 321 (97%) 321 (97%) 227 (69%) 271 (82%) 131 (40%)

Gilsonite 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-18

Table 18. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Mexican Spotted Owl 

(Forest) Habitat 

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

15,449 

(39%) 

17,947 

(46%)

28,207 

(72%)

14,390 

(37%) 17,724 (50%) 12,164 (31%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

10,944 

(28%) 

18,458 

(47%)

9,830 

(25%)

18,532 

(47%) 13,289 (37%) 11,980 (31%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 624 (2%) 903 (2%) 903 (2%) 836 (2%) 4,267 (12%) 836 (2%)

No Leasing 12,410 

(31%) 1,979 (5%) 347 (1%) 5,529 (14%) 347 (1%) 14,302 (36%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

4,634 

(81%) 

5,722 

(100%)

5,722 

(100%)

5,649 

(98%) 5,722 (100%) 4,561 (79%)

Phosphate 568 (88%) 642 (100%) 642 (100%) 518 (81%) 562 (87%) 443 (69%)

Gilsonite 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-19

Table 19. Mineral Development Land Categorization Proposed In Ferruginous Hawk 

Nesting Habitat1

Oil and Gas Development 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A* 

Alternative 

B* 

Alternative 

C* 

Alternative D 

(No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative 

E* 

Standard 

Stipulation 

39,225 

(77%) 

46,906 

(92%)

47,067 

(93%)

38,342 

(75%) 40,387 (82%) 37.040 (73%)

Timing and 

Controlled 

Surface Use 

11,037 

(22%) 3,398 (7%) 3,237 (6%) 11,952 (24%) 7,860 (16%) 13,188 (26%)

No Surface 

Occupancy 524 (1%) 524 (1%) 524 (1%) 534 (1%) 1,279 (3%) 534 (1%)

No Leasing 42 (0.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 42 (<1%)

Other Minerals (Open) 

Mineral 

Material 

15,862 

(98%) 

15,874 

(98%)

15,874 

(98%)

15,866 

(98%) 15,975 (99%) 15,855 (98%)

Phosphate 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Gilsonite 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

1

 These calculations are to show an approximation of land management in the habitat type used by nesting ferruginous hawks. 

Calculations are based on areas associated within the 1⁄2 mile buffer around known active and inactive ferruginous hawk nests in the 

VPA. However, the areas within the 1⁄2 mile buffer zone for active and inactive ferruginous hawk nests will actually be managed 

under the special stipulations for raptors outlined in Chapter 4. 

*Includes land categorization for the Hill Creek Extension (Standard Stipulation: 160,998 acres, Timing & Controlled Surface Use: 

29,832 acres). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-20

Table 20. Habitat Fragments Created By Existing Roads And Pipelines On BLM Lands In 

The Vpa And Road Effects Zones Associated With These Fragments 

Vernal Planning Area 

Fragment 

Categories 

All Fragments Fragments 250 Acres or Greater 

Number 

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Number

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Fragments 

created by 

roads or 

pipelines 4,485 383 99.6

PRMP: 86.6

Alt A: 93.3

Alt B: 95.2

Alt C: 84.6

Alt D: 89.1

Alt E: 76.0

736 2,194 93.6 

PRMP: 85.6

Alt A: 92.9

Alt B: 95.0

Alt C: 83.9

Alt D: 88.4

Alt E: 74.5

Fragments 

outside the 

660-foot road 

effects zone 2,849 492 81.2

PRMP: 85.4

Alt A: 92.8

Alt B: 95.0

Alt C: 83.6

Alt D: 87.6

Alt E: 75.0

696 1,891 76.3 

PRMP:84.2

Alt A: 92.3

Alt B: 94.8

Alt C: 82.8

Alt D: 86.5

Alt E: 73.6

Fragments 

outside the 

1,320-foot 

road effects 

zone 

2,394 477 66.1

PRMP:84.1

Alt A: 92.3

Alt B: 94.8

Alt C: 82.6

Alt D: 87.6

Alt E: 73.2

593 1,803 62.0 

PRMP:82.7

Alt A: 91.7

Alt B: 94.4

Alt C: 81.6

Alt D: 86.5

Alt E: 71.6

Fragments 

outside the 

2,640-foot 

road effects 

zone 

1,510 505 44.2

PRMP:81.3

Alt A: 90.9

Alt B: 94.1

Alt C: 80.3

Alt D: 85.5

Alt E: 69.6

413 1,728 41.4 

PRMP:79.6

Alt A: 90.2

Alt B: 93.7

Alt C: 79.0

Alt D: 84.3

Alt E: 67.9
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-21

Table 21. Habitat Fragments Created By Existing Roads And Pipelines On BLM Lands In 

The Manila-Clay Basin RFD Area, And Road Effects Zones Associated With These 

Fragments 

Fragment 

Categories 

All Fragments Fragments 250 Acres or Greater 

Number 

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Number

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Fragments 

created by 

roads or 

pipelines 234 225 99.6

PRMP:70.2

Alt A: 91.4

Alt B: 91.4

Alt C: 91.4

Alt D: 80.6

Alt E: 70.2

26 1,807 89.1 

PRMP:66.8

Alt A: 90.7

Alt B: 90.7

Alt C: 90.7

Alt D: 79.3

Alt: E: 59.7

Fragments 

outside the 

660-foot road 

effects zone 104 117 82.2

PRMP:66.7

Alt A: 90.5

Alt B: 90.5

Alt C: 90.5

Alt D: 77.3

Alt E: 90.5

24 1,662 75.6 

PRMP:63.0

Alt A: 89.7

Alt B: 89.7

Alt C: 89.7

Alt D: 75.8

Alt E: 89.7

Fragments 

outside the 

1,320-foot 

road effects 

zone 

90 401 68.5

PRMP:63.3

Alt A: 89.4

Alt B: 89.4

Alt C: 89.4

Alt D: 75.3

Alt E: 89.4

25 1,359 64.4 

PRMP:60.9

Alt A: 88.7

Alt B: 88.7

Alt C: 88.7

Alt D: 73.7

Alt E: 88.7

Fragments 

outside the 

2,640-foot 

road effects 

zone 

55 459 47.8

PRMP:56.9

Alt A: 87.1

Alt B: 87.1

Alt C: 87.1

Alt D: 68.2

Alt E: 87.1

18 1,287 43.9 

PRMP:52.6

Alt A: 85.1

Alt B: 85.1

Alt C: 85.1

Alt D: 63.1

Alt E: 85.1
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-22

Table 22. Functional Habitat Loss Created By Proposed Roads And Pipelines On BLM 

Lands In The Manila-Clay Basin RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Road and 

Pipeline Densities 

(mi/mi2

) 

1.48 1.47 1.47 1.45 1.53 1.41

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-660' zone 

86% 86% 86% 86% 82% 87%

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-1,320' zone 

75% 75% 75% 75% 68% 76%

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-2,640' zone 

57 57% 57% 58% 48% 60%
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-23

Table 23. Habitat Fragments Created By Existing Roads And Pipelines On BLM Lands In 

The Tabiona-Ashley Valley RFD Area, And Road Effects Zones Associated With 

These Fragments 

Fragment 

Categories 

All Fragments Fragments 250 Acres or Greater 

Number 

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Number

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Fragments 

created by 

roads or 

pipelines 1,233 297 99.7

PRMP:70.8

Alt A: 92.0

Alt B: 94.5

Alt C: 84.0

Alt D: 86.5

Alt E: 59.7

165 2,044 91.8 

PRMP:68.2

Alt A: 91.8

Alt B: 94.5

Alt C: 83.9

Alt D: 85.6

Alt E: 53.2

Fragments 

outside the 

660-foot road 

effects zone 715 431 83.9

PRMP:69.1

Alt A: 92.0

Alt B: 94.9

Alt C: 84.3

Alt D: 84.4

Alt E: 58.5

155 1,864 78.6 

PRMP:66.8

Alt A: 96.1

Alt B: 94.6

Alt C: 84.0

Alt D: 83.2

Alt E: 56.2

Fragments 

outside the 

1,320-foot 

road effects 

zone 

559 467 71.0

PRMP:67.5

Alt A: 91.9

Alt B: 95.1

Alt C: 84.51

Alt D: 85.9

Alt E: 57.4

136 1,797 66.5 

PRMP:69.4

Alt A: 91.4

Alt B: 94.8

Alt C: 84.4

Alt D: 84.4

Alt E: 55.3

Fragments 

outside the 

2,640-foot 

road effects 

zone 

370 506 50.9

PRMP:64.3

Alt A: 91.3

Alt B: 95.3

Alt C: 84.6

Alt D: 84.6

Alt E: 55.2

102 1,714 47.6 

PRMP:61.6

Alt A: 90.7

Alt B: 94.9

Alt C: 84.1

Alt D: 83.5

Alt E: 53.0
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-24

Table 24. Functional Habitat Loss Created By Proposed Roads And Pipelines On BLM 

Lands In The Tabiona-Ashley Valley RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Road and 

Pipeline Densities 

(mi/mi2

) 

1.48 1.21 1.20 1.11 1.34 1.06

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-660' zone 

88% 88% 88% 89% 84% 90%

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-1,320' zone 

79 79% 79% 80% 71% 81%

Percent outside a 

Functional Habitat 

Loss-2,640' zone 

63 63% 63% 66% 51% 67%

Tabiona-Ashley Valley RFD Area (367,419 acres) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-25

Table 25. Habitat Fragments Created By Existing Roads And Pipelines On BLM Lands In 

The Altamont-Bluebell RFD Area, And Road Effects Zones Associated With These 

Fragments 

Fragment 

Categories 

All Fragments Fragments 250 Acres or Greater 

Number 

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Number

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Fragments 

created by 

roads or 

pipelines 64 224 99.7

PRMP:98.7

Alt A: 98.7

Alt B: 98.7

Alt C: 98.7

Alt D: 97.2

Alt E: 98.7

10 1,280 89.0 

PRMP:96.7

Alt A: 96.7

Alt B: 96.7

Alt C: 96.7

Alt D: 96.8

Alt E: 97.4

Fragments 

outside the 

660-foot road 

effects zone 45 266 83.4

PRMP:98.9

Alt A: 98.9

Alt B: 98.9

Alt C: 98.9

Alt D: 96.1

Alt E: 98.9

9 1,172 73.3 

PRMP:98.7

Alt A: 98.7

Alt B: 98.7

Alt C: 98.7

Alt D: 93.8

Alt E: 98.7

Fragments 

outside the 

1,320-foot 

road effects 

zone 

35 287 69.8

PRMP:99.3

Alt A: 99.3

Alt B: 99.3

Alt C: 99.3

Alt D: 97.6

Alt E: 99.3

9 1,003 62.8 

PRMP:99.1

Alt A: 99.1

Alt B: 99.1

Alt C: 99.1

Alt D: 95.8

Alt E: 99.1

Fragments 

outside the 

2,640-foot 

road effects 

zone 

32 218 48.5

PRMP:100

Alt A: 100

Alt B: 100

Alt C: 100

Alt D: 98.7

Alt E: 100

8 805 44.8 

PRMP:100

Alt A: 100

Alt B: 100

Alt C: 100

Alt D: 100

Alt E: 100
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-26

Table 26. Functional Habitat Loss Created By Proposed Roads And Pipelines On BLM 

Lands In The Altamont-Bluebell RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Road and 

Pipeline 

Densities (mi/mi2

) 

1.34 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.45 1.33

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss-660' 

zone 

85% 85% 85% 85% 83% 85%

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss1,320' zone 

72% 72% 72% 72% 70% 72%

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss2,640' zone 

51% 51% 51% 51% 49% 51%

Altamont-Bluebell RFD Area (14,375 acres) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-27

Table 27. Habitat Fragments Created By Existing Roads And Pipelines On BLM Lands In 

The Monument Butte-Redwash RFD Area, And Road Effects Zones Associated 

With These Fragments 

Fragment 

Categories 

All Fragments Fragments 250 Acres or Greater 

Number 

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Number

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Fragments 

created by 

roads or 

pipelines 2,071 306 99.5

PRMP:94.9

Alt A: 95.0

Alt B: 98.1

Alt C: 94.2

Alt D: 92.6

Alt E: 92.4

359 1,624 91.6 

PRMP:94.6

Alt A: 94.7

Alt B: 98.2

Alt C: 93.9

Alt D: 91.9

Alt E: 84.5

Fragments 

outside the 

660-foot road 

effects zone 1,234 396 76.8

PRMP:94.5

Alt A: 94.6

Alt B: 98.4

Alt C: 93.6

Alt D: 91.4

Alt E: 91.5

298 1,508 70.6 

PRMP:94.0

Alt A: 94.3

Alt B: 98.8

Alt C: 93.2

Alt D: 90.7

Alt E: 90.9

Fragments 

outside the 

1,320-foot 

road effects 

zone 

1,052 357 60.0

PRMP:94.1

Alt A: 94.1

Alt B: 98.7

Alt C: 92.9

Alt D: 91.8

Alt E: 90.5

227 1,510 53.9 

PRMP:93.3

Alt A: 93.4

Alt B: 98.7

Alt C: 92.0

Alt D: 90.9

Alt E: 89.4

Fragments 

outside the 

2,640-foot 

road effects 

zone 

604 376 35.7

PRMP:92.7

Alt A: 92.8

Alt B: 99.1

Alt C: 91.0

Alt D: 90.5

Alt E: 87.9

144 1,429 32.3 

PRMP:91.8

Alt A: 91.9

Alt B: 99.2

Alt C: 90.0

Alt D: 89.6

Alt E: 86.7
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-28

Table 28. Functional Habitat Loss Created By Proposed Roads And Pipelines On BLM 

Lands In The Monument Butte-Redwash RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Road and 

Pipeline 

Densities (mi/mi2

) 

2.45 2.42 2.42 2.40 2.00 2.40

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss-660' 

zone 

78% 78% 78% 79% 77% 79%

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss1,320' zone 

61% 62% 62% 62% 59% 62%

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss2,640' zone 

39% 39% 39% 40% 36% 40%

Monument Butte-Redwash RFD Area (636,185 acres) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-29

Table 29. Habitat Fragments Created By Existing Roads And Pipelines On BLM Lands In 

The West Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area, And Road Effects Zones Associated With 

These Fragments 

Fragment 

Categories 

All Fragments Fragments 250 Acres or Greater 

Number 

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Number

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Fragments 

created by 

roads or 

pipelines 213 845 99.7

PRMP:87.5

Alt A: 98.2

Alt B: 99.0

Alt C: 86.5

Alt D: 86.5

Alt E: 74.9

59 2,987 97.7 

PRMP:86.4

Alt A: 98.1

Alt B: 98.9

Alt C: 85.9

Alt D: 86.1

Alt E: 72.4

Fragments 

outside the 

660-foot road 

effects zone 189 815 85.3

PRMP:87.0

Alt A: 98.2

Alt B: 99.0

Alt C: 85.6

Alt D: 85.6

Alt E: 73.9

61 2,435 82.3 

PRMP:85.6

Alt A: 98.2

Alt B: 99.0

Alt C: 85.2

Alt D: 84.8

Alt E:73.3

Fragments 

outside the 

1,320-foot 

road effects 

zone 

172 763 72.7

PRMP:

Alt A: 71.4

Alt B: 72.0

Alt C: 61.6

Alt D: 61.6

Alt E: 53.0

56 2,251 69.9 

PRMP:

Alt A: 62.7

Alt B: 63.3

Alt C: 54.3

Alt D: 54.1

Alt E: 46.9

Fragments 

outside the 

2,640-foot 

road effects 

zone 

135 693 51.9

PRMP:

Alt A: 50.8

Alt B: 51.3

Alt C: 42.6

Alt D: 42.5

Alt E: 36.6

47 1,902 49.5 

PRMP:

Alt A: 43.3

Alt B: 43.7

Alt C: 36.3

Alt D: 36.2

Alt E: 31.3
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-30

Table 30. Functional Habitat Loss Created By Proposed Roads And Pipelines On BLM 

Lands In The West Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Road and 

Pipeline Densities 

(mi/mi2

) 

1.27 0.88 0.88 0.82 1.23 0.76

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss-660' 

zone 

86% 90% 90% 91% 85% 91%

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss1,320' zone 

74% 81% 81% 82% 73% 84%

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss2,640' zone 

53% 65% 65% 68% 52% 70%

West Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area (180,467 acres) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-31

Table 31. Habitat Fragments Created By Existing Roads And Pipelines On BLM Lands In 

The East Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area, And Road Effects Zones Associated With 

These Fragments 

Fragment 

Categories 

All Fragments Fragments 250 Acres or Greater 

Number 

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Number

Average 

Size 

(acres) 

% of 

Total 

Area 

% Open to 

Minerals 

Development

Fragments 

created by 

roads or 

pipelines 867 545 99.7

PRMP:89.0

Alt A: 90.2

Alt B: 90.6

Alt C: 70.4

Alt D: 88.3

Alt E: 67.2

167 2,714 95.6 

PRMP:88.2

Alt A: 89.5

Alt B: 90.0

Alt C: 69.1

Alt D: 87.4

Alt E: 63.2

Fragments 

outside the 

660-foot road 

effects zone 562 702 83.1

PRMP:88.0

Alt A: 89.2

Alt B: 89.7

Alt C: 68.8

Alt D: 86.9

Alt E: 65.4

149 2,543 80.0 

PRMP:87.0

Alt A: 88.3

Alt B: 88.9

Alt C: 67.3

Alt D: 85.8

Alt E: 64.0

Fragments 

outside the 

1,320-foot 

road effects 

zone 

486 673 70.0

PRMP:86.9

Alt A: 88.2

Alt B: 88.8

Alt C: 67.0

Alt D: 86.4

Alt E: 63.6

140 2,235 66.0 

PRMP:86.1

Alt A: 87.6

Alt B: 88.1

Alt C: 65.5

Alt D: 85.5

Alt E: 62.1

Fragments 

outside the 

2,640-foot 

road effects 

zone 

387 577 47.0

PRMP:84.4

Alt A: 85.9

Alt B: 86.6

Alt C: 63.5

Alt D: 84.2

Alt E: 59.7

119 1,780 44.7 

PRMP:83.7

Alt A: 85.2

Alt B: 85.8

Alt C: 61.7

Alt D: 83.0

Alt E: 58.2
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-32

Table 32. Functional Habitat Loss Created By Proposed Roads And Pipelines On BLM 

Lands In The East Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area 

Proposed 

RMP Alternative A Alternative B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Road and 

Pipeline 

Densities (mi/mi2

) 

85.0 0.83 0.83 0.76 1.45 0.74

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss-660' 

zone 

90% 91% 91% 91% 83% 92%

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss1,320' zone 

82% 82% 82% 84% 69% 84%

Percent outside a 

Functional 

Habitat Loss2,640' zone 

66% 67% 67% 70% 47% 71%

East Tavaputs Plateau RFD Area (474,288 acres) 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-33

WILDLIFE

Table 33. Migratory Birds Species On The USFWS Species Of Concern List, State Of 

Utah Special Status Species List, And The Partners In Flight High-Priority Bird 

Species List 

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

USFWS 

Species 

of 

Concern

State of 

Utah 

Special 

Status 

Species

Partners 

in Flight 

HighPriority 

Bird 

Species

Primary 

Breeding 

Habitat 

Secondary 

Breeding 

Habitat 

Winter 

Habitat 

American 

Avocet 

Recurvirostra 

americana X X Wetland Playa Migrant 

American 

White Pelican 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos X X Water Wetland Migrant 

BlackChinned 

Sparrow 

Spizella 

atrogularis X Low Desert 

Scrub 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

Migrant 

Black-necked 

Stilt 

Himantopus 

mexicanus X Wetland Playa Migrant 

Blackthroated Gray 

Warbler 

Dendroica 

nigrescens X X PinyonJuniper 

Mountain 

Shrub Migrant 

Bobolink Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus X X Wet 

Meadow Agriculture Migrant 

Brewer’s 

Sparrow 

Spizella breweri 

X X Shrubsteppe 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

Migrant 

Broad-tailed 

Hummingbird 

Selasphorus 

platycercus X Lowland 

riparian 

Mountain 

Riparian Migrant 

Ferruginous 

Hawk 

Buteo regalis X X X PinyonJuniper 

Shrubsteppe Grassland 

Flammulated 

Owl 

Otus flammeolus X Ponderosa 

Pine 

Sub-Alpine 

Conifer Migrant 

Gambel’s 

Quail 

Callipepla 

gambelii X Low Desert 

Scrub 

Lowland 

riparian 

Low Desert 

Scrub 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 

X Cliff 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

Grey Vireo Vireo vicinior X X PinyonJuniper 

Northern 

Oak Migrant 

Greater 

sage-Grouse 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus X X X Shrubsteppe 

Shrubsteppe Shrubsteppe 

Lewis’ 

Woodpecker 

Melanerpes lewis X X X Ponderosa 

Pine 

Lowland 

riparian 

Northern 

Oak 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-34

Table 33. Migratory Birds Species On The USFWS Species Of Concern List, State Of 

Utah Special Status Species List, And The Partners In Flight High-Priority Bird 

Species List 

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

USFWS 

Species 

of 

Concern

State of 

Utah 

Special 

Status 

Species

Partners 

in Flight 

HighPriority 

Bird 

Species

Primary 

Breeding 

Habitat 

Secondary 

Breeding 

Habitat 

Winter 

Habitat 

Loggerhead 

Shrike 

Lanius 

ludovicianus X 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

PinyonJuniper 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

Long-billed 

Curlew 

Numenius 

americanus X X X Grassland Agriculture Migrant 

Mountain 

Plover 

Charadrius 

montanus X X 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

Migrant 

Northern 

Harrier 

Circus cyaneus 

X Wet 

Meadow 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

Agriculture 

Peregrine 

Falcon 

Falco peregrinus X Cliff Lowland 

riparian Wetland 

Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus X PinyonJuniper 

Ponderosa 

Pine 

PinyonJuniper 

Prairie 

Falcon 

Falco mexicanus 

X Cliff 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

Agriculture 

Pygmy 

Nuthatch 

Sitta pygmaea X Ponderosa 

Pine Aspen Ponderosa Pine 

Red-naped 

Sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus 

nuchalis X Aspen Mixed 

Conifer 

Mountain 

Riparian 

Sage 

Sparrow 

Amphispiza belli 

X X Shrubsteppe 

High 

Desert 

Scrub 

Low Desert 

Scrub 

Snowy plover Charadrius 

alexandrinus X Playa Playa Migrant 

Swainson’s 

Hawk 

Buteo swainsoni X Agriculture Aspen Migrant 

Three-toed 

Woodpecker 

Picoides 

tridactylus X X Sub-Alpine 

Conifer 

Lodgepole 

Pine 

Sub-Alpine 

Conifer 

Virginia’s 

Warbler 

Vermivora 

virginiae X X Northern 

Oak 

PinyonJuniper Migrant 

Williamson 

Sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus 

thyroideus X Sub-Alpine 

Conifer Aspen Migrant 

Wilson’s 

Phalarope 

Phalaropus 

tricolor X Wetland Water Migrant 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-35

Table 33. Migratory Birds Species On The USFWS Species Of Concern List, State Of 

Utah Special Status Species List, And The Partners In Flight High-Priority Bird 

Species List 

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

USFWS 

Species 

of 

Concern

State of 

Utah 

Special 

Status 

Species

Partners 

in Flight 

HighPriority 

Bird 

Species

Primary 

Breeding 

Habitat 

Secondary 

Breeding 

Habitat 

Winter 

Habitat 

Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo 

Coccyzus 

americanus X X X Lowland 

riparian Agriculture Migrant 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix H 

Vernal RMP H-36

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix I 

Vernal RMP I-1

APPENDIX I. VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) CLASS 

OBJECTIVES

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. 

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. 

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. 

Class IV – The objective 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. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix I 

Vernal RMP I-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
BEGINNING ENDING

DEER ANTELOPE ELK BH SHEEP MOOSE WILD 

HORSES * LENTIC * LOTIC EXCELLENT GOOD 

ANTELOPE DRAW 15854 I 7198 11/16 4/27 1381 2298 X 93 S 155 87 56928 4597 6 3970 19466 

ANTELOPE POWERS 15879 M 3091 1372 11/20 4/20 1046 2150 X 100 C/S 100 201 106 35697 4221 410 

ARGYLE RIDGE 7 04873 I 339 80 6/1 11/15 144 152 X 20 C 350 377 50 9081 1171 8294 3 

ASPHALT DRAW 08817 I 4343 1034 11/1 6/15 2340 2003 X 84 S 223 63 38057 5191 1253 96.3 5 1980 21596 

ATCHEE RIDGE AMP 08824 I 805 4/1 11/29 1597 3396 X 100 C 7560 3148 84827 15845 2249 803 278.9 34.9 21696 65596 

BADLANDS 05848 I 780 11/1 4/6 1/17 5/5 603 177 X 87 C 40 22 13422 2305 0 40 4471 

BAESER WASH 05832 M 1246 262 12/21 6/1 4/25 7/15 910 336 X 100 C/S 44 24 14732 1914 652 90.3 3.1 0 3104 

BEALER BASIN 14806 M 246 159 5/15 12/2 218 28 X 43 C 88 20 93 1812 1106 0.5 

BIG PACK MOUNTAIN 08821 C 1060 182 11/1 4/1 998 X 95 S 51 239 13633 907 7 80 0.3 0 13184 

BIG WASH 05881 M 980 11/16 3/10 653 326 X 85 C 157 69 126 4606 760 

BIG WASH DRAW 15885 M 516 11/1 2/28 236 312 X 90 C 204 30 241 7399 973 

BIRCHELL 08804 C 85 23 10/17 11/15 35 50 X 100 C 6 28 1692 5 2.8 0 0 

BLAIR BASIN 14824 C 15 6/1 10/31 7 8 X 5 C 36 5 34 2 303 1101 

BLIND CANYON 11

BLUE MOUNTAIN 15825 I 296 5/15 10/31 348 84 X 57 C/H 68 1145 653 0 935 

BOHEMIAN BOTTOMS 5840 I 617 356 11/16 4/16 1/15 10/31 382 239 X 100 C 29 16 9773 1082 689 2 1.4 3104 

BONANZA 15842 I 1939 707 12/5 5/5 1174 765 X 100 S 71 39 24377 3411 451 0.1 2144 

BOOKCLIFFS PASTURE 9 08828 M 301 7/1 10/30 311 X 100 C 1782 742 5125 18892 361 4396 

BREWER 08831 C 120 80 11/1 4/30 54 66 X 100 C 14 4 2770 23 15 7.3 1394 

BROWNS PARK 10 04806 C 530 12/1 4/30 X C 309 75 60 244 5 5521 1112 169 81 

BRIDGEPORT 14805 I 139 4/11 5/30 211 X 100 C 534 31 100 25 5 9128 882 705 10.1 3.5 

BRUSH CREEK 4858 I 870 11/11 5/6 2/19 6/5 691 168 X 100 C 902 2 219 13917 1563 659 293 10.4 0.4 

BULL CANYON 7 04878 M 1000 11/1 4/1 1000 X 100 C 215 31 83 227 5 15984 670 427 3.1 3.8 

CANAL 15816 I 224 12/1 2/10 152 16 X 63 C 41 40 15 2638 655 782 6.2 1.2 

CASTLE PEAK 05886 M 3632 1128 11/1 4/15 1991 1642 X 87 S 175 248 295 45113 6748 10 0 

CLAY BASIN 14802 I 384 11/1 5/1 12/30 6/1 379 30 X 100 C 600 150 210 104 5 4386 

CLAY BASIN MEADOWS 14804 I 365 5/1 6/19 261 103 X 78 C 73 60 150 20 4406 309 693 1.1 

COAL MINE BASIN 04855 M 707 11/15 5/1 12/29 6/14 641 67 X 100 C 355 2 140 1 4323 512 1474 11.2 1.4 

COCKLEBURR 05833 I 1729 95 12/21 4/30 847 882 X 100 C/S 55 30 18374 2475 747 0.1 4.9 0 10607 

COOPER DRAW 04835 M 344 5/16 10/30 218 126 X 76 S 208 50 298 30 2357 640 0.1 

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS 4853 M 945 382 11/20 12/30 800 145 X 100 C 515 25 685 10 13691 2569 212 1 0.6 0.8 

COVE & WEST COW 

HOLLOW 14817 C 277 6/1 10/31 269 8 X 18 C/H 120 15 84 10 2009 9 2546 

CURRANT CANYON 04877 M 193 240 11/1 3/30 162 79 X 100 C 315 10 179 28 30 5068 1849 193 0.3 

DAVIS CANYON 5 18823 I 334 450 4/1 11/29 X C 446 186 5175 901 79 888 

DEEP CREEK 04884 C 8 5/25 10/24 8 X 3 C 21 2 10 2 79 81 238 

DEVILS CANYON 7 04882 M 1368 1352 11/1 4/30 1192 165 X 100 C 227 30 101 120 14871 1920 248 0 

DIAMOND MOUNTAIN 04837 I 788 9/16 5/1 11/1 6/30 502 181 X 33 C 546 50 494 40 3 5787 2619 6700 2 0.8 

DIAMOND RIM 04861 C 120 5/1 10/31 5/31 11/30 120 X 100 C 201 174 4024 670 1.5 0.9 

DINOSAUR PARK 04867 C 103 11/1 4/15 12/31 5/15 66 38 X 100 C 129 25 36 1433 1180 464 0.1 

DOCS VALLEY 15821 I 1219 106 5/1 10/31 798 421 X 112 C/S/H 442 8431 571 2405 381 0.4 592 5986 DONKEY FLAT 04859 I 402 11/11 5/1 12/31 5/31 424 37 X 100 C 600 211 2 5100 310 104 399 0.3 3 

DRY CREEK 2

DRY FORK 04854 I 224 108 6/1 9/15 319 X 80 C 628 2 340 15 5 5213 1085 1229 3.8 0.9 

EAST COW HOLLOW 14822 C 50 6/1 10/31 50 X 13 C 29 10 32 652 1 1391 0 

EAST HUBER 15811 M 1043 166 11/26 4/1 612 432 X S 21 50 18 16733 2115 247 

EAST LITTLE MOUNTAIN 04845 M 265 70 5/15 9/27 256 8 X 67 C 298 2 180 10 2597 133 991 6.6 2.9 

EIGHT MILE FLAT 05887 M 2758 1508 11/1 4/1 1831 744 X 91 S 139 108 48 22917 2160 2476 35.8 14.2 

FIVE MILE 04874 M 1277 884 11/1 4/1 965 135 X 100 C 598 60 1487 9 30 11432 3611 578 

FLYNNS POINT 04889 C 35 5/15 10/5 35 X 10 C 25 2 20 253 656 898 

GADSEN DRAW 14810 C 88 7/1 10/15 70 18 X 10 C 94 10 122 1 1176 2768 

GADSEN 04881 C 26 23 5/16 10/18 27 X 5 C 108 10 124 1 481 39 2669 3.6 

* ALLOTMENT 

MANAGEMENT 

CATEGORY

% FEDERAL 

RANGE

REST 

ROTATION

FEDERAL OTHER

ALLOTMENT 

NUMBER ALLOTMENT NAME

* RIPARIAN 

INVENTORY 

(MILES/ACRES)

* FORAGE ALLOCATED TO OTHER SPECIES / USES

CONTINUOUS DEFERRED

* ECO

CURRENT GRAZING SYSTEM KIND OF LIVESTOCK

ALLOTMENT ACRES

1985 BOOKCL

C-cattle STATE PRIVATE TRIBAL

S-sheep 

H-horses

PERMITTED USE (AUMS)

PERIOD OF USE 10 YEAR AVERAGE ACTUAL USE

NON-USE

(AUMS)

MManagement 

I-Improve 

C-Custodial

ACTIVE SUSPENDED ACTUAL 

USE

(FEDERAL 
GARDNER 04836 C 8 6/1 8/25 8 X 14 C 117 119 201 0.1 

GOSLIN MOUNTAIN 14803 I 2521 5/1 9/30 1933 588 X 71 C 816 163 810 215 35 28018 4713 507 16465 126.6 9.6 

GREEN RIVER 3 M 185 10/15 2/1 X C 217 30 26 3 3706 

GREEN RIVER 15820 M 1171 210 11/1 4/16 2/7 5/7 817 355 X 100 C/S 217 30 26 3 18958 1412 454 294 20.6 6.6 972 7525 

GREEN RIVER AMP 08803 I 437 117 6/1 10/15 X 100 C 34 157 9294 289 3 504 418.1 8 2478 

GREEN RIVER BOTTOMS 15878 I 330 132 5/15 10/31 328 2 X 88 C 230 35 25 90 6263 477 82 217.6 1.6 

HACKING 04850 C 14 5/10 10/10 6/10 10/30 10 X 16 C 51 25 1 157 

HALFWAY HILL 15861 I 558 215 3/1 5/1 404 154 X 87 S 23 13 7682 1266 60 2.8 9 2633 

HALFWAY HOLLOW 15808 M 444 193 2/23 3/3 279 310 X 70 C 10 25 9173 1359 350 

HATCH COVE 04834 C 281 5/16 10/16 255 28 X 92/57 C 196 25 82 1 2917 316 427 

HATCHBROOME 

BARTHOLOMEW 08805 C 107 31 11/15 4/15 38 69 X 42 C 6 27 1346 67 245 1 0 573 

HELLS HOLE 4 08819 M 3499 487 12/1 4/30 2103 1896 X 82 S 153 43 23286 1248 5793 95 54.6 4.6 209 12298 

HOLMES-PALMER 15810 C 115 156 4/1 4/12 57 2 X 37 S 92 4 10 1199 3130 293 

HORNED TOAD 05855 I 2237 12/1 5/1 775 1462 X 100 S 40 22 14144 1553 

HORSE POINT 9 08825 I 2465 11/16 4/30 1462 974 X 100 C 1740 703 247 33114 4860 1 269 3 2019 11259 

HORSESHOE BEND 05814 C 145 10/1 3/31 86 59 X 100 C 103 6 2204 183 481 1.3 

HOY FLAT 2

HOY MOUNTAIN 14815 M 568 5/16 10/30 486 71 X 76 C/H 184 10 195 10 3524 441 1421 4.4 0.2 

ISLAND PARK 04870 C 35 11/1 4/30 19 14 X 33 C 484 25 517 175 5 7286 1213 157 3 1.6 

JACKS0N-CROUSECYN-D 

HOLOW 14812 C 946 5/10 10/28 951 X 33 C 662 30 512 53 33 9353 2591 6559 23 14.6 

JENSEN 15836 I 685 78 10/27 5/15 640 46 X 95 C/S 26 15 6022 828 3469 4.6 410 

JOHNSON 04851 C 86 5/20 11/1 6/19 11/30 88 0 X 100 C 62 2 81 2 808 118 196 0.1 

KANE HOLLOW 15837 I 428 114 11/1 4/30 381 59 X 95 C/S 22 12 7386 334 1105 0.7 0.7 4708 997 

K RANCH 5 06307 C 238 180 10/1 4/1 5/1 X C 21 12 4365 176 3745 2 3665 

KYUNE 3 04128 M 53 6/1 10/30 X C 149 92 4 1235 

LAMBSN-CRSRSVR-DVSDR 14818 M 572 5/6 9/1 7/5 11/05 398 174 X 22 S 221 10 120 5 7202 2756 685 5 

LEARS CANYON 4875 M 308 130 6/1 7/15 103 77 X 100 C 290 2 141 30 9039 785 884 15.5 1.3 

LITTLE BRUSH CREEK 04865 C 6 10/1 11/30 6 X 100 H 10 3 53 

LITTLE DESERT 05880 M 2564 1240 11/5 4/23 1257 1001 X 100 S 50 119 94 45 0 43460 5900 1.1 

LITTLE EMMA 15852 I 3624 11/27 4/30 1626 1998 X 100 C 113 63 38472 4030 2247 33 241.6 24.1 249 25377 

LITTLE HOLE 14811 I 330 5/16 10/15 321 11 X 100 C 1015 220 30 6775 1086 1 2.2 

LOG CABIN 04830 C 58 6/1 10/15 58 X 100 S 29 31 13 615 115 

LOWER MCCOOK 08823 I 801 11/1 4/30 445 356 X 72 C 658 274 8226 761 1 6.3 0.8 

LOWER SHOWALTER 

(Wildhorse Bench) 08811 C 1426 2/16 4/15 1426 X 100 C 71 332 16772 3237 1505 5963 

MAIL DRAW 14826 M 86 5/16 10/31 132 X 37 C 31 5 45 766 5 351 

MAME HOLE-BEAR 

HOLLOW 04816 C 140 5/10 10/26 129 11 X 31 C 87 5 70 10 1445 1424 5 

MARSHALL DRAW 1 14814 I C 302 5 233 25 5384 2927 458 0.4 

MAX CANYON 8 14073

MCCLELLAND 9 08826 C 1401 5/1 10/30 348 1053 X 21 C 4295 1790 15044 43544 137 8.1 2197 10043 

MCCOY FLAT 05805 M 843 12 11/16 4/1 270 573 X 87 C/S 332 19 12499 4933 1200 4.9 0.1 

MCFARLEY FLAT 04863 I 408 4/8 10/19 5/8 12/23 340 68 X 100 C 408 36 47 7375 167 258 0.1 1.8 

MINERS GULCH 15838 C 154 27 5/1 11/15 5/6 11/15 135 30 X 100 C 12 7 4380 282 591 

MOSBY 04847 C 220 4 6/1 9/1 7/31 9/28 228 1 X 70/100 C 309 4 278 20 2255 267 101 5.7 1.4 

NATURAL LAKE 14820 C 100 6/1 11/1 98 2 X 100 C 50 5 54 6 837 1 1980 

OFFIELD MOUNTAIN 2

OIL SHALE 08813 C 1137 11/15 4/15 426 711 X 22 S 144 677 14990 3443 22856 50 7147 

OLSEN AMP 08816 I 9268 1425 11/1 6/15 2815 6543 X 100 S 674 190 103239 29026 2030 11 115.4 24.3 731 49799 

OURAY ROAD 15802 M 567 257 11/1 4/1 386 181 X 94 C 134 50 11022 555 955 6 9.1 

OURAY VALLEY 15815 C 26 10/15 11/25 11 15 X 50 C 31 12 416 270 3.1 2.4 

PADDYS GAP 04860 I 291 12/6 4/12 1/25 4/30 196 91 X 100 C/S 529 150 3670 317 184 

PARK CANYON 4 06353 I 584 4/10/ 10/1 6/5/ 1/30 X 1495 622 12263 3927 4253 

PARLEYS CANYON 7 04883 M 494 11/1 4/25 213 279 X 100 C 404 390 41 60 14608 1168 823 0.3 1.6 

PELICAN LAKE 05812 M 544 4/3 4/28 258 290 X 88 C 93 25 0 6279 707 534 28.9 1.3 

PERRY 04852 M 66 5/1 6/30 43 23 X 31 C 206 168 10 1417 934 1998 0.6 

POINT OF PINES 15822 I 789 5/10 10/10 1103 314 X 98 C 236 4203 1142 721 229 2.1 0.5 530 2383 

POWDER WASH 15857 I 2100 2307 3/1 4/15 1339 761 X 89 S 68 38 22592 3512 680 0.1 2.1 9665 
POWELL-SADLIER 04872 C 122 4/16 5/20 116 6 X 100 C 93 14 4 1372 1 7 0.5 

RAVEN RIDGE 4 15851 I 990 326 12/5 5/5 612 500 X 81 S 28 15 9023 1207 754 685 

RED CREEK FLAT 1 04809 I 100 C 797 30 90 15 3 8171 1509 18.1 1.4 

RED MOUNTAIN 04857 C 276 5/1 9/1 6/10 12/25 240 34 X 78 C 618 2 400 10 7456 1090 2556 576 3.6 1.1 

RICH & STETSON 15801 C 63 28 11/1 11/13 28 14 X 100 S 8 12 511 23 46 10.6 

RUPLE CABIN 14833 I 1763 10 6/1 10/15 881 882 X 80 C 384 50 408 40 20 12000 982 2083 46 3.6 2.2 

RYE GRASS 1 14807 I 100 C 631 5 177 35 13 3460 1683 46 0.8 

S.J. HATCH 04862 C 1027 60 5/1 10/15 6/1 12/13 764 167 X 68 C/S 1108 50 439 2 24175 3889 1075 18.6 2.4 

SAND WASH 08818 M 4526 1350 11/30 4/30 2039 2487 X 76 C 373 105 137 2.7 1.2 28947 

SANTIO SIBELLO 08806 C 96 16 11/1 2/28 29 67 X 100 C 8 36 2192 2 25 0.4 1390 

SCHOOL BUS DRAW 04838 C 180 5/15 7/26 113 67 X 100 C 75 5 98 2 1513 656 4.1 

SERVICEBERRY SPRING 04828 C 113 5/16 10/31 116 X 26 C 121 5 35 2 2033 692 2846 0.4 

SEARS CANYON 1 14809 I 5/10 9/10 6/20 10/10 C 422 5 245 150 14 4940 1073 81 8.2 3 

SEVEN SISTERS 15845 I 1734 11/1 4/15 1734 X 100 S 49 27 17051 2195 39 108.8 11.3 2317 7315 

SHINDY 04849 M 68 5/1 5/31 76 10 X 100 C 278 2 96 2 2897 330 12 0.7 

SHINER UTAH 04869 M 3000 11/1 4/30 1443 1557 X 90 C 866 124 1178 50 12 38499 3869 2125 18.3 8.8 

SHINER-COLO 6 04842 C 177 5/16 10/25 113 64 X 16 C 480 

SMELTER SPRINGS 04848 C 24 6/1 10/1 24 X 15 C 31 48 2 380 81 281 0.8 0.4 

SNAKE JOHN 15860 I 1164 283 3/1 3/28 634 530 X 87 S 27 15 9282 1292 106 712 

SOUTH POT CREEK 2

SOUTHAM CANYON 15843 M 1315 11/1 4/1 620 695 X 100 S 69 19 12702 647 469 8 28.9 2.4 

SPRING CREEK 04856 C 196 5/1 11/15 6/9 12/16 102 94 X 75 C 441 2 74 50 10 4262 1902 1663 34.7 1 

SPRING HOLLOW 15862 I 311 11/14 12/30 311 75 X 91 C 13 7 4524 604 98 0.2 268 1372 

STATELINE 4 15863 M 1288 553 12/5 5/1 1285 383 X 54 S 102 57 21840 9232 8739 326 32 3 1521 4300 

STIRRUP 15847 I 413 3/15 5/1 6/2 10/15 314 97 X 100 C 8 4 2723 328 288 179.5 1.1 634 

STONE CABIN 3 04109 I 2 5/1 9/30 X C 35 4 20 320 

STUNTZ VALLEY 15824 I 338 6/1 10/3 908 276 X 87 C 184 3279 780 668 174 3239 

SULFUR CANYON 3 04111 C 158 5/1 10/15 X C 260 198 12 4116 

SUNDAY SCHOOL CANYON 08814 I 3671 665 11/1 4/30 2911 760 X 100 C 259 72 40445 3666 159 1.9 4370 15914 

SWEET WATER 9 08822 I 6527 1539 5/1 10/31 3342 3185 X 72 C 7648 3185 85478 15763 3204 130 22.8 17284 50741 

TAYLOR FLAT 1 04808 I 100 C 668 3 24 18 5284 1762 316 10.1 5.7 

THORNE-UTE-BROOME 08812 C 248 44 11/1 2/28 98 150 X 100 C 19 89 3699 905 76 761 0.7 3 

THREE CORNERS 14800 M 167 8/1 9/27 170 X 50 C 58 40 130 10 1056 350 766 

TWELVE MILE 15813 M 316 58 2/9 2/21 209 111 X 100 C 55 103 27 4861 540 

TWIN KNOLLS 04891 M 596 396 11/1 4/30 333 263 X 100 C 129 77 92 45 6043 927 

UTE 08809 C 1464 11/1 4/30 1464 X 100 C 27 126 6536 244 637 263 199 3059 

WALKER HOLLOW 05839 M 753 11/15 1/31 678 75 X 93 C 27 15 9380 1111 26 4.6 0.4 110 264 

WARREN DRAW NORTH 14813 C 190 5/15 10/31 108 82 X 100 C 189 10 140 25 10 7312 2746 3311 

WARREN DRAW SOUTH 1 14827 I C 148 10 110 10 10 3186 406 1496 2235 

WATER CANYON #1 7 04876 I 153 82 6/15 10/10 154 X C 76 126 10 1131 604 2535 0.3 

WATER CANYON #2 7 04879 C 102 260 2/15 3/31 36 66 X 66 C 197 16 92 30 4039 1765 1006 

WATSON BOOK CLIFFS 08815 I 1258 547 11/15 4/30 861 397 X 43 S 127 36 10654 1231 13540 40.1 3.5 2357 3662 

WATSON DIAMOND MTN 

1

24804 I C 1826 2 45 32 3 6702 765 10 548 

WELLS DRAW 15884 M 814 406 11/1 4/15 277 263 X 100 C/S 32 79 303 2 9599 1284 40 

WEST DEADMAN 05841 M 1942 320 7/16 11/1 8/30 4/30 1132 810 X 100 C/S 74 41 25154 3916 70 2 13663 

WEST HUBER 15803 M 402 61 11/1 5/30 350 52 X 76 C 62 25 10 4008 968 2357 66.5 2.8 

WEST LITTLE MOUNTAIN 04846 M 121 6/5 10/16 6/18 11/29 67 X 29 C 144 2 288 30 20 1036 393 1740 0.4 0.1 

WEST PELICAN LAKE 04886 C 251 11/1 3/31 251 X 100 C 21 9 2141 78 53.9 

WEST POT CREEK 04829 C 107 5/18 10/17 107 X 17 C/H 125 5 114 2 1401 1475 0.3 

WEST WATER POINT 9 08833 M 425 7/1 10/30 88 337 X 100 C 460 192 5853 444 66 3542 

WETLANDS 15877 I 1099 567 3/1 2/28 727 372 X 79 C 226 78 30 3 16656 1768 39 1053.1 8.5 

WHITE RIVER 08829 C 141 3/1 4/30 99 42 X 30 S 11 3 484 210 1285 137 2.3 283 

WHITE RIVER BOTTOMS 15850 I 480 85 6/1 10/15 441 31 X 100 C 454 2500 3040 360 

WILD MOUNTAIN-COLO 2

WILDHORSE BENCH 08808 I 2303 3/25 5/15 655 1324 X 100 S 87 4 381 24435 1659 22 2.6 177 20858 
WILKERSON 04887 C 14 6/1 10/1 12 2 X 100 C 16 2 7 2 193 30 

WILLOW CREEK 6 14801 I 509 7/15 10/1 8/15 11/15 447 155 X 35 C 160 75 300 35 20 6299 3820 2100 6.2 

WILLOW SPRING 04885 C 85 6/1 9/2 85 X 55 C 82 2 32 5 5 862 545 0.7 0.5 

WINTER RIDGE AMP 9 08827 I 1993 374 11/16 4/30 2022 X 60 C 3088 1286 33957 7520 710 7.1 3.3 140 25390 

YOUNG 15809 M 535 252 3/5 3/30 198 347 X 89 C 75 25 0 7937 963 875 4.7 0.4 

TOTALS 137897 26364 78500 59204 60927 4096 28829 2082 673 2339 1691116 328082 190141 5717 21947 3575.6 320.8 68794 496060 

DRY CREEK 2 04890 C 275 0 5/16 10/30 214 62 X 63 C/H 6201 806 

HOY FLAT 2 04840 C 336 0 5/11 6/11 335 1 X 50/100 C 203 103

OFFIELD MOUNTAIN 2 04841 C 255 0 5/11 10/31 167 88 X 38 C 2477 1099

SOUTH POT CREEK 2 04843 I 734 0 6/17 10/21 293 441 X 100 C 2046 726 

WILD MOUNTAIN-COLO 2 04844 C 329 65 5/24 9/6 358 34 X 84 C 125 0 48 50 5503 1163 75 

1929 65 1367 626 285 125 0 48 50 16430 1163 2809

MAX CANYON 8 14073 C 20 10 11/1 11/30 20 0 X 100 C 19 0 0 10 0 312 0 

TABYAGO 08801 I 55 31631 905 0 3273 17432 

Note: All of this information is combined with Wild Horse Bench allotment.

