Moab Field Office Planning Area 

Proposed Resource Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Type of Action: Draft ( ) Final (X) 

Administrative (X) Legislative ( ) 

Jurisdiction: All of Grand and the northern one-third of San Juan Counties, Utah. 

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

Statement (EIS) describes and analyzes the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives for the planning and 

management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Moab Field Office. The Moab planning area is located in southeastern Utah and includes 

approximately 2.5-million acres of land in Grand and San Juan Counties. Within the Moab planning 

area, the BLM manages approximately 1.8-million acres of BLM-administered public land surface as 

well as about 29,000 acres of federal mineral estate. 

Alternatives A through D were presented in the Draft RMP and EIS. Alternative A is a continuation 

of the existing management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, use of the public lands 

and resources continue to be managed under the 1985 Grand Resource Area RMP as amended. 

Alternative B emphasizes the protection/preservation of natural resources and minimizes human 

activities, over commodity production and extraction and motorized recreation access. Alternative 

C provides for a balanced approach of protection/preservation of natural resources while providing 

for commodity production and extraction. Alternative D emphasizes commodity production and 

extraction as well as motorized recreation access over the protection/preservation of natural 

resources. After careful consideration of both public and internal comments received on the Draft 

RMP/EIS, adjustments and clarifications have been made to Alternative C. As modified, Alternative 

C is now presented as the Moab Proposed RMP in the Final EIS. The major issues addressed 

include: 1) travel management, 2) recreation, 3) mineral development, 4) special designations, and 

5) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Protests: Protests on the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement must be postmarked or received no later than 30 days after publication of the Notice of 

Availability by the Environmental Protection Action in the Federal Register. The 30-day protest 

period (identified above) will not be extended. The close of the protest and period will be announced 

in news releases, newsletters, and on the Moab RMP website at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/planning.html

For further information, contact: 

Brent Northrup, Moab RMP Project Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

Moab Field Office 

82 E. Dogwood 

Moab, UT 84532 

(435) 259-2100 

Brent_Northrup@blm.gov 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
VOLUME 1 

Table of Contents 

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

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ xvii 

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xix 

List of Maps.............................................................................................................................. xxxi 

List of Appendices....................................................................................................................xxxv 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ES.4 Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives...........................................................................ES-2 

ES.4.1 Alternative A - No Action......................................................................................ES-2 

ES.4.2 Alternative B ..........................................................................................................ES-2 

ES.4.3 Proposed Plan.........................................................................................................ES-2 

ES.5.4 Alternative D ..........................................................................................................ES-3 

ES.5 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................ES-5 

ES.6: Changes From The Draft RMP To The Proposed RMP ..............................................ES-5 

ES.7: Next Steps ...................................................................................................................ES-6 

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

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

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

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

1.2 Description of the Moab Planning Area (MPA)................................................................ 1-2 

1.2.1 Overview..................................................................................................................... 1-2 

1.2.2 Land Uses.................................................................................................................... 1-3 

1.3 BLM's Planning Process .................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.3.1 Nine-step Planning Process......................................................................................... 1-4
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

1.3.2 Scoping and Identification of Issues For Development of The Proposed Plan and 

Draft Alternatives..................................................................................................... 1-7 

1.3.2.1 The Scoping Process............................................................................................ 1-7 

1.3.2.2 Issues Addressed Through Policy or Administrative Action............................... 1-8 

1.3.2.3 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Because They Are Beyond the 

Scope of the Plan .................................................................................................1-9 

1.3.3 Development of Planning Criteria ............................................................................ 1-10 

1.4 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs....................................................... 1-11 

1.4.1 State of Utah ............................................................................................................. 1-11 

1.4.2 County Land Use Plans............................................................................................. 1-11 

1.4.3 Other Federal Plans................................................................................................... 1-11 

1.4.4 Endangered Species Recovery Plans ........................................................................ 1-12 

1.4.5 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) .......................................................... 1-12 

1.4.6 Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Western Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS 

(PEIS)..................................................................................................................... 1-13 

1.4.7 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the U.S. Department of the 

Interior; the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and the U.S Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Concerning Oil and Gas Leasing Operations .... 1-13 

1.4.8 Activity Plans and Amendments to the Grand Resource Area RMP (1985)............ 1-13 

1.4.9 Habitat Management Plans (HMP)........................................................................... 1-14 

1.5 Summary of Changes from the Draft RMP/EIS to the Proposed Plan RMP/Final EIS .. 1-15 

1.5.1 Summary Of Changes To Decisions Between The Preferred Alternative (Draft 

EIS) And The Proposed Plan (Final EIS) .............................................................. 1-15 

1.5.2 Clarifications............................................................................................................. 1-16 

1.5.3 Updates To Data ....................................................................................................... 1-17 

1.5.4 Map Changes ............................................................................................................ 1-17 

1.5.5 Crucial Wildlife Habitat CHANGES........................................................................ 1-18 

1.5.6 Summary of Changes................................................................................................ 1-18 

CHAPTER TWO Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives...................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS................................................. 2-2 

2.1.1 Brief Summary and Highlights of the Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives in 

Table 2.1 ..................................................................................................................2-2 

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

2.1.1.2 Recreation ............................................................................................................2-3 

2.1.1.3 Oil and Gas Leasing and Development ............................................................... 2-3 

2.1.1.4 Special Designations............................................................................................ 2-4 

2.1.1.5 Special Status Species..........................................................................................2-5 

2.1.1.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 2-5 

2.1.1.7 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.............................................. 2-5 

iv 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

2.2 Summary of Impacts........................................................................................................ 2-59 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis ................................................ 2-117 

2.3.1 Livestock Grazing Adjustments Alternative........................................................... 2-117 

2.3.2 No Grazing Alternative........................................................................................... 2-117 

2.3.3 No Leasing Alternative ........................................................................................... 2-118 

2.3.4 The Red Rock Heritage Travel Plan Alternative .................................................... 2-119 

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.2 Status of Emissions ................................................................................................... 3-10 

3.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-13 

3.3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 3-13 

3.3.2 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-13 

3.4 Fire Management........................................................................................................... 3-23 

3.4.1 Introduction and Resource Overview ....................................................................... 3-23 

3.4.2 Fire Management Plan .............................................................................................. 3-25 

3.4.3 Desired Wildland Fire Condition (DWFC)............................................................... 3-25 

3.4.4 Landscape Level Management ................................................................................. 3-25 

3.4.5 Fire Management Priorities....................................................................................... 3-27 

3.4.6 Fire Management Activities to Meet DWFC............................................................ 3-27 

3.4.7 Summary ................................................................................................................... 3-29 

3.5 Health and Safety........................................................................................................... 3-29 

3.5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 3-29 

3.5.2 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 3-30 

3.5.3 Abandoned Mines ..................................................................................................... 3-30 

3.6 Lands and Realty ........................................................................................................... 3-32 

3.6.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-32 

3.6.2 MFO Lands and Realty Program .............................................................................. 3-32 

3.7 Livestock Grazing.......................................................................................................... 3-39 

3.7.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-39 

3.7.2 Current Management Practices ................................................................................. 3-41 

3.7.3 Specific Allotments of Concern................................................................................ 3-42 

v 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

3.7.4 Resource Demand ..................................................................................................... 3-45 

3.8 Minerals .......................................................................................................................... 3-45 

3.8.1 Leasable Minerals ..................................................................................................... 3-46 

3.8.2 Locatable Minerals.................................................................................................... 3-57 

3.8.3 Salable Minerals........................................................................................................ 3-63 

3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..................................................... 3-68 

3.9.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................... 3-68 

3.9.2 Management Direction for Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ....... 3-70 

3.10 Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................... 3-72 

3.10.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................. 3-72 

3.10.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................... 3-73 

3.10.3 Resource Demand and Analysis ............................................................................. 3-74 

3.10.4 Issues and Concerns................................................................................................ 3-74 

3.10.5 Resource Capability and Condition ........................................................................ 3-74 

3.11 Recreation..................................................................................................................... 3-77 

3.11.1 Resource Overview................................................................................................. 3-77 

3.11.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................... 3-88 

3.12 Riparian ........................................................................................................................ 3-93 

3.12.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 3-93 

3.12.2 Resource Overview................................................................................................. 3-94 

3.12.3 Riparian/Wetland Status ......................................................................................... 3-94 

3.12.4 Invasive and/or Non-native Species........................................................................ 3-96 

3.12.5 Riparian/Wetland Improvement and Restoration ................................................... 3-98 

3.13 Socioeconomic Resources.......................................................................................... 3-100 

3.13.1 Social and Economic Conditions .......................................................................... 3-100 

3.13.2 Tribal Interests ...................................................................................................... 3-121 

3.13.3 Environmental Justice........................................................................................... 3-122 

3.14 Soil and Water............................................................................................................ 3-124 

3.14.1 Watersheds............................................................................................................ 3-124 

3.14.2 Soils....................................................................................................................... 3-125 

3.14.3 Surface Water........................................................................................................ 3-127 

3.15 Special Designations .................................................................................................. 3-130 

3.15.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)............................................. 3-130 

3.15.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................................................... 3-141 

3.15.3 Wilderness Study Areas and Designated Wilderness ........................................... 3-142 

vi 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

3.16 Special Status Species ................................................................................................ 3-147 

3.16.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ................................................. 3-147 

3.16.2 BLM Sensitive Species ......................................................................................... 3-152 

3.16.3 Conservation Agreement Species ......................................................................... 3-164 

3.17 Travel .......................................................................................................................... 3-164 

3.17.1 Overview............................................................................................................... 3-164 

3.17.2 Vehicular Routes................................................................................................... 3-165

3.17.3 Current Management............................................................................................. 3-167 

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

3.18.1 Resource Overview............................................................................................... 3-168 

3.18.2 Dominant Vegetation Communities ..................................................................... 3-168 

3.18.3 Special Status Plant Species.................................................................................. 3-171 

3.18.4 Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds................................................................... 3-171 

3.19 Visual Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-173 

3.19.1 Resource Overview............................................................................................... 3-173 

3.19.2 Current Management Practices ............................................................................. 3-174 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries................................................................................................ 3-176 

3.20.1 Resource Overview............................................................................................... 3-176 

3.20.2 Big Game .............................................................................................................. 3-176 

3.20.3 Upland Game ........................................................................................................ 3-186 

3.20.4 Raptors .................................................................................................................. 3-187 

3.20.5 Reptile, Amphibian, and Other Non-game Species .............................................. 3-187 

3.20.6 Riparian and Aquatic Species ............................................................................... 3-187 

3.21 Woodlands .................................................................................................................. 3-189 

3.21.1 Resource Overview............................................................................................... 3-189 

3.21.2 Current Management............................................................................................. 3-190 

vii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

viii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

VOLUME 2 

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER FOUR Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and 

Draft Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 4-1

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

4.1.1 Organization of Chapter.............................................................................................. 4-1 

4.1.2 Analytical Assumptions .............................................................................................. 4-2 

4.1.3 Assumptions and Methodology for Minerals Development Impacts ......................... 4-3 

4.1.3.1 Oil and Gas .......................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.1.3.2 Coal-bed Methane................................................................................................ 4-6 

4.1.3.3 Potash and Salt..................................................................................................... 4-6

4.1.3.4 Uranium-Vanadium ............................................................................................. 4-6 

4.1.3.5 Copper.................................................................................................................. 4-6 

4.1.3.6 Sand and Gravel................................................................................................... 4-6 

4.1.3.7 Building Stone ..................................................................................................... 4-6 

4.1.3.8 Travertine............................................................................................................. 4-6 

4.1.3.9 Clay...................................................................................................................... 4-6 

4.1.3.10 Humate............................................................................................................... 4-7 

4.1.3.11 Existing Oil and Gas Leases .............................................................................. 4-7 

4.1.3.12 Mining Claims for Locatable Minerals.............................................................. 4-7 

4.1.4 Types of Impacts to be Addressed .............................................................................. 4-8 

4.2 Impacts to Critical Elements.............................................................................................. 4-8 

4.3 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives................................................................... 4-9 

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate......................................................................................... 4-10 

4.3.1.1 Global Climate Change...................................................................................... 4-10 

4.3.1.2 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................ 4-10 

4.3.1.3 Alternatives Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-13 

4.3.1.4 Summary of Impacts.......................................................................................... 4-31 

4.3.2 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 4-32 

4.3.2.1 Analysis Considerations..................................................................................... 4-33 

4.3.2.2 Impacts Common to All Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan................. 4-34 

4.3.2.3 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed 

Plan) ................................................................................................................... 4-37 

4.3.2.4 Alternatives Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-39 

4.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts.......................................................................................... 4-56 

4.3.3 Fire Management .................................................................................................... 4-56 

4.3.3.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................ 4-56 

4.3.3.2 Alternatives Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-58 

4.3.4 Health and Safety.................................................................................................... 4-64 

4.3.4.1 Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................... 4-64

ix 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

4.3.4.2 Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) ........................................................................ 4-67 

4.3.5 Lands and Realty .................................................................................................... 4-67 

4.3.5.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................ 4-68 

4.3.5.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed 

Plan) ................................................................................................................... 4-69 

4.3.5.3 Alternatives Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-69 

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................... 4-73 

4.3.6.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................ 4-73 

4.3.6.2 Alternative A...................................................................................................... 4-76

4.3.6.3 Alternative B...................................................................................................... 4-77

4.3.6.4 Proposed Plan..................................................................................................... 4-80 

4.3.6.5 Alternative D...................................................................................................... 4-83

4.3.6.6 Summary of Impacts.......................................................................................... 4-84 

4.3.7 Minerals ................................................................................................................... 4-85 

4.3.7.1 Resource Decisions That Would Have Negligible Impacts On Mineral 

Resource Development ...................................................................................... 4-85 

4.3.7.2 Assumptions....................................................................................................... 4-86 

4.3.7.3 Alternative Impacts............................................................................................ 4-89 

4.3.7.4 Summary of Impacts........................................................................................ 4-113 

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics............................................ 4-113 

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

4.3.8.2 Alternatives Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-114 

4.3.8.3 Summary.......................................................................................................... 4-166 

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources .................................................................................... 4-173 

4.3.9.1 Paleontological Resource Assessment............................................................. 4-173 

4.3.9.2 Paleontological Resource Impacts ................................................................... 4-177 

4.3.9.3 Impacts to Paleontological Resources Common to All Alternatives............... 4-178 

4.3.9.4 Alternatives Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-179 

4.3.9.5 Summary of Impacts to Paleontological Resources......................................... 4-194 

4.3.10 Recreation............................................................................................................ 4-194 

4.3.10.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed 

Plan) ................................................................................................................. 4-197 

4.3.10.2 Alternatives Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-197 

4.3.10.3 Summary of Impacts...................................................................................... 4-243 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources............................................................................................. 4-243 

4.3.11.1 Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Riparian Resources ................... 4-243 

4.3.11.2 Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Riparian Resources.................... 4-243 

4.3.11.3 Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Riparian Resources.................. 4-244 

4.3.11.4 Impacts of Mineral Resource Decisions on Riparian Resources................... 4-245 

4.3.11.5 Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Riparian Resources ..................................................................................... 4-246 

4.3.11.6 Impacts of Recreation and Travel Decisions on Riparian Resources............ 4-246 

4.3.11.7 Impacts of Riparian Management Decisions on Riparian Resources............ 4-248 

x 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

4.3.11.8 Impacts of Soil and Water Decisions on Riparian Resources........................ 4-250 

4.3.11.9 Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Riparian Resources.............. 4-250 

4.3.11.10 Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Riparian Resources.......... 4-252 

4.3.11.11 Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Riparian Resources............................ 4-253 

4.3.11.12 Impacts of Wildlife Decisions on Riparian Resources ................................ 4-253 

4.3.11.13 Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Riparian Resources ........................... 4-253 

4.3.11.14 Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 4-253 

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources ................................................................................... 4-254 

4.3.12.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................ 4-254 

4.3.12.2 Alternatives Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-255 

4.3.12.3 Summary of Impacts...................................................................................... 4-280 

4.3.13 Soil and Water..................................................................................................... 4-280 

4.3.13.1 Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Soil and Water .......................... 4-282 

4.3.13.2 Impacts of Health and Safety Decisions on Soil and Water .......................... 4-283 

4.3.13.3 Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Soil and Water........................... 4-283 

4.3.13.4 Impacts of Livestock Grazing Management Decisions on Soil and Water ... 4-285 

4.3.13.5 Impacts of Mineral Resource Decisions on Soil and Water .......................... 4-289 

4.3.13.6 Impacts of Non-WSA lands with Wilderness Characteristics Resource 

Decisions on Soil and Water............................................................................ 4-294 

4.3.13.7 Impacts of Recreation and Travel Management Decisions on Soil and 

Water................................................................................................................ 4-295 

4.3.13.8 Impacts of Riparian Management Decisions on Soil and Water ................... 4-299 

4.3.13.9 Impacts of Soil and Water Management Decisions on Soil and Water 

Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-300 

4.3.13.10 Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Soil and Water..................... 4-303 

4.3.13.11 Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 4-305 

4.3.14 Special Designations............................................................................................ 4-306 

4.3.14.1 Assumptions................................................................................................... 4-306 

4.3.14.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)...................................... 4-308 

4.3.14.3 National Historic Trail – Old Spanish Trail................................................... 4-336 

4.3.14.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs).................................................................... 4-337 

4.3.14.5 Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Wilderness Areas (WAs)................... 4-353 

4.3.14.6 Summary of Impacts...................................................................................... 4-355 

4.3.15 Special Status Species ......................................................................................... 4-356 

4.3.15.1 Analysis Assumptions.................................................................................... 4-356 

4.3.15.2 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................ 4-363 

4.3.15.3 Impacts of Cultural Resource Decisions on Special Status Species.............. 4-366 

4.3.15.4 Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Special Status Species............... 4-368 

4.3.15.5 Impacts of Health and Safety Decisions on Special Status Species .............. 4-370 

4.3.15.6 Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Special Status Species............... 4-371 

4.3.15.7 Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Special Status Species ............. 4-374 

4.3.15.8 Impacts of Mineral and Energy Development Decisions on Special Status 

Species ............................................................................................................. 4-377 

4.3.15.9 Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Special Status Species................................................................................. 4-387 

xi 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

4.3.15.10 Impacts of Paleontological Resources Decisions on Special Status 

Species ............................................................................................................. 4-388 

4.3.15.11 Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Special Status Species........................ 4-389 

4.3.15.12 Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Special Status Species ........................... 4-393 

4.3.15.13 Impacts of Soil and Water Decisions on Special Status Species................. 4-395 

4.3.15.14 Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Special Status Species ....... 4-397 

4.3.15.15 Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Special Status Species ..... 4-402 

4.3.15.16 Impacts of Travel Decisions on Special Status Species............................... 4-404 

4.3.15.17 Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Special Status Species ....................... 4-407 

4.3.15.18 Impacts of Visual Resource Decisions on Special Status Species............... 4-408 

4.3.15.19 Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Special Status Species ..... 4-410 

4.3.15.20 Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Special Status Species....................... 4-413 

4.3.15.21 Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 4-414 

4.3.16 Travel Management............................................................................................ 4-414 

4.3.16.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan) ..... 4-414 

4.3.16.2 Alternatives Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-415 

4.3.16.3 Summary of Impacts...................................................................................... 4-422 

4.3.17 Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 4-422 

4.3.17.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................ 4-422 

4.3.17.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan) ..... 4-422 

4.3.17.3 Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Vegetation Resources ............... 4-423 

4.3.17.4 Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Vegetation Resources................ 4-424 

4.3.17.5 Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Vegetation Resources .............. 4-425 

4.3.17.6 Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Vegetation Resources.............................. 4-426 

4.3.17.7 Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Vegetation Resources.................................................................................. 4-427 

4.3.17.8 Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Vegetation Resources .......................... 4-428 

4.3.17.9 Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Vegetation Resources.............................. 4-429 

4.3.17.10 Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Vegetation Resources................ 4-430 

4.3.17.11 Impacts of Special Designations Decisions on Vegetation Resources ........ 4-431 

4.3.17.12 Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Vegetation Resources...... 4-433 

4.3.17.13 Impacts of Travel Management Decisions on Vegetation Resources ......... 4-436 

4.3.17.14 Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Vegetation Resources ........................ 4-437 

4.3.17.15 Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions on Vegetation Resources ...... 4-438 

4.3.17.16 Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Vegetation Resources........................ 4-440 

4.3.17.17 Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 4-440 

4.3.18 Visual Resources ................................................................................................. 4-440 

4.3.18.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan) ..... 4-442 

4.3.18.2 Alternatives Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-442 

4.3.18.3 Visually Sensitive Areas................................................................................ 4-444 

4.3.18.4 Summary of Impacts...................................................................................... 4-449 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries ......................................................................................... 4-449 

4.3.19.1 Impacts of Resource Management Decisions with Negligible Impacts on 

Wildlife and Fisheries...................................................................................... 4-451 

4.3.19.2 Impacts of Fire Management Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries............... 4-451 

xii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

4.3.19.3 Impacts of Health and Safety Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries............... 4-452 

4.3.19.4 Impacts of Lands and Realty Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ............... 4-453 

4.3.19.5 Impacts of Livestock Grazing Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries.............. 4-455 

4.3.19.6 Impacts of Minerals Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries............................. 4-460 

4.3.19.7 Impacts of Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions 

on Wildlife and Fisheries................................................................................. 4-470 

4.3.19.8 Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries.......................... 4-470 

4.3.19.9 Impacts of Riparian Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ............................. 4-473 

4.3.19.10 Impacts of Soils/Watershed Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries............... 4-473 

4.3.19.11 Impacts of Special Designation Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ......... 4-475 

4.3.19.12 Impacts of Special Status Species Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ..... 4-476 

4.3.19.13 Impacts of Travel Management Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries......... 4-478 

4.3.19.14 Impacts of Vegetation Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries........................ 4-480 

4.3.19.15 Impacts of Visual Resources Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries ............. 4-481 

4.3.19.16 Impacts of Wildlife and Fisheries Management Decisions on Wildlife 

and Fisheries .................................................................................................... 4-482 

4.3.19.17 Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries....................... 4-487 

4.3.19.18 Impacts of Habitat Fragmentation on Wildlife ............................................ 4-488 

4.3.19.19 Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 4-493 

4.3.20 Woodlands ........................................................................................................... 4-493 

4.3.20.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................ 4-493 

4.3.20.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan) ..... 4-494 

4.3.20.3 Alternatives Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-494 

4.3.20.4 Summary of Impacts...................................................................................... 4-498 

4.3.21 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................... 4-498 

4.3.22 Short-term Use Versus Long-term Productivity.............................................. 4-499 

4.3.22.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 4-499 

4.3.22.2 Cultural Resources......................................................................................... 4-499 

4.3.22.3 Fire Management ........................................................................................... 4-499 

4.3.22.4 Health and Safety........................................................................................... 4-500 

4.3.22.5 Lands and Realty............................................................................................ 4-500 

4.3.22.6 Livestock Grazing.......................................................................................... 4-500 

4.3.22.7 Minerals ......................................................................................................... 4-500

4.3.22.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics........................................ 4-500 

4.3.22.9 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................. 4-501 

4.3.22.10 Recreation .................................................................................................... 4-501 

4.3.22.11 Riparian Resources ...................................................................................... 4-501 

4.3.22.12 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................................... 4-501 

4.3.22.13 Soil and Water.............................................................................................. 4-501 

4.3.22.14 Special Designations.................................................................................... 4-501 

4.3.22.15 Special Status Species.................................................................................. 4-502 

4.3.22.16 Travel Management ..................................................................................... 4-502 

4.3.22.17 Vegetation.................................................................................................... 4-502 

4.3.22.18 Visual Resources.......................................................................................... 4-502 

4.3.22.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources................................................................. 4-502 

xiii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

4.3.22.20 Woodlands ................................................................................................... 4-503 

4.3.23 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.............................. 4-503 

4.3.23.1 Cultural Resources......................................................................................... 4-503 

4.3.23.2 Fire Management ........................................................................................... 4-504 

4.3.23.3 Lands and Realty............................................................................................ 4-504 

4.3.23.4 Minerals ......................................................................................................... 4-504

4.3.23.5 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics........................................ 4-504 

4.3.23.6 Riparian Resources ........................................................................................ 4-504 

4.3.23.7 Soil and Water................................................................................................ 4-504 

4.3.23.8 Special Designations...................................................................................... 4-504 

4.3.23.9 Special Status Species.................................................................................... 4-505 

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................ 4-505 

4.3.24.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 4-506 

4.3.24.2 Cultural Resources......................................................................................... 4-507 

4.3.24.3 Health and Safety........................................................................................... 4-508 

4.3.24.4 Lands and Realty............................................................................................ 4-508 

4.3.24.5 Livestock Grazing.......................................................................................... 4-509 

4.3.24.6 Minerals ......................................................................................................... 4-509

4.3.24.7 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics........................................ 4-509 

4.3.24.8 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................. 4-510 

4.3.24.9 Recreation ...................................................................................................... 4-511 

4.3.24.10 Riparian Resources ...................................................................................... 4-512 

4.3.24.11 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................................... 4-512 

4.3.24.12 Soil and Water.............................................................................................. 4-513 

4.3.24.13 Special Designations.................................................................................... 4-514 

4.3.24.14 Special Status Species, Vegetation, and Wildlife ........................................ 4-514 

4.3.24.15 Travel Management ..................................................................................... 4-515 

4.3.24.16 Visual Resources.......................................................................................... 4-516 

4.3.24.17 Woodlands ................................................................................................... 4-517 

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 Consultation.................................................................................... 5-2 

5.2.2 Cooperating Agency Involvement .............................................................................. 5-4 

5.2.3 State Agency Coordination ......................................................................................... 5-5 

5.2.4 Consultation and Coordination with Other Federal Agencies .................................... 5-5 

5.2.4.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................ 5-5 

5.2.4.2 Environmental Protection Agency....................................................................... 5-6 

5.2.4.3 National Park Service .......................................................................................... 5-6 

5.2.4.4 U.S. Forest Service .............................................................................................. 5-6 

xiv 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

5.3 Consistency with Other Plans......................................................................................... 5-6 

5.4 Public Outreach and Participation .............................................................................. 5-20 

5.4.1 Notice of Intent (NOI) to Plan and Scoping ............................................................. 5-20 

5.4.2. Mailing List.............................................................................................................. 5-21 

5.4.3 Planning Bulletins..................................................................................................... 5-22 

5.4.4 Website ..................................................................................................................... 5-22 

5.4.5 Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft RMP/EIS............................................... 5-22 

5.4.6 Public Meetings ........................................................................................................ 5-23 

5.5 Public Comments on the Moab DRMP/EIS................................................................ 5-23 

5.5.1 Process and Methodology ......................................................................................... 5-23 

5.5.2 Comment Analysis.................................................................................................... 5-24 

5.5.3 Summary of Public Comments ................................................................................. 5-36 

5.5.4 Public Comments and Responses ............................................................................. 5-36 

5.6 Record Of Decision ...................................................................................................... 5-159 

5.7 Distribution List for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.................................................. 5-159 

5.8 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................... 5-164 

References.................................................................................................................................. X-1 

Acronyms and Glossary ......................................................................................................... X-25 

Index ....................................................................................................................................... X-47

 

xv 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Table of Contents 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xvi 
List of Figures 

Figure 1.1. Nine-step planning process........................................................................................1-5 

Figure 3.1. Thirty-year precipitation and air temperature plots for Moab, Utah (WRCC 

2004)......................................................................................................................... 3-3 

Figure 3.2. Seasonal windroses in the MPA................................................................................3-5 

Figure 3.3. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern Latitudes (24–90° N). ................. 3-8 

Figure 3.4. Trend in air pollution impacts on visibility observed in Canyonlands National 

Park, Utah, 1990 through 2004 (EPA 2003c).........................................................3-10 

Figure 3.5. Acres within grazing allotments of the MPA.......................................................... 3-39 

Figure 3.6. Seasonal unemployment in Grand County, 1999–2001........................................3-106 

Figure 3.7. Changes in the Grand County economy (by SIC code), 1980–2000. ................... 3-111 

Figure 3.8. Tourist spending in millions, Grand County, 1993–2003. .................................... 3-114 

Figure 3.9. Farm income by category. ..................................................................................... 3-117 

Figure 3.10. Oil (barrels) and gas production (mcf) in Grand County, 1984–2007. ............... 3-119 

xvii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Figures 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xviii
List of Tables 

Table ES1. OHV Categories (acres) in No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan................... ES-3 

Table ES2. Designated Routes (miles) In Inventory vs. Proposed Plan................................... ES-4 

Table ES3. SRMAs and Focus Areas In No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan................. ES-4 

Table ES4. Special Designations In No Action Alternative vs. Proposed Plan ...................... ES-4 

Table ES5. Non-WSA Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics In No Action 

Alternative vs. Proposed Plan................................................................................ ES-4 

Table ES6. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres)............................................................... ES-5 

Table 1.1. Land Management within the MPA (acres)................................................................ 1-3 

Summary Table A. OHV Categories (acres), by Alternative ...................................................... 2-2 

Summary Table B. SRMAs (quantity and acres) and Focus Areas (quantity), by 

Alternative ................................................................................................................2-3 

Summary Table C. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres), by Alternative ............................ 2-3 

Summary Table D. Potential ACECs (quantity and acres) Meeting the Relevance and 

Importance Criteria, by Alternative.......................................................................... 2-4 

Summary Table E. Eligible/Suitable WSR Segments (river miles) with Tentative 

Classifications, by Alternative..................................................................................2-5 

Summary Table F. Non-WSA Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

(quantity and total acres), by Alternative .................................................................2-6 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives ......................................... 2-7 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table ........................................................................................... 2-60

Table 3.1. Temperature and Precipitation Data Available for Three Locations in the Moab 

Planning Area (MPA; WRCC 2004) ........................................................................ 3-2 

Table 3.2. Ambient Air Quality Data for the MPA ..................................................................... 3-5 

Table 3.3. Summary of Visibility Impairment Pollutants Measured in the Canyonlands 

National Park a

.......................................................................................................... 3-9 

Table 3.4. 2005 Emissions Inventory for Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah......................... 3-10 

Table 3.5. National Register-listed Sites, Buildings, and Districts Located on BLM Lands 

within the MPA....................................................................................................... 3-18 

Table 3.6. Native American Organizations Historically Consulted by the MFO......................3-19 

Table 3.7. Estimated Acreage within the MFO with High, Medium, and Low Probability 

to Contain Cultural Resource Sites......................................................................... 3-22 

Table 3.8. Withdrawals in the MPA .......................................................................................... 3-36

Table 3.9. Current Number of Grazing Allotments in Each Management Category ................ 3-40

xix 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

Table 3.10. Current Acreages of Plants that Are Similar to Potential Natural Community 

(PNC)...................................................................................................................... 3-41 

Table 3.11. Current Number of Permitted Allotments under Each Grazing Management 

System.....................................................................................................................3-42

Table 3.12. Ratings for Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential and Certainty ..........3-46 

Table 3.13. Cumulative Oil and Gas Production in the MPA, by Field, as of December 

31, 2003 .................................................................................................................. 3-51 

Table 3.14. Historical Locations and Hosts of Uranium and Vanadium Deposits in the 

MPA, by Mining District........................................................................................ 3-58 

Table 3.15. Historical Uranium Grade and Production in the MPA, by Mining District1......... 3-59 

Table 3.16. Non-WSA Lands Inventoried in the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory (revised 

2003), Total Acreage and Acreage with and without Wilderness 

Characteristics......................................................................................................... 3-69 

Table 3.17. Non-WSA Lands with and without Wilderness Characteristics (WC and 

NWC, Respectively) from Wilderness Characteristics Review ............................. 3-70 

Table 3.18. Activities in the MPA, by Use Level......................................................................3-85 

Table 3.19. River Recreation Use in the MPA .......................................................................... 3-87 

Table 3.20. Comparison of 1985 RMP OHV Designations and Present OHV 

Designations ........................................................................................................... 3-88 

Table 3.21. Utah OHV Registrations*, 1998 Compared with 2002 .......................................... 3-88 

Table 3.22. 2003 Condition Status of Riparian Areas by Watershed within the MPA ............. 3-94 

Table 3.23. Common Riparian Plant Species Occurring in the MPA .......................................3-96 

Table 3.24. Watersheds and Issues Receiving Corrective Restoration Action.......................... 3-97 

Table 3.25. Priority Riparian/Wetland Ecosystems in the MPA, 2004 vs. 1990....................... 3-98 

Table 3.26. Land Jurisdiction in Grand County....................................................................... 3-100 

Table 3.27. Population by Category in Grand County, 1990 and 2000................................... 3-104 

Table 3.28. Unemployment Rates............................................................................................3-105

Table 3.29. Per-Capita Personal Income.................................................................................. 3-107 

Table 3.30. Poverty Rates ........................................................................................................3-107 

Table 3.31. Population by Household Type in Grand County, 2000....................................... 3-108 

Table 3.32. Employment by Industry in Grand County........................................................... 3-110 

Table 3.33. Trends in Employment (SIC code), Grand County, 1980, 1990, and 2000..........3-111 

Table 3.34. PILT Payments to Grand County.......................................................................... 3-112 

Table 3.35. Tourism-Related Tax Trends in Grand County .................................................... 3-114 

Table 3.36. Visitation Trends...................................................................................................3-115 

xx 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

Table 3.37. Budget and Fee Collections for Programs in the MPA, 2003 ............................. 3-116 

Table 3.38. Grand County Agricultural Data...........................................................................3-117 

Table 3.39. Current Oil and Gas Activity on Lands Administered by the MFO..................... 3-119 

Table 3.40. Grand County Population by Race and Ethnicity.................................................3-122 

Table 3.41. Summary of Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................ 3-130 

Table 3.42. River Segments in the MPA Meeting Wild and Scenic River Eligibility ............3-143 

Table 3.43. BLM Wilderness Study Areas under Jurisdiction of the MFO1 ...........................3-145 

Table 3.44. Inventoried Ways and Known Impairments within WSA in the MPA ................3-146 

Table 3.45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened, Endangered and Candidate 

Species Occurring in the MPA, Utah ...................................................................3-148 

Table 3.46. BLM Sensitive Species Occurring in the MPA....................................................3-152 

Table 3.47. State/BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the MPA, 

though Not Detected in the Last 10 Years............................................................3-155 

Table 3.48. BLM Sensitive Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the MPA................3-162 

Table 3.49. Acres of Land by GAP Cover Type in the MPA..................................................3-169 

Table 3.50. Noxious and Invasive Species of Grand County, Utah ........................................3-172 

Table 3.51. 2003 VRM Inventory Classes...............................................................................3-176 

Table 3.52. BLM-managed Mule Deer Habitat in the MPA ................................................... 3-177 

Table 3.53. UDWR Target Wintering Mule Deer Herd Size and Annual Harvest for the 

Two WMUs Associated with the Planning Area.................................................. 3-178 

Table 3.54. UDWR Current Mule Deer Estimates .................................................................. 3-178 

Table 3.55. BLM-managed Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat in the MPA................................... 3-179 

Table 3.56. UDWR Wildlife Management Goals for Rocky Mountain Elk ........................... 3-179 

Table 3.57. UDWR Current Rocky Mountain Elk Estimates.................................................. 3-180 

Table 3.58. UDWR Wildlife Management Goals, Estimates, and Trends for Pronghorn....... 3-182 

Table 3.59. UDWR Current Desert Bighorn Sheep Estimates in the MPA ............................ 3-184 

Table 3.60. UDWR Wildlife Management Goals for Desert Bighorn Sheep in the MPA......3-184 

Table 3.61. BLM-managed Upland Game Habitat in the MPA .............................................. 3-186 

Table 3.62. UDWR Inventory of Fisheries within the MPA ...................................................3-187 

Table 4.1. Predicted Oil and Gas Development and Associated Surface Disturbance for 

Each RFD Area within the MPA (All Lands) .......................................................... 4-4 

Table 4.2. Summary of Predicted Surface Disturbance for Oil and Gas Activity on BLM 

Lands Only................................................................................................................4-4 

xxi 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

Table 4.3. Summary of Total Predicted Surface Disturbance for Mineral Development 

Activities (acres).......................................................................................................4-7 

Table 4.4. Critical Elements.........................................................................................................4-8 

Table 4.5. Resources Not Impacted by Program Decisions in Chapter 2 (X = No Impact)...... 4-11 

Table 4.6. Emission Rates for Compressors .............................................................................. 4-17 

Table 4.7. Emission Rates for Glycol Dehydrators ................................................................... 4-18 

Table 4.8. Emission Rates for Flaring ....................................................................................... 4-18 

Table 4.9. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas under 

Alternative A over 15 years....................................................................................4-21 

Table 4.10. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year 

Emissions for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development 

under Alternative A ................................................................................................4-21 

Table 4.11. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO 

Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under Alternative A.................... 4-22 

Table 4.12. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative B over 15 years.......................................................................... 4-23 

Table 4.13. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under 

Alternative B...........................................................................................................4-24 

Table 4.14. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO 

Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under Alternative B..................... 4-25 

Table 4.15. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under the Proposed Plan over 15 years...................................................................4-26 

Table 4.16. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under the 

Proposed Plan ......................................................................................................... 4-27 

Table 4.17. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO 

Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under the Proposed Plan ............. 4-27 

Table 4.18. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative D over 15 years.......................................................................... 4-29 

Table 4.19. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under 

Alternative D ..........................................................................................................4-30 

Table 4.20. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO 

Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under Alternative D.................... 4-30 

Table 4.21. Comparison Among Alternatives of Emitted Pollutants Associated with Oil 

and Gas Development............................................................................................. 4-31 

Table 4.22. Impacts Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................... 4-34 

xxii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

Table 4.23. Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives ......................................................... 4-38 

Table 4.24. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative A ..............................................4-39 

Table 4.25. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative B ..............................................4-43 

Table 4.26. Acres of High Site Density Lands in ACECs with Stipulations Affecting 

Cultural Resources, Alternative B ..........................................................................4-47 

Table 4.27. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under the Proposed Plan .......................................4-48 

Table 4.28. Acres of High Site Density Lands in ACECs with Stipulations Affecting 

Cultural Resources, the Proposed Plan...................................................................4-52 

Table 4.29. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative D ..............................................4-52 

Table 4.30. Acreage of MPA Lands Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Development 

(% of Planning Area)..............................................................................................4-58 

Table 4.31. SRMA Acreage by Alternative...............................................................................4-59 

Table 4.32. Acreage of ACEC Restrictions on Fire Management and Fuels Treatment 

(acres) ..................................................................................................................... 4-60 

Table 4.33. Acres of Seasonal Restrictions on Surface-disturbing Activities in Sensitive 

Species Habitat Areas (For Decisions Not Common To All Alternatives 

Only)....................................................................................................................... 4-61 

Table 4.34. Travel Restrictions Impacting Fire Management and Risk (acres) ........................ 4-62 

Table 4.35. Acres of Seasonal Restrictions on Surface-disturbing Activities in Wildlife 

Habitat Areas (For Decisions Not Common To All Alternatives) ......................... 4-63 

Table 4.36. Woodland Resource Decisions Impacting Fire Management and Risk (acres)......4-64 

Table 4.37. Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under All Alternatives......4-74 

Table 4.38. Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under Alternative A .........4-76 

Table 4.39. Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under Alternative B..........4-77 

Table 4.40. Riparian Acres Not Available for Grazing and AUMs of Forage under 

Alternative B1 .........................................................................................................4-78 

Table 4.41. Additional Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under the 

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

Table 4.42. Acres Unavailable for Grazing and AUMs of Forage under the Proposed Plan ....4-81 

Table 4.43. Additional Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under 

Alternative D ..........................................................................................................4-83 

Table 4.44. Total AUMs of Forage Available and Not Available to Livestock by 

Alternative ..............................................................................................................4-84 

Table 4.45. Total Acreage Available and Not Available to Livestock by Alternative.............. 4-84 

Table 4.46. Annual Average Acres of Disturbance Due to Minerals Extraction Activities 

Under All Alternatives, as well as Percent of Total Planning Area ....................... 4-85 

xxiii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

Table 4.47. Baseline/RFD Acreages of Lands and Average Predicted Number of Oil and 

Gas Wells in the Seven RFD Areas, over 15 Years ............................................... 4-86 

Table 4.48. Acres of BLM Lands Available for Mineral Resource Development under 

Each Alternative .....................................................................................................4-88 

Table 4.49. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative A, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY)......4-91 

Table 4.50. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative B, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY)......4-93 

Table 4.51. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under the Proposed Plan, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year 

(MPY)..................................................................................................................... 4-94 

Table 4.52. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative D, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY)......4-95 

Table 4.53. Acreages of Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource 

Development under Alternative B........................................................................ 4-103 

Table 4.54. Suitable Rivers and Restrictions on Mineral Development under Alternative 

B............................................................................................................................ 4-104 

Table 4.55. Acreages of Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource 

Development under the Proposed Plan................................................................. 4-105 

Table 4.56. Suitable Rivers and Restrictions on Mineral Development under the Proposed 

Plan ....................................................................................................................... 4-106 

Table 4.57. Acreages of Each VRM Class, by Alternative .....................................................4-109 

Table 4.58. Acres of Avoidance or Exclusion for Rights-of-way (ROWs) in Non-WSA 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics................................................................. 4-117 

Table 4.59. Bookcliffs RFD Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ....4-121 

Table 4.60. Big Flat-Hatch Point RFD Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics....................................................................................................... 4-121 

Table 4.61. Eastern Paradox RFD Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics....................................................................................................... 4-122 

Table 4.62. RFD Areas with Projected Number of Wells per Year, over 15 Years ................ 4-122 

Table 4.63. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Leasing Stipulations By 

Alternative ............................................................................................................4-123 

Table 4.64. OHV Management in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics........... 4-149 

Table 4.65. VRM Designation in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

(acres) ................................................................................................................... 4-158 

Table 4.66. Wood-Cutting Restrictions in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics....................................................................................................... 4-163 

xxiv 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

Table 4.67. Summary of Oil and Gas Leasing Involving Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics.................................................................................... 4-168 

Table 4.68. Summary of VRM Classes Involving Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics....................................................................................................... 4-168 

Table 4.69. Summary of OHV Area Designations Involving Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics.................................................................................... 4-169 

Table 4.70. Acres of Woodland Harvest Designations Involving Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics.................................................................................... 4-169 

Table 4.71. Mapped Geologic Units Within the MPA and their PFYC Classes in 

Approximate Descending Stratigraphic Order ..................................................... 4-174 

Table 4.72. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative A for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA................................. 4-183 

Table 4.73. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative B for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA................................. 4-184 

Table 4.74. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

the Proposed Plan for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA.......................... 4-184 

Table 4.75. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative D for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA................................. 4-185 

Table 4.76. WSA Acreages by PFYC Class............................................................................ 4-189 

Table 4.77. Recreation Activity Participation..........................................................................4-197 

Table 4.78. Acres Open to Minerals Development and Projected Acres of Surface 

Disturbance (RFD) Associated with Oil and Gas Development, by 

Alternative ............................................................................................................4-204 

Table 4.79. Summary of SRMA Recreation Analysis Data by Alternative ............................4-208 

Table 4.80. VRM Management Classes I and II Acreage, by Alternative ..............................4-240 

Table 4.81. Grazing Restrictions (i.e., in Riparian Areas, by Alternative)..............................4-244 

Table 4.82. Acreage Managed as SRMA, by Alternative........................................................4-246 

Table 4.83. Acres of Riparian Areas, by OHV Area Designation, by Alternative.................. 4-247 

Table 4.84. Livestock Grazing Acres Available per Alternative.............................................4-260 

Table 4.85.A. Summary of Well Potential and Acres Open to Leasing on BLM Land per 

Alternative ............................................................................................................4-261 

Table 4.86.A. Annual Estimated Royalty Revenue per Alternative........................................ 4-264 

Table 4.86.B. Annual Estimated Severance and Ad Valorem (Property) Taxes per 

Alternative ............................................................................................................4-265 

Table 4.87. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative....................................................................4-279 

Table 4.88. Factors Contributing to Site Degradation and Their Inherent Risks* ..................4-281 

xxv 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

Table 4.89 Sensitive Soils in Designated Utility Corridors..................................................... 4-284 

Table 4.90. Grazing Impacts on Erodible and Reclamation-limited Soils, by Alternative .....4-286 

Table 4.91. Sensitive Soils with Potential to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Leasing, All 

RFD Areas ............................................................................................................ 4-291 

Table 4.92. Oil and Gas Leasing Impacts on Erodible and Reclamation-limited Soils in 

the Bookcliffs and Greater Cisco RFD Areas....................................................... 4-292 

Table 4.93. Sensitive Soils with Potential to be Impacted by OHV Use, by Alternative........ 4-296 

Table 4.94. SRMA Acreage, by Alternative............................................................................4-297 

Table 4.95. Acres of Sensitive Soils adjacent to River Segments Eligible for WSR 

Designation as Wild, by Alternative.....................................................................4-304 

Table 4.96. Acres ACEC Designated and % WSA by Alternative ......................................... 4-309 

Table 4.97. Potential ACECs, Number of Wells Predicted, and Currently Leased Acreage .. 4-310 

Table 4.98. Acres of Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and 

Gas Development*, by Alternative....................................................................... 4-312 

Table 4.99. Acres of Book Cliffs Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas 

Development*, by Alternative.............................................................................. 4-314 

Table 4.100. Acres of Canyon Rims Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and 

Gas Development*, by Alternative....................................................................... 4-316 

Table 4.101. Acres of Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex Potential ACEC Likely to 

be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative................................ 4-317 

Table 4.102. Acres of Colorado River Corridor Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by 

Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative.......................................................... 4-320 

Table 4.103. Acres of Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon Potential ACEC Likely 

to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative............................ 4-324 

Table 4.104. Acres of Labyrinth Canyon Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil 

and Gas Development*, by Alternative................................................................ 4-326 

Table 4.105. Acres of Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil 

and Gas Development*, by Alternative................................................................ 4-328 

Table 4.106. Acres of Ten Mile Wash Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and 

Gas Development*, by Alternative....................................................................... 4-329 

Table 4.107. Acres of Upper Courthouse Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil 

and Gas Development*, by Alternative................................................................ 4-331 

Table 4.108. Acres of White Wash Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas 

Development*, by Alternative.............................................................................. 4-334 

Table 4.109. Acres of Wilson Arch Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and 

Gas Development*, by Alternative....................................................................... 4-336 

xxvi 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

Table 4.110. River Segments that would be Determined Suitable and Total River Miles 

by Alternative ....................................................................................................... 4-337 

Table 4.111. WSRs, Number of Wells Predicted, and Currently Leased Acreage.................. 4-339 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR 

Designation, by Alternative.................................................................................. 4-341 

Table 4.113. WSA Acreages within the MPA......................................................................... 4-353 

Table 4.114. OHV Designations in WSAs, by Alternative ..................................................... 4-354 

Table 4.115. Miles of Route Designated, by WSA and by Alternative................................... 4-354 

Table 4.116. Special Status Species in the MPA, by Habitat Type......................................... 4-359 

Table 4.117. Federally Listed Species' Riparian Habitat Proposed for Utility Corridors, in 

Acres and Percent of Total Habitat in the MPA, by Alternative .......................... 4-373 

Table 4.118. Acres of Grazing Exclusions in Special Status Species Habitats, by 

Alternative ............................................................................................................4-374 

Table 4.119. Salable Minerals Acres of Desert Shrub Habitat by Alternative........................4-378 

Table 4.120. Salable Minerals Acres of Sagebrush and Perennial Grassland Habitat by 

Alternative ............................................................................................................4-378 

Table 4.121. Salable Minerals Acres of Piñon-Juniper Woodland Habitat by Alternative.....4-379 

Table 4.122. Salable Minerals Acres of Conifer and Mountain Shrub Habitat by 

Alternative ............................................................................................................4-379 

Table 4.123. Percentage of Species Habitat Affected by Habitat Fragmentation, by 

Alternative ............................................................................................................4-380 

Table 4.124. Salable Minerals Acres of Riparian Habitat by Alternative ...............................4-381 

Table 4.125. Average Acre-Feet of Water Required for Drilling and Extraction by 

Alternative, Over the Life of the Plan .................................................................. 4-382 

Table 4.126. Existing Protected Special Status Species Habitat, and Acres and Percentage 

of This Total Habitat Proposed as Closed to Leasing or NSO, by Alternative .... 4-383 

Table 4.127. Acres of Predicted Special Status Species' Habitat Disturbance in the MPA, 

by Alternative ....................................................................................................... 4-385 

Table 4.128. Acres of Designated Non-motorized Focus Areas, by Alternative ....................4-390 

Table 4.129. Special Status Species Habitats Included within ACECs for Alternative B.......4-399 

Table 4.130. Special Status Species Habitats Included within ACECs for the Proposed 

Plan ....................................................................................................................... 4-400 

Table 4.131. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat Managed as Wild and Scenic 

River, by Alternative ............................................................................................4-401 

Table 4.132. Acreage of OHV Travel Designation Impacts, by Alternative........................... 4-405 

xxvii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

Table 4.133. Acreage Within Select Special Status Species Habitats Closed to OHV Use, 

by Alternative ....................................................................................................... 4-405 

Table 4.134. Acreages in Each VRM Class, by Alternative....................................................4-408 

Table 4.135. Acreage of All Wildlife Timing Restrictions for Vegetation Types by 

Alternative ............................................................................................................4-411 

Table 4.136. OHV Designations by Alternative...................................................................... 4-418 

Table 4.137. Acreage of Vegetation Types Potentially Impacted in Utility Corridors, by 

Alternative ............................................................................................................4-424 

Table 4.138. Acres of Each Vegetation Type Excluded from Grazing by Alternative ........... 4-426 

Table 4.139. Predicted Surface Disturbance on BLM Lands from Minerals Activities for 

the 15-Year Life of the Plan (Acres) .................................................................... 4-427 

Table 4.140. SRMA Acreages Proposed Under Each Alternative ..........................................4-428 

Table 4.141. Acres of Each Vegetation Type Protected in the Action Alternatives Due to 

Slope Steepness Category.....................................................................................4-430 

Table 4.142. OHV Area Designations for All Alternatives.....................................................4-436 

Table 4.143. Number of Acres in the MPA Open and Closed to Woodland Harvesting ........ 4-440 

Table 4.144. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative.................................................................. 4-442 

Table 4.145. MPA VRM Acreage Designations (by percent)................................................. 4-443 

Table 4.146. Acreage Comparison of Action Alternatives' VRM Management Classes to 

Alternative A VRM Inventory Classes.................................................................4-443 

Table 4.147. The 15-year Oil and Gas Reasonably Foreseeable Development within the 

Big Flat-Hatch Point and Eastern Paradox RFD Areas........................................ 4-444 

Table 4.148. Grouping of Wildlife Species by Habitat Type .................................................. 4-450 

Table 4.149. Acres of Surface Disturbance due to Utility Corridors by Major Habitat 

Type ...................................................................................................................... 4-454 

Table 4.150. Estimated Surface Disturbance (in acres) for Oil and Gas Well 

Development, by Vegetation (Wildlife Habitat) Type ......................................... 4-462 

Table 4.151. Acres of Big Game Crucial Habitat Open and Closed to Surface Disturbance 

in the MPA by Alternative.................................................................................... 4-463 

Table 4.152. Estimated Surface Disturbance (in Acres) on BLM Lands Associated with 

Geophysical Exploration by Vegetation Type...................................................... 4-464 

Table 4.153. Acres of SRMAs and Designated "Non-Motorized Focus Areas" by 

Alternative* ..........................................................................................................4-472 

Table 4.154. Number of Acres Within Big Game Habitats That are Protected for Special 

Status Species ....................................................................................................... 4-476 

Table 4.155. Wildlife Habitat Closed to OHV Use Under Each Alternative .......................... 4-479 

xxviii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

Table 4.156. OHV Use Stipulations in Wildlife Habitat Under Each Alternative ..................4-479 

Table 4.157. Number of Acres in the MPA Open and Closed to Woodland Harvesting ........ 4-488 

Table 4.158. Percent of Mule Deer and/or Elk Habitat Considered Unfavorable After 

Fragmentation by Roads (road density > 0.16 km/km2)....................................... 4-490 

Table 4.159. Percent of Mule Deer and/or Elk Habitat Considered Unfavorable After 

Fragmentation by Roads (road density > 0.62 km/km2)....................................... 4-490 

Table 4.160. Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat Fragmentation.................................................... 4-491 

Table 4.161. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat Fragmentation Analysis (acres)......... 4-491 

Table 4.162. Percentage of Vegetation Habitat Types Impacted by 400-meter Road 

Buffer for Migratory Birds ................................................................................... 4-492 

Table 4.163. Acres Closed to Woodland Harvesting within Non-WSA Areas Identified 

with Wilderness Characteristics ........................................................................... 4-495 

Table 4.164. Acres Closed to Woodland Harvesting within SRMAs...................................... 4-495 

Table 4.165. Acres Closed to Woodland Harvesting within Potential ACECs.......................4-497 

Table 4.166. Woodland Acres in the MPA.............................................................................. 4-497 

Table 5.1. Tribal Organizations Contacted by the BLM, Utah State Director ............................5-3 

Table 5.2. Meetings with Tribal Organizations as part of Scoping for the Land-use Plan..........5-4 

Table 5.3. Meetings with Tribal Organizations to Discuss Draft Alternatives............................5-4 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review............................................................................................ 5-7 

Table 5.5. Open House Locations and Attendance.................................................................... 5-21 

Table 5.6 Open House Locations, Dates, and Attendance.........................................................5-23 

Table 5.7. List of Organizations and Individuals that Submitted Substantive Comments ........ 5-27 

Table 5.8. List of Individuals that Submitted Substantive Comments ...................................... 5-31 

Table 5.9.a–c Public Comments and Responses........................................................................ 5-37 

Table 5.10.a–t Comments Requiring a Change in the Document............................................ 5-118 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS ..........................................................5-160 

Table 5.12. List of Preparers....................................................................................................5-164

xxix 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Tables 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

 

xxx 
List of Maps 

(MAPS CONTAINED IN VOLUME 3) 

1-1 Moab Planning Area 

2-1 Existing Withdrawals from Mineral Entry 

2-2-B Utility Corridors-Alternative B 

2-2-C Utility Corridors-Proposed Plan 

2-2-D Utility Corridors-Alternative D 

2-3 Lands Identified for Disposal 

2-4 Grazing Allotments in the Moab Field Office 

2-4-A Areas Not Available for Livestock Grazing-Alternative A 

2-4-B Areas Not Available for Livestock Grazing-Alternative B 

2-4-C Areas Not Available for Livestock Grazing-Proposed Plan 

2-4-D Areas Not Available for Livestock Grazing-Alternative D 

2-5-A Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations-Alternative A 

2-5-B Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations-Alternative B 

2-5-C Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations-Proposed Plan 

2-5-D Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations-Alternative D 

2-6 Known Potash Leasing Areas 

2-7 Salable Minerals Sites 

2-8-A Special Recreation Management Areas-Alternative A 

2-8-B Special Recreation Management Areas-Alternative B 

2-8-C Special Recreation Management Areas-Proposed Plan 

2-8-D Special Recreation Management Areas-Alternative D 

2-9-B Recreation Focus Areas-Alternative B 

2-9-C Recreation Focus Areas-Proposed Plan 

2-9-D Recreation Focus Areas-Alternative D 

2-10-A Off Highway Vehicle Categories-Alternative A 

2-10-B Off Highway Vehicle Categories-Alternative B 

2-10-C Off Highway Vehicle Categories-Proposed Plan 

2-10-D Off Highway Vehicle Categories-Alternative D 

2-11-A Inventoried Routes-Alternative A 

2-11-B Designated Routes-Alternative B

xxxi 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Maps 

2-11-C Designated Routes-Proposed Plan 

2-11-D Designated Routes-Alternative D 

2-11-E (A) Inventoried Motorcycle Routes-Alternative A 

2-11-E (B) Designated Motorcycle Routes-Alternative B 

2-11-E (C) Designated Motorcycle Routes-Proposed Plan 

2-11-E (D) Designated Motorcycle Routes-Alternative D 

2-11-F (B) Mountain Bike Single Track Trails-Alternative B 

2-11-F (C) Mountain Bike Single Track Trails-Proposed Plan 

2-11-F (D) Mountain Bike Single Track Trails-Alternative D 

2-12 Steep Slopes (Over 30 Percent) in Bookcliffs 

2-13 Moderate to High Saline Soils 

2-14-A Areas of Critical Environmental Concern-Alternative A 

2-14-B Areas of Critical Environmental Concern-Alternative B 

2-14-C Areas of Critical Environmental Concern-Proposed Plan 

2-15-B Wild and Scenic Rivers-Alternative B 

2-15-C Wild and Scenic Rivers-Proposed Plan 

2-16 Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas 

2-17 Endangered Colorado River Fish Critical Habitat 

2-18 Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat 

2-19 Bald and Golden Eagle Habitat 

2-20 Sage Grouse Habitat 

2-21 Prairie Dog Sensitive Species Habitat 

2-22 Ferruginous Hawk and Burrowing Owl Habitat 

2-23-A Visual Resource Management-Alternative A 

2-23-B Visual Resource Management-Alternative B 

2-23-C Visual Resource Management-Proposed Plan 

2-23-D Visual Resource Management-Alternative D 

2-24-B Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics-Alternative B 

2-24-C Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics-Proposed Plan 

2-25 Pronghorn Habitat 

2-25-A Pronghorn Habitat-Alternative A 

2-26-A Desert Bighorn Sheep Protected Habitat-Alternative A 

xxxii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Maps 

2-26-B Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing, Rutting, and Migration Habitat-Alternative B 

2-26-C Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing, Rutting, and Migration Habitat-Proposed Plan 

2-26-D Desert Bighorn Sheep Lambing, Rutting, and Migration Habitat-Alternative D 

2-27-A Deer and/or Elk Protected Habitat-Alternative A 

2-27-B Deer and/or Elk Habitat-Alternative B 

2-27-C/D Deer and/or Elk Habitat-Proposed Plan and Alternative D 

2-28 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat 

2-29-A Areas Not Available for Woodland Harvest and Wood Gathering-Alternative A 

2-29-B Areas Not Available for Woodland Harvest and Wood Gathering-Alternative B 

2-29-C Areas Not Available for Woodland Harvest and Wood Gathering-Proposed Plan 

2-29-D Areas Not Available for Woodland Harvest and Wood Gathering-Alternative D 

3-1 Moab Planning Area Oil and Gas Fields 

3-2 Moab Planning Area Composite Oil and Gas Development Potential 

3-3 Moab Planning Area Coalbed Methane-Development Potential 

3-4 Moab Planning Area Coal Deposit-Development Potential 

3-5 Moab Planning Area Potash and Salt Deposit-Development Potential 

3-6 Moab Planning Area Uranium/Vanadium Deposit-Development Potential 

3-7 Moab Planning Area Copper Deposit-Development Potential 

3-8 Moab Planning Area Limestone Deposit-Development Potential 

3-9 Moab Planning Area Sand and Gravel Deposit-Development Potential 

3-10 Moab Planning Area Building Stone Deposit-Development Potential 

3-11 Moab Planning Area Travertine Deposit-Development Potential 

3-12 Moab Planning Area Humate Deposit-Development Potentail 

3-13 Moab Planning Area Clay Deposit-Development Potential 

3-14 Generalized Geology of the Planning Area 

3-15 Vegetation Types 

3-16 Moab Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Areas 

xxxiii 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Maps 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xxxiv 
List of Appendices 

(APPENDICES CONTAINED IN VOLUME 3) 

Appendix A Land Tenure Adjustment And Withdrawal Criteria 

Appendix B Film Permits: Minimum Impact Criteria 

Appendix C Stipulations and Environmental Best Practices Applicable to Oil And Gas Leasing 

And Other Surface-disturbing Activities 

Appendix D Lands Identified For Disposal In Revised Moab RMP 

Appendix E Moab Field Office Recreation Rules 

Appendix F Special Recreation Management Areas: Goals, Settings, Outcomes and 

Management Prescriptions 

Appendix G Travel Plan Development 

Appendix H Hydraulic Considerations for Pipelines Crossing Stream Channels; Technical 

Note 423 

Appendix I Relevance and Importance Evaluations of Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) Nominations 

Appendix J Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process 

Appendix K Conservation Measures For T & E Species Of Utah From The Use Plan 

Programmatic Bas And Section 7 Consultations 

Appendix L Desired Future Condition for Vegetation 

Appendix M Drought Classification System 

Appendix N Additional Wildlife Information 

Appendix O Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in Utah, 

August 2006 

Appendix P Identification of Wilderness Characteristics on Non-WSA Lands Managed by 

Moab BLM 

Appendix Q Standards and Guides for Grazing Management 

Appendix R Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management for 

BLM Lands in Utah 

Appendix S Wildlife Impacts by RFD Area 

Appendix T Utah State University Study Results 

Appendix U Changes Between Moab Draft RMP/EIS and Moab Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Appendix V Letter from the State of Utah Regarding Air Quality Mitigation Strategies 

xxxv 
Moab PRMP/FEIS List of Appendices 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

xxxvi 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

The BLM Moab (Utah) Field Office (Moab FO) has prepared this Proposed Resource 

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) to provide direction 

for managing public lands within the Moab Field Office and to analyze the environmental 

effects. A Draft RMP/EIS with four alternatives was presented to the public on August 25, 2007, 

which initiated a 90-day public comment period. The comments submitted by the public were 

considered in formulating the Proposed RMP, also referred to as the Proposed Plan. 

The Proposed RMP will replace the Grand Resource Area Resource Management Plan (RMP), 

which was signed in 1985. The Proposed RMP covers the same area as that covered by the 1985 

RMP, which is all of Grand County and the northern one-third of San Juan County (BLM 1985). 

The Moab planning area (MPA) comprises approximately 2,756,065 acres of land, of which 

approximately 1,822,562 acres is public land administered by the BLM. Due to its easier access, 

the BLM Vernal FO presently manages a small amount of public land at the top of the Book 

Cliffs along the northern portion of the MPA. 

The MPA is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau 

Physiographic Province. Geographically, the Moab FO is bounded by the Bookcliffs to the north, 

the Utah-Colorado state line to the east, Harts Point and Lisbon Valley to the south, and the 

Green River to the west. Major waterways within the planning area include the Colorado River, 

the Dolores River, and the Green River. Elevations within the planning area range from 

approximately 13,000 feet above mean sea level in the La Sal Mountains to approximately 3,900 

feet above mean sea level at Mineral Bottom along the Green River. 

The planning area encompasses Arches National Park, Dead Horse Point State Park, and the La 

Sal Mountains of the Manti-La Sal National Forest. The Moab FO shares boundaries with lands 

administered by the BLM Vernal, Monticello, Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, Dolores, and Price 

FOs, as well as with the Uintah/Ouray Indian Reservation and Canyonlands National Park. 

The Proposed RMP was prepared using the BLM’s planning regulations and guidance issued 

under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. An 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is incorporated into this document to meet the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and 

requirements of BLM’s NEPA Handbook 1790-1. 

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

ES.2.1 PURPOSE

FLPMA requires that the BLM "develop, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land-use plans" 

(43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1712 [a]). The BLM has determined it is necessary to revise 

existing land-use plans (LUP) and prepare a new RMP for the MPA based on a number of new 

issues that have arisen since preparation of the existing land-use plan (1985). The purpose of this 

Proposed RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework for BLM's management of the public 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Executive Summary 

lands within the MPA and its allocation of resources pursuant to the multiple-use and sustained 

yield mandate of FLPMA. 

ES.2.2 NEED

The Proposed Plan as presented in this document is necessary because there have been 

significant changes within the MPA since the time of the 1985 RMP. 

ES.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement has been an integral part of BLM’s RMP effort. 

The scoping period for the Moab RMP began on June 4, 2003 and ended on January 31, 2004. 

Comments obtained from the public during the scoping period were used to define the relevant 

issues that would be resolved by presenting a broad range of alternative management actions. 

The Draft RMP/EIS was released to the public on August 25, 2007, with publication of the 

Notice of Availability by the Environmental Protection Agency. A 90-day public comment 

period ended on November 30, 2007. The BLM hosted four open houses during the public 

comment period to provide information to the public on the content of the Draft RMP/EIS and 

how to provide comments. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) in the Draft RMP/EIS was 

adjusted based on public comment to formulate the Proposed Plan which is presented in this 

document. See Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, for additional information on public 

involvement in the RMP process. 

ES.4 PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed Plan and three alternatives from the Draft RMP/EIS are presented in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. Alternative C has been adjusted based on public comment and review of the 

Draft RMP/EIS and now represents the BLM’s Proposed Plan. 

ES.4.1 ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION

Alternative A would be a continuation of existing management under the current Grand 

Resource Area RMP (1985), as amended. 

ES.4.2 ALTERNATIVE B

Alternative B would offer more protection for wildlife and other natural resources, and favor 

natural systems over commodities development. It would emphasize the protection of natural 

resources and landscapes as well as non-motorized recreation. 

ES.4.3 PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan would protect important environmental values and sensitive resources while 

allowing for commodities development. It would provide a balance between protection of 

important natural resources and commodity production, as well as offer a full range of recreation 

opportunities. 

Under the Proposed Plan, 1,866 acres would be open to cross country OHV use, 339,298 acres 

would be closed, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes in the remainder of the 

ES-2 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Executive Summary 

planning area (Table ES1). Approximately 2,642 miles of travel routes (including motorcycle 

trails) would be designated (Table ES2). Under the Proposed Plan, ten Special Recreation 

Management Areas (SRMAs) would be designated, and 30 Focus Areas which emphasize a 

particular recreation activity would be established (Table ES3). 

Five Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) would be designated under the Proposed 

Plan, and 10 segments of 3 eligible rivers would be recommended as suitable for Wild and 

Scenic River (WSR) designation (Table ES4). Approximately 47,761 acres of non-Wilderness 

Study Area (WSA) lands (in 3 areas) would be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their 

wilderness characteristics (Table ES5). All BLM lands within the MPA are classified for oil and 

gas leasing stipulations. About 370,250 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. About 

217,480 acres would be managed with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations, and 427,273 

acres would be open with standard stipulations (Table ES6). The remaining 806,994 acres would 

be managed with timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulations. 

ES.5.4 ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D would emphasize commodity development over the protection of natural 

resources, and would emphasize motorized recreation. 

The following Tables present a summary of decisions, comparing the Proposed Plan to the No 

Action alternative. Table ES1 provides the acreage open, limited and closed to OHVs; Table 

ES2 provides the miles of designated routes; Table ES3 shows the SRMAs and Focus Areas; 

Table ES4 gives the Special Designations; Table ES5 provides the acreage of lands managed to 

protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness characteristics, and Table ES6 compares the oil 

and gas stipulations in the Proposed Plan and the No Action alternative. 

Table ES1. OHV Categories (acres) in No Action 

Alternative vs. Proposed Plan 

Category Alt A 

No Action 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Closed 5,062 339,298 

Limited to Existing 1,196,9201 0 

Limited to 

Designated 

0 1,481,334 

Open 620,212 1,866 

1 48,169 acres would be limited to designated roads and trails; and 309,749 

acres would be limited to inventoried routes in WSAs. 

ES-3 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Executive Summary 

Table ES2. Designated Routes (miles) In Inventory 

vs. Proposed Plan 

Item Inventory PROPOSED 

PLAN

D and B routes 6,199 3,693 

D Routes1 only 4,673 2,519

Singletrack 

Motocycle Routes 129 150 

Motorcycle 

Routes on 

Existing D Routes 142 163 

1 At time of publication. 

Table ES3. SRMAs and Focus Areas In No Action 

Alternative vs. Proposed Plan 

Category Alt A (ac) 

No Action 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

SRMAs 3 (141,234) 10 (658,642) 

Focus Areas 0 30 

Table ES4. Special Designations In No Action Alternative vs. 

Proposed Plan 

Alt A 

No Action

PROPOSED 

PLAN

Areas of Critical Number 0 5 

Environmental 

Concern Acres 0 63,232 

Wild and Scenic Eligible Segments 12 29 

Rivers Suitable Segments Deferred 10 

Table ES5. Non-WSA Areas Managed for 

Wilderness Characteristics In No Action 

Alternative vs. Proposed Plan 

Alt A 

No Action

PROPOSED 

PLAN

Units (#) 0 3 

Acres 0 47,761 

ES-4 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Executive Summary 

Table ES6. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres) 

Stipulation Alt A 

No Action 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Standard 1,038,344 427,273 

TL and CSU 389,605 806,994 

NSO 38,912 217,480 

Closed 353,293 370,250

Projected No. of 

wells/LOP 451 432

ES.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Selection of Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would maintain the current rate of 

progress in meeting land health standards and protecting resource values. It would allow for use 

levels to mostly continue at current levels in the same places in the MPA, with adjustments 

required in order to meet Standards for Rangeland Health or to mitigate resource concerns in 

compliance with existing laws and regulations. 

Alternative B would have the least potential to adversely impact physical and biological 

resources and would protect a variety of vegetation types and wildlife habitats. Alternative B 

would be the most restrictive to commodity extraction. Consequently, Alternative B would have 

the greatest potential for short-term adverse impacts to local economies and businesses that 

depend on public land for commodity extraction. 

Implementation of the Proposed Plan would allow for many uses to continue but would constrain 

certain activities in order to maintain or protect important natural resources. This could result in 

some short-term adverse impacts to local economies and resource extraction businesses, but 

long-term economic benefits would be gained from the emphasis on a diversity of recreational 

activities. 

Alternative D offers the greatest potential benefits to the local economy from traditional 

commodity extraction. Commodity extraction uses would generally be least encumbered by 

management decisions under this alternative. Alternative D would result in greater impacts on 

the physical and biological environment than actions proposed under Alternative B or the 

Proposed Plan. 

See Table 2.2 at the end of Chapter 2, Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives, for a summary of 

potential impacts of the Proposed Plan and the three alternatives brought forward from the Draft 

RMP/EIS. Detailed descriptions of impacts of the Proposed Plan and the draft alternatives are 

provided in Chapter 4. 

ES.6: CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT RMP TO THE PROPOSED RMP 

As a result of public comment and internal review of the Draft RMP/EIS, the Preferred 

Alternative has been adjusted and now represents BLM’s Proposed Action in the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. Changes regarding alternatives focused on adjustments to the Preferred 

ES-5 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Executive Summary 

Alternative in order to address public concerns while continuing to meet BLM’s legal and 

regulatory mandates. Changes between the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/FEIS include 

clarifications in wording, changes to the Preferred Alternative (such as adding two allotments as 

unavailable for grazing). Additional information and changes throughout the document have 

been shaded in light gray (with the exception of Chapter 5). See the end of Chapter 1, 

Introduction, Purpose and Need, for a summary of these changes. See Appendix U for a 

complete listing of every change between the Draft RMP/EIS and the present document. 

ES.7: NEXT STEPS

Following publication by the EPA and the BLM of a Notice of Availability of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS in the Federal Register and distribution of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, there 

will be a 30 day protest period. In addition, a 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review period 

runs concurrently with the first half of the protest period. 

The State Director will approve the Proposed RMP/FEIS by issuing a public Record of Decision 

(ROD), which is a concise document summarizing the findings and decisions brought forward 

from the Proposed RMP. However, approval shall be withheld on any portion of a plan being 

protested until final action has been completed on such protest. Before such approval is given, 

there shall be public notice and opportunity for public comment on any significant change made 

to the proposed plan. Among other decisions, the proposed ACEC designations and OHV 

categories (limitations and closures) will be approved when the ROD is signed. Implementation 

level decisions brought forward into this planning process will be appealable for 30 days after 

the ROD is signed. 

ES-6 
1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to develop and periodically revise its Resource Management Plans (RMPs), 

which guide management of BLM-administered public lands. The BLM Moab, Utah, Field 

Office (MFO) is revising the Grand Resource Area RMP, which was last revised in 1985 (BLM 

1985a). The new plan, which is to be called the Moab RMP, in conjunction with the 

accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), will provide future management direction 

for public lands within the boundaries of the Moab Planning Area (MPA). The Moab RMP 

covers all of Grand County and the northern third of San Juan County. The Proposed Plan 

presented in this document was crafted from the four alternatives presented in the Draft 

RMP/EIS that was released to the public for a 90-day comment period on August 25, 2007. 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

1.1.1 PURPOSE

FLPMA requires that the BLM "develop, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land-use plans" 

(43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1712 [a]). The BLM has determined it is necessary to revise 

existing land-use plans (LUP) and prepare a new RMP for the MPA based on a number of new 

issues that have arisen since preparation of the existing plans. In general, the purpose of this 

RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework for the BLM's management of the public lands 

within the MPA and its allocation of resources pursuant to the multiple-use and sustained yield 

mandate of FLPMA. In addition, the purpose of this plan revision is as follows: 

• To consolidate the existing LUP and its amendments. 

• To reevaluate, with public involvement, existing conditions, resources, and uses, and 

reconsider the mix of resource allocations and management decisions designed to balance 

uses and the protection of resources pursuant to FLPMA and applicable law. 

• To resolve multiple-use conflicts or issues between resource values and resource uses. The 

resulting Moab RMP will establish consolidated guidance and updated goals, objectives, and 

management actions for the public lands in the decision area. The RMP will be 

comprehensive in nature and will address issues that have been identified through agency, 

interagency, and public scoping efforts. 

• To disclose and assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the reasonably 

foreseeable future actions resulting from the management actions in the Proposed Plan and 

draft alternatives pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), its implementing regulations, and other applicable laws. 

1.1.2 NEED

A revision to the 1985 RMP is necessary because there have been significant alterations in the 

MPA in light of new information and changed resources, circumstances, and policies that may be 

relevant to the future management of public lands and allocation of resources under the multiple-
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

use and sustained yield mandate. This determination is further corroborated by a Special 

Evaluation Report, completed in 2002 by the MFO (BLM 2002a), which concluded that some of 

the decisions within the 1985 RMP are in need of revision. 

There have been changes in the laws, policies, and regulations that direct the management of the 

resources on MPA public lands. There has also been an increase in the amount of new 

information and resource data that need to be considered to better manage the public lands. 

Population in and visitation to the region have grown, and population demographics have 

changed, as have public awareness and use of lands within the MPA. Specifically, there may be a 

need to evaluate management prescriptions and resource allocations to address the increases in 

recreation and visitor use, including scenic quality and open spaces, as well as the increased 

interest in oil and gas development. Land use plan decisions may be changed only through the 

amendment or revision process. 

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MOAB PLANNING AREA (MPA) 

1.2.1 OVERVIEW

The MPA is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau 

physiographic province (Figure 1.1). It is located in southeastern Utah and includes all of Grand 

County and the northern third of San Juan County. Geographically, the MPA is bounded by the 

Book Cliffs to the north, the Utah-Colorado state line to the east, Harts Point and Lisbon Valley 

to the south, and the Green River to the west. Major waterways within the MPA include the 

Colorado River, the Dolores River, and the Green River. Elevations within the MPA range from 

approximately 13,000 feet above mean sea level in the La Sal Mountains to approximately 3,900 

feet above mean sea level at Mineral Bottom along the Green River. 

The MPA encompasses Arches National Park, Dead Horse Point State Park, the La Sal 

Mountains of the Manti–La Sal National Forest, and the Uintah/Ouray Indian Reservation. The 

MPA shares boundaries with lands administered by the BLM Vernal, Monticello, Grand 

Junction, Uncompahgre, Dolores, and Price FOs, as well as with Canyonlands National Park 

(within the Monticello FO). 

The MPA comprises approximately 2,756,065 acres of land, of which approximately 1,822,562 

acres is public land administered by the BLM (Table 1.1). In addition, the MFO also manages 

approximately 29,680 acres of subsurface mineral estate within the MPA and manages leasable 

minerals on 141,240 acres under U.S. Forest Service lands on the Manti–La Sal National Forest. 

Due to its easier access, the BLM Vernal FO presently manages a small amount of public land 

(33,331 acres) at the top of the Book Cliffs along the northern portion of the MPA. Decisions for 

these 33,331 acres are contained in the Vernal RMP. It is important to note that the BLM may 

only make decisions that affect public lands and resources, but it is responsible for collaborative 

planning with the public and adjacent jurisdictions so as to consider the impacts of its actions on 

all the resources in the region. Land ownership and administration of lands within the MPA are 

described in Table 1.1 and Map 1-1. 

1-2 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

Table 1.1. Land Management within the MPA (acres) 

Land Management Grand County San Juan County Total 

BLM 1,529,390* 293,172 1,822,562* 

Indian Lands 197,992 0 197,992 

Department of Defense 1,631 0 1,631 

National Park Service 76,396 0 76,396 

Private 101,976 56,294 158,270 

State Trust Lands 283,613 56,608 340,221 

State Parks, County, City, Wildlife 

Park, and Outdoor Recreation Areas 

16,339 1,068 17,407 

USDA Forest Service 57,298 83,942 141,240 

Acreage of Water 168 178 346 

Total 2,264,803 491,262 2,756,065 

*This total includes the 33,331 acres managed by the BLM Vernal FO. 

Source: BLM 2004a.

Also contained within the MPA are several communities, diverse terrain, and scenic landscapes 

that figure prominently in the settlement, history, culture, and recreational enjoyment of southern 

Utah. Many occupational pursuits historically associated with this region of the Intermountain 

West—including farming, ranching, mining, tourism, retail trade, transportation, and 

construction—are practiced by residents within the MPA. Major communities in the MPA are 

Moab, La Sal, Castle Valley, Thompson, Crescent Junction, and Elgin. Major transportation 

routes include Interstate 70 (I-70), U.S. Highway 191, and State Routes 279 (Potash State Scenic 

Byway), 128 (Colorado River State Scenic Byway), and 313 (Dead Horse Mesa State Scenic 

Byway). 

1.2.2 LAND USES

The MPA is internationally renowned for both its scenic quality and its recreational 

opportunities, which are the primary land uses in the MPA. Approximately 2 million visitors per 

year enjoy the diverse and varied recreational opportunities of the MPA and form the basis for 

Grand County's tourism-based economy. Recreational opportunities include scenic driving, 

mountain biking, hiking, rafting and boating, rock climbing, riding off-highway vehicles 

(OHVs), and horseback riding. The many trail-based recreational activities in the MPA are 

highly dependent upon route systems. Many of these route systems have been based on the 

network of roads and trails created originally for mineral exploration. 

Mineral exploration and development are the next most prominent use of public lands in the 

MPA. Oil and gas exploration and production has occurred within the MPA continually for the 

past 100 years. Production of oil and gas is currently taking place in Greater Cisco and the 

eastern Book Cliffs, in Lisbon Valley, and on Big Flat. Another current mineral activity in the 

MPA is copper development; a large commercial copper deposit has been delineated in Lisbon 

Valley, and production is currently underway. Uranium deposits can be found throughout the 

southern half of the MPA. These deposits have been mined continually for over 90 years, first for 

1-3 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

their radium content and later for their vanadium co-product. Other mineral deposits within the 

MPA include potash, coal, placer gold, limestone, building stone, travertine, humate, sand and 

gravel, and clay. 

Another aspect of the MPA is the protection of certain natural and cultural resources from the 

impacts of human use. A number of federally listed endangered or threatened wildlife species 

inhabit the MPA, including the Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, Colorado 

pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon. The MPA also 

contains habitat for deer, elk, bighorn sheep (both desert and Rocky Mountain), and pronghorn. 

Prehistoric archaeological sites of ancestral Pueblo and Fremont cultures are also known to be in 

the MPA, as are later historical sites of cultural significance. 

Other land uses within the MPA include rights-of-way (ROWs) for roads, pipelines, power lines, 

and communication sites, as well as commercial filming and livestock grazing. 

1.3 BLM'S PLANNING PROCESS

FLPMA requires the BLM to use LUPs as tools by which "present and future use is projected" 

(43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1701 [a][2]). FLPMA's implementing regulations for planning, 

43 CFR Part 1600, state that land-use plans are a preliminary step in the overall process of 

managing public lands, "designed to guide and control future management actions and the 

development of subsequent, more detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses" (43 

CFR Part 1601.0-2). Public participation and input are important components of land-use 

planning. 

Revision of an existing plan is a major federal action for the BLM. NEPA requires federal 

agencies to prepare an EIS for major federal actions; thus, this EIS accompanies the revision of 

the existing RMP. This EIS analyzes the impacts of the Proposed Plan and three draft 

alternatives for the MPA, including the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative 

reflects current management (the existing plan). NEPA requires analysis of a No Action 

Alternative. 

1.3.1 NINE-STEP PLANNING PROCESS

The BLM uses a nine-step planning process (Figure 1.1) when developing and revising RMPs as 

required by 43 CFR Part 1600 and planning program guidance in the BLM Handbook H-1601-1, 

Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a). The planning process is designed to help the BLM 

identify the uses of BLM-administered lands desired by the public and to consider these uses to 

the extent they are consistent with the laws established by Congress and the policies of the 

executive branch of the federal government. 

As depicted in Figure 1.1, the planning process is issue-driven (Step 1). The plan revision 

process is undertaken to resolve management issues and problems as well as to take advantage of 

management opportunities. The BLM utilized the public scoping process to identify planning 

issues to direct (drive) the revision of the existing plan. The scoping process also was used to 

1-4 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

introduce the public to preliminary planning criteria, which set limits to the scope of the RMP 

revision (Step 2). 

Step 1 – Identification of Issues

Step 2 – Development of Planning Criteria

Step 3 – Inventory Data and Information Collection

Step 4 – Analysis of the Management Situation

Step 5 – Formulation of Alternatives

Step 6 – Estimation of Impacts of Alternatives

Step 7 – Selection of Preferred Alternative

Step 8 – Selection of the Resource Management Plan

Step 9 – Monitoring and Evaluation

Source: 43 CFR 1610.4 

Figure 1.1. Nine-step planning process. 

As appropriate, the BLM used existing data from files and other sources and collected new data 

necessary to update or supplement existing data in order to address planning issues and to fill 

data gaps identified during public scoping (Step 3). Using these data, information concerning the 

resource management programs, and the planning criteria, the BLM completed an Analysis of 

the Management Situation (AMS) (Step 4) to describe current management and to identify 

management opportunities for addressing the planning issues. Current management reflects 

management under the existing plan as well as management that would continue through 

selection of the No Action Alternative. The existing affected environment is summarized from 

the AMS into Chapter 3, Affected Environment, of the Draft RMP/EIS revision. 

Results of the first four steps of the planning process clarified the purpose and need and 

identified key planning issues that need to be addressed by the RMP revision. Key planning 

issues reflect the focus of the RMP revision and are described in more detail in Section 1.3.2, 

below. 