WILD HORSE BENCH 

BONANZA PASTURE #3 08807 M 324 3/25 5/15 X 100 S 7 4 2243 604 22 177 14895 

1- Allotments where preference is retired or non-renewable.2- The grazing administration of these allotments is the responsibility of the Vernal Field Office. Since these allotments are entirely within the Little Snake Field Office boundary, planning is the responsibility of the Little Snake Field Office. (As per the 1968 M.O.U. between the BLM State Director of Colorado and the BLM S

3- The grazing administration of these allotments is the responsibility of the Price Field Office. Planning for the portions of these allotments within the Price Field Office Boundary is the responsibility of the Price Field Office. Planning for the portions of these allotments within the Vernal Field Office Boundary is the responsib

4- The grazing administation of these allotments is the responsibility of the Vernal Field Office. Planning for the portions of these allotments within Colorado is the responsibility of the White River Field Office. Planning for the portions of these allotments within Utah are the responsibility of the Vernal Field Office. (As per the 5- The grazing admistration of these allotments is the responsibility of the White River Field Office. Planning for the portion of these allotments within Colorado is the responsibility of the White River Field Office. Planning for the portions of these allotments within Utah are the responsibility of the Vernal Field Office (As per 

6- The grazing administration of these allotments is the responsibility of the Vernal Field Office. Planning for the portions of these allotments within the Vernal Field Office Boundary is the responsibility of Vernal Field Office. Planning for the portions of these allotments within the Little Snake Field Office Boundary is the respRiparian / Wetland Definition: (See RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT TR1737-9 1993, Page 1.) * RIPARIAN INVENTORY (See RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT TR1737-15 1998) and (RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT TR1737-16, 1999). Definition: 1) LENTIC - Standing water habitat such as lakes, ponds, seeps a*ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORY (See Diamond Mountain RMP and EIS, Volume I, Appendix 8, Page A8.37)* FORAGE ALLOCATED TO OTHER SPECIES/ USES: (1) 1994 Diamond Mountain RMP allocates wildlife AUM's by allotment and (2) 1985 Book Cliffs RMP allocates wildlife AUM's by locality/herd unit; however, in this table, wildlife AUM's are calculated by allotment. This was determined based on acreage of the allotm

7- The grazing administation of these allotments is the responsibility of the Vernal Field Office. The planning for the portions of these allotments within the Vernal Field Office Boundary is the responsibility of Vernal Field Office. The planning for the portions of these allotments within the Price Field Office Boundary is the res

8- The grazing administration of these allotments is the responsibility of the Vernal Field Office. Since there is no public land within the Vernal Field Office boundary planning is the responsibility of the Price Field Office . 9- The grazing administration and planning of these allotments is the responsibility of the Vernal Field Office. (As per the 1976 and the 1983 M.O.U.s between the Moab District (Moab Field Office) and the Vernal District (Vernal Field Office.)10- The grazing administation of these allotments is the responsibility of the Little Snake Field Office. Planning for the portions of these allotments within the Vernal Field Office Boundary is the responsibility of Vernal Field Office. Planning for the portions of these allotments within the Little Snake Field Office Boundary is th11- The grazing administration of these allotments is the responsibility of the Price Field Office. Since there is no public land within the Vernal Field Office boundary planning is the responsibility of the Price Field Office . * ECOLOGICAL CONDITION / SUCCESSION: Diamond Mountain (See Diamond Mountain RMP and EIS Volume I, Appendix 8, Page A8.1). Book Cliffs: (See Ecological Condition in R.O.D. and Rangeland Program Summary for Book Cliffs RMP, Glossary Page 82).

* RANGELAND HEALTH STANDARDS (See RANGELAND HEALTH STANDARDS IN APPENDIX ? )
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix K 

APPENDIX K. SURFACE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL

SURFACE-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES 

This appendix lists by alternative surface stipulations referred to throughout this RMP and EIS. 

Surface stipulations would be appended, where applicable, to land use authorizations, permits, 

and leases issued on BLM administered lands. 

DESCRIPTION OF SURFACE STIPULATIONS

Table 1 shows resources of concern and stipulation/s including exceptions, modifications, and 

waiver by alternative. 

Three surface stipulations could be applied to land use authorizations: (1) no surface occupancy 

(NSO), (2) timing limitation (TL), and (3) controlled surface use (CSU). 

Areas identified, as NSO would be closed to any surface disturbing activity, such as oil and gas 

wells, guzzler development, recreation facility or trail construction, range improvements, etc., 

unless specific program decisions within the RMP exempt surface disturbing activities from the 

decision. NSO areas would be avoidance areas for location of public utilities and closed to new 

road construction. 

Areas identified for TL stipulations would be closed to surface disturbing activities during the 

identified time frames. Timing limitation stipulation areas would be open to operational and 

maintenance activities, including associated vehicle travel, during the closed period unless 

otherwise specified in the stipulation. 

Areas identified as controlled CSU would require surface disturbing activities be authorized only 

according to the controls or constraints specified. Controls would be applicable to all surface use 

activities such as identified above. CSU areas would be open to public utilities. 

EXCEPTIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND WAIVERS

Surface stipulations could be excepted, modified, or waived by the authorized officer. An 

exception exempts the holder of the land use authorization document from the stipulation on a 

one-time basis. A modification changes the language or provisions of a surface stipulation, 

either temporarily or permanently. A waiver permanently exempts the surface stipulation. The 

environmental analysis document prepared for proposed surface disturbing activity also would 

need to address proposals to exempt, modify, or waive a surface stipulation. To exempt, modify, 

or waive a stipulation, the environmental analysis document would have to show that (1) the 

circumstances or relative resource values in the area had changed following issuance of the lease, 

(2) less restrictive requirements could be developed to protect the resource of concern, and (3) 

operations could be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts. 

Vernal RMP K-1

 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Cultural Resources 

Uinta foothills area TL/CSU/NSO X X X The area would be open for 

other surface disturbing activand controlled surface-use sSurface Occupancy (NSO). Exception: Permit excavatiosites in NSO areas. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Cultural Resources 

Uinta foothills area NSO X X The area would be closed to 

Other surface disturbing actito No Surface Occupancy. Exception: Permit excavatiosites. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Cultural Resources 

Uinta foothills area X Open to surface disturbing a

Cultural Resources 

Little Hole and Devils Hole areas 

CSU/TL X Surface disturbing activities 

controlled surface use stipulaException: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Vernal RMP 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Cultural Resources 

Little Hole and Devils Hole areas 

NSO X X The area would be closed to 

Other surface disturbing actito No Surface Occupancy. Exception: Permit excavatiosites. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Cultural Resources 

Little Hole and Devils Hole areas 

X X X Open to surface disturbing a

Cultural Resources 

Upper Willow Creek area of the Book Cliffs 

TL/CSU X X X X X To preserve the unique repre

Archaic period, the surface dwould be subject to timing anuse stipulations. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Cultural Resources 

Upper Willow Creek area of the Book Cliffs 

X Open to surface disturbing a
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Cultural Resources 

Four Mile Wash area (Section 18, T10S, R19E) 

TL/CSU/NSO X X To protect traditional sacred 

would be open for oil and gasurface disturbing activities scontrolled surface-use stipulOccupancy (NSO). Exception: Permit excavatiosites in NSO areas. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Cultural Resources 

Four Mile Wash area (Section 18, T10S, R19E) 

NSO X X To protect traditional sacred 

would be closed to oil and gasurface disturbing activities wSurface Occupancy. Exception: Permit excavatiosites. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Cultural Resources 

Four Mile Wash area (Section 18, T10S, R19E) 

X X Open to surface disturbing a
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Lands and Realty 

Planning Area Wide NSO X X X X X Recreation & Public Purpose

would be administratively unopen to leasing subject to No (NSO) stipulations. Exception: Surface use couconcurrence of the R&PP hoModification: None Waiver: None 

Lands and Realty 

Diamond Mountain Planning Area 

X Unspecified for Recreation & 

(R&PP) lease areas. 

Lands and Realty 

Book Cliffs Planning Area 

X Unspecified for Recreation & 

(R&PP) lease areas. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Air Quality Planning Area Wide X X X X X All new and replacement inte

field engines of less than or rated horsepower must not eNOx per horsepower-hour. 

Exception: This requiremenfield engines of less than or horsepower. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Air Quality Planning Area Wide X X X X X All and replacement internal 

engines of greater than 300 horsepower must not emit mNOx per horsepower-hour. 

Exception: None. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Air Quality Diamond Mountain 

Planning Area 

X Unspecified for new and rep

combustion gas field engines

Air Quality Book Cliffs Planning 

Area 

X Unspecified for new and rep

combustion gas field engines
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Non-WSA areas with Wilderness Characteristics 

Beach Draw, Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, Stuntz Draw, Vivas Cake Hill, White River, Wild Mountain 

NSO X Closed to oil and gas leasing

River area that would be opemajor constraints, such as aClosed to solid mineral leasiClosed to disposal of mineraClosed to woodland product Avoidance area for rights-of-OHVs would be limited to deNo motorized vehicles would a single path up to 300 feet fto access a camp. Retain public lands in federaWhen compatible with the gomanagement of non-WSA lacharacteristics: Permit vegetation and fuel trprescribed fire, mechanical atreatments, and other actionHealthy Lands Initiative (HLIException: White River area 

leasing, subject to NSO stipuconstruction of wildlife water and minimal recreation facilitreasonable access to non-BModification: None
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Waiver: None 

Non-WSA areas with Wilderness Characteristics 

Beach Draw, Bitter Creek, Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Cripple Cowboy, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse Pass, Desolation Canyon, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Hells Hole Canyon, Hideout Canyon, Lower Bitter Creek, Lower Flaming Gorge, Mexico Point, Moonshine Draw, Mountain Home, Rat Hole Ridge, Stuntz Draw, Sweet Water Canyon, Vivas Cake Hill, White River, Wild Mountain, and Wolf Point. 

NSO X Closed to OHV use (Figure 2

Closed to oil and gas leasing Closed to solid mineral leasiClosed to disposal of mineraProposed for withdrawal from Retain public lands in federaAvoidance area for ROWs Closed to permitted commerwood cutting and seed collecClosed to new road construcPermit maintenance of existiWhen compatible with the gomanagement of non-WSA lacharacteristics: Permit vegetation and fuel trprescribed fire. Permit construction of wildlife facilities, and minimal recrea

Permit excavation of cultural Permit excavation of paleontNo actions would be allowed 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

wilderness characteristics. Exception: Permit constructlivestock facilities, and minimPermit vegetation and fuel trprescribed fire. Permit excavpaleontological resources sitreasonable access to non-BModification: None Waiver: None 

Non-WSA areas with Wilderness Characteristics 

X X X X No specific actions are spec

protect the wilderness charalands with wilderness charac

Recreation Brown’s Park SRMA X X X Open to surface disturbing aRecreation Brown’s Park SRMA NSO X X X The south side of the river be

Fire Flat extending around thsubdivision to Rye Grass Draclosed to surface disturbing Exception: An exemption w

disturbance complemented robjectives. Modification: None Waiver: None 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Recreation White River SRMA NSO X No surface disturbing activiti

from the centerline of the Whmile on either side of the riveenters Section 28, T10S R23Section 18, T10S R23E. Exception: An exemption wdisturbance complemented robjectives. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Recreation White River SRMA X X X X Unspecified Recreation White River SRMA X No SRMA designation. Special Designations 

Bitter Creek ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Zero acres would be open to terms and conditions of the sApproximately 68,674 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 160 acres wosubject to major constraints stipulations. Approximately 400 acres wounavailable for leasing. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Designations 

Bitter Creek ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 207 acres wosubject to the terms and conlease form. Approximately 10,323 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 459 acres wosubject to major constraints stipulations. Approximately 57,744 acres administratively unavailable 

Special Designations 

Bitter Creek ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X Same as described in Alt. C 

prescriptions for non-WSA lacharacteristics: Closed to OHV use Closed to oil and gas leasing Closed to solid mineral leasiClosed to disposal of mineraExclusion area for rights-of-wClosed to permitted commerwood cutting and seed collecClosed to road construction 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Permit maintenance of existiWhen compatible with the gomanagement of non-WSA lacharacteristics: Permit vegetation and fuel trprescribed fire Permit construction of wildlife facilities, and minimal recreaPermit excavation of cultural Permit excavation of paleontNo actions would be allowed wilderness characteristics of with wilderness characteristiException: Permit constructlivestock facilities, and minimPermit vegetation and fuel trprescribed fire. Permit excavpaleontological resources sitreasonable access to non-BModification: None Waiver: None 

Special Designations 

Brown’s Park ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Zero acres would be open to terms and conditions of the sApproximately 3,137 acres w
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

subject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surApproximately 5,014 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Approximately 10,188 acres administratively unavailable 

Special Designations 

Brown’s Park ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X X For oil and gas leasing: 

Zero acres would be open to terms and conditions of the sApproximately 27,969 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 6,415 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Approximately 17,996 acres administratively unavailable 

Special Designations 

Brown’ Park ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 2,152 acres wsubject to the terms and conlease form. Approximately 7,191 acres wsubject to moderate constrai
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

limitations and controlled surApproximately 6,857 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Approximately 2,135 acres wadministratively unavailable 

Special Designations 

Brown’s Park ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 2,178 acres wsubject to the terms and conlease form. Approximately 18,479 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 25,019 acres leasing subject to major consstipulations. Approximately 6,706 acres wadministratively unavailable 

Special Designations 

Brown’s Park ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 273 acres wosubject to the terms and conlease form. Approximately 10,966 acres leasing subject to moderate 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

timing limitations and controApproximately 6,237 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Approximately 34,907 acres administratively unavailable The Alternative E managemeBitter Creek ACEC descriptioentitled “All or portions of the WSA lands with wilderness c

Special Designations 

Coyote Basin ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 83,250 acres leasing subject to the terms standard lease form. Approximately 4,312 acres wsubject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surApproximately 99 acres wousubject to major constraints stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Designations 

Coyote Basin ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 47,282 acres leasing subject to the terms standard lease form. Approximately 248 acres wosubject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surApproximately 110 acres wosubject to major constraints stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 

Special Designations 

Coyote Basin ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 94,821 acres leasing subject to the terms standard lease form. Approximately 23,104 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 5,325 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Designations 

Coyote Basin ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 94,821 acres leasing subject to the terms standard lease form. Approximately 23,104 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 5,325 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 

Special Designations 

Coyote Basin ACEC X Unspecified in current mana

Special Designations 

Four Mile Wash ACEC 

X The area would be closed to 

Special Designations 

Four Mile Wash ACEC 

X Same as for Alt. C, plus the A

management prescriptions in description under the bullet eof the ACEC contain non-WSwilderness characteristics:” a
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Designations 

Lower Green River Corridor and Lower Green River Expansion 

TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing within 

Corridor: Zero acres would be open to terms and conditions of the sApproximately 71 acres wousubject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surApproximately 8,079 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. Surface disturbing activities River Corridor and Lower Grwould be subject to NSO witone-half mile from the centewhichever is less for both areException: An exemption wdisturbance complemented robjectives. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Special Designations 

Lower Green River Corridor and Lower 

NSO X X The area would be managed 

leasing within line of sight or 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Green River Expansion 

from the centerline of the riveboth areas. Exception: An exemption w

disturbance complemented robjectives. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Special Designations 

Lower Green River Corridor and Lower Green River Expansion 

TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing within 

Corridor: Zero acres would be open to terms and conditions of the sApproximately 71 acres wousubject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surApproximately 8,079 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 

Special Designations 

Lower Green River Corridor and Lower Green River Expansion 

TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing within 

Corridor: Zero acres would be open to terms and conditions of the sApproximately 71 acres wou
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

subject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surApproximately 8,079 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 

Special Designations 

Lower Green River Corridor and Lower Green River Expansion 

TL/CSU/NSO X Same as Alt. C. The Alterna

prescriptions in the Bitter Creunder the bullet entitled “All ocontain non-WSA lands with characteristics:” apply. 

Special Designations 

Main Canyon ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 5,198 acres wsubject to the terms and conlease form. Approximately 38,255 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 240 acres wosubject to major constraints stipulations. Approximately 57,152 acres administratively unavailable 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Designations 

Main Canyon ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X Same as Alt. C. The Alterna

prescriptions in the Bitter Creunder the bullet entitled “All ocontain non-WSA lands with characteristics:” apply. 

Special Designations 

Middle Green River ACEC 

TL/CSU X X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 4,858 acres wsubject to the terms and conlease form. Approximately 128 acres wosubject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surZero acres would be open to major constraints such as NSZero acres would be adminisleasing. 

Special Designations 

Nine Mile Canyon TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 26,736 acres leasing subject to the terms standard lease form. Approximately 209 acres wosubject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surApproximately 17,198 acres leasing subject to major cons
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 

Special Designations 

Nine Mile Canyon TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 27,109 acres leasing subject to the terms standard lease form. Approximately 342 acres wosubject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surApproximately 20,487 acres leasing subject to major consstipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 

Special Designations 

Nine Mile Canyon TL/CSU/NSO X X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 15,274 acres leasing subject to the terms standard lease form. Approximately 21,022 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 7,848 acres wsubject to major constraints 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 

Special Designations 

Nine Mile Canyon TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 49,182 acres leasing subject to the terms standard lease form. Approximately 19,032 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 1,374 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Approximately 10,059 acres administratively unavailable 

Special Designations 

Nine Mile Canyon TL/CSU/NSO X Same as Alt. C. The Alterna

prescriptions in the Bitter Creunder the bullet entitled “All ocontain non-WSA lands with characteristics:” apply. 

Special Designations 

Red Creek Watershed ACEC 

TL/CSU/NSO X X X X The area would be open to m

such as timing limitations anand major constraints such a
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Designations 

Red Creek Watershed ACEC 

NSO X The area would be open to m

as NSO stipulations. 

Special Designations 

Red Creek Watershed ACEC 

TL/CSU/NSO X Same as the Proposed Plan

management prescriptions in description under the bullet eof the ACEC contain non-WSwilderness characteristics:” a

Special Designations 

Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex ACEC 

TL/CSU/NSO X X X X X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 495 acres wosubject to the terms and conlease form. Approximately 21,994 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 1,988 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Designations 

Red Mountain – Dry Fork Complex ACEC 

TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Zero acres would be open to terms and conditions of the sApproximately 19,955 acres leasing subject to moderate timing limitations and controApproximately 4,027 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. 

Special Designations 

White River ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 1,438 acres wsubject to the terms and conlease form. Approximately 7,371 acres wsubject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surApproximately 8,993 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Zero acres would be adminisleasing. NSO would be withicenterline, up to one-half milriver. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Designations 

White River ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X For oil and gas leasing: 

Approximately 27,087 acres leasing subject to the terms standard lease form. Approximately 6,683 acres wsubject to moderate constrailimitations and controlled surApproximately 6,380 acres wsubject to major constraints stipulations. Approximately 6,893 acres wadministratively unavailable NSO would be within line of centerline, up to one-half milriver. 

Special Designations 

White River ACEC TL/CSU/NSO X Same as Alt. C. The Alterna

prescriptions in the Bitter Creunder the bullet entitled “All ocontain non-WSA lands with characteristics:” apply. 

Light and Sound 

Sensitive Areas CSU X X X Minimize noise and light poll

e.g. special status species hgrounds, and river corridors technology such as installatipumps, hospital sound reducplacement of exhaust system
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

from the protection area/resothere would be a requiremenpollution by using methods slight poles, timing of lighting limiting lighting to times of dadrilling and work over or mailimiting wattage intensity, anshields. However, this requirif it affects human health and Exception: An exception madetermination is made that nsheds would meet these mitihuman health and safety weModification: None Waiver: None 

Light and Sound 

Areas Adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument 

NSO X X There would no surface occu

Dinosaur National Monumennoise and light pollution adjaNational Monument. Additiorequirement to reduce light pmethods such as limiting heiof lighting operations (meanitimes of darkness associated over or maintenance operatiintensity, and constructing ligthis requirement is not applichealth and safety. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Exception: An exemption mdetermined that technology smulti-cylinder pumps, hospitamufflers, and placement of edirect noise away from the mmitigation objectives or if humwere adversely affected. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Light and Sound 

Areas Adjacent to Dinosaur National Monument 

CSU X X X Minimize noise and light poll

Dinosaur National Monumentechnology such as installatipumps, hospital sound reducplacement of exhaust systemfrom the monument. Additiorequirement to reduce light pmethods such as limiting heiof lighting operations (meanitimes of darkness associated over or maintenance operati

intensity, and constructing ligthis requirement is not applichealth and safety. Movement of operations to mimpacts would be required to the Monument boundary for IV. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Exception: An exception madetermination is made that nsheds would meet these mitihuman health and safety weModification: None Waiver: None 

Fragile Soils/Slopes 

Planning Area Wide CSU X X X X X The surface operating stand

exploration and developmenused as a guide for surface-dsteep slopes/hillsides. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Fragile Soils/Slopes 

Planning Area Wide CSU X X X X If surface-disturbing activities 

slopes from 21-40% a plan wplan would be approved by Bconstruction and maintenancAn erosion control strategy GIS modeling Proper survey and design by Exception: None Modification: None

Waiver: None 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Fragile Soils/Slopes 

Planning Area Wide NSO X X For slopes greater than 40%

disturbance (NSO). Exception: If after an enviroauthorized officer determines undue or unnecessary degraplacement alternatives, surfaNSO area may be authorizedwould be submitted by the oby BLM prior to construction include: An erosion control strategy GIS modeling Proper survey and design by Modification: Modifications a more detailed analysis, i.econducted by a qualified soil surface disturbance activities greater than 40% while adeqarea from accelerated erosioWaiver: None 

Fragile Soils/Slopes 

Planning Area Wide NSO X X For slopes greater than 40%

disturbance (NSO). Exception: None Modification: None

Waiver: None 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Fragile Soils/Slopes 

Planning Area Wide CSU X If surface-disturbing activities 

slopes greater than 20% a pThe plan would be approved construction and maintenancAn erosion control strategy GIS modeling Proper survey and design by Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Fragile Soils/Slopes 

Planning Area Wide NSO X For minerals only, on slopes 

allow no surface disturbance Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Vegetation 

Old growth pinion pine 

NSO X X X X X Allow no surface occupancy 

containing old growth pinion Exception: None

Modification: None Waiver: None 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Vegetation Relict Vegetation 

Areas 

NSO X X X X X X Allow no surface occupancy 

(1,375 acres). Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Vegetation Relict Vegetation 

Areas 

NSO X X X X X X Allow no surface occupancy 

area on Red Mountain. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

River Corridors 

Upper Green River NSO X X X X X X Line of sight from the centerl

both sides of the river from LColorado State would be maException: An exemption wdisturbance were related to rinfrastructure support. Additfacilities would be placed witcorridor near the head of Littwhere existing pipelines crosModification: None Waiver: None 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

River Corridors 

Lower Green River NSO X X X X X X Line of sight from the centerl

both sides of the Lower Greetrust land boundary at Ouray County line would be managException: Future facilities wthe existing ROW corridor neBottom area where an existiGreen River. Modification: None Waiver: None 

River Corridors 

White River NSO X X X Line of sight from the centerl

both sides of the river from w10 S., R. 24 E. to where the T. 10 S, R 23 E would be maException: Exempted are recorridors. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Riparian Floodplains and Public Water Reserves 

Planning Area Wide NSO X X X X X 

(except for Book Clif

X Allow no new surface-disturb

active flood plains, wetlandsor 100m of riparian areas. Kstream crossings to a minimException: An exception co

there are no practical alternabe fully mitigated, or (c) the a
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

fs) enhance the riparian resourc

Modification: None Waiver: None 

Visual Resources 

Planning Area Wide NSO, TL, CSU X X X X X 

(except for Book Cliffs) 

X Visual resource managemen

comply with BLM Handbook ithin VRM I areas, very limitewould be allowed, with the othe existing character of the natural ecological changes. the landscape should be verattract attention. Within VRM II areas, surfacewould retain the existing chaThe level of change to the laManagement activities may battract attention of the casuato the landscape must repeaform, line, color, and texture predominant natural features 

landscape. Within VRM III areas, surfacwould partially retain the exislandscape. The allowable lemoderate, may attract attentdominate the view of a casuachanges should repeat the bline, color, and texture found 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

natural features of the charaWithin VRM IV areas, surfacare allowed to dominate the focus of viewer attention. Mexisting character of the landBut, every attempt should be mitigate the impacts. Exception: Exempted are recorridors. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Visual Resources 

Book Cliffs Planning Area 

NSO X For minerals only, to protect 

occupancy or other surface dallowed on slopes in excess Book Cliffs RMP, Figure 2-8)Exception: Exemptions woupermission of the authorized Modification: None Waiver: None 

Recreation Pelican Lake SRMA NSO X X X X X X Pelican Lake SRMA would b

disturbing activities. Exception: An exemption wdisturbance were related to rinfrastructure support. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Modification: None Waiver: None 

Recreation Planning Area wide NSO X Developed recreation sites w

shooting of firearms, grazingsurface-disturbing activities. Exception: An exemption wdisturbance were related to rinfrastructure support. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Antelope Fawning Areas 

Antelope Flat TL X X X X X X Do not allow activities that w

impacts to antelope from Macurrently identified 7,800 acrException: An exemption ware not present, or impacts cthrough other management arestriction would not apply to operation of existing facilitiesModification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Wildlife Habitat 

Sagebrush Habitat – Crucial deer winter range 

CSU X Disturbance within sagebrus

winter range would be reclairatio of 1.5:1. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Wildlife Habitat 

Sagebrush Habitat – crucial deer winter range 

CSU X Disturbance within sagebrus

winter range would be reclairatio of 1:1. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Wildlife Habitat 

Sagebrush Habitat – crucial deer winter range 

CSU X X Disturbance within sagebrus

winter range would be reclairatio of 3:1. Exception: None Modification: NoneWaiver: None 

Wildlife Wildlife Habitat 

Crucial deer winter range 

CSU X Within crucial deer winter ran

of such habitat would be subdisturbance and remain un-rtime. Exception: This stipulation meither the resource values chlessee/operator demonstratethat impacts can be mitigate
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Modification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Wildlife Habitat 

Crucial deer winter range 

CSU X X New Surface disturbance of 

township would be allowed, percentage of the crucial deethe township. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Wildlife Habitat 

Crucial deer winter range 

CSU X X Total surface disturbance (ne

acres per township would be based on percentage of the range within the township. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Wildlife Habitat 

Crucial deer winter range 

X Unspecified in current mana

Wildlife Deer Migration 

Monument and McCook Ridges 

TL X X Allow no surface-disturbing a

May 31 within McCook and M
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Corridors deer migration corridors. 

Exception: This stipulation meither the resource values chlessee/operator demonstratethat adverse impact can be mModification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Deer Migration Corridors 

Monument and McCook Ridges 

TL X X Allow no surface-disturbing a

May 31 and from September McCook and Monument Ridgcorridors. Exception: This stipulation meither the resource values chlessee/operator demonstratethat adverse impact can be mModification: None Waiver: None 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Wildlife Deer Migration Corridors 

Monument Ridge TL X For minerals only, in order to 

deer along Monument Ridgeactivities would not be alloweMay 11- May 31. Exception: This stipulation mauthorized officer if either the change or the lessee/operatoadverse impacts can be mitigModification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Deer Migration Corridors 

McCook Ridge TL X For minerals only, in order to 

migration of deer on McCook disturbing activities would noperiod October 2- May 31. Exception: This stipulation mauthorized officer if either the change or the lessee/operatoadverse impacts can be mitigModification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Crucial Elk Fawning and Deer Fawning 

Planning Area Wide TL X X X X X X In order to protect crucial elk 

fawning habitat, exploration, development activity would n15 to June 30. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Habitat 

Exception: This restriction wmaintenance and operation oThis stipulation may be exceresource values change or thdemonstrates to BLMs satisfimpact can be mitigated. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Crucial Deer and Elk Winter Range 

Planning Area Wide TL X Do not allow activities that w

impacts to deer and elk withifrom December 1-April 30. (pException: This restriction wand/or elk are not present, othrough analysis and coordinimpacts could be mitigated. considered would include snsnow crusting, location of disquantity and quality, animal cduration of disturbance. Modification: The stipulation based on findings of collaboanalysis. For example, the wconfiguration and time framecurrent animal use patterns ainconsistent with the dates aestablished. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Waiver: This stipulation couldetermined through collaboranalysis that the area is not that timing restrictions are un

Wildlife Crucial Deer and Elk Winter Range 

Planning Area Wide TL X X X Do not allow activities that w

impacts to deer and elk withifrom November 15-April 30. Exception: This restriction wdetermined through analysisUDWR that impacts could be be considered would include temperature, snow crusting, forage quantity and quality, aexpected duration of disturbaModification: The stipulation based on findings of collaboanalysis. For example, the wconfiguration and time framecurrent animal use patterns ainconsistent with the dates aestablished. Waiver: This stipulation couldetermined through collaboranalysis that the area is not that timing restrictions are un
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Wildlife Crucial Deer and Elk Winter Range 

Planning Area Wide TL X Disturbance activities would 

December 15 to March 15 thand elk from more than 10% habitat at any given time. Exception: An exception coand elk are not present, topoattributes screen the activity proposed activity would not ddisturbance resulting from thcould be mitigated. Modification: The stipulation based on findings of collaboanalysis. For example, the wconfiguration and time framecurrent animal use patterns ainconsistent with the dates aestablished. Waiver: This stipulation couldetermined through collaboranalysis that the area is not that timing restrictions are un

Wildlife Crucial Deer and Elk Winter Range 

Book Cliffs McCook Ridge 

TL X In order to protect the crucia

habitat on McCook Ridge, suactivities would not be alloweOctober 1-May 31. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Exception: This stipulation mauthorized officer if either the change or the lessee/operatoadverse impacts can be mitigModification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Crucial Deer and Elk Winter Range 

Book Cliffs (excludes McCook Ridge) 

TL X In order to protect crucial win

disturbing activities would noperiod November 1-March 3Exception: This stipulation mauthorized officer if either the change or the lessee/operatoadverse impacts can be mitigModification: None Waiver: None 

Wildlife Crucial Deer and Elk Winter Range 

Browns Park/ Dry Fork 

TL X Do not allow activities that w

impacts to deer and elk withifrom December 1 to April 30Exception: This restriction wand/or elk are not present, omitigated through other manModification: None Waiver: None 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Status Species Black-footed Ferret 

PMZ area CSU/TL X X X X X X BLM would manage the blac

consistent with the Black-fooReintroduction Plan Amendmand those portions of the CoReintroduction and ManagemFerret in Coyote Basin, Uintaconsistent with this plan ameNew power lines constructed would be raptor proof. Management activities within conducted with the objective 10,000 acres of prairie dog cthe Service and the UDWR, acres is acceptable as long arating (the number of ferret fsupport) does not fall below Whenever possible, such acprairie dog habitat. Otherwisdesigned to impact the smaland/or those areas with the ldensities. The creation of adhabitat (e.g. burning vegetatholes, etc.) would be requireor development reduces the below the 8,000 acre threshoThe period between breedinyoung is a period of "sensitivperiod extends from March 1 between birth and emergenc
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

of "critical" importance for suproductivity. This period ext15. Activities involving the develof temporary or permanent swould be prohibited within 1/known home ranges of fema"critical" period from May 1 tranges would be determined from radio collard animals. Ppermitted operations which mboundaries would continue nhowever, no new surface disinitiated at these sites during If a ferret is discovered at a cGilsonite mine, well pad, powbe decided by the Service anthe ferret was necessary andbe initiated within 48 hours. cannot be captured within 72 commencement of trapping awill cease and be replaced bto ascertain the status of the attempts to remove the subjebased on this monitoring. If ferrets are discovered at thcommercial operation, then mdelay of activities, movemenprairie dog habitat developmactivities, or any combination 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

required. The course of evedetermined cooperatively by the Service, and land managException: Retrofitting of exto raptor proof standards woMaintenance or construction or permitted operations can surface disturbance (disturbahabitat for less than six monbecomes or can be made suuse), such as prescribed fire may be conducted within 1/8 the home range of a female In general, the disturbance sbefore the critical period begUDWR, and the land managdetermine if this exemption aand surveying activities wouModification: None Waiver: None 

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Planning Area Wide TL X Human disturbances would b

miles of a lek during the breeMay-31) from 1 hour before sunrise. Exception: Livestock, wildlifwould be managed to achievsagebrush and riparian/meaecological condition per the 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Rangeland Health and Guidemanagement. Modification: None Waiver: None 

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Planning Area Wide TL X Significant human disturbanc

within 0.6 mile of a lek during (March 1-May 31) from one hthree hours after sunrise. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Planning Area Wide NSO X Construction of routes, fence

lines would be avoided within Exception: Livestock, wildlifwould be managed to achievsagebrush and riparian/meaecological condition per the Rangeland Health and Guidemanagement. Modification: None Waiver: None 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Planning Area Wide NSO X Construction of routes, fence

lines would be avoided within Additionally, any developmemust be designed to minimizraptor perching. Exception: An exception wodesigned to minimize to the structure collision and to preModification: None Waiver: None 

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Planning Area Wide TL X X X No surface-disturbing activiti

active sage grouse leks from Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Planning Area Wide NSO X X X No surface-disturbing activiti

active sage grouse leks year permanent facilities or structwithin 2 miles when possibleException: None Modification: None Waiver: None 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Planning Area Wide CSU X X X X Within 1⁄2 mile of known activ

available technology such as cylinder pumps, hospital souand placement of exhaust syException: None Modification: None Waiver: None 

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Book Cliffs Planning Area 

TL X For minerals only, surface di

drilling, and other developmeallowed only during the perio15. Exception: This stipulation mauthorized officer if either the change or the lessee/operatoadverse impacts can be mitigModification: None Waiver: None 

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Book Cliffs Planning Area 

NSO X No drilling or storage facilitie

within 300 feet of sage grousException: This stipulation mauthorized officer if either the change or the lessee/operatoadverse impacts can be mitigModification: None 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Diamond Mountain Planning Area 

TL X Do not allow surface-disturbi

grouse nesting areas (a 2-mgrouse strutting grounds withvegetation type) from March Exception: This restriction wgrouse are not present or immitigated through other manModification: None Waiver: None 

Special Status Species Sage Grouse 

Diamond Mountain Planning Area 

NSO X Do not allow surface-disturbi

feet of sage grouse strutting Exception: This restriction wgrouse are not present or immitigated through other manModification: None Waiver: None 

Special Status Species Raptors 

Planning Area Wide CSU X X X X X X Protect and restore cottonwo

eagle winter habitat along thRivers, at Pelican Lake, and Eagle roost site, as well as adiscovered in the future. Exception: None Modification: None
Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

Waiver: None 

Special Status Species Raptors - Buffers 

Planning Area Wide TL/CSU/NSO X X X X X Raptor management would b

"Best Management Practices Associated Habitats in Utah" Appendix A), utilizing seasonas well as mitigation, to mainraptor nesting and foraging hother resource uses. Exception: NoneModification: Criteria that wprior to implementing modificand seasonal buffers in the “

include the following: 1. Completion of a site-specwildlife biologist or other quaexample (Attachment 1 of thAppendix A) 2. Written documentation by Wildlife Biologist, identifying modification and affirming thproposed modification(s) wosuccess or the suitability of tnesting. Modification of the 

recommended if it is determiimpacts to nesting raptors wsuitability of the site for futurcompromised. 
inal EIS 

Vernal RMP Table 1. Resources of Concern and Stipulation(s) including Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver by Alte

 Alternative 

Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation Code 

Proposed A B C D E Stipulation De

3. Development of a monitorstrategy by a BLM biologist, Impacts of authorized activitdocumented to determine if timplemented as described in documentation or Conditions adequate to protect the nest impacts be identified during BLM would follow an appropwhich may include cessation activities that would avoid, mimpact, or, with the approval Service, BLM could allow the while requiring monitoring to impact of the activity on the amonitoring report would be cforwarded to UDWR for incoNatural Heritage Program (NWaiver: None 

Proposed RMP and F
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix K 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Vernal RMP K-54
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-1

APPENDIX M. UTAH PUBLIC LANDS STUDY – KEY SOCIAL SURVEY 

FINDINGS FOR DAGGETT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES

A statewide social survey was conducted by Utah State University in 2007 to assess the ways in 

which Utah residents use and value public land resources, and their views about public land 

management. Random samples of residential households were selected in each of the state’s 29 

counties. Sampled households were contacted by mail, and a randomly-selected adult from the 

household was asked to participate in the survey. Self-completion questionnaires were 

distributed to potential survey participants using a multiple-wave survey administration 

procedure. The discussion that follows is focused on key survey results obtained for Daggett 

County (n = 41 survey responses), Duchesne County (n = 108 survey responses), and Uintah 

County (n = 119 survey responses).1

 

ECONOMIC LINKAGES TO PUBLIC LANDS

One major focus of the survey questionnaire involved assessment of the various ways in which 

Utahans may engage in economic activities that are linked directly or indirectly to public land 

resources in the state. 

PERMIT-BASED ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

As indicated in Table 1, only a minority of survey respondents in Daggett, Duchesne, or Uintah 

Counties reported that a portion of their household income is directly linked to activities that 

involve permitted uses of lands or resources administered by the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM), other federal agencies, or the State of Utah. In Daggett County 

reports of income derived from permit-based economic activities on public lands most often 

involved activities involving land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (12.2%). In 

Duchesne County these types of economic linkage to public lands were reported most often for 

activities involving land administered by the State of Utah (13.9%), followed by the Bureau of 

Land Management (11.1%). In Uintah County such linkages were most frequently reported for 

permit-based activities involving Bureau of Land Management lands (21.8%) and lands 

administered by the State of Utah (14.3%) Overall, these types of connections to public lands in 

Utah appear to be most prevalent among residents of Uintah County, and least prevalent among 

those living in Daggett County. 

 

1

 The number of respondents for Daggett County is small in part because the commercial firm that provided random samples of 

residential mailing addresses for the statewide survey was able to identify only 183 potentially valid residential addresses in

that county. In addition, 110 of the questionnaire packets that were mailed to addresses included in the sample were returned 

as undeliverable. As a result of this unexpectedly small sample size, results for Daggett County should be interpreted 

cautiously. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-2

Table 1. Percentage of Survey Respondents Reporting that a Portion of Household 

Income is Directly Linked to Permitted Use of Public Lands or Resources 

 Uintah County Daggett County Duchesne County 

Forest Service 12.2% 5.6% 8.4% 

BLM 21.8% 4.9% 11.1% 

Other Federal Agency 0.0% 6.5% 7.6% 

State of Utah 2.6% 13.9% 14.3% 

The data reported in Table 2 reflect the percentage of respondents reporting these types of 

permit-based economic linkages to public lands who also indicated that 25% or more of their 

total household income is derived from those activities. Since in many cases the number of 

respondents reporting such economic linkages was small, these values are based on a limited 

number of cases and as a consequence need to be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, it is 

clear that in all three of these counties the survey respondents who reported participation in 

permit-based economic activities on public lands often rely fairly heavily on those activities as 

sources of household income. 

Table 2. Percentage of Survey Respondents Reporting Permit-based Economic Activities 

on Public Lands Who Indicated that 25% or More of Their Household Income is 

Derived from those Activities 

 Uintah County Daggett County Duchesne County 

Forest Service 60.0% 66.7% 40.0% 

BLM 88.5% 50.0% 75.0% 

Other Federal Agency 0.0% 67.1% 67.7% 

State of Utah 100.0% 20.0% 52.9% 

HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION IN SELECTED COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

The next series of questions asked respondents to indicate whether they or members of their 

households participate in any of a number of commercial activities that, while commonly 

associated with public land use, can involve the use of either public or private lands. Results 

summarized in Table 3 indicate that for any of these activities only a minority of survey 

respondents in Daggett, Duchesne or Uintah counties reported participation. Among Daggett 

County respondents the activities reported most frequently were participation in commercial 

firewood cutting (10% of responses), in oil and gas exploration or development (10%), and in 

miscellaneous other commercial activities (10.8%). In Duchesne County the activities identified 

most often included participation in oil and gas exploration or development (26.9%) and 

livestock grazing or related work (12.3%). In Uintah County the most commonly-reported 

commercial activities were participation in oil and gas exploration or development (31.4%), 

livestock grazing and related work (12.7%), and commercial firewood cutting (11.9%). On 

balance, the response patterns indicate that there is a higher level of engagement in most of these 

types of resource-based commercial activities among residents of Uintah County than is the case 

in either Daggett County or Duchesne County. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-3

Table 3. Percentage Of Survey Respondents Reporting That They Or Members Of Their 

Households Participate In Selected Resource-based Commercial Activities, On 

Either Public Or Private Lands 

Daggett 

County 

Duchesne 

County 

Uintah 

County 

Livestock grazing and related work 2.5% 12.3% 12.7% 

Commercial firewood cutting 10.0% 5.6% 11.9% 

Logging, post & pole cutting, or other timberrelated work 

2.5% 3.7% 6.8% 

Mining of coal, uranium or other solid minerals 0.0% 1.9% 5.2% 

Mining of sand, gravel, or other construction 

materials 

0.0% 4.7% 5.1% 

Oil &gas exploration/development 10.0% 26.9% 31.4% 

Operating an outfitting or guiding business 5.0% 1.9% 3.4% 

Film making/commercial photography 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 

Other commercial activities 10.8% 3.1% 2.8% 

HOUSEHOLD INVOLVEMENT IN BUSINESSES LINKED TO RECREATION/TOURISM

Survey respondents were also asked whether they or any member of their household operates or 

works at a business linked to recreation or tourism activity that is influenced by the presence of 

public lands and resources. The percentage of respondents indicating involvement in such 

businesses was highest in Daggett County (22.5%). In contrast, relatively few survey 

respondents from either Duchesne County (8.3%) or from Uintah County (8.0%) said “yes” to 

this question. When asked to assess how important activities and uses linked to public lands are 

to the success of this business, over three-fourths (77.8%) of Daggett County respondents, over 

one-fifth (22.2%) of Duchesne County respondents, and over two-fifths (44.4%) of Uintah 

County respondents who did report involvement in such businesses said that the influence of 

public lands is “extremely important.” 

HOUSEHOLD INVOLVEMENT IN BUSINESSES LINKED TO COMMODITY PRODUCTION 

A similar question asked about the involvement of survey participants and members of their 

households in business that provide services and supplies to farming or ranching operations, 

logging firms, or other commercial enterprises that use or process natural resources located on 

public lands. Not a single respondent from Daggett County reported this type of economic 

linkage involving their household. One out of ten (10.2%) respondents from Duchesne County 

and two out of ten (21.2%) respondents from Uintah County reported that they or a household 

member was involved in some way with this type of business. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-4

OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY OR ASSETS WITH VALUES INFLUENCED BY NEARBY 

PUBLIC LANDS

When asked whether they own land, buildings, or other assets that they believe have a monetary 

value that is significantly influenced by the presence and condition of nearby public lands, 67.5% 

of Daggett County respondents, 29.6% of Duchesne County respondents, and 18.4% of Uintah 

County respondents said “yes.” Those who did perceive the existence of such a relationship 

were then asked to identify specific types of assets that they own and that they believe have a 

value influenced by the close proximity of public lands. Respondents in all three of these 

counties most frequently cited their permanent residential property (63.4% in Daggett County, 

20.4% in Duchesne County, and 9.2% in Uintah County). 

PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC LANDS FOR OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE

Survey participants were also asked to report how important they think fifteen different types of 

public land resources and resource uses are for the overall quality of life experienced by people 

living in their communities. Table 4 summarizes response patterns to this series of questions for 

Daggett, Duchesne and Uintah counties, with a focus on the percentage of respondents from each 

county who indicated that they consider a particular type of resource use to be “very important” 

for local quality of life. 

Table 4. Percentage Of Survey Respondents Indicating That Selected Public Land 

Resource Uses Are “Very Important” To The Overall Quality Of Life In Their 

Community 

Daggett 

County 

Duchesne 

County 

Uintah 

County 

Grazing of livestock on public lands 68.4% 77.0% 67.3% 

Water resources used to irrigate crops and pastures 84.2% 95.1% 94.5% 

Water resources used to supply homes and businesses

 

90.0% 80.8% 90.3% 

Water resources that provide important fish/wildlife 

habitat 

87.5% 79.6% 75.9% 

Energy resources such as oil, gas, coal or uranium 55.3% 81.2% 83.0% 

Sand, gravel or other minerals used in building and 

construction industries 

32.4% 37.4% 46.8% 

Forested areas that provide timber used by logging 

operations and lumber mills 

57.9% 45.9% 47.7% 

Areas where trees or other vegetation provide 

important wildlife habitat 

82.1% 69.2% 72.1% 

Areas that attract tourism and recreational activity 82.1% 55.4% 57.1% 

Opportunities to enjoy off-road vehicles, snowmobiling, 

or other motorized recreation 

61.5% 39.2% 60.9% 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-5

Table 4. Percentage Of Survey Respondents Indicating That Selected Public Land 

Resource Uses Are “Very Important” To The Overall Quality Of Life In Their 

Community 

Daggett 

County 

Duchesne 

County 

Uintah 

County 

Opportunities to enjoy hiking, backpacking, crosscountry skiing, horseback riding, or other types of nonmotorized recreation 

66.7% 56.7% 55.5% 

Opportunities to hunt for wild game 80.0% 65.0% 66.7% 

Opportunities to fish in area lakes, streams and rivers 95.0% 74.0% 70.5% 

Undeveloped landscapes where motorized access 

and resource development are restricted 

47.2% 46.5% 40.8% 

Areas managed to maintain biodiversity and protect 

habitat for sensitive or important plants or wildlife 

44.7% 35.6% 42.2% 

In Daggett County only three of the fifteen types of public land resource use presented in this 

question were considered “very important” by fewer than one-half of respondents (sand/gravel or 

other construction-related mineral development, undeveloped landscapes where motorized 

access and development are restricted, and areas managed to maintain biodiversity and protect 

plant or wildlife habitat). At the same time, over three-fourths of Daggett County respondents 

considered water resources used to irrigate crops and pastures, water resources used to supply 

homes and businesses, water resources used to supply fish and wildlife habitat, areas where trees 

or other vegetation provide important wildlife habitat, areas that attract tourism and recreation 

opportunity, opportunities to hunt for wild game, and opportunities to fish in area lakes, streams 

and rivers to be “very important” to the local quality of life. 

In Duchesne County five of these resource uses were considered “very important” by fewer than 

one-half of respondents (sand/gravel or other construction-related mineral development, timber 

production, opportunities to enjoy off-road vehicles, snowmobiling, or other motorized 

recreation, undeveloped landscapes where motorized access and resource development are 

restricted, and areas managed to maintain biodiversity and to protect habitat). Conversely, five 

resource uses – grazing of livestock on public lands, water resources used to irrigate crops and 

pastures, water resources used to supply homes and businesses, water resources used to provide 

important fish and wildlife habitat, and energy resources such as oil, gas, coal or uranium -- were 

considered “very important” to the local quality of life by more than three-fourths of Duchesne 

County respondents. 

Four of the resource uses included in this list were considered to be “very important” to the 

overall quality of life by fewer than one-half of respondents living in Uintah County (sand/gravel 

or other construction-related mineral development, timber production, undeveloped landscapes 

where motorized access and resource development are restricted, and areas managed to maintain 

biodiversity and to protect habitat). Four of the resource uses included in the list -- water 

resources used to irrigate crops and pastures, water resources used to supply homes and 

businesses, water resources used to provide important fish and wildlife habitat, and energy 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-6

resources such as oil, gas, coal or uranium -- were considered to be very important by more than 

three-fourths of Uintah County respondents. 

RECREATIONAL USES OF PUBLIC LANDS 

Survey participants were also asked to report whether they had participated in any of a broad 

range of outdoor recreation activities and other non-commodity use activities on Utah public 

lands during the prior twelve months. Results from this series of questions are reported in Table 

5 and Table 6. These findings clearly indicate that there is widespread participation in many of 

these public land activities among residents of Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties. 

Table 5 reports the extent of reported participation in thirty different outdoor recreation 

activities. Among survey participants living in Daggett County, more than one-half reported 

participation in ten of these activities -- camping, picnicking, day hiking, bird watching, wildlife 

viewing, nature photography, motor boating, fishing, visiting historical sites, and driving for 

pleasure/sightseeing on public lands -- during the preceding twelve months. In Duchesne County 

over half of respondents reported that they had participated in six of these activities – camping, 

picnicking, wildlife viewing, fishing, visiting historical sights, and sightseeing/driving for 

pleasure. One-half or more of Uintah County respondents reported participation during the prior 

12 months in nine of the activities -- camping, picnicking, day hiking, wildlife viewing, hunting, 

fishing, visiting historical sites, ATV riding, and driving for pleasure/sightseeing on public lands. 

Table 5. Percentage Of Survey Respondents Reporting Participation In Selected 

Recreation Activities On Utah Public Lands During The Past Twelve 

Months 

 Daggett County Duchesne County Uintah County 

Camping 68.3% 64.5% 75.4% 

Picnicking 82.5% 75.0% 79.7% 

Backpacking 23.1% 19.6% 17.3% 

Day hiking 72.5% 41.0% 54.9% 

Bird watching 53.8% 26.5% 29.0% 

Wildlife viewing 82.5% 61.3% 72.6% 

Nature photography 61.5% 33.7% 40.2% 

Canoeing/kayaking 15.4% 5.9% 10.2% 

River rafting 47.5% 9.8% 26.1% 

Motor boating 56.1% 20.4% 40.2% 

Jet skiing 7.7% 3.9% 8.3% 

Swimming 45.0% 24.3% 47.8% 

Rock climbing 12.8% 9.5% 15.6% 

Mountain climbing 17.5% 15.2% 17.4% 

Hang gliding 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 

Mountain bike riding 27.5% 9.6% 13.8% 

Hunting 43.9% 39.4% 52.6% 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-7

Table 5. Percentage Of Survey Respondents Reporting Participation In Selected 

Recreation Activities On Utah Public Lands During The Past Twelve 

Months 

 Daggett County Duchesne County Uintah County 

Fishing 82.9% 60.6% 67.8% 

Horseback riding 20.5% 26.2% 24.8% 

Orienteering/geocaching 

7.7% 6.9% 7.5% 

Rock hounding 27.5% 25.2% 27.8% 

Visiting historical 

sites 

70.7% 55.1% 64.9% 

Resort 

skiing/snowboarding 

12.8% 11.5% 6.5% 

Backcountry 

skiing/snowboarding 

7.7% 5.9% 1.9% 

Snowshoeing 7.7% 5.8% 4.7% 

Snowmobiling 17.9% 9.7% 13.8% 

ATV riding 39.0% 31.7% 50.0% 

Dirt bike riding 7.7% 3.9% 15.7% 

4-wheel 

driving/jeeping 

40.0% 20.2% 39.3% 

Sightseeing/pleasur

e driving 

85.4% 79.6% 81.9% 

Table 6. Percentage Of Survey Respondents Reporting Participation In Selected Noncommodity Use Activities On Utah Public Lands During The Past Twelve Months 

 Daggett County Duchesne County Uintah County 

Collecting firewood for home use 67.5% 26.2% 23.9% 

Cutting Christmas trees 37.5% 21.4% 36.0% 

Collecting material for craft 

projects 

35.0% 16.7% 21.8% 

Collecting rocks for home 

landscaping 

50.0% 26.7% 33.3% 

Collecting plants for home 

landscaping 

12.5% 6.9% 9.2% 

Gathering wild mushrooms 5.1% 1.0% 0.9% 

Gathering pinyon nuts 10.3% 14.7% 13.6% 

Gathering berries, herbs or wild 

foods 

5.1% 8.9% 12.8% 

Collecting fossils, rocks or 

minerals 

25.6% 20.4% 22.0% 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-8

Responses to a question focusing on participation in a variety of non-commodity use activities on 

public lands are summarized in Table 6. Among this list of activities, Daggett County 

respondents were most likely to report that they participate in collection firewood for home use, 

collecting rocks for home landscaping, cutting Christmas trees, collecting materials for craft 

projects, and collecting fossils, rocks or minerals. In Duchesne County the activities identified 

most often included collecting rocks for home landscaping, collecting firewood for home use, 

cutting Christmas trees, and collecting fossils, rocks or minerals. In Uintah County respondents 

most frequently indicated participation in cutting Christmas trees, collecting rocks for home 

landscaping, collecting firewood for home use, collecting material for craft projects, and 

collecting fossils, rocks or other minerals from public land areas. 

Respondents were also asked to identify the one or two activities from the lists presented in these 

questions that they participate in most often, and to provide detail on where they engage in those 

activities. Among Daggett County respondents the first of these activities listed by respondents 

most often involved fishing (35.0% of responses), followed by camping (10.0%). In Duchesne 

County the first listed activity most often involved camping (29.5% of responses), followed by 

fishing (13.7%). In Uintah County the activities listed most frequently were camping (29.2% of 

responses), fishing (12.3%) and sightseeing/pleasure driving (11.3%). When asked to indicate 

where they participate in the first-listed of their “most frequently pursued” activities, 95% of 

Daggett County respondents, 74.5% of Duchesne County respondents, and 86.3% of Uintah 

County respondents who answered the question identified a location within the county where 

they live. 

ATTITUDES AND PREFERENCES REGARDING PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT

Two similar sets of survey questions focused on respondents’ attitudes and preferences regarding 

the extent to which various natural resource use activities or management practices should be 

reduced or increased by those responsible for managing public lands in Utah. Response patterns 

to these questions are summarized in Table 7 and Table 8. 

The data presented in Table 7 indicate that Daggett County respondents were considerably more 

likely to prefer an increase rather than a decrease in timber harvest levels, protection of important 

fish and wildlife habitat, thinning of forested areas to reduce wildfire risk, and development of 

water storage and delivery systems on Utah public lands. On the other hand, attitudes were more 

evenly split between preferences for reducing and preferences for increasing mineral 

exploration/extraction, designation of wilderness areas, exploration for and development of oil 

and gas resources, livestock grazing, and designation of wild and scenic rivers. Daggett County 

respondents were also considerably more likely to prefer a reduction rather than an increase in 

management efforts to protect endangered species. 

Among Duchesne County residents respondents were more considerably likely to prefer an 

increase rather than a decrease in mineral exploration/extraction, timber harvest, oil and gas 

development, protection of fish and wildlife habitat, use of controlled burns to improve 

ecological conditions, thinning of forested areas to reduce wildfire risk, livestock grazing, and 

development of water storage and delivery systems. To a lesser extent they also were more 

likely to see an increase rather than a decrease in protection of endangered species and 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-9

designation of wild and scenic rivers, yet at the same time they were more likely to prefer a 

reduction as opposed to an increase in designation of wilderness areas. 

Uintah County respondents were considerably more likely to express a preference for an increase 

rather than a decrease in public land management that would involve mineral 

exploration/extraction, timber harvest, exploration for/development of oil and gas resources, 

protection of fish and wildlife habitat, use of controlled burns to improve ecological conditions, 

thinning of forested areas to reduced wildfire risk, livestock grazing, and development of water 

storage and delivery systems. They were somewhat more likely to prefer a reduction as opposed 

to an increase in designation of wilderness areas, protection of endangered species, and 

designation of wild and scenic rivers. 

Results summarized in Table 8 indicate that Daggett County respondents were more likely to 

prefer an increase rather than a reduction in provision of road access to recreation areas, 

provision of hunting opportunities, development of trails for non-motorized recreation, 

regulations that restrict motorized vehicles to designated trails, regulations to limit noise and 

emissions from snowmobiles and ATVs, and development of visitor facilities that would 

encourage an increase in tourism levels. In Duchesne County respondents were considerably 

more likely to prefer an increase rather than a decrease in provision of road access to recreation 

areas, provision of hunting opportunities, development of trails for non-motorized recreation, 

regulations that require motorized vehicles to stay on designated trails, regulations that limit 

levels of noise and emissions from snowmobiles and ATVs, and development of visitor facilities 

that would encourage increased tourism. In Uintah County, responses indicated a stronger 

preference for increases rather than decreases in provision of road access to recreation areas, 

provision of hunting opportunities, development of trails for off-highway motorized recreation, 

development of trails for non-motorized recreation, implementation of regulations that would 

require motorized vehicles to remain on designated trails, implementation of noise and emission 

regulations for snowmobiles and ATVs, and development of facilities to attract increased 

tourism. 

Table 7. Survey Respondents’ Attitudes Regarding The Extent To Which Various 

Activities Occurring On Utah Public Land Should Be Reduced Or Increased* 

Daggett County Duchesne County Uintah County 

Reduce Increase Reduce Increase Reduce Increase 

Mineral 

exploration/extraction 

25.6% 25.6% 7.3% 40.6% 14.7% 43.1% 

Timber harvest 12.5% 32.5% 13.5% 29.2% 16.7% 40.7% 

Designation of 

wilderness areas 

27.5% 32.5% 31.3% 21.9% 34.6% 21.5% 

Exploration 

for/development of oil 

and gas resources 

22.5% 30.0% 12.4% 45.4% 13.4% 55.3% 

Protection of important 

fish and wildlife habitat 

10.2% 53.9% 9.2% 52.0% 7.2% 46.8% 

Protection of 

endangered species 

40.0% 27.5% 23.5% 30.6% 34.8% 25.0% 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-10

Table 7. Survey Respondents’ Attitudes Regarding The Extent To Which Various 

Activities Occurring On Utah Public Land Should Be Reduced Or Increased* 

Daggett County Duchesne County Uintah County 

Reduce Increase Reduce Increase Reduce Increase 

Use of controlled burns 

to improve ecological 

conditions 

35.0% 30.0% 15.8% 29.5% 7.4% 46.3% 

Thinning of forested 

areas to reduce wildfire 

risk 

10.0% 65.0% 10.1% 53.5% 4.6% 60.2% 

Livestock grazing 25.6% 20.5% 9.1% 30.3% 9.3% 32.7% 

Designation of wild and 

scenic rivers 

30.8% 30.8% 19.1% 29.7% 25.0% 18.5% 

Developing water 

storage and delivery 

systems to meet needs 

of nearby communities 

5.0% 52.5% 3.0% 77.8% 2.8% 73.1% 

* Original response categories were “major reduction” and “moderate reduction” (combined to create “reduce”) and “major 

increase” and “minor increase” (combined to create “increase”). “Stay about the same” responses not reported here. 

Table 8. Survey Respondents’ Attitudes Regarding The Extent to Which The Emphasis 

Placed On Various Activities Occurring On Utah Public Land Should Be Reduced 

Or Increased By Public Land Managers* 

 Daggett County Duchesne County Uintah County 

Reduce Increase Reduce Increase Reduce Increase 

Permitting of 

commercial guiding 

or outfitter services

28.2% 10.3% 16.2% 18.2% 20.8% 10.3% 

Providing road access 

to recreation areas

15.0% 35.0% 12.7% 40.2% 7.3% 41.8% 

Providing hunting 

opportunities

12.8% 33.3% 10.6% 27.8% 7.5% 47.7% 

Developing trails for 

off-highway motorized 

recreation

32.5% 30.0% 30.1% 32.0% 17.4% 44.0% 

Developing trails for 

hiking, biking, and 

other non-motorized 

recreation

10.0% 47.5% 10.6% 43.3% 8.3% 46.8% 

Regulations that 

require motorized 

vehicles to stay on 

designated trails

5.0% 55.0% 9.7% 49.5% 13.5% 45.9% 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-11

Table 8. Survey Respondents’ Attitudes Regarding The Extent to Which The Emphasis 

Placed On Various Activities Occurring On Utah Public Land Should Be Reduced 

Or Increased By Public Land Managers* 

 Daggett County Duchesne County Uintah County 

Reduce Increase Reduce Increase Reduce Increase 

Regulations that limit 

levels of noise and 

emissions from 

snowmobiles and 

ATVs 

15.4% 46.1% 16.2% 45.4% 21.1% 42.4% 

Developing visitor 

facilities to increase 

tourism 

20.0% 37.5% 14.9% 38.6% 12.8% 42.2% 

* Original response categories were “major reduction” and “moderate reduction” (combined to create “reduce”) and “major 

increase” and “minor increase” (combined to create “increase”). “Stay about the same” responses not reported here. 

 

"The State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office has asked that BLM refer readers to 

its website at http://governor.utah.gov/publiclands where it posts updated State of Utah 

socioeconomic information from time to time. The BLM does not participate in collecting or 

compiling this information. For purposes of this PRMP/FEIS, BLM has only relied on 

information specifically cited in the PRMP/FEIS text and included in this Appendix." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix M 

Vernal RMP M-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

APPENDIX L. UTAH'S THREATENED AND ENDANGERED 

SPECIES LEASE NOTICES FOR OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT 

AND BLM-COMMITTED CONSERVATION MEASURES

L.1 UTAH'S THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES NOTICES

The following oil and gas lease notices were developed in consultation with USFWS and 

are specific to the VPA.

L.1.1 LEASE NOTICE: BLACK-FOOTED FERRET

The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel may contain occupied 

black-footed ferret habitat, an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act 

classified as an experimental, nonessential population in the state of Utah. Avoidance and 

minimization measures that should be followed are included within the Cooperative Plan 

for the Reintroduction and Management of Black-Footed Ferrets in Coyote Basin, Uintah 

County, Utah published by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources in September, 1996. 

[Please note: the VFO will follow the minimization measures outlined in the 

Northeastern Region Black-footed Ferret Management Plan, published by the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources in April, 2007.]These measures may be updated based on 

the best available scientific data as it becomes available. 

L.1.2 LEASE NOTICE-ENDANGERED FISH OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER 

DRAINAGE BASIN

The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain Critical Habitat 

for the Colorado River fish (bonytail, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, and 

razorback sucker) listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or these 

parcels have watersheds that are tributary to designated habitat. Critical habitat was 

designated for the four endangered Colorado River fishes on March 21, 1994 (59 FR 

13374-13400). Designated critical habitat for all the endangered fishes includes those 

portions of the 100-year floodplain that contain primary constituent elements necessary 

for survival of the species. Avoidance or use restrictions may be placed on portions of the 

lease. The following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure 

activities carried out on the lease are in compliance with the ESA. Integration, of and 

adherence to these measures will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits 

under the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of 

ESA, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage. 

Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 

1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and 

distribution information is complete and available. All surveys must be conducted 

by qualified individual(s); 

2. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To 

ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be 

evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated; 

Vernal RMP L-1
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

3. Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of 

riparian habitat; 

4. Avoid loss or disturbance of riparian habitats; 

5. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple 

wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in 

suitable riparian habitat. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or 

degrade alluvial aquifers; 

6. Conduct watershed analysis for leases in designated critical habitat and overlapping 

major tributaries in order to determine toxicity risk from permanent facilities; 

7. Implement the Utah Oil and Gas Pipeline Crossing Guidance (from BLM National 

Science and Technology Center); 

8. Drilling will not occur within 100-year floodplains of rivers or tributaries to rivers 

that contain listed fish species or critical habitat; and, 

9. In areas adjacent to 100-year flood plains, particularly in systems prone to flash 

floods, analyze the risk for flash floods to impact facilities, and use closed loop 

drilling, and pipeline burial or suspension according to the Utah Oil and Gas 

Pipeline Crossing Guidance, to minimize the potential for equipment damage and 

resulting leaks or spills. 

Water depletions from any portion of the Upper Colorado River drainage basin above 

Lake Powell are considered to adversely affect or adversely modify the critical habitat of 

the four resident endangered fish species, and must be evaluated with regard to the 

criteria described in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

Formal consultation with USFWS is required for all depletions. All depletion amounts 

must be reported to BLM. 

Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and 

implemented in consultation with the USFWS between the lease sale stage and lease 

development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

L.1.3 LEASE NOTICE: LISTED PLANT SPECIES

The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain suitable habitat 

for federally listed plant species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The following 

avoidance and minimization measures have been developed to facilitate review and 

analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease: 

1. Site inventories: 

a. Must be conducted to determine habitat suitability; 

b. Are required in known or potential habitat for all areas proposed for 

surface disturbance prior to initiation of project activities, at a time when 

the plant can be detected, and during appropriate flowering periods; 

c. Documentation should include, but not be limited to individual plant 

locations and suitable habitat distributions; and, 

d. All surveys must be conducted by qualified individuals. 

2. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To 

endure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be 

evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 

Vernal RMP L-2
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

3. Project activities must be designed to avoid direct disturbance to populations and to 

individual plants: 

a. Designs will avoid concentrating water flows or sediments into plant 

occupied habitat; 

b. Construction will occur down slope of plants and populations where 

feasible; if well pads and roads must be sited upslope, buffers of 100 feet 

minimum between surface disturbances and plants and populations will be 

incorporated; 

c. Where populations occur within 200 feet of well pads, establish a buffer 

or fence the individuals or groups of individuals during and postconstruction; 

d. Areas for avoidance will be visually identifiable in the field, e.g., 

flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc; and, 

e. For surface pipelines, use a 10-foot buffer from any plant locations: 

i. If on a slope, use stabilizing construction techniques to ensure 

the pipelines don't move towards the population. 

4. For riparian/wetland-associated species, e.g. Ute ladies-tresses, avoid loss or 

disturbance of riparian habitats. 

5. Ensure that water extraction or disposal practices do not result in change of 

hydrologic regime. 

6. Limit disturbances to and within suitable habitat by staying on designated routes. 

7. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

8. Place signing to limit ATV travel in sensitive areas. 

9. Implement dust abatement practices near occupied plant habitat. 

10. All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native species comprised of species 

indigenous to the area. 

11. Post construction monitoring for invasive species will be required. 

12. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple 

wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in 

plant habitat. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade 

alluvial aquifers. 

13. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To 

ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be 

evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 

Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and 

implemented in consultation with the USFWS between the lease sale stage and lease 

development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

L.1.4 LEASE NOTICE: MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL

The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain suitable habitat 

for Mexican spotted owl, a federally listed species. The Lessee/Operator is given notice 

that the lands in this lease contain Designated Critical Habitat for the Mexican spotted 

owl, a federally listed species. Critical habitat was designated for the Mexican spotted 

owl on August 31, 2004 (69 FR 53181-53298).Avoidance or use restrictions may be 

placed on portions of the lease. Application of appropriate measures will depend whether 

Vernal RMP L-3
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or outside the owl 

nesting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the following breeding season 

leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent

action continues for more than one breeding season and/or causes a loss of owl habitat or 

displaces owls through disturbances, i.e. creation of a permanent structure. The following 

avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out 

on the lease are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Integration of, 

and adherence to these measures, will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted 

permits under the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the 

scope of ESA, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage.

 Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 

1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and 

distribution information is complete and available. All Surveys must be conducted 

by qualified individual(s). 

2. Assess habitat suitability for both nesting and foraging using accepted habitat 

models in conjunction with field reviews. Apply the conservation measures below 

if project activities occur within 0.5 mile of suitable owl habitat. Determine 

potential effects of actions to owls and their habitat. 

a. Document type of activity, acreage and location of direct habitat impacts, 

type and extent of indirect impacts relative to location of suitable owl 

habitat. 

b. Document if action is temporary or permanent. 

3. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To 

ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be 

evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 

4. Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of 

riparian habitat. 

5. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple 

wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in 

canyon habitat suitable for Mexican Spotted Owl nesting. 

6. For all temporary actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: 

a. If the action occurs entirely outside of the owl breeding season (March 1–

August 31), and leaves no permanent structure or permanent habitat 

disturbance, action can proceed without an occupancy survey. 

b. If action will occur during a breeding season, survey for owls prior to 

commencing activity. If owls are found, activity must be delayed until 

outside of the breeding season. 

c. Rehabilitate access routes created by the project through such means as 

raking out scars, re-vegetation, gating access points, etc. 

7. For all permanent actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: 

Survey two consecutive years for owls according to accepted protocol prior to 

commencing activities. 

a. If owls are found, no actions will occur within 0.5 mile of identified nest 

site. If nest site is unknown, no activity will occur within the designated 

Protected Activity Center (PAC). 

Vernal RMP L-4
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

b. Avoid drilling and permanent structures within 0.5 mile of suitable 

habitat unless surveyed and not occupied. 

c. Reduce noise emissions (e.g., use hospital-grade mufflers) to 45 dBA at 

0.5 mile from suitable habitat, including canyon rims. Placement of 

permanent noise-generating facilities should be determined by a noise 

analysis to ensure noise does not encroach upon a 0.5-mile buffer for 

suitable habitat, including canyon rims. 

d. Limit disturbances to and within suitable habitat by staying on approved 

routes. 

e. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and 

implemented in consultation with the USFWS between the lease sale stage and lease 

development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

L.1.5 LEASE NOTICE: CANADA LYNX

The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain potential habitat 

for Canada lynx, a federally listed species. Avoidance or use restrictions may be placed 

on portions of the lease. Application of appropriate measures will depend on the nature 

of the proposed development, as well as proposed timing and location. The following 

avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out 

on the lease are in compliance with the ESA. Integration of, and adherence to these 

measures will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority 

of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of ESA, Section 7 

consultation at the permit stage.

Current avoidance and minimization measures are generally adapted from the standards 

and guidelines listed in Chapter 7 (Conservation Measures) of the LCAS (Ruediger 2000) 

and include the following: 

1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and 

distribution information is complete and available. All Surveys must be 

conducted by qualified individual(s), and be conducted according to protocol. 

2. Based on data and information gathered in item 1, lease activities within, or in 

proximity to, occupied lynx habitats will require monitoring throughout the 

duration of the project. To ensure desired results are being achieved, 

minimization measures will be evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation 

reinitiated. 

3. Avoid all surface disturbing actions within occupied denning habitat. 

4. Avoid construction and surface disturbing actions in proximity to potential 

denning habitat during the breeding season (mid-April to July). 

5. Activities involved with routine maintenance and operation will only occur during 

daytime hours, when lynx are least active. 

6. Where technically and economically feasible, wells will be remotely monitored 

within lynx habitat. 

7. Limit disturbance to and within suitable habitat by staying on approved access 

routes. 

Vernal RMP L-5
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-6

8. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

9. Dirt and gravel roads traversing lynx habitat (particularly those that could become 

highways) should not be paved or otherwise upgraded (e.g., straightening of 

curves, widening of roadway etc.) in a manner that is likely to lead to significant 

increases in traffic volume, traffic speed, increased width of the cleared ROW, or 

would foreseeably contribute to development or increases in human activity in 

lynx habitat. When these types of upgrades are proposed, a thorough analysis of 

potential direct and indirect impacts to lynx and lynx habitat should be conducted. 

10. Minimize impacts to habitats that support lynx prey. 

11. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple 

wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and to minimize or 

eliminate drilling in suitable lynx habitat. 

Additional measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to the species at 

the development stage and will be developed and implemented in consultation with the 

USFWS to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

L.1.6 LEASE NOTICE: UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS CACTUS (SCLEROCACTUS 

GLAUCUS [= BREVISPINUS AND WETLANDICUS]) 

The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain suitable habitat 

for the Uinta Basin hookless cactus, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 

following avoidance and minimization measures have been developed to facilitate review 

and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease: 

In order to minimize effects to the federally threatened Uinta Basin hookless cactus, the 

BLM in coordination with the USFWS, developed the following avoidance and 

minimization measures. Integration of and adherence to these measures will help ensure 

the activities carried out during oil and gas development (including but not limited to 

drilling, production, and maintenance) are in compliance with the ESA. The following 

avoidance and minimization measures should be included in the Plan of Development: 

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100% of the project 

disturbance area within potential habitat1

 prior to any ground disturbing activities 

to determine if suitable Uinta Basin hookless cactus habitat is present. 

2. Within suitable habitat2

, site inventories will be conducted to determine 

occupancy. Inventories: 

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to BLM and 

Service accepted survey protocols, 

 

1

 Potential habitat is defined as areas which satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat description; 

usually determined by preliminary, in-house assessment. 2

 Suitable habitat is defined as areas which contain or exhibit the specific components or constituents 

necessary for plant persistence; determined by field inspection and/or surveys; may or may not contain 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus. Habitat descriptions can be found in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

1990 Recovery Plan and Federal Register Notices for the Uinta Basin hookless cactus 

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-7

b. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied3 habitat for all areas proposed 

for surface disturbance prior to initiation of project activities and within 

the same growing season, at a time when the plant can be detected, and 

during appropriate flowering periods: 

i. Sclerocactus brevispinus surveys should be conducted March 15th

to June 30th, unless extended by the BLM 

ii. Sclerocactus wetlandicus surveys can be done any time of the year, 

provided there is no snow cover, 

c. Will occur within 115’ from the centerline of the proposed right-of-way 

for surface pipelines or roads; and within 100’ from the perimeter of 

disturbance for the proposed well pad including the well pad, 

d. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat 

characteristics, and 

e. Will be valid until March 15th the following year for Sclerocactus 

brevispinus and one year from the survey date for Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus. 

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize impacts within suitable habitat2

: 

a. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising 

safety, 

b. Limit new access routes created by the project, 

c. Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible, 

d. Reduce width of right-of-ways and minimize the depth of excavation 

needed for the road bed; where feasible, use the natural ground surface for 

the road within habitat, 

e. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas, 

f. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas, and 

g. All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native species comprised of 

species indigenous to the area and non-native species that are not likely to 

invade other areas. 

4. Within occupied habitat3

, project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

disturbance and minimize indirect impacts to populations and to individual plants: 

a. Follow the above (#3) recommendations for project design within suitable 

habitats, 

b. Buffers of 100 feet minimum between the edge of the right of way (roads 

and surface pipelines) or surface disturbance (well pads) and plants and 

populations will be incorporated, 

c. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 100 foot buffer exists between 

the edge of the right of way and the plants, use stabilizing and anchoring 

techniques when the pipeline crosses the habitat to ensure the pipelines 

don’t move towards the population, 

d. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually 

identifiable in the field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc., 

 

3

 Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support Uinta Basin hookless 

cactus; synonymous with “known habitat.” 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

e. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or 

multiple wells from the same pad, 

f. Designs will avoid concentrating water flows or sediments into occupied 

habitat, 

g. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, 

away from occupied habitat, and 

h. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim 

and final reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest 

area possible. 

5. Occupied Uinta Basin hookless cactus habitats within 100’ of the edge of the 

surface pipelines’ right-of-ways, 100’ of the edge of the roads’ right-of-ways, and 

100’ from the edge of the well pad shall be monitored for a period of three years 

after ground disturbing activities. Monitoring will include annual plant surveys to 

determine plant and habitat impacts relative to project facilities. Annual reports 

shall be provided to the BLM and the USFWS. To ensure desired results are 

being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and may be changed 

after a thorough review of the monitoring results and annual reports during annual 

meetings between the BLM and the USFWS. 

6. Reinitiation of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS will be sought 

immediately if any loss of plants or occupied habitat for the Uinta Basin hookless 

cactus is anticipated as a result of project activities. 

Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to 

the species. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in 

consultation with the USFWS to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

L.1.7 LEASE NOTICE: UTE LADIES’-TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) 

The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain suitable habitat 

for Ute ladies'-tresses under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The following avoidance 

and minimization measures have been developed to facilitate review and analysis of any 

submitted permits under the authority of this lease: 

In order to minimize effects to the federally threatened Ute ladies’-tresses, the BLM in 

coordination with the USFWS, developed the following avoidance and minimization 

measures. Integration of and adherence to these measures will help ensure the activities 

carried out during oil and gas development (including but not limited to drilling, 

production, and maintenance) are in compliance with the ESA. Ute ladies’-tresses habitat 

is provided some protection under Executive Orders 11990 (wetland protection) and 

11988 (floodplain management), as well as section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Although plants, habitat, or populations may be afforded some protection under these 

regulatory mechanisms, the following conservation measures should be included in the 

Plan of Development: 

Vernal RMP L-8
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-9

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100% of the project 

disturbance area, including areas where hydrology might be affected by project 

activities, within potential habitat4

 prior to any ground disturbing activities to 

determine if suitable Ute ladies’-tresses habitat is present. 

2. Within suitable habitat5

, site inventories will be conducted to determine 

occupancy. Inventories: 

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to BLM and 

USFWS accepted survey protocols, 

b. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied6 habitat for all areas proposed 

for surface disturbance or areas that could experience direct or indirect 

changes in hydrology from project activities, 

c. Will be conducted prior to initiation of project activities and within the 

same growing season, at a time when the plant can be detected, and during 

appropriate flowering periods (usually August 1st and August 31st in the 

Uintah Basin; however, surveyors should verify that the plant is flowering 

by contacting a BLM or USFWS botanist or demonstrating that the nearest 

known population is in flower), 

d. Will occur within 300’ from the centerline of the proposed right-of-way 

for surface pipelines or roads; and within 300’ from the perimeter of 

disturbance for the proposed well pad including the well pad, 

e. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists, habitat 

characteristics, source of hydrology, and estimated hyroperiod, and 

f. Will be valid until August 1st the following year. 

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize direct or indirect impacts to suitable 

habitat2 both within and downstream of the project area: 

a. Alteration and disturbance of hydrology will not be permitted, 

b. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising 

safety, 

c. Limit new access routes created by the project, 

d. Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible, 

e. Reduce width of right-of-ways and minimize the depth of excavation 

needed for the road bed, 

f. Construction and right-of-way management measures should avoid soil 

compaction that would impact Ute ladies’ tresses habitat, 

g. Off-site impacts or indirect impacts should be avoided or minimized (i.e. 

install berms or catchment ditches to prevent spilled materials from 

 

4

 Potential habitat is defined as areas which satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat description; 

usually determined by preliminary, in-house assessment. 5

 Suitable habitat is defined as areas which contain or exhibit the specific components or constituents 

necessary for plant persistence; determined by field inspection and/or surveys; may or may not contain 

Ute ladies’-tresses. Habitat descriptions can be found in Recovery Plans and Federal Register Notices for 

the species at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html>. 6

 Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support Ute ladies’-tresses; 

synonymous with “known habitat.” 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

reaching occupied or suitable habitat through either surface or 

groundwater), 

h. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas, 

i. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas, and 

j. All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with species approved by USFWS 

and BLM botanists. 

4. Within occupied habitat3, project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

disturbance and minimize indirect impacts to populations and to individual plants: 

a. Follow the above (#3) recommendations for project design within suitable 

habitats, 

b. Buffers of 300 feet minimum between right of way (roads and surface 

pipelines) or surface disturbance (well pads) and plants and populations 

will be incorporated, 

c. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 300-foot buffer exists between 

the edge of the right of way and the plants, using stabilizing and anchoring 

techniques when the pipeline crosses habitat to ensure the pipelines don’t 

move towards the population, 

d. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually 

identifiable in the field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc., 

e. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or 

multiple wells from the same pad, 

f. Designs will avoid altering site hydrology and concentrating water flows 

or sediments into occupied habitat, 

g. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, 

away from occupied habitat, with berms and catchment ditches to avoid or 

minimize the potential for materials to reach occupied or suitable habitat, 

and 

h. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim 

and final reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest 

area possible. 

5. Occupied Ute ladies’-tresses habitats within 300’ of the edge of the surface 

pipelines’ right-of-ways, 300’ of the edge of the roads’ right-of-ways, and 300’ 

from the edge of the well pad shall be monitored for a period of three years after 

ground disturbing activities. Monitoring will include annual plant surveys to 

determine plant and habitat impacts relative to project facilities. Habitat impacts 

include monitoring any changes in hydrology due to project related activities. 

Annual reports shall be provided to the BLM and the USFWS. To ensure desired 

results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and may be 

changed after a thorough review of the monitoring results and annual reports 

during annual meetings between the BLM and the Service. 

6. Reinitiation of section 7 consultation with the USFWS will be sought 

immediately if any loss of plants or occupied habitat for the Ute ladies’-tresses is 

anticipated as a result of project activities. 

Vernal RMP L-10
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-11

Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to 

the species. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in 

consultation with the USFWS to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

L.1.8 LEASE NOTICE: CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) 

The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain suitable habitat 

for clay reed-mustard under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The following avoidance 

and minimization measures have been developed to facilitate review and analysis of any 

submitted permits under the authority of this lease: 

In order to minimize effects to the federally threatened clay reed-mustard, the BLM in 

coordination with the USFWS developed the following avoidance and minimization 

measures. Integration of and adherence to these measures will help ensure the activities 

carried out during oil and gas development (including but not limited to drilling, 

production, and maintenance) are in compliance with the ESA. The following avoidance 

and minimization measures should be included in the Plan of Development: 

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100% of the project 

disturbance area within potential habitat7

 prior to any ground disturbing activities 

to determine if suitable clay reed-mustard habitat is present. 

2. Site inventories will be conducted within suitable habitat8 to determine 

occupancy. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible and otherwise 

hazardous due to topography, slope, etc., suitable habitat will be assessed and 

mapped for avoidance (hereafter, "avoidance areas"); in such cases, in general, 

300' buffers will be maintained between surface disturbance and avoidance areas. 

However, site specific distances will need to be approved by USFWS and BLM 

when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat. Where conditions allow, 

inventories: 

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to BLM and 

Service accepted survey protocols, 

b. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied9 habitat for all areas proposed 

for surface disturbance prior to initiation of project activities and within 

the same growing season, at a time when the plant can be detected (usually 

May 1st to June 5th, in the Uintah Basin; however, surveyors should verify 

that the plant is flowering by contacting a BLM or FWS botanist or 

demonstrating that the nearest known population is in flower ), 

 

7

 Potential habitat is defined as areas which satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat description; 

usually determined by preliminary, in-house assessment. 8

 Suitable habitat is defined as areas which contain or exhibit the specific components or constituents 

necessary for plant persistence; determined by field inspection and/or surveys; may or may not contain 

clay reed-mustard; habitat descriptions can be found in Federal Register Notice and species recovery plan 

links at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html>. 

9

 Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support clay reed-mustard; 

synonymous with "known habitat."
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

c. Will occur within 300' from the centerline of the proposed right-of-way 

for surface pipelines or roads; and within 300' from the perimeter of 

disturbance for the proposed well pad including the well pad, 

d. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat 

characteristics, and 

e. Will be valid until May 1st the following year. 

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize impacts within suitable habitat2

: 

f. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible, infrastructure and 

activities will avoid all suitable habitat (avoidance areas) and incorporate 

300' buffers, in general; however, site specific distances will need to be 

approved by FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of 

habitat, 

g. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising 

safety, 

h. Limit new access routes created by the project, 

i. Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible, 

j. Reduce the width of right-of-ways and minimize the depth of excavation 

needed for the road bed; where feasible, use the natural ground surface for 

the road within habitat, 

k. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas, and 

l. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas. 