Alternatives constitute a range of management actions that set forth different priorities and 

measures to emphasize certain uses or resource values over other uses or resource values (usually 

representing a continuum from extraction and development to preservation/conservation) 

pursuant to the multiple-use and sustained yield mandates, so as to achieve certain goals or 

1-5 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

objectives. During alternative formulation (Step 5), the BLM collaborated with cooperating 

agencies to identify goals and objectives (desired outcomes) for resources and resource uses in 

the MPA. These desired outcomes addressed the key planning issues, were constrained by the 

planning criteria, and incorporated the management opportunities identified by the BLM. The 

details of alternatives were filled in through the development of management actions and 

allowable uses anticipated to achieve the goals and objectives. The alternatives represent a 

reasonable range for managing resources and resource uses within the MPA. Chapter 2 of this 

document, Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives, describes and summarizes the Proposed Plan 

and draft alternatives considered in detail. 

This Proposed RMP/Final EIS also includes an analysis of the impacts of the Proposed Plan and 

the draft alternatives in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft 

Alternatives, (Step 6). With input from cooperating agencies and BLM specialists, and 

consideration of planning issues, planning criteria, and the impacts of alternatives, the BLM 

identified and recommended that, at the time of the Draft RMP/EIS, Alternative C was the 

Preferred Alternative from among the four alternatives presented (Step 7). This is documented in 

the Draft RMP/EIS, which was distributed for a 90-day public review and comment period on 

August 25, 2007. 

Step 8 of the land-use planning process occurred following receipt and consideration of public 

comments on the Draft RMP/EIS. In preparing the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM 

considered all comments it received during the public comment period. The Proposed Plan was 

crafted from the draft alternatives. 

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 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 

1-6 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

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 

Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated. Specific 

monitoring and evaluation needs are identified by resource/uses throughout Chapter 2. 

1.3.2 SCOPING AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED PLAN 

AND DRAFT ALTERNATIVES

1.3.2.1 THE SCOPING PROCESS

Public input was generated through a formal public scoping period, which began with the 

publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on June 4, 2003. The scoping period 

included six public scoping meetings. The formal scoping period ended on January 31, 2004. 

The majority of comments emphasized OHV management, recreation, and areas of special 

designation. Other issues of high interest included non–WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, minerals, livestock grazing, wildlife resources, and cultural resources. The 

scoping process identified the affected public and agency concerns, defined the relevant issues 

and draft alternatives that were examined in detail in the Draft RMP/EIS, and eliminated those 

that are not significant. 

For the Moab planning process, scoping comments received from the public were placed in one 

of three categories: 

1. Issues identified for consideration in the Moab RMP; 

1-7 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

2. Issues to be addressed through policy or administrative action (and therefore not addressed in 

the RMP); 

3. Issues eliminated from detailed analysis because they are beyond the scope of the RMP (and 

therefore not addressed in the RMP). 

The Final Scoping Summary (available for review on the Moab planning web page at 

www.blm.gov/rmp/ut/moab), prepared in conjunction with the Draft RMP/EIS, summarizes the 

scoping process. Other resource and use issues are identified in the BLM Planning Handbook 

and Manual (H1610-1). All of these issues were considered in developing the draft alternatives 

that were brought forward in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

1.3.2.2 ISSUES ADDRESSED THROUGH POLICY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 

Policy or administrative actions include those actions that are implemented by the BLM because 

they are standard operating procedure, because federal law requires them, or because they are 

BLM policy. They are, therefore, issues that are eliminated from detailed analysis in this 

planning effort. Administrative actions do not require a planning decision to implement. The 

following issues raised during scoping are already addressed by administrative actions: 

• Compliance with existing laws and policies (e.g., FLPMA, NEPA, Endangered Species Act, 

American Antiquities Act, Clean Air Act, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, and the 

National Historic Preservation Act). 

• Application of the BLM's Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management addresses, among other issues, the allocation of forage for grazing 

animals and wildlife, the numbers of livestock, and changes in grazing management 

practices. 

• Education, enforcement/prosecution, vandalism, and volunteer coordination. 

• Consistency with existing federal, state, and local plans. 

• Management of cultural resources, which includes up-to-date inventories, non-disclosure of 

sensitive sites, proposal of cultural sites for the National Register of Historic Places, and 

Native American consultation. 

• Management of the MPA's 11 existing Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs; approximately 

348,800 acres) under the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review 

(IMP; H-8550-1; BLM 1995). These WSAs are statutorily required (pursuant to FLPMA 

Section 603[c]) to be managed to protect their suitability for Congressional designation into 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. There are, however, a few decisions that will 

be made for WSAs in this planning effort. They include applying a visual resources 

management (VRM) Class I objective to the WSAs and determining if the WSAs will be 

limited or closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. Because this planning effort will also 

consider designating ways in the limited areas as an implementation action, specific ways 

available for use will be disclosed and analyzed. 

• Management of the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area. This wilderness area was 

Congressionally designated in 2000 under Public Law 106-353 and is managed by the Grand 

Junction Field Office through an RMP for the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area 

and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness. 

1-8 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

• Completion of inventory of riparian and wetland areas and the use of monitoring and 

mitigation to help protect these resources. 

• Continuing work on a comprehensive sign system and maps for recreational and other users. 

• Administration of existing mineral leases, permits, and other authorized uses. 

• Use of valid existing rights. 

• Monitoring wildlife and biodiversity. 

• Monitoring air quality. 

• Mitigation measures for site-specific projects. 

• Eligibility standards for specially designated areas. 

• Protection of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. 

• Coordination with local, state, and federal agencies. 

• Cooperation with user groups. 

• The allocation of forage between livestock and wildlife and the application of specific 

management practices on allotments within the planning area. (This issue is provided for 

through the application of Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Management and supporting monitoring data. When monitoring and inventory 

data indicate, changes are made to livestock and wildlife numbers and their management to 

assure that resource objectives will be met. These allocation and management adjustments 

are implementation decisions according to the BLM's planning handbook and are done on an 

allotment or other site specific basis.) 

1.3.2.3 ISSUES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS BECAUSE THEY ARE BEYOND THE 

SCOPE OF THE PLAN 

Issues beyond the scope of the RMP planning process include all 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 that are beyond the capability of the BLM to resolve as part of the 

planning process. Issues identified in this category include the following: 

• The State of Utah and Grand and San Juan 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 U.S.C. 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 venues 

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. 

1-9 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

• Availability of funding and personnel for managing programs. 

• Considering alternative energy sources as substitutes for activities related to mineral 

development. 

1.3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are based on appropriate laws, regulations, BLM Manual sections, and policy 

directives, as well as on public participation and coordination with cooperating agencies, other 

federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes. Planning criteria are the 

standards, rules, and factors used to resolve issues and develop alternatives. Planning criteria are 

prepared to ensure decision making is tailored to the issues and to ensure that the BLM avoids 

unnecessary data collection and analysis.

Planning criteria have been developed to guide the development of the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives. The planning criteria to be considered in the development of the RMP are as 

follows: 

• The planning process would recognize the existence of valid existing rights, including water 

rights. 

• All decisions made in the planning process would apply only to public lands and, where 

appropriate, split-estate lands where the subsurface mineral estate is managed by the BLM. 

• As described by law and policy, the BLM would strive to ensure that its management actions 

are as consistent as possible with other adjoining planning jurisdictions, both federal and 

non-federal. 

• Management of existing WSAs would be guided by the IMP (BLM 1995). Should Congress 

release all or part of a WSA from wilderness study, resource management would be 

determined by preparing an amendment to the RMP. Actions inconsistent with RMP goals 

and objectives would be deferred until completion of requisite plan amendments. Because the 

management direction of the released land would continue in accordance with the goals and 

objectives established in the RMP, there is no separate analysis required in this land-use plan 

to address resource impacts if any WSAs are released. If Congress acts to designate any lands 

within the MPA as wilderness, they would be managed pursuant to Congress's designation 

and the Wilderness Act. 

• The Standards for Public Land Health (BLM 1997a, 2002b) would apply to all activities and 

uses. The Standards, as well as the BLM guidelines for grazing and recreation management 

implemented to achieve the Standards, would be applicable to the Proposed Plan and the 

draft alternatives to the RMP analyzed in this Final EIS. 

• Baseline Reasonably Foreseeable Management/Development scenarios would be developed 

and portrayed for oil and gas, and other uses as appropriate, based on historical, existing, and 

projected levels for all mineral resource programs. 

• Based on consultation with Native Americans, the BLM would consider sites, areas, issues, 

and objects important to their cultural and religious heritage. 

• The BLM would adhere to all applicable laws, including those on water rights and state and 

local laws where appropriate; regulations; BLM manual sections; and current policy 

1-10 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

directives pertaining to management of public lands. For example, all management actions 

would comply with the Endangered Species Act and all laws concerning cultural resources. 

• The socioeconomic impacts of the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives would be addressed. 

• Areas potentially suitable for designation as ACECs and other special designations would be 

identified and, where appropriate, brought forward for analysis in the EIS. 

• River segments would be considered for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, and determinations of eligibility, suitability, tentative classification, and protective 

management would be made in accordance with Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act and BLM Manual 8351. 

1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER POLICIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS

This RMP is a preliminary step in the overall process of managing public lands. Subsequent 

more detailed or limited decisions and plans may implement BLM's projections. As a result, this 

planning process must recognize the many ongoing programs, plans, and policies that are being 

implemented in the MPA by other land managers and government agencies. The BLM will seek 

to be consistent with or complementary to other management actions whenever possible. Plans 

that need to be considered during the MFO's planning effort include the following: 

1.4.1 STATE OF UTAH

• Dead Horse Point State Park Resource Management Plan 

• Plans of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) 

• Regional plans of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) 

• State of Utah plans relating to water management, water quality, nonpoint source pollution, 

watershed management, and air quality 

• Utah's State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 

1.4.2 COUNTY LAND USE PLANS

• San Juan County, Utah: San Juan County Master Plan (1996) 

• Grand County, Utah: Grand County General Plan Update (2004) 

1.4.3 OTHER FEDERAL PLANS

• Canyonlands National Park Natural Resource Management Plan 

• Canyonlands National Park general management plans (NPS 1974, 2003, 2006) 

• Canyonlands National Park backcountry management plan (1984, 1995) 

• Land and Resource Management Plan, Manti–La Sal National Forest (USDA [USFS] 1986) 

• General Management Plan and Development Concept Plan: Arches National Park (NPS 

1989) 

• RMPs for the BLM Vernal, Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, Dolores, and Price field offices 

(BLM 1985b, 1985c, 1985d, 1987, 1989a, 1993a) 

1-11 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

• Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area Management Plan (BLM 2003a) 

1.4.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS

Endangered species recovery plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species. 

• Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Plan (USFWS 1978, 1990, 1991, 2002a) 

• Humpback Chub Recovery Plan (USFWS 1979, 1990a, 2002b) 

• Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983) 

• Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984, 1990b, 2002c) 

• Recovery Implementation Program EA for the Endangered Fish Species in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin (USFWS 1987) 

• Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan (USFWS 1988) 

• Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) 

• Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999, 2002d) 

• Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (USFWS 2002e) 

1.4.5 ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT (EPCA) 

In May 2001, the Bush administration's Comprehensive National Energy Policy was issued, 

which directed the Secretary of the Interior to 

examine land status and lease stipulation impediments to federal oil and gas 

leasing, and review and modify those where opportunities exist (consistent with 

the law, good environmental practice and balanced use of other resources). 

Under this directive, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management 

delivered to Congress an inventory of U.S. oil and gas resources in five western basins, as well 

as the extent and nature of any restrictions or impediments to their development. This report was 

prepared at the request of Congress under the provisions of the 2000 Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA). 

In April 2003, the BLM specified four EPCA integration principles, as follows: 

1. 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. 

2. The BLM must ensure appropriate accessibility to energy resources necessary for the nation's 

security, while recognizing that special and unique non-energy resources can be preserved. 

3. Sound planning will weigh the relative resource values, consistent with the multiple use and 

sustained yield mandates required by FLPMA. 

4. All resource impacts, including those associated with energy development and transmission, 

will be mitigated to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. 

1-12 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

1.4.6 ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 AND THE WESTERN 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 will 

address numerous energy corridor-related issues, including the utilization of existing corridors 

(with enhancements and upgrades), identification of new corridors, supply and demand 

considerations, and compatibility with other corridor and project planning efforts. 

1.4.7 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR; THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM); AND THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE, U.S. FOREST SERVICE CONCERNING OIL AND GAS LEASING 

OPERATIONS

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish joint BLM and Forest 

Service policies and procedures for managing oil and gas leasing and operational activities 

pursuant to oil and gas leases on National Forest Service (NFS) lands, consistent with applicable 

law and policy. The MOU was signed in 2006 for the purpose of efficient, effective compliance 

with statutory and regulatory requirements. The MOU establishes the roles of the Forest Service 

and the BLM in processing Applications for Permits to Drill and review of subsequent 

operations. 

1.4.8 ACTIVITY PLANS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE GRAND RESOURCE AREA RMP (1985) 

The existing Grand Resource Area RMP has undergone numerous land-use plan amendments 

from which decisions will either be carried forward under this new RMP or would be changed 

via the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives. The same is true for the activity level plans that 

have been completed in conformance with the Grand Resource Area RMP. The activity plans 

and amendments that will continue to be brought forward under the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives are noted below. Those that may be changed under the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives are also noted. 

• Grazing Amendment to RMP (Livestock conversions) (1988); (changed by the Proposed 

Plan and draft alternatives in this planning process) 

• Grand Resource Area RMP Oil and Gas Supplemental Environmental Assessment (1988); 

(changed by the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives in this planning process) 

• Bighorn Sheep Amendment (1990, 1993b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives) 

• Colorado Riverway Recreation Area Management Plan (1992a); (common to the Proposed 

Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Sand Flats Recreation Management Plan (1994a); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives) 

• Livestock Grazing Use Adjustments (1996); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives) 

1-13 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

• Ken's Lake Emergency Plan (1996); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Utah's Colorado Riverway Special Management Recreation Area Amendment (2001a); 

(common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Mill Creek Canyon Management Plan (2001b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives) 

• Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plan (2003b); (common to the Proposed Plan 

and draft alternatives) 

• Three Rivers Withdrawal (2004b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Cameo Cliffs Special Recreation Management Area Plan (2005b); (common to the Proposed 

Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Normal Year Fire Rehabilitation and Stabilization Plan (2006a); (common to the Proposed 

Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Moab District Fire Management Plan (2006b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives) 

1.4.9 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLANS (HMP) 

A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) provides guidance for the management of a defined habitat 

for a target wildlife species, protecting and improving habitat for that species and for other 

species utilizing the habitat. These plans are usually written in coordination with the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources 

• Cisco Desert HMP (1985a); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Hatch Point HMP (1985b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Dolores Triangle HMP (1985c); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) 

• The Potash-Confluence HMP (1986); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Wild and Scenic River Study Colorado and Lower Dolores Rivers EIS (NPS 1979); (changed 

by the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives in this planning process) 

• Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness EIS (1990); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives) 

• Lisbon Valley Copper Project EIS (BLM 1997b); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft 

alternatives) 

• Questar, Williams, and Kern River Pipeline Project EIS (BLM 2001c); (common to the 

Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Remediation of the Moab Uranium Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah EIS (DOE 

2005); (common to the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) 

• Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (1991a); (common to the 

Proposed Plan and draft alternatives) 

• 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) 

1-14 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

• Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Report. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 2007 (FES07-21) 

1.5 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT RMP/EIS TO THE PROPOSED 

PLAN RMP/FINAL EIS 

The Draft RMP/EIS was released to the public on August 25, 2007, which initiated a 90-day 

comment period. Comments were received from the public, cooperators, and other interested 

parties. See Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, for details of the public comment process. 

As a result of public comment and internal review of the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM has 

formulated the Proposed Plan in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The Proposed Plan/FEIS does not 

carry forward Alternative C (the Preferred Alternative) from the Draft RMP/EIS. Rather the 

Proposed Plan/RMP consists of a combination of all the alternatives. 

Changes regarding the Proposed Plan and draft alternatives focused on adjustments in order to 

address public concerns while continuing to meet the BLM's legal and regulatory mandates. 

Additional information and changes throughout Chapters 1 through 4 have been shaded in light 

gray. Changes are a result of 

• adjustments to Decisions, 

• clarifications to better explain the management proposed in the Draft RMP/EIS, 

• updates to information, 

• updates to maps, and 

• minor corrections, including typographical errors. 

1.5.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO DECISIONS BETWEEN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

(DRAFT EIS) AND THE PROPOSED PLAN (FINAL EIS)

• Add six decisions clarifying the BLM's responsibilities regarding Air Quality. 

• Delete the Cultural Resources decision allocating percentages of sites to various categories. 

• Delete prioritization of National Register nominations. 

• Add a decision to Lands and Realty that specifically grants reasonable access to SITLA 

lands. 

• Add two grazing allotments (Pear Park and Ida Gulch) to those not available for grazing. 

• Add a decision to Minerals on working with stakeholders to determine emissions mitigation 

strategies for future leases. 

• Add a decision regarding management of the Fisher Towers Trail as a National Recreation 

Trail. 

• Delete a decision on AUMs in the Cisco Allotment in the Riparian Resources section. 

• Add exception language to the decision prohibiting new OHV routes in saline soils. New 

routes would be allowed in saline soils in the Utah Rims SRMA and in the Dee Pass 

Motorized Focus Area. 

1-15 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

• Add "Mel's Loop" motorcycle route to the Travel Plan. 

• Delete the decision regarding voluntary relinquishment of grazing in Ten Mile Wash. 

• Add three decisions regarding Wild and Scenic rivers that recognize existing rights, 

privileges, and contracts along these rivers. 

• Change the classification of Segment 1 of the Green River to "Wild," Segment 2 of the Green 

River to "Recreational," and Segment 5 of the Colorado River to "Scenic." 

• Change the greater sage-grouse lek buffer area from 0.5 miles to 2.0 miles. 

• Replace the Wildlife decision on mitigation to comply with BLM policy. 

• Delete Parcel R-11 as an area available for disposal due to the presence of special status 

species on that parcel . 

1.5.2 CLARIFICATIONS

In addition to the modifications to the Proposed Plan, information has been updated and 

language clarified in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS in response to questions and comments 

received on the Draft RMP/EIS. Major clarifications are 

• Implementation-level decisions have been identified by placing them in italics and 

asterisking with a footnote. 

• clarify the definition of a "new route" for the cultural resources inventory requirement; 

• clarify the extent of the Area of Potential Effect (660 feet) for cultural actions; 

• clarify "reasonable access" to SITLA lands; 

• clarify the merger of two utility corridors in the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and D 

(rather than the elimination of a corridor); 

• clarify that SITLA has priority in land exchanges; 

• clarify the Spring Creek–Buckhorn allotment's location; 

• clarify the three types of Special Recreation Management Areas; 

• clarify boating management numbers on Colorado and Dolores Rivers; 

• clarify authority for potential recreation fee for White Wash Sand Dunes; 

• clarify protection of relevant and important values for those ACECs not carried forward to 

the Proposed Plan; 

• clarify Wild and Scenic River management by listing the oil and gas leasing category, Visual 

Resource Management class and OHV designation for each suitable river segment; 

• clarify wording in Travel Management to fully explain actions; 

• clarify that elk and deer habitat are not identical; 

• clarify development of cultural model for analysis; and 

• clarify motorcycle routes in the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and D. 

1-16 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

1.5.3 UPDATES TO DATA

• Correct acreages of non–WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in Alternative B 

• Add information on global climate change 

• Add air quality data from Canyonlands National Park 

• Add information on SITLA lands within the Moab Field Office 

• Add Utah State University social survey results 

• Add wage distribution for recreation jobs 

• Remove bald eagle from Threatened and Endangered Species headings 

• Update socioeconomic data from the year 2000 to the year 2007 

• Add data on socioeconomics, including severance taxes and property taxes 

• Add mileage data on miles of routes not designated for various resource values 

• Add information on fiscal impacts to SITLA from BLM restrictions 

• Add data on OHV impacts to resources in Appendix G (Travel Plan) 

• Update Conservation Measures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1.5.4 MAP CHANGES

• Map 2-3: Remove parcel R-11 from Lands Identified for Disposal. 

• Map 2-4: Correct confusion concerning Spring Creek allotments. 

• Map 2-4-C: Add Pear Park and Ida Gulch to allotments not available for livestock grazing. 

• Maps 2-5-B, C and D: Remove area in Arches National Park as erroneously shown as 

available for leasing. 

• Map 2-9-C: Adjust acreage of White Wash Sand Dunes Open OHV Area. 

• Map 2-10-C: Adjust acreage of area open to cross country OHV. 

• Map 2-11-A: Add map showing designated routes. 

• Map 2-11-B, C and D: Remove roads in Arches National Park; add two routes on Colorado 

border. 

• Map 2-11-E: Add Alternatives A and B maps for motorcycle routes; add Slickrock Trail; 

distinguish which motorcycle routes are also available for ATV's; add Thompson-Colorado 

BLM Alt C route to map; add Mel's Loop to the Proposed Plan. 

• Map 2-24-C: Add names of areas with wilderness characteristics. 

• Map 2-25: Make correction to pronghorn kidding habitat. 

• Map 2-27 A, B, and C/D: Change name to Deer and/or Elk Habitat. 

In addition to the above changes, adjustments were made to correct typographical or grammatical 

errors, add references, and clarify wording. Changes of this nature are not listed above. 

1-17 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

1.5.5 CRUCIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT CHANGES

In August 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" habitat (an 

area that provides for intensive use by the species). The UDWR has been criticized for using the 

term "critical," as the same term refers to habitat federally designated by the 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 the UDWR's "critical" habitats have been integrated into the planning process. The BLM 

rarely incorporated management decisions in its RMPs for "high value" habitats. The UDWR 

changed its classification system to include "critical" habitat with "high value" habitat, in part to 

accommodate the limitations of having classifications that were of no practical value to land 

managers. The new term "crucial" habitat is defined by the UDWR as "habitat on which the local 

population of a wildlife species depends for survival because there are no alternative ranges or 

habitats available. Crucial habitat is essential to the life-history requirements of a wildlife 

species. Degradation or loss of crucial habitat will lead to significant declines in the wildlife 

population in question." 

Crucial habitat boundaries appear larger on the wildlife maps in this Proposed Plan because they 

are a combination of the UDWR's old "critical" habitat and "high value" habitat, with some 

minor modifications. Timing stipulations for each of the species now apply to the whole crucial 

habitat area. It is important to note, however, that the application of waivers, exceptions, and 

modifications, as outlined in Appendix C, will be taken into consideration and used where/when 

applicable for all surface-disturbing activities in these areas. The range of alternatives in the 

Draft RMP/Draft EIS considered both of the UDWR's old classifications of critical and high 

value habitat. Minor boundary modifications have been made by the UDWR prior to 

incorporating them into crucial habitat boundaries. Because this information was taken into 

consideration and analyzed in the Draft, these minor changes are not considered significant in 

terms of resource uses and/or analysis in this Proposed Plan, and therefore a supplement to this 

EIS is not necessary for this purpose. 

1.5.6 SUMMARY OF CHANGES 

The BLM has made numerous changes between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS and Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. These changes are described above and detailed in Appendix U. The BLM has 

prepared this appendix to document whether changes between the Draft RMP/Draft EIS and the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS resulted in a significant change in circumstances or conditions, or 

whether the Proposed RMP/Final EIS contains different information from that which was 

presented to the public in the Draft RMP/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. 

1-18 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

The regulation controlling whether or not a supplement is required is found at 40 CFR 1502.9(c), 

which provides that agencies 

• shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if (1) the 

agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental 

concerns, or (2) there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impact; 

• may also prepare supplements when the agency determines that the purposes of the Act will 

be furthered by doing so; 

• shall adopt procedures for introducing a supplement into its formal administrative record, if 

such a record exists; and 

• shall prepare, circulate, and file a supplement to a statement in the same fashion (exclusive of 

scoping) as a draft and final statement unless alternative procedures are approved by the 

Council.

All changes to the MFO 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 PRMP to reflect technical corrections and data updates. In other cases, such as in Chapter 3, 

Affected Environment, incorporation of updated information was necessary to refine the analysis 

in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives, that was 

incomplete or needed augmentation. 

None of the changes described above and further detailed in Appendix U meet the regulatory 

definition for significance in 40 CFR 1508.27(a) and (b). These regulations require an agency 

preparing a NEPA document to review the changes for significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Plan or its impacts, 

using context and intensity as the trigger for significance. The BLM has reviewed each 

substantive change through this regulatory standard and has determined that none of the changes, 

individually or collectively, require a supplement to this Final EIS. 

1-19 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Need 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

1-20 
2.0 PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter presents the Proposed Plan which was crafted from the four alternatives in the Draft 

RMP/EIS. The Proposed Plan primarily mirrors the Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) from 

the Draft RMP, but has been modified through public comment, internal review, and cooperating 

agency coordination to reflect specific decisions carried forward from the other alternatives in 

the Draft RMP. The Moab field office (MFO) formulated this Proposed Plan from the reasonable 

range of alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/EIS for managing resources within the planning 

areas that considered issues and concerns raised during the scoping period (see Chapter 1, 

Section 1.3.2), planning criteria, and the guidance applicable to the resource uses. The Proposed 

Plan and the draft alternatives constitute a range of management actions that set forth different 

priorities and measures to emphasize certain uses or resource values over other uses or resource 

values under the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate so as to achieve certain goals or 

objectives. 

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 Proposed Plan and the draft alternatives (Alternatives A, B, and D) were crafted 

utilizing input from public scoping comments, Grand and San Juan County representatives, and 

other cooperating agencies. There are two other alternatives that were considered for detailed 

analysis, but did not meet the purpose and need for this plan revision or were not technically 

feasible or economically practical to carry forward. They were eliminated from detailed 

consideration and are briefly discussed in the last section of this chapter. 

Chapter 2 has been organized in the following manner: 

• Section 2.1 provides a brief summary of the major components of the Proposed Plan and of 

each draft alternative, and Table 2.1 provides the detailed alternative management strategies 

proposed under all four alternatives. 

• Section 2.2 provides a comparative summary of the environmental impacts associated with 

the Proposed Plan and with each draft alternative. 

• Section 2.3 outlines those alternatives the BLM initially considered but later eliminated, and 

the justifications for their dismissal from further evaluations. 

Evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives is required by NEPA and by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Part 1502.14), as well as by BLM planning regulations. 

As is also required in the CEQ regulations, one alternative consists of "no action," which is the 

same as the continuation of management under the current Grand RMP (BLM 1985a) and 

subsequent plan amendments. 

The range of alternatives has been developed to: 

• meet the Purpose and Need outlined in Chapter 1; 

• respond to environmental, operational, and economic concerns raised by the public, agencies, 

business and other special interest groups during the scoping process; and 

• address potential environmental issues identified during review of the proposed management 

actions. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS 

2-2 

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES FROM THE PROPOSED RMP/EIS 

The four alternatives presented in detail in Table 2.1 of this chapter are as follows: 

• Alternative A is the No Action alternative and represents the continuation of existing 

management under the current Grand Resource Area RMP (1985a), as amended. 

• Alternative B emphasizes the protection/preservation of natural resources and minimizes 

human activities, over commodity production and extraction and motorized recreation access. 

• The Proposed Plan provides for a balanced approach of protection/preservation of natural 

resources while providing for commodity production and extraction. 

• Alternative D emphasizes commodity production and extraction as well as motorized 

recreation access over the protection/preservation of natural resources. 

Some of the decisions in this PRMP/FEIS are carried forward from the existing Grand RMP 

(BLM 1985a) because there are no impending issues associated with them, and they do not need 

to change. They are decisions that are common to all alternatives, thus, a range of alternative 

decisions are not necessary for these resources or uses. Other decisions are common to all action 

alternatives (Alternatives B, D and the Proposed Plan), but are different from the No Action 

Alternative due to a change in circumstances. 

2.1.1 BRIEF SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT 

ALTERNATIVES IN TABLE 2.1 

The major resources/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), special status species, wildlife, and non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. These resources/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. Below is a brief summary of the range of alternatives for those major resources/uses 

brought forward during scoping. Much more detail for each of these resources and uses, among 

others, and their proposed management is in Table 2.1. 

2.1.1.1 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

All public lands are required to have off-highway vehicle (OHV) area designations. Areas must 

be classified as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel activities. OHV designation areas, or 

categories, are listed by alternative. 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. Summary Table A 

portrays how travel and access management would be designated under each alternative. 

Summary Table A. OHV Categories (acres), by Alternative 

Category Alternative A 

No Action Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Closed 5,062 437,424 339,298 57,351

Limited 1,196,920 1,475,074 1,481,334 1,762,083
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS 

2-3 

Summary Table A. OHV Categories (acres), by Alternative 

Category Alternative A 

No Action Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Miles of D Routes 

Designated1

4,673 2,144 2,519 2,671

Open 620,212 0 1,866 3,064

1 At time of publication 

2.1.1.2 RECREATION

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) are proposed to manage intensively used 

recreation areas, and do not restrict other uses. Focus Areas are Recreation Management Zones 

and are proposed in order to emphasize and provide particular types of recreation opportunities. 

In Alternative B, non-motorized recreation in emphasized; in Alternative D, motorized recreation 

is emphasized. The Proposed Plan provides opportunities for both non-motorized and motorized 

recreation, as depicted in Summary Table B. 

Summary Table B. SRMAs (quantity and acres) and Focus Areas (quantity), by 

Alternative 

Category Alternative A 

No Action Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

SRMAs 3 (141,252 acres) 11 (976,173 acres) 10 (658,642 

acres) 

6 (277,471 acres) 

Focus Areas 0 22 30 10 

2.1.1.3 OIL AND GAS LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT

One of the major decisions in a land-use plan is to determine which areas should be: 1) open to 

leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form stipulations, 2) areas open 

to leasing subject to moderate constraints such as timing limitations (TL) or controlled surface 

use (CSU) restrictions, 3) areas open to leasing subject to major constraints such as no surface 

occupancy (NSO) stipulations, or 4) areas unavailable to leasing. All of these proposed decisions 

must be consistent with the goals and objectives of other resources and uses for each alternative. 

Summary Table C depicts how oil and gas leasing would be managed under each alterative.

Summary Table C. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (acres), by Alternative 

Stipulation Alternative A 

No Action Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Standard 1,038,344 264,344 427,273 797,031 

TL/CSU 389,605 543,751 806,994 590,442 

NSO 38,912 342,931 217,480 84,772 

Closed 353,293 671,444 370,250 350,219 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS 

2-4 

In addition, this planning revision has applied the same oil and gas stipulations to all other 

surface-disturbing activities where they are not contrary to laws, regulations, or policy under all 

of the action alternatives. For example, if an area has a timing stipulation on it for oil and gas 

development, it would also apply that same timing stipulation on a right-of-way (ROW) 

construction proposal or an organized recreational event. 

2.1.1.4 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

2.1.1.4.1 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC) 

The Federal Register Notice of Intent (June 2003) for this plan revision requested ACEC 

nominations from the public for consideration in the planning effort. In order to be considered 

and carried forward into the range of alternatives for planning, an ACEC must meet the 

relevance and importance criteria in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(a), and must require special management. 

The MFO received and evaluated a total of 35 ACEC nominations of which 14 were determined 

to meet the relevance and importance criteria. The relevance and importance criteria encompass 

scenery, sensitive plant species, rare plants, cultural and historic resources, wildlife, fish, natural 

systems, and natural hazards. Summary Table D shows that all of the 14 potential ACECs were 

brought forward into Alternative B for designation consideration, and 5 potential ACECs were 

brought forward into the Proposed Plan for designation consideration. There are no existing 

designated ACECs in the Moab Planning Area (MPA); thus, there are none in the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative A). There were no ACECs brought forward for consideration in 

Alternative D. Where ACECs are designated, special management attention would be directed at 

the relevant and important values, resources, natural systems and/or natural hazards.

Summary Table D. Potential ACECs (quantity and acres) Meeting the Relevance and 

Importance Criteria, by Alternative 

Alternative A 

No Action Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

0 14 (613,077 acres) 5 (63,232 acres) 0 

2.1.1.4.2 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSRS) 

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 1958, as 

amended. The MFO reviewed all river segments for wild and scenic river eligibility and 

suitability as part of the RMP process. Twenty-eight river segments were found to meet the 

eligibility criteria. BLM Manual 8351 directs BLM to provide tentative classifications of Wild, 

Scenic, or Recreational to the eligible river segments. Because the No Action Alternative 

(Alternative A) currently has no suitable river segments designated, the 29 river segments 

identified for eligibility would remain in eligibility status by BLM policy. Alternative B would 

propose all the segments, except Salt Wash, as suitable for Congressional designation into the 

Wild and Scenic River System, and the Proposed Plan would propose 10 river segments as 

suitable for Congressional designation into the system. This information is condensed in 

Summary Table E. Where rivers are determined to be suitable, protection of the outstandingly 

remarkable values, tentative classification, and free-flowing nature would be provided. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS 

2-5 

Summary Table E. Eligible/Suitable WSR Segments (river miles) with Tentative 

Classifications, by Alternative 

Alternative # River Segments River Miles Suitable or Eligible? Classifications 

A 29 287.5 Eligible 12 Wild, 9 Scenic, 8 Recreational

B 28 287.2 Suitable 11 Wild, 9 Scenic, 8 Recreational

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

10 127.3 Suitable 1 Wild, 4 Scenic, 4 Recreational, 

1 Scenic/Recreational 

D 0 NA NA NA 

2.1.1.5 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Land-use plan decisions must be consistent with 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. The MFO has three listed bird species (and one candidate species), one 

listed mammal species, and one listed plant species. Species conservation measures (Appendix 

K) have been developed in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They will be 

implemented under all alternatives. 

In addition, there are 43 sensitive species, including the Greater and Gunnison Sage-grouse, 

White-tailed and Gunnison prairie dog, where there is some discretion in management. 

Timing Limitations and Controlled Surface Use stipulations are applied to the habitat for these 

four species and are spread by alternative. 

2.1.1.6 WILDLIFE

In planning, BLM should identify actions and area wide use restrictions needed to achieve 

desired population and habitat conditions while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance 

and multiple-use relationships. The range of alternatives for wildlife actions and habitats 

includes: 

• Pronghorn antelope – A Timing Limitation stipulation for surface-disturbing activities, 

including oil and gas development, of 45 days would be applied to pronghorn habitat. The 

size of habitat varies by alternative. 

• Desert bighorn sheep – Alternatives B and the Proposed Plan: A no surface occupancy 

stipulation would be applied to lambing/rutting grounds and migration corridors. Alternative 

D: a Timing Limitation stipulation would be applied to lambing habitat. 

• Deer and elk – A Timing Limitation stipulation for surface-disturbing activities, including 

oil and gas development. Timing limitation and acreage vary by alternative. 

• Rocky mountain bighorn sheep – The objective is to manage and improve habitat. Habitat 

size varies by alternative.

2.1.1.7 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

During planning, the MFO identified decisions to protect, preserve and maintain non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics (naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.1 Description of Alternatives from the Proposed RMP/EIS 

2-6 

outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation). In Alternative B and the 

Proposed Plan, there are goals and objectives to protect the resource and there are management 

actions presented that are necessary to achieve those goals and objections. As portrayed in 

Summary Table F, there are 33 areas, totaling 266,485 acres that were found to have wilderness 

characteristics outside of existing WSAs; all of them would be protected, preserved and 

maintained to preserve their wilderness characteristics values in Alternatives B. In the Proposed 

Plan, three of the areas totaling 47,761 acres would have decisions carried forward to protect, 

preserve and maintain the wilderness characteristics values. In Alternatives A and D, 

management of other resources values and uses would take precedent over the protection of 

wilderness characteristics. 

Summary Table F. Non-WSA Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics 

(quantity and total acres), by Alternative 

Alternative A 

No Action Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

0 areas 33 areas 

266,485 acres 

3 areas 

47,761 acres 

0 areas 

 

Table 2.1 provides a comprehensive description of the alternatives carried forward for detailed 

environmental analysis. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-7 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

AIR QUALITY 

Goals and Objectives: Maintain existing air quality and air quality related values (e.g., visibility) by ensuring that all authorized uses on public lands comply with and support Federal, State, and local laws and regulations for protecting Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 As appropriate, quantitative analysis of potential AQ impacts would be conducted for project-specific developments. 

 Prescribed burns would be consistent with the State of Utah Division of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) permitting process and timed so as to minimize smoke impacts. 

 Comply with Utah Air Conservation (UAC) Regulation R446-1. The best air quality control technology, as per guidance from the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), would be applied to actions on publ

 Comply with UAC Regulation R446-1-4.5.3, which prohibits the use, maintenance, or construction of roadways without taking appropriate dust abatement measures. Compliance would be obtained through 

in problem areas. 

 Manage all BLM and BLM-authorized activities to maintain air quality within the thresholds established by the State of Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards and to ensure that those activities continue to ke

Class I air shed of the National Parks (e.g., Arches and Canyonlands National Parks). 

 Comply with the current Smoke Management Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) between BLM, USFS, and UDAQ. The MOU, in accordance with UAC regulation R446-1-2.4.4, requires reporting size, d

 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 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 potentia 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 fo 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. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Goals and Objectives:

 Identify, preserve and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations (FLPMA, Section 103(c), 201(a) and (c); National Histori Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses (FLPMA, Section 103(c), National Historic Preserva

comply with the NHPA Section 106. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 The BLM would comply with all pertinent statutes, regulations, formal agreements, Executive Orders, and policy as it applies to cultural resource management for all actions resulting from decisions in this  Protect burial sites, associated burial goods, and sacred items in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.  Native American requests to practice traditional activities on public lands would be considered on a case-by-case basis and would be allowed where practical and appropriate. Reasonable access to specific s

 All treaty and trust responsibilities as they apply to public lands within the resource area would be honored. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 All land-disturbing activities within Traditional Cultural Properties would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts, where reasonable. Proposed projects or actions would be modified to avoid the area or si

closed to visitation when it is determined that this visitation is endangering site integrity. 

 Camping would be prohibited and posted within or on archaeological and historic sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.  Class III inventory is not required prior to designations that allow continued use of an existing route, impose new limitations on an existing route, close an open area or travel route, keep a closed area closed

 Class III cultural resources inventory would be conducted on newly designated ATV, motorcycle and mountain bike routes (48" wide or less) based on potential resource conflicts. Routes identified for surve

site location, environmental, and contextual information. If eligible archaeological sites along these routes are being adversely impacted by continued route use, impacts would be mitigated. "New routes" are 

 Where there is a reasonable expectation that a proposed route designation would shift, concentrate or expand travel into areas where historic properties are likely to be adversely affected, Class III inventory 

to designation. 

 Proposed designations of new routes would require Class III inventory of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and compliance with Section 106 prior to designation. Class III inventory of the APE and compli

similar areas of concentrated OHV use. 

 Eligible cultural sites would be protected and impacts mitigated when it is determined that they are being impacted from grazing activities. 

 New field inventories would be prioritized in areas of special cultural designation (e.g., ACECs, National Historic Trails, National Historic Landmarks) that have not been fully inventoried. 

 Sego Rock Art Site and Wall Street/Colorado River Rock Art District, which have educational and recreational values, would be developed for public visitation and interpretation as long as such work does n

in partnership with universities, museums, Tribes, and interested site stewards for the creation of interpretive materials on the archaeology of the Moab Planning Area (MPA). 

 Specific management plans would be developed for up to seven culturally sensitive areas unless integrated into other activity plans. These plans would also include, but would not be limited to, developing a 

fences, surveillance equipment); developing research designs for selected sites/areas; and developing specific mitigation measures. 

 Cooperate with counties to ensure county road and trail construction and maintenance activities avoid or minimize impacts to cultural resources. 

 Cultural plants, once identified by interested tribes, would be managed to insure that ground-disturbing activities on the land do not contribute to the decline of cultural sensitive plant communities. Collectio
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-8 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

appropriate. 

 Cultural resource management priority for the Ten Mile Wash and Mill Creek Canyon would be scientific research of prehistoric sites and cultural landscapes. Manage the Mill Creek planning area in accord

 Continue to allocate cultural sites, including ethnographic properties, to one of six management categories: a) scientific use; b) conservation for future use; c) traditional use; d) public use; e) experimental us

 Alternative management strategies for cultural resources are disclosed in the Special Designations sections. This section identifies areas with substantial cultural resources and alternative management prescr

Canyon ACECs, and the Wall Street portion of Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon proposed ACEC. 

 Cultural use allocations would be made at the time of site documentation; allocations can be changed as new information or management direction becomes available, subject to consistency with the approve Cultural management plans will be a component of the implementation plans for the Labyrinth Canyons, Colorado Riverway, and South Moab SRMAs. Heritage tourism may be considered in these cultural 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

No priority for field inventory. Priority for new field inventory would be a 1.00-mile vulnerability zone 

surrounding cities and towns. Prioritize for Class II and Class III surveys: a total of 50,000 acres within the following areas: Bookcliffs, Dolores Triangle, Hidden Canyon/Bartlett Lisbon Valley, North Fork of Mill Creek , South Fork of Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon with adjacent uplands, and Ten Mile Wash and its tributaries. 

Priority for new field inventory would be a 0.50-msurrounding cities and towns. Prioritize for Class II and Class III surveys: a totafollowing areas: Bookcliffs, Dolores Triangle, No

Fork of Mill Creek, Seven Mile, and Ten Mile W

No priority for restoration of damaged cultural resources. To prevent further degradation from occurring, target the following areas for 

restoration of damaged cultural resources: Kane Springs Canyon from Highway 191 downstream to the Colorado River, Seven Mile Canyon, South and North Forks of Mill Creek, Bartlett/Hidden Canyon and Hell Roaring uplands, Ten Mile Wash and Wall Street Rock Art District. 

To prevent further degradation from occurring, tarestoration of damaged cultural resources: South aCreek, Bartlett/Hidden Canyon, Hell Roaring uplaWall Street Rock Art District. 

No priority for public interpretation sites. The following sites would be hardened and interpreted for public use: 3 sites in 

the Wall Street Rock Art District. 

The following sites would be hardened and interpin Lower Kane Springs Canyon, and 3 sites in the District. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Goals and Objectives: Fire management would adopt the comprehensive Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management, September 2005 (LUP Amendment; BLM 2005c). This document maybe found at www.ut.blm

under all alternatives and incorporated by reference into this PRMP/FEIS. The content and purpose of the LUP Amendment is summarized as follows: 

 Establishes landscape-level, fire management goals and objectives.  Describes Desired Wildland Fire Conditions (DWFC) and the management strategies and actions to meet DWFC goals. 

 Describes areas where fire may be restored to the ecosystem through wildland fire use for resource benefit and areas where wildland fire use is not appropriate. 

 Identifies Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) for fire management practices to protect natural and cultural resource values. 

 Identifies criteria used to establish fire management priorities. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 The Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (FMP) would be updated and amended to meet the direction and objectives of the RMP. Firefighter and public safety are the primary goals in all fire management decisions and actions. 

 Wildland fire would be utilized to protect, maintain and enhance resources and, when possible, will be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. 

 Hazardous fuels reduction treatments would be used to restore ecosystems; protect human, natural and cultural resources; and reduce the threat of wildfire to communities.  Fires would be suppressed at minimum cost, taking into account firefighter and public safety as well as benefits and values to be protected that are consistent with resource objectives.  The BLM would implement a consistent, safe and cost-effective fire management program through appropriate planning, staffing, training, and equipment. 

 Fire management objectives would be established for every area with burnable vegetation, based on sound science and consideration of other resource objectives.  Emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration efforts would be implemented to protect and sustain resources, public health and safety, and community infrastructure. 

 The BLM would work together with partners and other affected groups and individuals to reduce risks to communities and to restore ecosystems. 

 The Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions identified in consultation with the USFWS for the LUP Amendment would be implemented in fire-related actions. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-9 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Criteria for Establishing Fire Management Priorities: Protection of human life is the primary fire management priority. Establishing a priority among protecting human communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cuWhen firefighters and other personnel have been committed to an incident, these human resources become the highest values to be protected. Priorities for all aspects of fire management decisions and actions are 

 Protecting the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI; including At-risk Communities and At-risk Watersheds).  Maintaining existing healthy ecosystems.  High priority sub-basins (HUC-4) or watersheds (HUC-5).  Threatened, endangered, or special species.  Cultural resources and/or cultural landscapes. 

Suppression:An "Appropriate Management Response" (AMR) procedure is required for every wildland fire that is not a prescribed fire. In all fire management decisions, strategies and actions, firefighter and public safety are 

costs. The AMR can range from full suppression to managing fire for resource benefit (wildland fire use). Resource goals and objectives outlined in the RMP guide the development and implementation of AMR f

suppression objectives with minimum and maximum suppression targets for each Fire Management Unit (FMU) within the MPA. While firefighter and public safety are the first priority, considerations for suppre

to impact high-value resources such as critical habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive species, crucial wildlife habitat, cultural resources and/or riparian areas, historic fire regimes, and other special cons

Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit:Wildland fire is authorized as a tool, when appropriate, to allow naturally ignited wildland fire to accomplish specific resource management objectives. Due to existing resource conditions and proximity to values 

ongoing management actions and other natural changes would direct periodical reassessment of DWFC and determination of potential areas for wildland fire use. Operational management of wildland fire use is d

The FMP identifies areas (FMUs) that may have the potential for wildland fire use. Wildland fire use may be authorized for all areas, except when the following resources and values may be negatively impacted a

 WUI areas.  Areas that are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or invasive weed invasion. 

 Important terrestrial and aquatic habitats.  Non-fire-adapted vegetation communities.  Sensitive cultural resources.  Areas of soil with high or very high erosion hazard.  Class I air attainment areas and PM-10 non-attainment areas.  Administrative sites.  Developed recreation sites.  Communication sites.  Oil, gas and mining facilities.  Above-ground utility corridors.  High-use travel corridors, such as interstates, railroads, and/or highways. 

Fuels Treatment:Fuels management activities outlined in the FMP would be consistent with the resource goals and objectives contained in the RMP. To reduce hazards and to restore ecosystems, authorized fuels management acti

treatments. The FMP describes fuels management goals and objectives and the full range of fuels management strategies and actions authorized for fuels reduction. Fuels treatments are focused on the DWFC of reasily implemented. 

 Fuels management actions may include but are not limited to the following activities: 

 Mechanical treatments such as mowing, chopping, or chipping/grinding (brush cutter), chaining, tilling, or cutting. 

 Manual treatments such as hand-cutting (chainsaw or handsaw) and hand-piling. 

 Prescribed fire including broadcast, underburn, and hand-pile burning. 

 Chemical spraying or biological treatments such as insects or goats/sheep.  Seeding including aerial or ground application (manual or mechanical). 

 Targeted areas may be treated in phases over a period of several years and may involve multiple and varied treatments.  Estimated fuels reduction treatments of 5,000 to 10,000 acres/year are targeted dependent on budgetary and time constraints. These treatments are in addition to those to be accomplished under the Utah Wat

 Implementation of fuels management actions would be prioritized using the following criteria: 

 WUI areas. 

 Areas with fuel loading that could potentially result in the loss of ecosystem components following wildland fire. 

 Resource management goals and objectives. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-10 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Prevention and Mitigation:

 Prevention and mitigation goals target a reduction in unauthorized wildland fire ignitions. Goals include coordination with partners and affected groups and individuals, and a wide range of prevention and m

 Implementation of fire prevention activities would be prioritized using the following criteria: 

 WUI areas.  Major travel corridors.  Recreation sites.  Public lands as a whole. 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR):A Normal Year Fire Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan (NFRP) is in place to meet emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR) needs and to comply with up-to-date ESR policy and guidance. The NFRP is 

dependent upon post-wildland fire conditions and other site-specific considerations. Treatment actions are designed according to the type and severity of wildfire impacts and priorities include, but are not limited 

 It is necessary to protect human life and safety as well as property.  Unique or critical cultural and/or historical resources are at risk. 

 It is determined soils are highly susceptible to accelerated erosion.  Perennial grasses and forbs (fire-tolerant plants) are not expected to provide soil and watershed protection within two years. 

 There is a need to establish a vegetative fuel break of less flammable species (greenstrips).  Unacceptable vegetation, such as noxious weeds, may readily invade and become established.  Shrubs and forbs are a crucial habitat component for wintering mule deer, pronghorn, sage-grouse, or other special status species.  Stabilization and rehabilitation are necessary to meet RMP resource objectives, including rangeland seedings.  It is necessary to protect water quality.  It is necessary to quickly restore threatened, endangered, or special species habitat populations to prevent adverse impacts. 

HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Goals and Objectives:BLM would strive to ensure that human health and safety concerns on public lands remain a major priority. Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:Comply with all applicable Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) policies. 

In conformance with BLM's long-term strategies and national policies regarding Abandoned Mine Lands (AML), this RMP recognizes the need to work with our partners toward identifying and addressing physic

strategy has been written. National program criteria for determining site priorities were used to develop the work plan. This State strategy is entitled "Utah's Abandoned Mine Land Multi Year Work Plan." 

The criteria that would be used to establish physical safety hazard program priorities are: 

 The 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 or in immediate proximity to developed r

risk level is indicated. 

 AML would be factored into future recreation management area designations, land-use planning assessments, and all applicable use authorizations. 

 The site is presently listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mines Module of Protection and Response Information System.  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: 

 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 the environment. 

 The project reflects a collaborative effort with other land managing agencies.  The site is presently listed or is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mines Site Cleanup Module of Protection and Response Information System. 

 The project would be funded by contributions from collaborating agencies. 

Identify and clean up unauthorized dumping sites and hazardous materials spills in the MPA as required to comply with applicable State, local, and Federal regulations. 

The State Multi Year Work Plan will be maintained and updated as needed to reflect current policy for identifying program physical safety and water quality AML sites priorities for reclamation and remediation. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-11 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Goals and Objectives:

 Retain lands within its administration except where necessary to accomplish resource goals and objectives outlined in the Plan. BLM would transfer lands out of Federal ownership or acquire non-Federal lan

meet essential community needs. 

 Meet public needs for use authorizations such as rights-of-way (ROWs), alternative energy sources, and permits while minimizing adverse impacts to resource values. 

 Using the Visual Resource Management (VRM) system, maintain generally undeveloped landscapes in the backgrounds of popular filming locations. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 Under IMP and Congressional action, Wilderness Study Areas and Wilderness Areas would be exclusion areas for any ROWs (Section 501(a) FLPMA).  Continue the withdrawal of lands along the Colorado, Dolores and Green Rivers (totaling 65,037 acres within the MPA) from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal, October 6, 2004). In addition, continu Give land exchanges with the State of Utah priority consideration to resolve inholding issues. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) would be avoidance areas for any new ROWs (including communication sites and wind and solar sites). 

 Decisions on LTAs and withdrawals would be made in accordance with the criteria contained in Appendix A.  Determinations on authorizing commercial filming in the MPA would be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in Appendix B.  Right-of-way (ROW) avoidance and exclusion areas would be consistent with the stipulations identified in Appendix C for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. These stipulations have 

 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. 

 To reduce surface use conflicts along the U.S. Highway 191 utility corridor within Moab Canyon, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see 

 Authorization of any ROW for wind or solar energy development would incorporate best management practices including the USFWS's "Guidelines for Wind Power" and provisions contained in the Final W Both wind and solar energy development (renewable energy) can be considered wherever ROWs could be authorized.  To be consistent with the existing withdrawals from mineral entry, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities within the area of the Three Rivers a

recreation values addressed in these withdrawals. Applying a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing to lands within the Three Rivers Withdrawal, in combination with other areas where a no gas operations. For this reason, portions of the lands within the Three Rivers Withdrawal (e.g., along the Colorado River near the Richardson Amphitheater and along the Dolores River near Beaver Creek) w

surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). 

 Lands and/or interest in lands (such as minerals and conservation easements) acquired through future LTA would take on the management of the surrounding area. Land acquisitions would be pursued if they 

Utility Corridors 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

All utility corridors would be 1 mile wide, except the existing Moab Canyon utility corridor, which is constrained by the topography of Moab Canyon. This physical corridor is only 1/4 mile wide at its narrowest point. 

Designate an I-70 utility corridor that includes all major existing ROWs as identified in the RMP with a 100-foot width on each side of the widest ROW corridor (Map 2-2-B). Designate the existing Moab Canyon utility corridor (Map 2-2-B). Split the utility corridor south of Spanish Valley into two corridors, identical to existing corridors (Map 2-2-B). 

Designate an I-70 utility corridor that includes all identified in the RMP with a 1/2-mile width on eacorridor ( 2-2-C). Designate the existing Moab Ca

2-C). Combine the two corridors south of Spanish Valle2-2-C). The corridor would include the approximathe two segments. 

Avoidance/Exclusion Areas for Rights-of-way (ROWs) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

About 354,015 acres would be exclusion areas for ROWs. About 48,245 acres would be avoidance areas for ROWs. 

About 672,724 acres would be exclusion areas for ROWs. About 341,919 acres would be avoidance areas for ROWs. 

About 370,250 acres would be exclusion areas for About 217,480 acres would be avoidance areas fo

Disposal Land List 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

The list of parcels identified for disposal totals 12,415 acres. Parcels identified for disposal total 14,961 acres and are shown on Map 2-3 and 

in Appendix D. 

Parcels identified for disposal total 14,961 acres ain Appendix D. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-12 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Goals and Objectives:

 Achieve the attainment of Standards for Rangeland Health and other desired resource conditions by maintaining appropriate utilization levels of the range through management prescriptions and administrati

 Achieve healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems that support the livestock industry while providing for other resource values such as wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, clean water, and functional w

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 Grazing would be managed according to the Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to meet the Standards for Rangeland Health, including adjustment in seasons of use. 

 On all allotments, allow allotment boundaries adjustments, joining and splitting, and modification of grazing season subject to appropriate NEPA review and analysis (see Map 2-4 for a map of grazing allot Continue to authorize grazing at the current preference levels (as per ten-year grazing permits) and adjust, if necessary to meet Standards for Rangeland Health. 

 As amended in previous planning documents (the 1985 Grand RMP and a Plan Amendment analyzed in EA#068-94-047), grazing use would continue to not be authorized on the following allotments/areas 

 Between The Creeks with 3,960 acres and 221 AUMs, to protect municipal watersheds, improve mule deer winter range, improve riparian habitat, and reduce recreation conflict. 

 North Sand Flats with 18,246 acres and 798 AUMs, to reduce recreation conflict, improve mule deer winter range, and improve riparian habitat. 

 South Sand Flats with 10,209 acres and 592 AUMs, to reduce recreation conflict, improve mule deer winter range, and improve riparian habitat. 

 A portion of Arth's Pasture Allotment (Poison Spider area) with approximately 7,634 acres and 425 AUMs, to improve desert bighorn sheep habitat and reduce recreation conflict. 

 Castle Valley with 6,074 acres and 190 AUMs, to protect the Castle Valley sole source aquifer, to improve mule deer winter range, and to reduce recreation conflict.  Along Highway 128 from U.S. 191 to the Castle Valley Road, along U.S. 191 from Highway 313 to Moab, and along Highway 279 with 1,139 acres, to reduce recreation traffic conflict (no reduction 

 A portion of the Kane Spring Allotment (that portion in Kane Spring Canyon between the open valley and the river; 558 acres and no reduction in AUMs), to reduce recreation traffic conflict and to en An area along the Colorado River between Hittle and north of Dewey Bridge (400 acres and no reduction in AUMs), to reduce recreation traffic conflict and to enhance riparian species' habitat. 

 Develop AMPs on seven allotments (Agate, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Harley Dome, Highlands, Monument Wash, and San Arroyo) and on any additional allotments if resource issues are identified to benefit vege

 Identify appropriate utilization levels based on allotment or site-specific management practices, such as season-of-use, grazing intensity and duration, and utilization patterns, as well as vegetative conditions

indicator to evaluate if current grazing use is appropriate to meet resource objectives for the area. Generally moderate utilization levels (40–60%) would be used to indicate if general management objectives 

yearly basis through pasture and possible early removal from allotments as needed. Utilization levels may be especially important during periods of drought. Long-term adjustments to livestock use (term pe

historic impacts, utilization mapping, and long-term trend data, as well as utilization levels. 

 Follow the recommendations of the National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004c) and the Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse (UDWR 2002) where applicable. 

 Conversion of allotments from cattle to domestic sheep would not be considered in recognized bighorn sheep habitat (see Maps 2-25 and 2-28). 

 Collect monitoring data, including trend, utilization, actual use, and climate data to determine if existing livestock management practices are meeting land-use planning and resource objectives.  Change class of livestock from sheep to cattle on the Hatch Point Allotment (96,951 acres) to benefit wildlife. 

 Rangelands that have been burned, reseeded, or otherwise treated to alter vegetative composition would have livestock grazing use temporarily suspended as follows: (1) burned rangelands, whether by wild

burn; (2) rangelands that have been reseeded, or otherwise mechanically treated would be ungrazed for a minimum of two complete growing seasons following treatment. 

Relinquishment of Preference:

 Voluntary relinquishments of grazing permits and preference, in whole or in part, submitted by a permittee in writing to the BLM, would be handled on a case-by-case basis. BLM would not recognize as va

Relinquished permits and the associated preference would remain available for application by qualified applicants after BLM considers if such action would meet rangeland health standards and is compatibl

and conditions may be modified to meet RMP goals and objectives and/or site-specific resource objectives. However, upon relinquishment, BLM may determine through a site-specific evaluation and associdiscontinued on the allotment through an amendment to the existing RMP or a new RMP effort. Any decision issued concerning discontinuance of livestock grazing is not permanent and may be reconsidere

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

AUMs allotted to livestock: 107,071 Acres available for grazing: 1,695,621 Acres not available for grazing: 126,907 Note: Please see Map 2-4-A for areas not available for livestock grazing under this alternative. 

AUMs allotted to livestock: 106,574 Acres available for grazing: 1,668,732 Acres not available for grazing: 153,797 Note: Please see Map 2-4-B for areas not available for livestock grazing under this alternative. 

AUMs allotted to livestock: 106,479 Acres available for grazing: 1,690,481  Acres not available for grazing: 132,047 Note: Please see Map 2-4-C for areas not availablthis alternative. 

Allotments Not Available for Grazing:

 Bogart with 14,744 acres and 209 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, especially 

mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). 

 Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, 

especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). 

 Diamond with 18,620 acres and 588 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, 

especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health 

Allotments Not Available for Grazing:

 Bogart with 14,744 acres and 209 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially 

mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). 

 Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs (to benefit wildlife 

especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). 

 Diamond with 18,620 acres and 588 AUMs (to benefit wildlife especially 

mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and 

Allotments Not Available for Grazing:

 Bogart with 14,744 acres and 209 AUMs (to 

mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitaterosive soils). 

 Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUM

especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparand erosive soils). 

 Diamond with 18,620 acres and 588 AUMs 

wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk hab
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-13 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

and erosive soils). erosive soils). watershed health and erosive soils).

 Pear Park, with 14,201 acres and 200 AUMs 

especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparand erosive soils). 

 Ida Gulch, with 3,612 acres and 112 AUMs 

and enhance riparian habitat).

 Pear Park, with 14,201 acres and 200 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, 

especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). 

 Spring Creek, with 1,550 acres and 45 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, 

especially mule deer and/or elk winter range). 

 Beaver Creek with 2,304 acres and 0 AUMs (to benefit wildlife, 

especially riparian species and Colorado cutthroat trout). 

 Pear Park, with 14,201 acres and 200 AUMs (to benefit wildlife 

especially mule deer and/or elk habitat, riparian habitat, watershed health and erosive soils). 

 Spring Creek-Buckhorn, approx. 600 acres and 45 AUMs (to benefit 

wildlife especially mule deer and/or elk winter range). 

 Beaver Creek with 2,304 acres and 0 AUMs (to benefit wildlife 

especially riparian species and Colorado cutthroat trout). 

 Professor Valley, with 18,966 acres and 378 AUMs (to reduce recreation 

conflict and enhance riparian habitat). 

 Ida Gulch, with 3,612 acres and 112 AUMs (to reduce recreation conflict 

and enhance riparian habitat). 

 River, with 386 acres and 7 AUMs (to reduce recreation conflict and 

enhance riparian habitat). 

 Mill Creek, with 3,921 acres and 137 AUMs (to reduce recreation and 

cultural conflict and to protect municipal watershed). 

 Portions of Professor Valley, Ida Gulch, and 

128**, with 1,467 acres and 0 AUMs (to redenhance riparian habitat). 

 Mill Creek with 3,921 acres and 137 AUMs 

cultural conflict and to protect municipal wa

**A fence would be constructed along the sout(set back to protect the scenic resources of the This would result in all BLM lands between thHighway 128 being unavailable for grazing. Ththe allotments, but it would not reduce the AUforage is low due to heavy use by motorists an

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that would be Available for Grazing:

None 

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that would be Available 

for Grazing: 

None 

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazin

for Grazing:

After allotment specific evaluation to assure resoufollowing areas would be available for livestock g

Spring Creek. 

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation:

None 

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be 

Reconsidered for Allocation:None 

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazin

Reconsidered for Allocation:Beaver Creek with 1,351 acres and 0 AUMs. 

Grazing in Saline Soils:Manage livestock grazing on portions of the following allotments to stabilize impacts on highly saline soils and reduce salinity in the Colorado River drainage. This includes the following allotments: Athena, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, 

Crescent Canyon, Highland, Monument Wash, and Thompson Canyon (1985 Grand RMP). 

Grazing in Saline Soils:

Use grazing systems and develop AMPs to minimize impacts to saline soils and reduce salinity in the Colorado River drainage in the following allotments: Agate, Big Flat-Ten Mile, Cisco Mesa, Crescent Canyon, Floy Creek, Harley Dome, Highlands, and San Arroyo. If Rangeland Health Standards indicate that soil compaction is an issue on the following allotments, assess all available data and determine if a change in the livestock season of use would correct the problem: Athena, Cisco, Coal Canyon, Horse Canyon, Little Grand, Lone Cone, and Monument. 

Grazing in Saline Soils:Use grazing systems and develop AMPs to minimand reduce salinity in the Colorado River drainagAgate, Athena, Big Flat-Ten Mile, Cisco, Cisco MCanyon, Floy Creek, Harley Dome, Highlands, HLone Cone, Monument, and San Arroyo. 

Grazing in Riparian Areas:

Continue no grazing in South Sand Flats, North Sand Flats, Between the Creeks, Cottonwood, and Diamond, to benefit riparian areas. 

Grazing in Riparian Areas:

Evaluate non-functioning and functioning-at-risk riparian areas using Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to determine if exclusion from grazing would improve riparian functioning condition. The following riparian areas would be given priority for evaluation: Lower Gray Canyon of the Green River from Rattlesnake Canyon to Swasey's Beach, Ten Mile from Dripping Spring to the Green River, Day Canyon, Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon, East Coyote, Kane Springs, and Hatch Wash (totaling 

Grazing in Riparian Areas:

Evaluate non-functioning and functioning-at-risk Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines foManagement to determine if restriction from grazfunctioning condition. The following riparian areas would be given priorfrom Dripping Spring to the Green River, Mill CrCanyon, and East Coyote (totaling 1,169 acres). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-14 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

4,422 acres). 

Vegetation Treatments:

Areas treated prior to 1985 are considered existing treatments. Land treatments on 11 allotments would be implemented to increase available forage by 8,514 

AUMs to allow for increased use by livestock and wildlife. The increase in AUMs would be split evenly between livestock and wildlife where both are present. Land treatments include plowing and seeding, chaining and seeding, drill seeding. The following allotments are included in the land treatments: Bar X, Black Ridge, Buckhorn, Corral Wash, Hatch Point, Lisbon, Lower Lisbon, San Arroyo, Sand Flats, Taylor and Winter Camp. Initiate prescribed fire and seeding on approximately 14,149 acres (in 10 allotments), as currently proposed in existing LUP Amendments, thereby increasing AUMs by approximately 1,700 for livestock and wildlife. The allotments include Showerbath Spring, Floy Canyon, Cottonwood, Diamond, Middle Canyon, Little Hole, Buckhorn, Adobe Mesa, Hatch Point, and Lisbon. 

Total Acres: 67,125. 

Vegetation Treatments:

Maintain the existing vegetation treatments (46,307 acres) to increase available forage within the following allotments. These areas have been treated over the past 50 years and consist primarily of pinyon-juniper woodlands. These areas would be treated by prescribed fire, chemical or mechanical or other means in accordance with BLM sagebrush conservation guidance and other applicable resource goals. The improved forage would benefit wildlife. Allotments: Adobe Mesa, Big Triangle, Black Ridge, Buckhorn; Cisco;East Coyote, Fisher Valley, Granite Creek, Hatch Point, Lisbon, Lower Lisbon; Mountain Island, Rattlesnake South, Scharf Mesa, Spring Creek, Steamboat Mesa, Taylor, Windwhistle. Total Acres: 46,307. Conduct no new vegetation treatments except those beneficial to other resource values such as wildlife or watershed. 

Vegetation Treatments:

Maintain the existing vegetation treatments (46,30forage within the following allotments. These arepast 50 years and consist primarily of pinyon-juniwould be treated by prescribed fire, chemical or maccordance with BLM sagebrush conservation guresource goals. The improved forage would benefincluding livestock and wildlife use. Allotments: Adobe Mesa, Big Triangle, Black RidCoyote, Fisher Valley, Granite Creek, Hatch PoinMountain Island, Rattlesnake South, Scharf MesaMesa, Taylor, Windwhistle. Total Acres: 46,307. Conduct new vegetation treatments (6,900 acres) following allotments with prescribed fire, chemicmeans: Floy Canyon, Hatch Point, Lisbon, and Shtreatments would be considered to benefit other rewildlife or watershed. 

Implement Range Projects to meet or exceed Rangeland Health Standards:

Implement livestock manipulation techniques (fences and water development) to benefit wildlife and livestock. 

Implement Range Projects to meet or exceed Rangeland Health 

Standards:

Implement range projects that would benefit resource values such as habitat for wildlife, reducing soil compaction and erosion, and improving the health of 

riparian areas. 

Implement Range Projects to help maintain Ra

Implement range projects that would equally beneother resource values. 

MINERALS 

Goals and Objectives:

 Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible exploration and development of mineral and energy resources subject to appropriate BLM policies, laws and regulations. 

 Establish conditions of use through land-use planning to protect other resource values. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D: 

 Continue the withdrawal of lands along the Colorado, Dolores, and Green Rivers, totaling 65,037 acres within the MPA, from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal, October 6, 2004). In addition, continu

to entry under the mining law. 

 Wilderness Study Areas and designated Wilderness (358,806 acres) would remain closed, by law, to mineral leasing and development. 

 Where public lands are sold or exchanged under 43 U.S.C. 682(B)(Small Tracts Act), 43 U.S.C. 869 (Recreation and Public Purposes Act), 43 U.S. C. 1718 (Sales) or 43 U.S. C. 1716 (Exchanges), the mine

a subsequent land-use planning decision expressly recommends restoring the land to mineral entry. 

Leasable Minerals:Split-estate lands (private surface/Federal minerals) and lands administered by other Federal agencies are not managed by the BLM. The lands include about 29,678 acres of split-estate lands and the lands admini(SMA) manages the surface. BLM administers the operational aspects of mineral leases. On lands administered by other Federal agencies, lease stipulations would include those required by the SMA. On 20,061 a

lands with Federal surface. BLM would close or impose a no surface occupancy stipulation on 9,617 acres of split-estate lands (see Appendix C). Mitigation measures to protect other resource values would be de

approval to permits in consultation with the surface owner or SMA. 

Coal:The coal resources within the MPA include the Sego and the La Sal coal fields. Approximately 80% of the Sego coal field is within Wilderness Study Areas and is not available for development. For the remaininresources is low (see Mineral Potential Report). At such time as interest is expressed in coal leasing, the RMP would be amended as appropriate and mining unsuitability criteria (43 CFR 3461) would be applied b

conditions developed in the RMP and the unsuitability assessment. This may restrict all or certain types of mining techniques. Before any coal could be removed, MFO would have to approve the mining permit a

Locatable Minerals:Existing operations would continue to be subject to the stipulations developed for the notice or the plan of operations. The BLM would evaluate all operations authorized by the mining laws in the context of its rerights afforded claimants under the mining laws, operations conducted after this RMP would be required to conform to the surface disturbing stipulations developed in this RMP. Operations on BLM-administered lands open to mineral entry must be conducted in compliance with BLM's surface management regulations (43 CFR 3715, 3802, 3809, and 3814). BLM surface management reg
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-15 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMPAlternatives B and D: 

 To be consistent with the existing withdrawals from mineral entry, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within the area of 

scenic, and recreation values addressed in these withdrawals. 

 To the extent possible, the stipulations developed for oil and gas leasing are applicable to all mineral activities (leasable, locatable, and salable). These stipulations are found in Appendix C. Leasable minera

minerals include sand and gravel, clay, and building stone. 

 In areas where mineral activities would be incompatible with existing surface use, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Th

Springs, Moab Landfill, Moab Airport, and Dead Horse Point State Park. 

 The Federal minerals within the incorporated city of Moab and town of Castle Valley are closed to oil and gas leasing by Federal regulation at 43 CFR 3100.0-3 (a)(2)(iii). 

Leasable Minerals:

Oil and Gas:

The plan would recognize and be consistent with the National Energy Policy Act and related BLM policy by adopting the following objectives: 

 Recognizing the need for diversity in obtaining energy supplies. 

 Encouraging conservation of sensitive resource values.  Improving energy distribution opportunities. 

 In accordance with an UDEQ-DAQ letter dated June 6, 2008, (see Appendix V) requesting implementation of interim nitrogen oxide control measures for compressor engines; BLM will require the following 

 All new and replacement internal combustion gas field engines of less than or equal to 300 design-rated horsepower must not emit more than 2 gms of NOx per horsepower-hour. This requirement do 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. 

Lease stipulations would be developed to mitigate the impacts of oil and gas activity (see Appendix C and Maps 2-5-A through 2-5-D). The stipulations would adhere to the Uniform Format prepared by the Rock

necessary to accomplish the desired resource protection and would contain provisions/criteria to allow for exception, waiver and modification if warranted. Stipulations would be determined unnecessary if duplicall lands within the Moab Field Office. In addition, the Proposed RMP describes specific lease stipulations and program-related Best Management Practices (both found in Appendix C: Stipulations and Environma variety of different resources. Oil and gas leases issued prior to the RMP would continue to be managed under the stipulations in effect when issued. Those issued subsequent to the plan would be subject to the stipulations developed in the pla

authorizations to mitigate impacts and conflicts with other uses and resource values (see Appendix C). 

Potash and Salt (Non-energy Leasable):Within the MPA, three areas fall within known potash leasing areas (KPLAs). KPLA designations, based on known geologic data, would remain in place until potash resources are depleted. In KPLAs, potash lea

prospecting permits, which could lead to issuance of a preference right lease. There are currently 8 leases and 13 pending prospecting permit applications within the MPA (Map 2-6). Additional KPLAs could be d

the RMP would continue to be managed under the stipulations in effect when issued. Those leases issued subsequent to the RMP would be consistent with the oil and gas leasing stipulations developed in the RMP 

Locatable Minerals:A no surface occupancy stipulation cannot be applied to locatable minerals without a withdrawal. All public lands overlying Federal minerals are open to mining claim location unless specifically withdrawn from 

(Three Rivers, Westwater, and Black Ridge Wilderness), all public lands with the MPA remain open under the mining laws. Future withdrawals may be recommended in areas identified as closed or with a no sur

Salable Minerals:There are currently 12 community pits totaling about 2,693 acres designated in the MPA (Map 2-7). Existing mineral material sale contracts, free use permits, and material sites, including community pits, would 

areas issued or designated after the RMP would be subject to permit stipulations developed in the RMP. These stipulations would be the same as those stipulations for oil and gas leasing except that areas with a n

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Oil and Gas Leasing (see Map 2-5-A):

 Approximately 1,038,344 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard lease terms (Category 1). 

 Approximately 389,605 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing 

subject to special conditions (controlled surface use/timing limitation stipulations [CSU/TL], or Category 2). 

 Approximately 38,912 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing with no 

surface occupancy (NSO; Category 3). 

 Approximately 353,293 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. 

(Category 4). 

Oil and Gas Leasing (see Map 2-5-B):

 Approximately 264,344 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard terms and conditions. 

 Approximately 543,751 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing 

subject to CSU and TL stipulations. 

 Approximately 342,931 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing 

subject to an NSO stipulation. 

 Approximately 671,444 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, of 

which 318,709 acres are outside Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas. Of these 318,709 acres, 20,288 acres are within the Castle Valley and Moab-Spanish Valley watersheds, and 266,455 are within lands with wilderness characteristics. The remaining 31,966 acres are closed to oil and gas leasing because it is not reasonable to apply an NSO stipulation. This includes areas where the oil and gas resources are physically inaccessible by current directional drilling technology from outside the boundaries of the NSO areas. (These lands closed to oil and gas leasing 

Oil and Gas Leasing (see Map 2-5-C):

 Approximately 427,273 acres would be open 

subject to standard terms and conditions. 

 Approximately 806,994 acres would be open 

subject to CSU and TL stipulations. 

 Approximately 217,480 acres would be open 

subject to an NSO stipulation. 

 Approximately 370,250 acres would be clos

which 25,306 acres are outside Wilderness oAbout 25,306 acres are closed to oil and gas reasonable to apply an NSO stipulation. Thiand gas resources are physically inaccessible drilling technology from outside the boundalands closed to oil and gas leasing would be surface-disturbing activities.) Should technoAmendment would be initiated to place thes
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-16 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

would be managed to preclude all other surface-disturbing activities.) Should technology change, a Plan Amendment would be initiated to place these 31,966 acres under an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing. 

In addition, 7,259 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be managed as open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation, and 2,358 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix C). 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing. 

In addition, 8,078 acres of Federal minerals (splitmanaged as open to oil and gas leasing with an Nacres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) woulleasing (see Appendix C). 

Salable Minerals:

Allow the disposal of salable minerals on 1,466,861 acres. 

Salable Minerals (see Map 2-5-B):

 Approximately 264,344 acres would be open to the disposal of salable 

minerals subject to standard terms and conditions. 

 Approximately 543,751 acres would be open to the disposal of salable 

minerals subject to CSU and TL stipulations. 

 Approximately 342,931 acres would not be open to the disposal of salable 

minerals (in those areas subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing). 

 Approximately 671,444 acres would be closed to the disposal of salable 

minerals. 

In addition, 7,259 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would not be 

open to the disposal of salable minerals in those lands subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas, and 2,358 acres of Federal minerals (split-estate lands) would be closed to the disposal of salable minerals (see Appendix C). 

Salable Minerals (see Map 2-5-C):

 Approximately 427,273 acres would be open 

minerals subject to standard terms and cond

 Approximately 806,994 acres would be open 

minerals subject to CSU and TL stipulations

 Approximately 217,480 acres would not be 

minerals (in those areas subject to an NSO sleasing). 

 Approximately 370,250 acres would be clos

minerals. 

In addition, 8,078 acres of Federal minerals (split

open to the disposal of salable minerals in those lastipulation for oil and gas, and 1,539 acres of Fedlands) would be closed to the disposal of salable m

Locatable Minerals:

 Approximately 1,389,531 acres are open to operations for locatable 

minerals. 

 Approximately 78,333 acres are withdrawn from operations to locatable 

minerals. 

 Approximately 353,510 acres within WSAs are open to operations for 

locatable minerals subject to the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP; 1650-1). 

Locatable Minerals:

 Approximately 268,873 acres are open to operations for locatable 

minerals subject to standard terms and conditions. 

 Approximately 1,120,658 acres are open to operations for locatable 

minerals subject to CSU and TL stipulations. 

 Approximately 78,333 acres are withdrawn from operations to locatable 

minerals. 

 Approximately 353,510 acres within WSAs are open to operations for 

locatable minerals subject to the IMP (1650-1). 

Locatable Minerals:

 Approximately 427,273 acres are open to op

minerals subject to standard terms and cond

 Approximately 962,258 acres are open to op

minerals subject to CSU and TL stipulations

 Approximately 78,333 acres are withdrawn 

minerals. 

 Approximately 353,510 acres within WSAs 

locatable minerals subject to the IMP (1650-

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

BLM has identified non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics for management consideration in this planning effort. Wilderness characteristics include the appearance of naturalness and outstanding opportuGoals and Objectives: 

 Protect, preserve and maintain wilderness characteristics (appearance of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation or solitude) of non-WSA lands with wilderness charact

these primitive lands and backcountry landscapes for their undeveloped character, and to provide opportunities for primitive recreational activities and experiences of solitude, as appropriate. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics were not addressed in the 1985 Grand RMP, as amended. These lands are managed according to the 1985 RMP prescriptions. 

Manage 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands (see Map 2-24-B) to protect, preserve and maintain wilderness characteristics by applying the following prescriptions: 

 Closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix C).  Preclude other surface-disturbing activities, including mineral material 

sales (see Appendix C). 

 Retain public lands in Federal ownership.  Prohibit woodland harvest.  Manage vehicle use as limited to designated roads.  Designate as VRM Class II.  Manage as exclusion areas for ROWs. 

Non-WSA lands to be managed for wilderness characteristics: Arches Adjacent (6,396 acres) Beaver Creek (25,722 acres), Behind the Rocks (3,643 acres), Big Triangle (5,200 acres), Coal Canyon (22,135 acres), Dead Horse 

Manage 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands (see Map and maintain wilderness characteristics by applyinprescriptions: 

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation fo

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and lands with wilderness characteristics, in comoccupancy applied because of the Three Rivtracts of land which are physically inaccessiwithin the Fisher Towers, Mary Jane, and Breason, portions of non-WSA lands in these characteristics would be closed to oil and ga

 These areas would be managed to preclude o

activities (see Appendix C) including minerAppendix C). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-17 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Cliffs (797 acres), Desolation Canyon (10,498 acres), Dome Plateau (14,207 acres), Fisher Towers (17,235 acres), Floy Canyon (9,983 acres), Flume Canyon (3,520 acres), Goldbar (6,437 acres), Gooseneck (843 acres). Granite Creek (4,528 acres), Harts Point (1,465 acres), Hatch Wash (10,983 acres), Hatch/Lockhart (2,670) acres), Hells Hole (2,538 acres), Hideout Canyon (11,607 acres), Horsethief Point (8,382 acres), Hunter Canyon (4,465 acres), Labyrinth Canyon (25,361 acres), Lost Spring Canyon (11,456 acres), Mary Jane Canyon (24,779 acres), Mexico Point (12,837 acres), Mill Creek Canyon (3,388 acres), Negro Bill Canyon (2,333 acres), Shafer Canyon (1,842 acres), Spruce Canyon (1,131 acres), Westwater Canyon (3,086 acres), Westwater Creek (7,188 acres), and Yellow Bird (357 acres). 

 Retain public lands in Federal ownership.  Prohibit woodland harvest.  Manage vehicle use as limited to designated  Designate as VRM Class II.  Manage as avoidance areas for ROWs. 

Non-WSA lands to be managed for wilderness Creek (25,722 acres), Fisher Towers (5,540 acres Amphitheater), and Mary Jane Canyon (16,499 acAmphitheater). 

PALEONTOLOGY 

Goals and Objectives:

 Protect paleontological resources from surface-disturbing activities. Promote the scientific, educational, and recreational uses of fossils.  Foster public awareness and appreciation of the MPA's paleontological heritage. 

 Promote and facilitate scientific investigation of fossil resources. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 Vertebrate fossils may be collected only by qualified individuals under a permit issued by the BLM Utah State Office. Vertebrate fossils include bones, teeth, eggs, and other body parts of animals with back

footprints, burrows, gizzard stones, and dung. 

 Fossils collected under a permit remain the property of the Federal government and must be placed in an approved repository (such as a museum or university) identified at the time of permit issuance. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 Locate, evaluate, and protect significant paleontological resources. Provide for public visitation and education opportunities while simultaneously protecting and supporting the scientific and research value o Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common invertebrate and plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use. Surface disturbance must be negligible, and collectors may onl Casting of vertebrate fossils, including dinosaur tracks, is prohibited unless allowed under a scientific/research permit issued by the BLM Utah State Office. 

 Lands identified for disposal would be evaluated to determine whether such actions would remove significant fossils (see Appendix D) from Federal ownership. 

 Recognize and protect paleontological resources identified as part of the Dinosaur Diamond National Prehistoric Byway. 

 Prohibit petrified wood gathering within the Colorado Riverway Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) to protect these paleontological resources for future public enjoyment. Prohibit private petrifi

petrified wood gathering outside these two SRMAs to allow for private collection of petrified wood (43 CFR 3620). 

 Prohibit commercial sales of petrified wood products due to limited availability of such resources.  Attach lease notices, stipulations, and other requirements to permitted activities to prevent damage to paleontological resources.  Manage Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trail, Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway, and Poison Spider Track Site as important scientific and public education resources as guided by future SRMA activity-level plans.  Personal collection of a reasonable amount of invertebrate and plant fossils would be allowed throughout the MPA. Where areas with rare and significant invertebrate and plant fossils are identified, these ar

RECREATION 

Goals and Objectives:To provide for multiple recreational uses of the public lands and sustain a wide-range of recreation opportunities and potential experiences for visitors and residents, while supporting local economic stability and Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:Management of recreation would be generally guided by the Utah Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management. The guidelines describe in a broad sense the conditions to be mainManagement common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 Where unacceptable damage to natural or cultural resources by recreational use is anticipated or observed, BLM would seek to limit or control activities by managing the nature and extent of the activity or b

controls and facility development. Such management actions would seek to reduce or eliminate the adverse impact while maintaining the economic benefits associated with a wide range of recreation uses. 

 BLM would consider and, where appropriate, implement management methods to protect riparian resources, special status species, and wildlife habitat while enhancing recreation opportunities. Managemen

alteration of when use takes place, and other similar actions to be approved through normal BLM procedures. 

 BLM would coordinate management of recreation use with other agencies, State and local government and tribal units to provide public benefits. 

 Recreational off-highway vehicle (OHV) and mechanized travel would be consistent with area and route designations described in the travel management plan. BLM would work with agency and governme

appropriate, to provide reasonable access for non-recreational use of OHVs for military, search and rescue, emergency, administrative, and permitted uses. 

 Dispersed camping is allowed where not specifically restricted. Dispersed camping may be closed seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions warrant. All vehicle use associated with dispersed cam

 Management actions limiting camping, wood gathering, firewood cutting, and requiring use of fire pans and portable toilets implemented through published closures limitations, restrictions, or special rules a
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-18 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Moab Field Office Rules, Closures, and Restrictions in Appendix E). 