4. Within occupied habitat3, project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

disturbance and minimize indirect impacts to populations and to individual plants: 

m. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible, infrastructure and 

activities will avoid all suitable habitat (avoidance areas) and incorporate 

300' buffers, in general; however, site specific distances will need to be 

approved by FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of 

habitat, 

n. Follow the above recommendations (#3) for project design within suitable 

habitats, 

o. To avoid water flow and/or sedimentation into occupied habitat and 

avoidance areas, silt fences, hay bales, and similar structures or practices 

will be incorporated into the project design; appropriate placement of fill 

is encouraged, 

p. Construction of roads will occur such that the edge of the right of way is at 

least 300' from any plant and 300' from avoidance areas, 

q. Roads will be graveled within occupied habitat; the operator is encouraged 

to apply water for dust abatement to such areas from May 1st to June 5th

(flowering period); dust abatement applications will be comprised of water 

only, 

r. The edge of the well pad should be located at least 300' away from plants 

and avoidance areas, in general; however, site specific distances will need 

to be approved by FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of 

habitat, 

Vernal RMP L-12
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

s. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 300' buffer exists between the 

edge of the right of way and plants and 300' between the edge of right of 

way and avoidance areas; use stabilizing and anchoring techniques when 

the pipeline crosses suitable habitat to ensure pipelines don't move 

towards the population ; site specific distances will need to be approved by 

FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat, 

t. Construction activities will not occur from May 1st through June 5th within 

occupied habitat, 

u. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually 

identifiable in the field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc., 

v. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or 

multiple wells from the same pad, 

w. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, 

away from occupied habitat, and 

x. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim 

and final reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest 

area possible. 

 

5. Occupied clay reed-mustard habitats within 300' of the edge of the surface 

pipelines' right of ways, 300' of the edge of the roads' right of ways, and 300' from 

the edge of the well pad shall be monitored for a period of three years after 

ground disturbing activities. Monitoring will include annual plant surveys to 

determine plant and habitat impacts relative to project facilities. Annual reports 

shall be provided to the BLM and the USFWS. To ensure desired results are being 

achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and may be changed after a 

thorough review of the monitoring results and annual reports during annual 

meetings between the BLM and the Service. 

6. Reinitiation of section 7 consultation with the USFWS will be sought 

immediately if any loss of plants or occupied habitat for the shrubby reed-mustard 

is anticipated as a result of project activities. 

Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to 

the species. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in 

consultation with the USFWS to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

L.1.9 LEASE NOTICE: SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE 

(=GLAUCOCARPUM) SUFFRUTESCENS) 

The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain suitable habitat 

for shrubby reed-mustard under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The following 

avoidance and minimization measures have been developed to facilitate review and 

analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease: 

In order to minimize effects to the federally endangered shrubby reed-mustard, the BLM 

in coordination with the USFWS developed the following avoidance and minimization 

measures. Integration of and adherence to these measures will help ensure the activities 

carried out during oil and gas development (including but not limited to drilling, 

Vernal RMP L-13
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-14

production, and maintenance) are in compliance with the ESA. The following avoidance 

and minimization measures should be included in the Plan of Development: 

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100% of the project 

disturbance area within potential habitat10 prior to any ground disturbing 

activities to determine if suitable shrubby reed-mustard habitat is present. 

 

2. Within suitable habitat11, site inventories will be conducted to determine 

occupancy. Inventories: 

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to BLM and 

Service accepted survey protocols, 

b. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied12 habitat for all areas proposed 

for surface disturbance prior to initiation of project activities and within 

the same growing season, at a time when the plant can be detected (April 

15th to August 1st, unless extended by the BLM), 

c. Will occur within 300' from the centerline of the proposed right-of-way 

for surface pipelines or roads; and within 300' from the perimeter of 

disturbance for the proposed well pad including the well pad, 

d. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat 

characteristics, and 

e. Will be valid until April 15th the following year. 

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize impacts within suitable habitat2: 

a. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising 

safety, 

b. Limit new access routes created by the project, 

c. Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible, 

d. Reduce the width of right-of-ways and minimize the depth of excavation 

needed for the road bed; where feasible, use the natural ground surface for 

the road within habitat, 

e. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas, and 

f. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas. 

4. Within occupied habitat3, project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

disturbance and minimize indirect impacts to populations and to individual plants: 

a. Follow the above (#3) recommendations for project design within suitable 

habitats, 

10 Potential habitat is defined as areas which satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat 

description; usually determined by preliminary, in-house assessment. 11 Suitable habitat is defined as areas which contain or exhibit the specific components or 

constituents necessary for plant persistence; determined by field inspection and/or surveys; may or may 

not contain shrubby reed-mustard; habitat descriptions can be found in the Federal Register 

52(193):37416-37420 and in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994 Utah Reed-Mustards Recovery 

Plan (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html). 12 Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support shrubby reedmustard; synonymous with "known habitat."
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

b. Construction of roads will occur such that the edge of the right of way is at 

least 300' from any plant, 

c. Roads will be graveled within occupied habitat; the operator is encouraged 

to apply water for dust abatement to such areas from April 15th to May 

30th (flowering period); dust abatement applications will be comprised of 

water only, 

d. The edge of the well pad should be located at least 300' away from plants, 

e. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 300 foot buffer exists between 

the edge of the right of way and the plants, use stabilizing and anchoring 

techniques when the pipeline crosses the white shale strata to ensure the 

pipelines don't move towards the population, 

f. Construction activities will not occur from April 15th through May 30th

within occupied habitat, 

g. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually 

identifiable in the field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc., 

h. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or 

multiple wells from the same pad, 

i. Designs will avoid concentrating water flows or sediments into occupied 

habitat, 

j. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, 

away from occupied habitat, and 

k. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim 

and final reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest 

area possible. 

 

5. Occupied shrubby reed-mustard habitats within 300' of the edge of the surface 

pipeline right of ways, 300' of the edge of the road right of ways, and 300' from 

the edge of well pads shall be monitored for a period of three years after ground 

disturbing activities. Monitoring will include annual plant surveys to determine 

plant and habitat impacts relative to project facilities. Annual reports shall be 

provided to the BLM and the USFWS. To ensure desired results are being 

achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and may be changed after a 

thorough review of the monitoring results and annual reports during annual 

meetings between the BLM and the Service. 

6. Reinitiation of section 7 consultation with the USFWS will be sought 

immediately if any loss of plants or occupied habitat for the shrubby reed-mustard 

is anticipated as a result of project activities. 

Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to 

the species. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in 

consultation with the USFWS to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

Vernal RMP L-15
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

L.2 BLM-COMMITTED CONSERVATION MEASURES

BLM-committed conservation measures, which would be incorporated into the RMP, are 

binding species-specific measures intended to protect species, and minimize the potential 

for adverse impacts that may result from the implementation of BLM authorized 

activities on special status species. This is not a comprehensive list, in that other modified 

versions of these measures may be imposed for any BLM authorized activity following 

further analyses or reviews, and/or consultation and coordination with USFWS on 

specific actions. 

L.2.1 COMMITTED MITIGATION IDENTIFIED IN CHAPTER 2 OF THE PROPOSED 

PLAN AND THOSE RESULTING FROM CONSULTATION ON EXISTING LAND 

USE PLANS

1. In consultation with USFWS and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 

apply species-specific protective stipulations on federal actions to avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on federally listed, proposed, or candidate species or 

suitable habitat for the same species. 

2. Maintain adequate baseline information regarding the extent of special status 

species to make informed decisions, evaluate the effectiveness of management 

actions, and assess progress toward recovery. Implement species-specific 

conservation measures to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on known populations 

and their habitats of BLM special status plant and animal species on BLM 

administered lands. 

3. In areas where multiple resources are potentially affected by surface disturbance 

(e.g., crucial-value wildlife habitat, livestock pastures, threatened and endangered 

and special status species habitat, and occupied wild horse and burro range), 

coordinate implementation of any offsite mitigation with other affected agencies 

and the overlapping resource values. 

4. Cooperate with the USFWS, other agencies, and universities to develop plans for 

federally listed plant and animal species. 

5. Work with the UDWR to identify and improve special status fish passage and 

habitat connectivity. Maintain or improve habitat for reintroduction of special 

status fish species to streams. Maintain special status plant species communities in 

natural patterns on a landscape scale. 

6. Follow guidelines and implement management recommendations presented in 

species recovery or conservation plans or alternative management strategies 

developed in consultation with USFWS. 

7. Use emergency actions where use threatens known communities of Special Status 

plant or animal species. 

Vernal RMP L-16
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-17

8. Prohibit surface disturbances that may affect listed species or critical habitat of 

plants or animals (T&E or Candidate) without consultation or conference (ESA 

Section 7) between the BLM and USFWS. 

9. Continue to work with USFWS and others to ensure that plans and agreements are 

updated to reflect the latest scientific data. 

L.2.2 SPECIES SPECIFIC BLM-COMMITTED CONSERVATION MEASURES

As part of the proposed plan, the BLM has included conservation measures to minimize 

or eliminate adverse impacts to federally listed species. These measures are listed by 

species and are extrapolated from the Biological Opinion for the Existing Utah BLM 

RMP, the Amendment of Informal Oil & Gas Lease Sales Consultation (05-0215) and the 

Utah BLM RMP Biological Opinion (6-UT-07-F-0018) Conservation Measures. 

L.2.3 UTE LADIES'-TRESSES

In order to minimize effects to the federally threatened Ute ladies'-tresses, the BLM in 

coordination with the USFWS, developed the following avoidance and minimization 

measures. Integration of and adherence to these measures will help ensure the activities 

carried out during oil and gas development (including but not limited to drilling, 

production, and maintenance) are in compliance with the ESA. Ute ladies'- tresses habitat 

is provided some protection under Executive Orders 11990 (wetland protection) and 

11988 (floodplain management), as well as section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Although 

plants, habitat, or populations may be afforded some protection under these regulatory 

mechanisms, the following conservation measures should be included in the Plan of 

Development: 

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100% of the project 

disturbance area, including areas where hydrology might be affected by project 

activities, within potential habitat13 prior to any ground disturbing activities to 

determine if suitable habitat is present. 

2. Within suitable habitat14, site inventories will be conducted to determine 

occupancy. Inventories: 

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to BLM and 

USFWS accepted survey protocols; 

 

13 Potential habitat is defined as areas which satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat description; usually 

determined by preliminary, in-house assessment. 

14 Suitable habitat is defined as areas which contain or exhibit the specific components or constituents necessary for plant 

persistence; determined by field inspection and/or surveys; may or may not contain . Habitat descriptions can be found in 

Recovery Plans and Federal Register Notices for the species at (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html). 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-18

b. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied habitat for all areas 

proposed for surface disturbance or areas that could experience direct 

or indirect changes in hydrology from project activities; 

c. Will be conducted prior to initiation of project activities and within the 

same growing season, at a time when the plant can be detected, and 

during appropriate flowering periods (usually August 1st and August 

31st in the Uinta Basin; however, surveyors should verify that the plant 

is flowering by contacting a BLM or USFWS botanist or demonstrating 

that the nearest known population is in flower); 

d. Will occur within 300 feet from the centerline of the proposed right-ofway for surface pipelines or roads; and within 300 feet from the 

perimeter of disturbance for the proposed well pad including the well 

pad; 

e. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists, habitat 

characteristics, source of hydrology, and estimated hydroperiod; and 

f. Will be valid until August 1st the following year. 

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize direct or indirect impacts to suitable 

habitat both within and downstream of the project area: 

a. Alteration and disturbance of hydrology will not be permitted; 

b. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising 

safety; 

c. Limit new access routes created by the project; 

d. Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible; 

e. Reduce width of right-of-ways and minimize the depth of excavation 

needed for the road bed; 

f. Construction and right-of-way management measures should avoid soil 

compaction that would impact Ute ladies' tresses habitat; 

g. Off-site impacts or indirect impacts should be avoided or minimized 

(i.e. install berms or catchment ditches to prevent spilled materials 

from reaching occupied or suitable habitat through either surface or 

groundwater); 

h. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas; 

i. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas; and, 

j. All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with species approved by 

USFWS and BLM botanists. 

4. Within occupied habitat15, project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

disturbance and minimize indirect impacts to populations and to individual plants: 

a. Follow the above (#3) recommendations for project design within 

suitable habitats; 

 

15 Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support; synonymous with "known habitat." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

b. Buffers of 300 feet minimum between right of way (roads and surface 

pipelines) or surface disturbance (well pads) and plants and populations 

will be incorporated; 

c. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 300-foot buffer exists between 

the edge of the right-of-way and the plants, using stabilizing and 

anchoring techniques when the pipeline crosses habitat to ensure the 

pipelines don't move towards the population; 

d. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually 

identifiable in the field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc.; 

e. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or 

multiple wells from the same pad; 

f. Designs will avoid altering site hydrology and concentrating water flows 

or sediments into occupied habitat; 

g. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, 

away from occupied habitat, with berms and catchment ditches to avoid 

or minimize the potential for materials to reach occupied or suitable 

habitat; and, 

h. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim 

and final reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the 

smallest area possible. 

5. Occupied habitats within 300 feet of the edge of the surface pipelines' ROW, 300 

feet of the edge of the roads' ROWs, and 300 feet from the edge of the well pad 

shall be monitored for a period of three years after ground disturbing activities. 

Monitoring will include annual plant surveys to determine plant and habitat 

impacts relative to project facilities. Habitat impacts include monitoring any 

changes in hydrology due to project related activities. Annual reports shall be 

provided to the BLM and the USFWS. To ensure desired results are being 

achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and may be changed after a 

thorough review of the monitoring results and annual reports during annual 

meetings between the BLM and the USFWS. 

6. Reinitiation of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS will be sought 

immediately if any loss of plants or occupied habitat is anticipated as a result of 

project activities. 

Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to 

the species. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in 

consultation with the USFWS to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. 

L.2.4 UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS CACTUS (SCLEROCACTUS GLAUCUS [=S.

WETLANDICUS AND S. BREVISPINUS]) 

The following list of measures provides species-specific guidance intended to avoid, 

minimize, or reduce potential adverse impacts from implementation of BLM actions 

under the authority of current Utah BLM LUPs on the Uinta Basin hookless cactus 

(Sclerocactus glaucus). This list is not comprehensive. Additional conservation measures, 

Vernal RMP L-19
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

or other modified versions of these measures, may be applied for any given BLMauthorized activity upon further analysis, review, coordination efforts, and/or appropriate 

levels of section 7 consultation with the USFWS. 

1. Prior to surface disturbing activities in habitat for the species, presence/absence 

surveys of potentially affected areas will be conducted in accordance with 

established protocols. 

2. Appropriate avoidance/protection/mitigation will be used to manage potential 

impacts of similar subsequent projects. These measures should include, but are 

not be limited to: 

a. the stabilization of soils to minimize or avoid impacts related to soil 

erosion; 

b. marking/flagging of suitable and/or occupied habitat (including 

predetermined buffers) prior to development to avoid trampling by 

crew members or equipment during disturbance related activities; and 

c. require project proponents to conduct surveys and monitoring actions 

using BLM-approved specialists to document population effects and 

individual impacts. 

3. BLM shall continue to document new populations of Uinta Basin hookless cactus 

as they are encountered. 

4. To assist and support recovery efforts, BLM will minimize or avoid surface 

disturbances in habitats that support the species. 

5. BLM will encourage and assist project proponents in development and design of 

their proposed actions in order to avoid direct disturbance to suitable habitat, 

populations, or individuals where feasible. Designs should consider water flow, 

slope, appropriate buffer distances, possible fencing needs, and pre-activity 

flagging of sensitive areas that are planned for avoidance. 

6. BLM will consider emergency OHV closure or additional restrictions to protect, 

conserve, and recover the species. 

7. In areas where dispersed recreational uses are identified as threats to populations 

of the species, BLM will consider the development of new recreational 

facilities/opportunities that concentrate dispersed recreational use away from 

habitat, especially occupied habitat. 

8. Cultural and paleontological survey/recovery technicians (i.e., archeologists 

and/or paleontologists), conducting work in the vicinity of known populations, 

will be educated in the identification of listed species in order to avoid inadvertent 

trampling or removal during survey, mapping, or excavation of cultural or 

paleontological resources. 

Vernal RMP L-20
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-21

9. Areas of viable habitat, near populations considered for prescribed burning, will 

be surveyed according to established protocols for new or undocumented 

populations of the species. 

10. Lands being considered for exchange or disposal that contain suitable habitat for 

the species will be surveyed for undocumented populations, according to 

established protocols, prior to approval of such disposal. Lands supporting 

populations shall not be disposed of unless it is determined that the action will not 

threaten the survival and recovery of the species in accordance with the ESA and 

BLM Guidance and Policy Manual 6840 (Special Status Species Management). 

11. The BLM will encourage the avoidance of key habitats during livestock herding 

and trailing activities on BLM-administered lands. (Key habitats are those that are 

deemed necessary for the conservation of the species including, but not 

necessarily limited to, designated critical habitat and other occupied or 

unoccupied habitats considered important for the species survival and recovery as 

determined in coordination with the USFWS). 

L.2.5 CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) 

In order to minimize effects to the federally threatened clay reed-mustard, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) developed the following avoidance and minimization measures. Integration of 

and adherence to these measures will help ensure the activities carried out during oil and 

gas development (including but not limited to drilling, production, and maintenance) are 

in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The following avoidance and 

minimization measures should be included in the Plan of Development: 

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100% of the project 

disturbance area within potential habitat16 prior to any ground disturbing 

activities to determine if suitable clay reed-mustard habitat is present. 

 

2. Site inventories will be conducted within suitable habitat17 to determine 

occupancy. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible and otherwise 

hazardous due to topography, slope, etc., suitable habitat will be assessed and 

mapped for avoidance (hereafter, "avoidance areas"); in such cases, in general, 

300' buffers will be maintained between surface disturbance and avoidance areas. 

However, site specific distances will need to be approved by FWS and BLM 

when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat. Where conditions allow, 

inventories: 

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to BLM and 

Service accepted survey protocols, 

16 Potential habitat is defined as areas which satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat 

description; usually determined by preliminary, in-house assessment. 17 Suitable habitat is defined as areas which contain or exhibit the specific components or 

constituents necessary for plant persistence; determined by field inspection and/or surveys; may or may 

not contain clay reed-mustard; habitat descriptions can be found in Federal Register Notice and species 

recovery plan links at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html>. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-22

b. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied18 habitat for all areas proposed 

for surface disturbance prior to initiation of project activities and within 

the same growing season, at a time when the plant can be detected (usually 

May 1st to June 5th, in the Uintah Basin; however, surveyors should verify 

that the plant is flowering by contacting a BLM or FWS botanist or 

demonstrating that the nearest known population is in flower ), 

c. Will occur within 300' from the centerline of the proposed right-of-way 

for surface pipelines or roads; and within 300' from the perimeter of 

disturbance for the proposed well pad including the well pad, 

d. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat 

characteristics, and 

e. Will be valid until May 1st the following year. 

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize impacts within suitable habitat2: 

a. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible, infrastructure and 

activities will avoid all suitable habitat (avoidance areas) and incorporate 

300' buffers, in general; however, site specific distances will need to be 

approved by FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of 

habitat, 

b. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising 

safety, 

c. Limit new access routes created by the project, 

d. Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible, 

e. Reduce the width of right-of-ways and minimize the depth of excavation 

needed for the road bed; where feasible, use the natural ground surface for 

the road within habitat, 

f. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas, and 

g. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas. 

4. Within occupied habitat3

, project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

disturbance and minimize indirect impacts to populations and to individual plants: 

a. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible, infrastructure and 

activities will avoid all suitable habitat (avoidance areas) and incorporate 

300' buffers, in general; however, site specific distances will need to be 

approved by FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of 

habitat, 

b. Follow the above recommendations (#3) for project design within suitable 

habitats, 

c. To avoid water flow and/or sedimentation into occupied habitat and 

avoidance areas, silt fences, hay bales, and similar structures or practices 

will be incorporated into the project design; appropriate placement of fill 

is encouraged, 

d. Construction of roads will occur such that the edge of the right of way is at 

least 300' from any plant and 300' from avoidance areas, 

 

18 Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support clay reed-mustard; 

synonymous with "known habitat." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

e. Roads will be graveled within occupied habitat; the operator is encouraged 

to apply water for dust abatement to such areas from May 1st to June 5th

(flowering period); dust abatement applications will be comprised of water 

only, 

f. The edge of the well pad should be located at least 300' away from plants 

and avoidance areas, in general; however, site specific distances will need 

to be approved by FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of 

habitat, 

g. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 300' buffer exists between the 

edge of the right of way and plants and 300' between the edge of right of 

way and avoidance areas; use stabilizing and anchoring techniques when 

the pipeline crosses suitable habitat to ensure pipelines don't move 

towards the population ; site specific distances will need to be approved by 

FWS and BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat, 

h. Construction activities will not occur from May 1st through June 5th within 

occupied habitat, 

i. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually 

identifiable in the field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc., 

j. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or 

multiple wells from the same pad, 

k. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, 

away from occupied habitat, and 

l. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim 

and final reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest 

area possible. 

 

5. Occupied clay reed-mustard habitats within 300' of the edge of the surface 

pipelines' right of ways, 300' of the edge of the roads' right of ways, and 300' from 

the edge of the well pad shall be monitored for a period of three years after 

ground disturbing activities. Monitoring will include annual plant surveys to 

determine plant and habitat impacts relative to project facilities. Annual reports 

shall be provided to the BLM and the Service. To ensure desired results are being 

achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and may be changed after a 

thorough review of the monitoring results and annual reports during annual 

meetings between the BLM and the Service. 

6. Reinitiation of section 7 consultation with the Service will be sought immediately 

if any loss of plants or occupied habitat for the shrubby reed-mustard is 

anticipated as a result of project activities. 

Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to 

the species. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure continued compliance with 

the ESA. 

Vernal RMP L-23
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-24

L.2.6 SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE [=GLAUCOCARPUM]

SUFFRUTESCENS) 

In order to minimize effects to the federally endangered shrubby reed-mustard, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) developed the following avoidance and minimization measures. 

Integration of and adherence to these measures will help ensure the activities carried out 

during oil and gas development (including but not limited to drilling, production, and 

maintenance) are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The following 

avoidance and minimization measures should be included in the Plan of Development: 

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100% of the project 

disturbance area within potential habitat19 prior to any ground disturbing 

activities to determine if suitable shrubby reed-mustard habitat is present. 

 

2. Within suitable habitat20, site inventories will be conducted to determine 

occupancy. Inventories: 

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to BLM and 

Service accepted survey protocols, 

b. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied21 habitat for all areas proposed 

for surface disturbance prior to initiation of project activities and within 

the same growing season, at a time when the plant can be detected (April 

15th to August 1st, unless extended by the BLM), 

c. Will occur within 300' from the centerline of the proposed right-of-way 

for surface pipelines or roads; and within 300' from the perimeter of 

disturbance for the proposed well pad including the well pad, 

d. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat 

characteristics, and 

e. Will be valid until April 15th the following year. 

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize impacts within suitable habitat2: 

a. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising 

safety, 

b. Limit new access routes created by the project, 

c. Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible, 

d. Reduce the width of right-of-ways and minimize the depth of excavation 

needed for the road bed; where feasible, use the natural ground surface for 

the road within habitat, 

e. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas, and 

19 Potential habitat is defined as areas which satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat 

description; usually determined by preliminary, in-house assessment. 20 Suitable habitat is defined as areas which contain or exhibit the specific components or 

constituents necessary for plant persistence; determined by field inspection and/or surveys; may or may 

not contain shrubby reed-mustard; habitat descriptions can be found in the Federal Register 

52(193):37416-37420 and in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994 Utah Reed-Mustards Recovery 

Plan (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html). 21 Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support shrubby reedmustard; synonymous with "known habitat." 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

f. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas. 

4. Within occupied habitat3

, project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct 

disturbance and minimize indirect impacts to populations and to individual plants: 

a. Follow the above (#3) recommendations for project design within suitable 

habitats, 

b. Construction of roads will occur such that the edge of the right of way is at 

least 300' from any plant, 

c. Roads will be graveled within occupied habitat; the operator is encouraged 

to apply water for dust abatement to such areas from April 15th to May 

30th (flowering period); dust abatement applications will be comprised of 

water only, 

d. The edge of the well pad should be located at least 300' away from plants, 

e. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 300 foot buffer exists between 

the edge of the right of way and the plants, use stabilizing and anchoring 

techniques when the pipeline crosses the white shale strata to ensure the 

pipelines don't move towards the population, 

f. Construction activities will not occur from April 15th through May 30th

within occupied habitat, 

g. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually 

identifiable in the field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc., 

h. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or 

multiple wells from the same pad, 

i. Designs will avoid concentrating water flows or sediments into occupied 

habitat, 

j. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, 

away from occupied habitat, and 

k. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim 

and final reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest 

area possible. 

 

5. Occupied shrubby reed-mustard habitats within 300' of the edge of the surface 

pipeline right of ways, 300' of the edge of the road right of ways, and 300' from 

the edge of well pads shall be monitored for a period of three years after ground 

disturbing activities. Monitoring will include annual plant surveys to determine 

plant and habitat impacts relative to project facilities. Annual reports shall be 

provided to the BLM and the Service. To ensure desired results are being 

achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and may be changed after a 

thorough review of the monitoring results and annual reports during annual 

meetings between the BLM and the Service. 

6. Reinitiation of section 7 consultation with the Service will be sought immediately 

if any loss of plants or occupied habitat for the shrubby reed-mustard is 

anticipated as a result of project activities. 

Vernal RMP L-25
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Vernal RMP L-26

Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to 

the species. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure continued compliance with 

the ESA. 

L.2.7 MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL (STRIX OCCIDENTALIS LUCIDA)

The following list of measures provides species-specific guidance, intended to avoid, 

minimize, or reduce potential adverse impacts from implementation of BLM actions 

under the authority of current Utah BLM LUPs on the Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida). This list is not comprehensive. Additional conservation measures, or 

other modified versions of these measures, may be applied for any given BLMauthorized activity upon further analysis, review, coordination efforts, and/or appropriate 

levels of section 7 consultation with the Service. 

1. BLM will place restrictions on all authorized (permitted) activities that may 

adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl in identified PACs, breeding habitat, or 

designated critical habitat, to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to the 

species. Restrictions and procedures have been adapted from guidance published 

in the Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land 

Use Disturbances (USFWS 2002b), as well as coordination between BLM and the 

Service. Measures include: 

a) Surveys, according to USFWS protocol, will be required prior to 

any disturbance related activities that have been identified to have 

the potential to impact Mexican spotted owl, unless current species 

occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. 

All surveys must be conducted by USFWS certified individuals, 

and approved by the BLM authorized officer. 

b) Assess habitat suitability for both nesting and foraging using 

accepted habitat models in conjunction with field reviews. Apply 

the appropriate conservation measures below if project activities 

occur within 0.5 mile of suitable owl habitat, dependent in part on 

if the action is temporary22 or permanent23: 

 For all temporary actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: 

i. If action occurs entirely outside of the owl breeding season, 

and leaves no permanent structure or permanent habitat 

disturbance, action can proceed without an occupancy 

survey. 

 

22 Temporary activities are defined as those that are completed prior to the start of the following raptor breeding season, 

leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. 

23 Permanent activities continue for more than one breeding season and/or cause a loss of owl habitat or 

displaces owls through disturbances, e.g., creation of a permanent structure including but not limited to 

well pads, roads, pipelines, electrical power line. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

ii. If action will occur during a breeding season, survey for 

owls prior to commencing activity. If owls are found, 

activity should be delayed until outside of the breeding 

season. 

iii. Eliminate access routes created by a project through such 

means as raking out scars, revegetation, gating access 

points, etc. 

 

For all permanent actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: 

i. Survey two consecutive years for owls according to 

established protocol prior to commencing of activity. 

ii. If owls are found, no actions will occur within 0.5 mile of 

identified nest site. 

iii. If nest site is unknown, no activity will occur within the 

designated Protected Activity Center (PAC). 

iv. Avoid placing permanent structures within 0.5 mi of 

suitable habitat unless surveyed and not occupied. 

v. Reduce noise emissions (e.g., use hospital-grade mufflers) 

to 45 dBA at 0.5 mile from suitable habitat, including 

canyon rims (Delaney et al. 1997). Placement of 

permanent noise-generating facilities should be 

determined by a noise analysis to ensure noise does not 

encroach upon a 0.5 mile buffer for suitable habitat, 

including canyon rims. 

vi. Limit disturbances to and within suitable owl habitat by 

staying on designated routes. 

vii. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

2. The BLM will, as a condition of approval (COA) on any project proposed within 

identified PACs, designated critical habitat, or within spatial buffers for Mexican 

spotted owl nests (0.5 mile), ensure that project proponents are notified as to their 

responsibilities for rehabilitation of temporary access routes and other temporary 

surface disturbances, created by their project, according to individual BLM Field 

Office standards and procedures, or those determined in the project-specific 

Section 7 Consultation. 

3. The BLM will require monitoring of activities in designated critical habitat, 

identified PACs, or breeding habitats, wherein it has been determined that there is 

a potential for take. If any adverse impacts are observed to occur in a manner, or 

to an extent that was not considered in the project-specific Section 7 Consultation, 

then consultation must be reinitiated. 

a. Monitoring results should document what, if any, impacts to individuals or 

habitat occur during project construction/implementation. In addition, 

monitoring should document successes or failures of any impact 

Vernal RMP L-27
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

minimization, or mitigation measures. Monitoring results would be 

considered an opportunity for adaptive management, and as such, would 

be carried forward in the design and implementation of future projects. 

4. For all survey and monitoring actions: 

a. Reports must be provided to affected field offices within 15 days of 

completion of survey or monitoring efforts. 

b. Report any detection of Mexican spotted owls during survey or monitoring 

to the authorized officer within 48 hours. 

5. The BLM will, in areas of designated critical habitat, ensure that any physical or 

biological factors (i.e., the primary constituent elements), as identified in 

determining and designating such habitat, remains intact during implementation 

of any BLM-authorized activity. 

6. For all BLM actions that "may adversely affect" the primary constituent elements 

in any suitable Mexican spotted owl habitat, BLM will implement measures as 

appropriate to minimize habitat loss or fragmentation, including rehabilitation of 

access routes created by the project through such means as raking out scars, 

revegetation, gating access points, etc. 

7. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling from single 

drilling pads to reduce surface disturbance, and minimize or eliminate needing to 

drilling in canyon habitats suitable for Mexican spotted owl nesting. 

8. Prior to surface disturbing activities in Mexican spotted owl PACs, breeding 

habitats, or designated critical habitat, specific principles should be considered to 

control erosion. These principles include: 

a. Conduct long-range transportation planning for large areas to ensure that 

roads will serve future needs. This will result in less total surface 

disturbance. 

b. Avoid surface disturbance in areas with high erosion hazards to the 

greatest extent possible. Avoid mid-slope locations, headwalls at the 

source of tributary drainages, inner valley gorges, and excessively wet 

slopes such as those near springs. In addition, avoid areas where large cuts 

and fills would be required. 

c. Locate roads to minimize roadway drainage areas and to avoid modifying 

the natural drainage areas of small streams. 

9. Project developments should be designed, and located to avoid direct or indirect 

loss or modification of Mexican spotted owl nesting and/or identified roosting 

habitats. 

10. Water production associated with BLM authorized actions should be managed to 

Vernal RMP L-28
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitats. 

L.2.8 BONYTAIL (GILA ELEGANS), COLORADO PIKEMINNOW (PTYCHOCHEILUS 

LUCIUS), HUMPBACK CHUB (GILA CYPHA), AND RAZORBACK SUCKER 

(XYRAUCHEN TEXANUS)

The following list of measures provides species-specific guidance intended to avoid, 

minimize, or reduce potential adverse impacts from implementation of BLM actions 

under the authority of current Utah BLM LUPs on the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback 

chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker, herein referred to as the Colorado River fishes. 

This list is not comprehensive. Additional conservation measures, or other modified 

versions of these measures, may be applied for any given BLM-authorized activity upon 

further analysis, review, coordination efforts, and/or appropriate levels of Section 7 

consultation with the USFWS. 

1. Monitoring of impacts of site-specific projects authorized by the BLM will result in 

the preparation of a report describing the progress of each site-specific project, 

including implementation of any associated reasonable and prudent measures or 

reasonable and prudent alternatives. This will be a requirement of project 

proponents and will be included as a condition of approval (COA) on future 

proposed actions that have been determined to have the potential for take. Reports 

will be submitted annually to the USFWS–Utah Field Office, beginning after the 

first full year of implementation of the project, and shall list and describe: 

a. Any unforeseen direct or indirect adverse impacts that result from 

activities of each site-specific project; 

b. Estimated levels of impact or water depletion, in relation to those 

described in the original project-level Consultation effort, in order to 

inform the USFWS of any intentions to reinitiate Section 7 consultation; 

and, 

c. Results of annual, periodic monitoring which evaluates the effectiveness 

of any site-specific terms and conditions that are part of the formal 

Consultation process. This will include items such as an assessment of 

whether implementation of each site-specific project is consistent with that 

described in the BA, and whether the project has complied with terms and 

conditions. 

2. The BLM shall notify the USFWS immediately of any unforeseen impacts detected 

during project implementation. Any implementation action that may be 

contributing to the introduction of toxic materials or other causes of fish mortality 

must be immediately stopped until the situation is remedied. If investigative 

monitoring efforts demonstrate that the source of fish mortality is not related to 

the authorized activity, the action may proceed only after notification of USFWS 

authorities. 

Vernal RMP L-29
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

3. Unoccupied, suitable habitat areas should be protected in order to preserve them 

for future management actions associated with the recovery of the Endangered 

Colorado River Fish, as well as approved reintroduction, or relocation efforts. 

a. BLM will avoid impacts where feasible, to habitats considered most 

representative of prime suitable habitat for these species. 

b. Surface-disturbing activities will be restricted within 1/4 mile of the 

channel centerline of the Colorado, Green, Duchesne, Price, White, and 

San Rafael Rivers. 

c. Surface-disturbing activities proposed to occur within floodplains or 

riparian areas will be avoided unless there is no practical alternative or the 

development would enhance riparian/aquatic values. If activities must 

occur in these areas, construction will be designed to include mitigation 

efforts to maintain, restore, and/or improve riparian and aquatic 

conditions. If conditions could not be maintained, offsite mitigation 

strategies should be considered. 

4. BLM will ensure project proponents are aware that designs must avoid as much 

direct disturbance to current populations and known habitats as is feasible. 

Designs should include: 

a. protections against toxic spills into rivers and floodplains; 

b. plans for sedimentation reduction; 

c. minimization of riparian vegetation loss or degradation; 

d. pre-activity flagging of critical areas for avoidance; 

e. design of stream-crossings for adequate passage of fish; and, 

f. measures to avoid or minimize impacts on water quality at the 25-year 

frequency runoff 

5. Prior to surface-disturbing activities, specific principles will be considered to 

control erosion. These principles include: 

a. Conduct long-range transportation planning for large areas to ensure 

that roads will serve future needs. This will result in less total surface 

disturbance. 

b. Avoid, where possible, surface disturbance in areas with high erosion 

hazards. 

c. Avoid mid-slope location of drill pads, headwalls at the source of 

tributary drainages, inner valley gorges, excessively wet slopes such as 

those near springs and avoid areas where large cuts and fills would be 

required. 

d. Design and locate roads to minimize roadway drainage areas and to 

avoid modifying the natural drainage areas of small streams. 

6. Where technically and economically feasible, project proponents will use 

directional drilling or multiple wells from a single pad to reduce surface 

disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable riparian habitat. Ensure that such 

Vernal RMP L-30
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. Drilling will not occur 

within 100 year floodplains that contain listed fish species or their designated 

critical habitats. 

7. The Utah Oil and Gas Pipeline Crossing Guidance (BLM National Science and 

Technology Center), or other applicable guidance, will be implemented for oil 

and gas pipeline river/stream crossings. 

8. In areas adjacent to 100-year floodplains, particularly in systems prone to flash 

floods, BLM will analyze the risk for flash floods to impact facilities. Potential 

techniques may include the use of closed loop drilling and pipeline burial or 

suspension as necessary to minimize the potential for equipment damage and 

resultant leaks or spills. 

9. Water depletions from any portion of the Upper Colorado River drainage basin 

above Lake Powell are considered to adversely affect the critical habitat of these 

endangered fish species. Section 7 consultation will be completed with the 

USFWS prior to any such water depletions. 

10. Design stream-crossings for adequate passage of fish (if present), minimum 

impact on water quality, and at a minimum, a 25-year frequency run-off. 

L.3 CONSERVATION MEASURES FROM THE BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR THE 

UTAH BLM LAND USE PLANS AMENDMENTS BA AND FIRE 

MANAGEMENT PLANS BAS

Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity. Setting 

priorities among protecting human communities, community infrastructure, other 

property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources must be based on the 

values to be protected, human health and safety, and costs of protection. The Applicant 

Committed Resource Protection Measures will apply to the species covered in this 

consultation, unless a threat to human life or property exists. 

During the wildfire suppression activities, the Incident Commander has the final 

decision-making authority for suppression operations and tactics, including 

implementation of resource protection operations, thereby minimizing or avoiding many 

effects to federally protected species. However, in the event that measures cannot be 

implemented during fire suppression operations due to safety concerns, some effects may 

occur to federally protected species. In these cases, BLM would initiate emergency 

consultation with the USFWS for these fire suppression efforts. 

L.3.1 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT

The project proponent commits to the following resource protection measures as 

identified in the March 4, 2005 Biological Assessment. These measures have been 

developed as part of the proposed action to provide statewide consistency in reducing the 

effects of fire management activities on listed, proposed, and candidate species and their 

Vernal RMP L-31
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

habitats. Resource protection measures for fire management practices use the following 

codes to represent which actions fir within each of the measures: 

 SUP: wildland fire suppression, 

 WFU: wildland fire use for resource benefit, 

 RX: prescribed fire, 

 NF: non-fire fuel treatments, 

 ESR: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

L.3.1.1 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT AIR QUALITY INCLUDE: 

A-1: Evaluate weather conditions, including wind speed and atmospheric stability, to 

predict impacts from smoke from prescribed fires and wildland fire uses. Coordinate with 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality for prescribed fires and wildland fire use 

(RX, WFU). 

A-2: When using chemical fuels reduction methods, follow all label requirements for 

herbicide application (NF). 

L.3.1.2 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT SOIL AND WATER QUALITY INCLUDE: 

SW-1: Avoid heavy equipment use on highly erosive soils (soils with low soil loss 

tolerance), wet or boggy soils and slopes greater than 30%, unless otherwise analyzed 

and allowed under appropriate NEPA evaluation with implementation of additional 

erosion control and other soil protection mitigation measures. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, 

ESR) 

SW-2: There may be situations where high intensity fire will occur on sensitive and 

erosive soil types during wildland fire, wildland fire use or prescribed fire. If significant 

areas show evidence of high severity fire, then evaluate area for soil erosion potential and 

downstream values at risk and implement appropriate or necessary soil stabilization 

actions such as mulching or seeding to avoid excessive wind and water erosion. (SUP, 

WFU, RX) 

SW-3: Complete necessary rehabilitation on fire lines or other areas of direct soil 

disturbance, including but not limited to water barring fire lines, covering and mulching 

fire lines with slash, tilling and/or sub soiling compacted areas, scarification of vehicle 

tracks, OHV closures, seeding and/or mulching for erosion protection. (SUP, WFU, RX) 

SW-4: When using mechanical fuels reduction treatments, limit tractor and heavy 

equipment use to periods of low soil moisture to reduce the risk of soil compaction. If 

this is not practical, evaluate sites, post treatment and if necessary, implement appropriate 

remediation, such as sub soiling, as part of the operation. (NF) 

SW-5: Treatments such as chaining, plowing and roller chopping shall be conducted as 

much as practical on the contour to reduce soil erosion. (NF, ESR) 

SW-6: When using chemical fuel reduction treatments follow all label directions, 

additional mitigations identified in project NEPA evaluation and the Approved Pesticide 

Vernal RMP L-32
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Use Permit. At a minimum, provide a 100-foot-wide riparian buffer strip for aerial 

application, 25 feet for vehicle application and 10 feet for hand application. Any 

deviations must be accordance with the label. Herbicides would be applied to individual 

plants within 10 feet of water where application is critical. (NF) 

SW-7: Avoid heavy equipment in riparian or wetland areas. During fire suppression or 

wildland fire use, consult a Resource Advisor before using heavy equipment in riparian 

or wetland areas. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

SW-8: Limit ignition within native riparian or wetland areas. Allow low-intensity fire to 

burn into riparian areas. (RX) 

SW-9: Suppress wildfires consistently with compliance strategies for restoring or 

maintaining the restoration of water quality impaired [303(d) listed] water bodies. Do not 

use retardant within 300 feet of water bodies. (SUP, WFU) 

SW-10: Plan and implement projects consistent with compliance strategies for restoring 

or maintaining the restoration of water quality impaired [303(d) listed] water bodies. 

Planned activities should take into account the potential impacts on water quality, 

including increased water yields that can threaten fisheries and aquatic habitat; 

improvements at channel crossings; channel stability; and downstream values. Of special 

concern are small headwaters of moderate to steep watersheds, erosive or saline soils; 

multiple channel crossings; at-risk fisheries, and downstream residents. (RX, NF, ESR) 

L.3.1.3 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT VEGETATION INCLUDE: 

V-1: When restoring or rehabilitating disturbed rangelands, non-intrusive, non-native 

plant species are appropriate for use when native species: (1) are not available; (2) are not 

economically feasible; (3) cannot achieve ecological objectives as well as non-native 

species; and/or (4) cannot compete with already established native species. (RX, NF, 

ESR) 

V-2: In areas known to have weed infestations, aggressive action should be taken in 

rehabilitating fire lines, seeding and follow-up monitoring and treatment to reduce the 

spread of noxious weeds. Monitor burned areas and treat as necessary. All seed used 

would be tested for purity and for noxious weeds. Seed with noxious weeds would be 

rejected. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

L.3.1.4 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES (INCLUDING 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES) INCLUDE: 

SSS-1: Initiate emergency Section 7 consultation with United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) upon the determination that wildfire suppression may pose a potential 

threat to any listed threatened or endangered species or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. (SUP) 

SSS-2: Prior to planned fire management actions, survey for listed threatened, 

endangered, and non-listed sensitive species. Initiate Section 7 consultation with the 

Service as necessary if a proposed project may affect any listed species. Review 

appropriate management, conservation and recovery plans and include recovery plan 

direction into project proposals. For non-listed special status plant and animal species, 

Vernal RMP L-33
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

follow the direction contained in the BLM 6840 Manual. Ensure that any proposed 

project conserves non-listed sensitive species and their habitats and ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by BLM does not contribute to the need for any species 

to become listed. (RX, NF, ESR) 

SSS-3: Incorporate site-specific conservation measures identified in this BA. (SUP, 

WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

L.3.1.5 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES INCLUDE: 

FW-1: Avoid treatments during nesting, fawning, spawning, or other critical periods for 

wildlife or fish. (RX, NF, ESR) 

FW-2: Avoid if possible or limit the size of, wildland fires in important wildlife habitats 

such as, mule deer winter range, riparian and occupied sage grouse habitat. Use Resource 

Advisors to help prioritize resources and develop Wildland Fire Situation Analyses 

(WFSAs) and Wildland Fire Implementation Analyses (WFSAs) and Wildland Fire 

Implementation Plans (WFIPs) when important habitats may be impacted. (SUP, WFU) 

FW-3: Minimize wildfire size and frequency in sagebrush communities where sage 

grouse habitat objectives will not be met if a fire occurs. Prioritize wildfire suppression in 

sagebrush habitat with an understory of invasive, annual species. Retain unburned islands 

and patches of sagebrush unless there are compelling safety, private property and 

resource protection or control objectives at risk. Minimize burn out operations (to 

minimize burned acres) in occupied sage-grouse habitats when there are not threats to 

human life and/or important resources. (SUP) 

FW-4: Establish fuel treatment projects at strategic locations to minimize size of 

wildfires and to limit further loss of sagebrush. Fuel treatments may include green 

stripping to help reduce the spread of wildfires into sagebrush communities. (RX, NF) 

FW-5: Use wildland fire to meet wildlife objectives. Evaluate impacts to sage grouse 

habitat in areas where wildland fire use for resource benefit may be implemented. (WFU, 

RX) 

FW-6: Create small openings in continuous or dense sagebrush (>30% canopy cover) to 

create a mosaic of multiple-age classes and associated understory diversity across the 

landscape to benefit sagebrush-dependent species. (WFU, RX, NF) 

FW-7: On sites that are currently occupied by forests or woodlands, but historically 

supported sagebrush communities, implement treatments (fire, cutting, chaining, seeding, 

etc.) to re-establish sagebrush communities. (RX, NF) 

FW-8: Evaluate and monitor burned areas and continue management restrictions until the 

recovering and/or seeded plant community reflect the desired condition. (SUP, WFU, 

RX, ESR) 

FW-9: Utilize the Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation program to apply 

appropriate post fire treatments within crucial wildlife habitats, including sage grouse 

habitats. Minimize seeding with non-native species that may create a continuous 

perennial grass cover and restrict establishment of native vegetation. Seed mixtures 

should be designed to re-establish important seasonal habitat components for sage grouse. 