 Lands acquired within a management area through future land tenure adjustment would take on the management of the surrounding area. 

 Provide visitor information and outreach programs that emphasize the value of public land resources and low impact recreation techniques while also providing information about recreation activities, experi

 Provide public information concerning the prevention of the spread of invasive and exotic weeds, and about wildlife species and their habitat especially in riparian areas. 

 Continue to manage the Slickrock Bike Trail and Fisher Towers Trail as a National Recreation Trails consistent with their current secretarial designation. National Trails designation would be consistent with 

 Continue supporting public use and enjoyment of the Prehistoric Highway National Scenic Byway. Assist with the development and implementation of a management plan. 

 Support Grand County's efforts to obtain approval of corridor management plans for Utah Scenic Byways (Utah Highways 128, 313 and 279) and provide assistance, where feasible, in the development of by

 Continue to manage Kane Creek Road to Hurrah Pass and the roads to Needles, Anticline, and Minor overlooks as Utah Scenic Backways. 

 BLM Back Country Byways and National Recreation Trails may be designated in the future as deemed appropriate with site-specific environmental analysis.  Continue managing Kokopelli's Trail to facilitate its use as a potential segment of the American Discovery Trail. Seek to acquire public access along the entire route to facilitate potential designation as a Na

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D (see SRMA Maps 2-8-A through 2-8-D; see Appendix F for details on S

 Criteria for establishment of SRMAs, or adding or revising SRMA boundaries (using the Plan Amendment process, where appropriate) include: 

 Recreation use requires intensive management strategies to provide recreation opportunities or maintain resource values. 

 A recreation area management plan or interdisciplinary plan with intensive and specific recreation management actions is approved. 

 BLM announces the management plan and plan approval through media. 

 Generally, where SRMA boundaries are revised, management actions applicable to the original SRMA would also apply to the revised area. 

 Manage all public lands within SRMAs for retention in Federal ownership consistent with the MFO exchange criteria and acquire high value non-Federal lands from willing sellers where such acquisition wo Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 0.5 miles of developed recreation sites (current and planned as Poten

 Manage all SRMAs for sustainable camping opportunities. Camping may be restricted to designated sites if use and conditions warrant. 

 Manage all SRMAs according to Visual Resource Management Class for each respective alternative to protect scenic values and settings important to recreation.  Approved recreation facilities supporting recreation area management objectives would be planned and designed to reduce visual impacts where feasible (see Visual Resource Management).  Replace The Colorado River SRMA (24,124 acres) with the Two Rivers, Colorado Riverway and Dolores River Canyons SRMAs (Maps 2-8-A through 2-8-D) to provide for more focused management. 

 Provide general recreation management guidance and subsequent implementation of management actions for activity plan level actions for SRMAs through continuation and modification of approved recrea

 A River Management Plan for the Colorado River from the Colorado State Line to Castle Creek, and for the Dolores River, would be completed. 

 Designate SRMAs as either Destination SRMAs (majority of visitation from outside the area), Community SRMAs (the majority of visitation is from the local community), or Undeveloped SRMAs (the foc

Facilities: 

 Build and maintain additional recreation facilities consistent with the guidance provided in RAMPs and in the various focus areas as established in the RMP. In the absence of a RAMP, facilities may be con

 Campground facilities may be constructed; however, they would be located to avoid wetland, riparian, cultural resources, floodplains, and special status plant and animal species habitats. If avoidance is not 

Executive Orders). 

 Continue to manage and maintain for recreation use all existing developed recreation sites. Follow site management guidance contained in RAMPs. 

 Continue existing ROWs issued to BLM for all existing developed recreation sites and facilities. Issue similar protective ROWs for all new recreation facilities. 

 Manage developed sites as necessary under the authority of 43 CFR Part 8360, inclusive of published closures, restrictions, and supplemental rules developed for the public lands within the MPA (see above

property and resources. 

Focus Areas or Recreation Management Zones (see Maps 2-9-A through 2-9-D; see Appendix F for more detail on SRMAs)

 Focus areas are Recreation Management Zones (RMZ) for emphasizing particular types of recreation activities while still allowing for other uses in accordance with the Travel Plan. As RMZs, Focus Areas 

such as route marking, parking, camping, and information. Where a single focus SRMA or a specific RMZ (Focus Area) is not identified, the default focus of that area is motorized, backcountry touring on d

 The following types of Focus Areas are considered under the alternatives: Non-mechanized Recreation, Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring, Motorized Backcountry Touring, Scenic Driving Corridors, Spe

Bookcliffs SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Continue to manage the Bookcliffs for general recreation use. The Bookcliffs SRMA (Map 2-8) would be established as an Undeveloped 

SRMA at 348,140 acres for non-mechanized recreation, especially equestrian use, hiking, backpacking, and big game hunting. It would be managed for low frequency of visitor interaction by not establishing new motorized, mechanized routes; no commercial motorized permits would be issued and competitive events would not be allowed. 

The Bookcliffs SRMA would not be established. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-19 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Cameo Cliffs SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

BLM authorization of the ROW to San Juan County for the Hook and Ladder OHV trailhead and several sections of connector route would continue. In June 2005, the Cameo Cliffs Special Recreation Area (Map 2-8) was designated under a Plan Amendment to the Grand RMP. OHV designation for the area is Limited to Designated Routes. The focus activity in the Cameo Cliffs SRMA is motorized route use. 

Same as the Proposed Plan. Manage the Cameo Cliffs area as a Destination SR

the Cameo Cliffs Recreation Area Management Pwould provide sustainable opportunities for road-mechanized outdoor recreation on a marked route mechanized hiking and equestrian area in Hook athe route of the Old Spanish Trail, while protectin

values including range, wildlife habitat, scenic, cuand riparian values in current or improved conditiarea for touring purposes, no motorized competitiauthorized. Work with San Juan County to further implement the San Juan County All-terrain Vehicle Plan, and wildlife, vegetation, and cultural resources. Implement camping management rules as use levewarrant. Potential Future Facilities:

Install Cameo Cliffs OHV Trailhead toilet. 

Canyon Rims SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Manage the Canyon Rims SRMA (101,531 acres) (Map 2-8) to protect, manage and improve the natural resources of the area while allowing for recreation activities such as developed camping, visiting scenic overlooks, auto touring on the primary road system, touring the secondary road system by motorized vehicle and mountain bike, and hiking and backpacking the canyons (in accordance with the ROS classes) utilizing interpretive and educational opportunities to realize the potential of the area. Major management actions include: 

1. Manage the area as open to mineral leasing with controlled surface 

occupancy except for developed recreation sites, which would be 

managed as open to leasing with no surface occupancy. 

2. Manage the area to maintain ROS classes as inventoried. 3. Acquire or exchange private and State lands from willing landowners. 4. Manage the entire area as OHV travel limited to existing roads (mapped 

as part of the planning process). 

5. Manage the western rim land areas of Hatch Point as VRM Class II and 

the remainder of the area as VRM Class III. 

6. Maintain and/or improve all existing developed recreation sites as 

specified in the Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plan. 

7. Restrict camping near developed recreation sites. 8. Close the entire recreation area to wood cutting and gathering. 

9. Manage Hatch Wash and the lower section of West Coyote Creek for 

primitive, non-motorized recreation. 

10. Restrict backcountry motorized events to commercial and non-race 

special events on the Flat Iron Mesa Jeep Safari route only. 

11. Consider development of additional trails and recreation facilities only 

as necessary. 

Same as the Proposed Plan. Same as Alternative A except: 

 Manage the Canyon Rims SRMA as a Desti

acres). 

 Motorized travel would be limited to design Manage the Windwhistle Nature Trail, Antic

Overlook Trail, and Trough Spring Canyon 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-20 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation:

N/A 

Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation:

Same as the Proposed Plan. 

Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation (3,64

Hatch Wash Hiking and Backpacking Focus Area Goodman Canyon to the confluence of Hatch Waincluding the lower section of West Coyote Creek confluence with Hatch Wash) and the lower sectioNew motorized routes would not be considered. 

Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors:

N/A 

Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors:

Needles and Anticline Roads – Utah Scenic Backways. Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width of 1 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining focus area). 

Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors:

Needles and Anticline Roads – Utah Scenic Backdriving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as havcenterline (or to border of adjoining focus area). 

Colorado Riverway SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

The Colorado Riverway (Map 2-8) was established as a recreation management area in 1992 and extended in 2001. Management has focused upon providing improvements to sites to facilitate recreation use and protection of scenic and other resource values. Subsequent recreation plan amendments have addressed 

camping in the Onion Creek area, the construction of a bike lane along SR 128 from the Porcupine Rim Trail to Lion's Park, the construction of a nonmotorized bridge on non-Federal land at Lion's Park, and the establishment of a 

non-mechanized route system in the area between Onion and Professor Creeks. Major management actions include: 

1. Acquiring specific tracts of State land. 2. Acquiring private lands or scenic easements from willing sellers. 3. Restricting motorized and mechanized travel to designated routes. 4. Developing and managing recreation facilities and uses. 

5. Limiting camping and camp fires to designated sites. 6. Closing the area to firewood cutting and limiting firewood gathering to 

riverside driftwood. 

7. Recommending withdrawal of the area from mineral entry. 8. Limiting use of the Fisher Towers, Negro Bill Canyon, Hunter Canyon, 

and Corona Arch trails to foot travel.* 

Lands along the Colorado River within the riverway are withdrawn from mineral entry through the Three Rivers Withdrawal. 

Same as the Proposed Plan, except: 

 Expand boundary to include the entire Top of the World area and lands 

along the Entrada Bluffs Road up to the boundary of the Colorado River SRMA (103,467 acres). 

 Prohibit camping on the north side of the river along Highway 128.  Prohibit camping at the Kane Creek Crossing Area. 

Colorado Riverway SRMA would be established 89,936 acres. Management would be the same as following exceptions and additions: 

 Expand the boundary of the Colorado River

of the Entrada Bluffs Road to the boundary well as lands south of the Entrada Bluffs Ro

 Manage the Colorado Riverway as a Destina

camping, boating, river access, trail, and inteareas along or near the Colorado River and tresource values of the area. Guidance for maColorado Riverway Recreation Area Manag

 Manage the Dewey Bridge to Castle Creek p

to provide opportunities for high use boating Boating Management below). 

 Manage south shore recreation sites (from D

under the Colorado Riverway RAMP. 

 Manage the north shore to provide quality u

camping and hiking opportunities while assuquality habitat for bighorn sheep as well as f

 Manage the Kane Creek Crossing area to em

designated camping and scenic touring. 

 Manage the Entrada Bluffs Road area to em

opportunities, and scenic touring. 

 Manage the Shafer Basin addition to empha

driving opportunities (no camping allowed i

 Manage the Amphitheater Loop, Fisher Tow

Hunter Canyon, and Corona Arch trails and high quality hiking-only opportunities while resources. 

 Provide for parking and manage the Kings B

Creek Road near the Kings Bottom camping Obtain public access from a willing seller acprivate land that is located along the route. 

 Manage the seldom-used 1.5-mile long route 

Poison Spider Mesa Road) on the intermediaColorado River and Poison Spider Mesa for levels warrant, develop a return hiking trail road bed. 

 Manage the Kane Creek Road to Amasa Bac

Historic Jackson's Ladder trail as hiking and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-21 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

 Establish the proposed Pothole Arch and Ro

Back (Kane Creek) as mountain bike routesOffice to designate the Jackson's Ladder hisbike trail from Jackson's Hole to the Amasa private land owners to secure non-motorized route. 

 Manage the Portal Trail to provide both hiki

opportunities. 

Potential Future Facilities:

N/A 

Potential Future Facilities: 

 Entrada Bluffs Camping Area; camping in this area would be limited to 

this campground. 

 Hittle Bottom Group Campsites; camping in this area would be limited to 

this campground. 

 Kane Creek Crossing Camping Area; camping in this area would be 

limited to this campground. 

 Kane Creek Road Riverway Information Area.  Utah Highway 279 Riverway Information Area.  Wall Street climbing area toilet.  Lower Castle Creek Trail head and parking area.  Utah Highway 128 Bike Lane. 

Potential Future Facilities (in addition to those 

Riverway Plan):

 Castle Valley Interpretive Site.  Entrada Bluffs Camping Area; camping in th

this campground. 

 Hittle Bottom Group Campsites.  Kane Creek Crossing Camping Area. Work 

joint camping management in this area. 

 Kane Creek Road Riverway Information Ar Lower Castle Creek Trail Access.  Poison Spider Dinosaur Track Trail.  Utah Highway 128 Bike Lane.  Utah Highway 279 Riverway Information A Wall Street climbing area toilet. 

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

N/A 

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

Negro Bill Hiking and Ecological Study Focus Area (12,510 acres) inclusive of Negro Bill Canyon from the Sand Flats Recreation Area boundary to the eastern rim of Mat Martin Point with allowance for recreational mechanized use of the Porcupine Rim Trail from the junction approximately 1.55 miles east of Little Spring (upper exit to Sand Flats Road) to Highway 128. 

 Negro Bill Canyon would be restricted to day use only. Equestrian use of 

Negro Bill Canyon would be prohibited. 

 Manage the Porcupine Rim Trail to provide only hiking and mountain 

biking opportunities. Management of this trail may change pending resolution of wilderness designation for the Negro Bill Canyon WSA. 

 No new motorized routes would be considered.  Temporal zoning, permitting and vehicle type restrictions would be used 

to mitigate user conflicts on the Porcupine Rim Jeep Safari Route. 

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

Negro Bill Hiking and Ecological Study Focus ArNegro Bill Canyon between the Sand Flats RecreaRim Trail. Manage for recreational mechanized uPorcupine Rim Trail from the junction approximaSpring (upper exit to Sand Flats Road) to Highwathe Porcupine Rim Trail to Coffeepot Rock which motorized use.) 

 Manage the Negro Bill Canyon Trail for hik

of Negro Bill Canon would be prohibited. 

 Manage the Porcupine Rim Trail to provide 

biking opportunities. Management of this traresolution of wilderness designation for the 

 No new motorized routes would be consider

Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock, Hiking, Climbing and Equestrian Focus Area: 

 Same as the Proposed Plan.  Up to 15 miles of equestrian trails would be marked within this focus 

area. 

Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock, Hiking, CArea (24,767 acres) bounded by Fisher Valley, thescarpment, Highway 128, and non-Federal lands Castle Valley Road. Motorized use allowed on the Onion Creek Road, roads serving private ranches the Professor Valley area, and the motorized acce

Professor Valley (the saddle between Adobe Mesroad to designated undeveloped campsites below Open Lands (a private land conservation organizadeveloped camping area to serve rock climbers. 

 The Onion Creek Benches equestrian trail sy

Professor Creeks would be managed to provequestrian trail riding. An equestrian-orientewould be managed in Onion Creek upstream 30 miles of equestrian trails would be marke

 Manage the Amphitheater Loop and Fisher T Consider connecting hiking trails between O
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-22 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Amphitheater Loop Trail. 

Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors:

N/A 

Focus Area: Scenic Driving Corridors:

Same as the Proposed Plan, except increase scenic corridor average width to 1 mile from centerline or line of sight (whichever is shorter) or to border of adjoining focus area (see VRM for management prescriptions). 

Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors:

These corridors include Highways 128 and 279 (wUtah Scenic Byways), as well as the Kane Creek/Lockhart Basin Scenic Backway and the BLM poLoop Road Scenic Backway. Manage for scenic dcorridor is defined as having a width of 1/2 mile fsight or to border of adjoining focus area (whichemanagement prescriptions). 

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue, Non-motorized:

N/A 

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue, Non-motorized:

 No specialized sport venue-non motorized would be established.  BASE jumping would not be allowed in developed recreation sites. 

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue, Non-mo

 Tombstone Competitive BASE Jumping Foc

Manage Tombstone area to provide BASE jumpinKane Creek Road. BASE jumping would not be allowed in develope

 Wall Street Sport Climbing Focus Area (44 

measures taken for rock art): 

Manage Wall Street area to provide rock climbing Potash Road. 

Boating Management:

Dewey to Castle Creek: Continue the existing river management program on the Colorado and Dolores Rivers (24,000 passenger days per year: 30 commercial outfitters) to provide for the safe and enjoyable long-term use of the rivers. 

Boating Management:

Same as the Proposed Plan, except: 

 Dewey to Castle Creek: No restrictions on amount of private use would 

be established unless unacceptable resource impacts occur. Permit 20 unallocated and 2 allocated (100 user days each) commercial permits. Establish additional restrictions on amount of commercial use if conditions warrant based on desired resources objectives. 

 Camping would be restricted to existing campgrounds along the Colorado 

River from Dewey to Castle Creek. There would be no camping along the north side of the Colorado River. 

Boating Management:

 Dewey to Castle Creek: Manage to provide 

mild whitewater boating. No restrictions on 

be established unless unacceptable resource unallocated commercial permits. No further commercial use would be established. 

 Camping would be restricted to designated c

of the Colorado River and existing campgroColorado River. 

Dolores River Canyons SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Continue to manage the Dolores River Canyons area for general recreation use. BLM presently has no recreation management plan in place for the area except for private and commercial boating management. The Dolores River and its floodplain is an existing SRMA (Colorado River SRMA). 

Same as the Proposed Plan. Manage the Dolores River Canyons (Map 2-8) as 

(31,661 acres). 

 Maintain high quality opportunities for non-

hiking or backpacking in a remote setting sutrails, and car camping facilities that support of the canyon system. 

 Major management actions would include p

mechanized recreation use within the Doloreconsistent with the Travel Plan. 

 No new motorized routes would be consider

Boating Management:

Colorado State Line to Bridge Canyon: Continue the existing river management program on the Colorado and Dolores Rivers (24,000 passenger days per year: 30 commercial outfitters) to provide for the safe and enjoyable long-term use of the rivers. 

Boating Management:

Same as the Proposed Plan, except: 

 Colorado State Line to Bridge Canyon: establish maximum group size of 

16 (including guides on commercial trips). 

Boating Management:

Colorado State Line to Bridge Canyon: Manage to scenic whitewater boating trips. Permits required 

use. Establish maximum group size of 25 (excludtrips). Do not establish daily launch limits. Permit outfitters. 

Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

No specific recreation decisions were made under the Grand RMP for this area. Same as the Proposed Plan, except: Manage the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges area 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-23 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives BLM manages private boating use in Labyrinth Canyon in conjunction with the Utah Divisions of State Parks and Recreation and Fire, Forestry and State Lands under the terms of a cooperative agreement. The agreement establishes an interagency river permit system and coordinates implementation of common 

river protection rules including group size and use of fire pans and portable toilets. BLM also issues permits for shoreline use related commercial river trips. Lands along the Green River in Labyrinth Canyon were withdrawn from new entry under the mining laws through the Three Rivers Withdrawal. Front country type use takes place along SR 313 and the Island in the Sky Road. This highway was designated the Dead Horse Mesa Scenic Byway by the State of Utah in the early 2000s. To manage dispersed camping and protect scenic values, BLM established a 1-mile-wide corridor along SR 313 and the Island in the Sky Entrance Road where camping is limited to designated sites, wood cutting and firewood gathering are prohibited, and portable toilets are required. BLM currently limits camping in the corridor to the Horsethief Campground, the Big Mesa, and Cowboy Camp camping areas. BLM also 

limits camping and prohibits woodcutting and firewood gathering in a onemile-wide corridor along the Gemini Bridges Road. Manage the small Cowboy Camp for tent camping and manage the Big Mesa area for group use. OHV and mountain bike travel are limited to existing roads and trails in the portion of the area south of the Ten mile Point Road (except for the Bartlett/ Tusher Slickrock area which was left open for 2 wheel riding). The area around the White Wash Sand Dunes is Open to OHV travel. In addition to the Mineral Bottom Takeout, BLM manages several additional 

facilities in the area including the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Interpretive Trail, the Halfway Stage Station Interpretive Site, and the Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway Interpretive site. BLM also manages and maintains route markings (with user group assistance) on the Monitor and Merrimac, Seven Mile Rim, 

Poison Spider Mesa, Golden Spike, Goldbar Rim, Gemini Bridges, Lower Monitor and Merrimac, Bar M, and Klondike Bluffs routes which are used by both motorized and non-motorized visitors. The 3-D, Crystal Geyser, Hellroaring Rim, Secret Spire, and Wipeout Hill routes are authorized for Jeep Safari and other uses. 

 The White Wash Sand Dunes and surrounding uplands would be 

managed to restore their ecological and scenic values and provide an opportunity for ecological interpretation and study. Emphasis would be placed upon protection of the cottonwood trees found in the open dune fields, water source protection, stream bank stabilization, and bighorn sheep habitat protection. Motorized travel in the White Wash area (like the rest of the SRMA) would be limited to designated routes. 

 Close the Bartlett/Tusher/Courthouse/Ten Mile area to camping. 

SRMA (300,650 acres). General management guicurrent management as outlined in Alternative A 

 Continue issuing permits, for both private an

common river protection rules for Labyrinth SRMA and consider extending the BLM/Sta

management of non-commercial use to inclucommercial river use. If future use levels waBottom Takeout to a more suitable location operations with the National Park Service. 

 Limit camping to designated sites in high-us

Driving Corridors and all areas east of the Dalong Ten Mile Wash. 

 Manage backcountry areas to facilitate sceni

designated routes with special emphasis upodevelopment, end of route parking areas and 

 Improve road to the Mill Canyon Dinosaur T

passenger car traffic. 

 Consider development of an alternative sing

on Poison Spider Mesa across the mesa top 

Potential Future Facilities:

N/A 

Potential Future Facilities:

Same as the Proposed Plan, except: 

 There would be no campground constructed in Bartlett Wash. Camping 

would not be allowed in Bartlett Wash. 

 There would be no campground constructed at Courthouse Rock. 

Camping would not be allowed in the Courthouse Rock area. 

Potential Future Facilities:

 Bartlett Campground: camping in this area w

campground. 

 Big Mesa Campground: camping in this area 

campground. 

 Blue Hills Road OHV Trailhead.  Courthouse Rock Campground, camping in 

to this campground. 

 Cowboy Camp Campground, camping in thi

this campground. 

 Monitor and Merrimac Bicycle and OHV Tr White Wash Sand Dunes OHV Parking and  Gemini Bridges Parking Area and Trailhead

Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors:

N/A 

Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors:

Highway 313 and the Island in the Sky Road (Dead Horse Mesa Utah Scenic 

Byway): Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as having a width of 1 mile from centerline (or to border of adjoining focus area; see Appendix C). 

Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors:

Highway 313 and the Island in the Sky Road (Utafor scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defimile from centerline (or to border of adjoining foc

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation: Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation: Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation: 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-24 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives N/A  Goldbar/Corona Arch Hiking Focus Area (4,787 acres) covers the lands 

below the Golden Spike OHV route inclusive of the Culvert Canyon drainage to the southern rim of Long Canyon. Manage the Corona Arch Trail for hiking only. Develop a hiking loop route in Culvert Canyon from the canyon bottom up to Jeep Arch and back on the western bench of Culvert Canyon. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to protect primitive hiking opportunities and scenic values. 

 White Wash Sand Dunes Ecological Study and Hiking Focus Area (9,708 

acres) would be established. 

 Ten Mile Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Focus Area (1,871 acres) 

inclusive of Ten Mile Wash from Dripping Spring to the Green Riverwith equestrian use limited to the main canyon. 

 Spring Canyon Hiking Focus Area (457 acres) would be established 

upstream from the Spring Canyon Bottom Road. No new motorized routes would be considered. 

 Labyrinth Canyon Canoe Focus Area (8,182 acres) inclusive of the rims 

along the east side of Labyrinth Canyon from Placer Bottom to Canyonlands National Park excluding the Hey Joe Mine OHV and mountain bike route and the route downstream from Spring Canyon. Temporal zoning, permitting and vehicle type restrictions would be used to mitigate user conflicts on the Hey Joe Mine Route. 

 Seven Mile Canyons Equestrian Focus Area same as the Proposed Plan. 

 Goldbar/Corona Arch Hiking Focus Area (4

below the Golden Spike OHV route inclusivdrainage to the northern rim of Long Canyon of the Day Point Road. Manage the Corona Develop a hiking loop route in Culvert Canyup to Jeep Arch and back on the western bencanyon to just up canyon from the railroad soccupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to proopportunities and scenic values. No new moconsidered. 

 White Wash Sand Dunes Ecological Study a

not be established. 

 Ten Mile Canyon Hiking and Equestrian Fo

established. 

 Spring Canyon Hiking Focus Area (457 acre

upstream from the Spring Canyon Bottom Rroutes would be considered. 

 Labyrinth Canyon Canoe Focus Area (7,709 

along the east side of Labyrinth Canyon from Bottom exclusive of the Hey Joe Mine OHV new motorized routes would be considered. 

 Seven Mile Canyons Equestrian Focus Area 

north and south forks of Seven Mile Canyon of the two canyons. Equestrian use in this arprivate (non-commercial) horse use. No new considered.. 

Focus Areas: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring:

N/A 

Focus Areas: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring:

 Klondike Bluffs Mountain Biking Focus Area (14,626 acres) between 

Arches National Park and U.S. 191. Roads would be restricted to nonmotorized access with the exception of Class B roads and the Copper 

Ridge Jeep Safari Route. Management same as the Proposed Plan (42 miles of road designated for motorized travel; 40 miles of route managed for mechanized use only). 

 Bar M Mountain Biking Focus Area (2,904 acres) between Arches 

National Park, U.S. Highway 191 and the Bar M area state lands, exclusive of motorized access for the Copper Ridge Jeep Safari Route and the 191 rock quarry access road. Convert selected existing routes to mechanized routes. Recommend that the old highway route in Moab Canyon be managed for non-motorized use to facilitate use of the route as part of the 191 bike lane (12 miles of road designated for motorized travel; 10 miles of route managed for mechanized use only). 

 Tusher Slickrock Mountain Biking Focus Area would not be established 

and would not available for slick rock mountain biking (there are no designated routes in this area). 

 Mill Canyon/Upper Courthouse Mountain Biking Focus Area would not 

be established. Manage the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trail for hiking only. 

Focus Areas: Mountain Bike Backcountry Tou

 Klondike Bluffs Mountain Biking Focus Are

Arches National Park and U.S. 191. Work wto establish mountain-bike only opportunitieManage the Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackwhiking only. 

 Bar M Mountain Biking Focus Area (2,904 

National Park, U.S. Highway 191, and the Bexclusive of motorized access for the Coppethe 191 rock quarry access road. Convert exuse and provide for a limited number of new support use of area as the destination for the that the old highway route in Moab Canyon motorized use to facilitate use of the route a

 Tusher Slickrock Mountain Biking Focus A

between Bartlett and Tusher Washes with mWash to reduce traffic in Tusher Canyon. Mslickrock and Bartlett slickrock areas for mo

only. Cross-country mountain biking across throughout this area. 

 Mill Canyon/Upper Courthouse Mountain B

acres) inclusive of areas within the Mill Candrainages with continued use of the Seven Mmotorized use, with non-motorized trailheadDinosaur Trail and the Halfway Stage StatioDinosaur Trail for hiking only (35 miles of rtravel; 23 miles of route managed for mecha

Focus Area: Motorized Backcountry Touring: Focus Area: Motorized Backcountry Touring: Focus Area: Motorized Backcountry Touring: 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-25 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives N/A Gemini Bridges/Poison Spider Mesa Focus Area would not be established. Gemini Bridges/Poison Spider Mesa Focus Area 

use, including full-size OHV, ATV, and motorcyc

given to managing routes suitable for each vehicle intensively managed on designated routes only. CBridges to facilitate public use and help restore daroute. Construct a parking area near the bridges. 

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venues (Non-motorized):

N/A 

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venues (Non-motorized):

 Mineral Canyon/Horsethief Point Competitive BASE Jumping Focus 

Area would not be established. 

 Bartlett Slickrock Freeride Focus Area would not be established. 

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venues (Non-m

 Mineral Canyon/Horsethief Point Competiti

Area (762 acres) would be established. 

 Bartlett Slickrock Freeride Focus Area (166 

No man-made structures would be added to 

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized):

N/A 

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized):

 Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area would not be established. 

 Airport Hills Motocross Focus Area would not be established. 

Focus Areas: Specialized Sport Venue (Motori

 Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus Area (35,29

ATV use: This is the area for competitive mroutes within this area would be identified banalysis. All routes designated for motorized Travel Plan would remain open while Sectioinventories are conducted. If these inventorieligible sites within the travel corridor, the rclosed. All new routes would require Section inventory prior to designation. Establish a mwith provision for ongoing management of emaintain their single-track character. 

 Airport Hills Motocross Focus Area (285 ac

for motocross use in partnership with local gRecreation and Public Purposes Act. A patengovernment. 

Focus Areas: Managed Open OHV Areas (cross country travel allowed):

N/A 

Focus Areas: Managed Open OHV Areas (cross country travel allowed):

 No open areas for OHV use would be designated on public lands in the 

MPA. 

 Open OHV use areas would not be considered for lease or patent under 

the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. 

Focus Areas: Managed Open OHV area (cross 

 White Wash Sand Dunes Open OHV Focus 

encompassing the area round the dunes themportion of the White Wash Sand Dunes for mexception of the dune field cottonwood trees sources which would be closed to motorized 

 Limit camping use in the White Wash Sand 

sites and establish basic camping facilities oof White Wash. 

 Implement a fee system, under the guideline

Recreation Enhancement Act, to help fund cof the White Wash Sand Dunes area. 

Lower Gray Canyon SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Continue existing management as described in the 1979 Desolation-Gray Canyons Management Plan prepared by the BLM Price Field Office. 

Same as the Proposed Plan.  Manage the Lower Gray Canyon SRMA (3,

see Map 2-8) as a Destination SRMA in cooOffice. 

 Manage river recreation in accordance with 

Management Plan. 

 Manage the existing riverside and the parall

Nefertiti Rapid to Rattlesnake Canyon for hi

 Vehicle camping limited to designated sites. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-26 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Sand Flats SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

The Sand Flats RAMP was approved in August of 1994. Management of the Sand Flats Recreation Area is also supported by the June 1994 Cooperative Agreement with Grand County, which authorizes the county to collect fees for the benefit of the recreation area and participate in the operational management of the area to help implement the recreation area management plan. The plan includes: 

1. Acquisition of State lands through exchange. 2. OHV travel limited to designated roads and trails. 

3. Provision for entrance and use fees. 4. Development of campgrounds. 5. Potential development of a drinking water source. 6. Provision for parking lots at the Slickrock and Little Spring trailheads. 7. Installation of toilets. 8. Development of an entrance station. 9. Provision for visitor protection. 10. Information and various services. 11. Limit camping to designated sites. 12. Limit OHV and mountain bike travel to designated routes. 13. Prohibit wood collecting and gathering. 

Same as the Proposed Plan, except: 

 Close the Moab Slickrock Bike Trail to all motorized vehicles. 

Same as Alternative A, plus: 

 Manage the Sand Flats Area (Map 2-8) as a 

acres). Guidance for management is include

 Close the Moab Slickrock Bike Trail to four

use for safety purposes. 

 The Slickrock Bike Trail would be open to m

bikes only. 

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation fo

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (recreation and scenic values. 

South Moab SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Continue to manage the Mill Creek Power Dam hiking trailhead, the Ken's Lake Recreation Site, the Hidden Valley hiking trailhead and the Blue Hill multi-use trailhead and undeveloped camping area as recreation sites. Continue to manage the Mill Creek Canyon hiking trails, the Ken's Lake hiking trail system, the Hidden Valley Hiking trail, the Steelbender/Flat Pass OHV/ mountain bike route, the Behind the Rocks OHV route, the Strike Ravine OHV route, and the Kane Creek Canyon Rim OHV/mountain bike route as recreation routes. Continue to limit camping to designated sites and prohibit wood gathering and cutting along the Black Ridge Road, the Pack Creek Road, the LaSal Mountain Loop Road and the Kane Creek Canyon Rim Road out to the Picture Frame Arch area. Prohibit camping on the west side of Spanish Valley, and in Mill Creek. 

Same as the Proposed Plan. Manage the South Moab SRMA (Map 2-8) as a D

acres). 

 Same as Alternative A, except provide addit

development of non-motorized trails through neighboring land owners through preparatiocovering the Ken's Lake area. 

 Work with Grand and San Juan counties to e

Trail Bicycle Lane to provide safe bicycle acto the Pack Creek Picnic Area. 

 Work with Moab City and Grand County to 

Parkway to the Power Dam trailhead to provand hikers. 

 Formalize and continue the existing partners

share management expenses at Ken's Lake. 

Continue to manage Ken's Lake as a developed recreation site in partnership with the holders of the ROW for Ken's Lake (Spanish Valley Water and Sewer District). Continue to manage the Mill Creek Canyon planning area in accordance with the approved interdisciplinary Mill Creek Canyon Management Plan. 

 Manage the Mill Creek Canyon planning are

approved interdisciplinary management plan 

 Work with Grand County, SITLA, and priva

the "Power line" trail along the west side of from Kane Creek Road near the river portal Trailhead to the southern end of the Behind 

 Work with San Juan and Grand Counties, SI

owners to establish the Red Rock Horse TraSpanish Valley via Ken's Lake from the JohLoop Road/Pack Creek junction area. 

 Work with the Backcountry Horsemen, SITL

establish equestrian riding loop routes south Trailhead.
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-27 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors:

N/A 

Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors:

LaSal Mountain Loop Road Scenic Backway: Manage for scenic driving enjoyment. The corridor is defined as: having a width of 1 mile from centerline 

(or to border of adjoining focus area; see Appendix C). 

Focus Areas: Scenic Driving Corridors:

LaSal Mountain Loop Road Scenic Backway. Maenjoyment. The corridor is defined as: having a wcenterline (or to border of adjoining focus area) (s

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

N/A 

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

 Mill Creek Canyon Hiking Focus Area: Same as the Proposed Plan, 

except include motorized routes identified in the Travel Plan for this alternative. Temporal zoning, permitting and vehicle type restrictions would be used to mitigate user conflicts on the Steel Bender Routes. 

 Behind the Rocks Hiking Focus Area: Same as the Proposed Plan. 

Temporal zoning, permitting, and vehicle type restrictions would be used to mitigate user conflicts on the Pritchett Canyon and Moab Rims. Hunter Canyon Rim Road at the end of the Jeep Safari route is available for mountain bike travel. 

 Manage Hidden Valley Trail as non-mechanized only. 

Focus Areas: Non-mechanized Recreation:

 Mill Creek Canyon Hiking Focus Area (16,9

north and south forks of Mill Creek, Rill Cresouth to the LaSal Mountain Loop Road witSteelbender OHV route and routes identified alternative. Emphasize management of the cprovide primitive hiking opportunities. ComMill Creek Canyon and its tributaries would along the Steelbender/Flat Pass OHV/mountmotorized routes would be considered. 

 Behind the Rocks Hiking Focus Area (17,53

currently closed to motorized use in the 198Canyon area between Pritchett Canyon and Canyon exclusive of the Pritchett Canyon anroute. Manage the Hunter Canyon trail for hmanagement the core area of Behind the Rohiking opportunities. No new motorized rou

Focus Area: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring:

N/A 

Focus Area: Mountain Bike Backcountry Touring:

Same as the Proposed Plan. 

Focus Area: Mountain Bike Backcountry TourUpper Spanish Valley Mountain Biking Focus ArArea) for development of a beginner to intermeditrail system through conversion of existing routes routes. Work with SITLA to expand route system 

Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Non-motorized):

N/A 

Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Non-motorized):

Same as the Proposed Plan. 

Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Non-mo

24 Hours of Moab Focus Area (2,905 acres) woulmountain bike speed-related events. 

Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized):

N/A 

Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Motorized):

Potato Salad Hill spur route would be closed to motorized travel. 

Focus Area: Specialized Sport Venue (Motoriz

Potato Salad Hill Climbing Focus Area (41 acres) the boundary of the fenced areas emphasizing hill limitations would be established to limit vehicle g

Two Rivers SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

The 1985 RMP provided for continuation of the river management program, which was initiated in early 1970s in response to increased demand for recreational boating. Existing management of the Colorado River focuses upon providing facilities and management to support and regulate commercial and 

private river use of the Colorado and Lower Dolores Rivers. Management 

activities are described in the annual Colorado and Dolores Rivers operating plan. 

Same as the Proposed Plan. Manage the Two Rivers SRMA (29,839 acres) as 

2-8) with the objective of continuing to provide dopportunities for recreational boating and campin

outstanding resource values. Use launch systems reduce inter-party contacts. 

Boating Management:

Continue the existing river management programs on the Colorado and Dolores Rivers (24,000 passenger days per year; 30 commercial outfitters) to provide for the safe and enjoyable long-term use of the rivers. 

Boating Management:

Same as the Proposed Plan except: 

 State Line to Westwater Ranger Station: Seek to manage for moderate use 

flat water boating in conjunction with the Ruby/Horsethief Canyons section in Colorado. 

 Westwater Canyon: Manage to provide an opportunity for whitewater 

boating in a highly primitive and very remote setting. Establish maximum 

group size of 16 (including guides on commercial trips). Establish daily launch limit of 48 people for each sector. 

Boating Management:

 State Line to Westwater Ranger Station: Ma

flat water boating in conjunction with the Rusection in Colorado. Co-administer a private system and user limitations and fees in conjuas a means of providing for adequate take-ou

 Westwater Canyon: Manage to provide an o

boating in a primitive and remote setting. Pecommercial use. Distribute potential use lev
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-28 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

 Cisco Landing to Dewey Bridge: For private use, no restrictions on 

amount of private use would be established unless warranted by future use levels. Permit 20 unallocated and 2 allocated (100 user days each) 

commercial permits. Establish additional restrictions on amount of commercial use if conditions warrant based on desired resource objectives. 

 Dolores River from Bridge Canyon to its confluence with the Colorado 

River: Establish maximum group size of 16 (including guides on commercial trips). 

September 30 (allocation season) between p(including guides). Establish maximum privand a daily launch limit of 75 people. For comaximum trip size of 25 passengers, plus onpassenger carrying craft, plus two additional commercial daily launch limit of 75 passengoutfitters. 

 Cisco Landing to Dewey Bridge: Manage to 

scenic flat water boating or as an extension oFor private use, no restrictions on amount of Permit 22 unallocated commercial permits. Namount of commercial use would be establisBridge Recreation Site under the Colorado R

 Dolores River from Bridge Canyon to its co

River: Manage to provide opportunity for scPermits required for private and commercial 

group size of 25 (excluding guides on commdaily launch limits. Permit 14 unallocated co

Potential Future Facilities:

N/A 

Potential Future Facilities:

Same as the Proposed Plan, except do not seek to develop a take-out facility separate from the Westwater Ranger Station launch ramp. 

Potential Future Facilities:

Acquire additional lands at the Westwater Ranger camping, parking and launch facilities. Seek to deseparate from the Westwater Ranger Station launcat the ranger station. Seek opportunities to expand facilitate camping at the Ranger Station. 

Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation:

N/A 

Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation:

Same as the Proposed Plan. 

Focus Area: Non-mechanized Recreation:

 Establish the Westwater Canyon River Use 

(23,479 acres) inclusive of Westwater Canybetween Westwater Ranch and Rose Ranch 

 New motorized routes would not be conside

Utah Rims SRMA 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Continue to manage the Utah Rims area for general recreation use. BLM presently has a limited management program in place for the area included in the proposed Utah Rims SRMA. Manage the Kokopelli's Trail for recreation use. Manage Bitter Creek Campsite for camping. Continue limiting travel to existing routes. 

Same as the Proposed Plan, except: 

 No new recreational routes would be established. 

Manage the Utah Rims area (Map 2-8) as a Commto provide sustainable opportunities for motorizedmotorized route related recreation while protectinvalues including range, wildlife habitat, scenic, curiparian values in current or improved condition. Wcoordinate management of the Utah Rims and RabManagement actions would include: 

1. Limiting motorized and mechanized travel 

route system, including where feasible, the management of a network of single-track r

2. Acquisition of public access across non-Fe

system. 

3. Development of a staging area. 4. Potential separation of types of single-track 5. Limited provision of camping facilities. 6. Prohibition of competitive, motorized even

system to maintain its single-track nature. 

Add single-track routes to the route system on a cresolution of resource concerns. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-29 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Moab Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) Establishmen

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 Manage all lands within the MPA not within an SRMA as the Moab Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA; see Maps 2-8-A through 2-8-D and Appendix F).  ERMA lands may be designated as SRMAs in the future based on intensity of use and would be analyzed through the plan amendment process. 

 Minimal facilities may be constructed in the ERMA as needed to insure visitor health and safety, reduce user conflict, and protect resources. 

 Provide general recreation management guidance and subsequent implementation of management actions for activity plan level actions for the Moab ERMA through development of a Recreation Area Mana

demand and changing conditions) and backcountry management issues (the retention of backcountry characteristics, e.g., low level of development, relative lack of crowding, and feeling of remoteness). 

 Amend the RMP, as necessary, for RMP level recreation and non-recreation actions proposed through the RAMP developed subsequent to RMP approval. 

 Manage OHV travel as limited to designated routes or closed, depending on the specific area (see Travel Management section, beginning on page 2-47).  Monitor recreation activity in the Moab ERMA to maintain recreation opportunities and protect resource values. 

Moab ERMA Management Guidance 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Continue making improvements to sites and areas as necessary and supported by activity and project level planning to balance demand for recreation opportunities and protection of the recreation resource base. Continue to manage the Utah portion of the Kokopelli's Trail as a multi-day mountain bike and vehicle route (in part) with associated camping areas. 

Same as the Proposed Plan, except: 

 Upper Fisher Mesa would not be managed to emphasize mountain biking 

use. 

 Continue making improvements to sites and 

supported by activity and project level plannrecreation opportunities and protection of th

 Continue to manage the Utah portion of the 

day mountain bike and vehicle route (in partareas. 

 Develop basic camping and trailhead faciliti

Canyon area should use levels and impacts w

 Construct information boards at the main ex

visitors about recreation opportunities, traverecreation techniques, and visitor safety issu

 Upper Fisher Mesa (1,365 acres) would be m

mountain biking. BLM would convert existiconnecting routes for bicycle use in conjunc

route within the Manti-LaSal National Foresretained along the main existing Fisher Mes

 Manage the Bookcliffs area (335,457 acres) 

recreation, especially equestrian use, hiking, hunting. It would be managed for low frequenot establishing new motorized or mechanizcommercial motorized permits would be issuwould not be allowed. 

 Manage the Sego Canyon Rock Art Site as a 

Consider acquisition of the adjacent private interpretive site to expand interpretive oppor

General Policy for Issuance and Management of Special Recreation Permits 

Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 SRPs would be issued as a discretionary action as a means to: help meet management objectives, provide opportunities for economic activity, facilitate recreational use of the public lands, control visitor use

procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate. 

 Priority for authorization of new SRPs for events would be given to applicants proposing uses that: do not duplicate existing events; take place outside of March, April, May, and October; make use of less-c

communicate the Canyon Country Minimum Impact Practices; and focus visitation on sites and areas capable of withstanding repeated use. 

 All SRPs would contain standard stipulations appropriate for the type of activity and may include additional stipulations necessary to protect lands or resources, reduce user conflicts, or minimize health and  There would be no competitive mechanized or motorized events in Wilderness Study Areas while these areas are managed under the IMP. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Continue to issue and manage special recreation permits (e.g., four-wheel drive vehicle tours, horseback trips, bear hunting camps, survival school) to enhance outdoor recreational opportunities and provide business opportunities for 

Same as the Proposed Plan, except: 

 Increased emphasis would be placed upon mitigating the impacts of new 

 Issue and manage special recreation permits 

enhance outdoor recreational opportunities, private enterprise, manage user-group intera
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-30 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives private enterprise. Continue to permit competitive and noncompetitive OHV events. 

uses in support of conservation of natural and cultural resource values. 

 Organized group permits required for groups with 15 or more vehicles 

(one driver/vehicle.) 

such uses upon natural and cultural resource

 Organized group permits required for group

(one driver/vehicle.)

RIPARIAN

Goals and Objectives:

 Manage riparian areas for properly functioning condition (PFC) and ensure stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate for local soil type, climate, and landform. 

 Avoid or minimize the disturbance, loss, or degradation of riparian, wetland, and associated floodplains; preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values; and provide for fish, wildlife and special status sp

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 Manage riparian resources for PFC, which is described as the presence of adequate vegetation, landforms, or large woody debris, in accordance with the Utah Standards for Public Rangeland Health and Gui

Management. 

 Retain the Between the Creeks, North Sand Flats, and South Sand Flats Allotments as not available for grazing to benefit riparian resources. These allotments include the following streams: Negro Bill Cany

 Mitigation to reduce impacts to floodplains and riparian areas include (from Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management for BLM Lands in Utah and BLM Riparian Manua

1. Where feasible and consistent with user safety, developed travel routes would be located/relocated away from sensitive riparian/wetland areas. 

2. Camping in riparian areas would be avoided and must be managed, monitored, and modified as conditions dictate to reduce vegetation disturbance and sedimentation. 

3. Stream crossings would be limited in number dictated by the topography, geology, and soil type. Design any necessary stream crossings to minimize sedimentation, soil erosion and compaction (minimi

4. Where necessary, control recreational use by changing location or kind of activity, season, intensity, distribution and/or duration. 

5. Grazing actions to meet riparian objectives include vegetation use limits, fencing, herding, change of livestock class, temporary closures, change of season, and/or alternate development or relocation of 

6. Any water diversions from riparian areas by BLM or non-BLM entities would be designed and constructed to protect ecological processes and functions. 

7. Implement weed management stipulations and education to reduce spread of noxious weeds along stream corridors. 

8. To the extent possible, mineral removal and lease development (including placer mining) must be located away from water's edge and outside of riparian/wetland zones. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 Limit activities in riparian areas, as necessary, to achieve and maintain PFC.  Grazing actions to meet riparian objectives can include fencing, herding, change of livestock class, temporary closures, and/or change of livestock season of use.  Preclude surface-disturbing activities within 100-year floodplains, 100 m of riparian areas, public water reserves, and 100 m of springs. 

 Prioritize restoration activities in riparian systems that are Functioning at Risk or Non-functioning.  Continue to apply integrated species management to accomplish riparian restoration through biological, chemical, mechanical, and manual methods (e.g., tamarisk control, willow plantings). 

 Acquire riparian lands and water resources (from willing sellers) to preserve and maintain riparian habitat and instream flow. 

 Do not dispose of riparian or wetland resources unless resource loss is mitigated.  Develop watershed management plans for impaired systems as identified in current TMDL reports (e.g., Onion Creek, Mill Creek, and Castle Creek). 

 Close riparian areas to woodcutting, except where permitted for traditional cultural practices identified for Native Americans or for restoration to benefit riparian values. 

 Establish Lower South Fork of Seven Mile Canyon as a Riparian/Wetland Demonstration Area for the improvement and restoration of riparian, wetland and wildlife resources. 

 Grazing would not be authorized on portions of the following streams (listed with affected allotments): the Colorado River from Dewey Bridge to Hittle Bottom (Professor Valley), and Lower Kane Creek (K

 Management strategies would be implemented to restore degraded riparian communities, protect natural flow requirements, protect water quality, and manage for year-round flow. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Grazing Actions:

 Retain the Between the Creeks, North Sand Flats, South Sand Flats, 

Spring Creek, Castle Valley, Pear Park, Bogart, Cottonwood and Diamond Allotments as not available to grazing to benefit riparian resources. 

 Maintain the reduction of AUMs in the Cisco Allotment (1,819 AUMs 

allocated to livestock). 

Grazing Actions:

 Evaluate non-functioning and functioning at risk riparian areas using 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management to determine if exclusion from grazing would improve riparian functioning condition. 

 The following riparian areas would be given priority for evaluation: 

Lower Gray Canyon of the Green River from Rattlesnake Canyon to Swasey's Beach, Ten Mile from Dripping Spring to the Green River, Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon, East Coyote, Kane Springs, and Hatch Wash (totaling 4,673 acres). 

 BLM would be required to build and maintain fences and provide access 

to water in Seven Mile Wash, and East Coyote wetland areas. 

 Cottonwood, Bogart and Diamond Allotments (which include 

Cottonwood and Diamond Canyons) would continue to not be available 

Grazing Actions:

 Evaluate non-functioning and functioning at 

Standards for Rangeland Health and GuideliManagement to determine if restriction from riparian functioning condition. The followingiven priority for evaluation: Ten Mile from River, Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon, and acres). 

 Cottonwood, Bogart, Pear Park and Diamon

Cottonwood and Diamond Canyons) would to grazing to benefit riparian resources. Castavailable for grazing. Spring Creek would b
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-31 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

to grazing to benefit riparian resources. Castle Valley, Spring Creek and Pear Park would also be not available for grazing. 

Season-of-Use:

N/A 

Season-of-Use:

Season of use adjustments would be made on a case-by-case basis to achieve PFC. 

Season-of-Use:

Season of use adjustments would be made on a caPFC. 

Watershed Management Plans:

Not specified. 

Watershed Management Plans:

Prioritize development and implementation of the Watershed Management Plans and riparian studies for the following areas: Mill Creek (including North Fork, Rill, and Burkholder), Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, White Wash, Bartlett Wash, Tusher Wash, Mill Canyon, Courthouse Wash, Professor Creek, Negro Bill Canyon, Cottonwood/Diamond, Spring Canyon, Red Wash, Green River, Colorado River, Onion Creek and Westwater Creek. 

Watershed Management Plans:

Prioritize development and implementation of the Plans and riparian studies for the following areas: Springs, Bartlett Wash, Tusher Wash, Mill CanyoCottonwood-Diamond, and Onion Creek. 

SOIL AND WATER

Goals and Objectives:

 Manage watersheds to enhance ecosystem health and provide for public uses. 

 Maintain and improve existing water quality by ensuring that all authorized uses on public lands comply with State water quality standards and with the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. 

 Manage watersheds to maintain or improve soil quality and long-term productivity. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 Comply with all State, Federal and local laws to protect municipal watersheds (Thompson, Moab, and Castle Valley), and watersheds of any public or private water supply such as Windwhistle Campground Coordinate with Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining to remediate existing Abandoned Mine Lands sites.  Comply with Floodplain Executive Order 11988.  BLM would work with partners to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) and continue BLM's cooperative work with the Utah Divisions of Water Rights and Water Quality in accordance with the a

monitoring. 

Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 Allow no surface occupancy and preclude surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 100-year floodplains, within 100 m of a natural spring, or within public water reserves. 

 In cooperation with Grand and San Juan Counties, develop BMPs for road maintenance and construction in high risk areas (e.g., floodplains, riparian zones, and areas with sensitive soils). 

 Continue management of the Mill Creek planning area in accordance with the Mill Creek Management Plan (2001).  Develop watershed management plans for municipal watersheds to ensure water sources are protected adequately. Monitor municipal water quality/watershed conditions. 

 To protect sensitive soils on slopes, apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) prohibiting surface-disturbing activities on slopes in th

construction and traffic on existing roads associated with initial drilling operations. In addition, apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix 

 Follow Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) recommendations on 303(d) listed streams, currently Mill, Castle, and Onion Creeks.  Minimize surface disturbance in areas identified as having "sensitive soils" (see Chapter 3, Soil and Water) unless long-term impacts can be mitigated. 

 Maintain vegetation based on desired future condition to provide adequate ground cover to prevent accelerated erosion in wind erodible soils. 

 Apply environmental BMPs to all oil and gas authorizations in accordance to WO IM 2007-021 and the most current version of the "Goldbook." 

 Develop BMPs to address health and safety concerns associated with blowing dust along U.S. 191 and I-70. 

 Maintain or improve soil quality and long-term soil productivity through the implementation of Standards for Rangeland Health and other soil protection measures. 

 Manage uses to minimize and mitigate damage to soils.  Maintain and/or restore overall watershed health and reduce erosion, stream sedimentation, and salinization of water.  Coordinate with Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency to ensure required minimum instream flow of 3.0 cfs in Mill Creek below the Sheley diversion.  Implement portions of Greater Sagers Wash Watershed Management Plan that pertain to surface disturbance. 

 No additional OHV routes would be allowed in saline soils other than those already designated in the Travel Plan accompanying this RMP (see Appendix G). An exception would be considered on a case-by

Exceptions could also be considered on a case-by-case basis outside these two areas if potential impacts could be mitigated and if the action would benefit other natural and cultural resources. 

 Develop BMPs for activities on saline and other sensitive soils.  Specific recommendations regarding surface and subsurface pipeline crossings found in Guidance for Pipeline Crossings (see Appendix H) would be implemented to prevent breakage and subsequent contam

 Implement guidelines from Technical Reference 1730-2, where feasible, to protect or restore the functions of biological soil crusts.

 Manage public lands in a manner consistent with the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, implementing BMPs and watershed restoration projects to reduce salinity contributions to the Colorado River 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-32 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Aquifers/Watersheds:

The Castle Valley aquifer was not addressed. The Mill Creek-Spanish Valley aquifer was not addressed. 

Aquifers/Watersheds:

Close the Castle Valley watershed to oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities to protect the Castle Valley sole source, unconfined, 

surficial aquifer. Close the Mill Creek-Spanish Valley watershed to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities to protect the aquifer for the Moab area. 

Aquifers/Watersheds:

Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation to oil another surface-disturbing activities in the Castle Vaprotect the sole source, unconfined, surficial aquiApply a no surface occupancy stipulation to oil another surface-disturbing activities in the Mill Creein order to protect the aquifer for the Moab area. 

Saline Soils in Mancos Shale: 

Apply a timing limitation on 313,800 acres of Mancos Shale prohibiting surface-disturbing activities from November 1 to April 30. 

Saline Soils in Mancos Shale: 

To minimize watershed damage on saline soils in the Mancos Shale, apply a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) prohibiting surface-disturbing activities on 330,142 acres of moderately to highly saline soils in the Mancos Shale (see Map 2-13) from December 1 to May 31. This restriction includes road construction and traffic on existing roads associated with drilling operations. 

Saline Soils in Mancos Shale: Same as Alternative B. 

Grazing: 

Manipulate livestock grazing on portions of ten allotments to lessen impacts on saline soils and reduce salinity in the Colorado River Drainage. 

Grazing: 

Use Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management to consider adjusting season of use on allotments with saline soils to minimize soils compaction. 

Grazing: 

Use grazing systems and develop AMPs to minim

Watershed Management Plans:

Not specified. 

Watershed Management Plans:

Prioritize development and implementation of the Watershed Management Plans for the following areas: Mill Creek (including North Fork, Rill, and Burkholder), Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, White Wash, Bartlett Wash, Tusher Wash, Mill Canyon, Courthouse Wash, Professor Creek, Negro Bill Canyon, Cottonwood/Diamond, Spring Canyon, Red Wash, Green River, Colorado River, Onion Creek and Westwater Creek. 

Watershed Management Plans:

Prioritize development and implementation of the Plans for the following areas: Ten Mile Wash, KaTusher Wash, Mill Canyon, Courthouse Wash, CoOnion Creek. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS – AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONC

The term "Area of Critical Environmental Concern" means areas within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is requirresources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1702(a)). Goals and Objectives:Designate, modify and manage areas as ACECs where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resourcManagement Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternative B (see Maps 2-14-A through 2-14-D for ACECs by alternative; see Appendix I for thNominations)

 In those areas where ACECs overlap with WSAs, the WSA management prescriptions, as stipulated in the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP), would take precedence. 

 ACECs would be avoidance areas for all ROWs, including wind, solar energy and communication sites. 

Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

The area is not designated as an ACEC. Behind the Rocks WSA would be managed according to the IMP to protect wilderness values (12,635 acres). Manage 694 acres as open to oil and gas leasing, 1,958 acres as no surface occupancy, and 15,196 acres as closed. 

Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC (17,836 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. This area includes the Behind the Rocks WSA (12,635 acres) in its entirety. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems (threatened, sensitive, and endangered plants), cultural resources and 

scenery, the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 Designate as VRM Class I.  No vegetation treatments except for noxious weeds and exotics.  Cultural resources would be prioritized for Class III inventory.  Vehicle-based camping only in campgrounds. No campfires outside of 

Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC (5,201 acres) wACEC. This area excludes the Behind the Rocks Wmanaged according to the IMP to protect wilderneSpecial Management: To protect the relevant ansystems (threatened, sensitive and endangered plascenery, the following management prescriptions 

 Designate as VRM Class II.  No vegetation treatments (except for exotic/ Cultural resources in Behind the Rocks ACE

Class III inventory. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-33 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

campgrounds. 

 No new motorized or mechanized routes, motorized/mechanized travel 

limited to designated routes. 

 Manage the WSA as closed to oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities (12,635 acres). Manage the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics as closed to oil and gas leasing (4,231 acres). In the remaining 970 acres, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities. 

 No commercial or private use of woodland products. 

 Vehicle-based camping only in campground

campgrounds. 

 No new motorized or mechanized routes, m

limited to designated routes. 

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation fo

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (

 No commercial or private use of woodland p There are approximately 12,635 acres of thi

for designation under another statutory authoand no further management attention is requ

Bookcliffs Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

This area is not designated as an ACEC. Desolation, Flume, Floy, Coal and Spruce WSAs would be managed according to the IMP to protect wilderness values (250,207 acres). Manage 15,757 acres as open to oil and gas leasing, 38,415 acres with timing limitations and controlled surface use, and 250,207 acres as closed. OHV designations include open and limited to existing routes. 

Bookcliffs Potential ACEC (304,252 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. This area includes Desolation, Flume, Floy, Coal, and Spruce WSAs (250,207 acres). Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of wildlife and cultural resources, the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 All WSAs would be managed according to the IMP.  Work with UDWR and other agencies to create and implement a Habitat 

Management Plan for the Bookcliffs. 

 No new motorized or mechanized routes. Motorized and mechanized 

travel is limited to designated routes outside the WSA and closed in the WSA. 

 Manage WSAs as closed to oil and gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities (249,988 acres). Manage the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics as closed to oil and gas leasing (19,901acres). In the remaining 34,363 acres, apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). 

 No commercial or private use of woodland products.  Prioritize Bookcliffs for Class III cultural inventory. 

Proposed area would not be designated as an ACEacreage would default to prescriptions applicable include, but are not limited to: 

 The WSAs (Desolation, Flume, Floy, Coal, 

managed according to the IMP. 

 Areas outside of the WSAs (54,174 acres) w

to the following prescriptions: 

 Apply standard and controlled surface u

stipulations for oil and gas leasing and activities (see Appendix C). 

Canyon Rims Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Not designated as an ACEC. Manage as part of the Canyon Rims SRMA (see SRMA prescriptions). Designate as VRM Class II. Manage with timing limitations and controlled surface use for oil and gas leasing. 

Canyon Rims Potential ACEC (23,400 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important value of scenery, the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 Designate as VRM Class II.  No new motorized or mechanized routes. Motorized and mechanized 

travel limited to designated routes. Manage consistently with the Canyon Rims Recreation Area Plan. 

 Manage the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to 

oil and gas leasing (3,417 acres). Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing, and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) on the remaining 19,983 acres. 

Proposed area would not be designated as an ACEacreage would default to prescriptions applicable include, but are not limited to: 

 Manage as part of the Canyon Rims SRMA  Designate as VRM Class II.  Avoid permitting new ROWs.  Apply controlled surface use and timing lim

gas leasing and other surface-disturbing actiScenic Byway corridor (7,035 acres) would surface use for oil and gas leasing and other (see Appendix C). The remainder of the area managed as open with standard stipulations.

Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

This area is not designated as an ACEC. Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex Potential ACEC (117,481 acres) Proposed area would not be designated as an ACE
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-34 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Currently implemented Seasons of Use for livestock grazing: Agate - 3/15, Cisco - 5/10, Cisco Mesa - 5/15, Corral Wash - 5/10, Harley - 5/12, Highlands - 5/15, Monument Wash - 5/15, Pipeline - 5/15, San Arroyo - 5/25, and Sulphur Canyon - 4/12. Manage 97,089 acres as open to oil and gas leasing, 19,240 acres with timing limitations and controlled surface use, and 1,152 acres as no surface occupancy. 

would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important value of wildlife, 

the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 Use grazing systems and develop AMPs to protect prairie dog habitat in 

the following allotments or portions of allotments: Agate, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Harley Dome, Highlands, Monument Wash, Pipeline, San Arroyo. 

Establish rest-rotation system to allow adequate recovery for seed dispersal and establishment. 

 Work with UDWR to prohibit shooting of prairie dogs year-round and 

ban prairie dog poisoning on public lands. 

 Develop cooperative agreements with UDWR and USFWS to inventory 

prairie dog densities and to manage habitat for prairie dogs, ground squirrels and raptors. 

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and 

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). 

 No new motorized or mechanized routes. Motorized and mechanized 

travel is limited to designated routes. 

acreage would default to prescriptions applicable include, but are not limited to: 

 Maintain current season of use, and manage 

seed production. 

 Apply a controlled surface use stipulation fo

other surface-disturbing activities (see Appeactive prairie dog colonies. No permanent abbe allowed within the 660-foot buffer.

Colorado River Corridor Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Negro Bill Canyon would be designated as Outstanding Natural Area (1,375 acres). Continue the Three Rivers Withdrawal for locatable minerals (18,519 acres). Manage the river corridor as part of the Colorado River Recreation Area and the Colorado River SRMA. Manage 34,342 acres as open to oil and gas leasing, 10,864 acres with timing limitations and controlled surface use, 1,189 acres as no surface occupancy, 

and 3,613 acres as closed. 

Colorado River Corridor Potential ACEC (50,483 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. 

 Negro Bill Canyon would no longer be designated as an Outstanding 

Natural Area, but would be included within the Colorado River Corridor ACEC. Negro Bill Canyon WSA would be managed according to the IMP to protect wilderness values. 

 Manage recreation use according to the Colorado Riverway SRMA (see 

SRMA prescriptions) with the exception of the Dry Mesa/Cache Valley area north of the Colorado River. 

 Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of 

natural systems (threatened, sensitive and endangered plants), fish and wildlife, and scenery, the Colorado River Corridor would be designated as an ACEC with the following management prescriptions: 

Designate as VRM Class I. No permitted activities north of the Colorado River (excluding immediate river corridor) during crucial bighorn lambing and rutting periods, April 1 through June 15 and October 1 to December 15, respectively. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. No competitive OHV events. Vehicle-based camping only in designated campsites on south side of the Colorado River. Campfires for vehicle-based camping would be allowed only within designated campsites on the south side of the Colorado River. No Special Recreation Permits would be issued north of the river (except for immediate river corridor used by river runners). No vegetation treatments except for noxious weeds and exotics. Season of use adjustments for livestock grazing in crucial bighorn lambing and rearing habitat (see Wildlife). Retain ACEC in public ownership except lands involved in the existing Professor Valley land exchange. Prioritize acquisition of inholdings as opportunity presents itself. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on 9,196 acres for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Close 

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Mwould default to prescriptions applicable to the geare not limited to: 

 Negro Bill Canyon would no longer be desig

Natural Area. The Negro Bill Canyon WSA to the IMP to protect wilderness values. 

 Designate as VRM Class II (see VRM sectio

except for Negro Bill WSA, which would be 

 Manage recreation use according to the Colo

SRMA prescriptions) with the exception of area north of the Colorado River, which wouthe following prescriptions: No permitted ac(except in the immediate river corridor) duriand at rutting seasons, April 1 through June December 15, respectively. 

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation fo

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (Class II areas, areas within the Three Rivers and in crucial bighorn lambing and rearing aprohibit geophysical exploration for oil and 

material disposal. Close areas unreachable band gas leasing. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-35 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

33,548 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to oil and gas 

leasing. Close 8,008 acres, which are unreachable by directional drilling to oil and gas leasing. No commercial or private collection of woodland products. 

Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

This area is not designated as an ACEC. Manage the portions of the Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Potential ACEC (34,004 acres) within the Flume, the Coal Canyon and the Spruce WSAs according to the IMP to protect the wilderness values. Manage areas outside the WSAs with timing limitations and controlled surface use for oil and gas leasing (1,825 acres). 

Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Potential ACEC (35,830 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: NOTE: ACEC would only be designated until hazard is no longer present. At that point, management would revert to the IMP. To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems, and 

to mitigate the natural hazards due to fire, the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 Continue to keep area not available to livestock grazing.  Close to vehicle use at the end of the Class B-road system, except for 

administrative access. 

 No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized 

travel limited to designated routes outside the WSA, and closed in the WSA. 

 No competitive events.  Suspend commercial permits (guiding or special groups).  Manage the acreage within the WSAs (34,027 acres) as closed to oil and 

gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. Manage the remaining acreage within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil and gas leasing (1,690 acres). Apply a no surface occupancy 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities on the remaining acreage (113 acres; see Appendix C). 

Cottonwood Diamond Watershed would be desigsame prescriptions as in Alternative B, except thaWSA are closed to oil and gas leasing, and the remmanaged as no surface occupancy for oil and gas disturbing activities would be precluded (see App

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Proposed Plan 

This area is not designated as an ACEC. Manage 6,425 acres as open to oil and gas leasing, 4,606 acres with timing limitations and controlled surface use, 2,094 acres as no surface occupancy, 

and 362 acres as closed. Continue the Three Rivers Withdrawal for locatable minerals (2,034 acres). Avoid permitting new ROWs. 

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon Potential ACEC (13,500 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of scenery, wildlife, natural systems (threatened, sensitive, and endangered plants), and cultural resources, the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 Designate as VRM Class I.  Permitted activities would be confined to main roads within crucial 

bighorn lambing habitat from April 1 through June 15. This restriction would not apply to filming if the filming meets the minimum impact criteria (see Appendix B). 

 Wall Street rock art sites would be managed for public use with the 

emphasis on interpretation. 

 Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes.  Vehicle-based camping only in designated campgrounds.  No campfires except in campgrounds.  Retain ACEC in public ownership except for the previously initiated 

Moab Salt Exchange Parcel (635 acres). 

 Manage non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil 

and gas leasing (3,502 acres). Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to the remaining acreage (9,998 acres). 

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon would bwith the same prescriptions as in Alternative B, ex

 Designate Highway 279 and Long Canyon a

remainder of the ACEC as VRM I. 

 Manage the entire area as no surface occupa

and preclude other surface-disturbing activit
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-36 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Labyrinth Canyon Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

This area is not designated as an ACEC. Manage as open to oil and gas leasing subject to standard terms and conditions and as open with controlled surface use stipulations for oil and gas. Continue the Three Rivers Withdrawal for locatable minerals. No commercial or private use of woodland products. 

Labyrinth Canyon Potential ACEC (8,528 acres) would be designated as an 

ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of scenery and fish, the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 Designate as VRM Class I.  No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized 

travel limited to designated routes. 

 Manage non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil 

and gas leasing (5,492 acres). Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) on the remaining lands (3,036 acres). 

 No commercial or private use of woodland products. 

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Mwould default to prescriptions applicable to the geare not limited to: 

 Designate as VRM Class II.  No new mechanized or motorized routes. M

travel limited to designated routes. 

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation fo

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (

 No commercial or private use of woodland p

Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

This area is not designated as an ACEC. Manage Mill Creek Canyon WSA (9,780 acres) according to the IMP to protect wilderness values. Manage the WSA as closed to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. Manage remainder of the area as open with standard stipulations. Livestock grazing would be available in the Mill Creek Allotment. 

Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC (13,501 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. This area includes the Mill Creek Canyon WSA (9,780 acres) in its entirety. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of cultural resources, scenery, and natural systems (cold water fishery/riparian/watershed and wildlife), the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 Recreation activities would be managed according to the South Moab 

SRMA. 

 Prioritize Mill Creek for Class III cultural inventory.  Protect Native American traditional cultural places.  Designate as VRM Class I.  Livestock grazing would not be available.  No vehicle-based camping.  No campfires in riparian areas.  Motorized competitive events would be prohibited.  No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized 

travel limited to designated routes. 

 All recreational events would be confined to the designated roads in the 

ACEC. 

 Limit recreation facility development to day-use only.  Acquire state land within ACEC as the opportunity arises.  Maintain 3 cfs in the South Fork of Mill Creek below the Sheley 

diversion. 

 Manage the area as closed to oil and gas leasing. No recreational mining 

would be allowed. 

 No fuel wood harvesting permits would be issued.  Private wood gathering for backpacking campfires would be allowed in 

the uplands only. 

Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC (3,721 acres) ACEC. This area excludes the Mill Creek Canyon Canyon WSA (9,780 acres) would be managed acwilderness values. Special Management: To protect the relevant anresources, scenery, natural systems: (cold water fiwildlife), the following management prescriptions in the ACEC: 

 Recreation activities would be managed acc

SRMA. 

 Prioritize Mill Creek for Class III cultural in Protect Native American traditional cultural  Designate as VRM Class II.  Livestock grazing would not be available.  No vehicle-based camping. 

 No campfires in riparian areas.  Motorized competitive events would be proh No new mechanized or motorized routes. M

travel limited to designated routes. 

 All recreational events would be confined to 

ACEC. 

 Limit recreation facility development to day Acquire state land within ACEC as the oppo Maintain 3 cfs in the South Fork of Mill Cre

diversion. 

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation fo

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (

 No recreational mining would be allowed.  No fuel wood harvesting permits would be i Private wood gathering for backpacking cam

the uplands only. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-37 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Ten Mile Wash Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

This area is not designated as an ACEC. Manage as controlled surface use for oil and gas use. Open to competitive motorized events. 

Ten Mile Wash Potential ACEC (4,980 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of natural systems (riparian/wetlands), wildlife, cultural resources and natural hazards, the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 Prioritize Ten Mile for Class III cultural inventory.  Prioritize Ten Mile as a scientific research area.  No grazing in Ten Mile Canyon downstream from Dripping Springs.  Prioritize area for riparian restoration.  No vehicular travel in Ten Mile Wash from Dripping Springs to the 

Green River. 

 Restrict camping and campfires to designated sites at Dripping Spring.  Manage non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as closed to oil 

and gas leasing (232 acres). Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see 

Appendix C) to the remaining acreage (4,748 acres). 

 No commercial or private collection of woodland products. 

NOTE: In Alternative B, Ten Mile does not have a designated road in it; therefore, all the road-related prescriptions have been removed from Alternative B. 

Ten Mile Wash Potential ACEC (4,980 acres) woACEC with the following management prescriptio

 Prioritize Ten Mile for Class III cultural inv Prioritize Ten Mile as a scientific research a No grazing in Ten Mile Canyon downstream  Prioritize area for riparian restoration.  Restrict camping and campfires to designate Motorized and mechanized travel limited to  No competitive events.  Establish speed limits.  Reroute designated road around the wetland

near Dripping Springs. 

 Restrict vehicle access at the Green River; d

Green River. 

 Permits for motorized recreational use may 

indicates long-term damage. 

 Require permits for groups greater than 25 v

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation fo

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (

 No commercial or private collection of woo

Upper Courthouse Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

This area is not designated as an ACEC. Managed as open to oil and gas leasing with standard terms and conditions. No commercial or private use of woodland products. 

Upper Courthouse Potential ACEC (11,529 acres) would be designated as an 

ACEC. 

 Recreation use would be managed in accordance with the Labyrinth 

Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA. 

 Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of 

historic/cultural/paleontological resources and natural systems (threatened, sensitive, endangered, and relict plants), the following management prescriptions would apply: 

Prioritize Upper Courthouse for a Class III cultural inventory. No collection of petrified wood. No new range improvements except for fencing. No vegetation treatments except for noxious weeds and exotics, and to restore riparian environments. Active protection of archeological sites from grazing. Limit OHVs to designated routes (no sandhill climbing routes would be designated). No new mechanized or motorized routes. Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes. Vehicle-based camping only in designated sites. No campfires outside of campgrounds. No competitive OHV events. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). No commercial or private use of woodland products. 

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Mwould default to prescriptions applicable to the geare not limited to: 

 Recreation use would be managed in accord

Rims/ Gemini Bridges SRMA. 

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation fo

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (relict plant communities. 

 Avoid permitting new ROWs on the mesa-to No commercial or private use of woodland p Recommend the mesa-top relict plant comm

locatable minerals.
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-38 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Westwater Canyon Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

This area is not designated as an ACEC. Manage the Westwater WSA according to the IMP to protect wilderness values. Manage as closed to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. Continue with the existing withdrawal for locatable minerals. Avoid permitting new ROWs. 

Westwater Canyon Potential ACEC (5,069 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. This area is within the Westwater Canyon WSA. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important values of scenery 

and fish, the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 Manage the Westwater Canyon WSA according to the IMP to protect 

wilderness values. 

 Designate as VRM Class I.  Closed to motorized and mechanized travel.  Acquire inholdings within ACEC.  Manage as closed for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing 

activities. 

 No commercial or private use of woodland products. 

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Mwould default to prescriptions applicable to the geare not limited to: 

 Manage the Westwater Canyon WSA accord

wilderness values.

White Wash Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

This area is not designated as an ACEC. Competitive motorized events would be allowed. Open to cross country OHV travel. Manage as no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing. Open to locatable mineral development. 

White Wash Potential ACEC (2,988 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important value of natural systems (riparian dune systems), the following management prescriptions would apply: 

 Limit OHVs to designated routes.  Competitive motorized events would not be allowed.  Vehicle-based camping in campgrounds only.  No fires or wood gathering allowed.  Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and 

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). 

 No commercial or private use of woodland products. 

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Mwould default to prescriptions applicable to the geare not limited to: 

 Recreational use in this area would be mana

Wash Sand Dunes Open OHV Focus Area (Labyrinth Rims/ Gemini Bridges SRMA. Thwould be managed according to the Dee Pasin the same SRMA. 

 About 1,866 acres are open to OHV, and 1,1

designated routes. 

 Competitive motorized events would be allo Manage as open to oil and gas leasing (see M Open to locatable mineral development.  No commercial or private use of woodland p

Wilson Arch Potential ACEC 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

The area is not designated as an ACEC. Managed as open to oil and gas leasing. 

Wilson Arch Potential ACEC (3,700 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. Special Management: To protect the relevant and important value of scenery, Wilson Arch would be designated as an ACEC with the following management prescriptions: 

 Designate as VRM Class I.  Build one trail up to Wilson Arch for hiking use only.  Motorized and mechanized travel limited to designated routes.  Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and 

preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). 

 No commercial or private use of woodland products. 

The area would not be designated as an ACEC. Mwould default to prescriptions applicable to the geare not limited to: 

 Designate as VRM Class II.  Apply a controlled surface use stipulation fo

other surface-disturbing activities (see Appe

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS – NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL – OLD SPANIS

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 Segments of the Old Spanish Trail would be identified and classified for historic integrity and condition. These segments would then be designated for appropriate types of management and travel. 

 Landmarks along the Old Spanish Trail would be identified for historic integrity and interpreted only if the action would not impact the values at the site. All interpretation projects would be done in consulta
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-39 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

National Park Service. 

 Consider plan amendment, as necessary, to incorporate provisions of the forthcoming Old Spanish Trail Comprehensive Management Plan. 

 Participate in the development of the management plan for the Old Spanish Trail and assist with its implementation as opportunities arise, consistent with other decisions of the RMP.  Support protective management, interpretation, and public enjoyment and understanding of the National Historic Old Spanish Trail, consistent with the Old Spanish Trail Comprehensive Management Plan. 

 Seek to acquire public access to the site of the Old Spanish Trail ford of the Green River, upstream from the town of Green River, Utah, for the purpose of developing an interpretive site. 

 Consistent with the Cameo Cliffs and Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plans (RAMPs), consider developing and managing a section of the Old Spanish Trail for equestrian use. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSRs) 

Goals and Objectives:

 Review all eligible rivers to determine suitability for Congressional designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). 

 To the extent of the BLM's authority (limited to BLM lands within the river corridor), maintain and enhance the free flowing character, preserve and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values, and allow 

determined suitable for congressional designation in the NWSRS until Congress acts. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 River segments found suitable and recommended for designation would be managed to protect their free-flowing condition and to protect the outstandingly remarkable values and maintain the tentative class

water mark on each bank of the river (not to exceed 320 acres per mile). Management that would apply should any rivers be designated by Congress is identified in BLM Manual 8351.51 (see Appendix J an

 BLM would not seek water rights as part of a suitability decision made in the Record of Decision for this RMP.  WSR segments recommended as suitable for Wild would be designate as VRM Class I; Scenic and Recreational segments would be designated as VRM Class II. 

 OHV travel would be limited to designated routes or closed, depending on the river segment. 

 The stipulations that would be applied to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities within suitable river segments have been developed based on other resource values such as scenery, wildlif

outstandingly remarkable values. All suitable segments would be managed with a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as all other surface-disturbing activities, or as closed to oil agas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities, by alternative). 

 BLM would work with the State of Utah, local and tribal governments, and other federal agencies, in a state-wide study, to reach consensus regarding recommendations to Congress for the inclusion of river

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 locresources (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 upoccur 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 Stascenic 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 Prop

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 recommendplanning, 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 suc

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 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 water rights undisturbed and to recognize the lawful rights of private, municipal, and state entities to manage water resources under state law to meet the needs of the community. Federal law, including Sectallocation 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 Rivpossible 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 th

Beaver Creek (7.7 miles) 

• Segment 1 – Forest Service boundary to one mile from Dolores River • Segment 2 – One mile to Dolores River 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for either of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Segment 1 – Suitable–Wild 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II 

Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-40 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Colorado River (66.5 miles) 

• Segment 1 – Colorado-Utah state line to Westwater Canyon • Segment 2 – Westwater Canyon (Mile 125) to River Mile 112 • Segment 3 – River Mile 112 to confluence with the Dolores River • Segment 3(a) – River Mile 112 to Cisco Wash • Segment 3(b) – Cisco Wash to confluence with the Dolores River • Segment 4 – Confluence with the Dolores River to River Mile 49 near Potash • Segment 4 (portion for Alternative D only) – Hittle Bottom to Take Out Beach • Segment 5 – River Mile 44.5 to Mile 38.5 state land boundary • Segment 6 – River Mile 37.5 below state land to Mile 34 Canyonlands National P

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for any of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Segment 1 – Suitable–Scenic 

 Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 2 – Suitable–Wild  Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Closed  VRM designation: Class I Segment 3 – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 4 – Suitable–Recreational  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 5 – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 6 – Suitable–Wild  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II 

Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Suitable–Wild 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Closed  VRM designation: Class I Segment 3(a) – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 3(b) – Suitable–Recreational  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 4 – Suitable–Recreational  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 5 – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 6 – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-41 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Cottonwood Canyon (10.4 miles) 

• Source near Cottonwood Point to private land (includes the first 1/2 mile of Horse 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Suitable–Scenic 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Closed  VRM designation: Class I 

Not suitable 

Dolores River (22.0 miles) 

• Segment 1 – Colorado-Utah state line to Fisher Creek • Segment 2 – Fisher Creek to Bridge Canyon • Segment 3 – Bridge Canyon to Colorado River 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for any of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Segment 1 – Suitable–Scenic 

 Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 2 – Suitable–Wild  Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class I Segment 3 – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II 

Segment 1 – Suitable–Recreational 

 Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 2 – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 3 – Suitable–Recreational  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II 

Green River (99.0 miles) 

• Segment 1 – Coal Creek to Nefertiti Boat Ramp • Segment 2 – Nefertiti Boat Ramp to Swasey's Boat Ramp • Segment 3 – Swasey's Boat Ramp to I-70 Bridge • Segment 3(a) – Swasey's Boat Ramp to River Mile 97 (confluence with the San R• Segment 4 – I-70 Bridge to River Mile 91 below Ruby Ranch • Segment 4(a) – Mile 97 (confluence with the San Rafael River) to Canyonlands N• Segment 5 – Mile 91 below Ruby Ranch to Hey Joe Canyon • Segment 6 – Hey Joe Canyon to Canyonlands National Park Boundary 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for any of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification 

Segment 1 – Suitable–Wild 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Closed 

Segment 1 – Suitable – Wild  Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Closed 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-42 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

 VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable–Recreational  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 3 – Suitable–Recreational  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 4 – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 5 – Suitable–Wild  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class I Segment 6 – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II 

 VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable – Recreational  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 3 – Not suitable Segment 3(a) – Not suitable Segment 4 – Not suitable Segment 4(a) – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II Segment 5 – Not suitable Segment 6 – Not suitable 

Mill Creek (6.0 miles) 

• Segment 1 – National Forest boundary to private property below diversion • Segment 2 – T26S, R23E, Section 19 to Power Dam 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for either of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Segment 1 – Suitable–Recreational 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Closed  VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable–Scenic  Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Closed  VRM designation: Class I 

Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-43 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Negro Bill Canyon (7.4 miles) 

• Segment 1 – From state land below rim to 1/4 mile from Colorado River • Segment 2 – Last 1/4 mile to Colorado River 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for either of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Segment 1 – Suitable–Wild 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Closed  VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable–Recreational  Oil and gas leasing: NSO  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II 

Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable 

North Fork Mill Creek (11.2 miles) 

• National Forest boundary near Wilson Mesa to Mill Creek 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Suitable–Wild 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Closed  VRM designation: Class I 

Not suitable 

Onion Creek (12.5 miles) 

• Segment 1 – Source to Onion Creek Road • Segment 2 – Beginning of Onion Creek Road to Colorado River 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for either of the eligible river segments. They would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Segment 1 – Suitable–Wild 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class I Segment 2 – Suitable–Recreational  Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class II 

Segment 1 – Not suitable Segment 2 – Not suitable 

Professor Creek (7.4 miles) 

• National Forest and state land boundary to diversion near private land 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Suitable–Wild 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed 

Not suitable 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-44 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

 OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class I 

Rattlesnake Canyon (31.6 miles) 

• Source to Green River (including Flat Nose George Tributary) 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Suitable–Wild 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Closed  VRM designation: Class I 

Not suitable 

Salt Wash (0.3 miles) 

• Arches National Park boundary to Colorado River 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Salt Wash to be deferred until NPS does suitability on portion within Arches 

National Park. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. By default, the lower 0.25 miles of this 0.3-mile segment is within Segment 4 of the Colorado River. Consequently, it would be managed as suitable with a recreation classification. 

Salt Wash to be deferred until NPS does suitabilit

National Park. It would remain eligible and would outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing natclassification. By default, the lower 0.25 miles of this 0.3-mile sof the Colorado River. Consequently, it would be recreation classification. 

Thompson Canyon (5.5 miles) 

• Source of Thompson to Fisher Creek (Cottonwood Canyon; tributary of Dolores R

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Suitability determination would not be made for this eligible river segment. It would remain eligible and would be managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Suitable–Wild 

 Oil and gas leasing: Closed  OHV category: Limited to designated routes  VRM designation: Class I 

Not suitable 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-45 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS – WILDERNESS AND WILDERNESS STUDY ARE

Goals and Objectives:

 Preserve the wilderness character of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) until Congress designates them wilderness or releases them.  Manage the Black Ridge Wilderness Area to provide for the protection of wilderness character and for the use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner that leaves it unimpaired for future use (43 CFR 8560). 

Management Common to PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B. and D:

 Manage WSAs under the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP; USDI-BLM 1995; see Map 2-16). Manage for the continued preservation of each WSA's wilderness charac Manage Black Ridge Wilderness Area (5,200 acres; part of the McInnis Canyon National Conservation Area) in accordance with applicable law, regulation, policy, and management for the area (see Maps 2

 For WSAs, no surface disturbance, permanent new development, or ROWs are allowed, and the lands are closed to oil and gas leasing (see Appendix C).  For designated Wilderness, any new development or surface disturbance is for wilderness purposes, and the lands are closed to mineral leasing and location. These are non-discretionary, non-planning decisi

 Only Congress can release a WSA from wilderness consideration. Should any WSA, in part or in whole, be released from wilderness consideration, proposals in the released area would be examined on a ca

completion of requisite plan amendments. Because a plan amendment would be required, there is no separate analysis in this Land-use Plan to address resource impacts if any WSAs are released. 

 Fire activities and projects in WSAs would follow the IMP.  Designate WSAs and Wilderness as VRM Class I. 

 Under the Proposed Plan and under Alternatives A and D, where routes would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use could continue on a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in t

does not impair wilderness suitability, as provided by the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM 7/5/95). The miles of motorized routes in WSAs (see below for miles of rou

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 o

impairment of wilderness values. 

Behind the Rocks WSA (12,635 acres)

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Designate the majority of the Behind the Rocks WSA as closed to OHV use. About 3.55 miles of inventoried way are designated. 

Designate the Behind the Rocks WSA as closed to OHV use. No miles of route are designated. 

Designate a portion of the Behind the Rocks WSA (11,822 acres). Designate OHV use in the remaindesignated routes (813 acres, with 0.9 miles of de

Black Ridge (52 acres) and Lost Spring Canyon (1,624 acres) WSAs 

Note: Most of the original Black Ridge WSA was designated Wilderness with the creation of the McInnis Canyon NCA. Most of the original Lost Sprin

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Designate Black Ridge and Lost Spring Canyon WSAs as limited to inventoried routes, with 0.25 miles of route designated in Lost Spring Canyon WSA and 0 miles of route designated in Black Ridge WSA. 

Designate Black Ridge and Lost Spring Canyon WSAs as closed to OHV use, with 0 miles of route designated in Lost Spring Canyon WSA and 0 miles of route designated in Black Ridge WSA. 

Designate Black Ridge and Lost Spring Canyon Wroutes, with 0.25 miles of route designated in Losmiles of route designated in Black Ridge WSA. 

Desolation Canyon (81,603 acres), Floy Canyon (72,605 acres), Flume Canyon (50,800 acres), Coal Canyon (60,755 acres), Mill Creek Canyon (9,780 acr

Note: Acreage of Desolation Canyon WSA is for the MPA portion only. Remainder of this WSA is managed by the Price Field Office. Acreage of Flume Canyon 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Designate these WSAs as limited to inventoried routes, with: 

 8.2 miles of inventoried way designated in Desolation Canyon WSA.  23.5 miles of inventoried way designated in Floy Canyon WSA.  10.1 miles of inventoried way designated in Flume Canyon WSA.  8.0 miles of inventoried way designated in Coal Canyon WSA.  1.8 miles of inventoried way designated in Mill Creek Canyon WSA.  3.5 miles of inventoried way designated in Negro Bill Canyon WSA.  1.0 mile of inventoried way designated in Spruce Canyon WSA. 

Designate these WSAs as closed to OHV. No miles of route would be designated. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Westwater Canyon WSA (31,160 acres)

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Designate the Westwater Canyon WSA as limited to inventoried routes, with 22.5 miles of inventoried way designated. 

Designate the Westwater Canyon WSA as closed to OHV, with no miles of route designated. 

Designate a portion of the Westwater Canyon WSacres). Designate the remainder of the WSA as lim
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-46 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

with zero miles designated (7,470 acres). 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Goals and Objectives:

 Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats (including but not limited to designated critical habitat) of Federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate plant or animal species to actively promote recovery t

 Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats of BLM (State) Sensitive plant and animal species to prevent the listing of these species under the Endangered Species Act.  Implement management strategies that restore degraded riparian communities; protect natural flow requirements; protect water quality; manage for stable, non-eroding banks; and manage for year-round flow

 Allow or participate in research of threatened and endangered (T&E) and Sensitive species and their habitats.  Avoid practices that permanently convert sagebrush shrubland to invasive species. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:As required by the Endangered Species Act: 

 Implement recovery actions identified in Recovery Plans and in Conservation Agreements, Plans and Strategies in coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Utah Division of Wildlife Res

implementation teams. 

 The protection of habitat for listed and non-listed plant and animal species would be considered prior to authorizing any actions that could alter or disturb such habitat. 

 No management action would be permitted on public lands that would jeopardize the continued existence of plant or animal species that are listed or are officially proposed or are candidates for listing as T& Surveys of habitat or potential habitat for special status species (including any sensitive species under consideration for formal designation as T&E) would be made prior to taking any action that could affec

 BLM would conduct or cooperate in surveys to determine the extent of listed and non-listed plant and animal species and their habitat or potential habitat. Any listed or non-listed special status species surve

 Monitoring, using approved protocol, would be required on listed and non-listed special status species habitat that may be affected by BLM authorization of any activities within that habitat. 

 Follow current and future recovery plans and manage habitat for T&E and BLM Sensitive species: 

 Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. 

 Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. 

 Humpback Recovery Plan. 

 Humpback Chub Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Humpback Recovery Plan. 

 Bonytail Recovery Plan. 

 Bonytail Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Bonytail Recovery Plan. 

 Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan.  Razorback Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan.  Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan.  Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan.  Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl.  Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. 

 Support and implement special status plant and animal Species Management Plans. Coordinate actions with UDWR and other involved entities. Support population and habitat monitoring. 

 Support and implement current and future special status plant and animal species Conservation Plans, Strategies, and Agreements. Coordinate actions with USFWS and other involved entities. Support popu

 Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Agreement and Strategy Conservation Agreement for the Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker and Flannelmouth Sucker (see Map 2-17). 

 Follow current and future Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices (BMP) for Federally Listed Species (see Appendix K). Species include but are not limited to: Jones Cycladenia, Mex

River. 

 Work with UDWR to implement the Utah Wildlife Action Plan (UDWR 2005a) to coordinate management actions that will conserve native species and prevent the need for additional listings.  Mitigate all unavoidable habitat losses for special status species as required by policy or law.  Avoid construction of new roads within listed and non-listed special status plant and animal species habitats.  Apply lease notices for listed plant and animal species as determined by Section 7 consultation between BLM and USFWS. Apply appropriate lease notices for any non-listed special status plant and animal 

 Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies or entities to inventory and/or monitor existing or potential habitat for listed and non-listed special status plant and animal species. 

 Plan and implement assessment and monitoring plans for T&E and BLM Sensitive species.  Participate in the Colorado River Fishes Recovery and Implementation Program.  Coordinate with USFWS and UDWR to allow for the reintroduction of T&E and BLM Sensitive species into historic or suitable range. These reintroductions would be analyzed with site-specific NEPA.  Allow translocations and population augmentation of special status species to aid in conservation and recovery efforts. Implement necessary habitat manipulations and monitoring to ensure successful translo

 Apply environmental best management practices (BMPs) to all oil and gas operations in accordance with WO IM 2007-021 and the latest version of the "Goldbook" (see Appendix C). 

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO):

 If BLM determines that a proposed action may affect MSO or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS would be initiated (see Map 2-18). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-47 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

 Monitor and protect known Protected Activity Center (PAC) sites according to USFWS recommendations and MSO Recovery Plan.  Manage habitat for MSO according to USFWS and UDWR recommendations and recovery plans.  Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies and entities to inventory and monitor existing potential habitat and annually schedule assessment plans of MSO habitat to determine quality of habitat an

 Protect occupied and potential habitat, including designated critical habitat for the MSO, by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and 

Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C). These stipulations would preclude temporary activities within designated critical habitat from March 1 through 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWFL): 

 If BLM determines that a proposed action may affect SWFL or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS would be initiated.  Monitor and protect known nesting sites according to USFWS recommendations and SWFL Recovery Plan.  Manage habitat for SWFL according to USFWS and UDWR recommendations and recovery plans; avoid loss or disturbance of suitable riparian habitat.  Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies and entities to inventory and monitor existing potential habitat and annually schedule assessment plans of SWFL habitat to determine quality of habitat a Protect SWFL and their habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms a

Endangered Species Act, Appendix C) within suitable habitat. These stipulations would preclude activities within a 100-m buffer of suitable habitat year long. Activities within 0.25 miles of occupied breedi

Bald Eagle:

 If BLM determines that a proposed action may affect bald eagles or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS would be initiated. Acquire lands with roost and nest sites through land exchange, purchase or donation.  Conduct assessments of wintering bald eagle habitat to delineate essential winter habitat and to develop necessary protective measures.  Monitor nesting territories annually during breeding season (generally January 1 through August 31).  Protect bald eagle nest sites by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms and C

Endangered Species Act, Appendix C) within 1.0 mile of documented nest sites (2,439 acres). These stipulations would preclude surface-disturbing activities within a 1.0 mile radius of nest sites from Janua

bald eagle nest sites year-round. Deviations may be allowed only after appropriate levels of consultation and coordination with the USFWS. 

 Protect bald eagle winter habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standard Terms 

Endangered Species Act, Appendix C) within 0.5 mile of winter roost areas. These stipulations would preclude activities and permanent structures within a 0.5 mile radius of winter roost sites from Novemb

roost sites, if the structure would result in the habitat becoming unsuitable for future winter roosting by bald eagles. 

Sage-grouse:

 Advance the conservation of Greater sage-grouse as well its habitat in accordance with the BLM National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy to avoid contributing to its listing under the Endangered  Consistent with RMP goals and objectives, utilize and apply, as needed, the following plans as part of implementing the BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, Strategic Management P

Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (WAFWA 2006), and the Gunnison Sage-grouse Range-wide 

suggested management practices within 4 miles of active Gunnison sage-grouse leks. 

 Work cooperatively with UDWR; universities; State, county, and local agencies; and private organizations to develop expanded data; assist with analysis; identify important habitat and potential restoration a

sage-grouse densities and identify suitable habitat for expansion. 

 Develop and implement suitable sage-grouse habitat restoration projects. 

 Allow for translocation of sage-grouse in suitable unoccupied habitat. 

White-tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dogs:

 The White-tailed prairie dog and the Gunnison prairie dog are BLM and State sensitive species; translocations of these species would be considered in suitable unoccupied habitats (see Map 2-21). 

 Manage both prairie dog species and their habitats in coordination with the UDWR. Apply habitat management guidance and population monitoring strategies as recommended in the newly developed multi

 Develop cooperative agreements with other agencies to inventory prairie dog densities and identify suitable habitat for expansion. 

Colorado River Endangered Fish:

 No surface-disturbing activities within the 100-year floodplain of the Colorado River, Green River, and at the confluence of the Dolores and Colorado Rivers would be allowed. Any exceptions to this requir

habitat would be developed through this consultation process (see Map 2-17). 

Golden Eagle:

 Known golden eagle nest sites would be protected according to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act amended in 1978. 

 Acquire lands with nest and roost sites through land exchange or acquisition.  Conduct assessments of wintering golden eagle habitat.  Protect golden eagle nest sites and habitat (12,902 acres) by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activit

and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C). These stipulations would preclude surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 miles of documented nest sites from February 1 to July 15 (see Map 

Burrowing Owl:

 Protect burrowing owls by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS (see Appendix O) for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Standa

with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C) by precluding surface-disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of known nests from March 1 through August 31 (see Map 2-22). 

 Domestic sheep camps, temporary watering sites, and salt and mineral blocks would not be located within 0.25 miles of occupied burrowing owl nests from March 1 through August 31. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-48 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

 Maintain ground squirrel and prairie dog colonies to provide habitat and nesting burrows for burrowing owls. 

 The species would be managed under the guidance provided by the Raptor Best Management Practices (BMPs; see Appendix O), which includes implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers to protect nes

Kit Fox:

 Protect kit fox by precluding surface-disturbing activities within 200 m of a kit fox den. 

Ferruginous Hawk:

 Manage ferruginous hawk nesting and foraging habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the USFWS (see Appendix O) for oil and gas leasing and other surface-d

Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C) precluding surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 miles of active nests from March 1 through August 1 (see Map 2-22). 

 Domestic sheep camps, temporary watering sites, and salt and mineral blocks would not be located within 0.5 miles of occupied ferruginous hawk nests from March 1 through August 1.  The species would be managed under the guidance provided by the Raptor BMPs (see Appendix O), which includes implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers to protect nesting raptors and their habitat

Yellow-billed Cuckoo:

 Avoid loss or disturbance of yellow-billed cuckoo habitat and manage yellow-billed cuckoo nesting and foraging habitat by applying the standard terms and conditions developed in consultation with the US

[Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C). These stipulations preclude surface-disturbing activities within 100 m o

 Compliance with BLM Riparian Policy would restrict surface disturbance within 100 m of riparian habitat and would therefore protect nesting habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo. 

Jones Cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii): 

 Require specific site inventories for all surface disturbing projects in areas with suitable Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii habitat.  BLM would restrict activities, in suitable Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii habitat. Restrictions include limiting motorized travel to designated routes, precluding surface disturbing activities within 300 feet o

occupied habitat (see Standard Terms and conditions [Lease Notices] which are Required to Protect Special Status Species and to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, Appendix C). Other restrictions activities such as trailing, salting, watering and herding. 

California Condor

• Within potential habitat for the California Condor, surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. • Surface disturbing activities will not occur within 1.0 mile of nest sites during the breeding season of August 1 to November 30 or within 0.5 mile of established roosting sites (see Standard Terms and C

Endangered Species Act, Appendix C). 

• No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 1.0 mile of nest sites and within 0.5 miles of established roosting sites. 

Greater Sage-grouse Habitats

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Not specified. About 12,850 acres of pre-settlement habitat (see Map 2-20) would be subject 

to controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations (if sage-grouse occupation is identified by BLM in cooperation with UDWR) as follows: 

 Leks (within 2 miles of active strutting grounds): apply controlled 

surface use and timing limitation stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). These stipulations would preclude surface-disturbing activities from March 1 to May 15. Allow no permanent above-ground facilities within the 2 mile buffer year-round. 

 Nesting and Brood-rearing Habitat: apply a timing limitation 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude activities from March 15 to July 15. 

 Winter Habitat: apply a timing limitation stipulation to oil and gas 

leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing activities from November 15 to March 14 on 12,850 acres. 

About 3,068 acres of potential habitat would be suuse and timing limitation stipulations (if sage-groby BLM in cooperation with UDWR) as follows: 

 Leks (within 2 miles of active strutting gr

surface use and timing limitation stipulationother surface-disturbing activities (see Appewould preclude surface-disturbing activities 

Allow no surface-disturbing activities year-rof active leks. Allow no permanent above-grmile buffer. 

 Nesting and Brood-Rearing Habitat: appl

stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other (see Appendix C). This stipulation would pr15 to July 15. 

 Winter Habitat: apply a timing limitation s

leasing and other surface-disturbing activitiestipulation would preclude surface-disturbin15 to March 14 on 3,068 acres. 

Any surface occupancy that would require or result in loss or fragmentation of 12,850 acres of habitat would be avoided or minimized. If surface occupancy 

cannot be avoided, BLM would recommend that sagebrush habitat be reclaimed. BLM would require onsite mitigation measures that prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to protect surface resources in accordance 

Any surface occupancy that would require or resu3,068 acres of habitat would be avoided or minim

cannot be avoided, BLM would recommend that sreclaimed. BLM would require onsite mitigation munnecessary or undue degradation to protect surfa
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-49 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

with 40 CFR 1508.20. with 40 CFR 1508.20. 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Habitat

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Not specified. About 246,107 acres of pre-settlement habitat (See Map 2-20) would be subject 

to controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations (if sage-grouse occupation is identified by BLM in cooperation with UDWR) as follows: 

 Lek habitat (within 2.0 miles of active strutting ground): 

Apply controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude permanent surface occupancy within 2.0 miles of an active lek. No surface-disturbing activities would be allowed from March 20 to May 15. Allow no permanent above-ground facilities within the buffer. Prohibit or limit year-round construction of fences. Where opportunity exists, remove existing fences. Prohibit construction of power lines or other structures. Avoid issuing ROWs that would result in permanent above-ground facilities within 2.0 miles of a lek. Human caused disturbances would be avoided from March 20 to May 15. 

 In year-round habitat (within 6.0 miles of active lek): avoid 

construction of fences, power lines, and tall structures. 

About 175,727 acres of current potential habitat wsurface use and timing limitation stipulations (if sidentified by BLM in cooperation with UDWR) a

 Leks (within 2 miles of active strutting gr

surface use and timing limitation stipulationother surface-disturbing activities (see Appewould preclude surface-disturbing activities 

Allow no surface disturbing activities year-rof active leks. 

Allow no permanent above-ground facilities withProhibit or limit year-round construction of fenceremove existing fences. Prohibit construction of power lines or other strucAvoid issuing ROWs that would result in permanwithin 0.5 miles of a lek. Human caused disturbances would be avoided fro

 In year-round habitat (within 4.0 miles of 

construction and avoid overhead power line provide new raptor hunting perches and the sage-grouse. Fences deemed necessary to co

materials that maximize visibility for sage-g

Not specified. Any surface occupancy that would require or result in loss or fragmentation of 

246,107 acres of habitat would be avoided or minimized. If surface occupancy cannot be avoided sagebrush habitat would be reclaimed. BLM would require onsite mitigation measures that prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to protect surface resources in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.20. 

Any surface occupancy that would require or resuany of the 175,727 acres of identified Gunnison savoided or minimized. If surface occupancy cannhabitat would be reclaimed. BLM would require othat prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to accordance with 40 CFR 1508.20. 

White-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Not specified. Manage 199,505 acres of historic habitat (see Map 2-21) designated by 

UDWR. Manage 117,481 acres of this habitat as the Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex ACEC; apply no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within the ACEC. Manage the remaining 82,024 acres of habitat to protect active prairie dog colonies by applying a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing activities within 1,300 feet of these colonies. No permanent above-ground facilities would be allowed within the 1,300-foot buffer. 

Manage the contiguous 117,481 acres of historic hApply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil a

surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) witdog colonies. This stipulation would preclude surwithin 660 feet of these colonies. No permanent abe allowed within the 660-foot buffer. 

Gunnison Prairie Dog Habitat

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Not specified. Manage 10,700 acres of habitat designated by UDWR for Gunnison prairie 

dogs (see Map 2-21). Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas 

leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 1,300 feet of active prairie dog colonies. This stipulation would preclude surfaceManage 10,700 acres of habitat designated by UD

dogs. Apply a controlled surface use stipulation foother surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix prairie dog colonies. This stipulation would preclu
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-50 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

disturbing activities within 1,300 feet of these colonies. No permanent above-ground facilities would be allowed within 1,300 feet of prairie dog colonies. Construction of new power lines would be prohibited within 1,300 feet of prairie dog colonies. 

activities within 660 feet of these colonies. 

No permanent above-ground facilities would be aprairie dog colonies. Power lines would be avoided within prairie dog cevent that power lines are required within coloniewould be required. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Motorized Travel 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:Under the Proposed Plan and under Alternatives A and D, 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 W

not impair wilderness suitability, as provided by the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM 7/5/95). The miles of motorized routes in WSAs (see page 2-42 and 2-43 for miles of 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 

impairment of wilderness values.* Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 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

 Provide opportunities for a range of motorized recreation experiences on public lands while protecting sensitive resources and minimizing conflicts among various users. Identification of specific designated 

G) and may be modified through subsequent implementation planning and project planning on a case-by-case basis. These identified routes would be available regardless of other management actions. Thesimplementation planning level. These adjustments would be done through a collaborative process with local government and which would include public review of proposed route changes. Site-specific NEP

 All areas would be limited, open, or closed to motorized travel. Limit travel by motorized vehicle on all lands administered by the MFO to designated routes, except for Managed Open Areas, and for areas t

development). 

 BLM could impose limitations on types of vehicle allowed on specific designated routes if monitoring indicates that a particular type of vehicle is causing disturbance to the soil, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cu OHV access for game retrieval, antler collection and dispersed camping would only be allowed on designated routes (designated routes/spurs have been identified specifically for dispersed camping). Adhere

 Only designated roads and managed open areas are available for motorized commercial and organized group use (see Maps 2-11-B through 2-11-D for route designations by alternatives).  Where the authorized officer determines that off-road vehicles are causing or would cause considerable adverse impacts, the authorized officer shall close or restrict such areas. The public would be notified  Any routes that are not baseline routes would be signed "Closed" on the ground. Such routes would be considered as impacts to the area's natural character, and use of such routes would be considered cross  Under the Proposed Plan and under Alternatives A and D, where routes would remain available for motorized use within WSAs, such use could continue on a conditional basis. Use of the existing routes in t

does not impair wilderness suitability, as provided by the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM 7/5/95). The miles of motorized routes in WSAs (see below for miles of rouroutes 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 oimpairment of wilderness values. 

♦ Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Continue to manage motorized vehicle travel under the travel designations established in the 1985 Grand RMP as modified by subsequent Federal Register notices published under the authority of 43 CFR 8340 (see Map 2-10-A). Manage 620,212 acres as open to off-road vehicle travel, 1,196,920 acres as OHV travel limited to existing roads and trails (of which 48,169 acres would be OHV travel limited to designated roads and trails and 309,749 acres within WSAs would be limited to inventoried routes) and 5,062 acres as closed to OHV travel. 

 437,424 acres would be closed to OHV travel.  1,475,074 acres would be limited to designated routes. 

 0 acres would be open to cross country travel (see Map 2-10-B). 

 339,298 acres would be closed to OHV trav 1,481,334 acres would be limited to designa

 Approx. 2,000 acres (White Wash Sand Dun

country travel (see Map 2-10-C). 

Miles of Route:

6,199 miles motorized routes. 

199 miles inventoried verified motorized single-track. 

Designated Routes:3,328 miles motorized routes. 

122 miles of full-sized motorized routes converted to motorcycle-only use.

Designated Routes:

3,693 miles motorized routes.†

313 miles for motorcycles (163 miles on inventoriinventoried single-track). †*

† This is an implementation decision that cannot be protested under the planning regulations. Please see the cover letter for further information 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-51 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Dirt Bike Trail/Route:Dirt bike route from Colorado State Line to Thompson not designated. 

Dirt Bike Trail/Route:

Do not designate dirt bike routes from the Colorado State Line to Thompson, Utah. 

Dirt Bike Trail/Route:

Designate dirt bike route from Colorado State Lin11), utilizing 9 miles of single-track and 22 miles roads. These totals are reflected in the mileage un

Mechanized Recreational Travel (e.g., mountain bikes) 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 Provide opportunities for mechanized travel on all routes open to motorized use.  Prohibit new bike routes within non-WSA lands managed for wilderness characteristics or within hiking focus areas.  Limit mechanized travel to designated trails and managed routes for resource protection purposes. Routes that are no longer available for motorized travel may be converted to bike routes upon application o

 Manage approximately 11.2 miles of routes on the following trails for non-motorized use only: Jackson Trail, "Baby Steps," Hunter Canyon Rim, Portal Trail, Hidden Valley, and Porcupine Rim single-track  Identification of specific designated routes would be initially established through the RMP process and may be modified through subsequent planning at the activity plan and project plan levels on a case-by-

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Continue to manage mechanized travel under closure and restriction notices published in the Federal Register under the authority of 43 CFR 8364. Manage 4 miles of route on the following trails for mechanized use: 

 Jackson Trail.  Portal Trail. 

Design and implement up to 75 additional miles of managed mechanized trails. 

Implement these new system routes solely by converting inventoried routes not designated for motorized travel to non-motorized use, where appropriate, and installing support facilities such as trailheads and route signage. No new single track trails would be considered (see Map 2-11-F(B)). 

Design and implement up to 150 new miles of maaddition, convert existing inventoried routes not dtravel to non-motorized use, where appropriate, asupport facilities such as trailheads and route sigInitially designate the following existing trails for 11.3 miles; see Map 2-11-F(C):† 

 Fisher Mesa (in conjunction with USFS; 5.8  Pothole (on Amasa Back; 1.2 miles).  Rockstacker (on Amasa Back; 0.9 miles).  Lower Porcupine Singletrack (LPS; 1.4 mile "Power line" Trail (0.07 miles on public lan Mill Creek Parkway Extension (0.16 miles o

Non-mechanized Recreational Travel (e.g., hiking, backpacking, and equest

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 Non-mechanized travel is not restricted on public lands except where limited or prohibited to protect specific resource values, provide for public safety or maintain an identified opportunity.  Provide opportunities for non-mechanized travel on all routes open to mechanized use and manage routes identified in each alternative to exclude motorized and mechanized use and provide opportunities fo Limit non-mechanized travel on specific lands to designated trails and managed routes for resource protection purposes.  Manage 17 miles of routes on the following trails for non-mechanized use: Amphitheater Loop, Fisher Towers, Negro Bill, Corona Arch, Trough Spring Canyon, Anticline Overlook, Needles Overlook, Win

and Sego Canyon Interpretive Trail. 

 Identify specific routes through the RMP process. These routes may be modified through subsequent planning at the RMP, activity plan, and project plan levels on a case-by-case basis. 

 Work with equestrian groups to identify additional trails for equestrian and hiker use only. These trails would be designated based on site-specific NEPA analysis. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Not addressed.  Design and implement up to 25 additional miles of managed nonmechanized trail system consistent with the Travel Plan. Implement these 

new system routes largely by converting roads to non-mechanized use and installing appropriate support facilities such as trailheads and route signage. 

 Manage the Hidden Valley Trail as non-mechanized only.  Mark the following existing trails: Castleton, Culvert-Goldbar Loop. 

Mark a new trail from Onion Creek to Amphitheater Loop. 

 Design and implement up to 50 miles of ma

system consistent with the Travel Plan. Implroutes largely by converting existing, low utmechanized use and installing appropriate sutrailheads and route signage. 

 Mark the following existing trails: Castleton

Mark a new trail from Onion Creek to Amph

Equestrian Use: Equestrian Use: Equestrian Use: 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-52 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives All public lands within the field office are presently available for equestrian 

use. Equestrian use in Negro Bill Canyon has been discouraged because the sandy hiking trail is easily damaged by equestrian use. The Mill Creek Canyon Plan specifies that commercial equestrian use would not be renewed. 

Same as the Proposed Plan, except the following additional equestrian trails would be developed. Hikers would also be allowed on this trail, but there would be no motorized or mechanized vehicles allowed: 

 Ten Mile from Dripping Springs to Green River. 

The following trails would be managed for equestbe allowed on these trails, but there would be no mvehicles allowed: 

 Onion Creek Benches (Colorado Riverway S Ida/Stearns Gulch Equestrian Trail System.  Castle Creek Equestrian Trail.  Rattlesnake Trail above Nefertiti Boat Laun Seven Mile Canyons.  Red Rock Horse Trail (Ken's Lake to Johnso

VEGETATION 

Goals and Objectives:

 Manage vegetation resources for desired future conditions (DFC) ensuring ecological diversity, stability, and sustainability, including the desired mix of vegetation types, structural stages, and landscape/ripa

L for Desired Future Conditions for Vegetation). 

 Maintain existing vegetation treatment areas as appropriate. 

 Control invasive and non-native weed species and prevent the introduction of new invasive species by implementing a comprehensive weed program (as per national guidance and local weed management p

and early detection; education; inventory and monitoring; and using principles of integrated weed management. 

 Manage for vegetation restoration, including control of weed infestations and control of invasive and undesirable nonnative species. 

 Maintain, protect and enhance special status plant and animal habitats in such manner that the potential need to consider any of these species for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Spe Develop management prescriptions for all surface-disturbing resource uses during times of extended drought (see description of Adaptive Drought Management, below). 

 Maintain or enhance the integrity of current sagebrush and sage steppe communities and identify areas in need of restoration. Initiate restoration and/or rehabilitation efforts to ensure sustainable populations 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 Utilize the BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy – Guidance for Management of Sagebrush Plant Communities for Sage-Grouse Conservation, when applicable, in the development and implem

and development and any surface-disturbing activity within sagebrush and sage steppe communities. 

 Sagebrush/steppe communities would be a high priority for wildfire suppression, emergency stabilization and fuel reduction to avoid catastrophic fires in these communities. 

 Reclaim and restore up to 257,809 acres of sagebrush habitat and shrub-steppe ecosystems where appropriate in accordance with the BLM sagebrush conservation guidance. Reclamation/restoration would b

include removing surface material, re-contouring, spreading topsoil, seeding or planting seedlings, and/or changing livestock grazing strategies, such as, changing season of use, type of use, removing or redu

rest rotation practices, or exclusion. Work in coordination with UDWR to reduce wildlife numbers, as necessary, to restore sagebrush habitat. 

 Provide opportunities for seed gathering of various vegetation types while protecting other resources. 

 Restoration and rehabilitation would use native seed-mixes wherever possible. Non-native species may be used as necessary for stabilization or to prevent invasion of noxious or invasive weed species. 

 Gather necessary vegetation information and continue monitoring to assess if planning objectives are being met. 

 Utilize the techniques and methods for vegetation treatments identified in the Utah ROD for Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Seventeen Western States (20

 Control noxious weed species and prevent the infestation and spread of invasive species. Develop cooperating agreements with other Federal, State, local and private organizations to control invasive and no

 Reduce tamarisk and Russian olive where appropriate using allowable vegetation treatments. Restore riparian habitat to native willow and cottonwood communities.  Where appropriate, replant cottonwoods and willow subsequent to wildland fire or other disturbance in riparian areas.  Promote science and research opportunities in the San Arroyo Area/Exclosures, Sagers Watershed Area/Exclosures and Big Flat Area/Exclosures (approximately 300 acres each).  Establish Lower South Fork of Seven Mile Canyon as a Riparian/Wetland Demonstration Area for the improvement and restoration of the riparian area. 

 Insect pests would be treated in coordination with the State of Utah, other Federal agencies, affected counties, adjoining private land owners and other directly affected interests. 

 See Livestock Grazing for other vegetation treatments. 

Adaptive Drought Management:Establish criteria for restricting activities during drought (see Appendix M for Drought Classification System) based on the following measures/parameters: Severe (D2):

 Send drought letters.  UDWR coordination for big game herd control.  Prepare local seasonal precipitation graphs.  Suspend or limit seed collecting activities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-53 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives Extreme (D3):

 No new surface-disturbing activities in areas with sensitive soils (subject to valid existing rights or actions associated with other valid permitted activities; see oil and gas Appendix C for definition of surface Changes in livestock use would be based on site-specific data on those allotments that are affected by drought.  OHV use and competitive motorized events would be confined to designated roads and routes within the open OHV area.  Require additional erosion-control techniques/BMPs for surface-disturbing activities (e.g., hydromulching).  Limit prescribed burns and vegetation treatments. 

Exceptional (D4):

 Changes in livestock use will be based on site-specific data on those allotments that are affected by drought. 

 No new surface-disturbing activities (subject to valid existing rights or actions associated with other valid permitted activities).  Consider closing areas to public entry. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Not specified. Avoid or minimize to the extent possible the loss of sagebrush/steppe habitat 

from BLM-initiated or authorized actions. The BLM recommends that loss of sagebrush/steppe habitat essential to wildlife (e.g., sage-grouse, mule deer, and sagebrush obligate species) be reclaimed or mitigated off-site. 

Avoid or minimize to the extent possible the loss 

from BLM-initiated or authorized actions. The BLsagebrush/steppe habitat essential to wildlife (e.g.sagebrush obligate species) be reclaimed or mitig

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) 

Goals and Objectives: 

 Manage public lands in a manner that protects the quality of scenic values. 

 Recognize and manage visual resources for overall multiple use, filming, and recreational opportunities for visitors to public lands. 

 Manage BLM actions to preserve those scenic vistas that are most important. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:WSAs and designated wilderness would be designated as VRM Class I. Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 Wild and Scenic River (WSR) segments recommended as suitable for Wild would be designated as VRM Class I, Scenic would be designated as VRM Class II, and Recreational would be managed the same 

 For all VRM classes, all resource uses and management activities would be required to meet VRM objectives. However, recreation developments in the immediate foreground of Key Observation Points (KO

objectives. These facilities often create more contrast than would be acceptable; however this contrast would be allowed if the facilities are part of the expected image of the public being served. The contras

excellence and be a positive element of the built environment. Structures should blend into the landscape while retaining functionality. 

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to all areas designated as VRM Class I. 

 Apply a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C) to all areas designated as VRM Class II. This would require surface-disturbing activ Designated utility corridors within VRM Class II areas would be designated as VRM Class III only for utility projects. 

 Necessary road maintenance could occur regardless of VRM class.  Public lands within the viewshed of Arches National Park would be designated as VRM Class II.  See Maps 2-23-A through 2-23-D for VRM Management Classes, by alternative. 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

VRM management classes identified only for Canyon Rims (33,037 acres designated as VRM Class II; 67,236 acres designated as VRM Class III). Interim management classes would be assigned through site-specific analysis based on the current VRM inventory. 

Areas with high potential for oil and gas development (Big Flat/Hatch Point/Lisbon Valley and Eastern Bookcliffs/Greater Cisco) would be designated according to the underlying VRM inventory (VRM Classes II and III). 

Areas with high potential for development of oil aPoint/Lisbon Valley, and Eastern Bookcliffs/Greadesignated as VRM Class III with the exception oand ACECS that have more stringent VRM classi

Wilderness, WSAs, and Negro Bill Outstanding Natural Area would be designated as VRM Class I. 

The following ACECs would be designated as VRM Class I: Behind the Rocks, Canyon Rims, Colorado River, Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, Upper Courthouse, Westwater and Wilson Arch. 

Manage the remaining ACECs according to the underlying VRM inventory class. Scenic driving corridors would be designated as VRM Class II within a specified viewshed not to exceed 1 mile from centerline. Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surfacedisturbing activities (see Appendix C) within 1 mile of scenic driving corridors.

Manage the Shafer Basin portion of the Highway Canyon ACEC as VRM Class I. Scenic driving corridors would be designated as Vspecified viewshed not to exceed 0.5 mile from cesurface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing and activities (see Appendix C) within 0.5 mile of sceManage the following areas with high-quality visu

II: Sand Flats, Gemini Bridges/Monitor and MerrCorona Arch area, the Colorado, Dolores and Gre
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-54 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Manage the following areas with high quality visual resources as VRM Class II: Sand Flats, Gemini Bridges/Monitor and Merrimac/Poison Spider/Goldbar/ Corona Arch area, the Colorado, Dolores and Green River corridors, Tusher Canyon (Bookcliffs), areas of the Colorado Riverway not within the Colorado River ACEC, Matt Martin Point, areas bordering Arches National Park, Kane Creek, Hatch Wash, the rims of Canyon Rims, Beaver Creek and the eastern Book Cliffs (see Map 2-23-B). 

Canyon (Bookcliffs), the Colorado Riverway, Mabordering Arches National Park, Kane Creek, HatRims, the Mill Creek and Behind the Rocks ACECanyon (see Map 2-23-C). 

349,110 acres would be designated as VRM Class I. 453,462 acres would be designated as VRM Class I. 358,911 acres would be designated as VRM Class 401,015 acres inventoried as VRM Class II, of which 33,037 acres would be designated as VRM II. 

373,647 acres would be designated as VRM Class II. 365,566 acres would be designated as VRM Class 

800,782 acres inventoried as VRM Class III, of which 67,236 would be designated as VRM III. 

784,246 acres would be designated as VRM Class III. 829,158 acres would be designated as VRM Class 

271,356 acres inventoried as VRM Class IV. 210,532 acres would be designated as VRM Class IV. 268,133 acres would be designated as VRM Class 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Goals and Objectives:

 Maintain, protect, and enhance habitats to support natural wildlife diversity, reproductive capability, and a healthy, self-sustaining population of wildlife and fish species. 

 Manage crucial, high-value, and unfragmented habitats as management priorities. 

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D: 

 Continue to implement and modify three Habitat Management Plans (HMPs) summarized in Appendix N: Hatch Point HMP, Dolores Triangle HMP, and the Potash-Confluence HMP. 

 The Hatch Point HMP: Manage to benefit pronghorn and improve sagebrush habitat for sage-grouse and other wildlife species. Emphasize habitat management, change in livestock class from sheep to  Potash-Confluence HMP: Manage to benefit desert bighorn sheep, but also include guidance for chukar partridge, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon. Water developments to benefit desert bighorn are to 

condition and habitat is to be improved where needed. Eight specific management objectives were established (see Appendix N for details). 

 The Dolores Triangle HMP: Manage to benefit deer, elk, and bighorn sheep. Improve bald eagle, riparian and native and naturalized fish habitat through the installation of fencing and enclosures in Gr

 Livestock grazing would not be authorized on the following allotments/areas (or portions of allotments/areas) in order to benefit wildlife resources: 

 A portion of the Kane Spring Allotment (that portion in Kane Spring Canyon between the open valley and the river; 558 acres and 0 AUMs).  An area along the Colorado River between Hittle and north of Dewey Bridge (400 acres, AUMs would remain the same).  Between The Creeks with 3,960 acres and 221 AUMs.  North Sand Flats with 5,860 acres and 798 AUMs.  South Sand Flats with 10,209 acres and 592 AUMs.  A portion of Arth's Pasture Allotment (Poison Spider area; approximately 6,200 acres and 425 AUMs). 

 Support and implement current and future animal species Conservation Plans, Strategies and Agreements. Coordinate actions with UDWR and other involved entities. Support population and habitat monito

Migratory Birds:

 Executive Order 13186, "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds," would be integrated into all activities with potential adverse impacts, wildlife management programs, and other res

protection, fire, special status species, off-site mitigation and habitat enhancement. Management actions would emphasize birds listed on the current USFWS "Birds of Conservation Concern" (2002f or as up

Bird Habitat Conservation Area, Colorado and Dolores River Bird Habitat Conservation Area, Green River Bird Habitat Conservation Area, and the Cottonwood and Willow Creek Bird Habitat Conservatio

Conservation Areas identified in the Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah (Martinsen et al. 2005 or as updated), would receive priority for conducting bird habitat conservation pr

 Implement Executive Order 13186, "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds" during all activities to protect habitat for migratory birds. Management would emphasize birds listed on 

species (as updated). 

 As specific habitat needs and population distribution to "Birds of Conservation Concern" and Partners-in-Flight priority species are identified, BLM would use adaptive management strategies to further con

 Prioritize the maintenance and/or improvement of lowland riparian, wetlands, and low and high desert scrub communities which are the four most important and used habitat types by migratory birds in MPA

 Prevent the spread of invasive and non-native plants, especially cheatgrass, tamarisk, and Russian olive. Strive for a dense under story of native species in riparian areas with a reduction in tamarisk and impr During nesting season for migratory birds (May 1 – July 31), avoid surface-disturbing activities and vegetative-altering projects and broad-scale use of pesticides in identified occupied migratory bird habitat

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 Coordinate with UDWR and other partners to help accomplish the population and habitat goals and objectives of big game Herd Management Plans that are consistent with and meet the goals and objectives  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 guidanc Restrict dispersed camping in riparian areas to protect riparian wildlife habitat. Restrictions could include limiting camping to designated sites or prohibiting camping. 

 Implement a limited fire suppression policy and initiate prescribed fires where treatment by fire would increase vegetation productivity and increase forage for wildlife. 

 Modify the grazing season of use or change class of livestock for individual allotments as necessary to accommodate forage needs for wildlife. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-55 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

 Predator management would continue to be coordinated with Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)-Wildlife Services and UDWR and would be conducted utilizing the guidance provided by 

 BLM would continue to coordinate with, and provide support to UDWR for introduction/reintroduction of native or naturalized fish or wildlife species into historic or suitable habitats as determined appropr Introduction, transplantation, augmentation and re-establishment of both naturalized and native species would be considered and would include, but may not be limited to, pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, w

fish species, pursuant to guidance and direction provided in BLM's 1745 Manual. 

 Raptors would be managed under the auspices of Best Management Practices (BMPs; see Appendix O), which would include implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers. These BMPs implement the US

as long as protection of nests is ensured. Seasonal and spatial buffers are also listed in Appendix O. Cooperate with utility companies to prevent electrocution of raptors. Temporarily close areas (amount of t

nest abandonment. 

 Support and implement where possible the Northern River Otter Management Plan; coordinate with UDWR to determine potential release sites; support population monitoring. 

 Manage riparian areas to ensure a multi-aged, multi-layered structure, allowing for retention of snags and diseased trees. Provide multiple layers of vegetation (vertical structure) within 10 feet of the ground

 Minor adjustments to crucial wildlife habitat boundaries periodically made by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) would be accommodated through plan maintenance. 

Pronghorn Habitat:

 Manage 78,476 acres of current pronghorn habitat that UDWR has designated in the La Sal (Hatch Point Herd) Wildlife Management Unit. Implement the Hatch Point HMP. Manage 743,524 acres of prong

Mesa, Harley Dome, San Arroyo, Horse Canyon, Pipeline, Floy Creek, Athena, Little Grand, Corral Wash Canyon, Agate, Little Hole, Monument Wash, Highlands, 10-Mile Point, Big Flat, Ruby Ranch, Ba

 Management of pronghorn habitat (see Map 2-25) would be done in coordination with UDWR and may include (but would not be limited to) the following actions: 

 Installing and improving year-round water resources within the La Sal Management Unit and the Cisco Desert Herd unit.  Supporting a change in class of livestock from sheep to cattle on the Hatch Point area. Changing class of livestock from cattle to sheep would not be allowed within pronghorn habitat.  Installing water developments every 2 square miles on summer and fawning areas.  Constructing fences that allow for pronghorn passage.  Dismantling un-needed fences.  Installing restrictive fencing to stop pronghorn passage onto highways.  Increasing forage through vegetation treatments on approximately 4,400 acres. 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat:

 Film permits would comply with minimum impact criteria (see Appendix B) from April 1 through June 15 and from October 15 through December 15 within 123,490 acres of crucial bighorn sheep habitat ( No change in class of livestock from cattle to sheep conversions would be considered in recognized bighorn habitat. (see Maps 2-26 and 2-28). 

 Follow the recommendations found in the BLM Bighorn Sheep Rangeland Management Plan, as revised (1993b); the Utah BLM Statewide Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Plan, as revised (1986a); and 

(BLM 1998a). 

 Support the current bighorn sheep population and manage to increase desert bighorn population (prior stable numbers) on 330,892 acres. Population goals would be reached by releases, by reestablishment, a

 Management of bighorn sheep habitat in coordination with UDWR would include: installing water developments every 5 square miles in or within 2 miles of escape terrain, precluding exotic ungulate, wild 

(3 strands with bottom wire smooth) and dismantling un-needed fences. 

 Manage 9,278 acres along the rim of Hatch Point as part of the Lockhart Bighorn Sheep habitat areas. Apply a timing limitation stipulation to oil and gas leases and other permitted uses, which would restric

December 15 for rutting (see Appendix C). 

 Manage 317,523 acres of total desert bighorn sheep habitat on the following grazing allotments: Buckhorn, North River, Little Grand, Taylor, Ten Mile Point, Arth's Pasture, Spring Canyon Bottom, Big Fla

 Support conversion of sheep AUMs to cattle on Hatch Point Allotment.* 

 Improve desert bighorn habitat by installing and improving year-round water resources within all desert bighorn habitat and provide additional water sources at a minimum spacing of one water developmen

Deer and/or elk:

 Manage UDWR current deer habitat of 534,329 acres in the Bookcliffs and 313,551 acres on the La Sal Mountains as mule deer habitat by improving or maintaining vegetative conditions to benefit both live

 Increase elk forage through vegetation treatments such as chemical, mechanical, and prescribed fire on approximately 40,000 acres of elk winter range (see Livestock Grazing). 

 Manage crucial and high value deer and/or elk summer range (105,636 acres) within the Bookcliffs and La Sal Wildlife Management Unit by applying a timing limitation stipulation that would preclude surf

 All forage on acquired state lands in upper Castle Valley within crucial deer winter range would be allocated to deer. 

Pronghorn Habitat

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

For pronghorn fawning habitat, exploration, drilling, and other development is prohibited from May 15 through June 15. 

Protect current pronghorn habitat (822,001 acres) within Cisco Desert (743,524 

acres) and Hatch Point (78,477 acres; the La Sal Wildlife Management Units: see Map 2-24) by applying a timing limitation stipulation that would preclude surface-disturbing activities from May 1 to June 15 (see Appendix C). 

Protect pronghorn fawning habitat (293,741 acresHatch Point (the La Sal Wildlife Management Unlimitation stipulation that would preclude surface-May 1 to June 15 (see Appendix C). 

Cisco Desert HMP: Improve pronghorn habitat by excluding livestock grazing activities from May 15 through June 20 or during extreme snow conditions. Change season of use on fawning grounds to reduce disturbance. Hatch Point HMP: Pronghorn fawning areas would exclude livestock grazing 

Spring grazing would be adjusted on 188,975 acres on allotments within crucial pronghorn habitat in the Cisco Desert to encourage forb production. These allotments include: Athena, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Crescent, Harley Dome, San Arroyo, Pipeline, and Bar X. 

Spring grazing would be adjusted on a case-by-caallotments within crucial pronghorn habitat in the forb production. These allotments include Athena

Dome, and San Arroyo. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-56 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives from May 1 till June 30. Changes in season of use (November 1 through June 1) number of livestock (27% reduction), change in livestock class from sheep to cattle, fencing, seeding, and rest/rotation to improve habitat are recommended. Cisco Desert HMP: Increase the percent browse and forb species on 6,375 acres of grass vegetation from less the 5% to 30% browse and forb. Hatch Point HMP: Implement rest/rotation on three pastures developed on the 

Hatch Point Allotment. One pasture to be grazed from November 1 to March 1, the second from March 1 to June 1, and the third to receive a year-long rest from grazing. A total of 69 acres were to be seeded to attain a combination of succulent forbs, grasses, and shrubs that would provide spring forage. Fencing would be utilized as a management tool to accomplish this. 

Pronghorn fawning areas would not be grazed from May 1 till June 30 on Hatch Point. These allotments include: Hatch Point, Lisbon, and Windwhistle. 

Develop, where applicable, a rest/rotation of pastumanagement systems within allotments that have encourage forb production prior to fawning. Chansheep to cattle, fencing, seeding and rest/rotation encouraged. 

Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Avoid situating major ROWs within 48,245 acres in the Mineral Bottom, Potash and Westwater areas to protect crucial bighorn sheep habitat. Apply a Category 2 mineral leasing stipulation in order to protect 25,431 acres of bighorn sheep. 

To protect lambing, rutting, and migration habitat (130,419 acres), apply a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). 

To protect lambing, rutting, and migration habitat surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasisurface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). Wpipeline construction and geophysical exploration would be allowed outside lambing and rutting perOctober 14 and from December 15 through March 

Potash-Confluence HMP: Improve 42,500 acres of crucial bighorn sheep habitat by preventing surface disturbance during lambing and breeding seasons. Assist in the development of livestock manipulation techniques on Horsethief Point, Spring Canyon Bottom, and Ten-Mile Point Allotments to improve or maintain bighorn sheep habitat. Change season of use on the Potash Allotment to reduce competition on lambing and breeding grounds. 

Manage 46,319 acres of lambing habitat (see Map 2-26-B) with the following 

prescriptions: 

 Camping would be allowed in designated campsites only.  No camping in Shafer Basin and Long Canyon.  Livestock use would be adjusted on North River and, Taylor Allotments 

(Dry Mesa Pasture). 

Manage lambing areas and manage 46,319 acres (following prescriptions: 

 Camping would be allowed in designated ca

within the Green River riparian corridor, whunrestricted camping. 

 No camping in Shafer Basin and Long Cany Livestock use would be adjusted on North R

(Dry Mesa Pasture). 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

The 1990 amendment to the 1985 RMP recognized 194,560 acres of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat. 

Manage the entire 458,242 acres of habitat for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep that UDWR has designated from the Green River to the Colorado border according to the stipulations described in management common to all. This management would include improving or maintaining habitat and vegetative 

conditions to benefit bighorn sheep while maintaining or improving the ecological condition of rangelands (see Map 2-28). 

Manage 310,726 acres of currently occupied Rockfrom the Green River to Pipeline Canyon accordinmanagement common to all. This management wmaintaining habitat and vegetative conditions to bmaintaining or improving the ecological condition 28). 

Any future proposal for a change in kind of livestock from cattle to sheep in Rocky Mountain bighorn habitat would be denied. 

Support conversion of sheep to cattle on allotments that are within nine miles of the 458,242 acres of managed Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat. Once conversion occurs, do not allow re-conversion (from cattle to sheep). Allotments include Agate, Bar-X, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Corral Wash Canyon, Floy Creek, Harley Dome, Rattlesnake North, and San Arroyo. 

Support conversion of sheep to cattle on allotmenof the 310,726 acres of managed Rocky Mountain conversion occurs, do not allow re-conversion (frincludes the Cisco and Cisco Mesa Allotments, SaHarley Dome. 

Deer and/or Elk Habitat

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

In order to protect deer and/or elk winter range, exploration, drilling, and other 

development activity would be allowed only from May 16 to October 31 on 

260,769 acres of deer and/or elk winter range. 

Protect deer and/or elk crucial and high value winter habitat (635,774 acres) by applying a timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as other surface-disturbing activities (see Appendix C). This stipulation would preclude surface-disturbing activities from November 1 through May 15. (This acreage includes 240,258 acres in WSAs, which are already closed to leasing.) 

Protect deer and/or elk crucial winter habitat (349timing limitation stipulation for oil and gas leasindisturbing activities (see Appendix C). (This incluwhich are already closed to leasing.) This limitatidisturbing activities from November 15 through A
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-57 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Livestock Grazing Allotment Decisions Affecting Wildlife 

Allotments Not Available for Grazing:

 Bogart with 14,751 acres and 209 AUMs.  Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs.  Diamond with 19,112 acres and 588 AUMs.  Pear Park, with 14,202 acres.  Spring Creek, with 924 acres.  Beaver Creek with 1,351 acres and 0 AUMs. 

Allotments Not Available for Grazing:

 Bogart with 14,751 acres and 209 AUMs.  Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUMs.  Diamond with 19,112 acres and 588 AUMs. 

 Pear Park, with 14,202 acres.  Spring Creek, with 924 acres.  Beaver Creek with 1,351 acres and 0 AUMs.  Professor Valley with 20,424 acres and 378 AUMs.  Ida Gulch with 3,624 acres and 112 AUMs.  River, with 388 acres and 7 AUMs.  Mill Creek, with 3,922 acres and 137 AUMs. 

Allotments Not Available for Grazing:

 Bogart with 14,751 acres and 209 AUMs.  Cottonwood with 27,193 acres and 900 AUM Diamond with 19,112 acres and 588 AUMs.  Portions of Professor Valley along Highway 

 Ida Gulch with 3,624 acres and 112 AUMs.  Portions of River along Highway 128.  Mill Creek with 3,922 acres and 137 AUMs Pear Park with 14,202 acres. 

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation:

None. 

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be 

Reconsidered for Allocation:None. 

Allotments Currently Not Available for Grazin

Reconsidered for Allocation:After performing rangeland health assessments, thmade available for grazing: 

 Spring Creek. 

Areas Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered for Allocation:

None. 

Areas Currently Not Available for Grazing that are to be Reconsidered 

for Allocation:

None. 

Areas Currently Not Available for Grazing tha

for Allocation:

Beaver Creek. 

WOODLANDS 

Goals and Objectives:

 Manage forests and woodlands for healthy conditions that contribute to healthy habitat for animal and plant species, proper watershed functioning conditions, and riparian restoration and enhancement.  Provide woodland products on a sustainable basis consistent with maintaining ecosystem health and other resource management objectives to meet local needs where such use does not limit the accomplishm

 Encourage, where feasible, the harvest of forest products in areas of proposed or existing vegetation treatments to lessen the need for additional treatment or land disturbance, and in areas that need restoratio

 Identify, maintain, and restore forests with late successional characteristics to a pre-fire suppression condition. The MFO would adopt the USFS old-growth definitions and identification standards as per the 

instances where the area of application in the previous document does not apply (e.g., Pinus edulis), use the document "Recommended Old-Growth Definitions and Descriptions, USDA Forest Service South

Management common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives A, B, and D:

 Permits for harvest of woodland products would continue to be sold to the public, consistent with the availability of woodland products and the protection of sensitive resource values.  As needed, designate private and commercial wood gathering areas for the following uses: firewood, fence posts, Christmas tree cutting, green wood cutting, and plant gathering for landscaping. 

 Use woodland harvest to assist in managing woodlands to accomplish goals outlined in the Fire Management Plan. 

 Prohibit public fuelwood gathering in riparian areas. 

 Permit sustainable harvest (including cutting of green willows, squawbush, and cottonwoods) for Native American traditional ceremonial use. 

Management Common to the PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives B and D:

 Additional areas may be closed to wood gathering and wood harvest as needed to protect sensitive resources. 

 Follow national BLM Forest Health and Forest Management Standards and Guidelines to assess conditions and guide management actions for the forest and woodland resource. 

 Provide for salvage harvest of wood in beetle-kill areas, when compatible with other resource objectives. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS 

 

2-58 

Table 2.1. MOAB PROPOSED PLAN and Draft RMP Alternatives 

Areas Available for Woodland Harvest 

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLA

Provide 1,243,734 acres for woodland harvest and wood gathering. See Map 2-29-A for areas in which woodland harvest and wood gathering is prohibited (609,385 acres) to protect resources values. 

Provide 958,124 acres for woodland harvest and wood gathering. See Map 2-29-B for areas in which woodland harvest and wood gathering is prohibited (863,250 acres) to protect resource values. 

Provide 1,168,988 acres for woodland harvest and 29-C for areas in which woodland harvest and wo(652,386 acres) to protect resource values. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.2 Summary of Impacts 

2-59 

2.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 provides a comparative summary of the environmental impacts associated with the 

Proposed Plan and with each alternative. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-60 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

AIR QUALITY 

Cultural Resources, Paleontological Resources, Visual Resources, Lands and Realty, Livestock Management, Riparian Resources, Soil and Water, Special Designations, Special Status Species, Vegetation, Wildlife, and Woodlands 

Incremental benefits due to restrictions and/or reductions in surface disturbing activities, grazing, vegetation disturbance, and riparian disturbance. Alternative A is generally the least restrictive of these activities, and therefore has the lowest associated potential benefit but is not expected to result in a substantial decrease in air quality. 

Generally the most restrictive of the proposed alternatives and therefore has the highest potential for incremental benefits to air quality. 

The Proposed Plan is less restrictive than Alternative B, but more beneficial than Alternatives A and D. 

Alterna

than AProposbenefi

Fire Management Reduce fuel loads and wildfire 

severity would reduce air quality impacts. Limited short-term impacts would result from controlled burns and prescribed fire. 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same 

Hazard Management Small to negligible adverse 

impacts due to surface disturbance and operation of heavy equipment during remediation. 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same 

Mineral Resources Adverse emissions of 

atmospheric pollutants on both short-term and long-term durations. Alternative A would have the most mineral development activities, but is not expected to result in a substantial decrease in air quality or exceedance of state or federal air quality criteria. 

Same as Alternative A, except that the least oil and gas development would occur under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A, except that the second least oil and gas development would occur under this alternative. 

Same that thmost) would alterna
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-61 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural Resources NHPA and BLM policy to 

identify resources, and avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts would apply. 

Livestock grazing restrictions in high site density areas provide long-term benefits to cultural resources in restricted areas. 50,000 acres targeted for priority site identification studies; more than any other alternative. Greater focus on restoration of damaged sites than any other alternative. There would be mixed, longterm, beneficial and adverse impacts from site interpretation.

Livestock grazing restrictions in high site density areas (fewer than Alternative B) provide longterm benefits to cultural resources in restricted areas. 30,000 acres targeted for priority site identification studies; the second most of all alternatives. Second greatest focus on restoration of damaged sites of all alternatives. There would be mixed, long-term, beneficial and adverse impacts from site interpretation; more sites developed for public use than under Alternative B. 

Same except be restand fewtargetesites wpublic alternabe targidentifiany oth

Fire Management Negative impacts from fuels 

treatments over 5,860 acres and non-fire fuels treatments over 1,347 acres every 10 years in high site-density areas. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Lands and Realty Mineral withdrawals on 13,296 

acres reduce opportunities for adverse impacts to cultural resources. Adverse impacts over 3,776 acres of high site density lands encompassed by designated utility corridors. 

Same as Alternative A except 6,309 acres of high site density lands encompassed by designated utility corridors, and reduced opportunities for adverse impacts in WSAs or Was (exclusion areas) and ACECs (considered avoidance areas for rights-of-way). 

Same as Alternative B except 28,400 acres of high site density lands encompassed by designated utility corridors. 

Same 29,983 density design
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-62 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Livestock Grazing Reduced opportunities for longterm adverse impacts over 

126,907 acres of existing grazing closures and 24,329 acres of high site density lands also closed to grazing. Longterm adverse impacts from trampling and rubbing over 273,890 acres of high site density lands. 

Reduced opportunities for longterm adverse impacts over 153,797 acres of grazing closures, 3,263 acres of wildlife closures, and 29,758 acres of high site density lands closed to grazing. Long-term adverse impacts from trampling and rubbing over 272,818 acres of high site density lands This alternative has slightly greater benefit and lesser impact to cultural resources than any other alternative. 

Same as Alternative B except that 114,235 acres of grazing closures would occur, with 25,177 acres of high site density land closed to livestock grazing and 277,399 acres of high site density lands open to grazing. This alternative has slightly higher overall potential for adverse impact than Alternative B but less than Alternatives A and D. 

Same that 52closure approxhigh silivestoacres owould This alhigher advers

B and less th

Minerals Reduced of opportunities for 

direct and inadvertent impacts from ground disturbance and increased human activity over 458,665 acres closed to mineral entry, leasing, and development. Approximately 618 acres of disturbance could occur on high site density lands for oil and gas development. Approximately 407 acres of disturbance could occur on high site density lands for geophysical work. Adverse impacts possible over 1,467,758 acres of land available for salable minerals. 

Same as Alternative A except: 

 An additional 41,488 acres 

of high site density lands closed to mineral entry, leasing, and development, 

 401 acres of oil and gas 

disturbance on high site density lands, 

 239 acres of geophysical 

disturbance on high site density lands, and 

 836,137 acres of land 

available for salable minerals. 

This alternative has the least potential adverse impact and greatest beneficial impact to cultural resources. 

Same as Alternative B except: 

 Approximately 527 acres of 

disturbance on high site density lands for oil and gas development. 

 Approximately 352 acres of 

disturbance on high site density lands for geophysical work. 

 1,234,717 acres of land 

available for saleable minerals. 

This alternative has the second least potential adverse impact and second greatest beneficial impact to cultural resources s. 

Same 

 App

distdendev

 App

distdenwor

 1,38

avamin

This alleast (sadversbeneficresour
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-63 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Paleontological Resources Limited long-term adverse 

impacts from collection of fossil materials. Limited long-term beneficial impacts from raising awareness about fossil collecting and preservation goals. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Recreation—SRMAs Reduced long-term, adverse 

impacts over 49,543 acres of high site density lands managed as SRMAs. 

Reduced long-term, adverse impacts over 217,994 acres of high site density lands managed as SRMAs. 

Same as Alternative A except 160,885 acres of high site density lands would be 

managed as SRMAs. This would result in less protection from long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources than under Alternative B and more than Alternatives A and D. 

Same 74,278 density manag

Special Designations Long-term benefits due to 

reduced surface disturbance over 243 acres of high site density lands managed as Outstanding Natural Area (ONA). 

Same as Alternative A except up to 109,809 acres of high site density lands would be managed as ACECs with restrictions on surface disturbance. 

Same as Alternative A except up to 19,029 acres of high site density lands would be managed as ACECs with restrictions on surface disturbance. 

NO ACdesign
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-64 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Travel Management 1,049 acres of high site density 

lands closed to OHV use with long-term benefits to cultural resources. 208,757 acres of high site density lands where OHV use is limited to designated routes, with mixed long-term beneficial and adverse impacts to cultural resources. 92,628 acres of high site density lands open to cross country OHV use without designated routes, with long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources. Existing levels of direct and indirect impacts, primarily adverse, to cultural resources along travel routes would be maintained. This alternative has the least benefit and most potential for adverse impacts to cultural resources of all alternatives. 

Same as Alternative A except the acreages are as follows: 

 72,415 acres closed  230,160 acres limited to 

designated routes 

 0 acres open to cross 

country OHV use 

This alternative has the most long-term benefits for cultural resources and least potential for long-term adverse impacts of all alternatives. 327 linear miles of travel routes in high site density areas would be closed, providing long-term direct and indirect benefits to cultural resources. This alternative has the most benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives. 

Same as Alternative B except as follows: 

 69,215 acres closed  232,875 acres limited to 

designated routes 

 486 acres open to cross 

country OHV use 19 miles of designated motorcycle routes on high site density lands 

This alternative has the second most long-term benefits for cultural resources and second least potential for long-term adverse impacts of all alternatives. 238 linear miles of travel routes in high site density areas would be closed, providing long-term direct and indirect benefits to cultural resources. This alternative has the second most benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives. 

Same as follo

 17,9 283

des

 643 

cou

 21 m

motsite 

This alleast loculturamost padversalterna214 linin high be closdirect aculturaThis almost (sculturaalterna

Visual Resources Long-term, indirect, benefits due 

to reduced surface disturbance over 349,101 acres of WSAs and WAs and 72,609 acres of high site density lands outside of WSAs and WAs managed as VRM Class I. This alternative has the least long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives. 

Same as Alternative A except 106,105 acres of high site density lands outside of WSAs, WAs, and WSRs and an additional 18,301 acres of high site density lands in WSRs managed as VRM Class I. This alternative has the most long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives. 

Same as Alternative B except 74,672 acres of high site density lands outside of WSAs, WAs, and WSRs and an additional 3,447 acres of high site density lands in WSRs managed as VRM Class I. This alternative has the second most long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives. 

Same 72,703 density WAs, aVRM CThis almost (sbenefit all alte
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-65 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

There are no management actions for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under Alternative A. 

Limited, long-term, benefits to cultural resources from restrictions on woodcutting in non-WSA areas managed for wilderness characteristics. Management of 47,784 acres of high site density lands with restrictions on surface disturbance provide long-term benefits for cultural resources in those areas. This alternative has the most long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives. 

Same as Alternative B except: 

 Management of 12,773 

acres of high site density lands with restrictions on surface disturbance provide long-term benefits for cultural resources in those areas. 

This alternative has the second most long-term benefit to cultural resources of all alternatives. 

Same 

Woodlands Reduced disturbance over 

144,146 acres of high site density lands closed to use of woodland products. 

Same as Alternative A except 183,677 acres of high site density lands closed to use of woodland products. 

Same as Alternative A except 159,985 acres of high site density lands closed to use of woodland products. 

Same 144,14density woodla

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Fire Management Reduced fuel loads and wildfire 

severity over 5,000 to 10,000 acres per year of prescribed fire and non-fire treatment areas concentrated in pinyon-juniper woodland and wildland/urban interfaces. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Lands and Realty Slightly decreased risk of 

inadvertent fire starts due to limits on the number of people and vehicles associated with filming, and on the use of pyrotechnics and explosives. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-66 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Minerals Mineral development-related 

surface disturbance and activities would slightly increase the risk of human-caused fires surrounding 6,765 acres of projected disturbance. 

Same as Alternative A except 3,975 acres of projected disturbance in the MPA. 

Same as Alternative A except 6,480 acres of projected disturbance in the MPA. 

Same 6,720 adisturb

Recreation and Travel Increased risk of human- and 

vehicle-caused wildland fires over 678,250 acres open to cross-country OHV travel,. Slightly reduced risk of wildfire over 29,654 acres would be closed to all OHV travel. Slightly reduced risk of humancaused fire over 151,252 acres closed to dispersed camping within SRMAs. 

Slightly reduced risk of wildfire over entire MPA (closed to cross-country OHV travel), and 358,126 acres closed to all OHV travel. The impacts of limiting camping would be the same as Alternative A, except within 976,173 acres. 

Fire risk would be slightly higher than Alternative B, with 1,866 acres open to cross-country OHV travel and 349,843 acres closed to OHV travel. The impacts of limiting camping would be the same as Alternative A, except within 658,642 acres. 

Fire risAlternathan Ato cros29,654 travel. The imwould Alterna277,47

Special Designations, Woodlands, Wildlife, Special Status Species 

Alternative A is generally the least restrictive of vegetation treatments and woodland harvest and, therefore, has the lowest risk of fuel loading and catastrophic wildfire. 

Alternative B is generally the most restrictive of vegetation treatments and woodland harvest and, therefore, has the highest risk of fuel loading and catastrophic wildfire. 

The Proposed Plan is generally the most second restrictive of vegetation treatments and woodland harvest and, therefore, has the second highest risk of fuel loading and catastrophic wildfire. 

Alternasecond vegetawoodlatherefolowest catastr

HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Minerals Hazardous materials risk from 

the use, generation, storage, 

transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials would be negligible given the small number of wells projected. Nevertheless, any mineral exploration and development would increase the potential for adverse and long-term hazardous materials risks in the planning area. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-67 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Abandoned Mine Land Abandoned mine land site and 

area mitigation and reclamation priorities would assist in minimizing risks to health and safety. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Lands and Realty Alternative A would have the 

smallest impacts to the placement of future ROWs due to ROW exclusion and avoidance and restrictions on surface disturbance of any of the alternatives (353,293 acres closed to surface disturbing activities; 38,912 acres designated as NSO; and 389,605 acres with timing and controlled surface use limitations). 

Alternative B would have the greatest impacts to the placement of future ROWs due to ROW exclusion and avoidance and restrictions on surface disturbance of any of the alternatives (672,724 acres closed to surface disturbing activities; 341,919 acres designated as NSO; and 544,412 acres with timing and controlled surface use limitation stipulations). 

 The Proposed Plan would 

have fewer impacts to the placement of future ROWs due to ROW exclusion and avoidance and restrictions on surface disturbance than Alternative B, but more so than Alternatives A or D (370,250 acres closed to surface disturbing activities; 217,480 acres designated as NSO; and 806,994 acres with timing and controlled surface use limitation stipulations). 

Alternaimpactfuture exclusrestricdisturband CAlternaclosed activitidesign590,44controstipula

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Fire Management Short-term, adverse impacts on 

livestock grazing in treated areas. Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced risk of fire and improved forage. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Livestock Grazing Adverse impacts to grazing 

from making 126,907 acres unavailable for grazing. 

Adverse impacts to grazing from making 153,797 acres unavailable for grazing. 

Adverse impacts to grazing from making 114,234 acres unavailable for grazing. 

Adversfrom munava

Minerals Surface disturbing activities on 

679 total acres annually under this alternative could lead to losses of AUMs and acres available to livestock grazing. 

Surface disturbing activities on 426 total acres annually under this alternative could lead to losses of AUMs and acres available to livestock grazing. 

Surface disturbing activities on 721 total acres annually under this alternative could lead to losses of AUMs and acres available to livestock grazing. 

Surfac743 tothis altlosses availab
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-68 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Recreation Loss of AUMs from grazing 

restrictions at developed recreation sites. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Travel Impacts resulting in potential 

loss of vegetation for livestock grazing from cross country OHV travel on 602,212 acres. 

No impacts because cross country travel is not allowed. 

Impacts resulting in potential loss of vegetation for livestock grazing from cross country OHV travel on 1,866 acres. 

Impacloss of grazintravel 

Riparian Short-tem negative impacts to 

livestock grazing when site closures are necessary; possible long-term beneficial impacts after a site is rehabilitated. 

Same as Alternative A with eight additional sites excluded from livestock grazing. 

Same as Alternative A with six additional sites excluded from livestock grazing. 

Same 

Soils/Watershed Temporary or permanent 

decreases in acres or AUMs available to livestock to mitigate 

damage to soils. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Vegetation Short-term, adverse impacts on 

livestock grazing in areas that are closed following treatment. Long-term, beneficial impacts from improved forage. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Wildlife Slight changes in grazing 

season of use in pronghorn and bighorn sheep habitat (using Rangeland Health Standards). 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-69 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

Mineral Resources Most beneficial impacts to 

mineral development with 1,427,949 total leasable acres under standard lease terms and special stipulations, 451 oil and gas wells, 2,397 acres geophysical exploration, and 1,467,768 salable acres. 

Most adverse impact to mineral development with 808,096 total leasable acres under standard lease terms and special stipulations, 264 oil and gas wells, 1,404 acres geophysical exploration, and 808,097 salable acres. 11,207 acres with limiting designations. 

Second most adverse impacts with 1,234,267 total leasable 

acres under standard lease terms and special stipulations, 432 oil and gas wells, 2,072 acres geophysical exploration, and 1,234,267 salable acres. 10,437 acres with limiting designations. 

 Seconimpactwith 1,

acres terms 448 oiacres 1,387,

Soil and Water Adverse impacts to mineral 

development on 313,800 acres of saline soils and 823,094 acres of high-limitations soils closed to surface disturbance. 

Adverse impacts to mineral development on 330,142 acres of saline soils and 487,917 acres of high-limitations soils closed to surface disturbance, and 2 watersheds closed to mineral development. 

Adverse impacts to mineral development on 330,142 acres of saline soils and 710,129 acres of high-limitations soils closed to surface disturbance, and 2 watersheds NSO for mineral development. 

Adversdevelohigh-limsurfac

Special Designations Adverse impacts to mineral 

development over 1,287 acres in Negro Bill Outstanding Natural Area. 

Adverse impacts to mineral development within 301,115 acres designated as ACECs and limiting development. 

Adverse impacts to mineral development within 30,563 acres designated as ACECs and limiting development. 

No imp

Visual Resources Second-least adverse impacts 

to minerals development on 349,110 acres (of WSAs) managed as VRM Class I and 401,015 acres designated VRM Class II. 

Most-adverse impacts to minerals development on 453,462 acres managed as VRM Class I and 373,647 acres designated VRM Class II. 

Second-most adverse impacts to minerals development on 358,911 acres managed as VRM Class I and 365,567 acres designated VRM Class II. 

Least minera349,61VRM Cdesign

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed. 

Most adverse impacts to mineral development, with 266,485 acres managed to protect WC. These acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing.

Second-most adverse impacts, with 47,761 acres managed to protect WC.NSO for oil and gas leasing. 

Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-70 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Wildlife and Fisheries Least adverse impacts to 

mineral development over 503,574 acres of total habitat with restrictive stipulations over 227 days. 

Most adverse impacts to mineral development with 1,553,233 acres total habitat with restrictive stipulations over 273 days. 

Second most adverse impacts to mineral development with 1,379,134 acres total habitat with restrictive stipulations over 273 days. 

Third mmineraleast) habitastipula

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Adverse impacts to 94% of the non-WSA areas inventoried with wilderness characteristics. Adverse impacts would include major surface disturbing activities and degradation of the wilderness characteristics of the entire area. Approximately 81% would be open to mineral leasing with standard lease terms or with controlled surface use/timing limitation stipulations. In addition, 53% would be open to cross-country OHV use and 74% would be open to woodland harvest. Potential loss of wilderness characteristics on non-WSA lands across the entire area over the life of the plan.

Beneficial protection of naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation across all non-WSA lands inventoried with wilderness characteristics. Beneficial management including closed to oil and gas leasing, NSO for other surface disturbing activities, retained in federal ownership, vehicle use limited to designated roads, woodland harvest prohibited, VRM Class II, and exclusion areas for ROWs. Therefore the entire inventory (266,485 acres) of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be preserved under this alternative.

Beneficial protection of naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation across 18% of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (47,761 acres). Adverse impacts to naturalness and outstanding opportunities on 61% of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics open to mineral leasing, 53% managed under VRM Classes III and IV, and 61% open to woodlands harvest. Potential degradation of the 

wilderness characteristics of those non-WSA lands not managed specifically to protect wilderness characteristics.

 Adver(232,1areas wilderndescribApproxopen tstandacontrolimitatiadditiowoodlaof wildnon-Wentire plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-71 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Fire Management, Lands and Realty, Livestock Grazing, Minerals, Special Designations, Travel, NonWSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, and Woodlands 

Long term direct and indirect adverse impacts from construction of roads, fire lines, prescribed burns, 21,701 acres of utility corridors, 1,695,621 acres (total) open to livestock grazing, 838,412 acres open to oil and gas development, 391,133 acres open to unrestricted OHV travel, and 760,344 acres open to woodland harvest in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. Beneficial impacts from fossils recovered as a result of mitigation and designation of ACECs, WSRs, WSAs, WA. Designates the fewest acres of land as ACECs, WSAs and WSRs. 0 acres as WSRs, and 1,287 acres as ACEC. No acres designated to be managed for wilderness characteristics on non-WSA lands Has highest overall potential for adverse impacts. 

Same as Alternative A, except: 38,633 acres of utility corridors, 1,668,732 acres (total) open to livestock grazing, 487,227 acres open to oil and gas development, no lands open to unrestricted OHV travel, and 614,848 acres open to woodland harvest in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. 71,072 acres designated as WSRs, 610,703 acres as ACECs. 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands to be managed for wilderness characteristics. Has lowest potential for adverse impacts. 

Same as Alternative A except: 101,359 acres of utility corridors, 1,708,294 acres (total) open to livestock grazing, 730,458 acres open to oil and gas development, 7 acres open to unrestricted OHV travel, and 737,198 acres open to woodland harvest in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. 41,495 acres designated as WSRs, 63,781 acres as ACECs. 47,761acres of non-WSA lands to be managed for wilderness characteristics. Has second lowest potential for adverse impacts. 

Same 123,13corrido(total) 814,73gas deopen tand 76woodlapaleonareas/designacres Has seadvers

Paleontology Long- and short-term direct and 

indirect beneficial impacts from mitigation of surface disturbing actions in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units; designation of some paleontologically sensitive sites as SRMAs; and enhanced educational, interpretive and scientific opportunities. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-72 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

RECREATION 

Air Quality Long-term, beneficial impacts to 

scenic quality from interagency MOUs and BMPs controlling smoke, haze, and air pollutants.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Cultural Long-term, adverse impacts on 

all users from least protection of cultural resources. 

Protection-related actions applied to 50,000 acres of recreation/cultural resources would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, from protection of 30,000 acres of recreation/cultural resources. 

Impac

but to Propos

Fire Management Short-term, adverse impacts on 

recreation from surface disturbances, scenic quality degradation, and loss of vegetation. Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources from reduced fire risks, enhanced wildlife habitat, and improved scenic quality. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Health and Human Safety Negligible short-term impacts, 

with beneficial, long-term impacts from increased recreational opportunities for all users in remediated/reclaimed hazardous areas. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Lands and Realty Long-term, beneficial impacts 

on all recreation user groups from protection of 70,237 acres of scenic and recreation resources in the Three Rivers and Westwater Mineral Withdrawal Areas. 

Similar to Alternative A, but more beneficial impacts, from NSO leasing stipulations within the withdrawal areas. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-73 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Livestock Grazing Direct and indirect, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on wildlife viewing and hunting from changes in allotment use and grazing exclusion in riparian areas. Grazing vegetation treatments on 67,125 acres would have short-term, adverse impacts on recreation, but longterm benefits from reduced fire risks, enhanced wildlife habitat, and improved scenic quality. 

Beneficial, long-term, indirect impacts to wildlife viewing and hunting from forage treatments on 46,307 acres and exclusion of grazing in 4,673 acres of riparian areas. 

Impacts slightly less beneficial than Alternative B, with riparian grazing exclusion on 1,497 acres. 

Same forage B, but protecC. SligAlterna

Minerals Indirect and direct, short-term 

and long-term, adverse impacts on recreational opportunities from surface-disturbing impacts to natural resources from noise, intrusive night lighting, soil erosion, and cross-country geophysical activities. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, except that fewer acres of RFD predicted development (56% of Alternative A) would reduce the adverse impacts to recreation. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, with slightly reduced adverse impacts from RFD predicted development (96% of Alternative A). 

Impacthan A

Recreation, Book Cliffs SRMA 

Minor, adverse impacts to recreation resources and users from resource use conflicts. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to recreation resources and nonmechanized from reduced conflicts and preservation of resources in 348,140-acre Undeveloped SRMA. Mechanized users would be adversely restricted to 18 miles of routes. 

SRMA would not be established, with impacts to the same as Alternative A. 

SRMA establsame 

Recreation, Cameo Cliffs SRMA 

Minor impacts to resources fromOHV surface disturbances along designated routes. Adverse impacts to nonmotorized users from continued use of the 15,597-acre SRMA as a focus area for OHVs. 

Beneficial, long-term impacts on resources and on motorized and non-motorized users from resource protection, expanded recreational opportunities, additional facilities, and reduced user conflicts within the 15,597-acre SRMA. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-74 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Recreation, Canyon Rims SRMA 

Potential long-term, adverse impacts from minerals leasing, VRM III objectives, and user conflicts within the 101,531-acre SRMA. Long-term, beneficial resource protection impacts from travel route designation, camping restrictions. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced user conflicts for motorized, mountain biking, and non-mechanized users within the SRMA from management of focus areas and increased recreational opportunities. 

Same as Alternative B. Impac

but witto sce

Recreation, Colorado Riverway SRMA 

Long-term, beneficial impacts for all user groups from continued management for reduced user conflicts and restrictions on surface disturbances within the 17,983-acre SRMA. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from resource protection, reduced user conflicts from additional facilities, additional focus areas, and restricting camping to designated areas in the 103,467-acre SRMA. Longterm, adverse impacts to specialized, river floating groups. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, but with more beneficial impacts to all user groups. 

Benefifrom dacre Sadversconflicmanagsmallefacilitie

Recreation, Dolores River Canyons SRMA 

Long-term, adverse impacts to resources from lack of management prescriptions for the area, creating the likelihood of user conflicts and resource degradation. 

Long-term, adverse impacts on motorized and mountain biking users. Beneficial, long-term impacts to resources and users within the 31,661-acre SRMA from expanded recreational opportunities for boating and hiking, and a reduction in user conflicts. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-75 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Recreation, Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges/Dee Pass SRMAs 

Beneficial, short-term impacts to resources from maintained opportunities and facilities, and maintained protection of resources. Long-term, adverse impacts to resources and all user groups from lack of management prescriptions to protect resources from increased visitation, increased recreation demands. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation through focus areas for non-motorized and motorized users within the 300,650-acre SRMA and the increased number of facilities that would reduce user conflicts and surface disturbances. Longterm, adverse impacts on motorized, specialized and mountain biking groups from user conflicts in SRMA areas without focus area management. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, but more beneficial, through focus areas for scenic driving, non-motorized, motorized, specialized, and mountain biking users within the 300,650-acre SRMA. 

Impacexcept benefirecreathe 60SRMA Open 

Recreation, Lower Gray Canyon SRMA 

Long-term, beneficial impacts along Lower Gray Canyon from continued management under the Desolation-Gray Management Plan. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on resources from continued management under the current management plan and from increased opportunities within the 3,759-acre SRMA. 

Same as Alternative B, with the same management prescriptions. 

Same SRMA 

Recreation, Sand Flats SRMA 

Short-term, beneficial impacts from adequate management of current levels of user needs and demands. Long-term, adverse impacts from lack of adequate management to address overcrowding, increasing user demands, and increasing user conflicts. 

Long-term, beneficial protection of resource values within the 6,246-acre SRMA. Beneficial impacts on mountain bikers, but adverse impacts on OHV users from prohibitions on Slickrock Trail use. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except for beneficial impacts to OHV motorcycle user from access to the Slickrock Trail and reduced beneficial impacts on mountain bikers. 

ImpacPlan, elong-teopportbiking 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-76 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Recreation, South Moab SRMA 

Long-term, adverse impacts to motorized, mountain biking, and non-mechanized users from inadequate management to address user needs, demands, resource impacts, user displacement, and resource impacts. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on scenic driving, mountain biking, and non-mechanized users from reduced conflicts, reduced displacement, protection of resources, and expanded recreational opportunities within focus areas of the 63,399-acre SRMA. Long-term, adverse impacts on specialized (motorized) users from reduced opportunities. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except for additional beneficial impacts to specialized users from opportunities on Potato Salad Hill. 

Same 

Recreation, Two Rivers SRMA 

Short-term, beneficial impacts on river recreation from continued management. Longterm, adverse impacts on river recreation from inadequate management to address increasing user demands, resource impacts, user conflicts.

Long-term, beneficial impacts on river and non-mechanized users from enhanced river and shoreline recreation opportunities, increased facilities, focus areas, and permit system modification within the 29,839-acre SRMA. Short-term, adverse impacts on river opportunities from permit limits. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, but more beneficial to recreation users from more river opportunities under less restrictive permit limits. 

ImpacPlan, eadversriver fodegradby incrand gr14,056

Recreation, Utah Rims SRMA 

Long-term, adverse impacts from continued management allowing OHV noise, surface disturbances, and from intensifying user conflicts between mountain bikers, motorized OHV, and nonmechanized users. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced OHV impacts, additional facilities, and reduced user conflicts within the 15,424-acre SRMA. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except more benefits from increased opportunities from 

expanded 7 system and singletrack (motorcycle) opportunities.

Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-77 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Recreation, Moab ERMA Long-term, adverse impacts on 

recreation from inadequate management of intensifying user conflicts along Kokopelli's Trail. 

Adverse impacts to users of Kokopelli's Trail similar to Alternative A. Long-term, beneficial impacts from additional facilities and opportunities to reduce user conflicts and meet user demands. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except more beneficial impacts from additional mountain biking opportunities on 1,365-acre Upper Fisher Mesa. 

Simila

but to reducerecrea

Recreation, Special Recreation Permits 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation from current management by providing recreational opportunities for commercial and private groups, and protecting resources. 