Vernal RMP L-34
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Leks should not be re-seeded with plants that change the vegetation heights previously 

found on the lek. Forbs should be stressed in early and late brood-rearing habitats. In 

situations of limited funds for emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions, 

prioritize rehabilitation of sage grouse habitats. (ESR) 

L.3.1.6 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT WILD HORSES AND BURROS INCLUDE: 

WHB-1: Avoid fencing that would restrict access to water. (RX, NF, ESR) 

L.3.1.7 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT CULTURAL RESOURCES INCLUDE: 

CR-1: Cultural Resource Advisors should be contacted when fires occur in areas 

containing sensitive cultural resources. (SUP) 

CR-2: Wildland fire use is discouraged in areas containing sensitive cultural resources. 

A Programmatic Agreement is being prepared between the Utah State Historic 

Preservation Office, BLM, and the Advisory Council to cover the finding of adverse 

effects to cultural resources associated with wildland fire use. (WFU) 

CR-3: Potential impacts of proposed treatments should be evaluated for compliance with 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Utah Statewide Protocol. This 

should be conducted prior to the proposed treatment. (RX, NF, ESR) 

L.3.1.8 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT PALEONTOLOGY RESOURCES INCLUDE: 

P-1: Planned projects should be consistent with BLM Manual and Handbook H-8270-1, 

Chapter III (A) and III (B) to avoid areas where significant fossils are known or predicted 

to occur or to provide for other mitigation of possible adverse effects. (RX, NF, ESR) 

P-2: In the event that paleontological resources are discovered in the course of surface 

fire management activities, including fires suppression, efforts should be made to protect 

these resources. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

L.3.1.9 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT FORESTRY RESOURCES INCLUDE: 

F-1: Planned projects should be consistent with HFRA Section 102(e)(2) to maintain or 

contribute to the restoration of old-growth stands to a pre-fire suppression condition and 

to retain large trees contributing to old-growth structure. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF) 

F-2: During planning, evaluate opportunities to utilize forest and woodland products 

prior to implementing prescribed fire activities. Include opportunities to use forest and 

woodland stands, consider developing silvicultural prescriptions concurrently with fuel 

treatments prescriptions. (RX, NF) 

L.3.1.10 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT LIVESTOCK GRAZING RESOURCES 

INCLUDE: 

LG-1: Coordinate with permittees regarding the requirements for non-use or rest of 

treated areas. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

Vernal RMP L-35
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

LG-2: Rangelands that have been burned by wildfire, prescribed fire, or wildland fire 

use, would be ungrazed for a minimum of one complete growing season following the 

burn. (SUP, WFU, RX) 

LG-3: Rangelands that have been re-seeded or otherwise treated to alter vegetation 

composition, chemically or mechanically, would be ungrazed for a minimum of two 

complete growing seasons. (RX, NF, ESR) 

L.3.1.11 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

INCLUDE: 

Rec-1: Wildland fire suppression efforts would preferentially protect Special Recreation 

Management Areas and recreation site infrastructure in line with fire management goals 

and objectives. (SUP) 

Rec-2: Vehicle tracks created off of established routes would be obliterated after fire 

management actions in order to reduce unauthorized OHV travel. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, 

ESR) 

L.3.1.12 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT LAND AND REALITY RESOURCES INCLUDE: 

LR-1: Fire management practices would be designed to avoid or otherwise ensure the 

protection of authorized rights-of-way and other facilities located on the public lands, 

including coordination with holders of major rights-of-way systems within rights-of-way 

corridors and communication sites. (WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

LR-2: Fire management actions must not destroy, deface, change or remove to another 

place any monument or witness tree of the Public Land Survey System. (SUP, WFU, RX, 

NF, ESR) 

L.3.1.13 MEASURES DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS CONFOUNDED BY HAZARDOUS 

WASTE INCLUDE: 

HW-1: Recognize hazardous wastes and move fire personnel to a safe distance from 

dumped chemicals, unexploded ordnance, drug labs, wire burn sites, or any other 

hazardous wastes. Immediately notify BLM Field Office hazmat coordinator or state 

hazmat coordinator upon discovery of any hazardous materials, following the BLM 

hazardous materials contingency plan. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

L.3.1.14 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT MINERAL RESOURCES INCLUDE: 

M-1: A safety buffer should be maintained between fire management activities and atrisk facilities. (SUP, WFU, RX) 

L.3.1.15 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT WILDERNESS AND WILDERNESS STUDY 

AREAS (WSAS) INCLUDE: 

Wild-1: The use of earth-moving equipment must be authorized by the field office 

manager. (SUP, WFU, RX, ESR) 

Vernal RMP L-36
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

Wild-2: Fire management actions would rely on the most effective methods of 

suppression that are least damaging to wilderness values, other resources and the 

environment, while requiring the least expenditure of public funds. (SUP, WFU) 

Wild-3: A Resource Advisor should be consulted when fire occurs in Wilderness and 

WSAs. (SUP, WFU) 

L.3.2 ADDITIONAL RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES

In addition to the Resource Protection Measures listed under the LUP, the Vernal Support 

Center has instituted the following measures into their FMP. 

L.3.2.1 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT CULTURAL RESOURCES INCLUDE: 

CR-4: The implementation of ground-disturbing wildland fire suppression activities and 

wildland fire use will be prohibited or curtailed in areas where significant and sensitive 

cultural resource sites are known or suspected to occur. The application of fire retardant 

will be prohibited in areas known or suspected to contain rock art. (SUP, WFU) 

CR-5: If prudent and feasible, areas of traditional cultural concern to Native American 

groups will be protected during wildland fire suppression activities. If areas of traditional 

cultural concern are impacted by wildland fires or wildland fire suppression, the BLM 

would work with affected parties to mitigate impacts. (WFU, RX, SUP) 

CR-6: If Native American human remains are discovered on BLM lands during wildland 

fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuels treatments, and 

emergency stabilization and rehabilitation activities, the BLM will follow procedures 

identified in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and 43 CFR 

Part 10. If BLM fire suppression activities or emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

activities extend onto private or state land, and Native American human remains are 

discovered, the provisions of the appropriate state laws will be adhered to. (SUP, WFU, 

RX, NF, ESR) 

CR-7: Previously unidentified cultural resources that are identified during the course of 

project implementation will be avoided until they are documented, evaluated, appropriate 

notification procedures have been accomplished, and proper management 

recommendations and requirements have been agreed upon. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

L.3.2.2 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS 

INCLUDE: 

NAT-1: Consultation will be completed on a site-by-site basis. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, 

ESR) 

L.3.2.3 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY INCLUDE: 

SW-4: Plan and implement projects taking into account the potential impacts on water 

quality, including increased water yields that can threaten fisheries and aquatic habitat, 

improvements at channel crossings, channel stability, and downstream values. Of special 

concern are small headwaters of moderate to steep watersheds, erosive soils, multiple 

Vernal RMP L-37
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

channel crossings, at-risk fisheries, and downstream residents. (SUP, WFU, RX, NF, 

ESR) 

L.3.2.4 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT WILDERNESS AND WILDERNESS STUDY 

AREAS (WSAS) INCLUDE: 

Wild-4: Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) must be employed in the FMU to 

preserve the Wilderness Study Unit present. (SUP) 

Wild-5: Restoration and rehabilitation techniques will be developed that are consistent 

with guidelines described in BLM Handbook 8550-1 Interim Management Policy for 

Lands under Wilderness Review. (ESR) 

L.3.2.5 MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES INCLUDE: 

FW-10: Seed mixtures should be designed to reestablish important seasonal habitat 

components for sage grouse. Leks should not be reseeded with plants that change the 

vegetation height previously found on the lek. Forbs should be stressed in early and late 

brood-rearing habitats. In situations of limited funds for emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation actions, prioritize rehabilitation of sage grouse habitats. (ESR) 

FW-11: Vegetation treatments would consider the Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies Guidelines for Management of Sage Grouse Populations and Habitats 

and State and Local Conservation Plans. This is in accordance with the Memorandum of 

Understanding among the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding sage 

grouse management. (WFU, RX, NF, ESR) 

L.3.3 OTHER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Other Management Practices are specific measures and practices which are considered at 

the project-specific level, on a case by case basis. These practices should be implemented 

wherever possible, to reduce possible adverse affects, advance the protection, 

conservation, and recovery of special status species. The management practices would 

allow flexibility for resource managers to implement protective measures for special 

status species. 

L.3.3.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Archeologists can be educated and taught how to identify special status species in order 

to avoid trampling during excavations and fence construction efforts. 

L.3.3.2 ENERGY AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT

Surface restrictions should be placed in and around known populations of special status 

species. 

L.3.3.3 FIRE MANAGEMENT

Areas should also be analyzed when a wildfire determination is being made to either let it 

burn or suppress the fire. 

Vernal RMP L-38
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

L.3.3.4 FORESTRY AND WOODLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Individuals obtaining permits for posts, firewood, and Christmas trees would be directed 

to areas that do not contain known occupied habitat of special status species. 

L.3.3.5 LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT

Road construction, maintenance and right-of-way corridors shall be restricted in known 

populations of special status species. 

L.3.3.6 RECREATION

OHV use should be designated as limited to existing roads and trails where known 

special status species populations exist. 

L.3.3.7 VEGETATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The use of herbicides, chemical treatments and habitat manipulations should be restricted 

within special status species populations and habitat. 

L.3.3.8 WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT

The herding and trapping of wild horses and burros in special status species populations 

and habitat should be avoided to reduce additional trampling caused by such activities. 

Vernal RMP L-39
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix L 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Vernal RMP L-40
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-1

APPENDIX N. CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT RMP/EIS AND THE 

PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS 

This Appendix presents the changes that the BLM has made between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS 

and Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The BLM has prepared this Appendix to document if changes 

between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS resulted in a significant 

change in circumstances or conditions, or if the Proposed RMP/Final EIS contains different 

information from that which was presented to the public in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. Finally, the 

BLM wanted to confirm that all changes made to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS fall within the 

range of alternatives presented and analyzed in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. 

The regulation controlling whether or not a supplement is required is found at 40 CFR 1502.9(c), 

which provides: 

Agencies: 

(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if: 

(i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns; or 

(ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impact. 

(2) May also prepare supplements when the agency determines that the purposes of the Act 

will be furthered by doing so. 

(3) Shall adopt procedures for introducing a supplement into its formal administrative 

record, if such a record exists. 

(4) 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 Vernal Field Office Draft RMP/Draft EIS were made in response to public 

comment and/or internal review. The majority of the changes were editorial changes made to add 

clarity to the document. In some cases, alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS were 

modified in the Proposed RMP to reflect technical corrections and data updates. In other cases, 

such as in Chapter 3, incorporation of updated information was necessary to refine the analysis in 

Chapter 4 that was incomplete or needed augmentation. 

None of the changes detailed in Appendix N 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. 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. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-2

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

Combined Hydrocarbon Areas/Special Tar Sand Areas 

Management decisions regarding combined hydrocarbon area / special tar sand areas are deferred to the 

programmatic EIS which is being prepared. A plan amendment will be prepared after the EIS ROD is signed. 

Forage – Book Cliffs Locality 

No wild horses will be permitted in the Winter Ridge Herd Area due to disease (e.g., EIA) and trespass of 

private horses because of mixed surface ownership with the Ute Indian Tribe, State of Utah, and privately 

held lands. Initially 2,340 AUMs would be allocated for wild horses in the Winter Ridge Herd Area and the Hill 

Creek Herd Management Area. The 2,340 AUMs no longer needed for wild horses would be allocated 

through a future planning process. 

Hillcreek Extension 

Refined, in cooperation with Ute Indian Tribe, those state lands in the Hill Creek Extension that are managed 

by the BLM, this increased the acreage for this area by 3,500 acres. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Approximately 106,178 acres would be managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness Characteristics: 

• Beach Draw, Bourdette Draw, Bull Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain, Daniels Canyon, Dead Horse 

Pass, Diamond Breaks, Diamond Mountain, Lower Flaming Gorge, Moonshine Draw, Mountain 

Home, Stuntz Draw, Vivas Cake Hill, White River, and Wild Mountain. 

• They would be managed with the following common prescriptions: 

• VRM Category II 

• Closed to oil and gas leasing, except for the White River area that would be open to leasing, subject 

to major constraints, such as an NSO stipulation. 

• Closed to solid mineral leasing. 

• Closed to disposal of mineral materials. 

• Closed to woodland product harvest. 

• Avoidance area for rights-of-way. 

• OHVs would be limited to designated routes. 

• No motorized vehicles would be allowed to travel on a single path up to 300 feet from designated 

routes to access a camp. 

• Retain public lands in federal ownership. 

• When compatible with the goals and objectives for management of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics: 

• Permit vegetation and fuel treatments using prescribed fire, mechanical and chemical treatments, and 

other actions compatible with the Healthy Lands Initiative (HLI). 

• Permit construction of wildlife water and livestock facilities, and minimal recreation facilities. 

• The following areas would not be managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics: 

• Bitter Creek, Cripple Cowboy, Desolation Canyon, Hells Hole Canyon, Hideout Canyon, Lower Bitter 

Creek, Mexico Point, Rat Hole Ridge, Sweetwater Canyon, and Wolf Point. 

Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

The Proposed Plan/Final EIS does not carry forward Alternative A (the Preferred Alternative) from the Draft 

RMP/EIS. Rather the Proposed Plan/RMP consists of a combination of all the alternatives, including 

Alternative A from the Draft RMP/EIS (January 2005), information from the supplement on existing and 

potential Areas of Critical Concern (ACECs) considered within the Draft RMP and EIS (December 2005), and 

Alternative E from the supplement that was issued October 5, 2007 on non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, as those alternatives and that information has been modified in response to public comment. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-3

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

The VFO manages the three following ACECs that were designated in the 1994 Diamond Mountain RMP 

ROD and carried forward without revisions in the Proposed Plan: 

• Pariette Wetlands– Manage to protect high value wetland, wildlife, and plant habitat resources. 

Manage as NSO and close to mineral material sales. 

• Lears Canyon– Manage to protect the relict vegetation. Manage as NSO and close to mineral 

material sales. 

• Lower Green River Corridor– Manage to protect riparian habitat, special status animal species 

habitat, and high-quality scenic values. 

Four additional ACECs were designated in the 1994 Diamond Mountain RMP ROD (Brown’s Park, Nine-Mile 

Canyon, Red Creek Watershed, and Red Mountain-Dry Fork). These four ACECs have been further 

analyzed due to modifications in size and prescriptions.

The following areas would not be included for ACEC designation: 

• Bitter Creek, Coyote Basin, Four Mile Wash, Main Canyon, Middle Green River, and White River. 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) 

• Blue Mountain (42,729) acres would be managed as an SRMA. 

• The Book Cliffs (273,486 acres) would not be designated as an SRMA. 

• Brown’s Park would be designated as an SRMA but would be reduced in size from 52,720 acres to 

18,474 acres. 

• Fantasy Canyon (69 acres) would be managed as an SRMA. 

• Nine-Mile Canyon would continue to have an SRMA designation but would be reduced in size from 

81,168 to 44,168. 

• White River - would be designated as an SRMA but would be reduced from 81,168 acres to 2,831 

acres. 

• Dry Fork Canyon SRMA - would be developed to determine what areas are appropriate for day use 

only. 

• Continue to manage 1,014 acres at Pelican Lake as a Special Recreation Management Area 

(SRMA). The area would be open to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints such as No 

Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations and closed to mineral materials sales. 

• Manage 24,259 acres in Red Mountain-Dry Fork as a SRMA to provide for maintenance and 

development of OHV or non-OHV trails, minimal facilities necessary for human health and safety, 

watershed values, relict vegetation communities, and crucial deer and elk winter habitat. An activity 

plan for the SRMA would be developed to determine what areas are appropriate for day use only. 

Supplement to the DRMP has been merged to the DRMP 

The Supplement presents an analysis of the effects of managing non-Wilderness Study Area (WSA) lands 

with wilderness characteristics in a protective manner. This analysis is identified as Alternative E in the 

combined RMP. 

Travel Plan 

A travel plan will be completed after signature of the Final EIS/RMP ROD. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Two segments identified as suitable on the Green River are being carried forward as Wild and Scenic Rivers 

(Upper and Lower). All other river segments (Argyle Creek, Bitter Creek, Evacuation Creek, Middle Green 

River, Nine-Mile Creek, and the White River) would not be identified as suitable for designation into the 

National Wild and Scenic River System. 

Changes Made Throughout Document 

Editorial changes made and language added throughout the document to include the Supplement to the RMP 

(Alternative E), and the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-4

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

All tables have been modified throughout the document to include the Proposed RMP. 

“Reservation Trust Lands” has been changed to “Indian Trust Lands.” 

Changed “critical” wildlife habitat to “crucial” wildlife habitat where habitat is not for Threatened, Endangered, 

or Candidate species. 

Reworded bald eagle references, as bald eagle is now de-listed. Bald eagles remain Federally protected 

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (based on U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife comment). 

“Uintah Basin” to “Uinta Basin;” “Uintah Mountains” to “Uinta Mountains;” “Uintah Foothills” to “Uinta Foothills.”

Executive Summary 

Rewritten to highlight the areas brought forward from the Draft RMP Final EIS. 

Corrected boundary description of the Vernal Planning Area (VPA). Corrected the number of ACECs being 

brought forward from 6 to 7. Added a section that summarizes the major changes from the Draft RMP/EIS to 

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Add section summarizing changes to document. 

Table Added: Table S.5. Proposed RMP and Alternatives Comparison: non-WSA Lands With Wilderness 

Characteristics (acres) 

Chapter 1 

Rewritten to highlight the areas brought forward from the Draft RMP Final EIS. 

Corrected boundary description of the Vernal Planning Area (VPA). Corrected the number of ACECs being 

brought forward from 6 to 7. Added a section that summarizes the major changes from the Draft RMP/EIS to 

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Language Added: RS-2477 - Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan 

The State of Utah, Uintah, Duchesne and Daggett Counties may hold valid existing rights-of-way 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 rights-of-way. 

However, nothing in the RMP extinguishes any valid right-of-way, 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. 

Language Added: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) Wildlife Habitat Classification System 

Change 

In August of 2005, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (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” (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 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

In previous BLM planning efforts, mitigation decisions (usually timing stipulations) for impacts to UDWR’s 

“critical” habitats have been integrated into the planning process. BLM rarely incorporated management 

decisions in its RMPs for “high value” habitats. 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 UDWR as “habitat on which 

the local population of a wildlife species depends for survival because there are no alternative ranges or 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-5

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

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 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 K, 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 UDWR’s old classifications of critical 

and high value habitat. Minor boundary modifications have been made by 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. 

Added Documents Incorporated by Reference: 

• 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) 

• 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. (FES 07-21) 

• 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Report. USDI, Bureau of Land Management (FES07-21) 

Language Added: Programmatic Vegetation EIS (VEIS) (directions from UT IB 2008 – 014) 

Continue implementation of noxious weed and invasive species control actions as per national guidance and 

local weed management plans in cooperation with state, federal, affected counties, adjoining private land 

owners and other partners or interests directly affected. 

Language Added: National Programmatic EIS for Tar Sands and Oil Shale Resources

The Vernal Field Office contains areas of tar sands and oil shale resources. The tar sand resources have 

been, and currently are, available for lease under the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 and in 

accordance with decisions in the existing BLM land-use plans/plan amendments. There are, at present, no 

regulations in place to allow for leasing oil shale, nor any existing commercial oil shale leases upon BLMmanaged lands. The VFO contains one Research and Development Oil Shale Lease. 

In Utah, the major tar sand resources lie within 11 designated Special Tar Sands Areas (STSAs) managed by 

the Vernal, Price, Richfield, and Monticello Field Offices. One of these STSAs lies within the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument where leasing is prohibited. The Vernal Field Office wholly or in part 

manages seven of the remaining ten STSAs. 

Lands containing oil shale resources were originally identified through an inventory that portrayed the 

occurrence of the Green River geologic formation in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. Once identified, lands 

containing oil shale resources were withdrawn from mineral entry through a 1930 Executive Order, which was 

later modified to allow for oil, gas, sodium leasing and leasing of UA UB Oil Shale tracts. Since that time, the 

economic potential for the oil shale resource has been further defined, now comprising a much smaller area in 

Utah, primarily in the southern part of the BLM Vernal Field Office area with a small area in the northeast 

portion of the lands managed by the Price Field Office. 

When the Vernal Resource Management Plan Revision was initiated in 2001, there was no reasonable 

foreseeable development expectation for tar sands or oil shale over the life of the plan. The mineral report 

identified these resources, but did not foresee any leasing or development due to prevailing and anticipated 

economic factors. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-6

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

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 three states. Since that time, the scope of the PEIS has been 

revised. The BLM is no longer using the PEIS as the document that supports the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for leasing. Given that the development technologies for in-situ production of 

oil shale are just emerging, there is a lack of information regarding resource use and associated impacts. 

Consequently, the BLM has changed this document to a resource allocation document that identifies the 

BLM-managed lands for which applications to lease oil shale and tar sands resources would be accepted in 

the future. However although applications would be accepted, additional NEPA analysis would be performed 

before any leasing of the area would be considered. 

All decisions related to land-use planning decisions (areas open to application for potential leasing) for oil 

shale and tar sands resources in this Resource Management Plan will be made by the ongoing PEIS for Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Resources. The Record of Decision on the final PEIS will amend the existing Diamond 

Mountain and Book Cliffs RMP by making land-use planning decisions on whether or not lands will be 

available for future application, leasing and development of oil shale and tar sands on public lands for those 

areas where the resource is present. Additional site-specific NEPA analysis will be completed on each lease 

application before any leases would be issued. 

As part of the site-specific NEPA analysis, the environmental consequences to specific resource values and 

uses within the areas and any alternative actions would be analyzed. Any decision to offer the lands for lease 

would be made based on a full disclosure of the impacts. If a decision is made to offer the lands for lease, 

specific mitigation measures will be developed to ensure that the commercial operations use practices that 

minimize or mitigate impacts. 

This pre-leasing NEPA analysis would include the same opportunities for public involvement and comment 

that are part of this PEIS process and every other land-use planning and NEPA process the BLM undertakes. 

The decisions associated with the PEIS will be incorporated into the Vernal RMP as it is finalized or will 

amend the Vernal RMP [Exact language will be dependent on situation at the time of printing—use whichever 

phrase is appropriate]. Additional opportunities for public involvement and comment will occur when the 

Proposed RMP Amendment/ Final PEIS is available. 

This Resource Management Plan will, however, provide allocation and leasing decisions for conventional oil 

and gas leasing in the STSAs and Oil Shale areas. 

Language Added: Planning Process 

Step 9 is the monitoring and evaluation process. 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 is examined and used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting 

stated objectives, and if not, why. Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to 

continue current management or what changes need to be made in management practices to meet 

objectives. 

The two types of monitoring that are tied to the planning process include implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring. Land-use plan monitoring is the process of (1) tracking the implementation of land-use planning 

decisions and (2) collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of landuse planning decisions. The two types of monitoring are described below. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-7

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

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 land-use plan 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 at 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. 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 information, or significant changes in other plans, 

legislation, or litigation triggers an evaluation. Land-use plan evaluations determine if decisions are being 

implemented, whether mitigation measures are satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the 

related plans of other entities, whether there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions should be 

changed through amendment or revision. Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Landuse 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. 

Add section summarizing changes to document. 

Chapter 2 

Rewritten to further detail what has been moved into the Final RMP/EIS. 

Table 2.1 

Table has been broken down into sections by resources (2.1.1 through 2.1.27) for better flow and ease in 

locating specific resources. 

Implementation Level Decisions 

All implementation–level decisions in Tables 2.1.1 through 2.1.27 have been italicized and asterisked with a 

footnote at the bottom of each page as follows: *This is an implementation-level decision that cannot be 

protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information. 

Table 2.4 

Deleted from the Final RMP/EIS. This table was considered to be extraneous information and no longer 

served any useful purpose. 

Language Added: Air Quality Common to All 

• 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 quality issues. 

• BLM will continue to work cooperatively with the Utah Airshed Group to manage emissions from 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-8

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

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 requirements to reduce 

potential air quality impacts will be considered on a case-by-case basis in processing land-use 

authorizations. 

• BLM will utilize BMPs and site specific mitigation measures, when appropriate, based on site specific 

conditions, to reduce emissions and enhance air quality. Examples of these types of measures can 

be found in the Four 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 BLM, in consultation with state, federal, and tribal entities. 

Language Added: Fluid Minerals – Common to All 

In accordance with an UDEQ-DAQ letter dated June 6, 2008, (see Appendix O) requesting implementation of 

interim nitrogen oxide control measures for compressor engines; BLM will require the following as a Lease 

Stipulation and a Condition of Approval for Applications for Permit to Drill: 

• All new and replacement internal combustion gas field engines of less than or equal to 300 designrated horsepower must not emit more than 2 gms of NOx per horsepower-hour. This requirement 

does not apply to gas field engines of less than or equal to 40 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. 

Language Added: Special Designations – Wild and Scenic Rivers 

BLM would work with the State of Utah, local and tribal governments, and other federal agencies, in a statewide study, 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 study would avoid piece-mealing of river segments in logical watershed units in the state. The study 

would evaluate, in detail, the possible benefits and effects of designation on the local and state economies, 

agricultural and industrial operations and interests, outdoor recreation, natural resources (including the 

outstandingly remarkable values for which the river was deemed suitable), water rights, water quality, water 

resource planning, and access to and across river corridors within, and upstream and downstream from the 

proposed segments(s). 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). BLM will work with the State, local and tribal governments, and the agencies 

involved to coordinate its decision making on wild and scenic river issues and to achieve consistency 

wherever possible. 

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 recommended as suitable under this Proposed Plan 

are recommended to Congress for designation, 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 subject segments(s). Such quantifications would be included in any recommendation for 

designation. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System does not create new water rights for the BLM. Federal reserved water rights 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 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 which led to 

the river’s inclusion into the system. 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 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-9

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

to meet the needs of the community. Federal law, including Section 13 of the Act and the McCarren 

Amendment (43 U.S.C. 666), recognizes state jurisdiction over water allocation in designated streams. Thus, 

it is BLM's position that existing water rights, including flows apportioned to the State of Utah interstate 

agreements and compacts, including the Upper Colorado River Compact, and developments of such rights 

would not be affected by designation or the creation of the possible federal reserved water right. BLM would 

seek to work with upstream and downstream 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. 

Language Added: 

The Proposed Plan/Final EIS does not carry forward Alternative A (the Preferred Alternative) from the Draft 

RMP/EIS (January 14, 2005). Rather the Proposed Plan/RMP consists of a combination of all the 

alternatives, including Alternative A from the Draft RMP/EIS, information from the Draft Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Supplement (December 13, 2005) 

analyzing existing and potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) considered within the Draft 

RMP and EIS, and Alternative E from the Supplement that was issued in October 5, 2007 analyzing the 

management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. These alternatives are combined in the 

PRMP/FEIS. Some changes to the draft alternatives have been made in response to the public comments 

received during the comment period. These changes are limited to, for the most part, to correcting mistakes 

and refining technical points. Changes are summarized for the reader in Appendix N. 

Language Added: Travel Management Sections 

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 are causing or would cause considerable adverse 

impacts, the authorized officer shall close or restrict such areas. The public would be notified. 

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. 

Language Added: Travel Management & WSA Sections 

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 non-compliance are found through monitoring efforts to impair the area’s suitability for wilderness 

designation, 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 non-impairment of wilderness values. 

Language Added: Lands (Land Tenure Adjustment) 

Give land exchanges with the State of Utah priority consideration to resolve inholdings issues. 

Language Added: Wildlife 

The BLM will approach compensatory mitigation on an “as appropriate” basis where it can be performed 

onsite, and on a voluntary basis where it is performed offsite, or, in accordance with current guidance. 

Language Added: Transportation and Access (SITLA lands) 

As per the State of Utah v. Andrus, Oct. 1, 1979 (Cotter Decision), BLM would grant the State of Utah 

reasonable access to State lands for economic purposes, on a case-by-case basis. 

Language Added: Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis – No Leasing 

During scoping and/or the comment period for the DRMP/EIS, commentors suggested that 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. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-10

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

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 BLM has no authority to undertake in planning. As a 

result, BLM does not regularly include a “No-Leasing Alternative”. 

The purpose and need for the land-use plan is to identify and resolve potential conflicts between competing 

resource uses rather than to eliminate a principle use of the public lands in the Vernal Field Office 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 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 “NoLeasing 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 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. BLM’s Land-use Planning Handbook (BLM MANUAL Rel. 1-

1693), requires that land-use plans identify areas as open or unavailable for leasing. 

Given the potential range of decisions available in the DRMP/DEIS, 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, BLM prepared a 

series of Environmental Assessments (then titled “Environmental Analysis Records or EARs”) including the 

Vernal District Oil and Gas Program Environmental Analysis Record (EAR), 1975 which addressed oil and 

gas leasing for the public lands in the Vernal Field Office area. Alternatives again included the No Action or 

“No Leasing” alternative. The outcome was a category system for leasing which categorized all public and 

Forest Service 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 Vernal Field Office 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 Vernal DRMP/DEIS, the “NoAction Alternative” is to continue the status quo which is to lease under the oil and gas stipulations (formerly 

categories) established in the Vernal RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-11

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

Language Added: Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis – Livestock 

Grazing 

During scoping and comment on the Draft EIS it was suggested that BLM consider adjustments to livestock 

numbers, livestock management practices, and the kind of livestock grazed on allotments within the Vernal 

Field Office to benefit wildlife and protect and promote land health including soils, hydrologic cycles and biotic 

integrity. 

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 standards for rangeland health 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 Vernal Field Office 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).BLM 

assesses rangeland health, 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 Guidelines for Rangeland Management on Public Lands in Utah are 

implemented through a proposed decision in accordance with 43 CFR 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. 

Language Added: Wildlife 

Minor adjustments to crucial wildlife habitat boundaries periodically made by the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (UDWR) would be accommodated through plan maintenance. 

Language Added: Transportation & Access (SITLA Lands) 

As per the State of Utah v. Andrus, Oct. 1, 1979 (Cotter Decision), BLM would grant the State of Utah 

reasonable access to State lands for economic purposes, on a case-by-case basis. 

Chapter 3 

Language Added: 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 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 X 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 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-12

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

“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. 

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”. 

Figure 3.2.2 – Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern Latitudes (24 - 90° N) 

Source: Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2007) 

Language Added: Transportation & Access (SITLA Lands) 

Throughout much of Utah, the state owns and manages four 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 BLM. Many of 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-13

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

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 National Park Service 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 parcel of state land that is completely surrounded by a WSA requires access to develop that lease, 

BLM must grant the leaseholder reasonable access with consideration given to minimize impacts to 

wilderness character. 

Chapter 4 

Language Added: Air Quality - 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 mid20th 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 windblown 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. 

Section 4.14 – Socioeconomics 

The socioeconomics section has been extensively revised to incorporate the most current census information 

and data from recent economic reports and studies specific to the Uinta Basin. 

All Sections – General 

Analysis has been revised to address changes to Chapter 2. 

Chapter 5 

Table added to show the Proposed RMP/EIS consistency with Utah Code 63j-4-401. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-14

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

Appendices 

Appendices Added 

• Document Change Appendix 

• Air Mitigation Strategies Appendix 

Language Added: 

BMPs described in this appendix (section) are designed to assist in achieving the RMP objectives. BMPs are 

dynamic, and should not be interpreted as specific direction at the same level as the RMP decisions. BMPs 

are selected and implemented as necessary, based on site specific conditions, to meet resource objectives 

for specific management actions. 

This appendix (section) does not provide an exhaustive list of BMPs. Additional BMPs may be identified 

during an interdisciplinary process when evaluating site-specific management actions. BMPs may also be 

updated as new technology emerges. Applicants may also suggest alternate practices that could accomplish 

the same intended result. Implementation and effectiveness of BMPs needs to be monitored to determine 

whether the practices are achieving the RMP goals and objectives. Adjustments could be made as necessary 

to ensure goals and objectives are met, as well as to conform to changes in BLM regulations, policy, direction, 

or new scientific information. 

Glossary 

Language Added 

Wilderness Characteristics – 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) 

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. 

Maps 

All crucial wildlife habitat baseline maps have been changed to include the date that the UDWR information 

was provided to create the map and the following statement printed directly onto the maps: 

“Surface disturbing activities are not excluded in these areas. All timing and controlled surface use limitations 

are subject to waivers, exceptions, and/or modification identified in Appendix K.” 

References 

References Added 

• BLM, 2007. Northeast National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska Draft Supplemental Integrated Activity 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. USDOI BLM, August 2007. 

• Available on the Internet: http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/npra_general/ne_npra/ne_npra_supplement.html. 

• 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 on the Internet: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif. 

• 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 on the Internet: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-15

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 

• National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: Highlights 

of National Academies Reports. Division on Earth and Life Studies. National Academy of Sciences. 

Washington, D.C. 

• Available on the Internet: http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf. 

• EPA. 2005. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions; Final Rule. 40CFR, Part 

51. (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf). November 9. 

Tables 

All tables have been modified throughout the document to include the Proposed RMP. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Appendix N 

Vernal RMP N-16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
State of Utah

 JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR. 

 Governor 

June 6, 2008 

 GARY R. HERBERT 

 Lieutenant Governor 

- 1 - 

Selma Sierra 

State Director 

BLM Utah State Office 

P.O. Box 45155 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0155 

Dear Director Sierra: 

 This letter addresses air quality mitigation strategies for the six proposed Resource 

Management Plans being updated within the State of Utah. The state appreciates BLM's interest 

in this important issue. 

 It is the policy of the State of Utah to protect public health and the environment from the 

harmful effects of air pollution, to ensure that the air in Utah meets standards established under 

federal and state law, and to maintain an environment that is conducive to continued economic 

vitality and growth. 

 The Department of Interior monitors ozone at National Parks in the intermountain west, 

including: Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado, Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, 

Great Basin National Park in Nevada, and Canyonlands National Park in Utah. These sites 

reflect conditions in areas that have not been subject to intensive development and are therefore 

generally indicative of background conditions. Monitoring data at these locations demonstrates a 

gradual upward trend in ozone levels, raising questions about ozone levels region-wide. The 

state believes additional information is needed regarding current conditions and the potential 

impacts from increasing development activity, including oil and gas activity. This information 

should inform future BLM decision making, but managers should not defer management actions 

in anticipation of better information. 

 Fortunately, ozone related impacts can be reduced if certain mitigation measures are 

required on new oil and gas related emission sources. In fact, several neighboring states 

currently encourage application of just such measures. BLM should include interim nitrogen 

oxide control measures provided by the state as a required condition of lease approval. These 

control measures are consistent with control measures suggested by neighboring states and 

jurisdictions. The state recognizes that performance standards will continue to evolve and 

supports technological flexibility, provided control measures are at least as effective as those in 

place elsewhere within the region at the time of site-specific authorization. Performance 

standards representing the current regional standard can be found in the Four Corners Air 
- 2 - 

Quality Task Force Report of Mitigation Options, DRAFT: Version 7, June 22, 2007. These 

standards are 2 g/bhp-hr for engines less than 300 HP and 1 g/bhp-hr for engines over 300 HP. 

 The State of Utah will continue to work with the BLM and others through efforts such as 

the Four Corners Task Force to address these issues. The state appreciates your cooperation in 

working to protect air quality related values. If you have any questions about our position, 

please contact me at (801) 537-9802. 

Sincerely, 

John Harja Cheryl Heying 

Director Director 

Public Lands Policy Coordination Division of Air Quality 

5110 State Office Building 150 North, 1950 West 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1107 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 

(801) 537-9802 (801) 536-4000 
01 l?112008 01 FAX 801 533 3503

Srafc 0f t-lti*lr

,lr tl{ M, lll"t5'1'.5r4;\\, Jll

(''t tt'"t'lt' tt'

( i'\llY l(. I{I;ttlfl:lt'l'

I tt'ttllrrl.lrli ('it rrrl ttr tt'

,lult, | 7. f00li

BIV OF STATE HISTORV @001/oo1

[,]cpnrtttt(til( ol' ('rxnrlrurri{y itrxl (lrr ll urrr

f l\ I .l\:l |'lt I )r,: lr,\ l,,l f ,,l!i

/:,t.,,t.rril t,r. l,,r 1 t. t,, 1, 1 t tt

Slrrtc tr listort'

i'lf ll,lil l'. N()'1,\Rlr\NNl

/ Jlt',',t'jrtr.' I lmril ry

I}l:rinc I'hillilts

ljlrrrsau ol'I nnrl Mtnn.ngltcnl

V str'r I,1 | lj ir:kl (.,)lli c:t:

| 7tl $rtttllr 50() liitst

\i r:rrrirl Ll'f fi.1()'/ N

R lj; Vurnitl l:ield ( )l'llct: lt fvl l'

lrr rcply.plefl.qc fclr:r'l<r (}rs(: N,,r. 0lt-0.SlS

f, )cnr lVl r. l:'lt i| | ips:

''l''lrc l..llul: Stnte l'li.ritoric l)r(t$*t'trittcrrt ( )l'ficc r(:(:civ$d ,v(rur ru(luc.\t

l'r: ll:rq:n(:rl(l ltrr r j r':cl .

lhr r')tll' rlr\rnrncnl ( )l'l t lrc: ntrovtt

W(: (:rt,ruur lvilh vcrtrr detenttinlrl.ittrrs rnirtk: ll"v Bl,!\4 in llrr: Vr;rnal lrield ()llicc'Rtvllt. IRr:f'srcnr:c Rl,M

| .cuer J\,1ay' ? I . f00S: li I 4 I I. IT-0821 .

ol'l r,lrrr r.lflt;rntitliil.i(lns -\,oLl lurr,,c nXr(lt). \\'itllitt tltc: c.()ntilrltlt ion Frr]c(]s.{

-ynu llitr,'r: (lue$t icrtls, I)lcitsc $onli:rrrl ruc ltl ( .\() l ) -{ 1 3--f -; -S5 ol'

iii:esc'rv*t i*n (.') | [icsr'
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY

ACRONYMS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADC Animal Damage Control 

AML Appropriate Management Level 

AMLIS Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System 

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

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) 

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 

BOR (United States) Bureau of Reclamation 

CAA Clean Air Act (of 1970) 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CBNG Coal Bed Natural Gas 

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) 

CHL Combined Hydrocarbon Lease 

Vernal RMP X-17
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

CLDQ Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

COA Conditions of Approval 

CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

CWA Clean Water Act (of 1977) 

CWD Chronic Wasting Disease 

CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Area 

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 

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 

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute (makers of GIS software) 

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 

FWMP Forest and Woodlands Management Plan 

GAP Geographical Analysis Program 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

Vernal RMP X-18
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

GY Grazing Year 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

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 (Wilderness) Study Area 

KGS Known Geologic Structure 

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 

MFP Management Framework Plan (pre-FLPMA BLM land use plan) 

MLRA Major Land Resource Area 

MMCF Million cubic feet 

mmhos/cm Millimhos per centimeter (in soils, a measure of electrical conductivity) 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MSA Management Situation Analysis 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (of 1990) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969) 

NHL National Historic Landmark 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHS National Health Services 

NNL National Natural Landmark 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

Vernal RMP X-19
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOA Notice of Availability (published in the Federal Register) 

NOI Notice of Intent (published in the Federal Register) 

NOSR2 Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 2 

NPS National Park Service 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

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 classification) 

PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition (of riparian/wetland areas) 

PFO Price Field Office 

PIF Partners-in-Flight 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter) 

PM10 Particulate Matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) 

PMP Population Management Plan 

PRMA Price River Management Area 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

R Rural (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification) 

R&I Relevance and Importance 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes (Act of 1926) 

RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan 

RCA Raptor Concentration Area 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) 

RDCC (Utah) Resource Development and Coordinating Committee 

RFA Reasonably Foreseeable Action (or Activity) 

Vernal RMP X-20
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

RFFA Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

RHS Rangeland Health Standards 

RMA Recreation Management Area 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

RMP Resource Management Plan (BLM land use plan under FLPMA) 

RN Roaded Natural (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification) 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW Right of Way 

S&G Standards & Guidelines 

SARA Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SITLA (Utah) School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

SOx Sulfur Oxides 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SPM Semi-Primitive Motorized (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification) 

SPNM Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification) 

SRCMA Special Recreation and Cultural Management Area 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SRMRDP San Rafael Motorized Route Designation Plan 

SRP Special Recreation Permit 

SRRMP San Rafael Resource Management Plan 

SUWA Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

T&E Threatened and/or Endangered (species as per ESA of 1973) 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TL Timing Limitations 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TPY Tons Per Year 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act (of 1976) 

Vernal RMP X-21
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

U Urban (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification) 

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 

UP&L Utah Power and Light 

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 

VFO Vernal Field Office 

VPA Vernal Planning Area 

VRI Visual Resource Inventory 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WAFWA Western Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WSR Wild and Scenic River(s) (Act of 1973) 

WUG Western Utility Group 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 

Vernal RMP X-22
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

GLOSSARY 

Activity Plan: A type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan); an activity plan usually 

describes multiple projects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan 

objectives. Examples of activity plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat 

management plans, recreation area management plans, and allotment management plans. 

Actual Use: A report of the actual livestock grazing use certified to be accurate by the permittee 

or lessee. Actual use may be expressed in terms of animal unit months or animal months. 

Air Pollutant: Any substance in the air that could, if in high enough concentration, harm 

humans, animals, vegetation, or material. Air pollutants may include almost any natural or 

artificial matter capable of being airborne, in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or 

a combination of these. 

Air Quality: The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used most 

frequently in connection with “standards” of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations. 

All-Terrain Vehicle: 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, marshland, open country or other unprepared 

surfaces. 

Allotment: An area of land where one or more individuals graze their livestock. Generally 

consists of public land, State land, and private land. Livestock grazing is regulated by BLM who 

determines the number of livestock, class of livestock, and season of use for each allotment 

through the land use planning process. 

Allotment Management Plan: A document prepared in consultation with the lessees or 

permittees involved, which applies to livestock operations on the public lands or on lands within 

National Forests in the eleven contiguous Western States and which: 

prescribes the manner in, and extent to, which livestock operations will be conducted in order to 

meet the multiple-use, sustained-yield, economic and other needs and objectives as deter-mined 

for the lands by the Secretary concerned; and 

decribes the type, location, ownership, and general specifications for the range improvements to 

be installed and maintained on the lands to meet the livestock grazing and other objectives of 

land management; and 

contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the 

Secretary concerned to be consistent with the provisions of this Act and other applicable law. 

Alluvium: General term for clay, silt, sand, or gravel deposited in the bed of a stream during 

relatively recent geologic time, as a result of stream action. 

Alternative: In an EIS, one of a number of possible options for responding to the purpose and 

need for action. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Any process used to prevent, manage, or resolve conflicts 

using procedures other than traditional courtroom litigation or formal agency adjudication. 

Vernal RMP X-23
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Amendment: The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and 

decisions of approved RMPs or MFPs. Usually only one or two issues are considered that 

involve only a portion of the planning area. 