Similar to Alternative A, but to a greater degree, from emphasis on resource protection while managing for a wide range of opportunities. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, but to a greater degree, from more specific permit stipulations to protect resources. 

ImpacPlan, bdegreeprotecbenefiprovidopportbut lonfrom inresourof recr

Riparian Long-term, adverse impacts on 

recreation from continued degradation of riparian areas that would reduce opportunities to enjoy riparian areas. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to recreation experiences and opportunities from improved riparian areas through livestock grazing controls and limits on recreational use of these areas. Long-term, adverse impacts from reduced OHV opportunities from riparian area protection. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Soils/Watershed Negligible impacts on recreation 

resources or resource users. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from maintained scenic quality in Castle Valley from reducing surface disturbances in the watershed, and from restrictions on steep slopes. 

Same as Alternative B. Impac

but to Castle disturbstipulaapplied
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-78 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Special Designations, ACECs 

Long-term, adverse impacts from lack of prescriptions to protect recreation resource values in areas proposed as ACECs under other alternatives. Continued longterm, beneficial impacts on motorized OHV users within Ten Mile Wash and White Wash. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources within 610,086 acres designated as ACECs from NSO protection from minerals development, and from restrictions on motorized use. Long-term, adverse impacts on specialized, motorized, and mountain biking users from reduced recreational opportunities in some areas. Long-term, beneficial impacts on scenic, mountain biking, and non-mechanized users from expanded opportunities in some areas. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B in 63,232 acres proposed as ACECs (11% of Alternative B area) and areas not proposed as ACECs, except for longterm, adverse impacts to all recreation users within Canyon Rims, and long-term, beneficial impacts from expanded opportunities for motorized OHVusers in White Wash. 

Long-tall useresourprotecbecaudesign

Special Designations, Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Negligible impacts to recreation along 46 miles of eligible river segments of the Colorado and Dolores Rivers. Impacts on recreation along the remaining MPA river segments would be adverse in the short-term and long-term from lack of protection from intensifying use, user conflicts, and potential surface disturbances. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources and on all user groups along 287.5 miles of river corridor determined to be suitable for recommendation as Wild and Scenic. 

Long-term beneficial impacts as compared to Alternative B, because 127.3 river miles would be suitable for recommendation.

Impacexcept be suitwith adresourrecrea

Special Designations, WSAs 

Beneficial, long-term impacts to recreation because WSAs have been and would continue to be managed to protect their wilderness values. Adverse impacts from managing OHV as limited to inventoried routes. 

Same as Alternative A, except for adverse, minor impacts to motorized OHV users from use limited to designated routes. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-79 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Special Status Species Long-term, beneficial impacts 

on opportunities from continued protection of wildlife and plants for recreational sightseeing and nature study. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Travel Management, OHV Long-term, adverse impacts to 

recreation from intensifying user conflicts and displacement, noise, from surface disturbances, and destruction of recreation-related cultural resources. Long-term, beneficial impacts to motorized OHV opportunities from unrestricted cross-country travel on 620,212 acres. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to non-motorized users and resources from OHV route designation and elimination of all cross-country travel. Beneficial impacts from reduced user conflicts. Long-term, adverse impacts to motorized OHV users from travel opportunities limited to designated routes within 1,475,074 acres and 3,278 miles of B and D class routes. 

Impacts on resources and user groups would be similar to Alternative B, except that the adverse impacts to motorized users would be reduced by limiting OHV travel to designated routes within 1,481,334 acres and along 3,653 miles of B and D class routes, 123 miles of single-track routes, with 1,866 acres open to cross-country travel. 

Long-ton moopportroutessimilar that Odesignpermit3,805 routesroutescross-

Travel Management, Mountain Biking 

Long-term, adverse impacts to mountain biking recreation from inadequate management to address increasing user conflicts, increasing user demand, and user displacement. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from 75 new miles of routes managed for mountain biking recreation, by increasing opportunities, and reducing conflicts and displacement. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except 150 new miles would be designated for mountain biking recreation. 

Impacexcept designrecrea

Travel Management, NonMechanized Long-term, adverse impacts to non-mechanized recreation 

from inadequate management to address increasing user conflicts, increasing user demand, and user displacement. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from 25 new miles of routes managed for non-mechanized recreation, by increasing opportunities, and reducing conflicts and displacement. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except 50 new miles would be designated for non-mechanized recreation. 

Impacexcept designrecrea
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-80 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Vegetation Short-term, adverse impacts on 

recreation from surface disturbances, scenic quality degradation, and loss of vegetation. Long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources from enhanced wildlife habitat and improved scenic quality. 

Same as Alternative A, except that drought management would have short-term, adverse impacts on motorized and mountain biking opportunities. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Visual Long-term, beneficial impacts 

on recreation resources and all user groups because Alternative A would attempt to manage recreation-related scenic quality as determined by the VRM inventory. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to all recreational users and resources from managing more acres than determined by the VRM inventory for VRM I. 

Long-term, adverse impacts to recreational users and resources from fewer acres managed for high scenic quality than determined by the VRM inventory. 

AdversProposdegreemanagthan dinvento

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Long-term, adverse impacts to motorized and non-motorized users from lack of management to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts on resources and on motorized and non-motorized users from maintained opportunities within 266,485 acres of non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristics. 

Impact similar to Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, from management of 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands for wilderness characteristics (20% of the area under Alternative B). 

Same 

Wildlife and Fisheries Short-term, adverse impacts on 

opportunities for motorized, mountain biking, and specialized users in the PotashConfluence HMP (42,500 acres) from actions to protect wildlife. 

Long-term, adverse impacts on dispersed camping opportunities in riparian areas to protect habitat, and in Shafer Basin and Long Canyon (13,500 acres) to protect bighorn sheep habitat. 

Same as Alternative B. Simila

B, but more odispersheep 

RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

Fire Management Long-term, beneficial impacts 

due to reduction in catastrophic fire risk. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-81 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Lands and Realty No impacts unless exceptions 

are granted in which case they would be mitigated. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Livestock Grazing Beneficial impacts from 

excluding grazing on 9% of MPA's riparian areas. 

Beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 34% of MPA's riparian areas. 

Beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 12% of MPA's riparian areas. 

Same 

Mineral Resources No impacts unless exceptions 

are granted in which case they would be mitigated. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Recreation and Travel Adverse impacts in the form of 

disturbance of vegetation and soils; introduction of weeds; and potential for fire due to 2,100 acres of riparian areas being open to OHVs. Beneficial impact from managed recreation use on 141,234 acres of SRMA. Adverse impacts (forms described above) due to high number of river users and few limitations on camping. 

Beneficial impacts from reductions in vegetation and soil disturbance and introduction of weeds; reduced fire potential from closing all riparian areas to OHVs or limiting travel. Beneficial impact from managed recreation use on 976,173 acres of SRMA. Reduced disturbance by river users relative to Alternative A. 

OHV impacts the same as Alternative B. Beneficial impact from managed recreation use on 658,642 acres of SRMA. Impacts from river users less than Alternative A and more than Alternative B. 

OHV imAlternaBenefirecreatof SRMImpactthan Athan A

Riparian Resources Under all alternatives, beneficial 

impacts from maintenance of PFC; guidance on pipeline crossings; No Surface Occupancy stipulations in riparian and floodplain areas; prohibition of public wood gathering; and weed control measures. Beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 9% of MPA's riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative A, plus beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 17% of MPA's riparian areas and prioritization of 17 watersheds for Watershed Management Plans (WMP). 

Same as Alternative A, plus beneficial impacts from excluding grazing on 12% of MPA's riparian areas and prioritization of 8 watersheds for Watershed Management Plans (WMP). 

Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-82 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Soil and Water Beneficial impacts due to a 

controlled surface use stipulation restricting surface disturbing activities in 100-year floodplains, under all alternatives. No impacts from WMPs. 

Same as Alternative A, plus beneficial impacts to riparian management from prioritizing 17 watersheds for WMPs. 

Same as Alternative A, plus beneficial impacts to riparian management from prioritizing 8 watersheds for WMPs. 

Same 

Special Designations Beneficial protection from 

designation of Negro Bill ONA. WSR eligible sections would be managed to protect ORVs which may offer indirect protections to riparian resources. 

Greatest beneficial protection from designation of 12 ACECs. Beneficial protection of riparian resources by declaring 71,300 acres suitable for some level of WSR designation. 

Second greatest beneficial protection from designations of 5 ACECs. Beneficial protection of riparian resources by declaring 41,236 acres suitable for some level of WSR designation. 

No ACriparian Adversresourriver seWash) design

Special Status Species Beneficial enhancement (or 

reduction of degradation) of riparian areas designated for recovery of Special Status Species. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Vegetation Beneficial enhancement of 

riparian health through removal of invasive species and replacement with native species. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No specific management of non-WSA lands with lands with wilderness characteristics is proposed; so no direct impacts to riparian resources would occur. 

Beneficial protection from the prohibition of surface disturbance, off road travel, and new ROWs on 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

Beneficial protection from the prohibition of surface disturbance, off road travel, and new ROWs on 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

No nonmanagcharacimpactwould 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-83 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Wildlife Benefits from reduced livestock 

impacts due to exclosures under Dolores Triangle Habitat Management Plan (Appendix N). Beneficial reduction of vegetation and soil disturbance and reduced spread of weeds due to camping restrictions in riparian wildlife habitats. Beneficial improvement in riparian habitat for migratory bird management. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Woodlands Beneficial reduction in 

disturbance due to prohibition on public fuelwood gathering under all alternatives. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 

Cultural Socioeconomic impacts 

resulting from cultural resource management decisions would continue. 

Long-term beneficial social and economic impacts related to cultural resource visitation and subsequent revenue generation would be greatest because the identification, preservation, and restoration of sites would be highest under this alternative. 

Similar to Alternative B with slightly fewer prioritizations that would reduce adverse impacts to cultural sites. 

With thprioritiopportdisturbimpactconditresourunder 

Lands and Realty Socioeconomic impacts would 

remain similar to current conditions. 

About 318,709 acres (outside WSAs) would be rights-of-way exclusion areas, resulting in potential adverse economic impacts. 

About 25,306 acres (outside WSAs) would be rights-of-way exclusion areas, resulting in potential adverse economic impacts. 

Socioeremain condit

Livestock Grazing Socioeconomic impacts would 

remain similar to current conditions. 

The additional 26,890 acres unavailable for grazing would not alter socioeconomic impacts compared to Alternative A. 

The additional 12, 673 acres unavailable for grazing would not alter socioeconomic impacts compared to Alternative A. 

SimilaThe adavailabalter scompa
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-84 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Minerals Economic benefits (taxes, 

royalties, bonus payments and annual rent payments) from minerals development would be long-term and beneficial to local communities. Estimated annual royalty revenue: oil – $200, 980, gas – $1,624,244 Employment would remain similar to current conditions with minor beneficial impacts to the local economy. Long-term production jobs would likely continue at current rates. Estimated annual property tax benefit from oil and gas production - $574,000 Estimated annual severance tax benefits to State from oil and gas production in the Moab Planning Area - $1,356,000, based on relative share of total State production (State of Utah data, February, 2008.) 

Long-term economic benefits from minerals development would be slightly less under this Alternative, thus having a negligible to minor impact in comparison to the other Alternatives. Estimated annual royalty revenue: oil – $100,490, gas – $937,050. Estimated annual property tax benefit from oil and gas production - $321,440 Estimated annual severance tax benefits to State from oil and gas production in the Moab Planning Area is likely to be about 45% less than A, due to decreased production opportunities. 

Long-term beneficial socioeconomic impacts slightly less than Alternative A, but greater than Alternative B. Estimated annual royalty revenue: oil – $200,980, gas – $1,561,750 

Estimated annual property tax benefit from oil and gas production - $551,000 Estimated annual severance tax benefits to State from oil and gas production in the Moab Planning Area would be similar to A, since estimated production would be only slightly less than A. 

Long-tsocioeAlternaAlternaannua$200, 

EstimabenefiproducEstimabenefigas prPlannito A, swould 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-85 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Recreation and Travel Management

Long-term beneficial impacts from tourist-related spending (approx. $2 million in sales tax revenue annually) and employment (2000 jobs) would continue. With no designation of focus areas and 3 SRMAs, user conflicts are likely to escalate and adversely impact visitor experience. Economic contributions from OHV users would be similar to current conditions. There could be a potential decrease in social well-being and contribution to the local economy from recreationists seeking non-motorized opportunities. There could be possible degradation of other resources that could adversely impact recreation opportunities and visitation in the long term. 

Slight decrease in revenue generation and tourist-related employment due to emphasis on non-motorized recreation. With 11 SRMAs and 22 focus areas, user conflicts would likely decrease, having long-term beneficial impacts on visitor experience. Decreased OHV user satisfaction due to emphasis on non-motorized users. 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. Potential increase in second home and retirement relocation, with corresponding benefits to businesses involved in this market. Potential adverse impact to local residents from increases in housing costs and changes to local customs and culture. 

Emphasis on a balance of recreational uses could lead to greatest opportunity for revenue generation and a range of employment opportunities in the region. Socioeconomic impacts would be long-term and beneficial. With 10 SRMAs and 30 focus areas, the greatest opportunity for reduction in user conflicts and satisfactory visitor experiences for all recreation types is emphasized under this Alternative. 

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. 

Slight generaemploon moWith 6 areas, decreabenefiexperimotorito empusers. 

Social OHV ubusinethe Prothan uSocial non-mless thPlan, bcurren
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-86 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Special Designations Opportunities for adverse 

socioeconomic impacts resulting from the designation of ACECs would be negligible as no ACECs are designated. With 63 river miles designated as eligible for WSR status, socioeconomic impacts would be negligible. 

Opportunities for adverse impacts to socioeconomics resulting from the designation of ACECs would be minor, as 92,056 acres would be excluded from oil and development. WSR designation on 340 river miles could have long-term beneficial economic impacts related to tourism-related revenues. 

Opportunities for adverse socioeconomic impacts resulting from the designation of 

ACECs are likely to be minor as 29,205 acres of ACECs would have major restrictions on oil and gas development. An additional 34,027 acres of ACECs are excluded from development due to their WSA status. WSR designation would have most of the beneficial impacts of tourism-related revenue in comparison to Alternative B, as the major recreational rivers are included (Colorado, Dolores and Green). 

SimilaPotentbenefidesignmiles a

Visual Negligible to minor impacts due 

to VRM restrictions on minerals development. 

Slightly greater VRM restrictions on minerals development than Alternative A. 

Slightly less VRM restrictions on minerals development than Alternative A. 

SlightlmineraAlterna

the Pro

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts, as no non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics. 

Adverse economic impacts from reduction in oil and gas development on 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Possible increases in revenues from primitive recreation opportunities. 

Negligible adverse economic impacts from reduction in oil and gas development on 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Possible increases in revenues from primitive recreation. 

No implands wwildern

SOIL AND WATER 

Cultural Resources No new impacts on soil and 

water resources. 

Beneficial removal of grazing from 42 miles of perennial stream. 

Same as Alternative B. Benefi

from 28 

stream
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-87 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Fire Management Short term adverse increased 

sedimentation and runoff. Longterm beneficial reduction of 

catastrophic fire risk, reduced frequency/number of highintensity fires, fewer hydrophobic soils, increased infiltration, decreased flood magnitude, less erosion and sedimentation. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Human Health and Safety Beneficial long-term reduction 

of water quality-related threats to public health and/or the environment where Abandoned Mine Lands (AMLs) are rehabilitated. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Lands and Realty Utility corridors have the 

potential to adversely impact soils on up to 32,502 acres. 

Utility corridors have the potential to adversely impact soils on up to 65,865. 

Utility corridors have the potential to adversely impact soils on up to 173,099 acres. 

Utility cpotentisoils o

Livestock Grazing Reduced saline soil erosion due 

to 84,949 acres of sensitive soils being unavailable for grazing. Alternative A would provide more protection for sensitive soils than Alternatives C and D but less than Alternative B. 

Reduced saline soil erosion due to 106,752 acres of sensitive soils being unavailable for grazing. Alternative B represents the greatest, shortand long-term, beneficial impacts to soil and water resources. 

Reduced saline soil erosion due to 80,178 acres of sensitive soils being unavailable for grazing. 

Reducto 43,9soils bgrazingsensitivalterna

Minerals Potential for adverse 

disturbance of up to 41% of sensitive soils by mineral resource development. 

Potential for adverse disturbance of up to 26% of sensitive soils by mineral resource development. 

Potential for adverse disturbance of up to 38% of sensitive soils by mineral resource development. 

Potentdisturbsensitivresour
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-88 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Recreation Adverse impacts to 620,212 

acres of soils open to cross country OHV travel and associated surface disturbance. Greatest adverse impacts to soil and water resources due to lowest level of recreation management (141,234 acres of SRMA). 

No soils open to cross-country OHV use. Beneficial impacts from the greatest level recreation management (976,173 acres of SRMA). 

Adverse impacts to 1,866 acres of soils open to cross country OHV travel and associated surface disturbance. Management of recreation impacts would be less than Alternative B and more than Alternatives A and D (658,642 acres of SRMA). 

Adversof soils OHV trsurface ManagimpactAlternathan Aacres o

Riparian Least beneficial impacts from 

least protective riparian management. 

Greatest beneficial impacts from development and implementation of WMPs in the greatest number of watersheds, management of livestock grazing on most acres, and grazing exclusion on portions of nine allotments protecting 28 miles of perennial stream. 

Fewer benefits from WMPs than under Alternative B, but more than Alternatives A and D. Fewer benefits from livestock grazing management than Alternative B, but more than Alternatives A and D. 

Same 

Soils/Water Resources Adverse impacts due to oil and 

gas leasing and other surfacedisturbing activities in the Castle Valley or the Mill Creek watersheds. Beneficial impacts over 313,800 acres of saline soils and 823,094 acres of highlimitations soils closed to surface disturbance. 

Beneficial impacts due to closure of Castle Valley and Mill Creek municipal watersheds for mineral resource development and other surface-disturbing activities. Beneficial impacts over 330,142 acres of saline soils and 487,917 acres of highlimitations soils closed to surface disturbance. 

Same as Alternative B, except areas within the municipal watersheds would be no surface occupancy for surface disturbing activities, and 330,142 acres of saline soils and 710,129 acres of highlimitations soils would be closed to surface disturbance. 

ImpactValley municithe samA. Benefiacres oclosed 

Special Designations Minor beneficial impacts from 

protective management of 5,400 acres of sensitive soils are within 1/4 mile of two currently eligible WSR segments. 

Greatest beneficial protection of soil and water with all 14 proposed areas managed as ACECs, limits on surface disturbance over at least 40,800 acres of sensitive soils due to WSR designation. 

Moderate beneficial protection with 5 of the 14 proposed areas managed as ACECs, limits on surface disturbance over at least 25,900 acres of sensitive soils due to WSR designation. 

No bensensitiv
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-89 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

All Potential ACECs (613,077 acres) 

None of the 14 Potential ACECs would be designated, with the exception of the existing 1,375 acre Negro Bill Outstanding Natural Area, which would continue to be protected. Relevant and important values, resources, and natural systems in the 13 potential ACECs that would not be designated could be at risk of irreparable damage due to the potential for adverse impacts except for those portions of potential ACECs that are in existing WSAs (approximately 306,000 acres), which would continue to be protected. 

All of the 14 Potential ACECs would be designated. Special management provisions would be applied to 613,077 acres and relevant and important values, resources, and natural systems would be protected, and hazards addressed. 

Five of the Potential ACECs would be designated. Special management provisions would be applied to 63,232 acres, and the relevant and important values, resources, and natural systems in these areas would be protected (and hazards addressed). 

In most cases the relevant and important values in 9 potential ACECs would be protected from long-term adverse impacts by other proposed management actions. 

None owould Some importnaturaACECirreparpotent
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-90 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

ACEC, Behind the Rocks Not designated. 

Relevant and important values within the Behind the Rocks WSA (12,635 acres) would be protected. Of the 5,201 acres outside the WSA: About 2,549 acres are closed to oil and gas leasing thereby providing protection to relevant and important values; About 1,958 acres are NSO for oil and gas leasing thereby providing protection to relevant and important values; and About 694 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, resulting in about 7.3 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. These acres would also be open to cross country OHV use thereby impacting relevant and important values. 

About 17,836 acres designated, including 12,635 acres within the WSA. All relevant and important values would be protected by managing as either closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, 17,836 acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. 

About 5,201 acres (outside the WSA) would be designated. The ACEC would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, the 5,201acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. 

Not deimportBehind acres) About WSA wgas leadisturbresult surfacand gaHowevbenefiand imlimiting design
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-91 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

ACEC, Book Cliffs Not designated. Relevant and 

important values within Book Cliffs WSAs (250,207 acres) would be protected. Of the 54,045 acres outside the WSAs: All 54,045 acres are open to oil and gas leasing, with adverse impacts to relevant and important values possible from oil and gas development. There is a projected disturbance of 841 acres. There would be additional adverse impacts on these 54,045 acres from woodland harvest, open OHV use, and ROWs. 

About 304,252 acres designated, including 250,207 acres within the WSAs. All relevant and important values would be protected by managing as either closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, the entire 304,252 acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest, managed as an SRMA, and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. 

Not designated. Relevant and important values within the WSAs (250,207 acres) would be protected. About 54,045 acres outside the WSAs would be open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would result in about 806 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. There would be a beneficial impact by limiting OHV use to designated routes. 

Same 

ACEC, Canyon Rims Not designated. About 23,400 

acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 33 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. 

About 23,400 acres designated. The area would be closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. 

Not designated. About 23,400 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing with a controlled surface use stipulation, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 24 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. 

Same except disturb
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-92 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Additional adverse impacts from surface disturbance associated with ROWs could occur. The 23,400 acres would also limit OHV travel to existing routes, benefiting relevant and important values, but to a lesser degree than would limit travel to designated routes. Beneficial impacts would result from SRMA and VRM II management. Least protective of all the alternatives. 

Additional adverse impacts from surface disturbance associated with ROWs could occur. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes and from SRMA and VRM II management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. 

Additional adverse impacts to view shed from VRM III management in portions of the area. Additional adverse impacts from surface disturbance associated with ROWs could occur. Beneficial impacts from SRMA management and from limiting OHV travel to designated routes. 

ACEC, Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex 

Not designated. About 117,481 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 1,249 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Least protective of all alternatives. 

About 117,481acres designated. The area would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial protections from management of livestock grazing to maximize seed production and from limiting OHV travel to designated routes. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A except there would be beneficial impacts from requirements for a 

660- foot buffer around known active prairie dog colonies and changes in livestock use (except for seasons of use) to maximize seed production. Additional beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to designated routes. 

Same except not mato max
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-93 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

ACEC, Colorado River Corridor 

Not designated. Relevant and important values within the Negro Bill WSA (7,280 acres) would be protected. Of the 43,203 acres outside the WSA, about 31,276 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, resulting in about 35 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. These acres would also be open to cross country OHV use thereby impacting relevant and important values. The Three Rivers withdrawal for locatable minerals would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Least protection of relevant and important values under this alternative. 

About 50,483 acres designated, including 7,280 acres within the WSA. All relevant and important values would be protected by managing as either closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, the 50,483 acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest, managed as an SRMA, and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Additional beneficial impacts from VRM I and SRMA management and from the Three Rivers withdrawal for locatable minerals. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. 

Not designated. Relevant and important values within the Negro Bill WSA (7,280 acres) would be protected. Of the acreage outside the WSA, the majority would be managed as closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities, providing beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. The northwest corner of the Potential ACEC would be open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would result in about 26 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Restrictions on river-based camping, limiting OHV travel to designated routes. SRMA management, VRM II management, and the Three Rivers withdrawal for locatable minerals, would also have beneficial impacts. 

Same except is opeand otactivitiimpactimport
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-94 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

ACEC, CottonwoodDiamond Watershed Not designated. Relevant and important values within the 

Book Cliffs (Coal, Flume, and Spruce) WSAs (34,004 acres) would be protected. The 1,825 acres outside the WSAs are open to oil and gas leasing, with adverse impacts to relevant and important values possible from oil and gas development projected at about 1 acre of surface disturbance. 

About 35,830 acres designated, including 34,004 acres within the WSAs. All relevant and important values would be protected by managing as either closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, the 35,830 acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest, livestock grazing would be excluded, and SRPs would be withheld until the area is rehabilitated. The area would be managed as an SRMA, and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

benefiOHV troutes
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-95 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

ACEC, Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon 

Not designated. About 11,466 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 19 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. There would be beneficial impacts from NSO management for oil and gas leasing on 2,034 acres. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to existing routes but not as protective as limiting OHV travel to designated routes. 

About 13,500 acres designated. The area would be closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, and from SRMA and VRM I management.Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative B except that area would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities, and the area would be managed as VRM II. There would be virtually no difference in impacts as compared to Alternative B. 

Same the areVRM IgreateAlterna

ACEC, Labyrinth Canyon Not designated. About 8,528 

acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 12 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to existing routes but not as protective as limiting OHV travel to designated routes. This alternative would offer the least beneficial protection to relevant and important values. 

About 8,528 acres designated. The area would be closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, and from SRMA and VRM I management.Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A except the area would be managed as VRM II and OHV travel would be limited to designated routes rather than existing routes, thereby offering slight more beneficial protections. 

Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-96 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

ACEC, Mill Creek Canyon Not designated. 

Relevant and important values within the Mill Creek WSA (9,780 acres) would be protected. The 3,721 acres outside the WSA would be open to oil and gas leasing, resulting in about 3 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development.Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV use to existing routes but not as protective as and limiting OHV travel to designated routes. This alternative would offer the least beneficial protection to relevant and important values. 

About 13,501 acres designated, including 9,780 acres within the WSA. All relevant and important values would be protected by managing as either closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. The 13,501 acres would be managed as VRM I, closed to woodlands harvest and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Additional beneficial impacts from limiting grazing, maintaining a 3 cfs flow in the South Fork of Mill Creek, and recreation restrictions such as closures to vehicle based camping. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. 

About 3,721 acres (outside the WSA) would be designated. The ACEC would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. In addition, the 3,721 acres would be managed as closed to woodlands harvest and OHV travel limited to designated routes, which would have beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. Same impacts as Alternative B but for a lesser area and less beneficial impacts from VRM II management rather than VRM I. 

Same greatelimiting designVRM Igrazinallotme

ACEC, Negro Bill ONA The 1,375-acre ONA was 

designated in the Grand RMP. 

Not designated. Not designated. Not de
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-97 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

ACEC, Ten Mile Wash Not designated. About 4,980 

acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 7 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to existing routes but not as protective as limiting OHV travel to designated routes. This alternative would offer the least beneficial protection to relevant and important values. 

About 4,980 acres designated. The area would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from eliminating motorized travel in the canyon, closing it to woodland harvest, and SRMA and VRM II management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. 

About 4,980 acres designated. Same as Alternative B except motorized travel in the canyon would be allowed on designated routes instead of being closed. This would offer less beneficial protections than Alternative B. 

Same slightly impacttravel not alloof des

ACEC, Upper Courthouse Not designated. About 11,529 

acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 19 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to existing routes but not as protective as limiting OHV travel to designated routes. This alternative would offer the least beneficial protection to relevant and important values. 

About 11,529 acres designated. The area would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, closing it to woodland harvest, and SRMA and VRM II management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. 

Not designated. The majority of the Potential ACEC would be open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would result in about 11 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. The relict plant mesa tops would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities, protecting some relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts from limiting motorized travel to designated 

routes, closures to woodland harvest, and SRMA management. 

Same except NSO fother sactivitiSRMA 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-98 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

ACEC, Westwater Canyon Not designated. Relevant and 

important values within Westwater WSA (5,069 acres) would be protected. The existing Westwater Withdrawal would protect relevant and important values. Some beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to existing routes but not as protective as limiting OHV travel to designated routes. 

About 5,069 acres designated. Same beneficial impacts as Alternative A with additional benefits from limiting OHV use 

to designated routes. Greatest beneficial impacts to the relevant and important values. 

Same as Alternative A, but OHV travel limited to designated routes. 

Same travel routes

ACEC, White Wash Not designated. About 2,988 

acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 11 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Adverse impacts from open OHV travel. Least beneficial protections of all the alternatives. 

About 2,988 acres designated. The area would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, restrictions on vehicle based camping, and from SRMA management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. 

Not designated. Same impacts as Alternative A except additional beneficial impacts from limiting OHV travel to designated routes in portions of the ACEC (1,122 acres), and closing the area to woodland product use. Adverse impacts from managing the area as VRM III and from about 1,866 acres open to cross country OHV use. 

Not deas AlteadditioVRM I
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-99 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

ACEC, Wilson Arch Not designated. About 3,700 

acres would be open to oil and gas leasing, which could result in adverse impacts to relevant and important values. There would be about 26 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Beneficial impacts from SRMA management and limiting OHV travel to designated routes. Least beneficial protections of all the alternatives. 

About 3,700 acres designated. The area would be NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would provide beneficial protections to relevant and important values. Beneficial impacts would result from limiting OHV travel to designated routes, closing the area to woodland harvest, restrictions on vehicle based camping, and from SRMA and VRM I management. Greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values under this alternative. 

Not designated. The majority of the Potential ACEC would be open to oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbing activities. This would result in about 26 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development. Beneficial impacts from limiting motorized travel to designated routes, closures to woodland harvest, and SRMA management. 

Not dePropo
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-100 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

All eligible Wild and Scenic River (WSR) segments 

Continued case-by-case protection of all 13 eligible rivers involving BLM lands would result in the sustaining of the free-flowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs), and tentative classifications of these rivers until suitability determinations are made. 

All of the 13 eligible rivers would be found suitable for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System. All segments on BLM lands would be directly and indirectly managed in such a manner the outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and tentative classification of these rivers would be sustained and enhanced. 

The Green, Dolores, and Colorado Rivers would be found suitable for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System. BLM lands along these rivers would be directly and indirectly managed in such a manner that the free- flowing nature, ORVs, and tentative classifications of these rivers would be sustained and enhanced. Ten rivers would be found not suitable. No direct protections would be afforded any of these eligible rivers. Any protections to the ORVs or tentative classification would be indirect, resulting from management associated with other resource programs. Because no direct protections would be afforded, there is potential that to the free-flowing nature, ORVs and tentative classification of these rivers could be severe enough to preclude these rivers from any future opportunities for W&SR consideration. However, the restrictions from other resource programs would afford greater protection to these rivers than does Alternative D. 

None owould inclusiRiver SNo direaffordeprotecnatureclassifwould managother rBecauwould potentfree-flotentativrivers severe rivers opportconsideligible suitaband ScNo direaffordeprotecdesignresultiassociprograprotecthere icould otentativbe sevthem fopportconsid
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-101 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

WSR, Beaver Creek About 7.7 miles and 2,268 

acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 7.7 miles and 2,268 acres would be managed to preserve Wild (Segment 1) and Scenic (Segment 2) qualities. 

Although found not suitable, 7.7 miles and 2,268 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing to preserve nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative 

classification would be minimal. 

Not suBeaveimpactactivitiThereffree flo

classif

WSR, Colorado River About 69.3 miles and 24,288 

acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 69.3 miles and 24,288 acres would be managed to preserve Scenic (Segments 1, 3 and 5), Wild (Segments 2 and 6), and Recreational (Segment 4) qualities. 

About 68.1 miles and 23,763 acres would be managed to preserve Scenic (Segments 3a and 6), Wild (Segment 2), and Recreational (Segments 3b, 4 and 5) qualities. About 1.2 miles and 525 acres would be found not suitable. However, these lands would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing and withdrawn from locatable minerals, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration. 

Althou69.3 mwould oil and withdramineraeligibilconsid

WSR, Cottonwood Canyon About 10.4 miles and 2,938 

acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 10.4 miles and 2,938 acres would be managed to preserve Scenic qualities. 

Although found not suitable, 10.4 miles and 2,938 acres would be managed for protection of riparian resources and the WSA's on either side of the river would protect the ORVs, free flowing nature, and tentative designation. 

Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-102 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

WSR, Dolores River About 22.1 miles and 6,823 

acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 22.1 miles and 6,823 acres would be managed to preserve Scenic (Segments 1 and 3) and Wild (Segment 2) qualities. 

About 22.1 miles and 6,823 acres would be managed preserve Recreational (Segments 1 and 3) and Scenic (Segment 2) qualities. 

Althou22.1 mwould oil and withdramineraeligibilconsid

WSR, Green River About 75.3 miles and 13,393 

acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 75.3 miles and 13,393 acres would be managed to preserve Scenic (Segment 4) Wild (Segments 1 and 5) and Recreational (Segments 2 and 3) qualities. 

About 64.8 miles and 10,976 acres would be managed to preserve Wild (Segment 1), Recreation (Segment 2), and Scenic (Segment 4a) qualities. About 10.5 miles and 2,417 acres would be found not suitable. However, the lands along the river would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing and withdrawn from locatable minerals, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration. 

Althou75.3 mwould oil and withdramineraeligibilconsid

WSR, Mill Creek About 6.0 miles and 1,864 

acres of would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 6.0 miles and 1,864 acres would be managed to preserve Recreational (Segment 1) and Scenic (Segment 2) qualities. 

Although found not suitable, 4.6 miles and 1,292 acres are within the WSA, providing protection for eligibility for WSR consideration. An additional 1.4 miles and 572 acres not within the WSA would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration. 

Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-103 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

WSR, Negro Bill Canyon About 7.4 miles and 1,949 

acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 7.4 miles and 1,949 acres would be managed to preserve Recreational (Segment 2) and Wild (Segment 1) qualities. 

Although found not suitable, 7.2 miles and 1,687 acres are within the WSA, providing protection for eligibility for WSR consideration. An additional 0.2 miles and 262 acres not within the WSA would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration. 

Same 

WSR, North Fork Mill Creek 

About 11.2 miles and 3,027 acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 11.2 miles and 3,027 acres of the waterway on BLM lands would be managed to preserve Wild qualities. 

Although found not suitable, 11.2 miles and 1,687 acres are within the WSA, thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration. 

Same 

WSR, Onion Creek About 12.5 miles and 3,146 

acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 12.5 miles and 3,146 acres would be managed to preserve Recreational (Segment 2) and Wild (Segment 1) qualities. 

Although found not suitable, 12.5 miles and 3,146 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative designation would be minimal. 

Not suOnion by surThereffree flodesign

WSR, Professor Creek About 7.3 miles and 1,936 

acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 7.3 miles and 1,936 acres would be managed to preserve Wild qualities. 

Although found not suitable, 7.3 miles and 1,936 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing to preserve nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative designation would be minimal. 

Not suProfesimpactactivitiORVstentativoccur. 

WSR, Rattlesnake Canyon About 31.6 miles and 8,371 

acres would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 31.6 miles and 8,371 acres would be managed to preserve Wild qualities. 

Although found not suitable, 31.6 miles and 8,371 acres are within the WSA thereby protecting eligibility for WSR consideration. 

Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-104 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

WSR, Salt Wash About 0.3 miles and 96 acres 

would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 0.3 miles and 96 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing, protecting ORVs. The suitability decision would be deferred until the NPS makes a suitability determination on the portion in Arches National Park. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

WSR, Thompson Canyon About 5.5 miles and 1,620 

acres of would be managed as eligible for WSR consideration. 

About 5.5 miles and 1,620 acres would be managed to preserve Wild qualities. 

Although found not suitable, 5.5 miles and 1,620 acres would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing to preserve nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Therefore, impacts to ORVs, free flowing nature and tentative designation would be minimal. 

Not suThompimpactactivitiORVstentativoccur. 

WSAs There would be beneficial 

impacts to WSAs under all alternatives from management under the IMP. There would be potential for adverse impacts in areas where there are valid existing rights. VRM Class I would apply to all WSAs under all alternatives. 

See A. See A. See A

WSAs, Miles of designated way/route 

82.5 0 3.1 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Fire Management Long term beneficial impacts 

from reduced weedy and invasive species. Short term adverse effects from surface disturbance, trampling, and crushing. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-105 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Health and Safety Decisions 

Potentially adverse loss of bat habitat. Benefits to fish species due to reduced threat of groundwater contamination. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Lands and Realty Adverse removal of individual 

plants, surface disturbance, and habitat degradation due to construction within ROWs and utility corridors. 

Same as Alternative A, but more adverse impacts from utility corridors, and less adverse impacts from other ROWs. 

Same as Alternative B, but with more acreage available for utility corridors (and therefore greater impacts). 

Same Alternagreategreateutility c

Livestock Grazing Alternative A, would have the 

second largest total area excluded from grazing. This alternative would have the second most beneficial effects on Special Status species. 

Alternative B provides the largest area (riparian and total) excluded from grazing, which would have long-term, beneficial effects on native vegetation in excluded areas. 

The Proposed Plan provides 

the third largest area (riparian and total) excluded from grazing, which would have longterm, beneficial effects on native vegetation in excluded areas. 

AlternasmallegrazinIt wouDiamofor gra

Minerals Possible adverse impacts 

include direct mortality, surface disturbance, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation due to mineral development and exploration. This alternative has the highest risk of adverse impacts. 

Same as Alternative A, except that less mineral development and exploration would occur. This alternative would have the lowest risk of adverse impacts. 

Same as Alternative A, except that less mineral development and exploration would occur. This alternative would have the second lowest risk of adverse impacts. 

Same that leand exThis asecond impact

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No acres managed as NonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Beneficial impacts from managing 266,485 acres to maintain naturalness, providing habitat protection for Special Status species. 

Beneficial impacts from managing 47,761 acres to maintain naturalness, providing habitat protection for Special Status species. 

No acrWSA lcharac

Recreation Adverse impacts to habitat 

quantity and quality from the greatest amount of mechanized recreational use and the least restriction on recreational use. 

Least adverse impacts to habitat due to greatest management of recreation and focus on non-motorized uses. 

Slightly less adverse impacts than Alternative B due to slightly less focus on non-motorized recreation. 

Less aspeciemore tdue to recrea
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-106 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Riparian Vegetation treatments would 

result in long-term beneficial reductions of weed populations and restoration of native vegetation, as well as Shortterm adverse crushing and removal of native vegetation during the treatment process. Adverse impacts from OHV use and grazing in riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative A, expect that riparian areas would be closed to livestock grazing or subject to seasonal restrictions, lessening adverse surface disturbance. This alternative would be more beneficial than Alternatives A and D. 

Same as Alternative A, except the riparian acres excluded would be less than under Alternative B. 

Same 

Soils/Watershed Greatest potential for adverse 

effects on steep-slope vegetation located in disturbance areas. 

Least potential for adverse effects due to restriction of surface-disturbing activities on slopes greater than 30% and closure of the Castle Valley watershed to oil and gas leasing. 

Same as Alternative B except that the Castle Valley watershed would have an NSO stipulation applied to oil and gas leasing (instead of being closed). 

Same 

Special Designations No ACECs or WSRs would be 

designated, so no beneficial protection would occur. 

Beneficial management of 85,825 acres of federally listed SS species habitat as ACECs, and 44,227 acres of federally listed Special Status species habitat as WSRs. 

Beneficial management of 16,345 acres of federally listed 

SS species habitat within the designated ACECs, and 79,910 acres of federally listed Special Status species habitat within theWSRs. 

Same 

Special Status Species Alternative A would not manage 

for the Gunnison and greater sage-grouse or for the whitetailed and Gunnison prairie dog beyond what is required by law. This alternative would be the most detrimental for these species and other Special Status species utilizing these habitats. 

Alternative B would provide the most acres of protected habitat for the Gunnison and greater sage-grouse and for the whitetailed and Gunnison prairie dog in the MPA. This would indirectly provide protection for other Special Status species utilizing similar habitats. 

The Proposed Plan would 

provide the second least acres of protected habitat for Special Status species. 

Alternafewest surfacin Spehabitagreateeffects these 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-107 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Travel Management Greatest adverse impact from 

surface disturbance and humancaused disturbance due to closure of the least (7,558 acres) federally listed SS species habitat to OHVs. 

Least adverse impact from surface disturbance and human-caused disturbance due to closure of the most (22,946 acres) federally listed SS species habitat to OHVs. 

Second least adverse impact from surface disturbance and human-caused disturbance due to closure of the second most (17,666 acres) federally listed SS species habitat to OHVs. 

Seconimpact and hudue to least (listed SOHVs

Vegetation Negligible adverse disturbance 

from seed gathering and plant collection. Beneficial wildlife habitat improvement from treatment of tamarisk and Russian olive. 

Same as Alternative A except for additional long term beneficial effects from replacing lost sagebrush steppe habitat deemed essential to wildlife. 

Same as Alternative A except for additional long term beneficial effects from replacing lost sagebrush steppe habitat deemed essential to wildlife. 

Same 

Visual Resources Greatest adverse surface 

disturbance due to the smallest area subject to VRM Class I and II restrictions, and the second smallest area subject to VRM Class III and IV restrictions. 

Least adverse surface disturbance due to the largest area subject to VRM Class I and II restrictions and the smallest area subject to VRM Class III and IV restrictions. 

Second least adverse surface disturbance due to the second largest area subject to VRM Class I and II restrictions and the second largest area subject to VRM Class III and IV restrictions. 

Seconsurfacsecond VRM Cand thVRM Crestric

Wildlife Least beneficial impacts from 

special conditions placed on 257,228 acres of wildlife habitat. (Note: some acreage may overlap). 

Greatest beneficial impacts from special conditions placed on 2,004,942 acres of wildlife habitat (Note: some acreage may overlap). 

Second greatest beneficial impacts from special conditions placed on 1,041,055 acres of wildlife habitat. (Note: some acreage may overlap). 

Seconfrom son 875habitamay ov

Woodlands Short-term, adverse disturbance 

and long-term habitat degradation over 1,243,743 acres of pinyon-juniper habitat open to woodland harvest. 

Short-term, adverse disturbance and long-term habitat degradation over 1,071,335 acres of pinyon-juniper habitat open to woodland harvest. 

Short-term, adverse disturbance and long-term habitat degradation over 1,212,886 acres of pinyon-juniper habitat open to woodland harvest. 

Same 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Air Quality Short-term, adverse travel 

delays or detours during dust abatement or road maintenance. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-108 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Cultural No prescriptions address travel 

opportunities under this alternative. 

Short- and long-term adverse impacts from reduced or prohibited access to closed cultural sites. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Minerals Minor long-term beneficial 

increase in travel opportunities along minerals access roads. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

ACECs/Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Negligible to minor reduction of travel opportunities in these areas. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

WSAs/Wilderness Areas Long-term adverse impacts 

from closure of 29,654 acres of WSAs to OHVs. 

Long-term adverse impacts from closure of 354,015 acres of WSAs to OHVs. 

Long-term adverse impacts from closure of 279,110 acres of WSAs to OHVs. 

Long-tfrom O

Travel Management and Recreation, Mountain Biking and Nonmechanized travel 

Long-term, adverse impacts from inadequate management to address current conditions and trends. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from decreased conflicts between mountain bikers and motorized users, and from 75 miles of additional proposed routes bike routes and 25 miles of proposed non-mechanized routes. 

Same as Alternative B, except that 150 additional miles of bike routes and 50 additional miles of non-mechanized routes would be proposed. 

Same that 30routes of nonwould 

Travel Management and Recreation, Motorized (OHV) 

Negligible to minor impacts on motorized travel. 

Long-term adverse impacts from 347,424 acres closed to OHV use. 

Slightly less adverse impacts than Alternative B, with 339,298 acres closed to OHV use. 

Less aAlternaacres 

Travel Management and Recreation, Road 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from unimpeded travel along 4,673 miles of D-Class roads. 

Long-term, adverse impacts from route closures, with travel designated along 2,144 miles of D-Class roads. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, except that 2,519 miles of routes would be designated along D-Class roads. 

Impac2,671 designroads. 

Vegetation No impacts to travel from 

vegetation decisions. 

Minor short-term adverse impacts from area closures under drought management plan. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-109 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

VEGETATION RESOURCES

Fire Management Long-term, beneficial reduction 

of invasive species. Short-term, adverse trampling and loss of vegetation from treatments. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Lands and Realty Beneficial, long-term impacts 

from minerals withdrawals. Long-term, adverse impacts from energy facility development, 32,502 acres within utility corridors, and ROWs. 

Same as Alternative A, except greater adverse impacts in ROWs and utility corridors (65,865 acres). 

Same as Alternative A, except greater adverse impacts in ROWs and utility corridors (173,099 acres). 

Same greateROWs (204,1

Livestock Grazing Long-term, beneficial impacts 

from vegetation treatments to expand forage for livestock and wildlife. 

Similar impacts to Alternative A. Similar impacts to Alternative A. Simila

Minerals Direct, adverse, long-term 

impacts from minerals exploration and development. 10,184 acres of disturbance projected) which could eliminate vegetation on these acres. 

Same as Alternative A, but with fewer acres of disturbance projected (6,382 acres) which could eliminate vegetation on these acres. 

Same as Alternative A , but with fewer acres of disturbance projected (9,750 acres) which could eliminate vegetation on these acres. 

Same fewer projeccould ethese 

Non-WSA with Wilderness Characteristics 

Long-term, adverse impacts to vegetation from permitted surface disturbances. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced vegetation disturbance on 266,485 acres. 

Same as Alternative B, except to a lesser degree, from protection on 47,761 acres. 

Same 

Recreation Minor short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts from motorized and non-motorized travel. Beneficial limitations on camping sites within 132,832 acres of SRMA. 

Same as Alternative A, except additional beneficial restrictions on cross-country OHV impacts and dispersed camping impacts within 982,399 acres of SRMA. 

Same as Alternative B, except reduced beneficial restrictions on cross-country OHV impacts, and reduced dispersed camping impacts within only 982,399 acres of SRMA. 

Same for incmotoricross-impactSRMA 

Riparian Compliance with the BLM 

National Riparian Policy would result in long-term, beneficial impacts to riparian vegetation. 

Same as Alternative A, but with greater benefits from the application of CSU stipulations within 100 meters of riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-110 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Soils/Watershed Indirect, beneficial impacts from 

reduced soil erosion and subsequent impacts to plant communities, and reduced invasive weed establishment. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

greatetiming 

Special Designations Beneficial reduction of surface 

disturbance in 1,375-acre Negro Bill ONA. 

Long-term beneficial reduction of surface disturbing activities in ACECs (613,077 acres). 

Same as Alternative B except 63,232 acres would be designated as ACECs. 

No acrACEC

Special Status Species Long-term, beneficial impacts 

from sensitive species habitat protection, which would preserve vegetation. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Travel Management Long-term adverse loss of 

vegetation and productivity, and spread of weeds. 620,212 acres open to cross country travel. 

Greatly reduced impacts from OHV use compared to Alternative A, with zero acres open to cross country travel. 

Same as Alternative B, except 1,086 acres open to cross country travel. 

Same 3,045 countr

Vegetation None specified. Long-term, beneficial impacts to 

vegetation resources through conservation and reclamation measures. 

Same as Alternative B except for fewer acres of sagebrushsteppe habitat that would be reclaimed. 

Same for fewsteppe reclaim

Wildlife Long-term, beneficial surfacedisturbance activities and 

vegetation-altering projects. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Woodland Short-term, adverse trampling 

of understory vegetation and long-term adverse introduction of weed species. 

Same as Alternative A, except lesser impacts (107,321 fewer acres open to woodland harvest). 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

slightly woodla

VISUAL RESOURCES

Class I 349,110 acres 453,462 acres 358,911 acres Class II 401,015 acres 373,647 acres 365,566 acres Class III 800,782 acres 784,246 acres 829,158 acres Class IV 271,356 acres 210,532 acres 268,133 acres 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-111 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Scenic Quality/Viewshed, Canyon Rims 

Short-term and long-term minerals-related degradation of scenic quality in VRM III areas. 

Scenic quality protection from additional 6,867 acres of VRM II; Approximately 41% of area subject to minerals disturbance.

Impacts similar to Alternative B but to a lesser degree, because more area (68 more acres than Alternative A) would be subject to disturbance under VRM III than determined by the VRM inventory. Approximately 73% of area subject to minerals disturbance. 

Impactas 95% subjecdisturb

Scenic Quality/Viewshed, Onion Creek 

No scenic quality degradation because of management under VRM II. 

Same as Alternative A, except management under VRM I would provide more visual resource protection. 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

Scenic Quality/Viewshed, Richardson Amphitheater/Fisher Towers 

Potentially adverse impacts to Arches NP viewshed from minerals activities. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, except greater visual resource protection from proposed VRM I objectives. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, from no VRM I management. 

Same 

Scenic Quality/Viewshed, Colorado Riverway/Highway 128 

Potentially adverse impacts to Arches NP viewshed from minerals activities. Mitigation would reduce fugitive dust impacts to viewshed to minor levels. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to visual resources from increased protection under VRM I and VRM II Management Classes. 

Same as Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, because fewer acres managed under VRM I and II. 

Impactbut to a fewer aVRM I 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

Fire Management Short-term adverse impacts due 

to habitat disturbance and stream sedimentation. Longterm beneficial impacts due to reduced fuel loading, reduced fire risk, and diversified habitat. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Health and Safety Adverse displacement and 

habitat reduction of bats. Reclamation would benefit aquatic species by improving water quality. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-112 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Lands and Realty Under all alternatives, wildlife 

would benefit from continued mineral withdrawals on 78,333 acres. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Utility corridors would disturb up to 32,183 acres of desert shrub wildlife habitat. 

Utility corridors would disturb up to 64,539 acres of desert shrub wildlife habitat. 

Utility corridors would disturb up to 170,996 acres of desert shrub wildlife habitat. 

Utility cto 201shrub w

Livestock Grazing Management under Utah 

Standards for Rangeland Health would benefit wildlife, particularly in riparian and aquatic habitats. Grazing in riparian areas would increase salinity and sedimentation. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Beneficial exclusion of livestock grazing and increased forage on 126,907 acres. Cottonwood, Diamond and Bogart allotments not available for grazing, with beneficial 

impacts for deer and/or elk. 

Same as Alternative A, but livestock exclusion from 153,797 acres. Cottonwood, Diamond and Bogart allotments not available for grazing, with beneficial 

impacts for deer and/or elk. 

Same as Alternative A, but livestock exclusion from 114,234 acres. Cottonwood, Diamond and Bogart allotments not available for grazing with beneficial 

impacts for deer and/or elk. 

Same livestoacres. CottonBogart grazing 

for deewinter sizes a

Short-term adverse and longterm beneficial impacts from vegetation treatments on 67,125 acres. 

Same as A, but vegetation treatments would occur on 46,307 acres. 

Vegetation treatments would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Vegetaare the Alterna

Minerals Adverse impacts include direct 

mortality, surface disturbance, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation due to mineral development and exploration. This alternative has the highest disturbance and adverse impacts. 

Same as Alternative A, except that less mineral development and exploration would occur. This alternative would have the lowest adverse impacts. 

Same as Alternative A, except that less mineral development and exploration would occur. This alternative would have the second lowest adverse impacts.

Same that lesand exThis alsecond impact
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-113 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative A would not implement any specific nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics, so no beneficial impacts to wildlife would occur. 

Beneficial closure to surface disturbing activities, and new ROWs over 266,485 acres to maintain wilderness characteristics on non-WSA lands. 

Same as Alternative B, except over 47,761 acres and with an NSO stipulation for all surface disturbing activities. 

No nonmanagwildernno benwould 

Recreation Adverse impacts including 

noise, vehicle traffic, trampling of vegetation, habitat fragmentation, and other human-related disturbances. Greatest impacts due to greatest amount of mechanized recreational use and the least restriction on recreational use. 

Same as Alternative A. Least adverse impacts to habitat due to greatest management of recreation and focus on non-motorized uses. 

Same as Alternative A. Slightly less adverse impacts than Alternative B due to slightly less focus on nonmotorized recreation. 

Same Less aspeciemore tdue to recreat

Riparian Vegetation treatments would 

result in long-term beneficial reductions of weed populations and restoration of native vegetation, as well as Shortterm adverse crushing and removal of native vegetation during the treatment process. Adverse impacts from OHV use and improper grazing in riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative A, expect that some riparian areas would be unavailable for livestock grazing, lessening adverse surface disturbance. This alternative would be more beneficial than Alternatives A and D. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Soils/Watershed Benefit impacts from 

compliance with Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and NSO stipulations applied within 100-year floodplains and within 100 feet of natural springs or public water reserves. 

Same as Alternative A, except reduced impacts to aquatic by prohibiting surface-disturbing activities on slopes greater than 30 percent and closing the Castle Valley and Mill Creek watersheds to oil and gas leasing. 

Same as Alternative B, except 

The Proposed Plan would 

apply an NSO stipulation to the Castle Valley and Mill Creek watersheds. More beneficial than Alternative A, but less beneficial than Alternative B. 

Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-114 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Special Designations Beneficial habitat protection in 

1,375 acres in Negro Bill ONA, and short-term protection along eligible WSR segments managed to preserve their wild and scenic qualities. 

Beneficial habitat protections in 613,005 acres designated as ACECs and the most river segments found suitable as WSRs; most beneficial to wildlife. 

Beneficial habitat protections in 63,232 acres designated as ACECs and the second most river segments found suitable as WSRs; second most beneficial to wildlife. 

Alternadesignany Wtherefo

Special Status Species No impacts beyond special 

status species decisions required by law that would affect wildlife. 

Beneficial wildlife habitat protection over 469,162 acres managed as special status species habitat. 

Beneficial wildlife habitat protection over 306,976 acres managed as special status species habitat. 

Benefiprotectmanagspecie

Travel Management Beneficial closure of 5,060 

acres to OHV use, which is more than Alternative D, but fewer than Alternatives B or C. 

Beneficial closure of 346,812 acres to OHV use, which is the most of any alternative. 

Beneficial closure of 338,847 acres to OHV use, which is more than Alternatives A and D, but fewer than Alternative B. 

Benefiacres tmore tfewer tC. 

Adverse disturbance on 620,212 acres open to crosscountry OHV use, which is more than any other alternative. 

No areas would be open to cross-country OHV use. 

Wildlife would be adversely impacted on 1,866 acres open to cross-country OHV use. 

Wildlife impactto cros

About 6,199 miles of road would be utilized, potentially fragmenting the most wildlife habitat. 

About 3,328 miles of road to be designated; 122 miles for motorcycle use; potentially fragmenting the least wildlife habitat 

About 3,693 miles of road to be designated; 282 for motorcycle use, potentially fragmenting more habitat than Alternative B but less than Alternatives A and D. 

About designuse, pomore hor C, bD. 

Vegetation Under all alternatives, seed 

gathering and plant collection could have short-term, direct, adverse impacts on wildlife species and habitat. Restoration of riparian areas would have short-term, adverse effects on wildlife, but would have longterm, beneficial impacts. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-115 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Not Applicable-wasn't addressed. 

Beneficial maintenance of sagebrush wildlife habitat by reclaiming sagebrush. 

Beneficial maintenance of sagebrush wildlife habitat by reclaiming sagebrush. 

Same 

Visual Resources Reduction of habitat/surface 

disturbance over 750,125 acres designated as VRM Class I or II; second most beneficial. 

Reduction of habitat/surface disturbance over 827,093 acres designated as VRM Class I or II; most beneficial. 

Reduction of habitat/surface disturbance over 724,587 acres designated as VRM Class I or II; second least beneficial. 

ReducdisturbdesignII; leas

Wildlife Wildlife would benefit from the 

removal of grazing from 124,512 acres. Least acres managed with development restrictions to benefit wildlife, providing the least benefit to wildlife and fisheries resources. 

Beneficial impacts from the removal of grazing from 134,491 acres. Beneficial impacts to pronghorn, bighorn sheep, deer, elk, and raptors from specific habitat and cooperative management. Greatest number of acres managed with development restrictions to benefit wildlife, providing the greatest benefit to wildlife and fisheries. 

Beneficial impacts from the removal of grazing from 109,903 acres. Second greatest number of acres managed with development restrictions to benefit wildlife, benefiting wildlife more than Alternatives A and D, but less than Alternative B. 

Benefiremovaacres. result fDiamoSeconmanagrestrictbenefitAlternaAlterna

Woodland Beneficial reduction of human 

disturbance and habitat degradation over 601,146 acres closed to woodland harvest; least beneficial. 

Beneficial reduction of human disturbance and habitat degradation over 863,227 acres closed to woodland harvest; most beneficial. 

Beneficial reduction of human disturbance and habitat degradation over 646,694 acres closed to woodland harvest; second most beneficial. 

Same 

WOODLANDS RESOURCES

Fire Management Short-term and long-term, 

adverse impacts to woodland productivity from soil erosion, invasive species from surface disturbances. Long-term, beneficial impacts from reduced wildland fire risks. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed P

Table 2

2-116 

Table 2.2. Impacts Summary Table 

Management Action Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

No impacts on woodland harvesting because non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas are unspecified. 

Long-term, adverse impacts on woodland harvesting opportunities from closure of 224,125 acres to woodland harvest (not closed by other decisions). 

Impacts similar to Alternative B, but greatly reduced, from closure of 15,478 acres. 

Same 

Recreation Long-term, adverse impacts to 

woodland harvesting from harvesting restrictions on 180,657acres in SRMAs. 

Similar to Alternative A, from harvesting prohibitions on 234,590 acres in SRMAs. 

Impacts similar to Alternative B from harvesting prohibitions on 255,555acres in SRMAs. 

Impactfrom h180,65

Special Designations WSAs – long-term, adverse 

impacts from harvesting prohibitions within WSAs and designated wilderness areas. ACECs – negligible impacts on woodland harvesting. 

WSAs – same impacts as Alternative A. ACECs – long-term, adverse impacts from harvesting prohibitions on 55,050 acres within ACECs. 

WSAs – same impacts as Alternative A. ACECs – long-term, adverse, impacts from harvesting prohibitions on 15,478 acres within ACECs. 

WSAs AlternaACECs ACECs 

Woodlands Long-term, beneficial impacts 

from selective harvesting and salvage to reduce wildland fire risks, and improve woodland ecological conditions on 1,243,734 acres. 

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, because fewer acres would be open to woodland harvesting and salvage 958,124 acres). Longterm adverse and beneficial impacts to harvesting from protection of riparian resources and other sensitive resources: adverse impacts from harvesting restrictions, but beneficial impacts to sustainable use of the resource.

Impacts similar to Alternative A, but to a lesser degree, because fewer acres would be open to woodland harvesting and salvage (1,168,988 acres). Impacts from harvesting restrictions within sensitive resource areas similar to Alternative B. 

ImpactAlternaacreagImpactrestrictresourAlterna
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis 

2-117 

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM ANALYSIS

2.3.1 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ADJUSTMENTS ALTERNATIVE

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 Moab 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 Rangeland Health Standards (RHS) and resource 

objectives are met. Regulations at 43 CFR 4130.3 require that the terms and conditions under 

which livestock are authorized "ensure conformance with the provisions of subpart 4180" 

(Standards for Rangeland Health) and further that "livestock grazing use shall not exceed the 

livestock carrying capacity of the allotment". It would be inappropriate and unfeasible to 

estimate and allocate the available forage, design specific management practices and determine if 

changes to the kind of livestock are necessary for each allotment in the Moab 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 RHS, conducts monitoring and inventories, and evaluates this data on a 

periodic basis, normally on an allotment and/or watershed basis. After NEPA analysis, necessary 

changes to livestock management and implementation of Utah's Guidelines for Rangeland 

Management are implemented through a proposed decision in accordance with 43CFR 4160. 

These decisions determine the exact levels of use by livestock in conformance with the LUP and 

to meet resource objectives and maintain or enhancing land health. For these reasons this 

alternative has been dismissed from further consideration in this land-use plan revision. 

2.3.2 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 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis 

2-118 

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 require 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. 

2.3.3 NO LEASING ALTERNATIVE

During scoping and/or the comment period for the DRMP/EIS, it was 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. 

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 leasee, 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 Moab 

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 "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 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), Appendix C. item H. requires that 

land-use plans identify areas as open or unavailable for leasing. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis 

2-119 

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 Grand 

Resource Area Oil and Gas Program Environmental Analysis Record (EAR), 1988 which 

addressed oil and gas leasing for the public lands in the Moab 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 1988 oil and gas 

leasing in the Moab 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 MFO 

DRMP/DEIS, 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 Grand Resource Area RMP. 

2.3.4 THE RED ROCK HERITAGE TRAVEL PLAN ALTERNATIVE

An alternative that proposes to remove all travel routes from all areas proposed for wilderness by 

external groups from the Travel Plan that would accompany this RMP would not meet the 

purpose and need of this RMP/Draft EIS. 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. 

On September 7, 2004, BLM received a Travel Plan alternative from Red Rock Heritage (RRH). 

The narrative explains the philosophy and objectives underlying its plan and offers rationale for 

not designating specific routes for motorized travel within the BLM Travel Plan. RRH 

emphasizes that the primary objective of its plan is a "fair allocation of recreational 

opportunities" between motorized and non-motorized uses. RRH specifically states that the best 

practical alternative for comparing travel plans on this dimension is by "measuring the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis 

2-120 

percentage of the field office area within various distances of the nearest motorized trail." RRH 

suggests that the appropriate percentage to achieve this goal is approximately 25%. 

Near the end of their narrative, RRH provides data with such computations at varying distances 

from motorized routes, contrasting its plan with the BLM-verified Grand County inventory. It is 

important to note that the Grand County Travel Plan was approved unanimously by the Grand 

County Council. This plan recommends elimination of approximately 2,000 miles of inventoried 

"D" roads from motorized travel. BLM feels that the Grand County Travel Plan is a better basis 

of comparison to the RRH plan, and not the County inventory. 

BLM agrees with RRH that an equitable allocation between non-motorized and motorized 

recreation is a desirable outcome of the BLM Travel Plan. BLM believes, however, that the RRH 

plan is not a viable alternative, for several reasons: 

1. The RRH plan's roadless polygons match almost identically with wilderness proposals 

submitted by SUWA and/or other citizens' groups. To achieve this roadlessness, RRH has 

recommended for closure virtually all roads within these proposed wilderness polygons, 

without specific mention or regard for purpose and need.1

 This results in several hundred 

miles of County "B" roads being recommended for closure. BLM has determined that these 

roads, which are constructed, regularly maintained by mechanical means, and serve specific 

purposes and needs, need to be included in all alternatives of the BLM Travel Plan. 

2. RRH includes SITLA lands in all its analyses. BLM cannot mange travel on SITLA lands, 

and BLM confines its analysis to public lands managed by the MFO. 

3. RRH focuses their analyses on lands south of I-70, which leaves out those portions of the 

MPA where opportunities for non-motorized recreation are most available. BLM believes 

this division is arbitrary, and will focus its analyses on the entire MPA. 

4. RRH analyses are done only in comparison to the Grand County route inventory. BLM's 

analyses will encompass the travel plans carried forward under the alternatives considered in 

the Draft EIS. 

5. RRH states that any travel plan presented as an alternative to its plan should "achieve the 

same degree of balance (i.e., 25% of the MPA more than a mile from a road, 12% more than 

two miles, etc.)." BLM agrees that an equitable allocation between motorized and nonmotorized use is a desirable outcome of the BLM travel plan. However, the BLM cannot 

justify using an unsubstantiated percentage to achieve this goal. 

6. RRH uses only a portion of what is commonly referred to as the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS). RRH limits its ROS analysis to physical separation, but ROS also looks at 

such facets as topography and social interactions (e.g., likelihood of meeting others) within 

the broader analysis. The MFO chose not to use ROS as a management tool for decision 

making in this RMP because the varied topography of the MPA results in ROS analysis, 

using physical separation only, misrepresenting opportunities for primitive, non-motorized 

recreation. The RRH Travel Plan mirrors the Red Rock Wilderness proposal, which 

encompasses over 46% of public lands in the MPA. RRH assumes that lands without access 

would be eligible to be considered for the protection of their wilderness characteristics. This 

is a false assumption; for instance, within close proximity to the city of Moab, primitive 

 

1

 Per BLM Instruction Memorandum 275, Change 1 (9/29/03), BLM is prohibited from establishing new wilderness 

areas. BLM may choose to manage certain areas to protect wilderness characteristics, but is not required to do so. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis 

2-121 

recreation opportunities are available in 3 WSAs and within Arches and Canyonlands 

National Parks. 

7. In its narrative, RRH discusses numerous specific routes, as well as areas, that it recommends 

that BLM not designate as available for motorized travel. Rather than discuss each route or 

area individually, several general comments are appropriate: 

• Almost all of these routes and areas lie within RRH wilderness proposals. In its 

comments, there is repeated emphasis on the need to set aside areas for non-motorized 

recreation and, if necessary, to "create a rare remote and wild area." Current BLM policy 

prohibits the creation of new wilderness study areas, although it does allow managing 

areas to protect wilderness characteristics. Several of the areas cited in RRH's proposal 

were found by BLM in 1999 to lack wilderness character. Many of the specific routes 

identified by RRH were either described as roads in the BLM 1999 inventory or 

described as roads at the time of the establishment of the original WSAs. Roads, by 

definition, are an impact on wilderness characteristics. 

• Other resource concerns are usually mentioned (e.g., wildlife, sensitive soils, riparian), 

but no specific data is presented to support the contention (unstated) that a particular 

existing route is causing the problem cited. 

• Several of the routes specified are county B roads, which are constructed and maintained 

and receive regular use. 

For the reasons outlined above, the RRH Travel Plan in total is eliminated from further analysis. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 2: Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis 

2-122 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter presents the existing or baseline environment for the Moab Resource Management 

Plan (RMP). This chapter focuses on specific areas where there is new information or analysis 

relevant to the decision to be made. As such, it addresses environmental conditions that may 

have changed since the last RMP was completed as well as key findings and new information 

identified in the Analysis of Management Situation for the Moab Field Office (MFO; 2004d). 

3.1 PROJECT AREA OVERVIEW

3.1.1 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Moab planning area (MPA) is located in the Colorado Plateau physiographic province 

(BLM 2002a), which is located in southeastern Utah, and is bounded by the East Tavaputs 

Plateau and Book Cliffs to the north, the Colorado border to the east, Harts Draw and Lisbon 

Valley to the south, and the Green River to the west. Elevations within the MPA range from 

3,871 near the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers to 12,721 feet at the summit of 

Mount Peale (located in the Manti LaSal National Forest). 

3.1.2 CLIMATE

Like most of the MPA, the southeastern section experiences wide temperature variations 

between seasons and climate varies widely with altitude (World Climate 2003). The average 

annual precipitation is 13.9 inches. In the higher elevations, precipitation comes in the form of 

snow, with large accumulations in the late fall and winter. Snowmelt in the higher elevations is 

generally complete by mid to late June. Afternoon thunderstorms, often resulting in flash 

flooding, are common from late spring through early fall. Summer high temperatures in the 

upper elevations often reach 85 °F, with lows in the 50s. Lower elevation high temperatures can 

reach over 100 °F. Winters are cold, with highs averaging 30 °F to 50 °F, and lows averaging 0 

°F to 20 °F. 

The average annual precipitation of the northern section of the MPA is 9.2 inches, most of which 

comes in the form of late spring rains and fall thunderstorms. Dry air, high elevations (4,000 to 

6,000 feet), and winter snowfall combine to create a cold desert climate. Maximum summer 

temperatures hover in the high 90s, cooling off to the low 60s at night. Winter high temperatures 

are generally in the high 30s, with nighttime temperatures dipping into the low teens. 

The western section of the MPA receives an average of 9.2 inches of precipitation a year. Most 

of this moisture comes in the form of melting winter snows. Dry air, high elevations (4,000 to 

6,000 feet) and winter snowfall combine to create a cold desert climate. Most precipitation falls 

in late summer and early autumn thunderstorms. Maximum summer temperatures in the higher 

elevations range from 85 °F to 90 °F; low elevation maximum summer temperatures can reach 

over 100 °F. Winters are cold and relatively dry, with highs around 40 °F and lows in the low to 

mid teens. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.1 Project Area Overview 

3-2 

The middle section of the MPA (near Moab) receives an average of 9.0 inches of precipitation 

per year, most of which comes in the form of late spring rains and fall and winter snows. 

Maximum summer temperatures average 95 °F. Winter high temperatures average 50 °F, and 

lows average 21 °F. 

Across the planning area, summer precipitation is often in the form of short, intermittent 

thunderstorms, while winter precipitation results in accumulated snow pack that infiltrates the 

soil and recharges the aquifers. Air temperature and precipitation data collected from 1889 

through 2003 for three locations in the MPA are displayed in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 (WRCC 

2004). Peak elevation temperature and precipitation information was not available. 

The planning area has been experiencing drought for much of the last five years, with extreme 

low water conditions occurring during the summer of 2002, when the Palmer Drought Severity 

Index (PDSI) reached near-record severity based on the last 100 years of instrumental data 

(NCDC 2004). The low water conditions have resulted in an increase of wind-blown dust and 

associated particulates in the MPA and adjacent areas. The effects of the drought on the affected 

environment are discussed in Section 3.2 – Air Quality and Section 3.17 – Vegetation. 

Table 3.1. Temperature and Precipitation Data Available for Three Locations in the Moab 

Planning Area (MPA; WRCC 2004) 

Temperature (°F) 

Summer Means Winter Means Extremes 

Station 

General 

Location 

Elevation 

(feet) High Low High Low High Low 

Thompson Northern 6,100 90.1 60.8 41.0 18.3 

108.

0 -23.0 

Moab Middle 4,025 95.3 59.9 45.9 20.9 

114.

0 -24.0 

La Sal Southern 7,125 83.5 51.1 38.5 14.4 

101.

0 -25.0 

Precipitation (inches) 

Mean Annual Station 

Winter Spring Summer Fall Mean High Low 

Thompson 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.7 9.2 14.8 2.0 

Moab 2.0 2.4 2.1 2.6 9.0 16.4 4.3 

La Sal 2.5 3.0 3.8 4.7 13.9 20.1 6.5 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.1 Project Area Overview 

3-3 

- Max. Temp. is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000.

- Ave. Temp. is the average of all daily average temperatures recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000.

- Min. Temp. is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000.

- Precipitation is the average of all daily total precipitation recorded for the day of the year between the years 1971 and 2000. 

Figure 3.1. Thirty-year precipitation and air temperature plots for Moab, Utah (WRCC 

2004). 

3.2 AIR QUALITY

3.2.1 INTRODUCTION

Meteorological and topographical characteristics within the MPA and the surrounding lands 

affect the transport, deposition and dispersion of emissions within the planning area and region. 

The effects of both emissions and management decisions within the area influences air quality 

throughout the area, not just within the boundaries of the planning area. 

The MPA has been experiencing drought for much of the last five years, with extreme low water 

conditions manifest during the summer of 2002, when the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) 

reached near-record severity based on the last 100 years of instrumental data (NCDC 2004). The 

low water conditions have resulted in an increase of wind-blown dust and associated particulates 

in the MPA and adjacent areas. 

When the air temperature near the ground is lower than the air temperature above, a phenomenon 

called an inversion occurs. Inversions may occur in winter when snow accumulation on the 

ground combines with short daylight hours to impede the sun's ability to warm the lower 

atmosphere. In most areas of the planning area, inversions are a fairly typical winter occurrence, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-4 

but usually inversions dissipate rapidly when early morning sunlight warms the air near the 

ground surface. In areas where the local topography acts to pool and trap cold air (deep valleys 

surrounded by steep mountains) however, cold temperatures associated with stationary or slow 

moving high pressure systems can last for days or (rarely) even weeks and create inversions that 

result in poor air quality due to a lack of circulation. 

Inversions can hinder air pollutant dispersion by preventing emissions from mixing with the 

ambient air in the vertical direction. The mixing height of the atmosphere is the height above the 

surface through which free vertical mixing occurs. Mixing height is often bounded by an 

inversion layer in the atmosphere. The dispersion of air pollutants is generally confined within 

the mixing height of the atmosphere. High mixing heights promote emissions dispersion and 

result in low ground level pollutant concentration. On the other hand, low mixing heights often 

trap emissions and result in high ground level concentrations. Areas such as Moab (located in a 

lower valley) can experience inversions during the winter season. 

Air pollutant dispersion is also dependent on the wind. The pollutant path is determined by the 

wind direction, and the speed of transport is determined by the wind speed. Wind direction in the 

MPA is highly influenced by the local terrain. For example, the winds along the Interstate 70 (I70) corridor in Grand County tend to blow from the west and the northwest in the spring and 

blow from the east and the southeast in other seasons (1996 mesoscale model [MM5] data as 

processed in the CALMET model, Trinity and Nicholls 2006). The city of Moab is located on the 

flanks of the La Sal Mountains. The winds in Moab predominately blow from the south or 

southwest. 

Figure 3.2 presents the windroses for two cities in the planning area. Windroses are graphical 

representations of wind magnitude, frequency, and direction for a given location. As can be seen 

from the seasonal windroses, the wind patterns in the area vary widely by seasons and local 

terrain. Therefore, dispersion and transport of pollutants are also variable in this region 

depending on the locations. 

3.2.1.1 EXISTING AIR QUALITY

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

in Title 40 of CFR, Part 50 (40 CFR 50). The purpose of primary NAAQS is to protect the 

welfare of the most sensitive people such as elderly and asthmatic individuals (with a margin of 

safety), while the purpose of secondary NAAQS is to protect vegetation, soil, etc. An area that 

does not meet the NAAQS is designated as a non-attainment area on a pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis. The MPA is located in an area designated as attainment or unclassified for all pollutants 

(EPA 2003a). Table 3.2 presents the existing ambient air quality in the MPA (EPA 2003b). The 

NAAQS apply to six pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), ozone (O3), and particulates whose diameter are smaller than 10 μm (microns; PM10) or 

smaller than 2.5 μm (PM2.5). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-5 

Winter Spring Summer Fall 

Thompso

n (I-70 

Corridor) 

Moab 

Data Source: 1996 Mesoscale Model (MM5) data processed using the CALMET meteorological model. The observed data from various 

meteorological stations are used to generate the CALMET windfield. Meteorological stations include Grand Junction, Montrose County 

Airport, Price/Carbon, etc. 

Figure 3.2. Seasonal windroses in the MPA. 

Table 3.2. Ambient Air Quality Data for the MPA 

Pollutant Averaging 

Period a NAAQS Monitored 

Concentration 

Monitored Location 

(City, County, State) 

1-hour 35.0 ppm 

b

2.8 ppm n Grand Junction, Mesa 

Co., CO 

CO 

 

8-hour 9.00 ppm 

b

1.8 ppm n Grand Junction, Mesa 

Co., CO 

Annual 0.053 ppm 0.003 ppm k NO2 La Plata Co., CO 

 0.016 ppm k Bloomfield, San Juan Co., 

NM 

3-hour 0.50 ppm 

b,c

0.082 ppm i Shiprock, San Juan Co., 

NM 

24-hour 0.14 ppm b 0.013 ppm i Shiprock, San Juan Co., 

NM 

SO2

 

 

Annual 0.03 ppm 

b

0.002 ppm k Shiprock, San Juan Co., 

NM 

1-hour 0.12 ppm 

d

0.086 ppm i La Plata County, CO 

 0.077 ppm i Mesa Verde NP, 

Montezuma Co., CO 

Ozone 

 

 

 

 0.082 ppm i Island-in-the-Sky, 

Canyonlands NP, UT 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-6 

Table 3.2. Ambient Air Quality Data for the MPA 

Pollutant Averaging 

Period a NAAQS Monitored 

Concentration 

Monitored Location 

(City, County, State) 

8-hour 0.075 ppm

e

0.055 ppm j La Plata County, CO 

 0.073 ppm j Mesa Verde NP, 

Montezuma Co., CO 

 

 0.070 ppm j Island-in-the-Sky, 

Canyonlands NP, UT 

24-hour 150 μg/m3 

f

118 μg/m3 o Grand Junction, Mesa 

Co., CO 

PM10

 

Annual 50 μg/m3 37 μg/m3 k Grand Junction, Mesa 

Co., CO 

24-hour 35 μg/m3 g 22 μg/m3 m Grand Junction, Mesa 

Co., CO 

PM2.5

 

Annual 15 μg/m3 h

 9.5 μg/m3 k Grand Junction, Mesa 

Co., CO 

a

 The concentration values listed in this table are based on the monitored concentrations in 2007 provided by the EPA AirData 

database (URL: http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/). 

b

 Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

c

 SO2 3-hour standard is a secondary NAAQS that sets limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased 

visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 

d

 The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations 

above 0.12 ppm is < 1. As of June 15, 2005 EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas. 

e

 The 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within 

an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective May 27, 2008) 

f Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 

g

 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor 

within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006). 

h

 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple 

community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3. 

i

 Concentration is the maximum values detected at the monitored location in 2007 according to the EPA AirData database. 

j

 Concentration is the 3 year average of 4th maxima detected at the monitored location in 2005, 2006, and 2007 according to the 

EPA AirData database. 

k

 Concentration is the arithmetic mean at the monitored location in 2007 according to the EPA AirData database. 

m Concentration is the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the 24-hour values collected in 2005, 2006, and 2007 according to 

the EPA AirData database. 

n Concentration is the 2nd maximum value detected at the monitored location in 2007 according to the EPA AirData database.

o Concentration is the 3-year average of the 2nd maxima detected at the monitored location in 2005, 2006 and 2007 according to 

the EPA AirData database. 

Applicable air quality criteria also include the criteria for prevention of significant deterioration, 

known as PSD increments. A PSD increment is the maximum increase in ambient concentrations 

of a certain pollutant that is allowed to occur above a base-year concentration for that pollutant. 

Federal Mandatory Class I areas with pristine air quality, such as wilderness areas and national 

parks, are accorded the strictest protection. Only very small incremental increases in 

concentration are allowed to maintain the very clean air quality in these areas. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-7 

In Utah, five areas have been designated as PSD Class I areas; all are national parks and are 

under the administration of the National Park Service (NPS). These areas are Arches National 

Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, and 

Zion National Park. PSD Class II areas are essentially all areas that are not designated Class I, 

and moderate incremental increases in concentration are allowed, although the concentrations are 

not allowed to reach the concentrations set by Federal standards (NAAQS). Air quality data for 

Class I areas within the planning area are also included, where available. 

The data listed are the most recent available data for each pollutant. If there is no monitor located 

within the boundary of the MPA, the data from the nearest representative monitor(s) were 

chosen. Most of the available monitoring stations are located east or southeast of the planning 

area. As outlined in Table 3.2 of this chapter, the air quality in and near the MPA meets the 

NAAQS by a large margin with the exception of ozone which is just under the 8-hour NAAQS at 

Canyonlands National Park. 

A recent assessment of air quality in National Parks around the country found that ozone 

concentrations and ammonium deposition increased significantly at Canyonlands National Park 

between 1995 and 2004 (GPRA 2005). The same report, however, found improvements in nitrate 

and sulfate deposition, although these improvements were not found to be statistically significant 

(GPRA 2005). In 2005, Canyonlands National Park did not meet a National Park Service internal 

air quality goal (called Ia3), which incorporates visibility, atmospheric deposition, and ozone 

concentration targets. 

3.2.1.2 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 3.3 demonstrates that northern latitudes (above 24° N ) have exhibited temperature 

increases of nearly 1.2°C (2.1°F) since 1900, with nearly a 1.0°C (1.8°F) increase since 1970. 

Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to determine the spatial and 

temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing concentrations of these 

"greenhouse gases" are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently completed a 

comprehensive report assessing the current state of knowledge on climate change, its potential 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-8 

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 3.3. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern Latitudes (24–90° N). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-9 

3.2.1.3 VISIBILITY IN CLASS I AREAS

Visibility is "the clarity with which distant objects are perceived" (EPA 2001a) and is affected by 

pollutant concentrations, plume impairment, regional haze, relative humidity, sunlight, and cloud 

characteristics. A natural visual range without any man-made air pollutants would be 140 miles 

in the western states (EPA 2001a). Aerosols (small particles made of solid and/or liquid 

molecules dispersed in the air) are the pollutants that most often affect visibility in the Class I 

areas. Five key contributors to visibility impairments are sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and crustal materials. Their contributions to visibility impacts in the 

Canyonlands National Park, a Class I area within the MPA, are summarized in Table 3.3 (EPA 

2001a). 

The 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) included legislation to prevent future and remedy existing 

visibility impairment in Class I areas. In 1985, the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) established a collaborative monitoring program called the Interagency Monitoring 

of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) to monitor visibility in Class I areas. The 

IMPROVE network has operated a monitor in the Canyonlands National Park, located near the 

western boundary of the MPA since 1988. The most-impaired days in Canyonlands National 

Park exhibit visual distances between 61 and 80 miles and show improvements over the decade 

of 1988 to 1997 of approximately 35%. The mid-range days have visual distances of 78 to 109 

miles and show no significant change. The least-impaired days have visibility ranges from 107 to 

144 and also demonstrate improvements over the decade of approximately 25% (EPA 2003c). 

The visibility trend from 1990 to 2004 in the Canyonlands National Park is summarized in 

Figure 3.4. A more recent assessment of visibility in the Canyonlands National Park indicates 

that the improvement trend in visibility has continued through 2004, although the trend was 

measured in different units and was not found to be statistically significant (GPRA 2005). 

Table 3.3. Summary of Visibility Impairment Pollutants Measured in the Canyonlands 

National Park a

Pollutant Contribution b Emission Sources 

Sulfate 34% Fossil fuel combustion and forest fires. 

Crustal Material 27% Fugitive dust from roads, agricultural and forestry operations, 

and wind erosion. 

Organic Carbon 22% Wood burning, open burning, vehicle exhaust, and wildfires 

and prescribed burning. 

Elemental 

Carbon 

10% Vehicle exhaust, wood burning, and wildfires and prescribed 

burning. 

Nitrate 7% Motor vehicle exhaust. Secondary sources include fossil fuel 

combustion and prescribed burning. 

a Data source: U.S. EPA. 2001a. Visibility in Mandatory Federal Class I Areas (1994-1998)- A Report to Congress. Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

b Contributions are calculated by pollutant concentrations regularly measured in the Canyonlands National Park. Light extinction 

coefficients and visibility indices are then calculated from these values. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-10 

Figure 3.4. Trend in air pollution impacts on visibility observed in Canyonlands National 

Park, Utah, 1990 through 2004 (EPA 2003c). 

3.2.2 STATUS OF EMISSIONS

The MPA encompasses all of Grand County and the northern portion of San Juan County. These 

lands are included in the MPA boundary. Currently, emission sources within the MPA consist 

mostly of oil and gas development facilities and some mineral processing facilities as identified 

in Table 3.4. 

Table 3.4. 2005 Emissions Inventory for Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah. 