Animal Unit: (1) Considered to be one mature cow or approximately 1,000 pounds, either dry or 

with calf up to six months of age, or their equivalent, based on a standard amount of forage 

consumed. (2) A standardized unit of measurement for range livestock that is equivalent to one 

cow, one horse, five sheep, five goats, or four reindeer, all over 6 months of age. 

Animal Unit Month: The amount of dry forage required by one animal unit for one month based 

on a forage allowance of 26 pounds per day. 

Animals: Any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any mammal, fish, bird, 

amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, 

product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. As used here, the words 

“animals,” “fish or wildlife,” and “wildlife” are interchangeable. 

Annual (plant): A plant whose life cycle is completed in 1 year or season. 

Aquifer: Rock or rock formations (often sand, gravel, sandstone, or limestone) that contain or 

carry groundwater and act as water reservoirs. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): Means areas within the public lands 

where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where 

no development 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.

Arid: A term applied to regions or climates where lack of sufficient moisture severely limits 

growth and production of vegetation. The limits of precipitation vary considerably according to 

temperature conditions.

Assessment: The act of evaluating and interpreting data and information for a defined purpose. 

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 and Section 302 

permits, 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. 

Back Country Byways: These roads generally do not meet full federal safety standards, 

meaning they are not wide enough, or graded enough, or level enough to be safe year-round, for 

passenger cars. They do, however, meet the highest standard of scenic, recreational and 

historical criteria. 

Beneficial Outcomes: Also referenced as “Recreation Benefits”; improved conditions, 

maintenance of desired conditions, prevention of worse conditions, and the realization of desired 

experiences. 

Vernal RMP X-24
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs 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: Any species of hoofed wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, desert bighorn 

sheep, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, moose, bison, mountain goats and pronghorn antelope. 

Biological Assessment: The document prepared by or under the direction of BLM concerning 

listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may be present in 

the action area and contains the BLM's determination of potential effects of the action on such 

species and habitat. Biological assessments are required for formal consultations and 

conferences on "major construction projects." They are recommended for all formal 

consultations and formal conferences and many informal consultations where a written 

evaluation of the effects of an action on listed or proposed species and on designated or proposed 

critical habitat is needed. Also referred to as a BA. 

Biological Opinion: The document which includes: (1) the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Services' and/or the NOAA-Fisheries as to whether or not a Federal action is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat; (2) a summary of the information on which the opinion is based; and 

(3) a detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed species or designated critical 

habitat. Depending upon the determination of jeopardy or non-jeopardy, the biological opinion 

may contain reasonable and prudent alternatives, a statement of anticipated take of listed animals 

and conservation recommendations for listed plants. Also referred to as a BO. 

Biological Soil Crusts (cryptogamic, cryptobiotic, microbiotic or microphytic soil crusts): 

Biological Soil Crusts are a complex mosaic of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses, 

microfungi, and other bacteria. Cyanobacterial and microfungal filaments weave through the top 

few millimeters of soil, gluing loose particles together and forming a matrix that stabilizes and 

protects soil surfaces from erosive forces. These crusts occur in all hot, cool, and cold arid and 

semi-arid regions. They may constitute up to 70% of the living cover in some plant 

communities; however, biological soil crusts have only recently been recognized as having a 

major influence in terrestrial ecosystems. 

Browse: (1) the part of shrubs, half shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for animal 

consumption; or (2) to search for or consume browse. 

California Puff (CALPUFF): CALPUFF is an advanced non-steady-state meteorological and 

air quality modeling system adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the 

preferred model for assessing long range transport of pollutants and their impacts involving 

complex meteorological conditions. 

Candidate Species: Plant and animal taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

sufficient information on their status and threats to support proposing the species for listing as 

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act but for which issuance of a 

proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing actions. Separate lists for plants, 

vertebrate animals, and invertebrate animals are published periodically in the Federal Register. 

Vernal RMP X-25
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Carrying capacity: The maximum population of a particular species a particular region can 

support without hindering future generations' ability to maintain the same population. 

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 non-motorized 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 earthmoving 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. 

Class I area: Under the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments, all international parks, parks larger 

than 6,000 acres, and national wilderness areas larger than 5,000 acres that existed on August 7, 

1977. This class provides the most protection to pristine lands by severely limiting the amount of 

additional air pollution that can be added to these areas. 

Climax Plant Community (e.g. climax): The final or stable biotic community in a successional 

series; it is self-perpetuating and in equilibrium with the physical habitat. 

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. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 sets forth the specific meaning of “closed” as it 

relates to off-highway vehicle use, and 43 CFR 8364 defines “closed” as it relates to closure and 

restriction orders. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal 

government. 

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. 

Collaborative Partnership and Collaborative Stewardship: Refers to people working 

together, sharing knowledge and resources, to achieve desired outcomes for public lands and 

communities within statutory and regulatory frameworks. 

Competition: The interaction between organisms as a result of the removal or reduction of a 

common, required resource from the environment. Resources may include water, nutrients, 

light, oxygen, carbon dioxide, food and shelter. 

Community Recreation-Tourism Market: A community or communities dependent on public 

lands recreation and/or related tourism use, growth, and/or development. Major investments in 

facilities and visitor assistance are authorized within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to target 

demonstrated community recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management 

actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for specific 

activity, experience, and benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through 

maintenance of prescribed natural resource and/or community setting character and by 

Vernal RMP X-26
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

structuring and implementing management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions 

accordingly. 

Conditions of Approval: Conditions or provisions (requirements) under which an Application 

for a Permit to Drill or a Sundry Notice is approved. 

Conformity or Conformance: 

A resource management action shall be specifically provided for in the plan, or if not specifically 

mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved 

plan or plan amendment. 

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 USFWS or NOAA-Fisheries 

and other parties that implements specific actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate 

or reduce threats to, or otherwise improve the status of a species. Conservation agreements 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 conservation agreement and the level of signatory authority, plan revisions or 

amendments may be required prior to signing the conservation agreement, or subsequently in 

order to implement the conservation agreement. 

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 NOAA-Fisheries to be Federal candidates under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

Consistency: Means that the proposed land use plan does not conflict with officially approved 

plans, programs, and policies of Tribes, other Federal agencies, and state and local governments 

(to the extent practical with Federal law, regulation, and policy). 

Consultation: Exchange of information and interactive discussion; when the “C” in consultation 

is capitalized it refers to consultation mandated by statute or regulation that has prescribed 

parties, procedures, and timelines (e.g. Consultation under National Environmental Policy Act or 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act). 

Contiguous: Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary; lands having only a 

common corner are not contiguous. 

Cooperating Agency:An eligible governmental entity that has entered into a written agreement 

with the BLM establishing cooperating agency status in the planning and NEPA processes. 

BLM and the cooperating agency will work together under the terms of the agreement. 

Cooperating agencies will participate in the various steps of BLM's planning process as feasible, 

given the constraints of their resources and expertise. 

Assists the lead Federal agency in developing an Environmental Analysis or Environmental 

Impact Statement. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA 

Vernal RMP X-27
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

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. 

means any Federal agency other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable 

alternative) for legislation or other major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. The selection and responsibilities of a cooperating agency are described in 

§1501.6. A State or local agency of similar qualifications or, when the effects are on a 

reservation, an Indian Tribe, may by agreement with the lead agency become a cooperating 

agency. 

Corridor: A wide strip of land within which a proposed linear facility could be located. 

Council on Environmental Quality: 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. 

Criteria: Data and information that are used to examine or establish the relative degrees of 

desirability of alternatives or the degree to which a course of action meets an intended objective. 

Criteria pollutants: Air pollutants designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as 

potentially harmful and for which ambient air quality standards have been set to protect the 

public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate 

matter, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, and lead. 

Critical Habitat: (1) the specific areas within the geographical area currently occupied by a 

species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological features (i) essential to the conservation of the species, and (ii) 

that may require special management considerations or protection, and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a species a the time it is listed upon determination by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the NOAA-Fisheries that such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Critical habitats are designated in 50 CFR Parts 17 and 226. The 

constituent elements of critical habitat are those physical and biological features of designated or 

proposed critical habitat essential to the conservation of the species, including, but not limited to: 

(1) space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites 

for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and (5) habitats 

that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographic and ecological 

distribution of a species. 

Criteria pollutants: Air pollutants designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as 

potentially harmful and for which ambient air quality standards have been set to protect the 

public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate 

matter, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, and lead. 

Cultural Resources: Nonrenewable evidence of human occupation or activity as seen in any 

area, site, building, structure, artifact, ruin, object, work of art, architecture, or natural feature, 

which was important in human history at the national, state, or local level. 

Vernal RMP X-28
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

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. 

Designated Roads and Trails: Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM (or other 

agencies) where some type of motorized vehicle use is appropriate and allowed either seasonally 

or year-long. 

Deferred-Rotation Grazing: Any grazing system, which provides for a systematic rotation of 

the deferment among pastures. 

Deferment (deferred grazing, rotational deferred): The delay of grazing to achieve a specific 

management objective. A strategy aimed at providing time for plant reproduction, establishment 

of new plants, restoration of plant vigor, a return to environmental conditions appropriate for 

grazing, or the accumulation of forage for later use. 

Desired Outcomes: A type of land use plan decision expressed as a goal or objective. 

Desired Plant Community: Of the several plant communities that may occupy a site, the one 

that has been identified through a management plan to best meet the plan's objectives for the site. 

It must protect the site as a minimum. 

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. 

Disturbance Zone: 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. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): The draft statement of the environmental 

effects of a major federal action which is required under Section 102 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and released to the public and other agencies for comment and 

review. 

Easement: A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another’s real property for 

access or other purposes. 

Ecological Balance: The stability of an ecosystem resulting from interacting processes of its 

components. 

Ecological Site: A kind of land with a specific potential natural community and specific physical 

site characteristics, differing from other kinds of land in their ability to produce distinctive kinds 

and amounts of vegetation and to respond to management. Ecological sites are defined and 

described with information about soil, species composition, and annual production. 

Vernal RMP X-29
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Ecological Site Description: A written narrative of the description of soils, climate, vegetation, 

uses, and potential of a kind of land with specific physical characteristics to produce distinctive 

kinds and amounts of vegetation. 

Ecological Site Inventory: A resource inventory that involves the use of soils information to 

map ecological sites and plant communities and the collection of natural resource and vegetation 

attributes. The sampling data from each of these soil-vegetation units, referred to a site write-up 

areas (SWAs), become the baseline data for natural resource management and planning. 

Ecosystem: Includes all the organisms of an area, their environment, and the linkages or 

interactions among all of them; all parts of an ecosystem are interrelated. The fundamental unit 

in ecology, containing both organisms and abiotic environments, each influencing the properties 

of the other and both necessary for the maintenance of life. 

Effect: Environmental change resulting from a proposed action. Direct effects are caused by the 

action and occur at the same time and place, while indirect effects are caused by the action but 

are later in time or further removed in distance, although still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect 

effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the 

pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and 

other natural systems, including ecosystems. Effect and impact are synonymous as used in this 

document. 

Eligible Cooperating Agency: 

A Federal agency other than a lead agency that is qualified to participate in the development of 

environmental impact statements as provided in 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5 or, as necessary, 

other environmental documents that BLM prepares, by virtue of its jurisdiction by law as defined 

in 40 CFR 1508.15, or special expertise as defined in 40 CFR 1508.26; or

A federally recognized Indian tribe, a state agency, or a local government agency with similar 

qualifications.

Endangered species: Plant or animal species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant part of their range. 

Endemic species: Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose 

distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Environmental Assessment: 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: 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. 

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless 

of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no 

group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group should bear a disproportionate 

share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and 

Vernal RMP X-30
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, local, and Tribal programs and policies 

(see Executive Order 12898). 

Ephemeral Stream-Flow: A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and 

whose channel is above the water table at all times. 

Erosion: The wearing away of the land/soil by water, wind, ice, or other geological agents. 

Often categorized into sheet erosion (even, overland flow), rill erosion (numerous but small 

channels), and gully erosion (less numerous but more major channels). Natural erosion is that 

which occurs under natural conditions (without the influence of man’s activities). 

Evaluation (plan evaluation): The process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan 

monitoring reports to determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still 

valid and whether the plan is being implemented. 

Exclusion Area: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of –way and 302 permits, 

leases, and easements would not be authorized. 

Exotic species: Includes species introduced into an area that may have adapted to the area and 

compete with resident native (indigenous) species. 

Exploration Well: A well drilled in the area where there is no oil or gas production (also known 

as wildcat well). 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA): Public lands unit identified in land use 

plans containing all acreage not identified as a SRMA. Recreation management actions within 

an ERMA are limited to only those of a custodial nature. 

Fauna: The vertebrate and invertebrate animals of the area or region. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: 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. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS): A revision of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement based on public and agency comments on the draft. 

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. 

Fisheries habitat: Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish populations. 

Flood Plain: The land area adjacent to a stream which is periodically flooded; an important 

component of a riparian area. 

Fluid Minerals: Oil, gas, and geothermal resources. 

Forage: (1) All browse and herbaceous growth available and acceptable to grazing/browsing 

animals. (2) Vegetation eaten by animals, especially grazing and browsing animals. 

Vernal RMP X-31
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Formal Consultation: A component of the consultation process under Section 7 of the ESA that 

commences with the BLM's written request for consultation after it has determined that its action 

may affect and is likely to adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitats. 

Fossil: Mineralized or petrified form from a past geologic age, especially from previously living 

things. 

Fragmentation (habitat): The break-up of a large land area (such as a forest) into smaller 

patches isolated by areas converted to a different land type. 

Fuel (fire): Dry, dead parts of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that can burn readily. 

Geographic Information System: 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: Consumption of forage from rangelands or pastures by livestock, wild horses and 

burros, or wildlife. 

Grazing System: A specialization of grazing management which defines the periods of grazing 

and non-grazing. Descriptive common names may be used; however, the first usage of a grazing 

system name in a publication should be followed by a description using a standard format. This 

format should consist of at least the following: the number of pastures (or units); number of 

herds; length of grazing periods; length of non-grazing periods for any given unit in the system 

followed by an abbreviation of the unit of time used. Examples of grazing systems are deferred 

grazing, deferred-rotation, rotation, rest-rotation, and short duration grazing. 

Groundwater: Subsurface water that is in the zone of saturation. The top surface of the 

groundwater is the “water table.” Source of water for wells, seeps, and springs. 

Guidance: Any type of written communication or instruction that transmits objectives, goals, 

constraints, or any other direction that helps the Field Managers and staff know how to prepare a 

specific resource management plan. 

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. Guidelines for grazing administration must conform to 43 

CFR 4180.2. 

Habitat: (1) The natural abode of a plant or animal that provides food, water, shelter, and other 

biotic, climatic and soils factors necessary to support life. (2) The natural environment of a plant 

or animal, including all biotic, climatic, and soil conditions, or other environmental influences 

affecting living conditions. The place where an organism lives. 

Herbaceous: (1) Non-woody plant growth. (2) Green and leaf-like in appearance or texture; 

includes grasses, grass-like plants, and forbs, with little or no woody component. 

Vernal RMP X-32
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Herd Area (HA): The geographic area identified as having been used by a herd as its habitat in 

1971. 

Herd Management Area (HMA): (1) Public land under the jurisdiction of the BLM that has 

been designated for special management emphasizing the maintenance of an established wild 

horse herd. (2) Areas established for wild and free-roaming horses and burros through the land 

use planning process. The Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 requires that wild 

free-roaming horses and burros be considered for management where they were found at the time 

Congress passed the Act. The BLM initially identified 264 areas of use as herd management 

areas. 

Herd Management Area Plan: The area within the HA established for the maintenance of wild 

horse and/or burro herds. BLM considers the appropriate management level for the herd, the 

habitat requirements of the animals, the relationships with other uses of the public and adjacent 

private lands, and the constrains contained within (43 CFR 4710.3-1). The HMA does not 

always include the complete acreage of an HA (and often does not), and depends on conditions 

surrounding each area.

Impact: A modification of the existing environment caused by an action (such as construction or 

operation of facilities). 

Impacts (or Effects): Environmental consequences (the scientific and analytical basis for 

comparison of alternatives) as a result of a proposed action. 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 of 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 plans 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. 

Indicator Species (key species): (1) Species that indicate the presence of certain environmental 

conditions, seral stages, or previous treatment. (2) One or more plant species selected to indicate 

a certain level of grazing use. 

Indigenous: Living or occurring naturally in an area; native, endemic people, flora, or fauna. 

Indirect effects: Impacts that are caused by an action, but are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, although still reasonably foreseeable. 

Informal Consultation: a component of the consultation process that includes all discussions, 

correspondence, etc., between the FWS and/or NMFS and the BLM agency or the designated nonFederal representative, prior to formal consultation, to determine if a proposed action may affect 

Vernal RMP X-33
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

listed species or critical habitat and to use FWS and/or NMFS expertise, if necessary, to modify the 

proposed action to avoid potentially adverse effects. 

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 discipline or Bureau 

program interest. 

Intermittent or Seasonal Stream-Flow: A stream that flows only at certain times of the year 

when it receives water from springs or from some surface source such as meling snow in 

mountainous areas. 

Invasive plants: Plants that are not part of (if exotic), or are a minor component of (if native), 

the original plant community or communities that have the potential to become a dominant or codominant species on the site if their future establishment and growth is not actively controlled by 

management interventions, or are classified as exotic or noxious plants under state or federal law. 

Species that become dominant for only one to several years (e.g. short-term response to drought 

or wildfire) are not invasive plants. 

Invertebrate: Small animals that lack a backbone or spinal column. Spiders, insects, and worms 

are examples of invertebrates. 

Land Classification: A process for determining the suitability of public lands for certain types 

of disposal or lease under the public land laws or for retention under multiple use management. 

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-plan-level decisions developed through the planning process, regardless of the scale at 

which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs and MFPs. 

Land Use Plan Decision: Establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. 

Decisions are reached using the BLM planning process in 43 CFR 1600. When they are 

presented to the public as proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They 

are not appeal able to Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Landscape: All the natural features such as grasslands, hills, forest, and water, which distinguish 

one part of the earth’s surface from another part; usually that portion of land that the eye can 

comprehend in a single view, including all of its natural characteristics. 

Leaseable Minerals: Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920. They include coal, phosphate, asphalt, sulphur, potassium, and sodium 

minerals, and oil, gas, and geothermal. 

Vernal RMP X-34
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Lease: (1) A legal document that conveys to an operator the right to drill for oil, gas; (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. 

Limited: Generally denotes that an area or roads and trails are available for a particular use or 

uses. Refer to specific program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for 

application to individual programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning 

of “limited” as it relates to off-highway vehicle use. 

Limited (Areas or Trails) Designated areas or trails 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), limiting use to existing roads and trails, or limiting 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. 

Local Government: Any political subdivision of the State and any general purpose unit of local 

government with resource planning, resource management, zoning, or land use regulation 

authority. 

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. 

Major Construction Activity: A construction project (or other undertaking having similar 

physical effects) which is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment as referred to in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)). 

Management Decision: A decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management 

decisions include 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. 

Marsh (land): Flat, wet, treeless land usually covered by water and dominated by marsh grasses, 

indigenous rushes, sedges, or other grass-like plants. 

Meadow (grassland, pasture, pastureland, rangeland): A tract of grassland where 

productivity of indigenous or introduced forage is modified due to characteristics of the 

Vernal RMP X-35
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

landscape position or hydrology. May be characterized as: hay meadow, native meadow, 

mountain meadow, wet meadow, or other designations. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): Usually documents an agreement reached amongst 

federal agencies. 

Mineral: Any solid or fluid inorganic substance that can be extracted from the earth for profit. 

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, gravel, pumice, 

pumicite, and clay, that are no obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be 

acquired under the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended. 

Mineral Reserves: Known mineral deposits that is recoverable under present conditions but is 

as yet undeveloped. 

Mineral Rights: Mineral rights outstanding are third-party rights, as interest in minerals not 

owned by the person or party conveying the land to the United States. It is an exception in a 

deed that is the result of prior conveyance separating title of certain minerals from the surface 

estate. 

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: (1) To reduce the adverse impact of an operation to the lowest practical level. (2) 

Apply best available technology, management practices, and scientific knowledge to reduce the 

magnitude, extent, and/or duration of impacts. 

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 and local laws and rules. A 

single mining claim may contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. 

There are four categories of mining claims: lode, placer, mill site, and tunnel site. 

Mitigation: Steps taken to: 1) avoid an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts 

of an action; 2) minimize an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; 3) rectify an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment; 4) reduce or eliminate an impact over time by preserving and maintaining 

operations during the life of the action; and, 5) compensate for an impact by replacing or 

providing substitute resources or environments. 

Mitigation Measures: (1) Methods or procedures that reduce or lessen the impacts of an action. 

(2) Means taken to avoid, compensate for, rectify, or reduce the potential adverse impact of an 

action. 

Monitoring (plan monitoring): The process of tracking the implementation of land use plan 

decisions and collecting and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of 

Vernal RMP X-36
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

land use planning decisions. 

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 

limited to, recreation, range, timber, 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 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Standards set by the Environmental 

Protection Agency for the maximum levels of pollutants that can exist in the outdoor air without 

unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: 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: Rivers designated in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System that are classified in one of three categories, depending on the extent of development and 

accessibility along each section. In addition to being free flowing, these rivers and their 

immediate environments must possess at least one outstandingly remarkable value: scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or other similar values. 

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 (Wild 

and Scenic River Act). 

Native Species: Species that historically occurred or currently occur in a particular ecosystem 

and were not introduced. 

Natural Community: An assemblage of organisms indigenous to an area that is characterized 

by distinct combinations of species occupying a common ecological zone and interacting with 

one another. 

Natural Resources: Water, soil, plants and animals, nutrients, and other resources produced by 

the earth’s natural processes. 

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. 

Vernal RMP X-37
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

No action alternative: The most likely condition to exist in the future if current management 

direction were to continue unchanged. 

No Surface Occupancy: A fluid minerals leasing 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. 

No Surface Disturbance: In general, this applies to an area where an activity is allowed so long 

as it does not disturb the surface. 

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. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (off-road vehicle): Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, 

travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: 

any nonamphibious registered motorboat;\ 

any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency 

purposes; 

any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially 

approved; 

vehicles in official use; and 

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: 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. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning of “open” as it relates to 

off-highway vehicle use. 

Open (Areas and Trails): Designated areas and trails where off-road vehicles may be operated, 

subject to operating regulations and vehicle standards or an area where all types of vehicle use is 

permitted at all times, subject to standards set forth in BLM Manuals 8341 8343 

Open Range: (1) Range which has not been fenced into management units. (2) All suitable 

rangeland of an area upon which grazing is permitted. (3) Untimbered rangeland. (4) Range on 

which the livestock owner has unlimited access without benefit of land ownership or leasing. 

Operator: Any person who has taken formal responsibility for the operations conducted on the 

leased lands. 

Outstandingly Remarkable River Values: Values among those listed in Section 1(b) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are “scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, 

Vernal RMP X-38
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

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 (Wild and Scenic River Act). 

Overgrazing (overuse): Continued heavy grazing which exceeds the recovery capacity of the 

community and creates a deteriorated range. 

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. 

Particulate Matter (PM): A complex mixture consisting of varying combinations of dry solid 

fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These tiny particles vary 

greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials 

such as metals, soot, soil and dust. 

Perennial: A plant that lives for at least 2 or more years. 

Perennial Stream-flow: A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally 

associated with a water table in the localities through which they flow. 

Period of Use: The time of livestock grazing on a range area based on type of vegetation or 

stage of vegetative growth. 

Permit: A revocable authorization to use public land for a specified purpose to for up to 3 years. 

Permitted Use: The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan 

for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease; expressed in Animal Unit Months. 

Petroglyph: An image recorded on stone, usually by prehistoric peoples, by means of carving, 

pecking or otherwise incised on natural rock surfaces. 

pH: A measure of how acidic or alkaline (basic) a solution is on a scale of 0 to 14 with 0 being 

very acidic, 14 being very alkaline, and 7 being neutral. The abbreviation stands for the potential 

of hydrogen. 

Pictograph: A symbol that represents an object or a concept by illustration. 

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 Analysis: A process using appropriate resource data and NEPA analysis to provide a 

Vernal RMP X-39
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

basis for decisions in areas not yet covered by an RMP. 

Planning Area: A geographical area for which land use and resource management plans are 

developed and maintained. 

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. 

Plant community: A vegetation complex, unique in its combination of plants, which occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences. A plant community is a reflection of integrated 

environmental influences on the site, such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope 

aspect, and precipitation. 

Population: Within a species, a distinct group of individuals that tend to mate only with 

members of the group. Because of generations of inbreeding, members of a population tend to 

have similar genetic characteristics. 

Potential Natural Community (PNC): The biotic community that would become established if 

all successional sequences were completed without interference by man under the present 

environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in development. PNCs can include 

naturalized non-native species.

Preferred alternative: The alternative identified in an EIS that has been selected by the agency 

as the most acceptable resolution to the problems identified in the purpose and need. 

Prescribed Fire: (1) The introduction of fire to an area under regulated conditions for specific 

management purposes. (2) A management ignited wildland fire that burns under specified 

conditions and in predetermined area, and that produces the fire behavior and fire characteristics 

required to attain fire treatment and resource management objectives. 

Prey Base: Populations and types of prey species available to predators. 

Principal or Major Uses: Includes, and is limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and 

wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor 

recreation, and timber production. 

Production Well: A well drilled in a known field that produces oil or gas. 

Project Plan: A type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan). A project plan 

typically addresses individual projects or several related projects. Examples of project plans 

include prescribed burn plans, trail plans, and recreation site plans. 

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. 

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC): An attribute of a landform that indicates its ability to 

produce desired natural resources in a sustained way. When used to refer to a riparian area, 

expresses the ability of the ecosystem to dissipate energy, filter sediment, transfer nutrients, 

develop ponds and channel characteristics that benefit fish production, waterfowl, and other uses, 

improve water retention and ground-water recharge, develop root masses that improve 

Vernal RMP X-40
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

streambank stability, and support greater biodiversity. In upland landforms, an indication of the 

ecosystem’ ability to sustain the natural, biotic communities. 

Public: Affected or interested individuals, including consumer organizations, public land 

resource users, corporations and other business entities, environmental organizations and other 

special interest groups and officials of State, local, and Indian tribal governments. 

Public Involvement: The opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rule making, 

decision making, and planning with respect to the public lands, including public meetings or 

hearings held at locations near the affected lands, or advisory mechanisms, or such other 

procedures as may be necessary to provide public comment in a particular instance. 

Public Lands: Any lands or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, except lands located on the 

Outer Continental Shelf, and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

Public scoping: A process whereby the public is given the opportunity to provide oral or written 

comments about the influence of a project on an individual, the community, and/or the 

environment. 

Quarry: An open or surface working, usually for the extraction of stone, slate, limestone, etc. 

Range Improvement: An authorized physical modification or treatment which is designed to 

improve production of forage; change vegetation composition; control patterns of use; provide 

water; stabilize soil and water conditions; restore , protect and improve the condition of 

rangeland ecosystems to benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. The 

term includes, but is not limited to structures, treatment projects and use of mechanical devices 

or modifications achieved through mechanical means. 

Range Improvement Funds (BLM): A fund established by Congress in FLPMA comprised of 

50 percent of the grazing fees collected by the U.S. Treasury. This fund is used for on-theground rehabilitation, protection, and improvement of the public lands that will arrest rangeland 

deterioration and improve forage conditions with resulting benefits to wildlife, watershed 

protection, and livestock production. 

Rangeland Improvement Projects: Man-made manipulations and structures applied to ro built 

upon rangelands for the purpose of improving productivity or ecosystem function; generally 

reseedings, weed control, water retention structures, stream channel structures, erosion control 

structures, fences, etc. 

Range Inventory: (v.) The systematic acquisition and analysis of resource information needed 

for planning and for management of rangelands. (n.) The information acquired through range 

inventory. 

Rangeland (or Public Rangelands): Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, mountains, canyons, 

forests, woodlands, and riparian areas, that support an understory or periodic cover of herbaceous 

and woody vegetation amenable to production of tangible products such as forage, wildlife 

habitat, water, minerals, energy, plant and animal gene pools, recreational, opportunities, and 

other vegetative products, Also valuable for the production of intangible products such as open 

space, natural beauty, ands study of natural ecosystems. Rangeland includes revegetated 

Vernal RMP X-41
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

naturally or artificially to provide a plant community that is managed similarly to natural 

vegetation. 

Rangeland Health: The degree to which the integrity of the soil, the vegetation, the water, and 

air as well as the ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystem is balanced and sustained. 

Integrity is defined as: Maintenance of the structure and functional attributes characteristic of a 

particular locale, including normal variability. 

Raptor: Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks such as hawks, owls, vultures, 

and eagles. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario: The prediction of the type and amount of oil 

and gas 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: (1) A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision that 

was preceded by the preparing of an environmental impact statement. (2) A document separate 

from, but associated with, an Environmental Impact Statement, which states the decision, 

identifies alternatives (specifying which were environmentally preferable), and states whether all 

practicable means to avoid environmental harm from the alternative have been adopted, and, if 

not, why not. 

Recovery plan: Identifies, justifies, and schedules the research and management actions 

necessary to reverse the decline of a species and ensure its long-term survival. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): One of the existing tools for classifying recreation 

environments (existing and desired) along a continuum ranging from primitive, low-use, and 

inconspicuous administration to urban, high-use, and a highly visible administrative presence. 

This continuum recognizes variation among various components of any landscape’s physical, 

social and administrative attributes; and resulting descriptions (of existing conditions) and 

prescriptions (of desired future conditions) define recreation setting character. 

Recreational River Areas: 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. 

Recreation Settings: The collective, distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence, and 

sometimes actually determine, what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced. 

Relict: A remnant or fragment of the climax plant community that remains from a former period 

when it was more widely distributed. Synonymous with pristine. 

Resource Area or Field Office: A geographic portion of a Bureau of Land Management district. 

It is the administrative subdivision whose manager has primary responsibility for day-to-day 

resource management activities and resource use allocations and is, in most instances, the area 

for which resource management plans are prepared and maintained. 

Research Natural Area: (1) An area where natural processes predominate and which is 

preserved for research and education. Research Natural Areas must meet the relevance and 

importance criteria of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and are designated as Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern. (2) Special management areas designated either by Congress or 

Vernal RMP X-42
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

by a public or private agency to preserve and protect typical or unusual ecological communities, 

associations, phenomena, characteristics, or natural features or processes for scientific and 

educational purposes. They are established and managed to protect ecological processes, 

conserve biological diversity, and provide opportunities for observation for research and 

education. 

Resource Advisory Council: A council established by the Secretary of the Interior to provide 

advice or recommendations to BLM management. 

Resource Use Level: The level of use allowed within an area. It is based on the desired 

outcomes and land use allocations in the land use plan. Targets or goals for resource use levels 

are established on an area-wide or broad watershed level in the land use plan. Site-specific 

resource use levels are normally determined at the implementation level, based on site-specific 

resource conditions and needs as determined through resource monitoring and assessments. 

Resource Management Plan: A land use plan as described by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. The resource management plan generally establishes in a written document: 

Land areas for limited, restricted or exclusive use; designation, including ACEC designation; and 

transfer from Bureau of Land Management Administration; 

Allowable resource uses (either singly or in combination) and related levels of production or use 

to be maintained; 

Resource condition goals and objectives to be attained; 

Program constraints and general management practices needed to achieve the above items; 

Need for an area to be covered by more detailed and specific plans; 

Support action, including such measures as resource protection, access development, realty 

action, cadastral survey, etc., as necessary to achieve the above; 

General implementation sequences, where carrying out a planned action is dependent upon prior 

accomplishment of another planned action; and 

Intervals and standards for monitoring and evaluating the plan to determine the effectiveness of 

the plan and the need for amendment or revision. 

It is not a final implementation decision on actions which require further specific plans, process 

steps, or decisions under specific provisions of law and regulations. 

Revegetation: Establishing or re-establishing desirable plants on areas where desirable plants 

are absent or of inadequate density, by management alone (natural revegetation) or by seeding or 

transplanting (artificial revegetation). 

Revision: The process of completely rewriting the land use plan due to changes in the planning 

area affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan. 

Right-of-Way: A permit or an easement which authorizes the use of public lands for certain 

specified purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone lines, electric lines, reservoirs, etc.; 

also, the lands covered by such an easement or permit. 

Vernal RMP X-43
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Right-of-Way 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 rights-of-way which are similar, identical or compatible. 

Riparian : (1) Referring to or relating to areas adjacent of water or influenced by free water 

associated with streams or rivers on geologic surfaces occupying the lowest position on a 

watershed. (2) Occurring adjacent to streams and rivers and directly influenced by water. A 

riparian community is characterized by certain types of vegetation, soils, hydrology, and fauna 

and requires free or unbound water or conditions more moist than that normally found in the 

area. 

Riparian Ecosystems: (1) Those assemblages of plants, animals, and aquatic communities 

whose presences can be either directly or indirectly attributed to factors that are water-influenced 

or related. (2) Interacting system between aquatic and terrestrial situations identified by soil 

characteristics, and distinctive vegetation that requires or tolerates free or unbound water. 

Riparian – Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) for Lotic Areas: 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 

support greater biodiversity 

Riparian--Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) for Lentic Areas: Lentic riparian-wetland 

areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to 

dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent 

sites, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; 

filter sediment and aid floodplain development; 

improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; and, 

development root masses that stabilize islands and shoreline features against cutting action; 

restrict water percolation; develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and the 

water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, water-bird breeding, and 

other uses; and support greater biodiversity. 

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. *Though a 

Vernal RMP X-44
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

comprehensive assessment of riparian functioning condition has not been conducted, the Vernal 

Field Office has identified four major invasive plants that are altering riparian communities. The 

BLM has identified tamarisk, Russian olive, tall whitetop, and Russian knapweed as plants that 

are changing the vegetation composition of the Green River System. Specifically, Russian olive 

and tamarisk are out-competing native cottonwoods and willows in the riparian zone. 

Cottonwood stands along the main river systems (the Green and the White) are becoming 

decadent with low recruitment of new trees. 

Riprap: A layer, facing, or protective mound of rubble or stones randomly placed to prevent 

erosion, scour, or sloughing of a structure or embankment; also, the stone used for this purpose. 

Riverine: A system of wetlands that includes all wetland and deep-water habitats contained 

within a channel that lacks trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent mosses or lichens. 

Roadless: Refers to the absence of roads, which have been improved and maintained by 

mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by 

the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road. 

Rock Art: Petroglyphs or pictographs. 

Saleable 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. 

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. 

Season-long Use: Grazing throughout the growing period, with little or no effort to control the 

amount of distribution of livestock use in area/pasture/allotments. 

Seasonal Grazing: Grazing restricted to one or more specific seasons of the year. 

Section 7: The section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, outlining procedures 

for interagency cooperation to conserve Federally listed species and designated critical habitats. 

Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of 

listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing 

actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Other paragraphs of this section establish the requirement to conduct 

conferences on proposed species and candidate species; allow applicants to initiate early 

consultation; require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries to prepare 

biological opinions and issue incidental take statements. Section 7 also establishes procedures 

for seeking exemptions from the requirement of section 7(a)(2) from the Endangered Species 

Committee. 

Section 7 Consultation: The various section 7 processes, including both consultation and 

conference if proposed or candidate species are involved. 

Vernal RMP X-45
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

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. 

Seep: Wet areas, normally not flowing, arising from an underground water source. 

Sensitive Lands: Any areas recognized in BLM land use or activity plans where BLM has 

determined that a Plan or Operation to provide detailed review of project effects on unique, 

irreplaceable, or outstanding historical, cultural, recreational, or natural resource values, such as 

threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. 

Sensitive species: Plant or animal species susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or habitat 

alterations. Species that have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for classification or 

are under consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened species. 

Seral Stage: The development stages of an ecological succession. Seral state is synonymous 

with successional stage. 

Seral Community: One or a series of biotic communities that follow one another in time on any 

given area. Seral community is synonymous with successional community. 

Significant: (1) 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. (2) The description of an impact that exceeds a certain threshold level. 

Requires consideration of both context and intensity. The significance of an action must be 

analyzed in several contexts, such as society as a whole, and the affected region, interests, and 

locality. Intensity refers to the severity of impacts, which should weighted along with the 

likelihood of its occurrence. 

Slope: A slant or incline of the land surface, measured in degrees from the horizontal, or in the 

percent (defined as the number of feet or meters change in elevation per 100 of the same units of 

horizontal distance); may be further characterized by direction (exposure or aspect). 

Socioeconomic: Pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and 

economic factors. 

Soil: (1) The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the immediate surface of the earth 

that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. (2) The unconsolidated mineral 

matter on the surface of the earth that has been subjected to and influenced by genetic and 

environmental factors of parent material, climate (including moisture and temperature effects), 

macro-and micro-organisms, and topography, all acting over a period of time and producing a 

product-soil that differs from the material from which it was derived in many physical, chemical, 

biological, and morphological properties and characteristics. 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA): a public lands unit identified in land use 

plans to direct recreation funding and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific, 

Vernal RMP X-46
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

structured recreation opportunities (i.e., activity, experience, and benefit opportunities). Both 

land use plan decisions and subsequent implementing actions for recreation in each SRMA are 

geared to a strategically identified primary market—destination, community, or undeveloped. 

Special Status Species: Includes the following: 

Proposed Species--species that have been officially proposed for listing as threatened or 

endangered by the Secretary of the Interior. A proposed rule for listing has been published din 

the Federal Register. 

Listed Species--Species officially listed as threatened or endangered by the Secretary of the 

Interior under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. A final rule for the listing has been 

published in the Federal Register. 

Endangered Species--any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Threatened Species--any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Candidate Species--species designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA-Fisheries. A list has been published in the 

Federal Register. 

State Listed Species--Species listed by a State in a category implying but not limited to potential 

endangerment or extinction. Listing is either by legislation or regulation. 

Sensitive Species--those species designated by a State Director, usually in cooperation with the 

State agency responsible for managing the species and State Natural heritage programs, as 

sensitive. They are those species that: 

could become endangered in or extirpated from a State, or within a significant portion of its 

distribution; 

are under status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA-Fisheries; 

are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would 

reduce a species' existing distribution; 

are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in population or density such 

that federal listed, proposed, candidate, or Stste listed status may become necessary; 

typically have small and widely dispersed populations; 

inhabit ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats; or, 

are State listed but which may be better conserved through application of BLM sensitive species 

status. 

Species: Any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants (and in the case of plants, any 

varieties), and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature. 

Species Diversity: The number, different kinds of, and relative abundances of species present in 

a given area. 

Vernal RMP X-47
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Spring: Flowing water originating form an underground source. 

Standard: A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required 

for healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., Land Health Standards). To be expressed as a desired 

outcome (goal). 

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. 

Stock Pond (catchment, guzzler, trick tank): A water impoundment made by constructing a 

dam or by excavating a dugout or both, to provide water for livestock and wildlife. 

Stocking Rate: The relationship between the number of animals and the grazing management 

unit utilized over a specified time period. May be expressed as animal units per unit of land area 

(animal units over a described time period/area of land). 

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. 

Succession: The progressive replacement of plant communities on a site which leads to the 

potential natural plant community; i.e., attaining stability. Primary succession entails 

simultaneous succession of soil from parent material and vegetation. Secondary succession 

occurs following disturbances on sites that previously supported vegetation, and entails plant 

succession on a more mature soil. 

Suspended Nonuse: Temporary withholding of a grazing preference from active use. 

Sustainability: The concept that natural processes are functioning in a way that assures the 

sustained yield or commodities and public values to the extent possible considering the 

capability of the land to do so. 

Sustained Yield: The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or 

regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with 

multiple use. 

Take: As defined by the Endangered Species Act, “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 

kill, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The term applies only to fish 

and wildlife. 

incidental take Any taking otherwise prohibited, if such taking is incidental to, and not the 

purpose of, the carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. 

harm as used in the definition of take means to commit an act which actually kills or injures 

wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually 

kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering. 

harass as used in the definition of take means to commit an intentional or negligent act or 

omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to 

Vernal RMP X-48
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, which include but are not limited to breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering. 

Threatened species: A plant or animal species likely to become an endangered species 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. 

Timing Limitation (Seasonal Restriction): 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. 

Total Preference: The total number of animal units of livestock grazing on public lands, 

apportioned and attached to base property owned of controlled by a permittee of lessee. The 

active preference and suspended preference are combined to make up the total grazing 

preference. 

Trend: The direction of change in ecological status or in resource value ratings observed over 

time. Trend in ecological status is described as "toward" or "away from" the potential natural 

community or as "not apparent." Appropriate terms are used to describe trends in resource value 

ratings. Trends in resource value ratings for several uses on the same site at a given time may be 

in different directions, and there is no necessary correlation between trends in resource value 

ratings and the trend in ecological status. 

Unallotted Lands: Public lands open to grazing which currently have no livestock grazing 

authorized. 

Understory: Plants that grow beneath the canopy of other plants. Usually refers to grasses, 

forbs, and low shrubs under a tree or shrub canopy. 

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. 

Undesirable plants: Species classified as undesirable, noxious, harmful, exotic, injurious, or 

poisonous under state or federal law, but not including species listed as endangered by the 

Endangered Species Act, or species indigenous to the planning area. 

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. 

Utilization: The proportion or degree of current year's forage production that is consumed or 

destroyed by animals (including insects). Utilization may refer either to a single plant species, a 

group of species, or the vegetation as a whole. Utilization is synonymous with use. This process 

requires a comparison of the amount of herbage left compared with the amount of herbage 

produced during the year. 

Valid Existing Rights: Locatable mineral development rights that existed when the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act were enacted on October 21, 1976. Some areas are 

Vernal RMP X-49
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

segregated from entry and location under the Mining Law to protect certain values or allow 

certain uses. Mining claims that existed as of the effective date of the segregation may still be 

valid if they can meet the test of discovery of a valuable mineral required under the Mining Law. 

Determining the validity of mining claims located in segregated lands requires BLM to conduct a 

validity examination and is called a “valid existing rights” determination. 

Vascular plants: Plants that have specialized tissues which conduct nutrients, water, and sugars 

along with other specialized parts such as roots, stems, and reproductive structures. Vascular 

plants include flowering plants, ferns, shrubs, grasses, and trees. 

Vegetation Manipulation Practices: Practices that are directed at changing vegetation 

production, species composition, and erosion control. These practices include root plowing, 

seeding, pitting, chaining, prescribed fire, herbicide application, prescribed grazing and livestock 

exclusion. 

Vegetation Type: A kind of existing plant community with distinguishable characteristics 

described in terms of the present vegetation that dominates the aspect or physiognomy of the 

area. 

Vertebrate: An animal with a backbone. Fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are 

vertebrates. 

Visual Resources: The visible physical features of a landscape (topography, water, vegetation, 

animals, structures, and other features) that constitute the scenery of an area. 

Visual Resource Management Classes: Categories assigned to public lands based on scenic 

quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones. There are four classes. Each class has an objective 

which prescribes the amount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape. 

Waiver: Permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies 

anywhere within the leasehold. 

Water Quality: (1) The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect 

to its suitability for a particular use. (2) The interaction between various parameters that 

determines the usability or non-usability of water for on-site and downstream uses. Major 

parameters that affect water quality include: temperature, turbidity, suspended sediment, 

conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific ions, discharge, and fecal coliform. 

Watershed: (1) A total area of land above a given point on a waterway that contributes runoff 

water to the flow at that point. (2) A major subdivision of a drainage basin. 

Weed: A plant considered undesirable and that interferes with management objectives for a 

given area at a given point in time. 

Wetlands: (1) Areas characterized by soils that are usually saturated or ponded, i.e., hydric soils, 

that support mostly hydrophytic plants. (2) Those areas that are inundated or saturated by 

surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under 

normal circumstance do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated 

soil conditions. Wetlands include habitats such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. 