2005 Emissions (tpy) 

County Source 

CO NOxb

 PM10 PM2.5 SOxc VOCd HAPse

Grand 

County 

Area 

source 206.1 15.6 429.7 87.6 3 285.3 

 

Non-road 

mobile 2,962.00 175.7 36.6 30 7.6 904.5 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-11 

Table 3.4. 2005 Emissions Inventory for Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah. 

2005 Emissions (tpy) 

County Source 

CO NOxb PM10 PM2.5 SOxc VOCd HAPse

 

On-road 

mobile 8,118.10 1,042.00 380.8 78.2 16.4 572.1 

 

Point 

source 224.5 377.8 4.2 4.2 0.3 68.7 

 Biogenics 6,596.10 - - - - 34,972.80 

 

Total 

Grand 

County 18,106.80 1,611.20 851.3 199.9 27.3 36,803.40 18.8

San 

Juan 

County 

Area 

source 517.2 35.4 1,108.60 223.9 34.7 516.8 

 

Non-road 

mobile 1,868.30 59.2 21.3 19.6 11 546.1 

 

On-road 

mobile 6,656.80 1,057.90 398.7 88.9 21.3 470.4 

 

Total San 

Juan 

County 9,042.20 1,152.50 1,528.60 332.4 67 1,533.30 9.9

Regiona

l Total 27,149.10 2,763.70 2,379.80 532.3 94.3 38,336.70 28.7 a Emission inventory data from 2005 State Summary of Emissions by Source. URL: www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05/State_List.htm 

b

 Nitrogen oxides - one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground-level ozone. c Sulfur oxides - contribute to respiratory illness, atmospheric deposition, and the formation of atmospheric particles that can 

cause visibility impairment. 

d

 VOC (volatile organic compounds) refers to any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic 

acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. Also 

a precursor to ozone. 

e HAPs (hazardous air pollutants) are generally defined as those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause serious health 

problems. Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act identifies a list of 188 pollutants as HAPs. The emissions inventory for HAPs 

available from the State of Utah only includes those reported by stationary industrial sources. 

The 2005 emissions inventory available from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) was used to characterize base-year emissions in San Juan and 

Grand County. Emissions are summarized by source type for criteria pollutants including area 

source, non-road mobile, on-road mobile, point sources, and biogenics. The emission inventory 

for hazardous air pollutants only includes emissions from stationary industrial sources. 

3.2.2.1 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF EMISSIONS

The seasonal windroses presented in Figure 3.2 for the I-70 corridor and Moab (in the MPA) 

show that prevailing wind speeds rarely exceed 5 m per sec., and vary seasonally in direction. 

Due to prevailing wind direction in the planning area, emission sources located in Price, Utah 

represent a very minor potential for air quality impacts to the northern portion of the planning 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-12 

area in the spring only; emission sources in Page, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada represent 

essentially no potential for air quality impacts to the planning area as they are located downwind 

nearly year-round. 

As stated previously, current air quality in the MPA is, with the exception of ozone, consistently 

below the NAAQS by a large margin, as shown in Table 3.2. Observed ozone concentrations in 

the vicinity of the MPA are less than, but near the NAAQS. The UDEQ indicated that ozone 

concentrations in Class I areas of the western states have shown significant increases in the past 

decade and are approaching the NAAQS level (Personal communication between Brock 

LeBaron, UDEQ, and Trinity Consultants, August 8, 2003). Although the exact sources 

contributing to the high ozone concentrations have not been verified at this time, studies indicate 

that oil and gas development activities contribute to the rise in ozone concentrations in 

production areas (Katzenstein et al. 2003). 

Additional, short-term air quality impacts have been observed over the last two years along I-70 

and U.S. Highway 191 (U.S. 191) in southeastern Utah due to severe wind blown dust 

("blowout") conditions. Blowout refers to the dusty conditions due to wind picking up dust in 

significant quantities, creating the brown-out conditions along the roadways for stretches of up to 

several miles long. There have been increasing numbers of highway closures and accidents 

related to the blowout from the Mancos Shale landscapes adjacent to I-70 and U.S. 191. The dust 

problem has resulted in multiple car pile-ups and will likely result in fatalities in the future 

(Jackson 2003). A preliminary study conducted by BLM indicated that possible causes of the 

increasing blowout conditions are: loss of vegetation; wind erosion; natural sand particles; 

topography; and human disturbance related activities such as road construction, off highway 

recreational vehicles, pipeline and power transmission development, livestock concentration 

areas, fires, and arroyo cutting (Jackson 2003). BLM has initiated a process to identify areas of 

concern and determine appropriate management actions. 

Additional concerns focus on mobile source emissions specific to visitation and traffic within the 

MPA. Current Easter weekend visitation in the Moab area is greater than 20,000 visitors. Most 

recreational visitors engage in motorized activities that represent emission sources in addition to 

the highway vehicles utilized for transportation. There are more than two million visitors 

annually to the planning area. 

Prescribed fire and naturally caused fires also present a concern to air quality. Prescribed burning 

is a useful tool for resource management and may be used to achieve a variety of objectives such 

as restoring a fire-dependent ecosystem, enhancing forage for cattle, improving wildlife habitat, 

preparing sites for reforestation, or reducing hazardous fuel loads. Fire, for any of these reasons, 

will produce smoke and other air pollutants. Some short-term air pollutant releases are necessary 

to achieve the many benefits of prescribed burning. Short-term effects on air quality from 

prescribed burns include a general increase in particulate matter, CO2 and ozone precursor 

emissions. Land managers recognize that smoke management is critical to avoid air quality 

intrusions over sensitive areas or visibility problems. Vegetation management is an active part of 

fire management techniques and long-term effects of prescribed burning include a reduction in 

particulate matter, CO2 and ozone precursor emissions specific to wildfire in unmanaged areas. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.2 Air Quality 

3-13 

As a result of careful management, there is usually less smoke from a prescribed fire than from a 

wildfire burning over the same area. 

3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.3.1 INTRODUCTION

Cultural resources are defined as those fragile and nonrenewable remains of human activity, 

occupation, or endeavor (including both prehistoric and historic remains) representing a part of 

the continuum of events from the earliest evidence of people to the present day. These resources 

consist of 1) physical human-made artifacts, features, structures and sites; 2) areas where 

significant events occurred (although evidence of the event may no longer remain); and 3) the 

environment immediately surrounding the actual resource. 

The MPA has a wide variety of environmental settings and resources and has long been used by 

humans. The planning area encompasses a large and diverse assemblage of prehistoric 

archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites and localities, and locations of traditional 

religious and cultural importance to various Indian tribes. For BLM management purposes, these 

remains take the form of sites, artifacts, buildings, structures, ruins, features, and natural 

landscapes with particular cultural importance. With a few exceptions, these remains must be at 

least 50 years old. In the case of natural landscapes, the period of traditional use of that 

landscape must also be at least 50 years old. 

Because cultural resources have intrinsic values (e.g., scientific, traditional, or public 

interpretation values) that must be managed, planning and implementing management practices 

related to cultural resources involves a multiple resources approach. NEPA, NHPA (as 

amended), and other Federal legislation require that the BLM assess the impacts of a proposed 

action to cultural resources. In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, this review includes 

Records Searches and Class III inventories. 

In the MPA, records searches, reviewing contractor generated cultural resource inventory reports 

and site forms, and conducting in-house Class III cultural resource inventories compose the vast 

majority of the workload. Records searches, which focus on compiling all known cultural 

resource management information about certain parcels of land, are completed for all projects. 

Class II and III inventories are completed for any proposals that have the potential to disturb 

surface soils. These two inventories have provided the majority of information regarding cultural 

resources present in the planning area. 

3.3.2 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

3.3.2.1 CULTURE HISTORY OF THE MOAB PLANNING AREA 

Occupation of southeastern Utah is divided into several distinct and temporally bounded time 

periods. The creation of distinct time periods has, in large part, been driven by differences in 

artifact assemblages through time. In many instances, this type of fine-scale division is 

informative. As new sites and artifacts are routinely being discovered, however, these divisions 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-14 

are susceptible to significant revision. The dates provided here serve only as general time-frame 

markers; any new dating technology advances or new discoveries will likely alter these date 

ranges. Nevertheless, five broad time periods will serve as temporal foundations for explaining 

human behavior in this area. An outline of these five periods and their associated behavioral 

trends is detailed below. These periods are defined temporally, behaviorally, and technologically. 

For additional information, a detailed overview of the prehistory and history of the region 

included in the MPA is presented in Grand Resource Area Class I Cultural Resource Inventory 

(Horn et al. 1994). 

The basic periods include the Paleoindian, Archaic, Formative, and Late Prehistoric Stages, and 

the Historic period. The Historic period is further subdivided into Indian/White Interaction, 

Spanish Exploration, Fur Trade and Early Indian Trade, U.S. Government Exploration and 

Survey Expeditions, Initial Euroamerican Settlements, Ranching, Farming, Transportation, 

Communication, Towns and Settlements, Mining, Water Control, Speculative Ventures, Civilian 

Conservation Corps, Military, Federal Land Management, Antisocial Activities, and Ethnic 

Diversity themes. 

3.3.2.1.1 PREHISTORIC CULTURE HISTORY

3.3.2.1.1.1 Paleoindian Stage 

The Paleoindian Stage (ca. 10,000 to 7,800 B.C.) is the earliest stage of culture history evident in 

the region and represents the adaptation to late Pleistocene environments. It is characterized by 

small groups of relatively mobile hunting and gathering peoples who used most sites only 

briefly. The Paleoindian tool kit typically included large, lanceolate (Clovis, Folsom, and Plano) 

projectile points (Schroedl 1991), spurred end scrapers, gravers and borers, and crescents (Frison 

1978:78; Schroedl 1991). This stage is further split into three traditions including the Clovis 

(10,000 to 9,000 B.C.), Folsom (9,000 to 8,300 B.C.), and Plano (8,300 to 7,800 B.C.). 

3.3.2.1.1.2 Archaic Stage 

Late in the Pleistocene Epoch, the climate became warmer and drier which resulted in the 

expansion of desert vegetation zones and a concurrent retreat of cooler and moister vegetation 

zones to higher elevations. Changes in the climate caused a reduction in the distribution of 

Pleistocene wildlife, in some cases to the extinction of animals that were typically adapted to the 

cooler, moist climates. With changing climates came the expansion and modification of artifact 

assemblages as people adapted to a wider, more dispersed wildlife and plant resource base. The 

artifact assemblage associated with the Archaic Stage (7,800 B.C. to 500 B.C.) is typified as 

including large projectile points with side and corner notching and stemmed points (Humboldt 

Concave Base, Pinto series, McKean, Northern Side-notched, Sudden Side-notched, Mallory 

Side-notched, Gatecliff Contracting-stem, and possibly San Rafael Stemmed varieties) (Holmer 

1978), as well as basketry, cordage, netting, matting, fur clothing, tumplines as carrying devices, 

sandals, and atlatl darts. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-15 

3.3.2.1.1.3 Formative Stage 

The Formative Stage (500 B.C. to ca. A.D. 1200) is characterized by the reliance on 

domesticated corn and squash, an increasing tendency for people to establish long-term village 

sites rather than continually moving about the landscape, substantial habitation structures, 

ceramics, and bow and arrow technology in the latter traditions. Two major traditions occur in 

the region: the Fremont tradition north of the Colorado River, the Anasazi tradition to the south 

of the Colorado River. A third—the Gateway Tradition—has been used by a few archaeologists 

to identify archaeological sites that contain both Fremont and Anasazi manifestations (Horn et al. 

1994:123). 

The Fremont adapted to the changing environment by using hunting and gathering subsistence 

styles of survival along with some horticultural farming. The variability of Fremont sites have 

caused archaeologists to classify Fremont manifestations as regional variants characterized by 

differing settlement and subsistence strategies. Those variants associated with the MPA include 

the Uinta Basin and San Rafael. Generally, the artifact assemblage associated with the Fremont 

includes gray, coiled pottery types distinguished by specific temper materials and decorative 

styles (Madsen 1977), one-rod-and-bundle basketry, leather moccasins constructed from the 

hock of a deer or mountain sheep, and ornate clay figurines with trapezoidal bodies (Horn et al. 

1994:213). 

The Anasazi people, whose homeland centered in the Four Corners area of the American 

Southwest, have been identified as a sedentary, horticultural based group whose focus on corn, 

beans, and squash encompassed the later period. The Anasazi tradition has been subdivided into 

periods (from earliest to most recent): Basketmaker II, Basketmaker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II, and 

Pueblo III. The Basketmaker II period marked the transition from a hunting and gathering 

lifestyle to a more sedentary occupation of regional areas. In the MPA, sites associated with the 

Basketmaker II tradition have been documented as well as sites linked to the Puebloan traditions. 

Numerous storage cists, masonry structures, pit structures with storage features, and lookout 

structures have been recorded plus a range of pottery types indicative of the Anasazi time period; 

however, the documented artifacts do not provide a continuous spectrum of use. The lack of 

artifact assemblage continuity and lack of documented kilns, may be more indicative of trading 

networks than of actual occupation by Anasazi groups. 

3.3.2.1.1.4 Late Prehistoric Stage 

During the Late Prehistoric Stage, it is commonly believed that the Utes were the primary 

occupants of eastern Utah and western Colorado (Horn et al. 1994:130). Linguistic and 

archaeological evidence (especially ceramics) indicate that the Utes immigrated to the region by 

approximately A.D. 1100. Other evidence characteristic of Ute occupation includes sparse lithic 

scatters with low quantities of crude brownware ceramics, rock art, and occasional wickiups. In 

addition to the fingertip-impressed brownware ceramics, other diagnostic artifacts include locally 

designated Uncompahgre Brown Water and Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood triangular 

projectile points (Buckles 1971). As Utes interacted more with local Europeans during the late 

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, varying quantities of Euroamerican artifacts such as sheet 

metal cone tinklers, tin cans, metal and glass projectile points, weaponry, and equestrian tack 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-16 

become part of the artifact assemblage. Sites containing diagnostic Ute artifacts have been 

reported in all parts of the MPA. 

The Navajo homeland is located south of the MPA, in the southeastern corner of Utah, 

northeastern Arizona, and in northwestern New Mexico (Brugge 1983). Although the Navajo 

homeland lies south of the planning area, historic records mention Navajo inhabitants farming 

parts of Spanish Valley in 1855. Based on additional references, these farmers may have resided 

in Spanish Valley until the 1870s. 

The Hopi Tribe also claims traditional affiliation with the planning area. Small amounts of 

yellow ware pottery have been found at three sites in the planning area. In addition to ceramics, 

Hopi elders have identified rock art panels that contain Puebloan motifs. Although there is a 

paucity of Hopi-related ceramics, the tribe maintains ancestral ties to the planning area. 

3.3.2.1.2 HISTORIC CULTURE HISTORY TO CA. 1950 

Historic cultural resources in the MPA can be classified into one or more themes: Indian/White 

Interactions, Spanish Exploration, Fur Trade and Early Indian Themes, U.S. Government 

Exploration and Survey Expeditions, Initial Euroamerican Settlement, Ranching, Farming, 

Transportation/Railroads, Communication, Towns and Settlements, Mining, Mineral 

Exploration, Mineral Processing, Water Control, Speculative Ventures, Civilian Conservation 

Corps, Military, Federal Land Management, Antisocial Activities, and Ethnic Diversity (Horn et 

al. 1994). For a comprehensive discussion of the historic period in the region, see Horn 

et al. (1994). 

Numic-speaking Utes primarily occupied the MPA during the time of European contact. 

Contacts with Spaniards increased during the late 1700s and the early 1800s. Use of the Old 

Spanish Trail started decades before this as Indian thoroughfares and the Spanish capitalized on 

this existing route. The Old Spanish Trail connected missions in southern California to the New 

Mexico trade centers of Taos and Santa Fe on the east. As cultural interactions with traders and 

travelers increased, changes occurred with Native American populations. The influx of 

Euroamericans into the MPA eventually fostered conflicts with long-time Indian inhabitants that 

resulted in the creation of reservations and the movement of traditional peoples off their ancestral 

lands. Nonetheless, seasonal aboriginal uses of what are now Federal lands continued through 

the 1930s as groups continued to exploit resources in the canyons and adjacent mountains. Many 

sites that are Native American in origin may include various historic artifacts, in particular food 

cans. A thorough investigation of the artifacts and their use/reuse may provide insights as to who 

left the artifacts. 

Exploration of the MPA is first mentioned in the 1765 accounts of Juan Maria Antonio de Rivera 

who led an expedition through what is now Grand County. Although traders and early travelers 

probably traversed through the MPA, very few left lasting records and the Robidoux and Denis 

Julien inscriptions remain the only lasting links between modern times and the fur trapper/trader 

era. U.S. government-sponsored exploration and survey expeditions in the middle to late 

nineteenth century and continued use of the Old Spanish Trail eventually resulted in 

Euroamerican settlement of the area by Mormon settlers in 1855. As population increased, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-17 

homesteads occupied locations where perennial springs promised consistent water for crops, 

livestock, and household uses. Camps, homestead remains, corrals, cellars, dugouts, privies and 

transportation routes in the form of trails may provide insights into early occupation and use of 

the land encompassed by the planning area. 

Euroamericans, dependent upon ranching and farming, continued to expand and settle in various 

places in the planning area. Numerous towns sprang up throughout the planning area. Physical 

remains dating from early town-building and isolated settlement activities dot the landscape and 

provide the planning area with a rich historical archaeological record. 

The economic backbone of the planning area in the mid-nineteenth century focused on livestock 

ranching with cattle dominating the industry until the 1890s when sheep became a viable option. 

The remains of sheep camps, line camps, and stock driveways all indicate the pervasiveness of 

the livestock industry in Grand County. 

The naturally warm climate fostered the growth of fruit orchards, and by 1910, Moab was 

renowned for its fruit, especially peaches. The need to control water—the essential component of 

survival in southeastern Utah—became critical. The pleas to protect farm lands from seasonal 

floods were addressed during the 1930s when the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) spent 

many man-hours building flood control contour dams throughout the Grand and Spanish valleys. 

Remnants of CCC camps, and numerous water control structures as well as farmer-constructed 

irrigation systems can be found throughout the MPA. 

In addition to ranching, mining has continued to have significant impacts to the region and its 

landscape as the twentieth century dawned, oil exploration created quite a stir. Likewise, the coal 

industry boomed briefly in the Book Cliffs region during the early 1900s, causing the 

construction of a narrow-gauge spur that connected the town and mill at Sego to the Denver and 

Rio Grande railroad at Thompson Springs. 

The search for minerals has left a legacy of exploratory mines as well as two-tracks and roads 

that support and foster recreational use of Federal lands. By the twenty-first century, mining 

generated routes added several thousand miles to the transportation network covering the MPA. 

In between the boom and bust cycles of the mining industry, ranching and farming sustained 

those who weathered the extractive industrial rollercoaster. 

3.3.2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL RESOURCES 

For a detailed description of available sources, see the Analysis of Management Situation for the 

Moab Field Office (BLM 2004d). 

3.3.2.3 NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED CULTURAL RESOURCES

Generally, formal listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) occurs for a small 

portion of the total sites in any given state or county. Table 3.5 summarizes these sites for the 

MPA, and is based on the data that was collected. Of the known sites within the planning area, 

three are listed on the NRHP as either individual sites or part of a larger archaeological district 

(www.historicdistricts.com/UT.html). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-18 

Table 3.5. National Register-listed Sites, Buildings, and Districts Located on BLM Lands 

within the MPA 

Year Name Trinomial Type Vicinity County NR # 

1968 Desolation 

Canyon 

NA Site Green River Grand 68000057 

1980 Thompson 

Wash Rock Art 

District (Sego 

Canyon) 

42GR275-277 District Thompson Grand 80003909 

1991 Julien, Denis: 

Inscription 

42GR0111 Site Mouth of Hell 

Roaring Canyon 

Grand 91000617 

3.3.2.4 PLACES OF TRADITIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL IMPORTANCE 

Places that may be of traditional cultural importance to Native American people include, but are 

not limited to: 

• locations associated with the traditional beliefs concerning tribal origins, cultural history, or 

the nature of the world; 

• locations where religious practitioners go, either in the past or the present, to perform 

ceremonial activities based on traditional cultural rules of practice; 

• ancestral habitation sites; 

• trails; 

• burial sites; 

• springs, perennial water sources; and 

• places from which plants, animals, minerals, and waters possessing healing powers or used 

for other subsistence purposes, may be taken (Ferguson et al. 1993:30; Hopi Cultural 

Preservation Office 1995:2; Parker and King 1989:1). 

Additionally, some of these locations may be considered sacred (as opposed to "traditional") to 

particular Native American individuals or tribes. Under the auspices of the NHPA of 1966, as 

amended; American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA); Executive Order 13007–

Indian Sacred Sites, dated May 24, 1996; and the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), as amended, the BLM must take into account the effects 

of Federally linked projects or land uses on these types of locations. 

3.3.2.4.1 TRIBAL CONSULTATION LIST 

The MFO has historically consulted with Ute, Navajo, and Puebloan groups concerning cultural 

resource issues, including the identification of Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) (Table 

3.6). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-19 

Table 3.6. Native American Organizations Historically Consulted by 

the MFO 

Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe 

Southern Ute Tribe 

White Mesa Utes 

Pueblo of Acoma 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Navajo Nation 

Navajo Utah Commission 

Hopi Tribe 

Pueblo of Zuni 

Pueblo of Santa Clara 

Pueblo of Laguna 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 

3.3.2.4.2 POTENTIAL TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES (TCPS) 

As mentioned earlier, there are several site types, both archaeological and non-archaeological, 

that could potentially be identified by Native American groups as TCPs. An ethnographic study 

is currently being prepared for the MFO that will focus on the ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and 

archaeological record to determine which groups ascribe cultural values to lands managed by the 

MFO and to identify existing and potential TCPs within the planning area. Meetings, field visits, 

and oral interviews with tribal elders may also be included as part of this study. The following is 

a general discussion about some of the archaeological and non-archaeological site types that may 

be identified as TCPs on lands managed by the MFO. 

3.3.2.4.2.1 Archaeological Sites 

Many Native American groups claim affiliation with prehistoric archaeological sites such as rock 

art, burials, and village sites. The Hopi Tribe, for example, claims that often the exact locations 

of some of these places, such as ancestral archaeological sites and burials, are unknown to tribes 

until these sites are identified by Hopi cultural experts during ethnographic or ethnohistoric 

investigations, or by archaeologists during archaeological investigations of a given study area. 

Not only do the Hopi consider these sites to be TCPs, they also believe that they are historic 

properties eligible to the National Register under Criteria A, B, C, and D for the following 

reasons (Ferguson 1997; Hopi Cultural Preservation Office 1995): 

• Criterion A because they are associated with the Hopi clan migrations, which have made a 

significant contribution to the broad patterns of Hopi history. 

• Criterion B because they are "associated directly with Ma'saw and the Hopis' covenant to 

leave their footprints across the land." 

• Criterion C because "ancestral archaeological sites, that may be individually anonymous, are 

identified as part of the great clan migration that are central to all that is Hopi." 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-20 

• Criterion D because they have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to 

Hopi prehistory. 

Other tribes also consider ancient Native American archaeological sites as places of traditional 

importance. For example, the Zuni have identified all "ancestral" archaeological sites as places of 

traditional importance, as well as being eligible to the National Register (Anyon 1995; Hart 

1993:40). They say that these sites meet Criteria A and B (as outlined in National Register 

Bulletin 15) because of their association with the Zuni ancestors and their oral migration 

histories. The Utes also consider some of these sites to be culturally significant and sacred and 

maintain that the spirit of their ancestors dwell at archaeological sites and will remain as long as 

the sites are not disturbed (Newton 1999; Perlman 1998). Recently, a spiritual leader of the 

Uintah and Ouray Ute Tribe has stated that the disturbance of significant archaeological sites is 

leading to the destruction of Ute religion and diminishing the power of the spirits that remain at 

these sites (Molenaar 2003a). 

3.3.2.4.2.2 Rock Art Sites 

Many tribes have strong spiritual convictions regarding petroglyphs and pictographs and usually 

request that these sites not be disturbed, especially if the site was created with the intention of 

connecting with a spiritual or natural power. Many Ute and Puebloan groups also believe that 

rock art created by their ancestors retains the spirits of their ancestors. The Hopi Cultural 

Preservation Office has ascribed cultural values to Fremont rock art panels as far north as Nine 

Mile and Desolation Canyons (Molenaar 2003b; Blaine Miller personal communication 2003). 

Rock art panels are also seen by tribes as physical evidence for Native American land use 

indicating territorial boundaries, hunting and camping sites, and trail or migration markers. Some 

panels depict tribal stories and legends, but can only be interpreted by those with the specialized 

knowledge to understand their meaning. In the past, Utes have derived spiritual powers and 

authority from special petroglyph panels for their Bear Dances (Spangler 1995:775). The Uintah 

and Ouray Ute Tribes often request one-half mile buffers around rock art panels, if possible, 

during Section 106 consultations (Molenaar 2003b). 

3.3.2.4.2.3 Rock Shelters 

Rock shelters and cave sites located within the planning area can potentially be identified as 

TCPs. These locations include overhangs, crevices and cave sites and are significant to Native 

Americans as ancestral dwellings. These site types are also potential ancestral grave sites for the 

Ute Tribe (Pettit 1990). These sites may also be identified as places where Native Americans 

communicated with the supernatural world by means of prayers, offerings, and vision quest sites 

(Molenaar 2003a). 

3.3.2.4.2.4 Non-Archaeological Site Types 

Non-archaeological site types are distinguished from archaeological site types in order to discuss 

places that are not necessarily associated with prehistoric or historic artifact assemblages and 

collections. These sites are typically identified by tribal representatives during the government-
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-21 

to-government consultation process that is required of Federal agencies. Some common site 

types are lakes and springs, land features, and traditional gathering or collection areas. 

Lakes, Rivers, Perennial Streams, and Springs

Native Americans often claim places of water as places of traditional importance and have 

traditional stories about mythical beings, or water spirits that live in lakes, springs, and rivers. 

The Colorado River and its tributaries have sacred significance to the Navajo. The Colorado, 

Green and Price Rivers have been identified as sacred to the Navajo because they come from 

natural spring water. According to the Navajo, when the Green River is impacted, the cultural 

integrity of the spring water is affected, which in turn affects traditional procurement use values 

(Molenaar 2003c). 

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. 

Land Features

Large geographic regions, such as deserts, mountain ranges, and valleys are often identified as 

TCPs but few have been formally documented as such. Examples in the vicinity of the planning 

area include Sleeping Ute, the Henry Mountains, and Rainbow Bridge (listed on the National 

Register as a TCP). 

3.3.2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION IN THE MPA 

The number, nature, and location of cultural resources present within any given area of the MFO 

varies depending on numerous factors. Through extensive study of archaeological sites 

throughout the West, archaeologists have identified several key factors that influence site 

locations and types including such factors as elevation, slope, aspect, distance to permanent 

and/or intermittent water, and presence or absence of resources of interest (e.g., food or 

medicinal resources, valuable minerals, etc.). 

The degree to which these factors influence the type and density of cultural resource sites in a 

given area also varies depending on the time period (prehistoric or historic) considered. For 

instance, technological advances during the historic period made it possible for people to live 

and work in areas that would have been less desirable during the prehistoric period. Long-term 

settlements or habitation sites, particularly during the prehistoric period, were typically located in 

areas with permanent water sources, so long as the area is at an appropriate elevation that doesn't 

experience too harsh of a winter or that contains or is close proximity to other areas that contain 

needed subsistence resources. Short-term camps, on the other hand, could be located in all types 

of environments and were typically focused on the exploitation of a specific resource during a 

specific time of year. Thus, in the high desert environment of the MPA, which experiences snow 

at higher elevations, short-term camps to gather plant or animal resources tend to be located on 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

3-22 

the higher plateaus and upper slopes of mountain ranges, and long-term settlements tend to be 

located at lower elevations, along permanent rivers and streams. As archaeological sites, shortterm camps tend to have small numbers of artifacts, such as projectile points for hunting, that are 

typically associated with acquiring a specific resource and they generally lack permanent 

features such as living or storage structures. Long-term settlements frequently contain large 

numbers of artifacts and a wider diversity of artifact types, including items for processing rather 

than simply obtaining resources, and at least some evidence of structures. Many of these longer 

term sites in the MPA are associated with caves, alcoves, and rock shelters. Rock art sites, a 

common site type in the MPA, may be found in association with any environmental location, so 

long as rock appropriate for pecking, grinding, or painting exists. 

A limited percentage of lands within the MPA have been physically inspected for the presence of 

cultural resources, and such an effort is cost-prohibitive as part of preparing the RMP. Therefore, 

the relative site density potential for areas within the MFO was estimated using environmental 

factors known to influence site location and type. All area of the MFO were then ranked as 

having either high, medium, or low potential for containing cultural sites. Table 3.7 summarizes 

the acreage of the three site probability categories estimated within the MPA. A detailed 

description of the factors considered and methodology used to assess site probability is provided 

in Section 4.3.2.1. 

Table 3.7. Estimated Acreage within the MFO with High, Medium, and 

Low Probability to Contain Cultural Resource Sites 

Site Probability Estimated Acreage % of Lands in the MFO 

 High 302,914 17% 

 Medium 625,903 34% 

 Low 895,450 49% 

3.3.2.5.1 ADVERSE IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Impacts to archaeological sites from recreational uses (especially off-road travel) and energyrelated exploration and development activities have increased dramatically in the last ten years. 

Many cultural resource sites may be "at-risk" and their NRHP eligibility threatened. Inventory 

and evaluation will provide BLM with a better understanding about the extent of individual atrisk resources and their NRHP eligibility. Site monitoring will reveal changes to at-risk condition 

over time. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-23 

In order to protect the integrity of cultural resource sites, activities that contribute to site 

degradation may have to be limited. Limitations will diminish adverse effects to "at-risk" sites 

but will also curtail some peoples' recreational and transportation pursuits. Activities that would 

be restricted from locations of at-risk resources, on a case-by-case basis, may include but not be 

limited to use of mechanized and motorized vehicles, rock climbing, horseback riding, dispersed 

camping, target shooting, and livestock grazing. 

Cultural resources are being adversely impacted by various uses ranging from recreational, 

energy-related exploration and development, and range-related activities. The BLM must be 

better able to quantify these impacts from various uses in order to develop adequate mitigation 

measures that protect eligible cultural resource sites. Once the BLM has a better understanding 

of exactly what the cost of the various land uses is in terms of data loss or cultural distress (for 

Native American tribes and other heritage groups), it can better effect solutions to either 

preventing the impacts or focusing the impacts in specific locations. As a result of these 

measurements, certain areas may be deemed too vulnerable to allow full access but they may be 

appropriate for restricted use. 

Conflicting policies applicable to cultural resource management with regards to the issuance of 

OHV permits and construction of single-tracks are in direct conflict with each other. Under the 

revised federal NHPA regulations, issuance of OHV permits by the BLM is considered an 

undertaking and is subject to review under Section 106 process, thus it is necessary for the BLM 

to formally take into account the effect that issuing OHV permits will have on cultural resources 

within the Moab FO. However, the statewide protocol established between BLM and the Utah 

SHPO, as well as existing Utah BLM handbooks, indicate that issuance of permits is exempt 

from Section 106 review. This discrepancy provides unclear direction to Moab FO resource 

specialists in the practical application of their management prescriptions. OHV use in open areas 

are adversely impacting cultural resources—surface use stipulations for ground disturbing 

activities are needed to prevent adverse impacts from occurring. Designating routes and 

preventative fencing would help address the current user impacts to cultural resources. Potential 

areas of high site density or significant site types may need to be closed to vehicular travel. 

3.4 FIRE MANAGEMENT 

3.4.1 INTRODUCTION AND RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The Moab Fire District consists of approximately 6.5 million acres of public land in the Price, 

Moab and Monticello field offices interspersed with state, private, and other Federally regulated 

lands within Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan Counties. The divergent elevations throughout 

the area support a wide range of vegetation and soil types including riparian areas, forested high 

mountain watersheds, grasslands and shrublands, and sparse, arid desert sands. During a normal 

fire year the district averages 100 wildfires resulting in 10,000 to 16,000 acres each year of 

disturbed and potentially damaged land. Most fire activity occurs in the eastern half of the 

district, although fires can occur in almost all areas of each field office. In the twenty-five year 

period between 1980 and 2005, approximately 74% of wildland fires occurring in the Moab Fire 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-24 

District were lightning-caused. Prior to 1995, an average of 100 fires per year burned an average 

of 10,000 acres per year. The past decade has shown a trend of increasing wildland fire, with an 

average of 130 fires each year burning an average of 16,000 acres each year. 

The occurrence of wildland fire varies from year-to-year depending on weather, climatic, and 

other conditions. Fire occurrence and size can depend on a range of factors including elevation, 

vegetative community, fuel moisture, precipitation and/or a lack of precipitation, the ability of 

fire to carry in specific types of vegetation, and other climate dynamics such as dry summer 

weather following a wet spring or extended periods of drought. Human-caused fires in the MPA 

commonly occur near roads, from vehicle and railroad ignitions along I-70, as well as those 

associated with illegal camping outside designated campgrounds, especially along the Colorado 

River. Resource values threatened by fire include recreation sites, oil/gas sites, cultural sites, and 

wildland-urban interface areas. High intensity fires that cover large acreages have occurred in 

almost all areas, although ninety percent of the wildland fires in the Moab Fire District are less 

than ten acres. Depending on climatic conditions, a typical fire season stretches from March 

through October with the peak occurring in the lightning-prone period from mid-June to midAugust. 

The Moab Fire District has a wide variety of types including grassland mixes, sagebrush and 

sage/grass, brushland/grass, pinyon/juniper, ponderosa pine, mountain brush, mixed conifer, and 

invasive species such as cheatgrass, tamarisk and others. The effects of wildland fire or the 

absence of fire in these vegetative communities is closely tied to other public lands resources 

such as watersheds, soils, wildlife, and livestock grazing. Fire has historically been an essential 

part of ecosystem health, providing the needed regeneration of some species and promoting 

diversity of other species in riparian areas, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. The 

exclusion of fire and fire suppression over the past century has compromised the health of many 

vegetative communities. Two of the predominant issues in the MPA are the loss of shrubland and 

grassland communities to pinyon/juniper encroachment, and the proliferation of invasive species. 

Communities surrounded by these compromised ecosystems are becoming increasingly 

susceptible to wildland fire with an accompanying threat to lives and property. Communities in 

need of management action to reduce the threat from wildland fire on adjacent public lands are 

identified as wildland-urban interface areas (WUIs). WUIs presently recognized within the MPA 

include the communities of Brown's Hole, Castle Valley, Dewey, La Sal and Old La Sal, 

Moab/Spanish Valley, Pack Creek, Thompson Springs, Willow Basin, and Wilson Arch. 

Current fire management direction encourages use of wildland fire as well as both fire and nonfire fuel reduction treatments to restore natural fire regimes and to promote the overall ecological 

health of public lands. The operational role of the Moab Fire District is multi-faceted and 

comprises wildland fire control and suppression activities, hazardous fuels reduction, wildland 

fire prevention and education, and collaboration with other agencies in suppression activities as 

well as in both WUI and non-WUI fuels reduction projects. The MFO Manager authorizes 

management response to wildland fires within the MPA, approves decisions for prescribed fire 

and non-fire fuels reduction treatments, and issues restrictions and closures within the planning 

area during periods of high fire activity. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-25 

3.4.2 FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (FMP) acts as the primary strategic document for 

fire management in the MPA. The FMP integrates RMP direction, goals and objectives for 

resources influenced by wildland fire, suppression actions, fuels treatment activities, and 

emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR). The overlying goal of the FMP is to describe 

specific actions authorized on the public lands within the Moab Fire District to protect life and 

ensure public safety, target resource goals and objectives, reduce fuel loads, and to achieve and 

maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems. 

3.4.3 DESIRED WILDLAND FIRE CONDITION (DWFC) 

DWFC, as described in the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management, 

incorporates both condition class and fire regime in the development of fire management 

strategies. The condition class of a vegetative community is defined in terms of its departure 

from the historic fire regime; determined by current vegetative composition including alterations 

and disturbances, and also by the length of fire return intervals within that particular community. 

Along with one of three possible condition classes, five combinations of fire frequency intervals 

or "fire regimes" are considered in assigning attributes to categorize a vegetative community's 

current condition. The combination of both of these measurements gives a vegetative community 

a fire regime/condition class rating or "FRCC." As the FRCC is an index of ecosystem at-risk 

conditions, DWFC is the description of the desired condition of a vegetative community as it 

relates to susceptibility from severe fire effects (e.g., the loss of key ecosystem components - 

soil, vegetation structure, species; or alteration of key ecosystem processes - nutrient cycles, 

hydrologic regimes). For example, a healthy ecosystem at low risk of losing key ecosystem 

components following wildland fire would be considered at optimum DWFC. A lengthy 

description of fire regime, condition class analyses and historic fire return intervals can be found 

in Appendix D of the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management. 

3.4.4 LANDSCAPE LEVEL MANAGEMENT

Fire management actions authorized for wildland fire activities, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel 

treatments, and ESR are based on DWFC. The Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and 

Fuels Management addresses specific fire management objectives for each major vegetation 

group, designed to result in progress toward DWFC of public lands under the jurisdiction of the 

BLM. Specific actions designed to meet DWFC are detailed in Table 2.1 of the Utah Land-use 

Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management. Vegetation groups and fire management 

objectives are briefly summarized below. 

3.4.4.1 SALT DESERT SCRUB

Salt desert scrub occurs over approximately 500,000 acres in the MPA. DWFC for this 

community is native, open salt desert scrub with little invasive species and fire exclusion because 

of the historical infrequent fire return interval. Management objectives include wildland fire 

suppression; no wildland fire use; a wide array of fuels treatments; aggressive seeding in ESR 

treatments. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-26 

3.4.4.2 PINYON AND JUNIPER WOODLAND

Pinyon/juniper woodlands cover a large portion of the MPA, with estimates averaging over 

820,000 acres. Objectives are separated between those areas where pinyon and juniper did and 

did not occur historically. DWFC in historic pinyon/juniper areas is open stands with grass and 

shrub understory. These areas historically experienced a 15-50 year fire return interval, which 

prevented movement of pinyon/juniper into other vegetative communities. DWFC in nonhistoric pinyon/juniper areas is the restoration of the vegetative community previous to 

pinyon/juniper encroachment. Management objectives include minimal suppression where 

possible to mimic natural fire return interval; wildland fire use where feasible; a wide array of 

fuel treatments including biomass utilization; and aggressive seeding in ESR treatments. 

3.4.4.3 SAGEBRUSH

Healthy sagebrush stands have declined throughout the MPA, with an estimated 140,000 acres 

remaining. DWFC is diverse age class with grass and forbs understory. Management objectives 

involve a balance between invasive species concerns, wildlife habitat, and restoration of historic 

fire return interval. Objectives include wildland fire use when appropriate; full spectrum fuel 

treatment; aggressive seeding in ESR. 

3.4.4.4 GRASSLAND

Grasslands occur over approximately 50,000 acres of the MPA. In historic native grassland 

areas, DWFC is native grass/forbs community. Dependent upon other resource objectives, 

DWFC in non-native grasslands is native grassland or shrub community. Management objectives 

consider historic fire return interval of 15-50 years and may include wildland fire use; prescribed 

fire, mechanical and chemical fuel treatments to reduce invasive grasses and encroachment by 

other trees/shrubs; aggressively seed following wildland fire. 

3.4.4.5 BLACKBRUSH

Blackbrush communities in Utah are thought to have poor regeneration following wildland fire. 

These communities cover approximately 185,000 acres of the MPA, and management objectives 

exclude wildland fire and most prescribed fire and non-fire fuels treatments. 

3.4.4.6 MOUNTAIN SHRUB 

In the MPA, mountain shrub areas cover approximately 45,000 acres. DWFC in mountain shrub 

would be differing age classes in mosaic patterns with the exception of WUI areas. When 

possible, management objectives allow wildland fire to mimic historic fire return intervals. Fuels 

treatment of all types is encouraged to decrease the potential for high-severity fire. 

3.4.4.7 MIXED CONIFER/DOUGLAS FIR/ASPEN

Mixed conifer/Douglas fir and aspen woodlands cover approximately 38,000 acres in specific 

areas within the MPA. Healthy forests would include a grass/brush understory as well as 

differing age classes of trees. To achieve this, management objectives include allowing wildland 

fire where it is possible without high-severity fire. Management objectives encourage fuels 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-27 

treatments (including biomass utilization) to retain age diversity, remove ladder fuels, and to 

reduce fuels where WUI values are at risk. Preferred ESR treatments include tree planting to 

promote forest regeneration. 

3.4.4.8 PONDEROSA PINE

There are approximately 800 acres of ponderosa pine forest in the MPA, most of which is 

considered condition class three in need of treatment. The DWFC of a healthy ponderosa stand 

would be open stands with grass/forb understory and a diversity of age classes. Management 

objectives include allowing fire to play a natural role when possible, restoring fire, conducting 

mechanical fuels treatments, and consideration of seeding in ESR treatments. 

3.4.4.9 RIPARIAN WETLAND

Although this vegetative type covers less than one percent of the total acreage in the MPA, it is a 

vital component of the overall region. DWFC of riparian wetland focuses on the reduction of 

invasives and the retention or restoration of the historic vegetative composition appropriate to the 

site. Management objectives allow low-intensity fire in most riparian areas and encourage 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatment to restore native riparian and wetland species. Active as 

opposed to passive restoration would be the primary focus of ESR treatments in riparian wetland 

areas. 

3.4.5 FIRE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES

Protection of human life, including the lives of firefighters committed to an incident, is the 

mandated priority for fire management activities. This priority overrides other strategies, actions, 

and RMP resource goals and objectives. The protection of human communities and 

infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources is based on 

human health and safety, the values to be protected, and the costs of protection. Balancing 

priorities in fire management decisions consider the protection of WUI areas, the maintenance of 

existing healthy ecosystems, the protection of high priority sub-basins or watersheds (HUC 4 or 

HUC 5), special status species, and/or cultural resources and landscapes. 

3.4.6 FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES TO MEET DWFC 

All BLM field offices were given national direction to establish general landscape level goals 

and objectives for fire management. Landscape level management goals incorporated into the 

Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management that apply to the MPA include: 

1. Establishing firefighter and public safety as the primary goal in all fire management 

decisions and actions. 

2. Using wildland fire to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and when possible 

allowing fire to assume a natural ecological role. 

3. Reducing hazardous fuels to protect human, natural and cultural resources as well as to 

restore ecosystems and protect communities. 

4. Suppressing fires according to resource objectives and with consideration for 

firefighter/public safety and other benefits and values to be protected. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-28 

5. Providing a consistent, safe, and cost-effective fire management program through 

appropriate management of planning, staffing, training, and equipment. 

6. Establishing fire management units (FMUs) for acreages with burnable vegetation on all 

BLM-administered lands. 

7. Providing emergency stabilization, rehabilitation and restoration to protect and sustain 

resources, and to safeguard public health and safety as well as community infrastructure. 

8. Working with partners and other affected groups to reduce risks to communities and to 

restore healthy ecosystems. 

More specific resource objectives are incorporated in Fire Management Plans for individual field 

offices. To ascertain the most effective methods for achieving DWFC goals in each of the 

vegetative communities in Utah, fire management activities listed below were discussed and 

authorized in the decision record for the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels 

Management. 

3.4.6.1 SUPPRESSION

A wildland fire requires an appropriate management response (AMR). The AMR can range from 

full suppression to managing fire for resource benefit (wildland fire use). AMR is guided by the 

resource strategies, goals and objectives of the RMP with an emphasis on firefighter and public 

safety, benefits and values to be protected, and suppression costs. FMU objectives as described 

in the FMP would provide further guidance for an AMR. 

3.4.6.2 WILDLAND FIRE USE FOR RESOURCE BENEFIT

Wildland fire use may be an AMR to a naturally ignited wildland fire to accomplish specific 

resource management objectives in predefined designated areas. Operational management of 

wildland fire use for resource benefit is detailed in a Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP). 

Due to resource condition (FRCC) and proximity to values at risk, wildland fire for resource 

benefits is not acceptable on all BLM lands within the MPA. As the DWFC of resources move 

from a higher FRCC to a lower FRCC, wildland fire use for resource benefits in some FMUs 

may become more practicable. FMUs will be periodically reassessed by fire and fuels staff as 

well as by resource staff to ascertain changes in vegetation and potential for wildland fire use as 

a resource tool. 

3.4.6.3 PRESCRIBED FIRE AND NON-FIRE FUELS TREATMENTS

Prescribed fire and non-fire treatments are utilized for hazardous fuels reduction and for 

community protection from wildland fire. Treatments are also implemented to accomplish 

resource goals and objectives such as wildlife and range improvements. Treatment projects and 

acreages are determined through RMP goals and objectives. 

Approximately 90% of all non-fire treatment acres are mechanical and/or seedings. Chemical 

and biological treatments comprise less than 10% of the total non-fire treatment acreages. 

Limitations in applying prescribed fire to meet fuels reduction targets include the condition of 

vegetation (i.e., aggressive non-native species invasion, or extended periods of drought), air 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.4 Fire Management 

3-29 

quality restrictions, budget allocations, personnel capabilities, risk, policy and guidance, and 

social acceptability. 

3.4.6.4 EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR) actions following wildland fire may be 

implemented to protect and sustain resources, and to safeguard public health and safety as well 

as community infrastructure. All ESR activities following wildland fire in the MPA would be 

implemented following BLM ESR Handbook H-1742-1 and treatments would be designed 

according to the Normal Year Fire Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan (NFRP) for the Moab 

Fire District. 

3.4.6.5 MONITORING

Monitoring actions would quantify results from fire management decisions and activities. 

Monitoring conclusions could be used to determine the need for additional or different activities, 

revisions to the FMP and/or NFRP, or amendments to the RMP. 

3.4.7 SUMMARY

National fire management policy has changed and advanced over the past several years in 

response to increased fatalities, property loss, local economic disruptions and the risk to 

ecosystems associated with severe wildland fire seasons and increasing WUI conflicts. Because 

it was imperative to immediately incorporate national and interagency direction into BLM fire 

management, the Utah BLM amended several BLM land-use plans to include fire management 

direction and current scientific understanding regarding the nature of fire in the ecosystem. The 

Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels is a lengthy document with an accompanying 

biological opinion from the USFWS. Although it remains a separate document, fire and fuels 

management direction contained within the amendment is considered to be included in this RMP 

in its entirety, along with all appendices, tables, and attachments. Also incorporated into this 

RMP are the resource protection measures (RPMs) identified through the LUP Amendment 

process that were determined necessary to protect natural or cultural resource values in the 

implementation of fire management practices. 

Fire management direction, activities, and objectives that affect the resources within the MPA 

are summarized above. Specific goals and objectives for resources within the planning area that 

are determined in this RMP and that may alter or augment the current direction of fire and fuels 

management as dictated by the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management 

will be analyzed in Chapter 4 of this document. 

3.5 HEALTH AND SAFETY

3.5.1 INTRODUCTION

A major priority in land management for the MFO is ensuring health and human safety on its 

public lands. The BLM's goals are to effectively manage hazardous materials and safety hazards 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.5 Health and Safety 

3-30 

on the public lands to protect the health and safety of public land uses protect the natural and 

environmental resources, minimize future hazardous and related risks, costs and liabilities, and to 

mitigate physical hazards in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The 

BLM follows its national, state, and local contingency plans as they apply to emergency 

responses. These plans are also consistent with Federal and state laws and regulations. 

3.5.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Hazardous materials are generally defined as a usable product or substance that may cause harm 

to humans, natural resources, or the environment when spilled, released, or contacted. Hazardous 

materials are used in every day activities and may be in the form of a solid, liquid, or gas. 

Regardless of their physical state, hazardous materials may be toxic, flammable, combustible, 

reactive, and/or corrosive. These can include, but are not limited to, abandoned mine sites, 

abandoned structures, dams, discarded chemicals, chemical spills, discarded wasted, etc. 

Hazardous materials problems within the MPA can result from programs conducted by state and 

local governments, by local businesses and industries, and/or by illegal dumping of hazardous 

materials on lands administered by the BLM. There are no approved hazardous materials dumps 

or repositories within the MPA. 

3.5.2.1 POTENTIAL HAZARDS

The various producers of hazardous waste pose a potential impact to the health and safety of area 

residents, visitors, and to the physical environment itself. Both commercial and illegal activities 

can lead to the creation of hazardous waste sites. Spills, illegal dumping, and the discovery of 

abandoned hazardous materials are likely to occur within the MPA. Contaminants from these 

sites can pose an imminent threat to public safety and negatively impact the environment by 

impacting soils, ground water flows, air, and water quality. Potential hazardous material 

generators within the MPA include the following: oil and gas drilling operations, natural gas 

pipelines, mining operations, uranium tailings, storage tanks, landfills, illegal dumps, and the 

Utah Launch Complex of the White Sands Missile Range near Green River, Utah. 

3.5.2.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

The MFO Hazardous Materials Program is responsible for hazardous materials handling, storage, 

transport, and emergency response. Several state and Federal mandates, authorities, and 

handbooks provide the BLM with management guidelines, objectives and actions pertaining to 

hazardous materials management. The Federal and state prescribed mandates ensure MFO's 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 

3.5.3 ABANDONED MINES

The early mining practices in Grand County were subject to minimal environmental regulations 

and in mining districts throughout the West. During this time, Federal land management agencies 

had no requirements for reclamation of abandoned mines on public lands. Mine closures were 

often inadequate or non-existent. While many abandoned mines are small and their waste is inert, 

some abandoned mines are a threat to human health and the environment. Public safety hazards 

associated with abandoned mines can also be a concern on public lands. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.5 Health and Safety 

3-31 

 The BLM, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the National Park Service (NPS) have conducted 

inventories of abandoned mine sites and some remediation, such as stabilizing sites, closing mine 

openings, and/or reclaiming mine-related land disturbances. In the MPA, the highest 

concentrations of mine sites that have been inventoried but not yet reclaimed are on the mesas 

and plateaus that surround the LaSal Mountains. Areas where abandoned mine inventories have 

not yet been conducted are predominantly on BLM and USFS administered public lands. The 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM) Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program 

(AMRP) has identified Lisbon Valley as a high priority area for abandoned mine hazards 

inventory (UDOGM 2002). Additionally, the MFO has identified the Browns Hole, Klondike, 

and Sevenmile areas as priority areas for abandoned mine hazards inventory and remediation. 

3.5.3.1 POTENTIAL HAZARDS

Abandoned mine sites may pose hazards to human health, the environment, and physical safety. 

Threats to health and the environment include: acid drainage, heavy metal contamination, metal 

contaminated tailings impoundments, stored chemicals, and leaking containers. Changes in the 

chemical composition or soil loss near AML sites can result in alterations or loss of natural 

habitat for native wildlife. Abandoned mines may also impact ground water flows and water 

quality. The impacts to water quality are generally the result of contaminated sediments or metal 

salts that can affect human health, fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation. Air pollution from 

contaminated dust can occur on tailings impoundments and waste rock piles near abandoned mill 

sites. There may also be releases or potential releases of hazardous substances from waste 

materials and acid drainage beyond AML sites. 

Open mines are unstable; mine adits (horizontal openings or tunnels) may collapse, internal 

supports may fail, and mine shafts (vertical openings) and winzes (vertical connections between 

adits) may be obstructed or unseen. Oxygen can be at lethally low concentrations and toxic gases 

can be at high concentrations or capable of displacing oxygen. Exposure to radiation in the mine 

atmosphere, particularly radon gas, can be a hazard, especially in abandoned uranium mines. 

Many abandoned mines in southern Utah are potential sources of radiation.

Water can be a hazard in flooded mines; shallow water can conceal winzes and sharp objects. 

Hazardous wastes, such as boxes or containers of explosives, and chemicals used in milling or 

drilling operations could be present. Illegal dumping of hazardous wastes within abandoned 

mines is also a possibility. 

3.5.3.2 ABANDONED MINE MANAGEMENT/RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES

BLM has recently developed the Abandoned Mine Lands program (AML) that addresses the 

environmental and safety hazards associated with AML sites on public lands. Once the site are 

identified, they are prioritized, and appropriate actions are taken on those historic mine sites that 

pose health and safety risks. The BLM's priority for reclamation of environmentally 

contaminated sites is based on risk assessments that address threats to human health and the 

environment. For example, abandoned mine land sites that impact water quality are usually a 

greater concern and receive a higher priority for reclamation than those that do not impact water 

quality. See the Chapter 2 Alternative Matrix for AML program priorities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-32 

3.6 LANDS AND REALTY

3.6.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

As provided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM has the 

responsibility to plan for and manage public lands. As defined by FLPMA, public lands are those 

Federally owned lands, and any interest in lands (e.g., Federally owned mineral estate and 

easements across non-Federal lands), that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior, 

specifically through the BLM. The land surface and mineral ownerships within the MPA are 

varied and intermingled. The MPA contains approximately 2.75 million acres, of which 

approximately 1.82 million acres, or 66%, are public lands managed by the BLM (See Map 1-1, 

Moab Planning Area 1.1). Generally, the lands are located in large, contiguous tracts that provide 

for effective and efficient management. In addition, the BLM MFO manages the subsurface of 

29,678 acres of split estate lands, and 141,241 acres of National Forest lands. 

3.6.2 MFO LANDS AND REALTY PROGRAM

Management of ownership and access to lands within the MPA falls under a variety of categories 

related to whether the BLM is retaining lands, acquiring lands or interests in lands, relinquishing 

control of lands (e.g., sales, exchanges, etc.), granting rights-of-way, easements, or other access, 

withdrawing lands for certain uses, or otherwise determining the disposition of specific tracts of 

land. The various categories of lands and realty management within the planning area are 

discussed in the following sections. 

The overall goals of the BLM lands and realty program are to: 

• Manage the public lands to support goals and objectives of other resource programs; 

• Respond to public requests or applications for land-use authorizations; and 

• Acquire administrative and public access where necessary to enhance the resource 

management objectives of the BLM. 

• 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 

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 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-33 

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. 

3.6.2.1 LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENTS

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 and exchange), as described under Section 203(a) and Section 206 of FLPMA (43 

U.S.C. 1713; 1716). Public lands have potential for disposal when they are isolated, difficult to 

manage, or are needed to fulfill state selections. Lands identified for disposal must meet public 

objectives, such as community expansion and economic development. The preferred method of 

disposal is land exchange (discussed in Section 3.6.2.3). Other lands can be considered for 

disposal on a case-by-case basis. Disposal actions are usually in response to public request or 

application that results in a title transfer, wherein the lands leave the public domain. Lands 

identified for disposal in the MPA are listed in Appendix D – Lands Identified for Disposal. 

Criteria for land tenure adjustments are outlined in Appendix A – Land Tenure Adjustment and 

Withdrawal Criteria. 

3.6.2.1.1 SALES

Public sales of BLM lands are managed under the disposal criteria set forth in Section 203 of 

FLPMA. Public lands determined suitable for sale shall be offered on the initiative of the BLM 

and sold at not less than fair market value. Public lands classified, withdrawn, reserved, or 

otherwise designated as not available or subject to sale are unavailable. 

In the current RMP (1985a), lands were identified that met the criteria of Section 203 of FLPMA 

for consideration for disposal by sale. Consequently, those lands identified in the plan are 

isolated parcels that are difficult for the BLM to manage as part of the public lands (I), lands that 

the city of Moab and Grand County thought should be available for community expansion (C), 

and lands that were nominated by private individuals (P). The list of lands identified for disposal 

was revised to include parcels that were added through amendments to the 1985 RMP and to 

delete parcels that are no longer in BLM ownership (see Appendix D – Lands Identified for 

Disposal). As of 2003, 12,415 acres were identified for disposal. 

3.6.2.1.2 EXCHANGES AND ACQUISITIONS

Exchanges are initiated in direct response to non-agency proposals or by the BLM, to improve 

management of the public lands. Lands considered for exchange must be determined suitable for 

disposal and acquisition, and the exchange package must be shown to be in the public interest. 

The specific planning criteria for land tenure adjustments and exchanges are described in a 

February 1989 amendment to the existing RMP (1985a) under which the MFO operates its lands 

and realty program. This 1989 amendment includes measures for acquisitions and disposals to 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-34 

determine if a proposed exchange is in conformance with the land-use plan and would be in the 

public interest, and is hereby incorporated by reference (BLM 1989b). 

Two land acquisitions, from private parties, have taken place in the history of the MFO. In 1977, 

the BLM acquired 6.28 acres for the Westwater Ranger Station. In 1992, 158.54 acres were 

purchased for the Cisco Take-out. 

3.6.2.1.3 RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSES ACT (R&PP) 

The R&PP Act was established by Congress as a means for state and local governments as well 

as non-profit organizations to acquire or lease (without patent) public lands at no cost or reduced 

cost for public or recreational purposes. Many Western governmental entities have taken 

advantage of this Act in order to provide the public with much-needed local services and 

locations for recreational activities. 

3.6.2.2 PARTIAL INTEREST ACQUISITIONS

Public land cannot be effectively administered without both legal and physical access. Methods 

used to acquire legal rights that meet resource management needs include negotiated purchase, 

donation, and exchange. Acquisition alternatives include purchase of fee or less-than-fee interest 

above, on, and below the surface, as well as perpetual exclusive and permanent or temporary 

nonexclusive easements. Acquisitions of road or trail easements are probably the most frequently 

encountered access needs. Types of easements include: 

• road easements; 

• sign locations; 

• stream clearance projects; 

• utility easements; 

• hunting and fishing easements; and 

• range improvements. 

Acquisition of access rights are meant to support one or more of these resources: lands, minerals, 

forestry, range, wildlife, recreation, or watershed. Additionally, access may be closed or 

restricted, where necessary, to protect public health and safety and to protect significant resource 

values. 

Forty-five easements were on file in the MFO as of 2003. Easements acquired from the 1930s 

through the 1970s were primarily related to range management (e.g., fences, roads, spring 

developments). Easements acquired since the Grand RMP was approved in 1985 are primarily 

related to recreation. Eighty-nine percent of the easements have been acquired from State of 

Utah Trust Lands. Easements can be acquired when there is a need, as happened in 1994 when 

the Kokopelli's Trail was "created" by connecting existing roads and trails from Loma, Colorado, 

to the Moab Slickrock Bike Trail. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-35 

3.6.2.3 WITHDRAWALS/CLASSIFICATIONS

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, but the land does 

not leave Federal ownership. Criteria for withdrawals are outlined in Appendix A – Land Tenure 

Adjustment and Withdrawal Criteria. 

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 used to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major Federal 

investments in facilities or other improvements, support national security, and/or provide for 

public health and safety. Withdrawals may segregate a particular portion of public land from 

operation of any, some, or all of the public land laws (withdraw from settlement, location, or 

entry), and/or prevent disposal (sale or exchange) of public lands or resources. Withdrawals 

remain in effect until they expire or are specifically revoked or terminated. 

Withdrawal review is mandated by FLPMA, which requires the BLM to eliminate all 

unnecessary withdrawals and classifications. The BLM must ensure that withdrawals are 

supported by a definite show of need and must recommend revocation of withdrawals that lack 

sufficient justification. Before recommending a withdrawal continuation, alternatives such as 

rights-of-way (ROWs) and interagency agreements must be explored. 

Four withdrawals existed within the MFO as of 2005 (see Map 2-1, Existing Withdrawals from 

Mineral Entry). All four withdrawals are Bureau motion actions. Two of the existing 

withdrawals are in effect in the Westwater Canyon section of the Colorado River (Table 3.8). 

The first withdrawal protects the river bottom and lands one-quarter mile from the edge of the 

river. The second withdrawal expands protection to the corridor from canyon rim to canyon rim, 

and to side drainages. The third withdrawal (Three Rivers) protects the remaining river corridors 

in the MPA. These three areas are withdrawn from mineral entry. In general terms, the 

withdrawals protect the corridors of the Colorado, Green , and Dolores Rivers from new mining 

claims subject to valid existing rights. The fourth withdrawal in the MFO reserves lands for the 

disposal of uranium mill tailings to be removed from the Atlas Mill Site in Moab. 

Table 3.8. Withdrawals in the MPA 

Serial Number Name of Withdrawal Effective Date Expiration Date Acres 

UTU-71781 Westwater Canyon 03/30/1995 03/29/2045 4,710 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-36 

Table 3.8. Withdrawals in the MPA 

Serial Number Name of Withdrawal Effective Date Expiration Date Acres 

UTU-74247 Westwater Canyon 

Withdrawal Expansion 

06/02/1998 06/01/2018 

(renewable) 

3,386 

UTU-75392 Three Rivers: 

Colorado, Dolores, Green 

10/06/2004 10/05/2024 

(renewable) 

65,037 

in MFO 

UTU-80808 Moab Mill Site 

Remediation Project 

11/15/2005 11/15/2010 

(renewable) 

2,300 

There are 11 Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC) Power Site 

Reserves/Classifications within the three river corridors administered by the MFO. The lands 

were opened to the operation of the mining laws in 1955; therefore, they remain withdrawn from 

disposal actions. Rights-of-way can be granted on these lands with a FERC stipulation in the 

grant. Disposal actions require partial revocation of the withdrawal. 

3.6.2.4 UTILITY/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

3.6.2.4.1 RIGHTS-OF-WAY 

A right-of-way (ROW) is an authorization to place facilities over, on, under, or through public 

lands for construction, operation, maintenance, or termination of a project. Public lands are made 

available throughout the planning area for ROWs and corridors. With the exception of defined 

avoidance and exclusion areas, the planning area is subject to the authorization of ROWs. 

Avoidance areas are areas where special environmental and/or management considerations exist. 

Rights-of-way either will not be granted in these areas or, if granted, will be subject to stringent 

terms and conditions. Rights-of-way avoidance areas were established under the 1985 RMP for 

crucial habitat for deer (Westwater Canyon) and bighorn sheep (canyons east of the Green River 

and Shafer Basin). Exclusion areas prohibit ROWs. No exclusion areas were identified in the 

1985 RMP. 

Rights-of-way are granted on a case-by-case basis. The majority of ROWs granted between 1998 

and 2003 were for non-energy-related activities. Only 17% of new ROWs during this time were 

for oil and gas gathering systems or roads. In the same five-year period, 407 case files were 

assigned (ownership transferred). Of these, 93% were energy related and 7% were not. There is 

nothing to indicate that this trend will change in the next 10 years, especially in light of the 

resurgence of the energy market after 2003. Historically, pipeline ROWs granted within the 

MPA have been small surface pipelines, because they have been determined to be the least 

environmentally damaging. Large-diameter (10 inches and over) pipelines were buried. 

3.6.2.4.2 UTILITY CORRIDORS

The 1985 RMP Management Action Decision for Utility Corridors established electrical utility 

corridors along I-70, U.S. Highway 191 (U.S. 191), the MAPCO pipeline route between I-70 and 

U.S. 191, and the Pacific Corporation transmission line route between U.S. 191 and the Green 

River. The portion of the U.S. 191 utility corridor that runs through Moab Canyon has since 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-37 

reached maximum capacity. In 1999, the Western Regional Corridor Study Committee (Western 

Utility Group) recommended that utility corridors within the MPA continue to be designated 

alongside the I-70 and U.S. 191 roadway corridors. All corridors identified in the previous plan 

remain designated at present. The Western Utility Group (WUG) is currently working to identify 

additional corridors throughout the region, and has put forth one additional utility corridor in the 

MPA following the Questar, Williams et al. pipeline route through East Canyon (BLM 2001c). 

As additional or future corridors are identified, the BLM would strive to consolidate utility 

corridors to the extent possible. 

3.6.2.4.3 COMMUNICATION SITE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Within the MPA, there are 11 designated communication sites along I-70 and U.S. 191, six of 

which were granted between 1998 and 2003. The rapid growth of wireless networking in the 

U.S. indicates that the public expects to be able to make cell phone contact most of the time. This 

trend is expected to continue, with increasing demands placed on the existing 11 sites. Cleartalk 

is currently in the process of creating a cellular communication network along I-70 (completed) 

and U.S. 191 (not complete). There is a proposed or existing tower every 10 to 12 miles along 

these two major highways. Each of the Cleartalk communication sites would be built to house 

four users. The Geyser, Klondike, and Black Ridge areas have room for additional facilities. 

3.6.2.5 LEASES AND PERMITS

Section 302 of FLPMA authorizes the use, occupancy, and development of public lands, through 

leases and permits, for uses not authorized through other authorities. Applicants can be state and 

local governments and private individuals. These uses of public lands include agricultural 

development, residential use (under certain conditions), commercial use, advertising, and 

National Guard use. Leases are long-term authorizations that usually require a significant 

economic investment in the land. 

Permits are usually short-term authorizations not to exceed three years. The MFO issues an 

average of 50 permits each year, primarily for filming projects. During calendar years 1998 

through 2002, the MFO issued 182 film permits. Approximately 75 commonly used filming 

locations have been identified. Filming is an important part of the Grand County economy. The 

annual report of the Moab to Monument Valley Film Commission, on the economic impact of 

on-location production, gives a figure of $4,862,000 for the reporting period from July 1, 2001, 

to June 30, 2002. This number represents the money that filming companies spent in Grand 

County, with no additional factoring. 

3.6.2.6 TRESPASS

The BLM is responsible for realty trespass abatement, which includes prevention, detection, and 

resolution. Land authorizations, such as leases and permits, have typically been issued to resolve 

agriculture and occupancy trespass. Locations in the planning area where trespass is likely to 

occur are along drainages, in oil fields, and in areas where private lands border public lands. 

Approximately 90 cases of alleged trespass have been formally identified within the MPA. None 

of these situations poses a problem if it is not immediately resolved. Twenty trespass cases were 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.6 Lands and Realty 

3-38 

resolved during FY 2003. The remaining cases are expected to be resolved on an estimated 

timetable of 10 cases per year. 

Willful trespass is dealt with immediately, especially if resources are threatened. 

3.6.2.7 PLANNING-BASED PROTECTION ZONES

Protection zones were incorporated into the existing Grand RMP (1985a) through "Plan 

Changes" for an airport runway undeveloped area and for protection of drinking water sources. 

The airport runway protection zone was added to the plan on May 5, 1995. Ninety acres are 

included in the protection zone, which restricts construction of residences or places of public 

assembly (churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings, shopping centers, and other uses with 

similar concentrations of persons.) Automobile parking is also discouraged within the area. The 

location of the protection zone is: 

T24S, R19E, Sec. 1, S1⁄2 of S1⁄2 of SE1⁄4 of SE1⁄4; Sec. 12, N1⁄2 of NE1⁄4 

The BLM has entered into three land-use agreements to not allow potential contamination 

sources, as defined in R309-113-6(1)(u) of the Utah Administrative Code, within a drinking 

water protection zone. The protection zones are not necessarily ROW avoidance areas. Examples 

of possible pollution sources include, but are not limited to, storage facilities that store the liquid 

forms of extremely hazardous substances, septic tanks, drain fields, Class V underground 

injection wells, landfills, open dumps, landfilling of sludge and septage, manure piles, salt piles, 

pit privies, drain lines, and animal feeding operations with more than 10 animal units. 

BLM has responded to requests for agreements from one private entity, the Thompson Springs 

Water Conservancy District, and one state agency, the Utah Department of Transportation. The 

size of the protection zone has varied by the source of water and the hydrology of the area. The 

protection zones have been documented in the existing RMP amendment and are displayed on 

the appropriate master title plats 

3.6.2.8 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES 

A national trend is using public lands to develop renewable energy sources such as wind power, 

solar power, biomass, and hydropower. National organizations are looking at public land to help 

provide power sources for an ever-increasing population, without creating air pollution 

problems. In the future, BLM-administered lands will play an increasing role in providing clean 

energy sources.

The February 2003 publication, "Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public 

Lands" prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) assessed the potential for the 

following renewable energy sources on public lands in the 11 western states by planning area: 

solar, biomass, geothermal, water, and wind. Tables were created for each resource listing the 25 

planning areas with top potential for development of these energy sources. At this time, the DOE 

data show that most of the MPA has been identified as possessing a low potential for all of the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-39 

resources studied. There are, however, a few isolated areas, on the western side of the MPA (e.g., 

along a ridge on the west side of U.S. 191 between Moab and Crescent Junction), where there are 

small pockets of medium and high wind resource potential. The MFO can expect to have these 

sites investigated more closely in the future due to the projected increase in demand for 

renewable energy. 

3.7 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

3.7.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Livestock grazing allotments occur on approximately 95% of all lands located within the MPA 

boundary. Areas not within the boundaries of a grazing allotment include lands around Moab, the 

surface areas of the Colorado and Dolores Rivers, I-70, and the Pear Park and Spring Creek 

areas. Of the lands within grazing allotments, 1,794,798 acres (77%) are BLM lands within the 

State of Utah; 375,299 acres (16%) are State of Utah lands; 83,640 acres (4%) are private; 1,632 

acres (less than 1%) are military; 1,146 acres (less than 1%) are United States Forest Service 

lands; and 73,395 acres (3%) occur within the State of Colorado (Figure 3.5). 

The following subsections provide a summary of the number of permitted allotments, amount 

and condition of riparian areas, allotment management categories, and ecological status for the 

allotments. Information on each allotment can be found in the Analysis of Management Situation 

for the MFO (Chapter 7: Grazing and Domestic Livestock). 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

BLM State of

Utah

Private Military Forest

Service

 Colorado

(all lands)

Acres

Figure 3.5. Acres within grazing allotments of the MPA. 

3.7.1.1 ALLOTMENT STATUS

A total of 84 allotments occur within the boundaries of the MPA. Of these allotments, 74 are 

administered by the MFO, four are administered by the Vernal Field Office, and six are 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-40 

administered by the Grand Junction, Colorado, Field Office. Seventy-seven of the allotments are 

available for use by domestic livestock, and seven allotments were made unavailable for grazing 

by domestic livestock in 1995 and 1996. These seven allotments were made unavailable for the 

following reasons: enhancement of wildlife habitat, improvement of riparian vegetation, 

watershed benefits, and recreation values. 

3.7.1.2 RIPARIAN AREAS 

A total of 26,085 acres of riparian have been inventoried within the grazing allotments. Of this 

total, 14,020 acres (54%) have been identified as being in "proper functioning condition;" 8,962 

acres (34%) as "functioning-at risk;" 2,947 acres (11%) as "not functioning;" 120 acres (0.5%) as 

"reservoir or well;" and 35 acres (0.1%) as "dikes." 

3.7.1.3 ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES

Each permitted allotment has been evaluated and designated into one of three management 

categories: maintain (M), improve (I), or custodial (C). Allotments in category M are in 

generally good condition and have no serious resource conflicts under present management. 

They may have some potential for a positive return on investments. Category I allotments have 

serious resource conflicts or unsatisfactory range condition or may be producing below their 

potential under present management, and/or climatic conditions (drought related). These 

allotments have potential to improve or have conflicts that can be resolved through changes in 

grazing management or investments in range improvement projects. Allotments in category C 

have low productivity potential, limited resource conflicts, and limited opportunity for a positive 

return on public investments (Table 3.9). A more detailed and specific list of criteria used for 

categorizing each allotment is found in the Analysis of Management Situation for the Moab 

RMP. 

Table 3.9. Current Number of Grazing Allotments in Each Management Category 

Category M (Maintain) Category I (Improve) Category C (Custodial) 

25 allotments (32%) 37 allotments (48%) 15 allotments (20%) 

3.7.1.4 ECOLOGICAL STATUS

The ecological status of BLM acres within the MPA (excluding acres within Colorado) was 

estimated as part of the 1985 Grand RMP process. Since the ecological status estimates were 

made on a MPA-wide basis, the ecological status for each allotment is not known. Four classes 

are used to express the degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants in a biotic 

community reflected the potential natural community (PNC). These classes are PNC, Late-Seral, 

Mid-Seral, and Early-Seral (Table 3.10). 

Table 3.10. Current Acreages of Plants that Are Similar to Potential Natural Community 

(PNC) 

Class % Similarity to PNC Acreage (% of Total Area) 

PNC 76-100% 461,156 acres (26%) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-41 

Late-Seral 51-75% 661,502 acres (38%) 

Mid-Seral 26-50% 520,802 acres (30%) 

Early-Seral 0- 25% 108,009 acres (6%) 

BLM Manual H-1601-1 (BLM 2005a) states that vegetation management decisions, including 

grazing, must be based on desired future conditions (DFC). The DFC are those conditions on a 

landscape scale that are meeting management objectives, incorporating ecological, social, and 

economic considerations; and does not necessarily assume vegetation should, or will, reach PNC. 

It is usually expressed as ecological or management status of vegetation (species composition, 

habitat diversity, age and size classes of species) and desired soil qualities (conditions of soil 

cover, erosion, compaction, loss of soil productivity). 

3.7.1.5 RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS

Rangeland improvements, including fencing, cattle guards, water pipelines, well development, 

spring development, and stock ponds, are used to assist in livestock and wildlife distribution. 

Fire management practices are often used to achieve ecological conversion and/or reduce 

catastrophic fuel loads. Rangeland manipulation can be used to rehabilitate or restore a particular 

ecological community with respect to plant composition and structure. 

General impacts associated with rangeland improvements tier to the Vegetation EIS (BLM 

1991a), which analyzes and recommends treatment methods to be used on BLM-administered 

lands. Methods include manual and mechanical treatments, biological treatments, prescribed 

burning, chemical applications, and use of livestock. 

The current RMP (1985a) identifies rangeland manipulation actions that were to be 

accomplished within various allotments. These actions are shown on pages 18, 19, 30 and A-29 

of the Grand RMP. 

3.7.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Of the 77 allotments that are permitted for use by domestic livestock, 64 allotments are grazed 

by cattle, three are grazed by cattle and horses, two are grazed by cattle and sheep, six are grazed 

by sheep, one is grazed by sheep and horses, and one is grazed by horses. Twenty-five (25) of 

the permitted allotments have allotment management plans (AMPs), while the remaining 52 

allotments do not. Livestock use of these allotments, as well as those managed through AMPs, is 

authorized through grazing permits which contain terms and conditions controlling the numbers, 

timing, and duration of use as wells as other restrictions to livestock use. Allotment Management 

Plans have been (and will be) developed where appropriate, since all allotments do not need to 

have AMPs. Please refer to the Analysis of Management Situation prepared for the Moab RMP 

(2004d). 

Authorized livestock use is typically expressed in animal unit months (AUMs), which is the 

amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of 1 cow, 1 horse, or 5 sheep for a period of one 

month. A total of 107,931 animal unit months (AUMs) are currently authorized (active) within 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-42 

boundaries of the MPA. Of the total authorized AUMs, 87,097 (81%) are used by cattle, 18,466 

(17%) are used by sheep, and 485 (less than 1%) are used by horses. 1,883 AUMs (2%) are, 

through agreement with the permittee(s), held in temporary suspension to maintain improved 

resource conditions. An additional 25,972 AUMs are allowed through exchange of use (other 

ownership). Table 3.11 shows the grazing management systems currently in use for the 77 

permitted allotments. 

Management actions accomplished since the 1985 Grand RMP have affected current livestock 

resources. These accomplishments include: developing the Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) 

for the resource area; changes in the season of use on 54,380 acres to (a) provide for growth 

requirements of perennial plants, (b) restrict use of spring forbs by livestock in crucial wildlife 

areas, and (c) protect soils in critical watershed areas; changes in the class of livestock on the 

Buckhorn Allotment to reduce competition between livestock and wildlife; land treatments to 

increase available forage and increased use by livestock and wildlife. 

Table 3.11. Current Number of Permitted Allotments under Each Grazing Management 

System 

Grazing Management System Number of Allotments 

Season-long grazing* 52 

Deferred rotation grazing 21 

Rest rotation grazing 1 

Holistic grazing 3 

* The lengths of season under season-long grazing systems generally vary from 1 month to 8 months, with the majority being 4-5 

months. One allotment is grazed year-long. The majority of grazing systems include both dormant season and growing season 

use. However, 11 allotments are grazed only during the dormant season, and three allotments are grazed only during the 

growing season. 

3.7.3 SPECIFIC ALLOTMENTS OF CONCERN

Specific concerns have been raised concerning twelve entire allotments as well as well as 

portions of four other allotments. South Sand Flats, North Sand Flats, Between the Creeks, 

Bogart, Cottonwood, Diamond and Arth's Pasture allotments were analyzed in a Plan 

Amendment to the 1985 Grand RMP (EA #068-94-047). Pear Park, Spring Creek and Castle 

Valley allotments were made unavailable for grazing in the Grand RMP itself. 

The allotments of concern and the conflict identified in each area are summarized below: 

North Sand Flats: This allotment covers approximately half of the Sand Flats Recreation Area 

(home of the Slickrock Bike Trail and the Hell's Revenge and Fins and Things Jeep Routes), as 

well as popular recreation areas along the Colorado River such as Negro Bill Canyon. Due to the 

large number of recreational users, conflicts between people and cattle are a concern. Watershed, 

cultural, and riparian values (especially in Negro Bill Canyon) are also identified as a concern. In 

addition, the entire allotment is crucial deer winter range. 

South Sand Flats: This allotment covers approximately half of the Sand Flats Recreation Area, 

and is also heavily visited by recreational users. This allotment also contains a portion of the Mill 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-43 

Creek watershed, which is the municipal watershed for Spanish Valley and the city of Moab. 

Watershed, cultural, and riparian values (especially in Mill Creek Canyon and its tributaries, 

such as Rill Creek and Burkholder Draw) are also identified as a concern. In addition, the entire 

allotment is crucial deer winter range. 

Between the Creeks: This allotment contains a portion of the Mill Creek watershed, which is the 

municipal watershed for Spanish Valley and the city of Moab. Watershed, cultural, and riparian 

values (especially in Mill Creek Canyon and its tributaries) are also identified as a concern. In 

addition, the entire allotment is crucial deer winter range, and competition between deer and 

livestock for both forage and space occurs in this allotment. 

Bogart: This allotment is within the Bookcliffs. The area is unfragmented, high quality crucial 

deer and/or elk winter range, and contains riparian habitat (especially along Nash Wash) and 

watershed values. The 1985 Grand RMP identified the need to control accelerated erosion, 

stream channel downcutting, braiding, bank destabilization and salinity discharge from Greater 

Sagers Wash Watershed. Wildlife values include mule deer, elk and pronghorn, as well as 

potential Mexican spotted owl habitat, sensitive raptors and bald eagle. Much of the allotment 

experienced a catastrophic fire in 2002. There is limited accessibility to this allotment. 

Diamond: This allotment is within the Bookcliffs. The area is unfragmented, high quality crucial 

deer and/or elk winter range, and contains riparian habitat (especially along Diamond Creek) and 

watershed values. The 1985 Grand RMP identified the need to control accelerated erosion, 

stream channel downcutting, braiding, and bank destabilization. Wildlife values include mule 

deer, elk and pronghorn, as well as potential Mexican spotted owl habitat, sensitive raptors and 

bald eagle. Much of the allotment experienced a catastrophic fire in 2002. There is limited 

accessibility to this allotment. 

Cottonwood: This allotment is within the Bookcliffs. The area is unfragmented, high quality 

crucial deer and/or elk winter range, and contains riparian habitat (especially along Diamond 

Creek) as well as watershed values. The 1985 Grand RMP identified the need to control 

accelerated erosion, stream channel downcutting, braiding, and bank destabilization. Wildlife 

values include mule deer, elk and pronghorn, as well as potential Mexican spotted owl habitat, 

sensitive raptors and bald eagle. Much of the allotment experienced a catastrophic fire in 2002. 

There is limited accessibility to this allotment. 

Pear Park: This allotment is within the Bookcliffs. The area is unfragmented, high quality crucial 

deer and/or elk winter range. Wildlife values include mule deer, elk and pronghorn, as well as 

potential Mexican spotted owl habitat, sensitive raptors and bald eagle. There is very limited 

accessibility to this allotment, and no water or potential access to water. 

Spring Creek: This allotment is within the Dolores Triangle, and is high quality crucial mule deer 

and/or elk winter range. There are also sensitive raptors, potential Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, 

and potential MSO habitat. 

Mill Creek: this allotment is in the South Fork of Mill Creek, a perennial stream. The area 

covered by the allotment is rich in cultural and riparian resources. The density and types of 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-44 

cultural resources in this area are critical to advance professional knowledge on the prehistoric 

use of perennial streams in the desert environment of southeast Utah. Mill Creek is especially 

known for the density of its rock art. This rock art is found in alcoves, which are also favored by 

cattle. Cattle clustering in these alcoves create an adverse chemical mix from body wastes that is 

detrimental to the rock art. The Mill Creek allotment receives high recreation use from four 

wheel drive enthusiasts, hikers and bicyclists. The riparian area of Mill Creek is one of the 

richest in the entire MPA. 

Professor Valley: This allotment is along Utah Highway 128, which has over 300,000 vehicles 

per year, mostly out-of-town visitors. There are many recreation sites within the allotment, which 

results in conflicts between people and livestock, especially along the highway itself. In addition, 

the allotment is habitat for desert bighorn sheep (lambing), bald eagle winter range, 

Southwestern willow flycatcher, the threatened and endangered fish of the Colorado River, 

peregrine falcon and other sensitive raptors. 

River: This allotment is along Utah Highway 128, which has over 300,000 vehicles per year, 

mostly out-of-town visitors. There are many recreation sites within the allotment, which results 

in conflicts between people and livestock, especially along the highway itself. In addition, the 

allotment is habitat for desert bighorn sheep (lambing), bald eagle winter range, Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, the threatened and endangered fish of the Colorado River, peregrine falcon 

and other sensitive raptors. 

Ida Gulch: This allotment is along Utah Highway 128, which has over 300,000 vehicles per year, 

mostly out-of-town visitors. There are many recreation sites within the allotment, which results 

in conflicts between people and livestock, especially along the highway itself. In addition, the 

allotment is habitat for bald eagle winter range, Southwestern willow flycatcher, the threatened 

and endangered fish of the Colorado River, peregrine falcon and other sensitive raptors. 

Castle Valley: This allotment is within the Castle Valley sole source aquifer. It is also in 

Mexican spotted owl habitat, and within crucial mule deer winter range. 

In addition, portions of the following allotments have been identified as allotments of concern: 

A portion of Arth's Pasture: This allotment is on Poison Spider Mesa, a popular recreation 

destination for bicycling and four wheel driving. In addition, there is competition for forage, 

space and water between livestock and desert bighorn sheep. In addition, the area is habitat for 

sensitive raptors and is Mexican spotted owl habitat. 