Vernal RMP X-50
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Wild Horses and Burros: All unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros using public lands as 

all or part of their habitat. 

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. 

Wilderness Characteristics: 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) 

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. 

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 and that (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 practical 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. 

Wildfire: Any unwanted wild land fire. 

Wildland Fire: Any nonstructural fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wild land. 

Winter Range: Range that is grazed during the winter months. 

Withdrawal: Withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under 

some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in 

order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public 

purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than 

“property” governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 

U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency. 

Woodland: A land area occupied by trees; a forest, woods. 

Vernal RMP X-51
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Acronyms and Glossary 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Vernal RMP X-52
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-1 

REFERENCES

Archer, Scott F. 2001a. Telephone conversation among BLM, SWCA, and Trinity staff on 

December 5, 2001 conference call. 

Archer, Scott F. 2001b. States’ Acceptable Ambient Concentration Levels and guidelines 

provided to Sean McEldowney, Trinity Consultants, in a December 13, 2001 facsimile. 

Archer, Scott F. 2002. Conversation with Trinity staff on December 17, 2002. 

Bartel, Kim 2002. Conversation between Kim Bartel, Vernal BLM Field Office and David 

Harris, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Vernal, Utah, 2 April 2002. 

Bechard, M. J., R. L. Knight, D. G. Smith, and R. E. Fitzner. 1990. Nest sites and habitats of 

sympatric hawks (Buteo spp.) in Washington. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:159-170. 

Belsky AJ, Matzke A, Uselman S. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian 

ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-

431. 

Blackett, R. 1996. "Tar Sand Resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah. A Catalog of Deposits." Utah 

Geological Survey Open File Report 335. 

Bowker, J.M.; Harvard, J.E., III; Bergstrom, John C.; Cordell, H. Ken; English, Donald B.K.; 

Loomis, John B. “The Net Economic Value of Wilderness”, The Multiple Values of 

Wilderness: 161–181. USFS, Southern Research Station, 2005. 

Braun, C.E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge. 2002. Oil and gas development in western 

North America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sagegrouse. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 

67:337-349. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2002. Website: http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) April 1983a. Book Cliffs Management Situation Analysis. 

Chapter 5, Wildlife and Wild Horses. BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. page 23. 

BLM. 1984. Bookcliffs Final EIS. Utah BLM, Vernal District. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement on the Book Cliffs Resource Management Plan. 

BLM. 1985. Manual 3031-Energy and Mineral Resources Assessment. Rel. 3-115. June 19, 

1985. 

BLM. May 1985. Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary for the Book Cliffs 

Resource Management Plan, page 45. BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-2 

BLM. July 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Book Cliffs Resource 

Management Plan. BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. July. Page 117 

BLM. 1988. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, BLM Handbook H-1790-1. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C., October 

1988. 

BLM. 1990. Diamond Mountain Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 

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. 1991. (BLM-WY-ES-91-036-4320) 

BLM. 1992. BLM Handbook 8400 – Visual Resource Management. 

BLM. 1993a. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. BLM, Proper Functioning 

Condition Work Group, TR 1737-9. 51 pp. 

BLM. 1993b. Diamond Mountain RMP and EIS. Utah BLM, Vernal District. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, March 1993, Diamond Mountain Resource 

Area Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1 

BLM. 1993. Wild and Scenic Rivers - Policy and Program Direction, for Identification, 

Evaluation, and Management, BLM Manual 8351. US Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management. December 22, 1993. 

BLM. 1994a. Diamond Mountain Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of 

Decision. April 4, 1994. 

BLM. 1994b. Manual 3060. Mineral Reports, Preparation and Review. Rel. 3-284. 

BLM. 1994. H08160-1 – General Procedure Guidance for Native American Consultation. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/handbooks/h8160-1.html. 

BLM. 1995. Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review. BLM Handbook 

H-8550-1. Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento. 

BLM. 1996. Woodland Product Policy. Instruction Memorandum No. UT080-97-01, Change 1. 

Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 

BLM. 1997. Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Their Companion Rules: Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM in Utah. Bureau of 

Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. May. 

BLM. 1998. General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management (H-8270-

1). United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Manual. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-3 

BLM. 1999. Costilla Energy Inc. Hill Creek Unit Wellfield Development EA/RMP Plan 

Amendment. December. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 

BLM. 1999b. Utah Wilderness Inventory. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt 

Lake City. 

BLM. 2000. BLM Manual H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook. United States, Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

BLM. 2000. Vernal Field Office Fire Management Plan. US Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Vernal Field Office. 

BLM. 2000. Vernal Field Office Fuels Management Plan. US Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Vernal Field Office. 

BLM. July 2001. Book Cliffs Resource Management Plan Amendment Involving the Bonanza 

Wild Horse Herd Area. EA No. UT 080-1999-56. BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, 

Utah. 

BLM. 2001. Glenwood Springs Field Office Information. Webpage: 

http://www.co.blm.gov/gsra/officeinfo.htm Last Modified: September 26, 2001. 

Glenwood Springs, CO. 

BLM. 2001. BLM Manual 6840, revised – Special Status Species Management. January 17, 

2001. 

BLM. 2002. "Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning Area Encompassing 

Approximately 5.1 million Acres, Duchesne, Dagget, Uintah, and Grand Counties", Utah, 

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

BLM. 2003a. Meeting of air quality stakeholders to discuss the dispersion modeling protocol. 

Meeting notes. February 11, 2003. 

BLM. 2003b. Socioeconomic Profile - Pinedale. Pinedale FO, Pinedale Wyoming. January 2003. 

BLM. 2004a. Development scenario questionnaire (developed by BLM NSTC-AQ staff), 

completed by GSFO personnel 4/17/04; transmitted via email from Steve Bennett to 

Craig Nicholls. April 17, 2004. 

BLM. 2004b. Development scenario questionnaire (developed by BLM NSTC-AQ staff), 

completed by VFO (Utah) personnel 4/12/04; transmitted via email from Dave Moore to 

Craig Nicholls, 4/12/04. 

BLM. 2004. Telephone Conversation with Ed Forsman, BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah 

and Deb Reber, SWCA Environmental Consultants. August 19, 2004. 

BLM. 2004. Personal communication with Robert Specht, BLM Vernal Field Office, Vernal, 

Utah, and Eric McCulley, SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2004. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-4 

BLM. 2004. Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning Area. Final Mineral Report. 

Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office. June. 

BLM. 2005. Land Use Planning Handbook, BLM Handbook H-1601-1. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. March 2005. 

BLM 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Castle Peak and 

Eight Mile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion Project: Newfield Rocky Mountains Inc. Vernal 

Field Office. Vernal, Utah. Fall 2005. 

BLM 2007. Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009. Potential Fossil Yield Classification 

(PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands. October 15, 2007. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. 

BLM. 2007. Updated Utah Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Director’s Sensitive Plant 

and Animal Species List. Instruction Memorandum No. UT 2007-078 dated September 

26, 2007 Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office. 

BLM. 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) 

BLM. 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 (FES 07-21). 

BLM. 2007. Northeast National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska Draft Supplemental Integrated 

Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. August 2007. US Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage. Available on the Internet: 

http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/npra_general/ne_npra/ne_npra_supplement.html. 

BLM 2008. West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas Full Field Development Plan: Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement: UT-070-05-055. Price Field Office, Price, Utah. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

1996. Interagency Technical Reference: Sampling Vegetation Attributes. USDI, USDA. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

1996. Interagency Technical Reference: Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements. 

USDI, USDA. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

1998. Technical Reference 1737-15 Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to 

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. 

USDI and USDA. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

2003. Technical Reference 1737-16 Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-5 

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. 

USDI and USDA. 

Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. Technical Report 1730-2 

Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management, US Department of the Interior. 

Carper, Elizabeth, and Ottersberg, Eri. 2002. Significance of a CALPUFF Near-Field Analysis. 

Air and Waste Management Association (A&WMA) Pacific Northwest International 

Section (PNWIS) Annual Conference. November 2002. Tacoma, Washington. 

Cashion, W. 1967. "Geology and Fuel Resources of the Green River Formation Southeastern 

Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado." USGS Professional Paper 548. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. (CDPHE). 2004. Personal 

communication with Chip Hancock, 4/15/2004. 

Chenoweth, W. 1992. "Uranium Mining in the Uinta Basin, Utah." In Hydrocarbon and Mineral 

Resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado: Utah Geological Association 

Guidebook 20 (Eds. Fouch, Y., V. Nuccio, and T. Chidsey, Jr.). 

Chick, Nancy. 2002. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution 

Control Division. Roan Plateau EIS comments. December 20, 2002. 

Chow, V.T. 1959. Open-channel hydraulics: McGraw Hill, New York, 680 pages. 

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. 

Crawford, A. 1960. "Gilsonite and Related Hydrocarbons of the Uinta Basin, Utah", Reprint No. 

18-a, Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey. 

Deloria, V., and R. Stoffle. 1998. Native American Sacred Sites and the Department of Defense. 

University of Colorado and Arizona. Submitted to the United States Department of 

Defense, Washington D.C. 

Department of Transportation. 1997. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. [Docket No. RSPA-97-2879] Pipeline Safety: Rapid Isolation of 

Ruptured Sections of Gas Transmission Pipelines AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety, 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT 

Doelling, H. and R. Graham. 1972. "Eastern and Northern Utah Coal Fields: Vernal, Henry 

Mountains, Sego, La Sal-San Juan, Tabby Mountain, Coalville, Henry's Fork, Goose 

Creek and Lost Creek." Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Monograph Series 

No. 2. 

Duncan, Clifford. 1992. Report Prepared for the BLM Concerning Proposed Road Improvement 

Between Ouray and Cisco, Utah. Ouray to Interstate 70 Highway Draft EIS. September. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-6 

Earth Tech Inc. 2001a. CALPUFF Modeling System Webpage: 

http://www.src.com/calpuff/calpuff1.htm Last Modified: December 10, 2001. Concord, 

MA. 

Earth Tech, Inc. 2001b. CALMET Codes and Related Processors [Version 5.2, 000602d] 

Webpage: http://earthtec.vwh.net/download/cmet.htm Last Modified: October 12, 2001. 

Concord, MA. 

Earth Tech, Inc. 2001c. CALPUFF Codes and Related Processors [Version 5.5, 010730_1] 

Webpage: http://earthtec.vwh.net/download/cpuff.htm Last Modified: October 12, 2001. 

Concord, MA. 

Edwards, T.C., A. Falconer, R.D. Ramsey, C.G. Homer, S.D. Basset, and D.W. Wight. 1996. 

Utah Gap Analysis: an environmental information system. Utah State University, Logan, 

UT. 

Energy Information Administration. 2006 Website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/. Accessed March 

23, 2006. 

Environmental Protection Area (EPA). 1992. Screening procedures for estimating the air quality 

impact of stationary sources, revised. EPA-454/R-92-019. Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. October.

EPA. 1995a. User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models: 

Volume I - User Instructions. EPA-454/B-95-003a. Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. September. 

EPA. 1995b. SCREEN3 Model User’s Guide. EPA-454/B-95-004. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. September. 

EPA. 1995d. Federal Register Notice. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans. 40 CFR Parts 50 & 51. Volume 60, Number 153, pg 40469. 

August 9. 

EPA. 1997. Integrated Risk Information System database. Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

EPA. 1998. Draft Residual Risk Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. April 14. 

EPA. 1999a. Residual Risk Report to Congress. Document Number: EPA-453/R-99-001. Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. March 1999. PDF 

file available for download at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/meta/m8690.html

EPA. 1999b. Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Rule. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. April. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-7 

EPA. November 19, 2001. USA Air Quality Nonattainment Areas. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. Website: http://www.epa.gov/airs/nonattn.html 

EPA. 2002. AIRData Webpage: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ Last Modified: February 7, 2002. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 

EPA. 2003. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) web site. 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html. or see http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0270.htm 

EPA. 2005. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions; Final Rule. 

40CFR, Part 51. (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf). 

November 9. 

Eubanks, Ellen C. Dexter Meadows and Jill S. Cremer. 2002. A Soil Bioengineering Guide for 

Streambank and Lakeshore Stabilization. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Technology and Development Program, San Dimas, CA. 

Executive Order No. 1988 Floodplain Management. 42 F.R. 26951. May 24, 1977. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11988.html/. 

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. 

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998, Stream corridor restoration – 

principle, processes, and practices: National Technical Information Service, Order No. 

PB98-158348INQ, Washington, D.C. 

Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG). 2000. Phase I Report 

dated December 2000). USDI-National Park Service, Air Resources Division. Denver, 

CO. Available at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/ard/flagfree/FLAG--FINAL.pdf. 

Federal Register Notice. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans. 40 CFR Parts 50 & 51. Volume 60, Number 153, pg 40469. 

August 9. 

Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. 

Conservation Biology 8(3): 629-644. 

Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF), 2000. Prescribed Fire Position Paper. Florida Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Internet website: http://flame.fldof.com/Env/RX/position.html 

Forman, R., and L. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their Major Ecological effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. 

Syst. Vol. 29, pp. 207-31. 

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 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-8 

Air Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. General Technical Report RM-168. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort 

Collins, CO. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/aq/natarm/screen.pdf 

Gelbard J. L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid 

landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):420-432. 

Glisson, B. 2007. Final report for Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus wetlandicus

Hochstätter) reconnaissance survey of habitat areas along the Green River, Utah. 

Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, West Valley City, 

Utah. June 21, 2007. 6 pp. with additional maps and appendices. 

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 on the Internet: 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif. 

Habich, Edward F. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring Technical Reference 1734-7: Ecological 

Site Inventory. USDI Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology 

Center, Denver, CO. 

Hansen, W.R. 1969. The geology of the Uinta Mountains: United States Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1291, 144. 

Havstad, K.M. 1994. Sheep Grazing as a Rangeland Improvement Tool, Sheep and Goat 

Research Journal: Special Issue: The Role of Sheep Grazing in Natural Resource 

Management, pp. 72-78. 

Hersey, Kent R. and Anis Aoude. 2006. Utah Big Game Annual Report. State of Utah, 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. Publication No. 07-22. 

Holmes, T.L., R.L. Knight, L. Stegall, and G.R. Craig. 1993. Responses of wintering grassland 

raptors to human disturbance. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:461-468. 

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. 

Huntington, Matthew H. and John D. Echeverria, Ed. 1991. The American Rivers Outstanding 

Rivers List. Second Edition. Washington, DC: American Rivers, Inc. 

IMPROVE. 2002. IMPROVE Optical Data Webpage: 

http:///vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/IMPROVE/Data_IMPOptical.htm. USDINational Park Service/Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (Colorado 

State University). Fort Collins, CO. 

Interagency Wild & Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. 1997. Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Reference Guide. BLM, NPS, USFWS, USFS, and State Representatives. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-9 

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM). 1998. Phase 2 Summary Report 

and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts. EPA-454/R-98-019, 

December 1998. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

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 on the Internet: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007, Summary for Policymakers. Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the IPCC. 

Irby, L. R., R. J. Mackie, H. Ihsle Pac, and W. F. Kasworm. 1987. Management of mule deer in 

relation to oil and gas development in Montana's overthrust belt. Pages 113-121. Issues 

and Technology in the Management of Impacted Wildlife. Thorne Ecological Institute 

Isaacson, Alan, E. 2003. “The Structure of Utah’s Natural Gas Industry. University of Utah: 

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Volume 63 Numbers 11 & 12. 

November/December 2003. 

Jennings, M.E., Thomas, Jr., W.O., and Riggs, H.C., 1994, Nationwide summary of U.S. 

Geological Survey regional regression equations for estimating magnitude and frequency 

of floods the ungaged sites, 1993: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 94-4002, 196 pages. 

Johnson, M. 1973. "Placer Gold Deposits of Utah." USGS Bulletin 1357. 

Karpowitz, J. 1984. Book Cliffs big game inventory and production study. Utah Dept. of Nat. 

Resour., Vernal, UT Publ. No. 84-10. 

Lakes Environmental Software (Lakes). 2002. User’s Guide: ISC-AERMOD View. 

Lagasse, P.F., Schall, J.D., and Richardson, E.V., 2001, Stream stability at highway structures: 

Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 20, Third Edition, FHWA NHI 01-002, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 

Lyon L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. J. of Forestry 

79:658-660. 

Lyon, A. G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage-grouse nest 

initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2):486-491. 

Lyon, L.J., T.N. Lonner, J.P. Weigand, C.L. Marcum, W.D. Edge, J.D. Jones, D.W. McCleery, 

and L.L. Hicks. 1985. Coordinating elk and timber management. Final report. Montana 

Cooperative Elk-Logging Study 1970-185. Montana Dept. Fish and Wildlife. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-10 

Machovec, Chuck. 2002. Modeling Protocol Comments- Vernal and Glenwood Springs 

Resource Management Plans. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 

Air Pollution Control Division. December 26, 2002. Denver, CO. 

McMurtrie, Deborah. (Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)). 

Molinas, A., 1990, Bridge stream tube model for alluvial river simulation (BRI-STARS), user’s 

manual: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project No. HR 15-11, 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 

Montana State University. 2003. “Frequently Asked Questions: Coal Bed Methane 

Development.” Montana State University: Department of Land Resources and 

Environmental Sciences. Website: 

http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/methane/cbmfaq.shtml#whatiscoalbedmethane. 

Accessed April 10, 2006. 

Mosely, Jeffery C. 1994. Prescribed Sheep Grazing to Enhance Wildlife Habitat on North 

American Rangelands. Sheep and Goat Research Journal: Special Issue: The Role of 

Sheep Grazing in Natural Resource Management, pp. 79-91. 

National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: 

Highlights of National Academies Reports. Division on Earth and Life Studies. National 

Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. Available on the Internet: 

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf. 

National Energy Policy Development Group, May 2001. "National Energy Policy. Reliable, 

Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America's Future". 

National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle use on Public Lands, 

January 2001. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1998. Summary of ISCST3 Modeling for Naval Oil Shale Reserve 

Natural Gas Development in the Bureau of Land Management Glenwood Springs 

Resource Area. Air Quality Division. December. 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory, USDI, National Park Service, 1995. 

Olendorff, R. R. 1993. Biology and management of ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis): a review. 

Occasional Papers Number 1. Raptor Research and Technical Assistance Center, U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, USA. 

Olson, B.E. and J.R. Lacey. 1994. Sheep: A Method for Controlling Rangeland Weeds. Sheep 

and Goat Research Journal: Special Issue: The Role of Sheep Grazing in Natural 

Resource Management, pp. 105-112. 

Orth, Tom. 2002. Telephone conversation with Trinity staff on June 14, 2002. 

Phillips, Blaine. 2002 Personal communication. [In-person conversation about the Vernal 

District MSA and RMP between Mr. Phillips and Mr. Dave Moore of the BLM-Vernal 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-11 

Field Office and Sheri Murray Ellis, Matthew T. Seddon, and Molly Molenaar of SWCA, 

in Vernal, November 9, 2001.] Notes on file at SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants, 

Salt Lake City. 

Pitchford, Marc L., and William C. Malm. 1994. Development and Applications of a Standard 

Visual Index. Atmospheric Environment 28(5): 1,049–1,054. 

Pruitt, R. 1961. "The Mineral Resources of Uintah County." Utah Geological and Mineralogical 

Survey Bulletin 71. 

Rairigh, K. 2002. Telephone conversation between Mr. Ken Rairigh, Wyoming DEQ, and Yu 

Shan Huang, Trinity Consultants, on January 4, 2002. 

Reed, Alan D. and Michael D. Metcalf. 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern 

Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. 

Rhodenbaugh, Molly and Virginia Newton. 2000. The Browns Park Road Project, Daggett 

County, Utah: Phase II Native American Consultation and the Identification of 

Traditional Cultural Places. Cultural Resources Report 00-29. SWCA, Inc. 

Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City. 

Richardson, E.V., and Davis, S.R., 2001, Evaluating scour at bridges: Hydraulic Engineering 

Circular No. 18, Fourth Edition, FHWA NHI 01-001, Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, D.C. 

Richardson, E.V., Simons, D.B. and Lagasse, P.F., 2001, Highways in the river environment: 

Report FHWA NHI 01-004, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic Design Series 

No. 6, Washington, D.C. 

Schillie, E., 2002. Personal Communication. SF Phosphate, LLC. June. 

Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimatis, and R.J. Yamartino. 2000. “A Users Guide for the CALPUFF 

Dispersion Model (Version 5); Description of the MESOPUFF II Chemical Mechanism.” 

Earth Tech, Inc. Concord, MA. Available at http://earthtec.vwh.net/download/calpuff.pdf 

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. 

Shimkin, Demitri B. 1986. Eastern Shoshone. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d’Azevedo, 

pp. 308-335. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, W. C. Sturtevant, general 

editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Simon, A., 1989, A model of channel response in distributed alluvial channels: Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms 14(1): 11-26. 

Simon, A., 1992, Energy, time and channel evolution in catastrophically disturbed fluvial 

systems: in Geomorphic systems: geomorphology, ed. J.D. Phillips and W.H. Renwick, 

vol. 5, pp. 345-372. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-12 

Simons, Li and Associates, 1982, Engineering analysis of fluvial systems: SLA, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Sipes, S. D. and V. J. Tepedino. 1995. Reproductive biology of the rare orchid, Spiranthes 

diluvialis: breeding system, pollination, and implications for conservation. Cons. Biol. 9: 

929-938. 

Smith, Michael D., R.S. Krannich and L.M. Hunter. 2001. Growth, Decline, Stability, and 

Disruption: A Longitudinal Analysis of Social Well-Being in Four Western Rural 

Communities. Rural Sociology 66(3):425-450. 

Society for Range Management. 1998. Glossary of Terms used in Range Management. Edison 

Press, Denver, CO. 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 2001. Scoping Comments submitted by Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance , The Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, and 

Utah Rivers Council, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Spangler, Jerry D.1995 Paradigms & Perspectives: a Class I Overview of Cultural Resources in 

the Uinta Basin and Tavaputs Plateau. Uinta Research: Salt Lake City. 

Sprott, Richard W. 2003. Utah Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum No. DAQP003-03 to Yu Shan Huang. January 17, 2003. 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in 

Utah, May 1997. 

State of Utah (Utah). 1996. Wild and Scenic River Review in the State of Utah Process and 

Criteria for Interagency Use. Process and Criteria for Interagency Use, July 1996.

State of Utah (Utah). 2003. Standards of Water Quality for Waters of the State. Rule R317-2. 

Stern, K. 1960. Native Bitumens, Pyrobitumens, and Asphaltic Type Petroleum Bitumens", In, 

Industrial Minerals and Rocks (Nonmetallics other than Fuels), Seely W. Mudd Series, 

The Am. Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, pp. 631-635. 

Strong, S. 2002a. Personal communication with C. Garrett (SWCA, Inc. Environmental 

Consultants) regarding RMP development. 12 March. 

Strong, S. 2002b. Personal communication with C. Garrett (SWCA, Inc. Environmental 

Consultants) regarding riparian functions. 26 April

SWCA. 2006. Sclerocactus wetlandicus and S. brevispinus surveys. Unpublished data. 

SWCA. 2007. Sclerocactus wetlandicus and S. brevispinus surveys. Unpublished data. 

Thomas, B.E., and Lindskow, K.L., 1983, Methods for estimating peak discharge and flood 

boundaries of stream in Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 83-4129, 77 pages. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-13 

Thomas, B.E., Hjalmarson, H.W., and Waltemeyer, S.D., 1993, Methods for estimating 

magnitude and frequency of floods in the southwestern United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 93-419, 193 pages. 

Trinity Consultants (Trinity), and Nicholls, Craig (BLM). 2004. Air Quality Assessment Report - 

Vernal and Glenwood Springs Resource Management Plans. August 2004. 

Trombulak, S., and C. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30. 

Trudell, L. G., John W. Smith, Thomas N. Beard, and Glenn M. Mason. 1983. Primary Oil-Shale 

Resources of the Green River Formation in the Eastern Uinta Basin, Utah, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Laramie Energy Technology Center, DOE/LC/RI-82-4. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993, Scour and deposition in rivers and reservoirs, user’s 

manual, HEC-6: Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA. 

United States Census (U.S. Census), 2000 Census of Population. Web 

site:http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 

U.S. Congress. 1968. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. October 2, 1968. Title 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287. 

U.S. Congress. 1969. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. January 

1, 1970. 

U.S. Congress. 1971. Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Public Law 92-195. 

U.S. Congress. 1973. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Public Law 93-205. December 28, 1973. 

U.S. Congress. 1976. Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976. Public Law 94-597. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of the Henry’s Fork Area, 

Parts of Daggett and Summit Counties, Utah and Uinta and Sweetwater Counties, 

Wyoming. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1990. 

USDA. 1999. Soil Survey of the Uintah Area, Utah, Parts of Daggett, Grand, Uintah Counties. 

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1999. 

USDA and United States Department of the Interior (USDI). 2001. Review and Update of the 

1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. U.S. Department of the Interior and the 

U.S. Agriculture Department. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2002a. USGS Digital 

Elevation Model Data. National Cartographic Information Center. Reston, VA. Web 

page: http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide/usgs_dem 

USDI-USGS. 2002b. Land Use and Land Cover Data. National Cartographic Information 

Center. Reston, VA. Webpage: http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/Webglis/glisbin/guide.pl/glis/ 

hyper/guide/1_250_lulc 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-14 

USFWS. 1990. Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Endangered and Threatened Species: 

Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Federal Register 

Volume 66, No. 22 p. 8530-8553. 

USFWS. 2005. Biological Opinion for Castle Peak Eightmile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion 

Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, West Valley City, Utah. 6-

UT-05-012-05-600. July 6, 2005. 

U.S. Forest Service. 1897. Organic Administration Act of 1897. 16 U.S.C. §§ 473-478, 479-482 

and 551. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

United States Forest Service (USFS) 2000. “Screening Methodology for calculating ANC 

Change to High Elevation Lakes.” Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/aq/natarm/r2/ANC_Change_Screening_Guidance.pdf 

USGS, 1984.Water Supply Paper 2224 - Quantity and Quality of Streamflow in the Southeastern 

Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, K.L. Lindskov and Briant A. Kimball. 

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). 2002. Mesoscale Meteorological 

Model (MM5) Webpage: http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/mm5-home.html. Last 

Modified: November 12, 1999. Boulder, CO. 

Utah Agricultural Statistics. 2001. Website: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/ 

highlights/ut/ut.htm 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2000. Utah Nonpoint Source Pollution 

Management Plan. October. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2002. Utah's 2002 303(d) List of Waters. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City. 

UDEQ. 2004a. E-mail from Dave Prey, Utah DEQ, to Craig Nicholls, BLM NSTC, dated 

4/23/2004. 

Utah Department of Workforce Services (UDWS), Workforce Information. May 2001. website: 

http://jobs.utah.gov/. 

Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) 2004. Utah Air Quality Attainment and Non-Attainment 

Areas. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality webpage. 

Map in pdf format available for download at: 

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/NPS_Mgmt_Plan_2001.pdf. 

UDAQ 1999. Utah Smoke Management Plan. Appendix A. Memorandum of Understanding for 

Utah Smoke Management Plan and Emissions Inventory Development. March 30,1999 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-15 

FS#22-MOU-99-017. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air 

Quality. July 20, 1999. Revised March 23, 2000. 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM). 2002. Web site: http://www.ogm.utah.gov/. 

com 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. 2007. The Structure and Economic Impact of Utah's Oil 

and Gas Exploration and Production Industry Phase I - The Uinta Basin. University of 

Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research. November, 2007 

Utah Division of Travel Development. 2004. 2004 State and County Economic Travel Indicator 

Profiles. State of Utah. 2004. 

Utah Division of Water Resources (UDWaR). 1999. Utah State Water Plan, Uintah Basin. 

December. 

UDWaR. 2000. Utah’s 303(d) List of Water. October. 

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. Strategic Management Plan for Sage Grouse 2002. Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. Publication Number 02-20. 58 p. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2005. Sage-grouse. Wildlife Notebook Series 

No. 18. December. 

UDWR. 2007. Utah Conservation Data Center. State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

UDWR Salt Lake City, Utah. [Last accessed October 8, 2007.] Available at: 

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2008. Utah Big Game Guidebook: A Proclamation of the 

Utah Wildlife Board. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Utah Energy Office. 2003. Website: http://www.energy.utah.gov/. 

Utah Energy Office. 2004. Report: Economic Impact Analysis of the Drilling and Completion of 

a Natural Gas Well in the Uintah Basin. State of Utah: Department of Natural Resources, 

Utah Energy Office. August 2004 

Utah Geologic Survey. 2006. Website: http://geology.utah.gov/sep/. Accessed March 24, 2006. 

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget. 2008. Utah Population Estimates. State of Utah, 

Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Utah Population Estimates Committee. 

Available at: http://www.qget.state.ut.us/programs/c1.asp?database=MIG&tabletype=a/. 

Utah State Tax Commission. 2003. website: http://www.tax.utah.gov/
Proposed RMP and Final EIS References

Vernal RMP X-16 

Van Dyke, F., and W.C. Klein. 1996. Response of elk to installation of oil wells. J. Mammalogy 

77:1028-1041. 

Walsh Environmental (Walsh). 2004 "Number of Wells and Vehicular Traffic Adjustments for 

Collocated Wells - RMPA/EIS 20-Year Period of Analysis". Received via e-mail from 

Allen Crockett to Craig Nicholls, 4/26/04. 

Welsh, S.L, N.D. Atwood, L.C. Higgins, and S.Goodrich. 1993. A Utah flora. Great Basin 

Naturalist Memoir No. 9. 894. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2008. RAWS USA Climate Archive. Available at 

http://raws.dri.edu/. 

White, C. M., and T. L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled 

disturbance. Condor 87:14-22. 

Zeveloff, S., and F. Collett. 1988. Mammals of the Intermountain West. University of Utah 

Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. Pp. 288-290. 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Index

INDEX 

A 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC), C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-20, C21, C-24, C-26, C-27, C-29, C-32, C-33, 

C-34, C-35, C-36, C-37, G-1, G-2, G-3, G4, G-5, G-6, G-7, K-10, K-11, K-12, K-13, 

K-14, K-15, K-16, K-17, K-20, K-21, K23, K-24, K-25, K-26, K-32, 1-28, 2-7, 2-

29, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 2-58, 2-

59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-67, 2-69, 2-69, 2-98, 2-

106, 2-108, 2-115, 2-118, 2-123, 3-31, 3-

81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-118, 3-119, 4-38, 4-

44, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-108, 4-154, 4-187, 

4-249, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 

4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 

4-263, 4-284, 4-285, 4-292, 4-314, 4-330, 

4-331, 4-332, 4-333, 4-335, 4-336, 4-341, 

4-358, 4-389, 4-403, 4-417, 4-426, 4-427, 

4-428, 4-429, 4-430, 4-431, 4-432, 4-433, 

4-434, 4-435, 4-436, 4-437, 4-472, 4-473, 

4-475, 4-480, 4-500, 4-516, 4-517, 4-518, 

4-519, 4-529, 4-530, 4-531, 4-532, 4-531, 

4-532, 4-533, 4-534, 4-535, 4-547, 4-572, 

4-589, 4-595, 4-599, 4-601, 4-605, 4-606, 

4-607, 5-17, 5-31, 5-34, 5-49, 5-53, 5-60, 

5-60, 5-61, 5-65, 5-66, 5-67, 5-72, 5-75, 5-

105, 5-106, 5-107, 5-107, 5-108, 5-108, 5-

109, 5-110, 5-111, 5-110, 5-111, 5-111, 5-

112, 5-113, 5-112, 5-113, 5-114, 5-114, 5-

115, 5-116, 5-117, 5-118, 5-120, 5-121, 5-

122, 5-123, 5-124, 5-124, 5-135, 5-136, 5-

192, 5-194, 5-195, 5-201, 5-205, 5-218, 5-

219, 5-219, 5-220, 5-227, 5-237, 5-238, 5-

239, 5-240, 5-240, 5-241, 5-241, 5-242, 5-

249, 5-250, 5-251, 5-252, 5-253, 5-256, 5-

256, 5-257, 5-259, 5-277, 5-296, 5-297, 5-

298, 5-299, 5-300, 5-301, 5-301, 5-302, 5-

312, 5-314, 5-314, 5-315, 5-316, 5-317, 5-

318, 5-321, 5-322, 5-323, 5-323, 5-326, 5-

327, 5-332, 5-333, 5-334, 5-335, 5-336, 5-

336, 5-337, 5-338, 5-339, 5-340, 5-341, 5-

342, 5-343, 5-344, 5-345, 5-346, 5-345, 5-

346, 5-347, 5-348, 5-414, 5-451, 5-460, 5-

461, 5-465, 5-466, 5-467, 5-495, 5-508, 5-

512, ES-11, 2-29, 3-81, 5-512 

Argyle Creek, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-13, C14, 1-29, 2-66, 2-76, 3-85, 4-67, 4-108, 4-

156, 4-331, 4-332, 4-334, 4-359, 4-418, 4-

439, 4-442, 4-470, 4-471, 4-474, 4-502, 4-

537, 4-607, 5-125, 5-293, 5-405, ES-7, ES11 

B 

Backcountry byway, 2-80, 2-116, 2-119, 2-

122, 2-125, 2-131, 4-320, 4-322, 4-324, 4-

325, 4-327, 4-385, 4-386, 4-387, 4-414, 4-

415, 5-197, 5-235 

Bald eagle, A-13, C-11, C-31, C-33, C-36, K51, K-59, K-61, K-63, K-64, 1-21, 2-76, 2-

77, 2-78, 3-51, 3-98, 4-160, 4-161, 4-165, 

4-166, 4-167, 4-180, 4-432, 4-433, 4-451, 

4-476, 5-441, 5-442, 5-443, 5-444 

Best Management Practices (BMP), A-1, A-2, 

F-4, K-52, K-53, K-58, K-66, 1-4, 2-13, 2-

77, 2-78, 2-93, 2-123, 4-158, 4-159, 4-424, 

4-450, 4-476, 4-507, 4-620, 5-121, 5-128, 

5-171, 5-387, 5-412, 5-484, 5-510, 2-115, 

4-415, 5-510 

Bighorn sheep, 2-92, 3-122, 3-127, 4-116, 4-

117, 4-559, 4-581, 4-591, 4-592, 4-593, 4-

594, 5-87, 5-144, 5-147, 5-149, 5-150, 5-

151, 5-173, 5-473 

Bitter Creek, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-9, C-14, C-15, 

C-16, G-2, G-3, G-6, G-7, K-8, K-10, K11, K-14, K-17, K-20, K-21, K-23, K-24, 

K-26, 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 2-31, 2-38, 2-46, 2-

49, 2-55, 2-56, 2-66, 2-71, 2-77, 2-92, 2-

96, 2-104, 2-125, 3-52, 3-74, 3-82, 3-85, 3-

102, 3-118, 3-123, 3-124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-

128, 3-137, 3-138, 4-43, 4-66, 4-67, 4-108, 

4-109, 4-154, 4-156, 4-186, 4-192, 4-193, 

4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-199, 4-200, 

4-204, 4-216, 4-221, 4-234, 4-236, 4-237, 

4-240, 4-243, 4-244, 4-246, 4-249, 4-251, 

4-254, 4-255, 4-259, 4-260, 4-262, 4-263, 

4-267, 4-269, 4-284, 4-291, 4-312, 4-313, 

4-314, 4-328, 4-331, 4-332, 4-333, 4-334, 

4-335, 4-336, 4-350, 4-356, 4-359, 4-406, 

4-417, 4-418, 4-427, 4-428, 4-429, 4-439, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Index

4-440, 4-441, 4-442, 4-443, 4-451, 4-470, 

4-472, 4-473, 4-474, 4-484, 4-500, 4-501, 

4-502, 4-507, 4-530, 4-537, 4-589, 4-591, 

4-606, 4-607, 5-60, 5-109, 5-111, 5-112, 5-

129, 5-147, 5-148, 5-242, 5-337, 5-339, 5-

341, 5-472, ES-6, ES-7, ES-10, ES-11 

Black-footed ferret, K-45, L-1, 2-58, 2-75, 2-

91, 3-83, 3-89, 3-91, 3-97, 3-133, 4-332, 4-

333, 4-429, 4-430, 4-432, 4-447, 4-449, 4-

451, 4-452, 4-459, 4-462, 4-464, 5-86, 5-

124, 5-150, 5-333, 5-335, 5-337, 5-346, 5-

347, 5-442, 5-478 

Blue Mountain Locality, 2-27, 4-569 

Bonanza Wild Horse Herd, 2-23, 2-86, 4-483, 

4-563, 4-564, 5-471 

Bonytail, G-4, L-1, L-15, 1-21, 2-75, 2-76, 3-

83, 3-89, 3-92, 3-132, 4-452, 4-459, 4-463 

Book Cliffs Locality, 1-27, 2-24, 4-550, 4-

566, ES-9 

Bourdette Draw, K-7, K-8, 1-27, 2-38, 3-119, 

3-137, 4-192, 4-193, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 

4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-205, 4-232, 4-234, 

4-236, 4-243, 4-244, 4-267, 4-284, 4-328, 

4-336, 5-60, 5-225, ES-9 

Browns Park, C-7, C-10, C-18, C-19, G-2, G6, K-44, 1-3, 1-5, 1-21, 2-18, 2-21, 2-22, 2-

28, 2-32, 2-47, 2-56, 2-73, 2-91, 2-92, 2-

109, 3-1, 3-7, 3-19, 3-20, 3-47, 3-50, 3-74, 

3-81, 3-110, 3-114, 3-115, 3-117, 3-118, 3-

127, 3-130, 3-133, 4-26, 4-32, 4-38, 4-41, 

4-43, 4-44, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-

68, 4-82, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-154, 4-

186, 4-187, 4-232, 4-235, 4-237, 4-238, 4-

249, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-257, 4-

259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-283, 4-284, 4-

285, 4-298, 4-299, 4-300, 4-313, 4-314, 4-

321, 4-322, 4-324, 4-325, 4-328, 4-330, 4-

331, 4-332, 4-333, 4-334, 4-335, 4-336, 4-

354, 4-355, 4-356, 4-387, 4-403, 4-414, 4-

417, 4-426, 4-427, 4-436, 4-437, 4-468, 4-

473, 4-480, 4-487, 4-496, 4-497, 4-498, 4-

499, 4-500, 4-501, 4-516, 4-517, 4-519, 4-

521, 4-522, 4-523, 4-572, 4-586, 4-587, 4-

589, 4-591, 4-594, 4-598, 4-600, 4-603, 4-

604, 4-605, 4-606, 4-607, 4-617, 5-18, 5-

190, 5-320, 5-321, 5-322, ES-1, ES-6, ES8 

Bull Canyon, K-7, K-8, 1-27, 2-38, 2-70, 2-

72, 3-87, 3-118, 3-137, 4-192, 4-193, 4-

195, 4-196, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-206, 4-

243, 4-252, 4-253, 4-257, 4-258, 4-261, 4-

262, 4-263, 4-267, 5-60, 5-227, ES-9 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 

3-63, 4-44, 5-3, 5-69, 5-166, 5-461, 5-498, 

5-499, 5-511, ES-1, ES-3, 1-5 

C 

Canada lynx, 3-89, 3-91, 4-448, 4-452, 5-441 

Cattle allotments,, 4-128, 4-559, 4-566, 4-

567, 4-568, 4-569 

Chemical treatment, K-7, L-25, 1-27, 2-20, 2-

21, 2-39, 3-20, 3-21, 4-11, 4-82, 4-83, 4-

404, 4-510, 4-545, 5-158, 5-458, ES-10 

Cold Spring Mountain, K-7, K-8, 1-27, 2-38, 

2-108, 3-137, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-193, 

4-195, 4-196, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-207, 

4-233, 4-235, 4-243, 4-244, 4-246, 4-250, 

4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 

4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-268, 4-328, 

4-336, 4-436, 5-260, ES-9 

Colorado pikeminnow, G-4, L-15, 2-75, 2-76, 

3-83, 3-89, 3-92, 3-93, 3-132, 4-431, 4-

432, 4-433, 4-452, 4-459, 4-463 

Coyote Basin, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-7, K-15, K16, K-17, K-45, L-1, 1-28, 2-58, 2-75, 3-

83, 3-89, 3-91, 4-66, 4-67, 4-155, 4-331, 4-

332, 4-333, 4-335, 4-336, 4-417, 4-427, 4-

429, 4-430, 4-452, 4-472, 4-473, 4-500, 4-

501, 4-531, 4-589, 4-606, 4-607, 5-113, 5-

124, 5-220, 5-333, 5-335, 5-336, 5-337, 5-

339, 5-340, 5-346, 5-347, 5-348, ES-6, ES11 

Cripple Cowboy, K-8, 1-27, 2-24, 2-38, 2-

108, 3-137, 4-186, 4-187, 4-192, 4-193, 4-

194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-198, 4-200, 4-208, 4-

234, 4-236, 4-237, 4-240, 4-243, 4-244, 4-

249, 4-251, 4-252, 4-254, 4-257, 4-258, 4-

259, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-268, 4-271, 4-

328, 4-336, 4-429, 4-443, 4-566, 4-567, 4-

568, 5-60, 5-70, 5-227, 5-503, ES-10 

D 

Daggett County, M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5, 

M-6, M-7, M-8, M-9, M-10, 1-9, 1-20, 2-

54, 3-53, 3-60, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-

72, 3-75, 3-105, 3-114, 4-364, 5-3, 5-17, 5-

19, 5-28, 5-36, 5-69, 5-73, 5-77, 5-252, 5-

253, 5-254, 5-256, 5-260, 5-261, 5-263, 5-

264, 5-265, 5-265, 5-267, 5-269, 5-270, 5-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Index

271, 5-272, 5-273, 5-273, 5-423, 5-500, 5-

503, 5-508, 5-509, 5-511 

Daniels Canyon, K-7, K-8, 1-27, 2-38, 2-49, 

2-70, 2-72, 3-87, 3-118, 3-137, 4-192, 4-

193, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-

200, 4-209, 4-239, 4-243, 4-252, 4-253, 4-

257, 4-258, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-268, 5-

159, 5-225, ES-9 

Desolation Canyon, K-8, 1-27, 2-38, 2-43, 2-

108, 2-110, 3-73, 3-92, 3-138, 4-181, 4-

182, 4-183, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-

190, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-

198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-211, 4-233, 4-235, 4-

237, 4-243, 4-244, 4-246, 4-249, 4-250, 4-

251, 4-252, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-

258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-268, 4-

271, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-

283, 4-284, 4-285, 4-328, 4-336, 4-381, 4-

431, 4-432, 4-434, 4-443, 5-60, 5-71, 5-

149, 5-208, 5-225, 5-227, 5-464, 5-473, 

ES-10 

Diamond Breaks, K-7, K-8, 1-4, 1-27, 2-38, 

2-70, 2-73, 3-87, 3-118, 3-138, , 4-193, 4-

195, 4-196, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-212, 4-

243, 4-244, 4-252, 4-253, 4-257, 4-258, 4-

261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-268, 4-336, 5-312, 5-

329, ES-2, ES-9 

Diamond Mountain, G-2, K-5, K-6, K-7, K-8, 

K-51, K-57, K-72, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-21, 1-

23, 1-27, 1-28, 2-7, 2-14, 2-21, 2-28, 2-38, 

2-51, 2-52, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-77, 2-78, 2-

91, 2-92, 2-92, 2-93, 2-123, 3-1, 3-31, 3-

33, 3-43, 3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 3-52, 3-74, 3-

75, 3-79, 3-81, 3-85, 3-89, 3-91, 3-100, 3-

101, 3-103, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-118, 3-

122, 3-123, 3-124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 3-

128, 3-133, 3-134, 3-138, , 4-1, 4-13, 4-42, 

4-82, 4-85, 4-164, 4-168, 4-169, 4-185, 4-

192, 4-193, 4-195, 4-196, 4-198, 4-199, 4-

200, 4-213, 4-243, 4-244, 4-268, 4-290, 4-

416, 4-438, 4-442, 4-452, 4-453, 4-469, 4-

470, 4-471, 4-476, 4-481, 4-487, 4-514, 4-

538, 4-560, 4-570, 4-571, 4-588, 4-591, 4-

594, 4-600, 5-60, 5-83, 5-100, 5-148, 5-

159, 5-202, 5-213, 5-225, 5-249, 5-252, 5-

253, 5-268, 5-295, 5-307, 5-314, 5-316, 5-

319, 5-320, 5-322, 5-334, 5-345, 5-346, 5-

411, 5-471, 5-472, 5-502, 5-503, ES-1, ES2, ES-3, ES-9, ES-10 

Diamond Mountain Locality, 2-28, 4-570 

Dinosaur National Monument, C-6, C-7, C10, K-27, K-K-28, 1-21, 2-35, 2-43, 2-49, 

2-50, 2-60, 2-67, 3-8, 3-11, 3-20, 3-50, 3-

60, 3-86, 3-95, 3-103, 3-104, 3-118, 3-119, 

3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 4-151, 4-152, 4-322, 

4-324, 4-329, 4-431, 4-521, 4-522, 4-523, 

4-617, 4-622, 4-6235-18, 5-69, 5-221, 5-

283, 5-352, 5-360, 5-361, 5-431, 5-435, 5-

463 

Duchesne County, C-6, C-8, C-11, M-1, M-2, 

M-3, M-4, M-5, M-6, M-7, M-8, M-9, M10, 1-9, 1-20, 2-67, 2-68, 3-41, 3-53, 3-57, 

3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-66, 3-67, 3-

68, 3-71, 3-72, 3-75, 3-86, 3-94, 3-104, 3-

105, 3-106, 3-116, 4-439, 4-623, 5-3, 5-17, 

5-23, 5-25, 5-28, 5-29, 5-32, 5-34, 5-69, 5-

70, 5-73, 5-77, 5-83, 5-177, 5-179, 5-180, 

5-181, 5-182, 5-183, 5-184, 5-185, 5-184, 

5-185, 5-190, 5-191, 5-192, 5-193, 5-194, 

5-196, 5-196, 5-197, 5-199, 5-200, 5-204, 

5-208, 5-209, 5-211, 5-212, 5-214, 5-215, 

5-216, 5-217, 5-218, 5-224, 5-225, 5-228, 

5-231, 5-284, 5-316, 5-348, 5-365, 5-367, 

5-371, 5-382, 5-391, 5-398, 5-399, 5-402, 

5-403, 5-404, 5-406, 5-419, 5-450, 5-451, 

5-452, 5-453, 5-460, 5-463, 5-468, 5-475, 

5-476, 5-489, 5-490, 5-500, 5-503, 5-508, 

5-509, 5-510, 5-511, ES-7 

E 

Evacuation Creek, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-9, C-16, 

C-17, C-18 

Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA), 1-1, 

1-24, 1-25, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38, 5-90, 5-104, 

5-105, 5-187, 5-197, 5-214, 5-280, 5-289, 

5-290, 5-290, 5-313, 5-318, 5-320, 5-335, 

5-387, 5-398, 5-481, 5-508 

Environmental Justice, 2-101, 3-135, 4-77, 4-

96, 4-356, 5-77, 5-176, 5-413, 5-507 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), F4, 1-2, 1-4, 1-10, 1-32, 2-16, 2-54, 3-3, 3-4, 

3-6, 3-8, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 4-8, 4-13, 4-14, 

4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-23, 4-24, 4-

25, 4-28, 4-31, 4-98, 4-620, 5-2, 5-15, 5-

16, 5-23, 5-64, 5-65, 5-70, 5-73, 5-79, 5-

85, 5-508, 5-510, 5-511, 5-269, 5-332, 5-

350, 5-351, 5-352, 5-353, 5-353, 5-354, 5-

355, 5-357, 5-360, 5-361, 5-362, 5-366, 5-

381, 5-402, 5-413, 5-457, 5-458, 5-484, 5-

498, 5-499, 5-507, 5-508, 5-509, 5-510, 5-

511, ES-14, 3-4, 4-96, 5-509 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Index

Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) 1-1, 

1-24, 1-25, 3-37, 3-38, 5-508 

Evacuation Creek, 1-29, 2-31, 2-67, 3-74, 3-

85, 3-94, 4-67, 4-108, 4-109, 4-156, 4-312, 

4-313, 4-314, 4-331, 4-332, 4-334, 4-359, 

4-418, 4-439, 4-440, 4-441, 4-442, 4-474, 

4-502, 4-503, 4-537, 4-607, 5-209, 5-402, 

ES-7, ES-11 

F 

Fantasy Canyon, 1-28, 2-43, 2-47, 2-48, 3-49, 

3-119, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-88, 4-90, 4-91, 

4-299, 4-300, 4-309, 4-321, 4-323, 4-325, 

4-328, 4-355, 4-385, 4-414, 4-415, 4-468, 

4-496, 4-498, 4-521, 4-522, 4-523, 4-586, 

4-587, 4-603, 4-604, 5-190, ES-11 

Ferruginous hawk, A-1, A-13, H-19, K-55, K59, K-60, K-K-64, K-69, K-72, 2-76, 3-99, 

3-133, 4-160, 4-161, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 

5-347, 5-442, 5-447, 5-448 

Fire Management Categories, 3-20, 4-82, 4-

84 

Fire Management Plan, L-17, 1-19, 2-20, 3-

19, 3-20, 4-114, 4-547 

Four Mile Wash, G-4, G-7, K-4, K-17, 1-28, 

2-14, 2-56, 2-98, 2-100, 2-122, 3-18, 3-83, 

4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-67, 4-108, 4-149, 4-

150, 4-155, 4-181, 4-182, 4-249, 4-259, 4-

262, 4-310, 4-311, 4-333, 4-335, 4-336, 4-

418, 4-427, 4-430, 4-473, 4-501, 4-512, 4-

513, 4-531, 4-559, 4-589, 4-607, 5-220, 5-

348, 5-464, 5-465, ES-6, ES-11 

G 

Grand County, 5-77 

Gunnison prairie dog, 2-11 

H 

Hill Creek Wild Horse Herd, 2-26 

Humpback chub, 2-75, 2-76, 3-89, 3-93, 3-

132, 4-452 

J 

John Jarvie Historic Site, C-7, C-19, 2-17 

L 

Lears Canyon, G-2, G-6, K-32, 1-28, 2-32, 2-

59, 2-80, 3-81, 4-38, 4-43, 4-66, 4-67, 4-

68, 4-155, 4-186, 4-187, 4-313, 4-314, 4-

330, 4-331, 4-332, 4-333, 4-334, 4-335, 4-

403, 4-417, 4-426, 4-427, 4-472, 4-473, 4-

480, 4-500, 4-501, 4-516, 4-517, 4-518, 4-

519, 4-531, 4-572, 4-589, 4-598, 4-600, 4-

601, 4-605, 4-606, 5-316, 5-335, ES-6, ES10 

Little/Devils Hole, 2-18, 2-130, 4-39, 4-40, 4-

41, 4-310, 4-311, 4-512 

Lower Flaming Gorge, K-7, K-8, 1-27, 2-38, 

2-80, 2-108, 2-109, 3-138, 4-181, 4-182, 4-

183, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-193, 4-195, 4-

196, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-217, 4-232, 4-

235, 4-237, 4-239, 4-240, 4-243, 4-244, 4-

246, 4-250, 4-251, 4-253, 4-255, 4-257, 4-

258, 4-261, 4-262, 4-269, 4-283, 4-284, 4-

285, 4-328, 4-336, 4-436, 4-443, ES-9 

Lower Green River, C-6, C-8, C-10, C-24, C26, G-2, G-5, G-7, K-18, K-19, K-20, K33, 1-28, 2-32, 2-58, 2-65, 2-133, 3-73, 3-

81, 3-83, 3-85, 3-92, 4-38, 4-44, 4-66, 4-

67, 4-68, 4-108, 4-155, 4-156, 4-186, 4-

187, 4-249, 4-251, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-

257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-

263, 4-284, 4-285, 4-292, 4-310, 4-314, 4-

330, 4-331, 4-333, 4-334, 4-335, 4-336, 4-

343, 4-403, 4-417, 4-418, 4-426, 4-427, 4-

432, 4-437, 4-439, 4-440, 4-441, 4-442, 4-

443, 4-472, 4-473, 4-474, 4-480, 4-500, 4-

501, 4-502, 4-516, 4-517, 4-518, 4-519, 4-

531, 4-532, 4-531, 4-532, 4-531, 4-536, 4-

572, 4-589, 4-601, 4-605, 4-606, 4-607, 5-

100, 5-103, 5-173, 5-295, 5-307, 5-311, 5-

314, 5-321, 5-335, 5-338, 5-345, 5-464, 5-

465, 5-495, ES-10 

M 

Main Canyon, G-2, G-4, G-6, K-20, K-21, 1-

28, 2-59, 2-74, 3-83, 3-129, 4-67, 4-155, 4-

250, 4-259, 4-260, 4-262, 4-333, 4-335, 4-

336, 4-418, 4-427, 4-435, 4-473, 4-501, 4-

532, 4-589, 4-607, 5-116, ES-6, ES-11 

Mechanical treatment, 2-20, 4-82, 4-264, 4-

265, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-

282, 4-598, 4-615, 5-271, 5-458, 5-460 

Mexican Spotted Owl, A-1, K-72, L-4, L-12, 

L-13, L-14, L-15, 2-70, 2-71, 2-73, , 2-75, 

3-89, 3-91, 4-160, 4-162, 4-165, 4-167, 4-

168, 5-443 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Index

Middle Green River, C-6, C-7, C-10, C-22, 

C-23, G-3, G-7, K-21, 1-28, 1-29, 2-60, 2-

67, 3-86, 4-67, 4-155, 4-156, 4-333, 4-334, 

4-335, 4-418, 4-427, 4-431, 4-439, 4-441, 

4-442, 4-473, 4-474, 4-501, 4-502, 4-533, 

4-536, 4-589, 4-607, ES-11 

Moonshine Draw, K-7, K-8, 1-27, 2-38, 2-50, 

3-139, 4-193, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 

4-199, 4-200, 4-219, 4-243, 4-269, 5-59, 

ES-10 

N 

National Register of Historic Places, C-10, C11, C-18, 2-17, 3-18, 4-36, 5-82, 5-82, 5-

363 

Nine Mile Canyon, C-11, C-27, C-29, G-2, 

G-5, G-7, K-21, K-22, K-23, 1-5, 1-21, 1-

28, 2-17, 2-18, 2-29, 2-48, 2-61, 2-80, 2-

92, 2-108, 2-109, 3-1, 3-11, 3-19, 3-40, 3-

48, 3-81, 3-84, 3-94, 3-115, 3-116, 3-117, 

3-119, 4-38, 4-41, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 

4-67, 4-68, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-108, 

4-155, 4-189, 4-190, 4-233, 4-235, 4-237, 

4-238, 4-250, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-256, 

4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 

4-284, 4-285, 4-299, 4-300, 4-311, 4-325, 

4-330, 4-331, 4-332, 4-333, 4-334, 4-335, 

4-336, 4-354, 4-355, 4-356, 4-403, 4-414, 

4-417, 4-418, 4-426, 4-427, 4-434, 4-435, 

4-468, 4-472, 4-473, 4-480, 4-496, 4-497, 

4-498, 4-499, 4-500, 4-501, 4-515, 4-521, 

4-522, 4-523, 4-533, 4-586, 4-587, 4-589, 

4-591, 4-593, 4-603, 4-604, 4-605, 4-606, 

4-607, 4-622, 5-115, 5-192, 5-204, 5-225, 

5-316, 5-318, 5-320, 5-323, 5-333, 5-335, 

5-336, 5-345, 5-346, 5-345, 5-346, 5-415, 

5-464, 5-501, ES-6, ES-11 

Nine Mile Creek, C-6, C-8, C-11, C-24, C-27, 

C-28, C-29, C-30, 1-11, 2-67, 2-68, 3-86, 

4-67, 4-108, 4-156, 4-251, 4-260, 4-263, 4-

334, 4-398, 4-418, 4-439, 4-441, 4-442, 4-

443, 4-474, 4-502, 4-536, 4-607, 5-102, 5-

159, 5-310, 5-316, 5-487, 5-490, 5-494, 

ES-7 

Noxious weed, F-4, L-19, 1-15, 2-44, 2-58, 2-

82, 2-125, 3-21, 3-114, 3-1154-96, 4-115, 

4-124, 4-346, 4-347, 4-351, 4-354, 4-355, 

4-356, 4-452, 4-478, 4-479, 4-481, 4-482, 

4-483, 4-485, 4-486, 4-496, 4-497, 4-498, 

4-503, 4-507, 4-508, 4-573, 4-575, 4-596, 

4-598, 4-599, 4-608, 4-612, 4-615, 4-616, 

5-28, 5-38, 5-113, 5-131, 5-132, 5-133, 5-

135, 5-200, 5-221, 5-326, 5-452, 5-453, 5-

455, 5-456, 5-457, 5-458 

P 

Pariette Wetlands, G-2, G-6, 1-5, 1-28, 2-54, 

2-61, 2-91, 2-83, 3-31, 3-49, 3-52, 3-79, 3-

80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-98, 3-130, 3-132, 4-38, 4-

155, 4-331, 4-335, 4-403, 4-426, 4-428, 4-

472, 4-473, 4-480, 4-500, 4-501, 4-534, 4-

605, 5-334, 5-453, ES-8, ES-10 

Preferred alternative, 1-7, 1-26, 1-29, 2-1, 2-

3, 2-13, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-20, 2-22, 2-29, 

2-33, 2-35, 2-38, 2-40, 2-42, 2-43, 2-46, 2-

49, 2-51, 2-54, 2-56, 2-65, 2-70, 2-75, 2-

80, 2-82, 2-84, 2-86, 2-91, 2-95, 4-51, 5-1, 

5-16, 5-74, 5-76, 5-92, 5-256, 5-279, 5-

298, 5-324, 5-379, 5-424, 5-450, ES-4, ES5, ES-9, ES-12 

Prescribed fire, F-6, K-7, K-8, K-11, K-45, L18, L-21, L-22, L-23, 1-27, 1-32, 2-16, 2-

17, 2-20, 2-21, 2-39, 2-42, 2-54, 2-67, 2-

68, 2-69, 2-71, 2-95, 2-99, 2-100, 2-

102, 2-105, 2-108, 2-110, 2-114, 2-122, 2-

125, 2-129, 2-130, 2-133, 3-8, 3-20, 3-21, 

4-8, 4-11, 4-12, 4-33, 4-34, 4-41, 4-42, 4-

74, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-88, 4-96, 4-

116, 4-118, 4-131, 4-176, 4-183, 4-184, 4-

185, 4-228, 4-231, 4-263, 4-265, 4-266, 4-

280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 4-285, 4-290, 4-

312, 4-343, 4-348, 4-350, 4-402, 4-405, 4-

429, 4-447, 4-448, 4-453, 4-481, 4-482, 4-

495, 4-510, 4-514, 4-538, 4-543, 4-548, 4-

560, 4-600, 4-605, 4-610, 4-615, 4-616, 4-

618, 5-137, 5-138, 5-158, 5-328, 5-329, 5-

354, 5-366, ES-10, ES-14 

PSD Class I, 3-5, 3-6, 4-19, 4-24, 4-25, 4-30, 

4-32, 4-618 

R 

Razorback sucker, C-11, C-31, C-33, C-36, 

G-4, L-1, L-15, 2-75, 2-76, 3-83, 3-89, 3-

93, 3-132, 4-431, 4-432, 4-433, 4-452, 4-

459, 4-463 

Reasonably foreseeable, C-12, C-13, C-15, C17, C-20, C-22, C-24, C-27, C-29, C-32, 

C-34, C-36, 3-6, 4-16, 4-30, 4-137, 4-139, 

4-142, 4-190, 4-287, 4-290, 4-327, 4-407, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Index

4-617, 4-618, 4-620, 4-621, 4-623, 4-625, 

4-626, 4-627, 5-161, 5-356 

Red Creek Badlands, 3-139 

Red Creek Watershed, 2-62, 3-81, 3-82, 4-38, 

4-403, 4-426, 4-428 

Red Mountain-Dry Fork, G-2, G-6, 1-28, 2-

43, 2-63, 3-48, 3-81, 3-82, 3-119, 4-38, 4-

62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-88, 4-

89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-108, 4-155, 4-298, 4-299, 

4-300, 4-309, 4-321, 4-322, 4-324, 4-325, 

4-328, 4-330, 4-331, 4-332, 4-333, 4-334, 

4-335, 4-354, 4-355, 4-387, 4-403, 4-414, 

4-417, 4-426, 4-428, 4-521, 4-522, 4-523, 

4-534, 4-589, 4-603, 4-604, 4-605, 4-606, 

4-607, 5-190, ES-10, ES-11 

Reintroduction, K-45, L-1, L-6, L-16, 1-16, 

2-75, 2-76, 2-91, 2-92, 2-92, 2-93, 2-

131, 3-89, 3-92, 3-102, 3-127, 4-116, 4-

394, 4-430, 4-451, 4-470, 4-559, 4-591, 4-

592, 4-593, 4-594, 5-21, 5-25, 5-26, 5-45, 

5-55, 5-74, 5-88, 5-147, 5-339, 5-478 

Research Natural Area, G-3, 2-56, 2-58, 4-

331, 4-332, 4-428, 4-429, 4-430, 5-113 

Riparian, A-3, A-6, B-3, F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, 

G-3, G-4, G-5, G-7, H-33, H-34, H-35, K33, K-47, K-48, L-2, L-3, L-4, L-15, L-16, 

L-17, L-19, L-20, 1-5, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-

18, 1-28, 2-8, 2-13, 2-22, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 

2-44, 2-47, 2-51, 2-52, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-

52, 2-54, 2-57, 2-58, 2-60, 2-63, 2-64, 2-

76, 2-77, 2-79, 2-82, 2-91, 2-95, 2-108, 2-

114, 2-115, 2-115, 2-121, 2-123, 2-125, 2-

130, 2-133, 2-134, 3-34, 3-51, 3-52, 3-79, 

3-81, 3-83, 3-84, 3-89, 3-91, 3-95, 3-96, 3-

98, 3-100, 3-101, 3-103, 3-107, 3-113, 3-

115, 3-116, 3-127, 3-128, 3-130, 3-131, 3-

132, 3-133, 4-10, 4-33, 4-36, 4-83, 4-97, 4-

107, 4-109, 4-115, 4-117, 4-122, 4-136, 4-

177, 4-179, 4-188, 4-189, 4-232, 4-235, 4-

237, 4-246, 4-247, 4-283, 4-285, 4-288, 4-

308, 4-321, 4-324, 4-326, 4-329, 4-334, 4-

335, 4-345, 4-346, 4-347, 4-348, 4-349, 4-

350, 4-351, 4-352, 4-353, 4-354, 4-355, 4-

356, 4-357, 4-358, 4-359, 4-360, 4-361, 4-

362, 4-363, 4-381, 4-390, 4-401, 4-402, 4-

415, 4-416, 4-423, 4-426, 4-430, 4-431, 4-

432, 4-433, 4-438, 4-447, 4-448, 4-449, 4-

451, 4-452, 4-453, 4-454, 4-455, 4-459, 4-

463, 4-472, 4-474, 4-477, 4-478, 4-479, 4-

480, 4-485, 4-487, 4-488, 4-489, 4-502, 4-

515, 4-528, 4-535, 4-545, 4-546, 4-558, 4-

573, 4-583, 4-584, 4-588, 4-599, 4-604, 4-

605, 4-606, 4-607, 4-608, 4-609, 4-614, 4-

615, 4-622, 4-623, 4-624, 5-22, 5-27, 5-56, 

5-62, 5-76, 5-85, 5-86, 5-89, 5-96, 5-102, 

5-104, 5-108, 5-109, 5-131, 5-150, 5-152, 

5-153, 5-154, 5-169, 5-171, 5-182, 5-190, 

5-199, 5-200, 5-225, 5-240, 5-301, 5-310, 

5-312, 5-315, 5-323, 5-331, 5-332, 5-336, 

5-367, 5-372, 5-376, 5-377, 5-378, 5-379, 

5-385, 5-386, 5-407, 5-408, 5-407, 5-408, 

5-408, 5-409, 5-410, 5-408, 5-410, 5-411, 

5-410, 5-412, 5-413, 5-445, 5-447, 5-450, 

5-456, 5-457, 5-465, 5-469, 5-474, 5-488, 

5-495, 5-506, 5-507, ES-8, ES-10 

S 

Sage-grouse, K-49, K-50, K-51, L-20, L-21, 

L-24, 2-20, 2-78, 2-123, 3-21, 3-31, 3-100, 

3-109, 4-83, 4-158, 4-163, 4-164, 4-481, 5-

128, 5-142, 5-151, 5-152, 5-153, 5-347, 5-

441, 5-444, 5-445, 5-449, 5-475, 5-480 

San Juan County, 5-77 

Sensitive species, A-1, 1-5, 2-11, 2-20, 2-75, 

3-51, 3-96, 3-130, 3-133, 4-157, 4-430, 4-

432, 4-433, 4-446, 4-447, 4-453, 4-454, 4-

455, 4-456, 4-464, 4-625, 5-16, 5-96, 5-

129, 5-143, 5-144, 5-156, 5-189, 5-339, 5-

443, 5-444, 5-480, ES-8 

Sheep allotments, 3-33, 4-566, 4-567, 4-568, 

4-569 

Socioeconomics, 1-36, 3-52, 3-54, 3-73, 4-

364, 4-367, 4-372, 4-373, 4-374, 4-375, 4-

376, 4-377, 4-381, 4-384, 4-387, 4-389, 4-

390, 4-392, 4-393, 4-394, 4-396, 4-623, 5-

91, 5-158, 5-288, 5-394, 5-416, 5-506, 5-

507, ES-18 

State of Utah, A-8, C-1, C-21, C-23, C-26, F3, H-33, M-1, M-2, M-11, 1-2, 1-5, 1-10, 

1-14, 1-16, 1-17, 1-19, 1-21, 1-27, 1-29, 1-

33, 2-13, 2-15, 2-16, 2-20, 2-21, 2-29, 2-

44, 2-54, 2-65, 2-78, 2-80, 2-87, 2-88, 2-

92, 2-106, 3-4, 3-6, 3-39, 3-56, 3-60, 3-63, 

3-67, 3-68, 3-71, 3-72, 3-88, 3-91, 3-96, 3-

99, 3-100, 3-102, 3-106, 3-136, 4-16, 4-

107, 4-109, 4-133, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-

140, 4-142, 4-144, 4-145, 4-147, 4-148, 4-

152, 4-153, 4-158, 4-159, 4-163, 4-164, 4-

171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-368, 4-369, 4-373, 4-

378, 4-380, 4-383, 4-389, 4-390, 4-476, 4-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Index

557, 4-623, 5-3, 5-16, 5-17, 5-60, 5-61, 5-

62, 5-63, 5-70, 5-73, 5-77, 5-78, 5-79, 5-

80, 5-83, 5-83, 5-85, 5-86, 5-89, 5-93, 5-

94, 5-95, 5-97, 5-105, 5-106, 5-107, 5-110, 

5-111, 5-112, 5-114, 5-115, 5-116, 5-117, 

5-118, 5-119, 5-120, 5-122, 5-124, 5-125, 

5-127, 5-128, 5-130, 5-132, 5-137, 5-139, 

5-140, 5-141, 5-142, 5-143, 5-144, 5-146, 

5-152, 5-153, 5-155, 5-158, 5-169, 5-178, 

5-193, 5-231, 5-235, 5-244, 5-261, 5-263, 

5-264, 5-304, 5-328, 5-332, 5-333, 5-349, 

5-350, 5-363, 5-367, 5-381, 5-384, 5-385, 

5-385, 5-390, 5-404, 5-414, 5-416, 5-417, 

5-418, 5-419, 5-422, 5-429, 5-429, 5-431, 

5-433, 5-434, 5-436, 5-438, 5-439, 5-439, 

5-440, 5-452, 5-469, 5-470, 5-469, 5-472, 

5-473, 5-474, 5-475, 5-482, 5-483, 5-485, 

5-486, 5-487, 5-488, 5-489, 5-509, 5-510, 

5-511, ES-2, ES-9, ES-12, ES-15, ES-16 

Surface Operating Standards, 2-54 

Sweet Water Canyon, K-8, 2-38, 4-192, 4-

194, 4-200, 4-223, 4-234, 4-249, 4-259, 4-

261, 4-270, 4-314, 4-356, 4-429 

T 

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species, 4-433 

Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), 2-17, 3-

16, 4-25, 5-8, 5-12, 5-13 

U 

UDOGM, see Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and 

Mining, 3-24, 3-38, 4-97, 4-98 

UDWR, see Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, 1-5, 1-16, 2-9, 2-18, 2-49, 2-52, 

2-70, 2-71, 2-71, 2-83, 2-84, 2-85, 3-1, 3-

102, 3-114, 3-122, 3-123, 3-126, 3-130, 3-

131, 3-132, 3-133, 4-169, 4-559, 4-581, 4-

582, 4-592, 4-593, ES-1 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), A1, A-2, A-8, A-14, A-15, G-4, H-33, K-53, 

K-55, K-56, K-63, L-1, L-2, L-3, L-5, L-6, 

L-7, L-8, L-9, L-10, L-12, L-15, L-17, L24, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-30, 2-10, 2-11, 2-29, 2-

75, 2-76, 2-77, 2-91, 2-92, 2-123, 3-1, 3-

7, 3-8, 3-20, 3-83, 3-94, 3-95, 3-122, 3-

131, 4-2, 4-11, 4-133, 4-135, 4-138, 4-139, 

4-143, 4-154, 4-157, 4-437, 4-438, 4-439, 

4-568, 5-2, 5-3, 5-16, 5-70, 5-74, 5-78, 5-

113, 5-128, 5-142, 5-143, 5-144, 5-333, 5-

334, 5-346, 5-349, 5-404, 5-441, 5-442, 5-

443, 5-444, 5-449, 5-453, 5-476, 5-477, 5-

480, 5-498, 5-49, ES-1, ES-12 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus, L-9, 1-21, 2-75, 

3-89, 3-95, 4-432, 4-449, 4-452, 4-457, 4-

460, 5-144, 2-70, 3-95 

Uintah County, K-45, L-1, M-1, M-2, M-3, 

M-4, M-5, M-6, M-7, M-8, M-9, M-10, 1-

3, 1-4, 1-20, 2-70, 3-40, 3-41, 3-53, 3-54, 

3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-

63, 3-68, 3-69, 3-75, 3-89, 3-94, 3-104, 3-

114, 3-115, 3-116, 3-135, 4-79, 4-80, 4-

368, 4-369, 4-380, 4-557, 5-3, 5-17, 5-35, 

5-38, 5-39, 5-43, 5-44, 5-50, 5-55, 5-56, 5-

58, 5-59, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-77, 5-

126, 5-132, 5-153, 5-208, 5-230, 5-231, 5-

235, 5-244, 5-245, 5-249, 5-340, 5-340, 5-

342, 5-418, 5-420, 5-421, 5-422, 5-423, 5-

428, 5-433, 5-438, 5-478, 5-500, 5-504, 5-

508, 5-509, 5-510, 5-511, ES-1 

Uinta Foothills, 2-18, 2-106, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 

4-149, 4-150, 4-310, 4-311, 4-559 

United States Geological Service (USGS), A14, 1-25, 3-24, 3-38, 3-39, 3-73, 3-81, 5-

483 

Upper Willow Creek, K-3, 2-18, 2-106, 2-

108, 2-130, 3-18, 3-102, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 

4-149, 4-150, 4-181, 4-182, 4-310, 4-311, 

4-470, 4-512, 4-513, 4-559 

USGS, see United States Geological Service, 

1-25, 3-24, 3-38, 3-39, 3-73, 3-81 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 

(UDOGM), 2-15, 3-24, 3-38, 4-99, 4-100 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR), A-1, A-2, A-3, A-8, C-7, C-15, 

C-16, C-19, G-4, K-42, K-45, K-52, K-53, 

K-56, K-58, K-61, K-64, K-66, K-68, K70, L-1, L-5, L-6, 1-3, 1-5, 1-16, 1-30, 2-

13, 2-22, 2-51, 2-54, 2-75, 2-76, 2-76, 2-

91, 2-92, 2-93, 3-1, 3-83, 3-94, 3-95, 3-

102, 3-114, 3-122, 3-123, 3-126, 3-130, 3-

131, 3-132, 3-133, 4-137, 4-139, 4-142, 4-

144, 4-147, 4-169, 4-446, 4-450, 4-451, 4-

458, 4-462, 4-469, 4-470, 4-559, 4-581, 4-

582, 4-583, 4-591, 4-592, 4-593, 5-16, 5-

74, 5-83, 5-86, 5-87, 5-88, 5-90, 5-95, 5-

96, 5-125, 5-128, 5-129, 5-133, 5-142, 5-

143, 5-145, 5-146, 5-147, 5-148, 5-149, 5-

150, 5-151, 5-151, 5-153, 5-206, 5-333, 5-

443, 5-452, 5-472, 5-473, 5-474, 5-474, 5-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Index

475, 5-476, 5-479, 5-482, 5-500, 5-510, 5-

511, ES-1, ES-12 

Ute ladies’-tresses, 3-51, 3-89, 3-95, 4-341 

Ute Tribe, C-32, C-35, C-37, D-1, G-3, 1-3, , 

2-2, 2-88, 2-89, 2-92, 3-63, 3-82, 3-114, 

3-119, 3-120, 3-121, 3-128, 3-135, 4-79, 4-

80, 4-81, 4-133, 4-275, 4-276, 4-554, 4-

555, 4-557, 5-4, 5-5, 5-8, 5-9, 5-15, 5-17, 

5-39, 5-70, 5-73, 5-97, 5-149, 5-162, 5-

163, 5-164, 5-165, 5-166, 5-167, 5-169, 5-

171, 5-171, 5-172, 5-173, 5-304, 5-383, 5-

387, 5-388, 5-470, 5-473, 5-500, 5-508, 

ES-4 

V 

Visual Resource Management (VRM), C-8, 

C-13, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-20, C-21, C-24, 

C-26, C-27, C-28, C-29, C-30, C-32, C-33, 

C-34, C-35, C-36, I-1, K-9, K-25, K-28, K34, 1-14, 1-18, 1-27, 2-9, 2-38, 2-47, 2-50, 

2-56, 2-58, 2-61, 2-61, 2-63, 2-64, 2-65, 2-

66, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-70, 2-71, 2-72, 2-

73, 2-74, 2-84, 2-100, 2-107, 2-109, 2-

111, 2-120, 2-127, 2-128, 2-127, 2-128, 3-

4, 3-118, 3-119, 4-9, 4-57, 4-58, 4-65, 4-

74, 4-75, 4-83, 4-89, 4-91, 4-108, 4-109, 4-

113, 4-150, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-180, 4-

228, 4-230, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-

253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-

259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-267, 4-271, 4-272, 4-

281, 4-282, 4-283, 4-284, 4-295, 4-303, 4-

304, 4-305, 4-306, 4-334, 4-339, 4-340, 4-

341, 4-342, 4-343, 4-348, 4-353, 4-354, 4-

355, 4-356, 4-361, 4-362, 4-364, 4-382, 4-

392, 4-393, 4-404, 4-412, 4-413, 4-420, 4-

421, 4-429, 4-430, 4-431, 4-432, 4-433, 4-

434, 4-435, 4-436, 4-443, 4-444, 4-447, 4-

467, 4-473, 4-494, 4-499, 4-501, 4-504, 4-

505, 4-508, 4-510, 4-512, 4-518, 4-519, 4-

520, 4-521, 4-523, 4-524, 4-525, 4-527, 4-

528, 4-529, 4-530, 4-532, 4-532, 4-537, 4-

538, 4-539, 4-542, 4-543, 4-547, 4-552, 4-

559, 4-584, 4-585, 4-599, 4-603, 4-610, 4-

611, 4-627, 5-62, 5-84, 5-86, 5-112, 5-116, 

5-118, 5-121, 5-123, 5-133, 5-134, 5-135, 

5-136, 5-137, 5-138, 5-138, 5-139, 5-140, 

5-141, 5-141, 5-188, 5-189, 5-194, 5-200, 

5-201, 5-202, 5-202, 5-203, 5-203, 5-204, 

5-214, 5-220, 5-221, 5-222, 5-242, 5-252, 

5-260, 5-261, 5-279, 5-292, 5-312, 5-320, 

5-322, 5-324, 5-325, 5-325, 5-327, 5-328, 

5-329, 5-329, 5-330, 5-334, 5-341, 5-367, 

5-385, 5-460, 5-461, 5-463, 5-507, ES-4, 

ES-10 

VRM, see Visual Resource Management, 1-

14, 2-44, 2-48, 2-54, 2-56, 2-61, 2-67, 2-

68, 2-69, 2-69, 2-77, 2-92, 2-99, 2-119, 3-

118, 3-119, 4-74, 4-75, 4-83, 4-109, 4-170, 

4-171, 4-172, 4-334, 4-339, 4-340, 4-342, 

4-348, 4-355, 4-361, 4-362, 4-392, 4-404, 

4-420, 4-421, 4-504, 4-510, 4-512, 4-524, 

4-525, 4-528, 4-537, 4-538, 4-542, 4-543, 

4-599, 4-627 

W 

West Cold Springs, 1-4, , 2-70, 3-87, 3-118, 

4-245, 5-312, 5-329, ES-2 

White River, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-11, 

C-12, C-17, C-18, C-31, C-32, C-33, C-34, 

C-35, C-36, C-37, D-1 r, G-2, G-3, G-7, K7, K-8, K-10, K-25, K-26, K-33, K-51, 1-4, 

1-22, 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 2-29, 2-31, 2-32, 2-

38, 2-48, 2-54, 2-64, 2-67, 2-68, 2-76, 2-

77, 2-80, 2-87, 2-92, 2-104, 2-106, 2-108, 

2-109, 2-110, 2-133, 3-14, 3-23, 3-24, 3-

50, 3-51, 3-73, 3-74, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-

89, 3-92, 3-94, 3-98, 3-113, 3-119, 3-139, 

4-43, 4-44, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-

88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 

4-113, 4-150, 4-152, 4-155, 4-156, 4-180, 

4-186, 4-187, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 

4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-225, 

4-228, 4-229, 4-232, 4-233, 4-236, 4-237, 

4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 

4-246, 4-249, 4-251, 4-254, 4-255, 4-256, 

4-259, 4-260, 4-262, 4-263, 4-270, 4-273, 

4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 

4-291, 4-292, 4-298, 4-299, 4-300, 4-312, 

4-313, 4-314, 4-321, 4-322, 4-325, 4-328, 

4-331, 4-332, 4-333, 4-334, 4-335, 4-336, 

4-350, 4-355, 4-356, 4-358, 4-359, 4-387, 

4-406, 4-414, 4-415, 4-417, 4-418, 4-428, 

4-433, 4-438, 4-439, 4-440, 4-441, 4-442, 

4-443, 4-449, 4-451, 4-452, 4-457, 4-460, 

4-463, 4-468, 4-472, 4-473, 4-474, 4-480, 

4-483, 4-496, 4-497, 4-498, 4-499, 4-500, 

4-501, 4-502, 4-503, 4-516, 4-517, 4-518, 

4-519, 4-521, 4-522, 4-523, 4-535, 4-548, 

4-572, 4-586, 4-587, 4-589, 4-591, 4-599, 

4-600, 4-603, 4-604, 4-606, 4-607, 4-617, 
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Index

4-626, 4-504, 4-505, 4-506, 4-507, 4-508, 

4-509, 4-510, 4-511, 4-523, 4-535, 4-559, 

4-571, 4-572, 4-574, 4-576, 4-585, 4-586, 

4-589, 4-590, 4-592, 4-593, 4-594, 4-602, 

4-611, 5-60, 5-92, 5-101, 5-123, 5-151, 5-

161, 5-190, 5-197, 5-219, 5-220, 5-227, 5-

240, 5-308, 5-309, 5-339, 5-410, 5-414, 5-

449, 5-450, 5-453, 5-486, 5-492, 5-494, 5-

498, ES-2, ES-6, ES-7, ES-10, ES-11 

White-tailed prairie dog, 2-58, 2-76, 2-76, 3-

97, 4-331, 4-469 

Wild and Scenic River (WSR), C-1, C-2, C-3, 

4, C-12, C-13, C-15, C-17, C-20, C-21, C22, C-24, C-26, C-27, C-29, C-32, C-33, 

C-34, C-35, C-36, 1-14, 1-22, 1-29, 1-33, 

2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-35, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 

2-69, 2-68, 2-116, 3-84, 3-85, 4-38, 4-66, 

4-67, 4-68, 4-83, 4-109, 4-134, 4-155, 4-

179, 4-248, 4-251, 4-253, 4-256, 4-258, 4-

260, 4-262, 4-263, 4-281, 4-282, 4-284, 4-

285, 4-310, 4-331, 4-332, 4-333, 4-334, 4-

342, 4-343, 4-348, 4-358, 4-390, 4-395, 4-

403, 4-417, 4-418, 4-426, 4-437, 4-440, 4-

442, 4-472, 4-474, 4-480, 4-500, 4-502, 4-

512, 4-529, 4-537, 4-589, 4-599, 4-605, 4-

606, 4-626, 5-17, 5-30, 5-53, 5-59, 5-61, 5-

83, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-99, 5-100, 5-102, 5-

103, 5-119, 5-120, 5-124, 5-125, 5-136, 5-

136, 5-137, 5-155, 5-178, 5-179, 5-188, 5-

193, 5-196, 5-197, 5-198, 5-201, 5-219, 5-

220, 5-242, 5-244, 5-252, 5-267, 5-269, 5-

270, 5-281, 5-282, 5-291, 5-293, 5-295, 5-

296, 5-303, 5-304, 5-305, 5-305, 5-306, 5-

307, 5-309, 5-311, 5-314, 5-316, 5-326, 5-

327, 5-340, 5-399, 5-404, 5-405, 5-414, 5-

415, 5-465, 5-485, 5-487, 5-488, 5-489, 5-

490, 5-491, 5-493, 5-495, 5-496, 5-497, 

ES-7, ES-11, ES-15 

Wild Mountain, K-7, K-8, 1-27, 2-29, 2-38, 

3-33, 3-139, 4-193, 4-195, 4-196, 4-198, 4-

199, 4-201, 4-226, 4-227, 4-243, 4-244, 4-

270, 5-59, ES-10 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA), G-5, K-7, K8, K-9, K-11, K-14, K-17, K-20, K-21, K23, K-24, K-26, 1-4, 1-7, 1-9, 1-11, 1-12, 

1-16, 1-27, 1-29, , 2-3, 2-4, 2-7, 2-8, 2-11, 

2-18, 2-20, 2-21, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-36, 2-

37, 2-38, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-46, 2-

47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 2-

59, 2-61, 2-62, 2-64, 2-65, 2-66, 2-66, 2-

67, 2-67, 2-68, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-

72, 2-72, 2-73, 2-80, 2-96, 2-96, 2-100, 

2-103, 2-104, 2-105, 2-106, 2-108, 2-109, 

2-110, 2-110, 2-111, 2-112, 2-113, 2-114, 

2-116, 2-117, 2-119, 2-124, 2-126, 2-127, 

2-128, 2-131, 2-132, 3-21, 3-32, 3-83, 3-

86, 3-87, 3-135, 3-136, 3-137, 3-138, 3-

140, 4-1, 4-6, 4-9, 4-29, 4-37, 4-43, 4-44, 

4-57, 4-58, 4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-71, 4-73, 4-

83, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-

93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-105, 4-110, 4-111, 

4-113, 4-126, 4-127, 4-147, 4-150, 4-151, 

4-153, 4-157, 4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 

4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 

4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 

4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 

4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 

4-202, 4-203, 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, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 

4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-254, 4-255, 

4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 

4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 

4-271, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 

4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-283, 

4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-291, 4-292, 4-295, 

4-299, 4-301, 4-303, 4-313, 4-314, 4-315, 

4-316, 4-317, 4-318, 4-319, 4-320, 4-321, 

4-328, 4-330, 4-335, 4-336, 4-337, 4-339, 

4-341, 4-343, 4-351, 4-353, 4-354, 4-355, 

4-360, 4-362, 4-373, 4-378, 4-381, 4-382, 

4-383, 4-386, 4-388, 4-391, 4-392, 4-393, 

4-394, 4-396, 4-412, 4-413, 4-429, 4-431, 

4-432, 4-433, 4-434, 4-435, 4-436, 4-443, 

4-444, 4-445, 4-466, 4-472, 4-473, 4-475, 

4-484, 4-486, 4-494, 4-499, 4-501, 4-504, 

4-508, 4-516, 4-517, 4-518, 4-519, 4-520, 

4-521, 4-523, 4-525, 4-527, 4-529, 4-530, 

4-531, 4-532, 4-533, 4-539, 4-541, 4-543, 

4-546, 4-547, 4-552, 4-584, 4-585, 4-598, 

4-600, 4-601, 4-602, 4-607, 4-608, 4-609, 

4-611, 4-612, 4-613, 4-615, 4-621, 4-626, 

5-2, 5-52, 5-53, 5-59, 5-62, 5-65, 5-76, 5-

89, 5-104, 5-117, 5-123, 5-135, 5-138, 5-

139, 5-154, 5-155, 5-156, 5-157, 5-158, 5-

159, 5-160, 5-161, 5-174, 5-175, 5-176, 5-

188, 5-191, 5-201, 5-202, 5-204, 5-206, 5-

208, 5-209, 5-210, 5-211, 5-212, 5-213, 5-

214, 5-215, 5-216, 5-217, 5-218, 5-219, 5-

220, 5-221, 5-222, 5-223, 5-224, 5-225, 5-
Proposed RMP and Final EIS Index

226, 5-227, 5-228, 5-229, 5-237, 5-240, 5-

241, 5-243, 5-244, 5-245, 5-247, 5-248, 5-

249, 5-250, 5-251, 5-256, 5-257, 5-259, 5-

260, 5-261, 5-263, 5-265, 5-266, 5-267, 5-

269, 5-270, 5-273, 5-275, 5-276, 5-277, 5-

278, 5-279, 5-313, 5-320, 5-325, 5-330, 5-

332, 5-344, 5-348, 5-360, 5-361, 5-362, 5-

366, 5-369, 5-388, 5-390, 5-396, 5-398, 5-

399, 5-402, 5-403, 5-413, 5-451, 5-452, 5-

457, 5-458, 5-463, 5-464, 5-468, ES-1, ES2, ES-3, ES-4, ES-5, ES-8, ES-9, ES-10, 

ES-11, ES-12 

Winter Ridge, G-5, 1-27, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-

70, 2-73, 2-89, 2-109, 2-129, 3-2, 3-83, 3-

87, 3-118, 3-119, 3-120, 4-157, 4-252, 4-

273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-435, 4-444, 4-

445, 4-545, 4-547, 4-549, 4-550, 4-551, 4-

552, 4-554, 4-555, 4-556, 4-557, 4-566, 4-

567, 4-568, 4-594, 5-117, 5-123, 5-152, 5-

153, 5-154, 5-240, 5-470, 5-471, ES-9 

Winter Ridge Wild Horse Herd, 5-471 

Wolf, 2-44, 2-46, 4-322, 4-324 

Wolf Point, K-8, 1-27, 2-38, 2-46, 2-108, 2-

110, 3-140, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-186, 4-

192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-198, 4-

199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-227, 4-234, 4-236, 4-

237, 4-243, 4-244, 4-250, 4-260, 4-270, 4-

271, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-328, 4-

336, 4-435, 5-60, 5-174, ES-10 

WSA, see Wilderness Study Area, 2-71, 2-72, 

2-73, 3-21, 3-87 

XE, 4-154, 4-155, 4-373, 4-434, 4-435, 4-436