A portion of Beaver Creek (1,351 acres in the upper part of Beaver Creek canyon): The upper 

portions of Beaver Creek have riparian habitat. The watershed contains Colorado cutthroat trout 

(a sensitive species). The area is also crucial winter habitat for mule deer and/or elk, as well as 

bald eagle wintering habitat. 

A portion of the Kane Springs allotment (558 acres along the road from the Colorado River to 

SITLA land in Grand County: This area along a busy county road (175,000 vehicles per year) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.7 Livestock Grazing 

3-45 

receives heavy recreational traffic. The corridor is confined, making recreation-livestock traffic 

encounters likely. In addition, it is Mexican spotted owl critical habitat. 

A portion of the Professor Valley allotment (400 acres along Highway 128 between Hittle and 

Dewey Campgrounds: This area is a narrow strip of land between the Colorado River and Utah 

Highway 128 (which receives 300,000 vehicles per year). There are traffic issues along this 

stretch of the highway; the Utah Department of Transportation has put cattle guards along this 

portion of the highway in order to reduce livestock-vehicle collisions. In addition, the area is 

habitat for the threatened and endangered fish of the Colorado River, as well as bald eagle 

wintering, Southwestern willow flycatcher and sensitive raptor habitat. 

3.7.4 RESOURCE DEMAND

The resource demand is considered to be the amount of grazing by both domestic livestock and 

wildlife. However, for the purposes of the grazing section, the resource demand discussed will be 

limited to grazing by domestic livestock. 

• The resource demand by domestic livestock can be considered the sum total of permitted 

active use (currently 107,931 AUMs) and suspended livestock use (currently 28,896 AUMs). 

This amounts to a current total resource demand by domestic livestock of 136,827 AUMs. 

• The total AUMs of active use listed in the 1982 Analysis of Management Situation was 

112,140. This compares to the current active use of 107,931 AUMs (a 4% reduction; BLM 

1982). 

• A dramatic shift from sheep use to cattle has occurred since the 1982 Analysis of 

Management Situation was written. In 1982, the active sheep and cattle use was 49,338 

AUMs (44%) and 62,802 AUMs (56%) respectively. This compares to the current active 

sheep and cattle use of 18,466 AUMs (17%) and 87,097 AUMs (81%), respectively. 

3.8 MINERALS 

The MPA is known to have significant occurrences of mineral resources, as noted in a variety of 

studies. 

In 2000, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directed the Secretary of the Interior, 

in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, to conduct an inventory of oil and 

gas resources beneath Federal lands. The inventory was intended to 1) identify reserve estimates 

(prepared by the USGS) of oil and gas resources underlying these lands, and 2) identify the 

extent and nature of any restrictions or impediments to the development of such resources. As a 

result, in 2003 a multi-agency effort produced a "Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands' 

Oil and Gas Resource and Reserves and the Extent and Nature of Restrictions or Impediments to 

their Development." The information in this report was utilized in assessing the oil and gas 

resources within the MPA. 

In addition to the EPCA study, which is a very large-scale portrayal of oil and gas information, 

the BLM further assessed the oil and gas resources of the planning area based on more sitespecific data. These data included geologic reports, oil and gas plays, historic exploration and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-46 

development, and well records. Numerous data sources were utilized, such as the USGS, the 

Utah Geological Survey (UGS), the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM), BLM 

reports and information, and industry records. All the data used to assess the oil and gas 

resources of the planning area are compiled in the Mineral Potential Report for the MFO (BLM 

2005e). 

The Mineral Potential Report (BLM 2005e) provides an assessment of all the mineral resources 

within the MPA. It provides a description of the geology and the mineral resource, a summary of 

exploration and development, a classification of the occurrence and development potential of 

each resource, and a projection of future development. The occurrence potential of each mineral 

resource is classified using the ratings system provided in BLM Manual 3031 (BLM 1985e), as 

shown in Table 3.12. The development potential specified for each mineral resource is based on 

considerations such as mineral occurrence potential; historical development; and the commodity 

price supply, demand, and other market factors. 

Table 3.12. Ratings for Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential and Certainty 

Rating Description 

Level of Potential Ratings 

O The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the lack of mineral occurrences do 

not indicate potential for the accumulation of mineral resources. 

L The geologic environment and the inferred geologic processes indicate low potential of 

accumulation of mineral resources. 

M The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the reported mineral occurrences 

or valid geochemical/geophysical anomaly, and the known mines or deposits indicate moderate 

potential for accumulation of mineral resources. 

H The geologic environment, the inferred geologic processes, and the reported mineral occurrences 

or valid geochemical/geophysical anomaly, and the known mines or deposits indicate high potential 

for accumulation of mineral resources. The known mines and deposits do not have to be within the 

area that is being classified, but have to be within the same type of geologic environment. 

ND Mineral potential not determined due to lack of useful data. 

Level of Certainty Ratings 

A The available data are insufficient and/or cannot be considered as direct or indirect evidence to 

support or refute the possible existence of mineral resources within the respective area. 

B The available data provide indirect evidence to support or refute the possible existence of mineral 

resources. 

C The available data provide direct evidence but are quantitatively minimal to support or refute the 

possible existence of mineral resources. 

D The available data provide abundant direct and indirect evidence to support or refute the possible 

existence of mineral resources. 

3.8.1 LEASABLE MINERALS

The exploration and development of leasable minerals is accomplished in several stages of 

activity. The first stage (land categorization) involves determining which public domain lands 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-47 

should be leased and under what conditions. The second stage is leasing. The third stage includes 

exploration, development, and production operations. 

The BLM has developed four allocations (i.e., categories) to be applied to all public lands to 

indicate availability for oil and gas leasing. The first three allocations contain stipulations that 

pertain to how oil and gas activities would be conducted. The fourth allocation precludes oil and 

gas leasing altogether. These allocations also apply, where appropriate and practical, to other 

surface-disturbing activities and occupancy associated with land-use authorizations. The 

allocations are described as follows: 

• Standard Stipulations – Areas identified with Standard Stipulations are open to exploration 

and development subject to standard lease terms and conditions. 

• Timing Limitations and Controlled Surface Use (minor constraints) – Areas identified with 

these stipulations are open to exploration and development with relatively minor constraints. 

A Timing Limitation would preclude activities during specified timeframes to protect 

resource values such as wildlife species. A Controlled Surface Use stipulation would require 

proposals for oil and gas activities to be authorized according to only the controls or 

constraints specified. 

• No Surface Occupancy (major constraint) – Areas identified as No Surface Occupancy are 

open to exploration and development, but with the major constraint of precluding oil and gas 

activities that utilize the surface of the land. 

• Closed – Areas identified as Closed are not available for oil and gas leasing. 

3.8.1.1 OIL AND GAS

3.8.1.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

As described in the 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources (Gautier 

et al. 1996), the USGS has delineated oil and gas plays in the Uinta-Piceance and Paradox 

Basins, which fall within the northern one-third and southern two-thirds of the MPA, 

respectively. The 1995 assessment represents the latest delineation of oil and gas plays in the 

basins performed by the USGS (BLM 2005e). In 2003, the USGS published the results of a more 

recent assessment of the petroleum systems of the Uinta-Piceance Basin that was conducted 

pursuant to the EPCA and was based on the total petroleum system rather than the plays concept 

(USGS 2003). However, because no similar assessment has been conducted for the Paradox 

Basin, to maintain consistency in describing oil and gas resources throughout the MPA, the 1995 

data are used. 

3.8.1.1.1.1 Paradox Basin 

Three USGS plays of the Paradox Basin occur in the MPA: the Buried Fault Block Play (USGS 

Play 2101), the Fractured Interbed Play (USGS Play 2103), and the Salt Anticline Flank Play 

(USGS Play 2105). Each of these plays has producing oil and gas fields from its individual 

reservoirs in the MPA (Morgan 1993; Gautier et al. 1996; Huffman 1996a, 1996b). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-48 

The largest of the six oil and gas accumulations in Buried Fault Block Play in the MPA is the 

Lisbon field, which has produced approximately 43 million barrels of oil and 250 billion cubic 

feet of gas. 

Within the Fractured Interbed Play, the Pennsylvanian shales and mudstones, the Cane Creek 

Shale reservoirs, and other organic-rich shales in the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation like the 

Chimney Rock, Gothic, and Hovenweep Shales are targets for development (BLM 2005e). 

The Salt Anticline Flank Play occurs along the flanks of the northwest-trending salt anticlines. 

This play has been confirmed with the development of wells targeting the Honaker Trail 

Formation of the Hermosa Group at the Big Indian field and sands of the Cutler Group in 

southwestern Colorado. 

3.8.1.1.1.2 Uinta-Piceance Basin 

Three Uinta-Piceance Basin plays delineated by the USGS (Gautier et al. 1996) occur in the 

northern portion of the MPA: the Cretaceous Conventional Play (USGS Play 2003), the 

Cretaceous Dakota to Jurassic Play (USGS Play 2004), and the hypothetical Sego Coalbed 

Methane Play (USGS Play 2051; discussed in Section 3.8.1.2, Coalbed Methane). 

The Cretaceous Conventional Play includes sandstone reservoirs in the Mancos Shale and the 

Mesaverde Group strata in the northern part of the MPA (Gautier et al. 1996). 

The Cretaceous Dakota to Triassic Play has been modified from the one defined by Gautier and 

others (1996) and now includes new reservoirs defined in the 2003 USGS reassessment of the 

Uinta Basin petroleum systems (Johnson 2003). The play reservoirs have been expanded to 

include Lower Jurassic and Triassic sandstones not included in the 1995 assessment. The play 

primarily yields gas in conventional reservoirs; however, oil is also present, particularly in the 

Morrison Formation (Johnson 2003). 

3.8.1.1.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION 

The MPA has had a long history of oil and gas exploration. Records from the Utah Division of 

Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM 2004) indicate that approximately 2,027 petroleum wells have 

been drilled in the MPA from 1891 through 2004, of which 292 are currently producing, 265 are 

inactive but capable of producing, 7 are injection wells, and 1,470 are plugged and abandoned 

(some of which may have been producers at one time). This amounts to approximately 18 wells 

drilled per year for the MPA for the period between 1891 and 2004. 

However, drilling activity between 1991 and 2004 occurred at a slower rate than in the past. 

Records from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM 2004) for the period from 

1991 through 2004 indicate that drilling activity in the MPA ranged from 0 to 12 wells drilled 

per year and averaged about 5 wells per year. Breaking down the 5 wells per year by drilling 

result shows that, on average, one of those wells was an oil well, 2 were gas wells, and one was 

plugged and abandoned as a dry hole. The remaining well was split between those categories. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-49 

Recently, the number of wells drilled has increased significantly due to higher energy prices. In 

2005 there were 28 wells drilled and in 2006 there were 25 wells drilled (UDOGM). For 2007 

the number of wells drilled is projected to be about 50. 

All but one of the 34 historical and active oil and gas fields throughout the MPA are shown on 

Map 3-1, Moab Planning Area and Oil and Gas Fields. Discovered in 1925, the Greater Cisco is 

the oldest field in the MPA. A couple other fields near the Greater Cisco field were also 

discovered in 1928, but only one field was discovered from 1929 through 1954. Many of the 

larger fields in the planning area, including Lisbon field, were discovered in the 10-year period 

between 1955 and 1964, when 15 of the 34 fields in the MPA were located. Development 

activity in the MPA was minimal from 1965 through 1974, and only one new oil field was 

discovered during this period. The period from 1975 through 1984 saw modest activity, with a 

total of 6 new fields discovered. The 10-year period from 1985 through 1994 was another 

relatively active period for oil and gas in the MPA, and 11 more fields were discovered, mostly 

during the last five years. From 1995 through 2004, no new fields were discovered in the MPA, 

although some limited exploration has continued. 

Lisbon Field, which straddles the BLM Moab-Monticello planning area boundary, is the only 

large field (50 to 100 million barrels of oil and 0.5 to 1.0 tcf of gas) currently in the MPA. 

Within the MPA, the average size of an oil field would be classified as tiny (0.1 to 1.0 million 

barrels), and the average gas field would be classified as very small (0.01 to 0.10 tcf). 

Disregarding the large Lisbon field and the Greater Cisco field, which is the combination of a 

number of smaller fields, an average producing field in the MPA consists of 10 wells. The 

estimated acreage for the existing wells, roads, and pipelines is 8,500 acres, or 15 acres of 

surface disturbance per well. 

Table 3.13 presents the cumulative production data for the 34 oil and gas fields—including 20 

active fields, 10 inactive fields, and 4 abandoned fields—within the MPA (UDOGM 2004). 

These data indicate that the MPA has been a petroleum-producing region, accounting for over 

14% of the total gas and over 4% of the total oil produced in Utah. 

Oil and gas production generally has occurred in several distinct regions of the MPA; for 

convenience, these areas are referred to as the southern, northern, and central MPA. The southern 

part of the planning area covers a portion of the fold and fault belt of the Paradox Basin and 

encompasses the Salt Wash, Big Flat-Hatch Point, and Lisbon Valley areas. During the past 15 

years, a total of three wells have been drilled in the Salt Wash area, and all of these wells have 

been plugged and reclaimed (McClure, BLM, personal communication, 2003). A new 

application for a permit to drill (APD) has been filed for a well sited in Section 9 of T23S, R17E. 

The Big Flat-Hatch Point area encompasses eleven oil and gas fields that produce from 

reservoirs from both the Buried Fault Block and the Fractured Interbed Plays. Oil and gas shows 

have also been noted from the Moenkopi Formation, the Cedar Mesa Sandstone of the Cutler 

Group, the Honaker Trail Formation, the Ismay and Desert Creek zones of the Paradox 

Formation, the Pinkerton Trail Formation, and the upper section of the Elbert Formation 

(Jackson 2000). Four seismic exploration programs have also been completed in the Big FlatHatch Point area over the past 15 years (McClure, BLM, personal communication, 2003). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-50 

Petroleum production for the Lisbon Valley area comes mainly from one active (Lisbon) and two 

inactive (Big Indian [north] and Little Valley) fields tapping Buried Fault Block Play reservoirs. 

Initial completion at the Lisbon field in the Devonian McCracken Sandstone Member of the 

Elbert Formation yielded 587 barrels of oil per day (Parker 1981). Later testing in the shallower 

Mississippian Leadville Limestone resulted in the discovery of a large oil and gas accumulation, 

which has ultimately resulted in approximately 90% of the oil produced from the Lisbon field. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapt

3-51 

Table 3.13. Cumulative Oil and Gas Production in the MPA, by Field, as of December 31, 2003

Field Name 

USGS 

Play 

Number 

Field 

Type Producing Formation Status Discovery Year Active Wells Cumulative Oil Production Cumulati

Natural G

Productio

Bar X 2003 Gas Morrison Active 1948 40 1,943 45,498,4Big Flat 2101 Oil Leadville-Cane Creek Active 1955 3 843,581 790,2Big Flat West 2103 NA Paradox Inactive 1993 1 0 Big Indian (north) 2101 Gas Leadville Inactive 1961 1 194 1,995,4Big Indian (south) 2105 Gas Honaker Trail Inactive 1958 1 178,160 26,420,2Blaze Canyon 2003 Oil Navajo Inactive 1976 2 36,672 4,4Book Cliffs 2003 Gas Dakota Inactive 1957 2 0 438,4Bryson Canyon 2003/04 Gas Dakota, Mesaverde Active 1928 40 6,563 23,062,5Bushy 2003 Oil Mancos-Dakota Active 1977 2 38,528 3,5Dark Canyon 2003 Gas Dakota Active 1988 2 0 767,0Diamond Ridge 2003 Gas Dakota-Cedar Mtn Abandoned 1960 0 0 466,4East Canyon 2003 Gas Dakota-Morrison Active 1960 14 7,206 2,928,0Greater Cisco 2003 Gas Cedar Mtn Active 1925 260 1,902,111 24,564,4Hatch Point 2101 Oil Leadville Inactive 1993 1 4,607 10,7Hell Roaring 2103 Oil Paradox Active 1992 1 536,743 497,6Kane Creek 2103 Gas Paradox Abandoned 1925 0 1,887 25,0Left Hand Canyon 2003 Oil Entrada Active 1972 2 96,640 557,8Lion Mesa 2103 Oil Ismay Inactive 1984 3 1,624 Lisbon* 2101 Gas Leadville-McCracken Active 1961 23 51,076,593 761,560,1Little Valley 2101 Gas Leadville Inactive 1959 1 137,848 17,311,9Long Canyon 2103 Oil Paradox Active 1962 1 1,114,079 1,164,9Mancos Flat 2003 Oil Mancos Inactive 1981 1 16,733 Middle Canyon 2003 Gas Dakota Active 1988 3 247 1,512,0Park Road 2103 Oil Paradox Active 1991 1 301,233 288,6
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapt

3-52 

Table 3.13. Cumulative Oil and Gas Production in the MPA, by Field, as of December 31, 2003

Field Name 

USGS 

Play 

Number 

Field 

Type Producing Formation Status Discovery Year Active Wells Cumulative Oil Production Cumulati

Natural G

Productio

Pear Park 2003 Gas Dakota-Cedar Mtn Active 1963 1 0 325,6Salt Wash 2101 Oil Leadville Active 1961 8 1,555,787 11,746,4San Arroyo 2003 Gas Dakota Active 1962 103 181,351 151,472,6Shafer Canyon 2103 Oil Paradox Abandoned 1963 0 67,554 63,8South Pine Ridge 2105 Gas Hernosa Group? Active 1981 1 7,194 682,3Stateline 2003 Gas Dakota Active 1928 16 10,472 12,887,3Ten Mile 2103 Oil Paradox Inactive 1990 1 962 Westwater 2003/04 Gas Dakota, Mesaverde Active 1957 27 617,478 36,300,0Wilson Canyon 2103 Gas Paradox Active 1955 2 111,248 1,954,7Winter Camp 2003 Gas Dakota Abandoned 1982 0 0 13,6TOTALS 564 58,855,238 1,125,314,8Source: Modified from Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (2004), oil and water production in barrels, gas production in million cubic feet (mcf). *Partially located in the Monticello Planning Area to the south. Notes: The Gold Bar field was abandoned so long ago that its production is not reflected in recent UDOGM production books or in this table. This table aproduction from one small, unnamed Wildcat oil field, which is included with all other fields named Wildcat in UDOGM records.
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-53

Minor production has also been recorded for Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation reservoirs of the 

Fractured Interbed Play at the Wilson Canyon field, as well as from Pennsylvanian Honaker 

Trail Formation reservoirs of the Salt Anticline Flank Play at the Pine Ridge South and Big 

Indian (south) fields (see Table 3.13). Four seismic exploration programs were completed in the 

Lisbon Valley area over the past 15 years, and four new wells were drilled but eventually 

abandoned as dry holes without production (McClure, BLM, personal communication, 2003). 

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and helium have also been produced from the Lisbon field from 

McCracken and Leadville reservoirs (Eric Jones, BLM – MFO, personal communication, July 

2003). 

The northern part of the MPA, within the Uinta Basin region, encompasses the Greater Cisco, 

Book Cliffs, and Roan Cliffs areas, which produce predominantly gas but some oil from various 

Jurassic through Cretaceous-age reservoirs of the Dakota-Triassic and Cretaceous Conventional 

Plays. The Greater Cisco area/field consists of a number of individual fields. Within the Book 

Cliffs area, 15 oil and gas fields produce primarily from the Dakota Sandstone, or various 

combinations of that reservoir with reservoirs in the Mancos Shale, Cedar Mountain Formation, 

Morrison Formation, or the Entrada Sandstone. Recent successful gas completions in these 

deeper reservoirs of the Cretaceous Dakota to Jurassic Play on Uintah and Ouray Indian 

Reservation lands north of the MPA have stimulated new interest in the potential of this play 

(Eckels et al. 2005), and gas potential may also exist in the Cretaceous Conventional Play in the 

northwestern portion of the Book Cliffs area. 

The central part of the MPA encompasses the Eastern Paradox area, which has seen limited 

exploration and development activity. Only two fields were producing in this area as of the end 

of 2003 (UDOGM 2004). One of these is the Blaze Canyon oil field; the other is a wildcat that 

produced 198 barrels of oil before being shut-in (UDOGM 2004). 

3.8.1.1.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

The three plays in the southern Paradox Basin portion of the MPA (the Buried Fault Block Play, 

the Fractured Interbed Play, and the Salt Flank Anticline Play) cover the same area and are rated 

as having high (H) occurrence potential for oil and gas resources with a certainty level of D. 

There is a low (L) potential with a C level of certainty for oil and gas occurrence within the 

Uncompahgre Uplift area and the area around the La Sal Mountains. The Dakota-Triassic Play 

and the Cretaceous Conventional Play, in the northern Uinta Basin portion of the MPA, have 

been rated as having an H occurrence potential with a D level of certainty. 

Based on analysis of various factors, most of the area within the five conventional oil and gas 

plays in the MPA have been rated as H for oil and gas development potential and development is 

likely to occur in these areas over the next 15 years. Areas with a L geologic development 

potential for oil and gas are the Uncompahgre Uplift and the La Sal Mountains. Other areas in 

the MPA given an L development potential are those areas administratively closed to mineral 

leasing and disposal, such as WSAs (Map 3-2, Moab Planning Area Composite Oil and Gas 

Development Potential). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-54

3.8.1.2 COALBED METHANE

3.8.1.2.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The Uinta Basin Sego Coalbed Methane Play (USGS Play 2051, Gautier et al. 1996) 

encompasses the Sego coal field in the northern portion of the MPA (Map 3-3, Moab Planning 

Area Coalbed Methane-Development Potential); it is a hypothetical play, since there has been no 

production from these coals to-date. The play is mostly untested. 

The gas content of the Nelsen-Formation coal beds in the Sego coal field is estimated by the 

UGS to range from 50 to 300 standard cubic feet per ton (scf/ton). Figuring that 100,000 acres of 

the northern portion of the MPA are underlain by Neslen Formation coal from 1,000 to 5,000 

feet deep, and that the average net coal thickness for this area is 12.5 feet, the total coal resource 

would be 2.25 billion tons (1,800 tons per acre-foot). Using the gas content range listed above, 

the Neslen coals could contain a coalbed methane resource ranging from 0.11 to 0.68 tcf of gas 

in place in the MPA portion of the Sego Coalbed Methane Play. The USGS (Gautier et al. 1996) 

also provided coalbed gas data for the Sego Play (BLM 2005e) and estimated that ultimate 

recoverable gas reserves would range from 0.08 to 0.60 tcf, or very similar to the UGS estimate. 

However, it is important to note that gas in place is not the same as recoverable gas reserves. 

Cumulative data from the UGS and Doelling (1972a, 1979), indicate that coals of the Nelsen 

Formation at depths of less than 1,000 feet are only moderately gassy. Examination of the coal 

quality of the near-surface samples (UGS unpublished data) shows that the coals could hold 280–

380 cubic feet of gas per ton and, thus, are undersaturated near the surface. More saturated 

reserves are anticipated between 1,000 and 5,000 feet. 

3.8.1.2.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION 

Only a few coalbed methane wells have been drilled in the Uinta Basin Sego Coalbed Methane 

Play through 2004. There have been no wells specifically drilled to test the coalbed gas potential 

of the MPA to date. Data suggest that coal beds fully saturated with gas (and attractive for 

development) may exist between 1,000 and 5,000 feet. Some of the Neslen coal deposits 

prospective for coalbed methane development also occur in an area of existing oil and gas 

development, which provides nearby pipeline infrastructure to transport any coalbed gas found. 

CDX Rockies, LLC, a small independent petroleum company, has conducted recent coal coring 

and desorption tests in Uintah County to the north of the MPA. Although methane content data 

has not been released, the test results are reported to be encouraging (BLM 2005e). 

3.8.1.2.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

The hypothetical Uinta Basin Sego Coalbed Methane Play has been subdivided into various 

levels of occurrence potential. The occurrence potential for coalbed methane is high (H) with a 

rating of C for certainty in the Neslen Formation of the Sego coal field where the net coal in the 

formation is more than 8 feet thick, moderate (M) with a C certainty rating where the net coal is 

4-8 feet thick, and low (L) with a C certainty rating where the coal is less than 4 feet thick. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-55

The development potential for coalbed methane of the northeastern portion of the Sego coal 

field, outside the WSAs, is ranked as H because there are thick coal deposits present and existing 

oil and gas infrastructure present. Development is likely to occur in these areas over the next 15 

years. Low (L) development potential is assigned to the portion of the Sego coal field covered by 

thin coal and WSAs, and to the La Sal coal field. A development potential of M was assigned to 

areas outside the WSAs with only 4–8 feet of net coal in the Neslen Formation, or small areas 

between the WSAs that had thicker coal (Map 3-3, Moab Planning Area Coalbed MethaneDevelopment Potential). 

3.8.1.3 COAL

3.8.1.3.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Along the Book Cliffs to the east of the Green River, in what is known as the Sego coal field, 

coal beds in the Upper Cretaceous Neslen Formation of the Mesaverde Group are exposed along 

the cliffs. These coal beds generally extend at least ten miles and dip into the subsurface of the 

Uinta Basin, and their quality is relatively good compared to the coals in the Book Cliffs and 

Wasatch Plateau fields of central Utah. Four coal zones have been identified in the Neslen 

Formation in this area: the Palisade, Ballard, Chesterfield, and Carbonera coal zones, in 

ascending stratigraphic order (Doelling 1972a). The thickest and most extensive coal beds occur 

in the Carbonera zone in the far northeastern part of the MPA. 

In 1978, the BLM and USGS collaborated to designate the Thompson Known Recoverable Coal 

Resource Area (KRCRA), which consists of about 41,325 acres of the Sego coal field located in 

parts of T20S, R19E, R20E, and R21E, and T21S, R19E and R20E. More recent analysis by the 

UGS of oil and gas well logs penetrating the Neslen Formation indicates that the Thompson 

KRCRA only covers the southwestern one-third of the actual recoverable coal-bearing lands of 

the Sego coal field within the MPA. Doelling (1972a) estimated that there are 294 million short 

tons of coal in the Sego field, but his resource estimate is mainly limited to the coal in the 

Thompson KRCRA and only includes about 8 million tons of hypothetical coal resources along 

the Book Cliffs in the northeast MPA. Notably, some of the most attractive coal deposits in the 

Sego coal field are located outside the established KRCRA in the northeast portion of the MPA 

where there is active oil and gas development. 

The La Sal coal field occurs in the southeast portion of the MPA. Here, the coal is thin and high 

in ash and sulfur content and, thus, not as attractive for mining (Doelling 1972b; Gloyn et al. 

1995). A KRCRA has not been defined for this coal field (Doelling 1972b). 

3.8.1.3.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION 

There has been limited production in the Sego coal field in the MPA occurring since 1898 

(Doelling 1972a). Almost 2.7 million tons of coal have been produced from this field, primarily 

between 1912 and 1954, and primarily from one mine. The remaining small mines have 

produced only minor amounts of coal, primarily for ranch use (Doelling et al. 1979). There are 

no currently active coal mines in the MPA, but the relatively low sulfur and ash contents of the 

coal and the close proximity of the Sego field to roads and railroads make the coal here attractive 

for mining at some time in the future. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-56

3.8.1.3.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

The area where the Cretaceous Mesaverde Group is exposed in the Sego coal field has been rated 

as high (H) for coal occurrence potential with D rating for certainty. The Dakota Sandstone La 

Sal coal field is also rated H for occurrence potential with a certainty rating of D. Because of the 

presence of WSAs and potential conflicts with existing oil and gas developments, the coal 

deposits of the MPA are rated as having low (L) development potential. The La Sal coal field is 

rated as having L development potential due to the thin beds and poor quality of its coal deposits. 

Development is not anticipated in the Sego and La Sal coal fields over the next 15 years (Map 3-

4, Moab Planning Area Coal Deposit-Development Potential). 

3.8.1.4 POTASH AND SALT

3.8.1.4.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Within the Paradox Basin portion of the MPA, potash (potassium-bearing) deposits, comprising 

primarily salt, sylvite, and carnallite, are hosted by the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation. Saline 

potash mineralization is limited to an area totaling approximately 2,800 square miles (Dames & 

Moore 1978) in the northeastern half of the basin. Both sylvite and carnallite occur in varying 

proportions throughout most potash deposits, but sylvite is dominant in those horizons under 

economic consideration (Hite 1960; Dames & Moore 1978; Gloyn et al. 1995). Using a cutoff 

grade of 14% K2O, Patterson (1989) estimates that known resources of K2O potash contain 254 

million tons, while inferred resources are estimated at 161 million tons. The recovery of salt in 

the MPA is exclusively a by-product of potash solution mining. Salt by itself is not considered 

economic to mine in the MPA because abundant, less expensive sources are available elsewhere. 

Most of the interest in potash and salt deposits in the Paradox Basin has been concentrated in the 

fold and fault belt, where continuous potash beds are relatively close to the surface. The only 

commercial production of potash and by-product salt in the Paradox Basin (Moab Salt Company) 

has occurred on the Cane Creek anticline. However, other potentially valuable deposits are 

known to occur in the MPA. These include the Lisbon Valley area, the Seven Mile area, and the 

Ten Mile area. In 1960, the U.S. Geological Survey classified the Lisbon Valley area, the Seven 

Mile area, and the Cane Creek area as Known Potash Leasing Areas (KPLAs), or areas where 

potentially valuable deposits of potash are known to exist. There also appears to be sufficient 

resource data to define the Ten Mile area as a KPLA (BLM 2005e; Map 2-6, Known Potash 

Leasing Areas). 

3.8.1.4.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION 

Potash deposits in the Paradox Basin were initially discovered during the exploration for oil and 

gas between 1924 and 1944. Based on these initial discoveries, further potash exploration 

concentrated in Cane Creek, Seven Mile, and Lisbon Valley and contributed to the classification 

of these KPLAs in 1960 (Hite 1960). In the 1960s, underground mining operations were planned 

in the Lisbon Valley KPLA, but they were never fully developed due to technological and 

logistical complications (Merrell 1979). Leases within the Seven Mile KPLA have also occurred 

since designation of the area as a KPLA (Merrell 1979). There are currently 13 prospecting 

permit applications in the MPA. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-57

Two companies in particular have shown and continue to show some interest in the potash 

deposits of the MPA. 

Buttes Resources drilled seven exploratory holes for potash deposits in the Ten Mile area in 

1978. In 1984, they expressed interest in developing the area via solution mining based on the 

1978 exploration, but the project was abandoned (BLM 2005e). The company then acquired 4 

inactive preference right leases and 13 prospecting permit applications for potash in the Ten Mile 

area. Buttes Resources has recently transferred its holdings in the leases and permit applications 

to Reunion Resources, which has expressed some interest in conducting a modest amount of 

exploration and possibly a pilot test plant for solution mining in this area in the unspecified 

future (Denice Swanke, BLM – MFO, personal communication 2005). 

Moab Salt LLC's Cane Creek Mine, in the Cane Creek KLPA, is and has been the sole producer 

of potash and salt in the Paradox Basin since 1964. This solution mining operation is located on 

both private and state lands on the crest of the Cane Creek anticline. Almost all production has 

been from a zone of Salt Cycle #5 of the Paradox Formation. Production in 2000 was 

approximately 60,000 tons of potash per year, with a by-product of 210,000 tons of halite per 

year (BLM 2005e). 

3.8.1.4.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

The three KPLAs (Lisbon Valley area, the Seven Mile area, and the Cane Creek area) and the 

Tenmile area have been classified as high (H) for occurrence potential for potash and salt with a 

D level of certainty. Development is likely to occur in the Tenmile area within the next 15 years. 

One area around the La Sal Mountains igneous intrusive has been rated as having low (L) potash 

and salt occurrence potential, with a C level of certainty. The remainder of the Paradox Basin 

area has been rated as moderate (M) potash and salt occurrence potential with a C level of 

certainty (Map 3-5, Moab Planning Area Potash and Salt Deposit-Development Potential). 

3.8.2 LOCATABLE MINERALS

Locatable minerals comprise the base and precious metal ores, ferrous metal ores, and certain 

classes of industrial minerals. Developers of these minerals stake a mining claim (location) over 

the deposit and then acquire the necessary permits to explore or mine. Operations for locatable 

minerals are not allowed in areas expressly identified as not available by law (e.g., wilderness 

areas) or in areas withdrawn from these operations. 

3.8.2.1 URANIUM-VANADIUM

3.8.2.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

An important locatable commodity in the MPA is sediment-hosted uranium. It is usually found 

intimately associated with vanadium, and sometimes copper, because of these elements' mutual 

chemical affinities. Uranium-vanadium deposits in the MPA are generally found in the Moss 

Back Member of the Triassic Chinle Formation and the Salt Wash Member of the Jurassic 

Morrison Formation. Deposits in the Salt Wash Member are generally larger reserves, higher 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-58

grades, and more closely clustered (Johnson and Thordarson 1959; Chenoweth 1981, 1996). 

Although the Chinle and Morrison Formations are predominantly composed of shale (lowenergy muds), it is the sandstone and conglomerate units (high-energy fluvial channel deposits) 

in each that host the uranium-vanadium mineralization. In addition to these Mesozoic deposits, 

the late Paleozoic Cedar Mesa Sandstone of the Permian Cutler Group contains some minor 

uranium-vanadium deposits (a result of an unconformity with the Chinle Formation), and some 

of these have had historical mining production in the MPA. 

3.8.2.1.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION 

Due to the recent rise in uranium prices, there is currently an increased amount of interest in 

uranium exploration in the MPA. Regionally, an estimated 4.2 million tons of ore reserves 

remain in the Four Corners region. Approximately 57% of these reserves are hosted in the 

Morrison, 39% in the Chinle Formation, and 4% in the Cutler Group (Johnson and Thordarson 

1959; Gloyn et al. 1995). 

Although uranium deposits in the MPA had been mined for over 90 years, first for their radium 

content and then for their vanadium co-product, it was the "Uranium Boom" beginning in the late 

1940s that lead to large-scale extraction of mineral in the early 1950s (Chenoweth 1996). 

Exploration drilling was still being conducted as late as the 1970s to decipher the configuration 

of existing deposits and delineate new discoveries. However, a national and international trend of 

declining uranium and vanadium demand and prices and economics brought on by socio-political 

factors, international oversupply, and competition from lower cost producers began in the 1980s 

(Chenoweth 1996; BLM 2005e). The MPA's last mines and mills closed in 1990. 

Historical uranium mining has been conducted over much of the southern half of the MPA. 

Mines developed in the Chinle Formation produced 92% of the ore between the early 1950s and 

the mid 1960s. However, by the mid 1970s, production from the Morrison Formation overtook 

and slightly exceeded that of the Chinle ($500 million vs. $600 million, respectively). Table 3.14 

lists the 7 mining districts and 18 mining areas in the MPA and the uranium host deposits for 

each. Map 3-6, Moab Planning Area Uranium/Vanadium Deposit-Development Potential depicts 

these mining districts and mining areas. Table 3.15 provides a summary of historical mining 

production in the MPA. 

Table 3.14. Historical Locations and Hosts of Uranium and Vanadium Deposits in the 

MPA, by Mining District 

Mining District (Mining Areas) 

Salt Wash 

Member/ 

Morrison 

Formation

Moss Back 

Member/ 

Chinle 

Formation

Permian 

Cutler 

Group 

Other 

Gateway (Buckhorn Mesa-Scharf 

Mesa, Polar Mesa-Beaver Mesa)

Major Minor Brushy Basin Member/ 

Morrison Formation 

(Minor) 

Inter-river (Mineral Canyon, 

Inter-river, Seven Mile Canyon)

 Major Minor Moenkopi Formation 

(Minor) 

La Sal (La Sal, La Sal Creek) Only 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-59

Table 3.14. Historical Locations and Hosts of Uranium and Vanadium Deposits in the 

MPA, by Mining District 

Mining District (Mining Areas) 

Salt Wash 

Member/ 

Morrison 

Formation

Moss Back 

Member/ 

Chinle 

Formation

Permian 

Cutler 

Group 

Other 

Lisbon Valley* Major Minor "lower member"/Chinle 

Formation (Major) 

Moab East (Browns Hole, 

Brumley Ridge, Upper Cane 

Creek, Wilson Mesa)

Only 

Moab West (Indian Creek, 

Lockhart Canyon, Lower Cane 

Creek)

Major Minor 

Thompson (Dewey, Klondike 

Ridge-Courthouse Wash, Ten 

Mile Canyon, Yellow Cat)

Only 

Sources: Merrell 1979; Chenoweth 1996; Sprinkel 1999; Gloyn, unpublished report 2004. 

* Also known as Big Indian Wash mining area (Gloyn et al. 1995). 

Table 3.15. Historical Uranium Grade and Production in the MPA, by Mining District1 

Mining District Number of Properties Average Ore Grade 

(% U3O8/% V2O5) 

Aggregate Production 

(million tons) 

Gateway Unknown 0.32 / 1.28 0.21 

Inter-river2 31 0.30 / 1.20 0.49 

La Sal 17 0.22 / 1.06 1.24 

Lisbon Valley3 57 0.30 / 0.34 17.78 

Moab East 5+ 0.28 / 1.52 0.10 

Moab West 18 0.20 / 0.10 0.07 

Thompson4 93 0.20 / 1.13 0.14 

Notes: 

1. All information from Chenoweth (1996), unless otherwise noted. 

2. Elevatorski 1978; BLM files and records. 

3. Also known as Big Indian Wash mining area (Gloyn et al. 1995). 

4. Chenoweth 1989. 

3.8.2.1.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

Areas of historical uranium and vanadium mining are rated as having high (H) occurrence 

potential with a D for certainty. Outside these known mining areas, the areal extent of the 

Jurassic Morrison and Triassic Chinle Formations has been classified as having a moderate (M) 

occurrence potential with a C for certainty. Where mineralization in the Cutler has occurred in 

Lisbon Valley mining area, uranium and vanadium has a low (L) occurrence potential; 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-60

otherwise, mineralization in the Cutler is not expected. Two past mining areas, the La Sal and 

Lisbon Valley areas, are rated as H for development potential because they are established land 

holdings with significant minable reserves of uranium and vanadium and because the recent 

upsurge in prices makes future development in those areas likely (BLM 2005f). The remaining 

mining areas, including the Paradox Basin, have been rated as M for development potential, and 

the host formations outside past mining areas have been rated as L for development potential 

(Map 3-6, Moab Planning Area Uranium/Vanadium Deposit-Development Potential). 

3.8.2.2 COPPER

3.8.2.2.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

For convenience, copper deposits are divided into two types in this section: manto-hosted and 

redbed-hosted. Manto deposits are generally fault zone-hosted veins and strata-bound, 

mineralized layers. As their name suggests, redbed copper deposits form in red host rocks, which 

get their color (essentially rust) from the oxidation of the rock's exposure to the atmosphere. 

Redbed mineralization can be either volcanic or sedimentary. Sedimentary-hosted deposits, 

which form in fluvial (river) environments, are the type found in the MPA. Sedimentary redbed 

deposits are relatively small in comparison to the volcanic redbed deposits and manto-hosted 

deposits, and few are ever brought into production. 

Starting in the late 1960s, a series of drilling programs in the Lisbon Valley area culminated in 

the delineation of several, commercial-sized, sandstone fault and manto-hosted copper deposits 

in the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone and Burro Canyon Formation. As described by Gloyn and 

others (1995) and Hahn and Thorson (2002), the three deposits are the Centennial, Sentinel, and 

GTO ore bodies which, combined, contain 46.5 million tons of ore grading 0.43% copper 

(Roberts & Schaefer 1996). There may be potential for smaller sandstone-hosted copper deposits 

and/or copper with less mineralization in two additional stratigraphic intervals: the Entrada 

Sandstone-Navajo Sandstone, and the Wingate Sandstone (BLM 2005e). 

Within the MPA, redbed copper is associated with uranium found primarily in the Triassic 

Chinle Formation, and with other deposits found in the Jurassic Morrison Formation and the 

Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group (McFaul et al. 2000). Similar, low-grade copper/uranium 

associations can be found in the Inter-river, Lower Cane Creek, and Lisbon Valley mining areas. 

The greatest potential for economically viable development of redbed copper appears to be in the 

northwest part of the Klondike Ridge-Courthouse Wash area on the southwest flank of the Salt 

Valley anticline, where mineralization is found in the upper sandstones of the Salt Wash Member 

and, to some degree, the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation (Doelling 

et al. 1988). 

3.8.2.2.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

Copper development in the MPA began in the 1890s with the production of high-grade copperoxide ores, primarily from the Big Indian and Blackbird Mines in the Lisbon Valley area (Hahn 

and Thorson 2002), which are responsible for the bulk of the copper that has been produced in 

the MPA. Approximately 155,000 tons of ore, with an average grade of 1.5% copper, were 

extracted from these mining operations up through 1960 (Gloyn et al. 1995). Numerous other 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-61

exploration programs from the 1960s through 1995 resulted in the delineation of commercial 

copper reserves in the Lisbon Valley area (BLM 2005e). Most redbed-hosted copper occurrences 

in the MPA are too small and low-grade to be commercially mined, except for the copper 

occurrences in the Morrison Formation on the southwest flank of the Salt Valley anticline. 

Dane (1935) also reports several small mines and an old mill in Mill Canyon along the 

Sevenmile fault, where the Moab Tongue of the Entrada Formation mineralizes. An unreported 

but large tonnage of low-grade copper has been drilled out in this area (Merrell 1979). 

A new copper-mining operation is being conducted in the MPA. The Summo Corporation, in a 

project referred to as the Lisbon Valley Copper Project, prepared to remove ore from the 

Centennial, Sentinel, and GTO deposits near the southeast end of the Lisbon Valley anticline 

beginning in 1997. There have been several delays in the development of the mine-mill complex, 

but presently, full production at the mine began in 2006 (Constellation Copper 2006). The 

Constellation Copper Corporation (formerly Summo Corporation), through its wholly owned 

subsidiary, Lisbon Valley Mining Company, currently controls the property, which is located 

primarily on Federal lands but also on state and private lands. A total of 1,103 acres will be 

disturbed by the development of facilities and production (BLM 1997b). 

• Phil Gramlich submitted a drilling proposal to the BLM in November 2004 to drill on the 

Charlie #2 claim in the Salt Valley anticline area. The purpose of the proposal was to 

delineate an ore body in the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation identified 20 

years ago. This drilling was conducted, but indications are that the results were not favorable 

(Brent Northrup, BLM, personal communication 2005). 

3.8.2.2.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

The sites of manto-hosted copper in the Burro Canyon Formation and Dakota Sandstone along 

the Lisbon fault in the Lisbon Valley area have been classified as high (H) for occurrence 

potential with a high (D) degree of certainty because of the known deposits of the Centennial, 

Sentinel, and GTO ore bodies. These ore bodies, as well as the Constellation Copper's Lisbon 

Valley mine and the Dakota-Burro Canyon-Cedar Mountain trend along the northern flank of the 

Lisbon Valley anticline, are rated H for development potential. Outside these known sites, the 

Burro Canyon and Dakota Sandstone hosts are rated moderate (M) for occurrence potential with 

a C level of certainty. Based on available information, there is a high (H) occurrence potential 

with a high degree (D) of certainty of redbed copper deposits in the Chinle Formation in the 

Inter-river and Cane Creek uranium areas; the Morrison Formation in the Moab and Klondike 

Wash-Courthouse Wash areas; and the Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group and Morrison Formation 

in the Lisbon Valley area. Other than the Morrison Formation of the Klondike Wash-Courthouse 

Wash area, which is rated H for development potential, the remaining redbed copper-uranium 

deposits of the MPA are rated low (L) for development potential (Map 3-7, Moab Planning Area 

Copper Deposit-Development Potential). 

The Lisbon Valley Copper Project, involving the Centennial, Sentinel, and GTO copper deposits, 

has been approved, initial operations have commenced, and copper production began in early 

2006. The project includes development of three open pits to access copper ore, three waste 

dumps, crushing facilities, a pad to leach the ore (266 acre), a processing plan and ponds to 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-62

recover the ore, construction of a 10.8-mile power line to the project site, and associated support 

facilities. The total disturbance area would be 1103 acres over a 10-year period, with reclamation 

taking an additional 5 years to complete. Additional drilling is occurring about 4 miles southeast 

of the Lisbon Valley Project in the Flying Diamond target area involving about 5 acres of 

disturbance. 

3.8.2.3 PLACER GOLD

3.8.2.3.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Placer gold in the MPA occurs primarily along the Colorado River, from the mouth of the 

Dolores River downstream to Moab, and at a few other places along these two rivers. The gold 

occurs in alluvial bars and has been found in high-level terraces as much as 200 feet above the 

present Colorado River. It is commonly distributed uniformly throughout the gravels rather than 

concentrated along the bedrock contact, but it may occur in slightly higher concentrations on the 

upstream end of bars and higher terraces (Butler et al. 1920; Chatman 1987). A secondary set of 

gold placers occurs west and north of the La Sal Mountains, at Miners Basin, Placer Creek, and 

Wilson and Bald Mesas, in glacial deposits up to 50 feet thick (Johnson 1973). Because of the 

gold's derivation, the most highly weathered glacial gravels in these areas offer the highest 

concentrations of gold (Johnson 1973). Pre-Wisconsin glacial gravels on Wilson and Bald Mesas 

exhibit the higher concentrations of placer gold (Johnson 1973; Merrell 1979; Shubat et al. 

1991), and operations on Wilson Mesa have been among the most productive. 

3.8.2.3.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

Due to the fine flaky mode of the gold (flakes less than 0.1 mm, average; Butler et al. 1920) and 

the difficulty in recovering it, most operations have not been commercially successful (Butler et 

al. 1920; UGMS 1966; Johnson 1973; Chatman 1987). The gold grades of historical placer 

operations range from 0.03 to 0.05 ounces per cubic yard (Gloyn et al. 1995). After over 100 

years of effort, only about 1,500 ounces of gold has been produced from gravels of the Colorado 

River and other streams in Grand County (Johnson 1973; Shubat et al. 1991). 

Placer gold was worked almost continuously along the Colorado and Dolores Rivers, as well as 

in the Miners Basin/Wilson and Bald Mesas area, from the late 1800s until 1942, but only 

sporadically thereafter (Johnson 1973; Merrell 1979). Since 1998, activity has essentially ceased 

in the MPA. 

3.8.2.3.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

Within the MPA, the alluvial deposits along the Colorado and Dolores Rivers and the glacial 

deposits in the La Sal Mountains, where placer gold has been produced at some locations, are 

classified as having high (H) gold occurrence potential, with a D certainty level. However, the 

development potential for placer gold at these locations is rated as low (L), partially because of 

the low economic potential (Butler et al. 1920; UGMS 1966; Johnson 1973; Chatman 1987), and 

partially because of the Secretary of the Interior's recent Three Rivers withdrawal (September 

2004) of lands covering the river drainages that prevent the location of new mining claims along 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-63

the affected river corridors for the next 50 years (BLM 2005f; see also Chapter 2 regarding 

withdrawals). Development of the placer gold contained in the alluvial deposits along the 

Colorado and Dolores Rivers is considered unlikely in the next 15 years. 

3.8.2.4 LIMESTONE

3.8.2.4.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

High-calcium limestone is rare in the MPA because exposures of Paleozoic carbonate units are 

limited. Limestone exploration and production has been limited to the southern portion of the 

mining area, along the southwest flank of the Lisbon Valley anticline. Here, the Pennsylvanian 

Honaker Trail Formation of the Hermosa Group, which contains limited amounts of relatively 

high-quality limestone (Gloyn et al. 1995), crops out as a 12- to 15-foot-thick limestone bed. 

This good-quality, readily minable deposit has about 6 million tons of reserves on state land and 

an additional 3 million tons on adjacent Federal land (Reed 1996). 

3.8.2.4.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

High-calcium limestone (95% calcium carbonate, or CaCO3) has been produced at Cotter 

Corporation's Lisbon Valley quarry (Papoose Mine; Reed 1996), located on state land at the 

north end of Lisbon Valley. Between 1994 and 2003, this operation produced approximately 

550,000 tons of limestone (UDOGM 2004). One other, small, permitted but inactive limestone 

quarry occurs in the Lisbon Valley area. Records from UDOGM (2004) for the Lilim Claims 

quarry list Chris Shumway as the operator. 

3.8.2.4.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

The identified Honaker Trail limestone deposits in the Lisbon Valley area of the MPA have been 

rated as having high (H) occurrence potential with a D level of certainty. Elsewhere in the MPA, 

the Honaker Trail Formation limestone exposures are characterized as having moderate (M) 

occurrence potential with a C level of certainty. The development potential for the Lisbon Valley 

limestone deposits in the MPA is rated as H. All other areas of Honaker Trail exposures in the 

MPA are rated as having M development potential (Map 3-8, Moab Planning Area Limestone 

Deposit-Development Potential). 

Limestone production is projected to continue at Cotter Corporation's Lisbon Valley quarry, 

which is located on state land. Based on the size of the existing reserves and current production 

rates, any future exploration and development of limestone in the MPA is anticipated to remain 

on state land in this area for the next 15 years. Therefore, no development of limestone is 

expected on Federal lands in the MPA over the next 15 years. 

3.8.3 SALABLE MINERALS

Salable minerals are commodities disposed of via sales or free use (government agencies and 

municipalities) by the Federal government and generally comprise common varieties of 

construction materials and aggregates. The BLM will not dispose of salable minerals in areas not 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-64

available by law (e.g., wilderness areas) or in areas identified in land-use plans as not appropriate 

for disposal. Current management of salable minerals allows their disposal on 7,750 acres within 

the MPA, and there are currently 12 community pits totaling about 2,693 acres within the MPA. 

3.8.3.1 SAND AND GRAVEL

3.8.3.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Sand and gravel development is largely driven by the need to find suitable material for public 

works projects, including local and state road projects and community development. Sand and 

gravel operations are widely dispersed across the MPA—and Utah—to facilitate distribution of 

the materials and keep the costs to consumers low. They are commonly found near population 

centers and aligned along roadways. 

Sand and gravel deposits in the MPA consist of unconsolidated Quaternary sediments. Important 

sand and gravel deposits occur along the major river courses—the Colorado, Dolores, and Green 

Rivers—as alluvial bars and terraces. The rock fragments in these deposits are especially hard, 

which makes them suitable for most uses, including concrete aggregate. Other important and 

widely used sand and gravel deposits surround the La Sal Mountains and occur as pediments and 

alluvial fill and fans. Less important and lower-quality sand and gravel can be found in the eolian 

sands derived from the Entrada Sandstone and the Glen Canyon Group; alluvium (not derived 

from the La Sal Mountains) along tributaries to the major rivers; and glacial moraines. 

3.8.3.1.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

In the MPA, most past production has occurred in close proximity to existing roads. The BLM 

has granted 57 sand/gravel authorizations within the MPA since 1989, and since 1982, 

approximately 200,000 cubic yards of sand/gravel have been produced from BLM-authorized 

areas in the MPA (BLM 2005e). The main producers are the Utah Department of Transportation 

and the Grand County Highway Department. 

3.8.3.1.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

Sand and gravel deposits are associated with Quaternary sediments. All these deposits are rated 

as high (H) for occurrence potential, with a C level of certainty; the specific, known sand and 

gravel sites are elevated to D level of certainty for occurrence potential. Those sand and gravel 

deposits that lie within three miles of existing roads have been rated as having an H development 

potential; the areas within the WSAs have been rated as having low (L) development potential, 

and the remaining areas have been rated moderate (M) development potential. Development of 

sand and gravel deposits is anticipated to occur over the next 15 years in the areas rated as high 

development potential (Map 3-9, Moab Planning Area Sand and Gravel Deposit-Development 

Potential). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-65

3.8.3.2 BUILDING STONE

3.8.3.2.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Sandstone appropriate for use as a high-quality building stone can be found in the Triassic 

Moenkopi and Chinle Formations and the Jurassic Kayenta and Morrison Formations (Merrell 

1979; Atwood and Doelling 1982; BLM 2005e). The Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone may also be 

a source of building stone in the MPA, as it is south of the MPA, near Blanding, Utah. The 

Kayenta Formation, which naturally fractures into useable-sized blocks, appears to be the most 

favorable source in the MPA for building stone. 

3.8.3.2.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

Approximately 700 tons of building stone have been produced from reported BLM-authorized 

activities in the MPA since 1982 (BLM 2005e; Denice Swanke, BLM – MFO, personal 

communication June 2003). The four main host formations (i.e., the Moenkopi, Chinle, Kayenta, 

and Morrison Formations) each contributed to the total yield of building stone during this period. 

Most disposal of building stone in the MPA consists of small sales (5 tons or less) to individuals 

in the local area for personal use; 106 small sales of building stone occurred between 1989 and 

2004 (BLM 2005e). No permits for any large-scale building stone operations have been 

authorized in the recent past. 

3.8.3.2.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

Known sites of building stone production in the MPA are rated as high (H) for occurrence 

potential with a D level for certainty. Elsewhere in the MPA, the exposed outcrop areas for the 

formations mentioned above have been classified as moderate (M) for building stone occurrence 

potential and with a C level of certainty. Development potential is rated as H for the known 

building stone sites in the MPA and is rated as M elsewhere where favorable formations for 

building stone occur. Within the existing WSAs, which have been administratively withdrawn, 

the development potential is rated as low (L). Development of building stone is likely to occur 

over the next 15 years in the areas rated as high development potential (Map 3-10, Building 

Stone Deposit-Development Potential). 

3.8.3.3 TRAVERTINE

3.8.3.3.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Travertine is a type of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that is frequently mined and sold as an 

ornamental stone (BLM 2005e). Travertine deposits are not extensive in the MPA. They occur 

intermittently as old geyser deposits and vein-filling along faults in a 50- to 100-square-mile area 

near the Green River that extends south from the town of Green River, Utah). In the MPA, 

travertine of the geyserite variety is known to occur along faults where thermal springs 

precipitate calcium carbonate. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-66

3.8.3.3.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

There have been only a few small-scale attempts to produce travertine in the MPA. Since 1982, 

four authorizations have been issued for travertine exploration/production near the town of Green 

River (BLM 2005e), and since 1988, quarries in the MPA have yielded only approximately 160 

tons of travertine (BLM 2005e). Deloy Shumway operates a small travertine quarry, named the 

Travertine #8 & 9, which has disturbed less than 5 acres in Section 25 of T22S, R16E. A second 

small travertine quarry, the Judy #1, is operated by Richard Bedier in Section 35 of T21S, R16E 

(Bon and Wakefield 2002a, 2002b). 

3.8.3.3.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

Known travertine sites in this area are characterized as having high (H) occurrence potential with 

D certainty level. Elsewhere near the town of Green River, travertine faulting is given a 

moderate (M) occurrence potential with a C level of certainty. Though past production has been 

limited, the known sites of travertine are rated as H for development potential, and the remainder 

of the identified travertine area is rated as having M development potential. Development of 

travertine is considered likely over the next 15 years in the areas rated with high development 

potential (Map 3-11, Moab Planning Area Travertine Deposit-Development Potential). 

3.8.3.4 HUMATE

3.8.3.4.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Humate is derived from plant debris associated with carbonaceous shales or coals that were 

deposited in a swampy, continental environment. Its most desirable feature is its humic acid 

content, which is used to enhance soil productivity (Jackson 1983). Other lesser uses of humate 

include neutralization of acid wastewater through the formation of insoluble humic acids and the 

removal of heavy metals by chelation or precipitation in insoluble humate. 

3.8.3.4.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

To-date, no commercial humate production has been conducted in the MPA. Limited mapping 

and surface-sampling have identified potentially minable humate deposits at two locations in the 

east-central portion of the MPA. 

Jackson (1983) reports and Ellis and Hopeck (1985) confirm that one humate deposit occurs as a 

20- to 30-foot-thick, 15-mile-long, carbonaceous and coaly shale zone in the middle to lower 

portions of the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone southeast of Harley Dome, outcropping in some 

places. At least 1.12 million tons of humate-bearing material is present over a 250-acre tract at 

this location. Limited sampling has shown the humate to contain 45–50% total organics and 25% 

total humic acids. BLM records (2005g) indicate there have been two proposed operations 

involving this deposit since 1988, though no development activity has ever occurred. 

Seal (2002) only generally describes the second humate deposit as being located approximately 

three miles southeast of Crescent Junction. No details on the amount and grade of humate are 

reported for this deposit, which occurs on land belonging to the Utah School and Institutional 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-67

Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). A notice posted by SITLA on February 12, 2003 states 

that a humic shale mining and processing operation was proposed on their lands in Section 14 of 

T22S, R19E. 

3.8.3.4.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

Known humate resources in the MPA are rated as having a high (H) occurrence potential with D 

certainty. Elsewhere in the MPA, the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone exposures are rated as 

having moderate (M) occurrence potential with C certainty. The known sites near Crescent 

Junction and Harley Dome are rated H for development potential, and most of the rest of the 

Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone outcrops are rated as M for development potential. Some interest 

in mining the Harley Dome deposit has been expressed and development in this area is 

considered likely over the next 15 years (Map 3-12, Moab Planning Area Humate DepositDevelopment Potential). 

3.8.3.5 CLAY

3.8.3.5.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Clay deposits are widespread in the MPA but have been little used or tested. Bentonite and 

bentonitic clays are among the most desirable; they swell when saturated with water and can be 

used as a natural sealant for reservoirs, stock ponds, ditches, and landfills. According to Merrell 

(1979), bentonite clay occurs in the upper Chinle Formation, the Monitor Butte Member of the 

Chinle Formation, and the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation. In the MPA, in 

Lisbon Valley, clay samples from the Brushy Basin Member have a bentonite content exceeding 

90% (Gloyn et al. 1995). The Morrison Formation has been the focus of most clay exploration 

and development in the MPA. 

3.8.3.5.2 PAST AND PRESENT EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION

Exploration and production of clay within the past 20 years has been as follows. 

Within the MPA, the Grand County Water Conservancy District has periodically mined 

bentonitic clay from the Brushy Basin at the Spanish Valley Pit (Section 18 of T27S, R23E) in 

northernmost San Juan County (Gloyn et al 1995). Reported production includes 400 cubic yards 

of bentonitic clay in 1989 and 1,872 cubic yards of the same material in 1992. The host is 

presumed to be the Morrison Formation (Gloyn et al. 1995). 

Since 1989, approximately 4,250 cubic yards of clay have also been reportedly produced in the 

MPA under two separate BLM authorizations (BLM 2005e). The source of these clays is also 

presumed to be the Morrison. New disturbance for these authorizations totaled 16,500 cubic 

yards (BLM 2005e). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.8 Minerals 

3-68

3.8.3.5.3 OCCURRENCE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 

Given the available information, known clay sites occurring in the Morrison Formation in the 

MPA have been classified as high (H) for occurrence potential with a D level of certainty, and 

have also been classified as H for development potential. Elsewhere in the MPA, the Morrison 

Formation has been classified as having moderate (M) potential and C certainty for the 

occurrence of bentonite in the MPA and has been classified as having M development potential. 

Development of clay is considered likely over the next 15 years in the areas rated as high 

development potential (Map 3-13, Moab Planning Area Clay Deposit- Development Potential). 

3.9 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

3.9.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Since wilderness study areas (WSAs) were established in the 1980s, designation and protection 

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 designation. As a result of the debate (and a significant passage of time since 

BLM's original inventories), in 1996 the Secretary of the Interior directed BLM to take another 

look at some of the lands in question. In response to the direction of the Secretary, 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). 

In September 2005, the BLM and the State of Utah, the Utah School and Institutional Trust Land 

Administration (SITLA), and the Utah Association of Counties (collectively "Utah") reached an 

agreement negotiated to settle a lawsuit originally brought in 1996 by Utah, challenging the 

BLM's authority to conduct new wilderness inventories. The settlement stipulated that the BLM's 

authority to designate new WSAs expired no later than October 21, 1993. The BLM, however, 

does have the authority to conduct inventories for characteristics associated with the concept of 

wilderness and to consider management of these values in its land-use planning process. The 

BLM's Land-use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) states that decisions on whether or not to 

protect wilderness characteristics are to be considered during planning. 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are those that have the appearance of naturalness 

and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics are areas having 5,000 acres, or areas less than 5,000 acres 

that are contiguous to designated wilderness, WSAs, or other administratively endorsed for 

wilderness management lands; or, in accordance with the Wilderness Act's language, areas "of 

sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in and unimpaired condition." 

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. Please refer to Appendix P, "Identification of Wilderness 

Characteristics on Non-WSA Lands Managed by the Moab BLM" for more information. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

3-69

Detailed information about non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics is part of the 

administrative record for this RMP/EIS. The following records are available for public review at 

the Moab Field Office: 1)1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory; 2) 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory 

Revision Document for the Moab Field Office; 3) 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory Case Files 

for the Moab Field Office; 4) Reasonable Probability Determinations for the Moab Field Office; 

and 5) Documentation of Wilderness Characteristics Review for the Moab Field Office. 

3.9.1.1 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE 1999 UTAH 

WILDERNESS INVENTORY

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics include areas inventoried by BLM in the 1999 

Utah Wilderness Inventory. Based on subsequent public comments and after conducting 

additional field checks, the BLM revised the inventory in 2003. The revised inventory identified 

22 wilderness inventory areas (WIAs) totaling 190,432 acres under MFO jurisdiction possessing 

wilderness characteristics. The revised inventory also identified portions of the WIAs totaling 

108,733 acres that do not have wilderness characteristics. The inventory findings for lands 

administered by the MFO are summarized in Table 3.16 and depicted in Map 2-24-B. These 

lands are currently managed according to the existing Grand Resource Management Plan (RMP). 

Table 3.16. Non-WSA Lands Inventoried in the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory

(revised 2003), Total Acreage and Acreage with and without Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Name Total Acreage 

Acreage with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics (WC) 

Acreage without 

Wilderness Characteristics 

(NWC) 

Beaver Creek 33,357 25,722 7,635 

*Behind the Rocks 7,961 3,381 4,580 

*Coal Canyon 15,229 13,850 1,379 

*Desolation Canyon 10,690 10,498 192 

Fisher Towers 17,095 16,668 427 

*Floy Canyon 12,228 9,983 2,245 

*Flume Canyon 5,344 3,563 1,781 

Goldbar 12,876 6,106 6,770 

Gooseneck 5,540 1,040 3 4,500 

Granite Creek 5,328 4,528 800 

Harts Point (MFO)1 NA 1,568 NA 

Hatch Wash 24,096 10,979 13,117 

Hunter Canyon 4,492 4,462 30 

Labyrinth Canyon 68,717 24,300 38,969 

*Lost Spring Canyon 12,661 11,456 1,205 

Mary Jane Canyon 25,158 24,748 410 

*Mill Creek Canyon 6,684 3,394 3,290 

*Negro Bill Canyon 13,724 2,324 11,400 

Shafer Canyon 3,045 1,845 1,200 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

3-70

Table 3.16. Non-WSA Lands Inventoried in the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory

(revised 2003), Total Acreage and Acreage with and without Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Name Total Acreage 

Acreage with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics (WC) 

Acreage without 

Wilderness Characteristics 

(NWC) 

*Spruce Canyon 2,213 1,131 1,082 

*Westwater Canyon 2,073 1,193 770 

Westwater Creek 9,100 8,701 399 

Total 299,939 190,440 108,733 

Areas marked with an asterisk [*] are contiguous with a WSA of the same name. 

1The majority of the Harts Point unit is in the Monticello Field Office. Acreage with wilderness characteristics is within the MPA 

only. 

3.9.1.2 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS FROM WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS REVIEW

In addition to the lands that were inventoried in the 1999 Utah Wilderness Inventory as described 

above, additional lands in the MPA have been reviewed for wilderness characteristics by BLM. 

These are lands currently proposed for wilderness as part of S.1170, America's Red Rock 

Wilderness Act of 2007, and are neither WSAs nor WIAs. (Note: The Act has been introduced in 

this year's Congress as S.1170.) Table 3.17 identifies the areas considered and summarizes the 

determinations made by the BLM regarding each non-WSA area's wilderness characteristics. The 

wilderness characteristics review process involved use of a BLM interdisciplinary team that 

reviewed available information and followed up with field trips where necessary. Refer to 

Appendix P - Identification of Wilderness Characteristics on Non-WSA Lands Managed by the 

Moab BLM for more information. Map 2-24B shows non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (WC) within the MPA, including findings made in the 1999 Utah Wilderness 

Inventory and findings made through the wilderness characteristics review process. The process 

used by the BLM to determine the non-WSA acreage with wilderness characteristics consisted of 

several steps. BLM used a combination of field visits, data layers including roads, vegetative 

treatments, (especially chaining), range improvements, and rights-of-way, aerial photography 

interpretation, and interdisciplinary review to reach a conclusion on those acreages that have 

wilderness characteristics. Setbacks from 3 to 91 meters were placed on all routes, depending 

upon the type of route.

3.9.2 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are managed in accordance with existing landuse plans. Refer to the no action alternative discussion in Chapter 2 for how non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics are currently managed. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

3-71

Table 3.17. Non-WSA Lands with and without Wilderness Characteristics (WC and 

NWC, Respectively) from Wilderness Characteristics Review 

Name Total 

Acres1 

Acres 

with WC 

Acres 

with NWC Comments2 

Arches Adjacent 11,410 6,396 5,014 Adjacent to Arches NP/AE. 

Beaver Creek 9294 0 9294 Adjacent to Beaver Creek WIA/WC. 

Behind the Rocks 286 262 26 Adjacent to Behind the Rocks WIA/WC or 

WSA. 

Big Triangle 20,542 5,200 15,342 

Coyote Wash 28,069 0 28,069 

Dead Horse Cliffs 2,346 796 1,550 Adjacent to WIA/WC or Canyonlands NP/AE. 

Diamond 

Canyon* 

15,467 7,759 7,708 Adjacent to WIA/WC or WSA. 

Dome Plateau 25,818 14,206 11,612 

Duma Point 14,698 0 14,368 

Fisher Towers 1,740 556 1,184 Adjacent to WIA/WC. 

Goldbar Canyon 435 329 106 Adjacent to WIA/WC. 

Gooseneck 53 38 15 Adjacent to WIA/WC. 

Hatch/Lockhart 46,729 2,679 44,050 Adjacent to WC in Monticello FO. 

Hells Hole 2,540 2,538 2 Adjacent to WC in Vernal FO. 

Hideout Canyon 12,269 11,607 662 

Horsethief Point 14,172 8,358 5,814 Adjacent to WIA/WC or Canyonlands NP/AE. 

Labyrinth Canyon 21,189 550 20,639 

Mary Jane 

Canyon 

86 31 55 Adjacent to WIA/WC. 

Mexico Point 12,837 12,837 0 

Mill Creek 

Canyon 

1,028 0 1,028 

Morning Glory** 96 6 87 Adjacent to WIA/WC or WSA. 

Porcupine Rim** 67 3 64 Adjacent to WIA/WC or WSA. 

Renegade Point 6,635 0 6,635 

Survey Point 10 0 10 Majority of unit in Vernal FO. 

Westwater 

Canyon 

4,509 758 3,751 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

 3.9 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

3-72

Table 3.17. Non-WSA Lands with and without Wilderness Characteristics (WC and 

NWC, Respectively) from Wilderness Characteristics Review 

Name Total 

Acres1 

Acres 

with WC 

Acres 

with NWC Comments2 

Yellow Bird 2,212 358 1,854 Adjacent to WIA/WC or Arches NP/AE. 

Total 254,017 75,279 178,561 

1 Public lands managed by MFO. Excludes acreage encompassed by state lands, Wilderness Study Areas, and lands inventoried 

by BLM in 1999 (both with and without wilderness characteristics). 

2 FO = Field Office 

* Joined with Non-WSA Lands with WC in Coal Canyon for purposes of analysis. 

** Joined with Non-WSA Lands with WC in Negro Bill Canyon for purposes of analysis.

3.10 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.10.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Paleontology is a biological and geological scientific discipline involving the study of fossil 

materials. Paleontological resources, or fossils, include the body remains, traces, or imprints of 

plants or animals that have been preserved in the earth's crust since some past geologic time. 

Among paleontologists, fossils are generally considered to be scientifically significant if they are 

unique, unusual, rare, diagnostically or stratigraphically important, or add to the existing body of 

knowledge in a specific area of the science. The BLM considers all vertebrate fossils to be 

scientifically significant. Invertebrate and plant fossils may be determined to be significant on a 

case-by-case basis. 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. 

The types of fossils preserved in a sedimentary rock sequence depend on the geologic age of the 

rocks in which they occur and the environment in which the sediments that comprise the rocks 

accumulated. The types of rocks that crop out (are exposed) at the surface of an area and can 

potentially yield fossils is the result of geologic (depositional, structural, and erosional) history. 

Geologic formations and sediments exposed at the surface of the MPA, range from Precambrian 

to Recent in age (See Map 3-14, Generalized Geology of the Planning Area). Fossil-bearing 

sedimentary rocks range in age from Pennsylvanian to Quaternary in age and include parts of the 

three great periods of earth history during the Phanerozoic (phaneros, meaning visible, zoic,

meaning life), the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic. Fossils preserved in these deposits 

include invertebrate, vertebrate, and plant fossils. Vertebrate fossils include the body remains of 

fish, amphibians, reptiles (including dinosaurs), mammals, and birds, as well as their tracks and 

traces. These fossils occur in rocks of Pennsylvanian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, 

Tertiary, and Quaternary age and include specimens unique to this area. 

A search of the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) fossil database in Salt Lake City revealed a total 

of 246 fossil localities in the MPA (Hayden 2003). Of the 246 fossil localities identified: 22 are 

vertebrate localities; 24 are invertebrate localities; 23 are plant localities; and 8 are known to be 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.10 Paleontological Resources 

3-73

trace fossil localities. Details are lacking about the fossils identified for the other 177 known 

localities. Information from this database, supplemented by publications and personal 

experience, document that vertebrate fossils (which the BLM considers of scientific significance) 

are known from at least 20 geologic units that crop out in the planning area. 

Additionally, a portion of the Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric National Byway runs through the 

planning area. The Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Byway is a 512-mile driving route through 

Colorado and Utah that has educational kiosks and displays of dinosaur tracks and remains. 

Some sites have reconstructed skeletons and fleshed out recreations of dinosaurs. The portion 

in the planning area runs south from I-70 on Highway 191 to Moab and returns to I-70 via 

Highway 128. 

The BLM favors the development of museum exhibits and informational kiosks or similar 

developments at roadside turnouts over the interpretation of areas where fossils remain in the 

ground. These projects provide opportunities for learning and enjoyment. There may be 

substantial risk of damage or unauthorized collecting of fossils by the public in interpretive areas 

that are not staffed. 

3.10.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

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 1998b:01). 

Uniform procedural guidance for management of paleontological resources on BLM lands is 

provided by Paleontological Resources Handbook 8270-I. 

Collection of fossils from BLM lands in the MPA is allowed with some restrictions, depending 

on the significance of the fossils. Under existing regulations, hobby collection of common 

invertebrate or plant fossils by the public is allowed in reasonable quantities using hand tools. 

The public is also allowed to collect petrified wood without a permit for personal noncommercial 

purposes. People can collect up to 25 pounds plus one piece per person per day, with a maximum 

of 250 pounds in one calendar year. Current regulations do not allow any commercial collecting 

of paleontological resources. 

Collection of significant fossils, which includes all vertebrate and any so designated plant or 

invertebrate fossils can only be done by obtaining a permit that is issued to qualified researchers. 

Vertebrate fossils are the remains or traces of fish, turtles, dinosaurs, mammals, reptiles, and 

birds, and include material such as fossil bones, teeth, tracks, coprolites, and burrows. Significant 

plant and invertebrate fossils are determined on a case-by-case basis and must be identified in 

decision documents. 

Two types of paleontological use permits are issued. The basic permit is a survey and limited 

collection permit, issued for reconnaissance work and collection of surface finds, with a one 

square meter limit on surface disturbance. If disturbance during the paleontological work will 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.10 Paleontological Resources 

3-74

exceed one square meter, or will require mechanized equipment, the researcher must apply for an 

excavation permit. Prior to authorization of an excavation permit, BLM must prepare an 

environmental assessment of the proposed location. All fossils collected under a permit remain 

public property, must be placed in an approved repository, and can never be sold. Annual reports 

of findings including locality and specimen information are required to be submitted to the BLM. 

Researchers may have multiple active permits. 

3.10.3 RESOURCE DEMAND AND ANALYSIS

Recreational fossil collecting of common invertebrates, plants and petrified wood is appropriate 

on most lands administered by the BLM, except in developed recreation areas and other special 

management areas, such as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) or where otherwise 

posted. Recreational collecting of vertebrate fossils, as well as noteworthy fossil invertebrates 

and plants is prohibited on all BLM administered lands. 

Professional paleontologists conducting research or assessment and mitigation are regulated 

through the permit process. The BLM issues about a half-dozen permits a year specifically for 

the MPA (L. Bryant, personal communication 2003). There are also about 12 statewide research 

permits allowing surface collecting/reconnaissance that include the planning area. The BLM also 

issues about 8 consulting permits annually in Utah and all of these are statewide and thus include 

the planning area. 

Amateur fossil collectors and hobbyists may collect reasonable amounts of common invertebrate 

and plant fossils on public lands. The number of people involved in this activity is unknown. The 

MFO deals with about 10 inquiries a year regarding fossil collection. Further interest in fossil 

collection is demonstrated by the existence of a local rock-hounding club known as Points and 

Pebbles. In addition, hikers, mountain bikers, and other outdoor enthusiasts sometimes 

accidentally discover fossil remains. Some of these discoveries are passed on to the appropriate 

agencies, but some are not. Certainly many important paleontological discoveries have been and 

will continue to be made by amateur or accidental paleontologists, but the number of such 

discoveries is also unknown. 

3.10.4 ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Fossil theft and vandalism occur with some regularity throughout the MPA. Increased access 

results in increased theft and vandalism. Only a small number of these occurrences are ever 

prosecuted. Escalating commercial values of fossils also mean that fossils on Federal lands are 

increasingly subject to theft and vandalism. These crimes reduce scientific and public access to 

scientifically significant and instructive fossils and destroy the contextual information critical for 

interpreting the fossils. Within the planning area, illegal casting of dinosaur tracks is particularly 

a problem.

3.10.5 RESOURCE CAPABILITY AND CONDITION 

Occurrences of paleontological resources are closely related to the geologic units that contain 

them. The potential for finding important paleontological resources can therefore be broadly 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.10 Paleontological Resources 

3-75

predicted by the presence of the pertinent geologic units at or near the surface. Therefore, 

geologic mapping can be used as a proxy for assessing the potential for the occurrence of 

important paleontological resources. The Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system 

was originally developed by the U.S. Forest Service's Paleontology Center of Excellence and the 

Region 2 (USFS) Paleo Initiative (1996). It is in the process of being formally adopted by the 

BLM to promote consistency between agencies and throughout the BLM. The PFYC is 

appropriate for land-use planning efforts and for the preliminary assessment of potential impacts 

and mitigation needs for specific projects. 

Under the PFYC system, geologic units are classified based on the relative abundance of 

vertebrate fossils or uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse 

impacts, with a higher class number indicating a higher potential. This classification is best 

applied at the geologic formation or member level. It is not intended to be an assessment of 

whether important fossils are known to occur occasionally in these units (i.e. a few important 

fossils or localities widely scattered throughout a formation does not necessarily indicate a 

higher class), nor is it intended to be applied to specific sites or areas. The classification system 

is intended to provide baseline guidance to assessing and mitigating impacts to paleontological 

resources. In many situations, the classification should be an intermediate step in the analysis, 

and should be used to assess additional mitigation needs. PFYC classes are defined in detail 

below: 

Class 1: Geologic units that are unlikely to contain recognizable fossil remains. This includes 

units that are igneous or metamorphic in origin (but excludes tuffs), as well as units that are 

Precambrian in age or older. Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 1 units 

is negligible or not applicable. No assessment or mitigation is needed except in very 

rare circumstances. The occurrence of significant fossils in Class 1 units is non-existent or 

extremely rare. 

Class 2: Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or 

scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils. This includes units in which vertebrate or 

significant nonvertebrate fossils are unknown or very rare, units that are younger than 10,000 

years before present, units that are aeolian in origin, and units which exhibit significant 

diagenetic alteration (physical changes in rock which occur over time such as compaction, 

cementation, mineral replacement). The potential for impacting vertebrate fossils or uncommon 

invertebrate or plant fossils is low. Management concern for paleontological resources is low, 

and management actions are not likely to be needed. Localities containing important resources 

may exist, but would be rare and would not influence the classification. 

Class 3: Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, 

abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential. These 

units are often marine in origin with sporadic known occurrences of vertebrate fossils. Vertebrate 

fossils and uncommon nonvertebrate fossils are known to occur inconsistently, and predictability 

is known to be low. Class 3 includes units that are poorly studied and/or poorly documented, so 

that the potential yield cannot be assigned without ground reconnaissance. Management concern 

for paleontological resources in these units is moderate, or cannot be determined from existing 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.10 Paleontological Resources 

3-76

data. Surface-disturbing activities may require field assessment to determine a further course 

of action. 

The Class 3 category includes a broad range of potential impacts. Geologic units of unknown 

potential, as well as units of moderate or infrequent fossil occurrence are included. Assessment 

and mitigation efforts also include a broad range of options. Surface-disturbing activities will 

require sufficient assessment to determine whether significant fossil resources occur in the area 

of a proposed action, and whether the action could affect the paleontological resources. 

Class 4: These are Class 5 geologic units (see below) that have lowered risks of human-caused 

adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation. They include bedrock units with 

extensive soil or vegetative cover, bedrock exposures that are limited or not expected to be 

impacted, units with areas of exposed outcrop that are smaller than two contiguous acres, units in 

which outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by 

topographic effects, and units where other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability 

of both known and unidentified fossil localities. 

The potential for impacting significant fossils is moderate to high, and is dependent on the 

proposed action. The bedrock unit is Class 5, but a protective layer of soil, thin alluvial material, 

or other mitigating circumstances may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the bedrock 

resulting from the activity. Mitigation efforts must include assessment of the disturbance, such as 

removal or penetration of protective surface alluvium or soils, potential for future accelerated 

erosion, or increased ease of access resulting in greater looting potential. If impacts to significant 

fossils are anticipated, on-the-ground surveys prior to authorizing the surface-disturbing action 

will usually be necessary. On-site monitoring may also be necessary during construction 

activities. Management prescriptions for resource preservation and conservation through 

controlled access or special management designation should be considered. Class 4 and Class 5

units are often combined as Class 5 for general application, such as planning efforts or 

preliminary assessments, as Class 4 is determined from local mitigating conditions and the 

impacts of the planned action. 

Class 5: Highly fossiliferous geologic units that regularly and predictably produce vertebrate 

fossils or uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils, and that are at risk of human-caused adverse 

impacts or natural degradation. These include units in which vertebrate fossils or uncommon 

invertebrate or plant fossils are known and documented to occur consistently, predictably, or 

abundantly. Class 5 pertains to highly sensitive units that are well exposed with little or no soil 

or vegetative cover, units in which outcrop areas are extensive, and exposed bedrock areas that 

are larger than two contiguous acres. 

Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 5 units/areas is high, because the 

potential for impacting significant fossils is high. Vertebrate fossils or uncommon nonvertebrate 

fossils are known from the impacted area, or can reasonably be expected to occur in the impacted 

area. Assessment by a qualified paleontologist is required in advance of surface-disturbing 

activities or land tenure adjustments, and mitigation will often be necessary before and/or during 

surface-disturbing actions. Field surveys prior to authorizing any surface-disturbing activities 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-77

will usually be necessary. On-site monitoring may also be necessary during construction 

activities. Designation of areas of special interest and concern may be appropriate. 

3.11 RECREATION

3.11.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The MPA is an internationally recognized recreation destination. The proximity of two national 

parks (Arches and Canyonlands), the extraordinarily scenic and diverse landscape, the 

accessibility of two major river systems (the Colorado and Green Rivers), the presence of 

interesting cultural and paleontological resources, and the opportunities for a wide range of 

recreational activities have made the MPA very popular for those seeking outdoor experiences. 

Recreational opportunities range from casual sightseeing and hiking to more intense activities 

such as mountain biking, rock climbing, and river running. In general, the planning area 

experiences a high number of seasonal visitors and an intense demand for recreational activities. 

Busy seasons include both spring and fall, with spring bringing the most visitors to the area. The 

estimated annual visitation to the MPA is at least 1.6 million visitors. Visitation occurs 

throughout the year, with the spring season beginning in February and lasting through May, and 

the fall season running from September through November. Spring and fall visitors engage in the 

full range of recreation activities, including scenic driving, camping, hiking, jeeping, mountain 

biking, canoeing and rafting, rock climbing, off-highway vehicle (OHV) and dirt bike riding, and 

horseback riding. (Note: The BLM defines off-road vehicles (also known as off-highway 

vehicles, or OHVs) to include all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-highway motorcycles, and 

snowmobiles.) Summer visitation is mainly associated with touring the nearby National Parks 

(Arches and Canyonlands) and with river-related activities. However, the summer season also 

brings large numbers of visitors, who engage in sightseeing activities such as driving through the 

public lands and viewing the landscape from scenic overlooks, and some hiking and biking. 

The current RMP (approved in 1985) did not anticipate the subsequent rapid growth in and 

demand for recreational opportunities and activities. Since the approval of the current RMP, 

there have been increases in the demand for recreational opportunities and in the growth of the 

recreation industry within the planning area. As a result, demand-driven recreation management 

and planning in the years following the approval of the current RMP has been completed in a 

piecemeal fashion, and there has been an attempt to document and accommodate the rapid rise in 

and high demand for recreational opportunities. A fundamental concept in the management of 

BLM recreation resources is the designation of Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

and an Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). These areas within the MPA are 

discussed below. 

An outcome of the rapid growth in recreation opportunities and activities in the MPA has also 

created the need for the development of specific Recreation Area Management Plans (RAMPs) 

to assist in recreation management within areas that are experiencing intense recreational 

activity. Five RAMPs (Colorado Riverway, Mill Creek, Sand Flats, Cameo Cliffs and Canyon 

Rims) have been completed to-date. Three of these plans (the Colorado Riverway, Mill Creek 

and Sand Flats Plans) have been accompanied by Federal Register Notices that instituted rules 

and regulations associated with some or all of these plans. These regulations are temporary, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-78

subject to completion and approval of the proposed RMP. The Cameo Cliffs and Canyon Rims 

RAMPs were Plan Amendments to the Grand RMP. These plan amendments limited travel to 

designated and/or existing roads and created SRMAs for the planning areas. 

3.11.1.1 SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMAS) 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) are those areas where a commitment has been 

made to provide specific recreational activities and recreational opportunities, and where public 

recreation issues or management concerns occur. Special or more intensive types of management 

are typically needed in these areas. Detailed recreation planning is required in SRMAs and a 

large managerial investment is usually needed. Also, SRMAs usually require stricter rules and 

guidelines to manage the intensive recreational use within the area. Areas hosting large numbers 

of visitors are usually those that are designated as SRMAs. However, in the MPA, at present, the 

SRMAs are not the areas that receive the greatest visitation. 

Three areas have been formally established as SRMAs within the MPA: Canyon Rims 

Recreation Area, Cameo Cliffs Recreation Area and the Colorado River Recreation Area. 

3.11.1.1.1 CANYON RIMS SRMA 

Canyon Rims was established on 100,273 acres south of Moab. Two campgrounds and four 

overlooks are within the SRMA, as well as the Trough Springs Hiking trailhead. Major activities 

include hiking, backpacking, and sightseeing. The primary roads within Canyon Rims, which 

were constructed by the BLM and include several scenic turnouts, are Utah Scenic Backways. 

The Canyon Rims Recreation Area is managed under the Canyon Rims Recreation Area 

Management Plan (RAMP), completed in 2003. An amendment to the 1985 RMP accompanied 

this RAMP. 

The overall objective for the Canyon Rims Recreation Area RAMP (BLM 2003b) is to protect, 

manage and improve the natural and visual resources of the area while allowing for responsible 

recreation. The goal is to manage the Canyon Rims Recreation Area for recreation activities such 

as camping, vehicle touring on the primary road system, touring the secondary road system by 

motorized vehicle and mountain bike, and hiking and backpacking within the canyons. 

Interpretive and educational opportunities will be used to fulfill the potential of the Canyon Rims 

Recreation Area. Recreation management will give special consideration to protecting the visual 

resources of Canyon Rims. 

3.11.1.1.2 CAMEO CLIFFS SRMA 

The Cameo Cliffs SRMA consists of 15,597 acres east of U.S. Highway 191, south of the town 

of LaSal and north of the Lisbon Valley Industrial Area. Off-highway vehicle riding, horseback 

riding and some limited hiking and mountain biking are the primary recreational activities. A 

Plan Amendment to the Grand RMP (1985a) established the SRMA and designated the roads 

within it. The purpose of the Cameo Cliffs planning effort is to provide opportunities for 

motorized recreation, primarily ATV riding. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-79

3.11.1.1.3 COLORADO RIVER SRMA 

This SRMA extends along the Colorado River from the Colorado State Line to Castle Creek 

(near the Castle Valley turnoff on Utah Highway 128), and along the Dolores River from the 

Colorado State line to its confluence with the Colorado River. The SRMA includes Westwater 

Canyon of the Colorado River, and includes the extensive facilities surrounding the Westwater 

Ranger Station. It also includes the upper portion the area bordering the River along Utah 

Highway 128 (from Dewey Bridge to Castle Creek). The size of this SRMA is 24,124 acres. 

Major activities include boating and camping. Note that this area is not the same as the Colorado 

Riverway, discussed below as an ERMA. 

3.11.1.2 GRAND EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA (ERMA) 

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 

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; however, in the MPA, the areas with the greatest numbers of visitors and those that are in 

the greatest need of special management are currently within the Grand ERMA. All areas within 

the MPA that are not part of a SRMA are included within the Grand ERMA. Popular recreation 

sites within the ERMA are briefly described below. 

3.11.1.2.1 THE COLORADO RIVERWAY

The Colorado Riverway includes the public lands managed by the BLM in the following areas: 

• Along the Colorado River and Utah Highway 128 from Dewey Bridge to U.S. 191, including 

Negro Bill Canyon Trailhead, Onion Creek, Castleton Tower (Castle Rock) and Fisher 

Towers. Utah Highway 128 is a State Scenic Byway, and is also a portion of the Prehistoric 

Highway National Scenic Byway. 

• Along the Colorado River and Utah Highway 279 from Moab Valley to Canyonlands 

National Park, including Wall Street, Poison Spider Trailhead and Shafer Basin. Utah 

Highway 279 is a State Scenic Byway 

• Along Kane Creek Road from Moab Valley to the block of state land south of Hunter 

Canyon, including Amasa Back. 

A very small portion of this area (Dewey Bridge to Castle Creek) is within the Colorado River 

SRMA, with the great majority of the Riverway lying within the Grand ERMA. The Riverway is 

the most popular destination of MPA visitors, with recent visitation estimated at approximately 

1.04 million people. Visitors engage in camping, hiking, four-wheel driving, scenic auto touring, 

mountain biking, bouldering, BASE (Building, Antennae, Span, Earth) jumping, rock art 

viewing, dinosaur track viewing, rock climbing, and rafting and boating within the Colorado 

Riverway. 

Based on observation and casual interviews, users of the Colorado Riverway can be divided into 

several categories: 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-80

• Day and overnight campers using sites along the Riverway to mountain bike, drive and ride 

OHVs, hike or participate in a special event; 

• Campers displaced from Arches National Park's campground; 

• Campers using sites because they provide a relatively inexpensive place to camp; 

• Motorists taking scenic drives along routes described on the Moab Auto Tour brochure or 

taking an alternate route to Grand Junction; and 

• Rafting and paddling groups, fishermen, climbers, mountain bikers, hikers, OHV users, 

BASE jumpers, and other day users. 

Recreation management within the Riverway includes providing information at recreation sites, 

managing developed recreation sites, protecting visual quality and health and human safety by 

limiting the areas where visitors can camp and drive, and managing commercial uses in 

accordance with the Riverway Plan (BLM 1992a, 2001a). 

While many of the resource use problems within the Colorado Riverway have been addressed 

and corrected since 1992 by the actions taken through the Colorado Riverway RAMP, there are 

still some remaining problem areas. Cross-country OHV travel and camping restrictions are 

addressed only through a Federal Register Notice (July 1992), which is in effect only until the 

completion and approval of the proposed RMP. Some undeveloped camping areas still remain, 

which are causing resource use problems. 

3.11.1.2.2 SAND FLATS RECREATION AREA

Sand Flats, part of the Grand ERMA, is located between the Negro Bill Canyon and Mill Creek 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Sand Flats Recreation Area encompasses 7,240 acres, and is 

managed as a self-funding site in partnership between Grand County and the MFO. Major 

activities include camping and mountain biking, especially on the Slickrock Trail, which was 

designated as a National Recreation Trail. The Recreation Area provides access to popular 

mountain bike and OHV trails, including the Slickrock Trail, Porcupine Rim Bike and Jeep Trail, 

Fins and Things Jeep Trail, and Hell's Revenge Jeep Trail. A RAMP was completed in 1994 (see 

below) for the Sand Flats Recreation Area, and the area is managed according to this Plan. In 

addition, there is a Cooperative Management Agreement between Grand County and the BLM, 

MFO to provide guidance in administering the area. Camping restrictions and off-road vehicle 

designations are addressed only through a Federal Register Notice (July 1992), which is in effect 

until the proposed RMP is approved. 

The Sand Flats Management Plan identifies the following management objectives: 

• To provide for a recreational "mix" of opportunities necessary to meet a variety of visitor 

expectations, while maintaining the relative natural characteristics of the area; 

• To maintain wilderness values in adjacent Wilderness Study Areas; 

• To prevent degradation of the natural values in the planning area and provide for restoration 

of areas where vegetation and soils have been damaged by recreational use; and 

• To provide for public health and safety. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-81

3.11.1.2.3 EAST OF HIGHWAY 191 

The area south of I-70 and east of U.S. Highway 191 borders Arches National Park. This area of 

public land includes the Klondike Bluffs Trail, the Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway and the 

Bar M Loop Bike Trail. Cross-country OHV travel is prohibited in most of this area through a 

Federal Register notice. In the portion of this eastern area that is south of Utah Highway 313, 

camping is limited to designated sites. This camping restriction is in effect until the completion 

of the proposed RMP. 

3.11.1.2.4 WEST OF HIGHWAY 191 

This area includes scenic driving and several motorized and non-motorized trailheads. U.S. 

Highway 191 from I-70 to its intersection with Utah Highway 128 is part of the National 

Prehistoric Highway National Scenic Byway. A substantial amount of unrestricted camping 

occurs in this area, especially around Bartlett Wash and Mill Canyon, and has led to sanitation 

problems and resource damage. Although off-road driving is prohibited by Federal Register 

notice, substantial cross-country OHV travel is occurring. This off-road damage includes hill 

climbs, alternate route choice, play areas around campsites and other forms of damage. The 

current vehicle designation ("Limited to Existing Roads and Trails") is in effect until the 

approval of the proposed RMP. 

The area west of 191, south of I-70 and east of the Green River has seen explosive growth in 

recreation since the time of the 1985 RMP. Additionally, this recreation growth has included 

both motorized and non-motorized recreation, often vying for the same locations. Motorized 

recreation includes jeeping and OHV use; non-motorized recreation includes mountain biking, 

hiking, horseback riding, and BASE jumping. The area west of Highway 191 has seen the largest 

growth in recreation user conflict in the MPA. 

3.11.1.2.5 UTAH HIGHWAY 313

Utah Highway 313 is also the Dead Horse Mesa Scenic Byway (a State Scenic Byway), 

providing access to Canyonlands National Park, access to Dead Horse Point State Park, access to 

Seven Mile Canyon and to two dispersed camping areas as well as to one BLM campground. 

The camping areas provide overflow and destination camping for the two parks. Utah Highway 

313 also provides access to Labyrinth Canyon of the Green River, the rims and mesas above the 

Green River (Labyrinth Rims), upper Long Canyon and the upper portion of the Gemini Bridges 

Route. Camping and off-road vehicle restrictions have been implemented by Federal Register 

notice for this area, and are in effect until the completion of the proposed RMP. Resource 

damage is currently occurring in this area from both camping and OHV travel. 

3.11.1.2.6 KOKOPELLI'S TRAIL 

Kokopelli's Trail is a 140-mile multiple use trail connecting Loma, Colorado and Moab, Utah. 

Mountain bikers use this route heavily, although most portions are also suitable for OHVs and 

full-sized four-wheel drive vehicles. The route passes through lands administered by the MFO, 

the BLM Grand Junction Field Office, and the USDA Forest Service (Manti-LaSal National 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-82

Forest). Kokopelli's Trail was established for multi-day bike trips. Small, primitive campsites are 

located along the trail. Three of these campsites (Bitter Creek, Cowskin and Rock Castle) are 

managed and maintained by the MFO. Kokopelli's Trail is a Millennium Trail, designated in 

2000 by the White House Millennium Council. 

3.11.1.2.7 WHITE WASH SAND DUNES/TEN MILE CANYON 

The only dune area in the MPA, White Wash Sand Dunes are located east of the Green River and 

south of I-70, about 25 miles from the city of Green River, Utah. White Wash is very popular 

with OHV users, especially on spring and fall weekends. Off-Highway Vehicle riders also visit 

other sites in this area, including Ten Mile Canyon, Crystal Geyser, Red Wash, Rainbow Rocks, 

and Duma Point. Currently, the area has no facilities other than an informational bulletin board. 

Off Highway Vehicle use categories in this area are mixed. The current RMP has designated the 

northern part of the area as Limited to existing roads and trails. The southern portion of the area 

is limited to existing roads and trails through a Federal Register Notice (January 2001) and is in 

effect until the proposed RMP is approved. A middle portion of the area is Open to cross-country 

travel. Extensive resource damage is occurring from camping activities and especially from 

unrestricted vehicle travel. Resource damage from OHV use includes damage to soils, scenic 

quality, vegetation, cultural, and paleontological resource degradation as well as to damage to 

riparian resources. 

3.11.1.2.8 KEN'S LAKE

Ken's Lake is a reservoir 10 miles south of Moab, within Spanish Valley. Jointly managed by the 

MFO and by the Spanish Valley Water Conservancy District, Ken's Lake has a 31-site 

campground, as well as a day use area and beach. Hiking, biking, fishing, non-motorized 

boating, OHV and horseback riding opportunities are within or adjacent to the recreation area. 

Vehicle and camping restrictions are the result of a Federal Register Notice (November 1996) 

that is in effect until the proposed RMP is approved. 

3.11.1.2.9 KANE CREEK CROSSING

The area where the Hurrah Pass road crosses Kane Creek has become very popular for dispersed 

camping especially among OHV enthusiasts. Off-Highway Vehicle play at camp is the major 

threat to the scenic values of the area, as well as to water quality within Kane Creek. Both 

dispersed camping and OHV use have led to sanitation problems and resource deterioration due 

to these unrestricted recreational activities. Cross-country vehicle travel has been restricted by a 

Federal Register Notice (January 2001), but much of this type of activity still occurs. The OHV 

restrictions are in effect until the proposed RMP is approved. Camping is limited to designated 

sites through a Federal Register Notice (2005) and is in effect until the proposed RMP is 

approved. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-83

3.11.1.2.10 MILL CREEK CANYON

Mill Creek Canyon is located directly east of Moab. This perennial stream is the "backyard" for 

those Grand County residents who live on the east side of Spanish Valley. An extraordinarily 

scenic canyon, it is popular for hiking, swimming, and viewing rock art. Some horseback riding 

also occurs in the canyon. Recreational use of Mill Creek Canyon is guided by a 2001 

management plan (BLM 2001b). Management is made more difficult by the split ownership of 

the canyon: public lands are interspersed with School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration (SITLA) and private lands. A well-known off-road vehicle challenge hill, Potato 

Salad Hill, is located at the entrance to Mill Creek Canyon. 

The Mill Creek Canyon RAMP was signed in February 2001. The RAMP affects the Mill Creek 

Planning Area, which includes all BLM lands along the south fork of Mill Creek Canyon from 

the town of Moab to the USFS boundary. The overall goal for the area is to protect, manage and 

improve natural and cultural resources through effective use of minimum tools. 

3.11.1.2.11 GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR

The Green River is the western border of the MPA, and management of the Green River is 

shared with the Price Field Office. Three popular float sections are shared between the two BLM 

field offices. These three float trips are: Desolation Canyon, Gray Canyon (which constitutes the 

last day of the Desolation trip and is also the Green River "Daily"), and Labyrinth Canyon. 

Facilities along the Green River include a campground, toilets and a boat ramp along the Green 

River Daily, and a seasonal contact station and toilet at Mineral Bottom, the termination of the 

Labyrinth Float trip. The launch point for the Labyrinth Canyon trip is at Green River State Park; 

the riverbed of Labyrinth is state sovereign land, with most of the shoreline managed by the 

BLM. Both the BLM and Utah State Sovereign lands share management of the area via a formal 

agreement. 

3.11.1.2.12 THE BOOK CLIFFS

The Book Cliffs are a large area in the northern portion of the MPA. Within this lightly used and 

relatively unknown area, which stretches from the Green River to the Colorado State line north 

of I-70, are five Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Recreation seekers use the Book Cliffs for big 

game hunting, scenic drives, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, backpacking and some limited 

vehicle camping. There are ample opportunities for solitude and primitive, dispersed recreation 

in the Book Cliffs. The Sego Canyon Rock Art site is located on the southern edge of the Book 

Cliffs. 

3.11.1.2.13 UTAH RIMS

The Utah Rims area consists of 15,400-acres immediately west of the Colorado border and south 

of I-70. This area is primarily used for day use by western Colorado residents. Dirt biking is the 

primary recreational activity but the area is also popular with mountain bikers and horseback 

riders. Currently, resource damage is occurring as a result of OHV travel. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-84

3.11.1.2.14 OTHER AREAS

In addition to the areas listed above, areas such as Entrada Bluffs and Kane Creek Canyon Rim 

receive substantial visitation. Some areas, such as Yellow Cat and Black Ridge receive moderate 

visitation. Other areas, such as the Dolores Triangle, East LaSal Creek, the Cisco Desert, and 

Beaver Creek are less visited, but can be very popular at certain times. As many areas within the 

MPA become more visited and more crowded, visitors are increasingly seeking out less traveled 

areas. Much of the former backcountry in the planning area is now receiving heavy to moderate 

recreational use; the majority of the areas have the potential for substantial recreational use. 

3.11.1.2.15 CAMPGROUNDS

The MFO manages 22 developed fee area campgrounds, with 313 individual fee campsites and 

11 group sites. In addition, the Sand Flats Recreation Area has a total of 120 campsites. 

Although located in the MPA, the Price Field Office manages the 10-site campground at 

Swasey's Boat Ramp on the Green River Daily. 

3.11.1.2.16 VEHICULAR ROUTES

The MFO marks 277 miles of road. The MFO also maintains the main entrance roads in the 

Canyon Rims Recreation Area (the Needles Overlook and Anticline Overlook Roads, both of 

which are State Scenic Backways). Other routes, which are primarily used for vehicular 

recreation, are those that are marked by the MFO, often in conjunction with user groups. 

Additionally, many other motorized routes within the MPA are used for recreational purposes. 

The most popular motorized routes include any of the 785 miles of the Jeep Safari Route system 

(this figure includes dirt roads within the planning area that are permitted for Jeep Safari use). 

This network of backcountry routes has been popularized in guidebooks and on maps as well as 

by club use. "Rockcrawling," an extreme type of jeep recreation, is currently popular in the 

Black Ridge area, though much of this route is on state and private lands. 

There are no routes solely dedicated to OHV use. These activities take place on the same routes 

as used by four-wheel drive vehicles, and often occur on Jeep Safari routes. There is an informal, 

user-made network of motorcycle routes in the White Wash Dunes area. 

3.11.1.2.17 POPULAR MOUNTAIN BIKE ROUTES

Mountain bike use occurs on many of the Jeep Safari routes as well as on other routes. Popular 

mountain bike routes include Gemini Bridges, Porcupine Rim, the Slickrock Bike Trail, Amasa 

Back, Flat Pass, Klondike Bluffs, Kokopelli's Trail, Poison Spider, Lower Monitor and 

Merrimac, Bartlett Wash, Moab Rim, Kane Creek Canyon Rim, Bar M, Hurrah Pass and Onion 

Creek. 

A survey conducted by the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism (IORT 2002) discussed 

mountain bike use. Although this survey is not indicative of the entire mountain biking 

community, it does shed light on attitudes and perceptions of mountain bikers, particularly 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-85

tourists, visiting the area. Attitudes concerning issues and management were mixed. When asked 

about the physical impacts resulting from outdoor recreation in the Slickrock/Sand Flats area, 

37% of respondents thought the impacts were moderately or extremely high, while the remainder 

thought they were low or at an acceptable level. Respondents felt that vehicle travel off 

designated routes and human waste and garbage disposal were more pressing management 

problems then resource impacts. Visitors felt that there should be more of a focus on resource 

protection than on the development of visitor services. 

Most mountain bikers support the use of fees to help fund Slickrock Trail management, which 

possibly could be extrapolated to the rest of the mountain biking population as well. Respondents 

were willing to support modest fees for trail use (IORT 2002). 

3.11.1.2.18 POPULAR HIKING TRAILS

The following trails are reserved for hiking use only: Hunter Canyon, Fisher Towers, Corona 

Arch, Amphitheater Loop, Copper Ridge Sauropod Trackway Interpretive Trail, Mill Canyon 

Dinosaur Trail, Negro Bill Canyon, the Ken's Lake hiking trail system, Trough Springs Trail and 

the Windwhistle Nature Trail. These routes are marked and maintained by the MFO. While the 

Hidden Valley Trail and the Portal Trail are marked and maintained as hiking trails, bicycle use 

is also allowed. Hikers also extensively use the Moab Rim Route. Hiking also occurs elsewhere 

in the MPA, particularly in canyon systems. Hiking is allowed anywhere within the planning 

area, and general areas that are popular for hiking include the Sand Flats area, the entire Mill 

Creek area, Richardson Amphitheater, Spring Canyon, Behind the Rocks, and the area above 

Potash Road (Goldhor-Wilcock). Hiking is a popular activity and there is a demand for 

additional non-motorized activities, such as marked hiking routes. 

3.11.1.3 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

Recreational opportunities in the MPA are extensive. The following list of activities shown in 

Table 3.18 is categorized by use level. 

Table 3.18. Activities in the MPA, by Use Level 

High Use Medium Use Low Use 

Driving for pleasure 

(sight-seeing) 

Mountain biking 

Hiking 

Jeeping 

Camping 

River activities (rafting and 

paddling) 

Nature study/cultural study 

OHV riding (including ATV, 

dirt biking) 

Rock climbing (sport, 

traditional, bouldering, 

canyoneering) 

Special events 

Road cycling 

BASE jumping 

Backpacking 

Hot air ballooning 

Hunting 

Fishing 

Swimming 

Canyoneering 

Rock crawling 

Source: Personal communication between Katie Stevens, Russ von Koch, Brent Northrup, Alex Van Hemert, and Bill Stevens, BLM 

MFO, on May 5, 2003. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-86

3.11.1.4 RIVER RECREATION USE

The MPA provides year-round rafting and boating experiences. All commercial use is under 

Special Recreation Permit (SRP) with limited permit availability outside of Labyrinth Canyon. 

Nine sections of the Colorado and Green Rivers are floated extensively. These sections are 

described below. 

3.11.1.4.1 WESTWATER CANYON OF THE COLORADO RIVER

This is a whitewater segment, and is managed under a limited use permit system, with limitations 

on the numbers of people allowed to launch. Westwater Canyon is considered one of the finest 

whitewater float trips in the country. Westwater Canyon is entirely within the Colorado River 

SRMA. Extensive facilities are maintained at Westwater to help manage the area, including a full 

service ranger station, employee housing, a water system, boat ramps, parking lots and a 

campground. Private as well as commercial boaters benefit from this intensive management. 

3.11.1.4.2 THE COLORADO RIVER DAILY (FROM HITTLE BOTTOM TO BLM TAKEOUT ALONG 

UTAH HIGHWAY 128) 

This section has several mild rapids. Private boaters are not required to obtain a permit, and there 

are no limitations on the numbers of boaters allowed. The Colorado River Daily is within the 

Grand ERMA below Castle Creek (shoreline only). The Colorado River upstream from Castle 

Creek (river as well as shoreline) is located within the Colorado River SRMA. 

3.11.1.4.3 THE COLORADO RIVER ALONG UTAH HIGHWAY 279 

This 20-mile flatwater section is usually canoed. There are no permits or use limitations. It is 

within the Grand ERMA. 

3.11.1.4.4 THE COLORADO RIVER FROM THE COLORADO STATE LINE TO WESTWATER 

The section of the Colorado River from Loma, Colorado to Westwater, Utah is called 

Ruby/Horsethief. This popular flatwater float trip is administered by the BLM, Grand Junction, 

Colorado Field Office, with four miles of the trip located within the MPA. As the takeout is at 

Westwater, heavy use along Ruby/Horsethief can lead to parking overflow problems at the 

Westwater Ranger Station. 

3.11.1.4.5 GREEN RIVER – DESOLATION CANYON (FROM SAND WASH TO NEFERTITI RAPID) 

This 76-mile section of the Green River is called the Desolation Canyon float trip. There are fifty 

ripples and rapids in this section. Private permits are required for Desolation Canyon, and are 

issued by the BLM Price Field Office. The lower segments on the east side of Desolation 

Canyon are within the Grand ERMA. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-87

3.11.1.4.6 THE GREEN RIVER DAILY (FROM NEFERTITI RAPID TO SWASEY'S BEACH, 10 MILES 

NORTH OF GREEN RIVER, UTAH) 

This is the last 10 miles of the Desolation Canyon float trip. There are several mild rapids along 

this stretch. Permits are not required for this Daily portion. It is within the Grand ERMA. 

3.11.1.4.7 GREEN RIVER – LABYRINTH CANYON (FROM THE CITY OF GREEN RIVER TO 

MINERAL BOTTOM) 

This 60-mile section of the Green River is one of the premier flatwater canoe and float trips 

within the U.S. Permits are required for Labyrinth Canyon, although the numbers of boaters are 

not limited. Labyrinth Canyon is within the Grand ERMA, and it is managed by agreement with 

Utah Sovereign Lands with assistance from Utah State Parks. 

3.11.1.4.8 COLORADO RIVER – CISCO TO DEWEY BRIDGE AND THE DOLORES RIVER 

CONFLUENCE

The flatwater section of the Colorado River from Cisco to Dewey Bridge is growing in 

popularity. Both private and commercial users float this 20-mile section of the river. There is no 

private permitting process for this section of the river. In addition, the Dolores River from the 

Colorado/Utah state line to its confluence with the Colorado River is floated in the springtime by 

a limited number of people (free permits are required). Limited flows on the Dolores restrict its 

use for much of the year. 

3.11.1.4.9 RIVER RECREATION USE AND DEMAND

Visitor counts for boaters are based on permit data and observations and illustrate the current 

demand for river recreation on four river segments in the MPA (Table 3.19). 

In general, satisfaction of river users is high, with the average satisfaction of approximately 95% 

on both the Green and Colorado Rivers (Reiter and Blahna 2001). 

Table 3.19. River Recreation Use in the MPA 

Green River 

Labyrinth 

Green River 

Daily 

Colorado 

River Daily 

Colorado 

River 

Westwater 

Number of Boaters 8,000 11,000 59,000 14,000 

Segment Length (Miles) 70 8 13 17 

Rapid Classes I II-III I-III III-IV 

Average Trip Length (Days) 5 1 1 2 

Source: IORT 2001. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-88

3.11.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

3.11.2.1 THE GRAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RMP) 

The current (Grand) RMP provides the framework for planning in the area. As mentioned above, 

the 1985 Grand RMP was completed prior to the rapid expansion of recreational use on public 

lands in the MPA. The RMP specifically addresses the Colorado and the Dolores Rivers, and the 

issuance of recreation permits as well as a few routes; however, most of the issues and locations 

that are now important to the BLM Recreation Program are not addressed. The guidance given in 

the 1985 RMP to the recreation program lacks the specificity needed to manage the current 

burgeoning use of recreation resources. 

The 1985 RMP also made the following OHV decisions: 

1. Designate 1,183,660 acres as open to OHV use; 

2. Designate 596,234 acres limited to existing roads and trails; 

3. Designate 24,454 acres as closed to OHV use; 

4. Designate 15,206 acres as in Mill Creek and East Mill Creek as limited to designated roads 

and trails. 

3.11.2.2 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) MANAGEMENT 

Since the approval of the current RMP, there have been substantial changes in visitation in the 

MPA: the numbers of visitors have increased, and the numbers of visitors engaging in motorized 

recreation have also increased. These changes forced alterations in the OHV designations in 

order to protect visual, cultural, soil, and vegetation resources. 

The current RMP outlined OHV designations; however subsequent Federal Register Notices 

have instituted rules that remain in place until the proposed RMP is approved. They are shown in 

Table 3.20 below. In addition, wilderness has been designated in Utah as part of the Colorado 

Canyons National Conservation Area Bill. The Black Ridge Wilderness Area is closed to OHV 

use. 

Table 3.20. Comparison of 1985 RMP OHV Designations and Present OHV Designations 

 Grand RMP (acres) 

After Additional 

Restrictions and 

Designations (acres) 

Open to cross country travel 1,183,660 725,370 

Limited to Existing Roads and Trails 596,234 734,074 

Limited to Designated Roads and Trails 15,206 48,169 

Limited to Inventoried Roads 309,749 309,749 

Closed to OHV Use 24,454 33,819 

The management of OHV activities within the planning area includes monitoring and 

maintaining trails, maintaining and adding to a database of monitoring use, installing fencing to 

protect vegetation on certain trails, coordination with local officials and other agencies, WSA 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-89

monitoring, ongoing training on OHV related issues, and issuing citations and written warnings 

for OHV violations. 

The Utah Division of State Parks and Recreation monitors OHV registration through the 

Department of Motor Vehicles. The following data show a dramatic increase in OHV ownership 

in the State of Utah (Table 3.21). 

Table 3.21. Utah OHV Registrations*, 1998 Compared with 2002 

 1998 2002 % Increase 

Statewide 77,361 160,583 207% 

Grand County 238 726 305% 

*OHV registrations include ATVs, non-street legal motorbikes, snowmobiles, and dune buggies. 

Vehicles that are street legal, such as jeeps and trucks, are licensed, and are not considered 

OHVs for registration purposes. 

It is important to note that the majority of OHV and dirt bike users in the MPA are residents of 

Colorado. In addition, users come from the Wasatch Front of Utah, other western states, and 

from all over the country to dirt bike and ride OHVs on public lands within the MPA. The 

planning area has been featured in national OHV publications (four-wheelers, dirt bike, and fourwheel driving), and has become nationally known as an OHV destination. OHV demand is 

highest within the following areas: 

• Near Dead Horse Point State Park including Arth's Rim, Poison Spider Mesa, Gold Bar Rim, 

and Golden Spike; 

• The area just east and south of Moab including Porcupine Rim, Hell's Revenge, Fins & 

Things, and Steel Bender; 

• Near Kane Creek, including Cliff Hanger, Kane Creek Canyon Road, Moab Rim, Hurrah 

Pass, Pritchett Canyon, Behind the Rocks and Flat Iron Mesa; and 

• Northwest of Arches National Park including Wipeout Hill, Seven Mile Rim, Hey Joe 

Canyon, Ten Mile, Secret Spire, 3D and Crystal Geyser (Reiter et al. 1998). 

Demand for OHV activities is expected to continue to increase in the MPA. This will place 

demands on the MFO to provide for and monitor motorized users. This anticipated increase in 

demand also has implications for OHV designations and for route marking. 

3.11.2.3 SPECIAL RECREATION PERMITS (SRPS) FOR SPECIAL EVENTS

Due to recent increases in recreational use in the MPA that exceed monitoring capability and 

available space, priority for authorization of new SRPs for land-based commercial and 

competitive events is given (where conflicts exist) to applicants proposing uses that: 

• Do not duplicate existing uses; 

• Take place outside the months of March, April, May and October; 

• Use lands and facilities off public lands for overnight accommodation of guests; 

• Display and communicate the Canyon Country Minimum Impact Practices; and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-90

• Focus visitation on sites and areas capable of withstanding repeated use. 

The great number of visitors to public lands during peak periods led to the promulgation of these 

rules in order to protect resources and to disperse visitation. Other factors are also considered 

including the public demand for the proposed use, the capability of the applicant to carry out the 

proposed use, projected government revenues, and past performance. 

3.11.2.4 SPECIAL AREA RIVER RECREATION PERMITS

In addition to commercial permit requirements, permits for private boaters are required for three 

river stretches within the MPA: Westwater Canyon of the Colorado River; the Dolores River 

from Gateway to the confluence with the Colorado River; and interagency river trip permits 

(joint jurisdiction of the BLM and Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands) for the 

Labyrinth section of the Green River (noncommercial trips between Green River State Park and 

the northern boundary of Canyonlands). All permittees are required to follow standard river use 

stipulations. 

3.11.2.5 DEMAND FOR FACILITY DEVELOPMENT

In the past 15 years, the MFO has constructed and maintained a variety of recreation 

infrastructure. However, the present level of facility development is still not sufficient to meet 

the needs of the recreating public, nor is it sufficient to protect resources from the recreating 

public. Areas within the Grand ERMA that are receiving heavy visitation and camping use will 

require facilities such as camping areas, toilets, information kiosks, marked routes and parking 

areas in the very near future. These areas include the Utah 313 corridor, the area northwest of 

Moab known as Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges (including Ten Mile Canyon and White Wash 

Sand Dunes), the Bartlett Wash/Mill/Tusher Canyon areas, Klondike Bluffs, Bar M, areas south 

of Moab, Utah Rims, and Kane Creek Crossing area. 

It is reasonable to expect that, in the next 15 years, recreation facilities construction will continue 

to be needed, although the pace of construction is expected to lessen. With visitation to BLMadministered public lands around Moab continuing to increase (and with the need for additional 

facilities already extant with the present visitation), facilities to provide for these visitors must 

keep pace in order to protect the land and to provide for human sanitation. Current use levels 

continue to produce degradation of resources, and additional facilities are needed to 

accommodate visitation and stabilize resource values. Examples of demand-driven development 

include: 1) providing camping facilities where dispersed camping activity exceeds capacity, or 2) 

providing marked OHV or bike routes when numbers and types of users change so that route 

marking can maintain public safety and protect resources. In addition, providing for vehicular 

users often requires building parking lots, trailheads and toilet facilities. 

3.11.2.6 USER CONFLICT AND DISPLACEMENT 

As recreational use has increased throughout the MPA, recreationists have moved into areas 

historically used by other resource users, such as ranchers and the oil and gas industry. 

Sometimes, conflicts have developed among these user groups, as long-term users resent 

encroachment of recreationists on the public lands. In turn, some recreation users see their use of 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-91

the public land as the highest and best use, and feel that the established users have a lesser claim 

to that land. 

There has also been a displacement of certain recreation groups from some areas due to conflicts 

with other recreation user groups. For instance, the growing popularity of Gemini Bridges for 

OHVs has led to fewer numbers of mountain bikers, as they have been displaced by the faster 

moving and louder modes of transportation. 

Another source of tension is among various recreation user groups. When recreational use 

reaches a certain threshold, user groups start to resent the multi-use nature of public lands. For 

example, some hikers resent mountain bikers and motorized users on shared trails, while 

mountain bikers may seek some trails free from motorized use. The multi-use concept becomes 

strained when use levels reach a threshold. Specific areas in which BLM staff have had reports 

of user conflict and displacement include: 

• Monitor and Merrimac Trail – conflicts between motorcycle users and mountain bikers 

• Bartlett Wash – conflict between grazing and recreation uses and between motorized and 

non-motorized use 

• Kokopelli's Trail – conflict between OHVs and mountain bikers 

• Hurrah Pass/Kane Creek Crossing – conflict between OHVs and mountain bikers 

• Slickrock Trail – conflict between dirt bikes and mountain bikers 

• Gemini Bridges – conflict between OHVs and mountain bikers 

• Moab Rim – conflict between OHVs, hikers, and mountain bikers 

• Seven Mile Canyon –conflict between OHVs and horseback riders 

• Poison Spider Trail – conflict between OHVs and mountain bikers 

3.11.2.7 RESOURCE CONFLICTS/IMPACTS 

Various recreation activities impact other resources, such as riparian areas, cultural resources, 

vegetation, wildlife, soils, grazing, and oil and gas. Resource conflicts occur when two uses 

compete for the same resource, such as recreation and wildlife competing for land. Specific areas 

where resource conflict is occurring include: 

• Moab Canyon – conflict between recreation users and vehicular traffic 

• Gemini Bridges and Long Canyon Roads/Shafer Canyon – conflict between recreation and 

wildlife (bighorn sheep) 

• Bartlett Wash – impact of camping and OHV use on riparian area; impacts to cultural 

resource sites 

• White Wash area– impact of OHV use on visual quality, riparian resources, cultural 

resources, and oil and gas and ranching operations 

• Crystal Geyser/White Wash area – impact of OHV use on visual quality, riparian resources, 

cultural resources, and oil and gas and ranching operations 

• Wall Street – conflict between climbing activities and vehicular traffic 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-92

• Castle Rock – conflict between residents' wishes and current recreation use 

• Tenmile Canyon – motorized use in stream conflicts with wildlife, cultural, and riparian 

resources 

• Duma Point – motorized use conflicts with bighorn sheep escape habitat 

• Kane Creek Crossing– impact of motorized vehicle use and camping on riparian area 

• Tusher Canyon – motorized vehicle use in the stream is impacting the riparian area 

• Seven Mile Canyon – conflict between motorized vehicle use and cultural resources 

• Mill Creek Canyon – hiker and horse use conflicts with cultural resources 

• Mill Canyon – motorized vehicle and mountain bike use conflicts with riparian resources, 

visual quality, cultural resources, and vegetation 

• Upper Courthouse Wash – motorized vehicle traffic conflicts with visual quality, vegetation, 

riparian, and cultural resources 

• Pritchett Canyon – conflicts between vehicle use and wilderness values in the Wilderness 

Study Area and visual quality 

• Klondike Bluffs – motorized vehicle and mountain bike use conflict with paleontological 

resources 

• Westwater Canyon – OHV use on the rims of Westwater Canyon conflicts with wilderness 

values of the Wilderness Study Area and with river visitors' experience along the Colorado 

River 

• Along highway corridors – as OHV trails are created parallel to paved highways, conflict 

with the visual quality that drivers on the highways wish to experience 

3.11.2.7.1 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES (OHV) 

The increase in the use of OHVs has created several issues for the MPA. First, the speed and 

increasing capability of OHVs allows easier access to remote parts of the MPA, making 

management of this activity more difficult, and increasing the potential range of impacts. 

Second, the popularity of this activity continues to grow, both in private use and in more special 

events taking place. Planning for areas in which OHVs can be used continues to receive national 

and local attention. Cross-country OHV use, both legal and illegal, is creating additional resource 

damage and is a real and important issue in the MPA. In addition, the issue of conflicting 

recreational use, primarily between OHV and other users, both recreational and resource users, 

continues to grow. The ability of OHV users to penetrate the backcountry where patrols are 

difficult may lead to secondary impacts to cultural resources from increased vandalism and theft. 

3.11.2.7.2 INADEQUATE FACILITIES/PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

The availability of facilities is directly related to public health. Inadequate numbers of organized 

campgrounds and restroom facilities contribute to unhealthy levels of human waste in some 

areas, posing a health risk to visitors. At present, many of the problem areas (especially those 

close to the city of Moab) are on non-public (state and private) lands. While the BLM has 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.11 Recreation 

3-93

provided restroom facilities (90 in total), the number is still inadequate for the number of visitors 

to BLM lands. Funding for maintenance of existing and needed facilities is also a serious issue. 

There is a need for more staff presence in the Colorado Riverway, given the level of visitation. 

Backcountry areas of the Riverway, such as Shafer Basin, areas of Onion Creek, and Castle 

Rock, are currently devoid of facilities; this may not be adequate for the numbers of visitors 

these areas are receiving. 

A substantial amount of unrestricted camping occurs in the area north of U.S. Highway 191, 

especially around Bartlett Wash and Mill Canyon, near the Kane Creek Crossing on the way to 

Hurrah Pass, and in the White Wash/Ten Mile Area; this has led to sanitation problems and 

resource damage. 

3.12 RIPARIAN

3.12.1 INTRODUCTION

Riparian and wetland areas are sensitive vegetative or physical ecosystems that develop in 

association with surface or subsurface water (Leonard et al. 1992). Riparian and wetland 

ecological systems comprise less than 1% of the 22 million acres of public lands administered by 

BLM in Utah, but are among the most important, productive, and diverse ecosystems on the 

landscape. Benefits from riparian/wetland ecosystems are essential to both human and wildlife 

values and include: 

• Maintaining clean renewable water supplies; 

• Supporting various life stages for diverse flora and fauna, including special status species and 

fisheries; 

• Importance in cultural and historic values; 

• Economic value derived from sustainable uses (open space, hunting, livestock grazing; 

commercial recreation); 

• Greenbelt associated recreation and scenic values; 

• Thermal/shade protection for both humans and wildlife, which is especially important within 

the arid Southwest; 

• Flood attenuation. 

Riparian/wetland habitats are fragile resources and are often among the first landscape features 

to reflect impacts from management activities. These habitats are used as indicators of overall 

land health and watershed condition. Healthy riparian systems filter and purify water, reduce 

sediment loads and enhance soil stability, reduce destructive energies associated with flood 

events, provide physical and thermal micro-climates in contrast to surrounding uplands, and 

contribute to groundwater recharge and base flow (BLM 1991b). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian 

3-94

3.12.2 RESOURCE OVERVIEW 

BLM administers 32,800 acres (1.8% of BLM-administered lands) of riparian and wetland 

resources on public lands within the MPA. The majority of these resources are riparian areas 

located along the Colorado River, Green River, Dolores River, and their associated tributary 

drainages including Mill Creek, Kane Creek, Onion Creek, Tenmile Wash and many others. 

Riparian and wetland areas include, but are not limited to, areas adjacent to waterways (whether 

waters are surface, subsurface, or ephemeral), springs, potholes, wet meadows, sloughs, marshes, 

swamps, bogs, floodplains, lakes, and reservoirs. Riparian areas are recognized as "a form of 

wetland transition" between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas (Leonard et al. 

1992), and for BLM purposes, riparian and wetland areas are referred to synonymously unless 

specifically discerned. Riparian and wetland ecosystems are classified by type based on 

hydrologic, geomorphologic, and biological factors (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Within most riparian/wetland systems in the arid southwest, the potential of a riparian/wetland 

ecosystem is strongly dependent upon the availability of water. The amount, timing, duration and 

source of water availability, among other physical factors, is commonly referred to in terms of 

perennial (yearlong), interrupted (perennial flow discontinuous in space), intermittent (seasonal), 

or ephemeral (storm) water sources. 

The BLM specifically manages and monitors riparian/wetland resources in terms of lotic and 

lentic ecosystems. Lotic riparian areas are those ecosystems associated with running waters, 

streams, springs or drainages, while lentic riparian areas are those associated with standing water 

ecosystems, such as marshes, swamps, lakes, springs, seeps, low velocity backwater areas or 

areas where permanent soil moisture is available. Ecological evaluations based on ecosystem 

attributes and processes differ between lotic and lentic systems, with current condition and 

activities in planning area reported annually to Congress. FY 2003 summaries regarding lotic and 

lentic systems indicate over 96% (31,700 acres) of riparian/wetland resources in the planning 

area are lotic riparian systems, with less than 4% (1,102 acres) in lentic wetland systems. 

3.12.3 RIPARIAN/WETLAND STATUS

Regardless of the type of riparian or wetland ecosystem, Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is 

assessed for each stream or varying segments (Table 3.22). Functioning condition is rated by 

category to reflect ecosystem health as affected by management practices. Definitions follow 

below (BLM 1998c): 

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC): currently 18,584 acres (57%) of 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; 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian 

3-95

• Develop diverse fluvial geomorphology (pool and channel complexes) to provide habitat for 

wildlife; and 

• Support greater biodiversity. 

Functioning at Risk (FAR): currently 11,192 acres (34%) of riparian-wetland areas are in 

functional condition, but at least one soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible 

to degradation following high flow events. 

Non-Functioning (NF): currently 2,973 acres (9%) of 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. 

Table 3.22. 2003 Condition Status of Riparian Areas by Watershed within the MPA 

Stream System PFC 

(acres/%) 

FAR 

(acres/%) 

NF 

(acres/%) 

Total 

Riparian 

(acres) 

Colorado Headwaters– Plateau

Colorado River, Cottonwood Canyon 

178.34 

100% 

0 0 178.34 

Upper Colorado-Dolores–Westwater 

Agate Wash, Bitter Creek, Cisco Wash, 

Coates Creek, Colorado River, Cotttonwood 

Canyon, Cottonwood Wash, Danish Wash, 

Diamond Ck, Dolores River, Dry Gulch, East 

Canyon, Hay Canyon, Jones Canyon, Little 

Dolores, Marble Canyon, Nash Wash, Pinto 

Wash Renegade Ck, Ryan Ck, Sagers Wash, 

Star Cyn, Sulphur Canyon, Westwater Creek 

6,753.21 

62% 

1,502.91 

14% 

2,692.47 

25% 

10,948.59 

Upper Colorado-Dolores –Upper Dolores 

East Coyote Wash, La Sal Creek 

559.19 

82% 

122.89 

18% 

0 682.08 

(Upper Colorado-Dolores – Lower Dolores) 

Beaver Ck, Colorado River, Dolores River, 

Fisher Ck, Granite Ck 

1,247.36 

53% 

1,134.60 

48% 

0 2,381.96 

Upper Colorado-Dolores – Kane Springs 

Castle Creek, Bartlett Wash, Buck, Bull 

Canyon, Colorado River, Courthouse Wash, 

Day Canyon, Dolores River, Dripping Spring, 

Dry Oak Spring, Fish Seep Wash, Gold Bar 

Canyon, Hatch Wash, Hunters Canyon, Ice 

Box, Jackass Canyon, Kane Springs Ck, Little 

Canyon, Little Valley, Lockhart, Mill Canyon, 

Mill Creek, Muleshoe, Negro Bill Canyon, 

Onion Creek, Pritchett Canyon, Professor 

Creek, Rill Creek, Sagers Wash, Salt Valley, 

Salt Wash, Sevenmile, Shafer Basin, Trough 

Springs, Trout Water, Tusher Wash, West 

Coyote Wash, Yellow Jacket 

7,035.90 

78% 

1,923.16 

21% 

26.47 

1% 

8,985.53 

Lower Green – Desolation Canyon 

Coal Creek, Green River, Rattlesnake 

1,133.97 

61% 

677.63 

37% 

43.93 

2% 

1,855.53 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian 

3-96

Table 3.22. 2003 Condition Status of Riparian Areas by Watershed within the MPA 

Stream System PFC 

(acres/%) 

FAR 

(acres/%) 

NF 

(acres/%) 

Total 

Riparian 

(acres) 

Lower Green – Willow 

Moon Ridge, Willow Creek 

30.51 

100% 

0 0 30.51 

Lower Green – Lower Green 

Tenmile Wash, Browns Wash, Crescent 

Wash, Dubinky, Floy Creek, Green River, Hell 

Roaring, Little Grand Wash, Mineral Bottom, 

Rattlesnake, Red Wash, Salt Valley, Salt 

Wash, Spring Canyon, Thompson Wash, 

Tusher Canyon, White Wash 

1,646.50 

21% 

5,831.29 

76% 

210.61 

3% 

7,688.40 

Total 18,584.98 11,192.48 2,973.48 32,750.94 

3.12.4 INVASIVE AND/OR NON-NATIVE SPECIES

While functional ratings can indicate the health of an ecosystem and be used as management 

tools, they do not in themselves reflect the degree of ecosystem diversity relative to invasive, 

exotic or noxious plant species. This factor has severely altered the majority of native riparian 

and wetland ecosystems throughout the west (see Table 3.23 for a list of native and non-native 

plant species). Under this condition, a system can be severely altered and still function to a lesser 

degree than its desired or potential condition. Riparian areas are naturally dynamic zones driven 

by disturbance. Natural disturbance within riparian ecosystems associated with water amount, 

timing, duration and source supports the establishment of native vegetation but can also lead to 

encroachment by invasive and/or non-native plant communities if these seed sources are present. 

Table 3.23. Common Riparian Plant Species Occurring in the MPA 

Species Type 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native Riparian Species 

Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii 

Narrowleaf cottonwood Populus angustifolia 

Gooding willow (black willow) Salix goodingii 

Coyote willow Salix exigua 

Yellow willow Salix lutea 

Water birch Betula occidentalis 

Box elder Acer negundo 

Bulrushes Scirpus spp. 

Rushes Juncus spp. 

Spike-rushes Eleocharis spp. 

Cattail Typha spp. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian 

3-97

Table 3.23. Common Riparian Plant Species Occurring in the MPA 

Species Type 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Invasive/Exotic Species 

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 

Tamarisk Tamarix spp. 

Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 

Ravenna grass Erianthus ravennae 

Clematis Clematis spp.

Phragmites Phragmites spp. 

Noxious Species 

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa 

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon 

Bindweed Convolvulus spp. 

Broad-leaved peppergrass (tall whitetop) Lepidium latifolium 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa 

Perennial sorghum (including Johnson grass) Sorghum spp. 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans 

Quackgrass Elytrigia repens 

Scotch thistle Onopordium acanthium 

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea squarrosa 

Whitetop Cardaria spp. 

Exotic and noxious species (namely tamarisk, Russian olive, and Russian knapweed) are now 

common within most riparian/wetland ecosystems along major riverways in the planning area. 

Possibly the most devastating aspect of invasive exotic species is their contribution to making 

healthy riparian ecosystems unhealthy. The individual riparian functions or processes that exotic 

species can alter include: 

• Exotics often dewater riparian sites since they have deeper tap roots to out-compete natives 

for availability of water in arid environments; 

• Tamarisk secretes salt and increases soil and water salinity, resulting in reduced seed 

establishment of native species, and reduced downstream water quality. This has severe 

economic impacts; 

• Exotics compete for sun and space in narrow available habitats; 

• Exotics have large numbers of seeds and long seed establishment periods (very prolific in 

comparison to native species); 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian 

3-98

• Exotic communities typically reduce biodiversity (significant decreases in numbers and types 

of associated biotic species, including birds, bats, insects, amphibians, etc.); and 

• Exotic or invasive communities (e.g., Typha spp. and Phragmites australis) because of root 

and stem densities can armor stream banks promoting entrenched systems with highly 

destructive flooding energies which remain undissipated within deep channels, resulting in 

high bank loss downstream, sedimentation, and salinization. 

3.12.5 RIPARIAN/WETLAND IMPROVEMENT AND RESTORATION

3.12.5.1 IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN AREAS BY WATERSHED

Improvements and restoration efforts are conducted to ensure proper management of 

riparian/wetland ecosystems based on monitoring and on evaluations of individual resources, 

resource objectives or in response to activity plans (Table 3.24). Improvements are actions such 

as protective fencing or adjustments in management uses, while restoration refers to the repair of 

ecological functions of a riparian/wetland system. 

Table 3.24. Watersheds and Issues Receiving Corrective Restoration Action 

Watershed Issues Receiving Corrective Action 

Negro Bill Canyon Exotics, trail realignment 

Kane Springs Creek Exotics, OHV route delineation 

Ten-mile Wash (and tributaries) OHV route delineation, camping control, exotics, livestock 

Seven-mile Wash OHV route delineation, exotics, livestock control 

Hunters Canyon Exotics, camping 

Lost Spring Exotics 

Hay Canyon Livestock control, exotics 

Westwater Canyon Livestock control 

Cottonwood Creek Fire, stream restoration 

Diamond Creek Fire, stream restoration 

Onion Creek OHV route delineation, stream restoration 

Bartlett Wash OHV route delineation, camping control, road maintenance 

Moonflower Canyon Trail erosion 

Granite Canyon Fish habitat improvement 

Dolores River Exotics/weeds, livestock control 

Mill Creek Canyon Trail realignment, exotics, road control, stream restoration 

3.12.5.2 CURRENT RIPARIAN/WETLAND CONDITION STATUS

The 2003 status of riparian/wetland ecosystems in the planning area reflect that approximately 

57% of lotic riparian systems are in PFC, while only 30% of lentic wetlands are in PFC. These 

findings followed a 2002 catastrophic wildfire within Cottonwood and Diamond Creeks which 

degraded 35% (450 acres) of the total wetlands within the MFO planning area (refer to 

riparian/wetland status at the beginning of this chapter). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian 

3-99

Changes in riparian/wetland functioning condition generally occur dramatically rather than 

gradually, and often in response to cumulative impacts that cause failure following high flood 

events when functioning processes are most critical to dissipate destructive flows. However, in 

assessing the 1990 priority of riparian/wetlands in the planning area, very few changes in 

management priority are reflected, indicating that similar issues or conditions have been 

maintained over the last few years. Some notable differences in riparian/wetland condition and 

priorities have occurred in areas with popular OHV use (and associated dispersed camping), 

reoccurring livestock grazing, and increased use of county access roads. 

Riparian/wetland ecosystems prioritized for restoration (1- high to 4- low) within MFO are listed 

in Table 3.25. Recent revisions of riparian/wetland priorities are based on the protection of 

important riparian/wetland resources or the need for additional management in response to 

impacts resulting in Functioning-At-Risk conditions or declining trends. 

Table 3.25. Priority Riparian/Wetland Ecosystems in the MPA, 2004 vs. 1990 

Priority Status 2004 Priority 1990 Priority 

1 Colorado River (including Day 

Canyon) 

Green River 

Dolores River 

Colorado River (Colorado - Utah 

Stateline to Potash) 

2 Mill Creek Canyon 

Onion Creek 

Ten Mile Wash 

Kane Spring Canyon 

Negro Bill Canyon 

Cottonwood and Diamond Creeks 

Negro Bill 

Mill Creek Canyon 

Kane Springs Canyon 

3 Seven Mile Creek 

Bartlett/Tusher/Mill/Courthouse 

Rattlesnake Canyon 

Dolores River 

Green River (Rattlesnake to GR City) 

4 Westwater Creek 

Hatch Wash 

Floy Creek 

Flat Nose George Canyon 

East Coyote Wash 

Fisher/Beaver/Granite Creeks 

Seven-Mile Creek 

Courthouse Wash 

Westwater Creek 

Cottonwood Creek 

Hatch Wash 

Rattlesnake Canyon 

Flat Nose George Canyon 

High priority management is also given to special riparian/wetland ecosystems or conditions 

including: 

• Isolated riparian/wetland areas where exotic/noxious encroachment is low; 

• Arid or remote regions where riparian/wetlands are especially critical to wildlife and 

susceptible to impacts from grazing and recreation uses; 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.12 Riparian 

3-100

• Riparian/wetlands which contain unique, rare or diverse functions or values, such as rare 

hanging garden ecosystems, rare plant or wildlife species, or health indicator species 

including amphibians, arthropods, bats, etc; 

• Perennial streams, springs, or seeps that develop and support diverse and developed biotic or 

aquatic ecosystems including fish; 

• Sites containing native riparian/wetland species. Of particular importance are ecosystems 

containing Fremont cottonwood due to its current recruitment history and susceptibility to 

fire, grazing and beavers; willows (especially Gooding willow) due to their sparseness from 

overgrazing; and any wetland/lentic systems, sites or species due to their importance in 

stabilizing soils and water recharge. 

In fall of 2005 the biological control agent, Diorhabda elongata or tamarisk leaf beetle, was 

released on private lands along a stretch of the Colorado River adjacent to the Potash Road north 

of Moab. This population established successfully and in 2006 spread many miles up and 

downstream (and into several side canyons) with several miles of significant defoliation near the 

original release site. The beetle has established itself and is defoliating trees on BLM managed 

lands near the original release site. Repeated defoliation and spread of the beetle is expected to 

continue at a rapid pace in the next several years. Eventual death is expected for many of the 

trees after 4-5 years of continual defoliation, however that is still an estimate based on results of 

releases in other states or in slightly different ecosystems, it may differ slightly at this location. 

There will likely be standing dead skeletons, release of other suppressed weed species such as 

knapweed. Potentially some recovery of willow and other native species may occur, especially in 

headwaters or areas with less dense tamarisk infestations; however due to salinization of soils 

from dense tamarisk stands or hydrologic controls which may affect flooding and potential for 

cottonwood establishment, natural revegetation may not readily occur and more active 

restoration techniques may be necessary to prevent erosion or degradation of riparian resources. 

3.13 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

3.13.1 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The socioeconomic context of this RMP/EIS refers to the social, cultural and economic settings 

of communities impacted by the implementation of the BLM's management actions. The 

following section provides a summary of the planning area's social history and current 

demographic and economic trend information as well as a description of the key industries that 

are may be affected by management action implementation. 

The southern third of the MPA is in San Juan County, Utah. The full socioeconomic context for 

San Juan County is presented in the Monticello Resource Management Plan Revision, currently 

in progress. Relevant portions of the San Juan County socioeconomic report are contained in this 

chapter. For a full report on the social and economic conditions in San Juan County, see the 

Monticello RMP. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-101

3.13.1.1 GRAND COUNTY OVERVIEW

Grand County is situated in the eastern part of Utah, bordered by Emery County to the west, 

Uintah County to the north, San Juan County to the south, and the state of Colorado to the east. 

The county comprises 2,284,117 acres (3,689 square miles), with approximately 2.3 persons per 

square mile; Grand County has one of the lowest population densities in the state, (27.2 persons 

per square mile is the statewide average) (Grand County 2004). The Federal government 

administers 71% of the land in Grand County. The BLM manages the majority of the Federal 

land within the county, with jurisdiction over 66% of the land (1,559,814 acres). With just over 

95% of the land being managed by Federal, state, and tribal governments, only 4.3% of the land 

is privately owned. Table 3.26 shows the land composition of Grand County. 

Table 3.26. Land Jurisdiction in Grand County 

Total Acres % of County 

Federal Lands 1,694,128 71.0 

 BLM Lands 1,559,814 66.0 

 USFS 27,321 1.2 

 National Park 75,362 3.2 

State Lands 365,255 15.5 

Private 100,763 4.3 

American Indian 198,090 8.4 

Total Acres Within the County 2,363,594 100.0 

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004 

The large tracts of privately owned land in the county are located in Spanish and Castle valleys, 

along the Colorado River northeast of Moab, and along the Green River, north of the city of 

Green River. Because of the concentration of private land in the Spanish Valley, the availability 

of potable water, proximity to the National Parks, and the lack of infrastructure in other areas, 

the majority of the county's population resides in the city of Moab or in the unincorporated area 

of Spanish Valley (Grand County 2004). 

The natural landscape in Grand County draws over two million visitors per year and provides a 

scenic backdrop for a community that values a high quality of life. With the Book Cliffs in the 

northernmost part of the county, the Manti-La Sal National Forest to the south, the Colorado 

River running through the county, Arches and Canyonlands National Park, and thousands of 

acres of BLM Recreation Area, Grand County hosts visitors from all over the world. The 

remarkable red rock landscape has allowed local residents to develop a strong connection to the 

area and create a sense of place, identity, and community character unique to Utah. 

3.13.1.2 SAN JUAN COUNTY OVERVIEW

An approximately 300,000-acre portion of San Juan County falls under the jurisdiction of the 

MFO. The Monticello Field Office is concurrently preparing a RMP/EIS for the San Juan 

County area and was consulted regarding the socioeconomic analysis of San Juan County and the 

characteristics of the tract of land administered by the MFO. Because the northeast third of San 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-102

Juan County is within BLM, MFO jurisdiction, the land management decisions out of the MFO 

could have a potential impact on socioeconomics of San Juan County. Therefore, social and 

economic conditions in San Juan County will be mentioned as appropriate throughout this 

section. 

3.13.1.3 HISTORICAL SOCIAL CONTEXT

The MPA is an area rich in cultural and natural history. Past settlements and uses in the planning 

area by a variety of peoples has been as important as the ecological processes that have created 

and shaped the place that the BLM manages today. A brief review of the social and cultural 

history in the area will provide background information on the present-day social setting. 

Archeological evidence suggests that Grand County and the larger Four Corners area was 

inhabited by Native Americans, called Anasazi, between the years 1 and 1300 AD, with some 

evidence dating back as early as 1500 BC (BLM 2005h). The Anasazi, or Ancestral Puebloan 

People as they are often referred to today, successfully farmed the Four Corners Area for over a 

thousand years but evidence suggests they left the region by A.D. 1300. Other Native Americans 

occupied the Grand County area after the Anasazi, including the Utes. These Native American 

residents used the crossing of the Colorado River at the edge of the Spanish Valley. Remains of 

Native American dwellings and rock art around the MPA provide glimpses into the history of the 

cultures that once inhabited the region. The first white people to enter into the area were Spanish 

explorers who developed a trade route through the Spanish Valley. It was not until the late 1870s 

and early 1880s that the Moab area was permanently settled by a few Mormon families. 

Throughout the 1880s and 1890s the settlement grew slowly and its economy was based on 

farming, ranching, and fruit growing. In the 1890s, as mining efforts began along the Colorado 

River and in the LaSal Mountains, construction of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad 

between Denver and Salt Lake City was completed, bringing a railroad connection within 35 

miles of the Moab Valley. 

3.13.1.4 RECENT REGIONAL HISTORY

Farming and ranching continued to be the primary way of life in the Moab Valley until the 

uranium boom of the early 1950s. The population of the Moab area grew significantly in the 

1950s as scores of prospectors, miners, and workers hoped to benefit from the uranium boom. In 

1956 the nation's second largest uranium processing mill was completed just outside of Moab, 

employing more than 200 workers (Bearnson 1994). As the demand for uranium began to 

decrease in the 1960s, potash, salt mining and milling operations contributed to the economy. 

But by the early 1980s milling and most mining operations in the Moab area ceased given the 

lack of demand. 

In the later half of the twentieth century the Moab area saw the benefits of utilizing its natural 

resources in other ways: recreation and tourism. Arches National Monument was established in 

1929 and declared a National Park in 1971. Canyonlands National Park was established in 1964. 

The National Parks in the area drew numerous visitors to the area each year and Moab began 

serving as the gateway to these unique places (Grand County 2004). After World War II, riverrunning became a popular form of recreation and by the 1970s it contributed significantly to 

Moab's economy as people would come to Moab to run sections of the Colorado River. During 

the 1970s and 1980s, Moab continued to grow as a tourist destination as mountain bikers and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-103

motorized vehicle users discovered the recreation potential in the slickrock hills surrounding the 

Moab Valley. 

3.13.1.5 CURRENT SOCIAL CONTEXT

Today, Grand County is an area that has historically been known for its rural character and, 

according to local residents, preservation of this character is a priority. While the term "rural 

character" means different things to different people, residents concluded that it meant the 

following: affordable, modest, low density housing, open space with farmlands and fields, 

protected viewsheds, and low population, crime, and traffic levels (Grand County 2004). 

The above characteristics illustrate the community's desire to maintain and preserve the quality 

of life currently enjoyed by its residents. The residents also acknowledge that the public lands in 

Grand County are the foundation of the county's economic prosperity. Residents in the Moab 

area define their community as one based on recreation and tourism. The economic benefit is 

derived from the management of public lands for multiple use, including livestock grazing, 

tourism, mineral extraction, recreation, watershed protection, hunting, and the film industry. 

Grand County's goal is to achieve a stable economic base while minimizing degradation of the 

economic, social, ecological and cultural resources of the public lands (Grand County 2004). 

Within the Grand County area, there are a variety of social communities that interact with each 

other and with the BLM. The majority of these groups are concentrated in and around the city of 

Moab, as it serves as the social and political center for the county. The social communities 

maintain diverse views on many issues, including public land management, but they do share the 

common connection to the unique landscape that surrounds their community. Many of the 

sociocultural groups within the Moab area define themselves through the physical proximity to 

the area and their interactions within it, their trade, shared worldview, common interests and 

experiences. Although community groups within the Moab area are quite difficult to define and 

quantify, groups in the area could be listed as: tourists, motorized and non-motorized 

recreationists, ranchers/farmers, tourism business community, non-tourism business community, 

and relative newcomers. 

A statewide social survey was conducted by Utah State University (USU) in 2007 to assess the 

ways in which Utah residents use and value public land resources and their views about public 

lands management. A complete analysis of the results had not been completed as of February, 

2008. "Public lands", as described in the study, consist of all federal and state managed lands, 

and not only BLM. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of residents of all 29 Utah counties. 

According to the authors, the study and sample sizes are designed to produce results 

generalizable at the state-wide level, with generalization increasingly risky as the sample area 

diminishes. For example, the data may lose much of its generalizability at the individual county 

level, but increase as additional counties are aggregated into the sample. (Grand County, for 

example, has 6902 residents 18 years of age or older, which normally would require a random 

sample of 364 individuals, considerably more than the USU study, to have a reasonable degree 

of generalizability). 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 interesting results not available elsewhere, and shows the dependence of local communities 

on public lands for a variety of economic and recreational pursuits. Appendix T contains initial 

summary results for Grand and San Juan Counties lying within the Moab Field office. Where 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-104

appropriate, study results are incorporated within the discussion of individual resources in 

Chapter 4. There is nothing in the preliminary USU results that affect the formulation of 

alternatives in Chapter 2 or the analysis of impacts in Chapter 4. 

3.13.1.6 ECONOMIC CONTEXT

This section describes existing economic conditions surrounding the MPA and provides a 

baseline for assessing the potential impacts of the RMP alternatives. Based on the 

implementation of a particular alternative, the BLM can affect (directly or indirectly) the local 

economic conditions of the nearby communities. For example, local employment and income 

levels can be directly impacted by changing the way it manages natural resources or grazing 

allotments. The construction of new recreation trails or facilities, road maintenance, and other 

activities can also influence local socioeconomic conditions described in this section. The BLM 

can also indirectly influence local economic conditions by pursuing new management strategies 

that alter visitation levels, thus affecting total future spending by recreationists and other tourists 

(BLM 2004e). Demographic information and selected economic indicators of social well-being 

(poverty, unemployment, and per capita household income) are also presented in this section to 

help provide context and put local conditions in perspective relative to statewide conditions. 

3.13.1.6.1 POPULATION 

Grand County's population data is illustrative of an area that is driven by booms in the local 

economy. The county's recent history illustrates this trend. As the county's economy plummeted 

with the decreased need for uranium and other minerals in the 1980s, people quickly left the 

county in search of jobs and opportunities elsewhere. The county's population was at its height in 

1981 with 8,400 residents but net out migration left the county with 6,620 residents in 1990 

(Table 3.27). As the tourism industry in Grand County began to take root, the number of county 

residents began to rise. Between 1990 and 2000 the population grew by 28% which was only 

slightly less than the state's 30% increase (UDWS 2005). 

Table 3.27. Population by Category in Grand County, 1990 and 2000 

 1990 % 

of Total 2000 % of Total 

% Chg 

1990–2000 

% Chg per Year 

 1990–2000* 

Population 6,620 8,485 28% 2.50% 

Male 3,214 49% 4,163 49% 30% 2.66% 

Female 3,406 51% 4,322 51% 27% 2.42% 

Under 20 years 2,250 34% 2,496 29% 11% 0.96% 

65 years or over 826 12% 1,061 13% 28% 2.50% 

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003 and *BLM staff. 

In 2000, the U.S. Census reported a population of 8,485 in Grand County (see Table 3.27; U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000). The population has grown only slightly since then with a total of 8,611 in 

2004 and it is forecasted the growth within the county will continue in the near future but at a 

much slower pace than in the 1990s (UDWS 2005). The annual population growth rate of Grand 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-105

County is slower than that of the state of Utah: approximately 1.9% annual growth in the county, 

versus 2.3% annual growth in the state. The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget for the 

state of Utah projects that population in Grand County will reach 10,288 by 2030. 

The greatest concentration of people living in Grand County is in the city of Moab, where the 

population is 4,779. Unincorporated areas account for 3,357 people, most of whom live 

immediately south of Moab. Castle Valley, approximately 20 miles from Moab, is another 

unincorporated area within the county that has a significant residential community with a 

population of 354. 

Grand County's population is older than the Utah state average. The median age for the county is 

35.6, whereas the state's median age is 27.5. Median age rose by 4% between 1990 and 2000, 

showing that the community is aging. Another indicator of an aging population is the continuing 

decline of school-aged children since 1995 (Grand County 2004). 

Population Migration

While the population of Grand County has steadily grown over the last 30 years, the migration 

patterns have experienced slight dips and peaks. In the mid 1970s, the population increased 

dramatically as a result of the energy boom. Throughout the 1980s, out-migration of the 

population occurred as the energy market fell. The population continued to decline until the early 

1990s, when the tourist economy began to emerge in Grand County. The current influx of 

migrants can be illustrated by data from the 2000 Census that report 53.3% of Grand County 

residents were born in a different state and of that percentage, 4.0% were born outside of the 

U.S. (Sonoran Institute 2005). 

San Juan County Population

The 2004 population estimate data shows San Juan County has a total of 14,353 residents, 

slightly below 14,413 residents reported in the 2000 Census data (UDWS 2005). 

In San Juan County the American Indian/Alaskan population is more than half of the total 

population at 55.7%, but makes up only 1.33% of the Utah population (UDWS 2005). Population 

on the Navajo Nation has grown steadily over the last two decades. In 1980 population on the 

reservation was 4,554, 5,252 in 1990 and 6,280 in 2000. 

The only town within the MFO jurisdiction in San Juan County is La Sal, Utah. La Sal borders 

the Manti-La Sal National Forest and is 30 miles north from Monticello. Because it is a "densely 

settled concentration of population that is not within an incorporated place," it is declared a 

Census Designated Place according to the Census Bureau (GOPB 2001). According to the 2000 

Census, the population of La Sal is 339. 

3.13.1.6.2 UNEMPLOYMENT

Unemployment levels are frequently used as an indicator for economic strength of the local 

economy and social well being of its population. Table 3.28 presents the size of the labor force 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-106

and average annual unemployment rates in Grand County. State of Utah unemployment 

information is given for comparative purposes. 

Table 3.28. Unemployment Rates 

1990 2000 2004 (projected) 

Labor 

Force 

Unemployment 

Rate 

Labor 

Force 

Unemployment 

Rate 

Labor 

Force 

Unemployment 

rate 

Grand County 3,249 6.4% 5,362 6.5% 5,936 6.9% 

San Juan 

County 

4,032 7.4% 4,754 9.2% 4,682 11.0% 

State of Utah 814,0

00 

4.3% 1,143,2

00 

3.3% 1,208,4

00 

4.7% 

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services 2005 

Unemployment in Grand County is higher than the state or national average. In 2004 the 

unemployment rate in Grand County was 6.9%, compared to 4.7% for the state and 5.3% for the 

nation (UDWS 2005). The unemployment rates in Grand County are consistently nearly twice 

the state average and this is attributed to the seasonality of employment in the county. 

Unemployment in San Juan County has also been consistently above the state or national 

average. In 2004, San Juan County had the highest unemployment in the state at 11% (UDWS 

2005). 

In the summer months, unemployment in Grand County matches the state average more closely, 

while in winter, unemployment is extremely high, reaching over 15% in recent years (Figure 

3.6). Members of the community cite seasonality of employment as one reason for this trend. 

Since tourism is a major factor in the job base, and tourism is highest from spring through fall, 

jobs are more abundant during these times. According to community input, lifestyle choice may 

be a second reason for a high unemployment rate in Grand County. Residents may be 

intentionally choosing jobs or careers that are seasonal in nature. The figure below shows the 

seasonality of employment in Grand County, with unemployment rates highest in the winter 

months for 1999, 2000 and 2001. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-107

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Unemployment Rate 

(%, Annual Average, Unadjusted)

1999 2000 2001

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003. 

Figure 3.6. Seasonal unemployment in Grand County, 1999–2001. 

3.13.1.6.3 PER-CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME

Personal income1 is another indicator of social wellbeing. Table 3.29 shows per capita personal 

income (i.e., total personal income divided by population) in Grand and San Juan Counties and 

in Utah. Per-capita personal income in Grand County was higher than the state average in 1980. 

The elevated income is attributed to the mining and mineral extraction jobs (which often pay 

higher than average wages) that were available at the time. As mineral extraction jobs became 

virtually non-existent, personal income levels have decreased to below the state average (see 

Table 3.29). Per-capita personal income has remained well below the state average for San Juan 

County. In 2003 San Juan County had the lowest per capita income in the state. 

Table 3.29. Per-Capita Personal Income 

Area 1980 1990 2000 2003 

Grand County $9,991 $12,464 $20,181 $20,634 

San Juan County $5,841 $8,995 $12,881 $14,363 

State of Utah $8,510 $14,913 $23,878 $25,407 

Source: BEA 2005. 

 

1 Personal income is the income that is received by persons from all sources. It is calculated as the sum of wage and salary 

disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors' income with inventory valuation and capital consumption 

adjustments, rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment, personal dividend income, personal interest 

income, and personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social insurance. This measure of income is 

calculated as the personal income of the residents of a given area divided by the resident population of the area. In computing

per capita personal income, BEA uses the Census Bureau's annual midyear population estimates. (BEA 2005) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-108

3.13.1.6.4 POVERTY

The poverty rate of an area is an estimate of the percentage of the area's total population living at 

or below the poverty threshold established by the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 3.30 presents 

poverty rates in Grand and San Juan Counties, with statewide figures included for comparative 

purposes. 

Table 3.30. Poverty Rates 

Area 1989 2003 

Grand County 19.3% 13.9% 

San Juan County 36.4% 22.6% 

State of Utah 11.8% 10.0% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005 

Poverty rates for Grand County decreased 5.4% in absolute value between 1989 and 2003 and 

San Juan's decreased 13.8%. Statewide poverty levels also decreased over time by 1.8%, but not 

to the extent that Grand and San Juan Counties did. Through recent decades, both counties' 

poverty rates have been significantly higher than the state average. The most recent data shows 

poverty levels in San Juan County are more than double the state's rate at 22.6%. Poverty rates 

on the Navajo Nation Reservation (located in the southernmost portion San Juan County) in 2000 

were significantly higher than county or state rates at 49.7% (GOPB 2002). 

3.13.1.6.5 HOUSING

According to the 2000 Census, Grand County has a total of 4,062 housing units, 84.5% of which 

are occupied. Of these units, 6.8% are for seasonal and recreational use, and 29% are renteroccupied. Average household size is 2.5 residents, lower than the state's average. The median 

housing price in 1999 was $120,000, up from $105,000 in 1997. Table 3.31 shows that seasonal 

housing is much more than the state average, at 6.8% (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

Yet another indicator of economic strength is the amount of new residential building permits 

granted for a particular area. An increase or decrease in the amount of building permits granted 

reflects the growth of a community and allows planners and local governments to plan for the 

amount of necessary infrastructure (i.e., roads, water, sewer, and power). 

Residential buildings permits for Grand County peaked in 1996 at 187 and have dropped sharply 

since. In 2002, in response to a national recession, the amount of building permits issued was the 

lowest in recent decades at 36 (Grand County 2004). The amount of permits sharply increased in 

2003 to 106 and has leveled off in 2004. Residential construction in the unincorporated areas of 

Grand County has consistently exceeded that within the city of Moab. For example, in 2004, 31 

permits were issued for dwelling units in Moab, and 75 permits were issued for unincorporated 

areas in the county (UDWS 2005). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-109

Table 3.31. Population by Household Type in Grand County, 2000 

 County % of Total State % of Total

Total Housing Units 4,062 768,594 

Occupied Housing Units 3,434 84.5% 701,281 91.2% 

Vacant Housing Units 628 15.5% 67,313 8.8% 

 For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occ. 

Use 276 6.8% 29,685 3.9% 

Homeowner Vacancy Rate (%) 2.0% 2.1% 

Rental Vacancy Rate (%) 13.4% 6.5% 

Housing Tenure 

Total Occupied Housing Units 3,434 701,281 

Owner-occupied Housing Units 2,437 71.0% 501,547 71.5% 

Renter-occupied Housing Units 997 29.0% 199,734 28.5% 

Avg Household Size - Owner Occupied 2.5 3.3 

Avg Household Size - Renter Occupied 2.4 2.8 

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003. 

One recent and difficult to measure trend in the Moab area is the increase in construction of 

second homes. The challenge is to track the percentage and valuation of new second home 

permit versus permits for new houses for full-time residents. According to a 2003 BLM MFO 

study, 13% of all homes in Grand County are second homes and the trend is expected to increase 

(Goldhor-Wilcock and Stevens 2003). According to the Grand County Assessor's office, nearly 

40% of new housing construction permits in 2005 were for non-resident owned housing. The 

second homes currently being built are often larger and more expensive than those of local 

residents and this leads to an increase in property taxes and cost of living for residents. This can 

be problematic for full-time residents as personal income in Grand County is consistently less 

than the state average. It is likely that the owners of the second homes are choosing to build in 

Moab because of the scenic beauty and recreation potential. This would be consistent with a 

recent study of second home ownership sponsored by local county governments in central 

Colorado. This study found that scenery was cited by 95% of second home owners, and 

recreation opportunities (where hiking and skiing were the most mentioned activities) by 91% as 

being important amenities driving the choice of locale (Venturoniet al. 2005). These two 

qualities, recreation opportunities and scenery, are clearly abundant in lands managed by MFO, 

making it reasonable to assume that these factors are driving second home ownership trends in 

Grand County, as well. This may conflict with the full-time residents desire to diversify their 

economic base, become less-dependant on tourism, and meet the basic needs of the community 

with respect to affordable housing and education (Grand County 2004). While the trend to build 

new second homes in the area appears initially beneficial to the county, it may be somewhat 

problematic given the cost of living increases and conflicts over public land use. 

A recent study assessed the impact of second homes on the economies of four central Colorado 

counties. Using IMPLAN software, the study came up with several conclusions that might be 

applicable to Grand County: 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-110

• Second home construction and subsequent spending by owners for goods and services 

accounted for over 38% of all jobs in the counties studied. Although the Colorado counties 

have a higher percentage of second home properties (over 60% of all housing units), the 

study clearly indicates there are economic benefits to local communities from second homes. 

• Resident spending of non-local income (dividends, interest, rent) accounted for about 16% of 

all jobs in the four counties studied. This type of income is closely linked to the type of 

wealthy households that tend to retire in amenity-rich, resort type communities. Again, 

Grand County may be moving in this direction (Lloyd Levy Consulting 2004). 

There is, however, a potential downside to the above. As demand for second homes increase, 

especially in areas with relatively little land available for development (such as in Grand 

County), housing prices can rise dramatically. This phenomenon decreases the supply of 

affordable housing for both full-time residents and for workers needed to support the second 

home economy (Venturoni et al. 2005). 

3.13.1.6.6 EMPLOYMENT

Local and regional employment levels could be affected directly or indirectly by the 

implementation of the updated RMP. The following information reflects trends in employment 

since the 1970s. 

 Jobs are typically classified with two systems: the Standard Industrial Classification System 

(SIC) and the National American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). Each system 

categorizes jobs differently. Historically, SIC codes have been used to describe employment, but 

they are limited in their scope. The more recent NAICS codes provide more detail but fail to 

show historic patterns. Both systems were used in this analysis. 

In 2000, the Grand County economy supported 5,692 jobs with most employment (70.4%) in the 

Services and Professional sector. Government jobs account for 14.9% of all jobs in the county. 

The remainders of jobs are in farm and agricultural services, mining, manufacturing, and 

construction. Note that the services sector includes services, retail trade, finance industries, 

transportation and public utilities, and wholesale trade, essentially everything that is not farming, 

mining, or government. Of these subcategories, services provide 32% of total employment, and 

retail trade accounts for 29% of total employment. The prominence of the Services and 

Professional sector, as a percentage of total employment in the county, has grown over time, 

from 47.3% in 1970 to 70.4% in 2000. The significant growth within this industry sector 

highlights the county's shift towards a service-based economy. Table 3.32 presents absolute 

levels of employment between 1970 and 2000 for Grand County. 

Table 3.32. Employment by Industry in Grand County 

1970 % of 

Total 2000 % of Total 

New 

Employment 

% of New 

Employment

Total Employment 2,724 5,692 2,968 

 Wage and Salary Employment 2,320 85.2% 4,424 77.7% 2,104 70.9% 

 Proprietors' Employment 404 14.8% 1,268 22.3% 864 29.1% 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-111

Table 3.32. Employment by Industry in Grand County 

1970 % of 

Total 2000 % of Total 

New 

Employment 

% of New 

Employment

Farm and Agricultural Services 84 3.1% 146 2.6% 62 2.1% 

 Farm 78 2.9% 93 1.6% 15 0.5% 

 Ag. Services 6 0.2% 53 0.9% 47 1.6% 

Mining 549 20.2% 120 2.1% -429 NA 

Manufacturing (incl. forest products) 88 3.2% 138 2.4% 50 1.7% 

Services and Professional 1,289 47.3% 4,009 70.4% 2,720 91.6% 

 Transportation and Public Utilities 183 6.7% 147 2.6% -36 NA 

 Wholesale Trade 55 2.0% 107 1.9% 52 1.8% 

 Retail Trade 425 15.6% 1,628 28.6% 1,203 40.5% 

 Finance, Insurance and Real 

Estate 115 4.2% 315 5.5% 200 6.7% 

 Services (Health, 

 Legal, Business, Others) 511 18.8% 1,812 31.8% 1,301 43.8% 

Construction 211 7.7% 433 7.6% 222 7.5% 

Government 503 18.5% 846 14.9% 343 11.6% 

Agricultural Services include soil preparation services, crop services, etc. It also includes forestry services, such as reforestation 

services, and fishing, hunting, and trapping. Manufacturing includes paper, lumber and wood products manufacturing. 

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003. 

Shift in Regional Economic Activity

For over 20 years Grand County has been facing a decline in its traditional resource-based 

economy while other economic sectors have become more dominant (Figure 3.7). The 

agricultural industry, which was once the primary way of life for the county's residents, has 

become virtually non-existent as a revenue generator for the county. As mentioned earlier, the 

bottom fell out of the mining industry by the early 1980s and the county's largest industrial boom 

came to an abrupt end. By the mid-1980s it was clear that tourism was taking over as Grand 

County's primary source of revenue and this trend has continued into the twenty-first century. 

According to the Grand County General Plan, it is likely that tourism will remain important to 

the county for the foreseeable future. 

Table 3.33 shows the trends in Grand County Employment over the last 20 years. Both 

community perceptions and the data shown below suggest that most jobs in the county are either 

indirectly or directly related to the tourist industry. Many of the area residents currently feel that 

the county's economy is too dependent on service jobs related to the tourism industry, which 

almost always offers lower wages and less stability. Employment data collected by local and 

national agencies does not include "recreation" specifically as an employment category; "leisure 

and hospitality" comes closest to this. In Grand County, the average annual earnings in this 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-112

sector were $13,615, considerably lower than the Grand County private sector annual average 

earnings of $21,449. This disparity is likely offset somewhat by earnings in other sectors which 

likely have a recreation influence. For example, construction in 2005 accounted for 7 per cent of 

private sector employment in Grand County, with average annual earnings of $27,760. The 

second home phenomenon in the County is driven, in large part, by the recreation opportunities 

the area provides. Hence, some of the residents are interested in diversifying the economy and 

bringing in higher-paying year-round employment to the county. As discussed above, there may 

be potential for job diversification resulting from the second home phenomenon, as in 

construction and other second home spending on goods and services in the local economy. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1980 1990 2000

Jobs

Agriculture Mining 

Construction Manufacturing 

TCPU Trade 

FIRE Services 

Government Non-Farm Proprietors 

SIC= Standard Industrial Classification System used to categorize employment trends over time 

TCUP=Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities 

FIRE=Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 

Source: Sonoran Institute 2003. 

Figure 3.7. Changes in the Grand County economy (by SIC code), 1980–2000. 

Table 3.33. Trends in Employment (SIC code), Grand County, 1980, 1990, and 2000 

Industry 1980 1990 2000 % Change 

 from 1980 

Mining 18% 5% 1% -94% 

Construction 9% 2% 6% -33% 

Manufacturing 2% 2% 1% -50% 

TCPU (Trans./Comm./Public Util.) 6% 4% 2% -67% 

Trade 20% 26% 27% 35% 

FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) 2% 2% 2% 0% 

Services 10% 15% 21% 110% 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-113

Table 3.33. Trends in Employment (SIC code), Grand County, 1980, 1990, and 2000 

Industry 1980 1990 2000 % Change 

 from 1980 

Government 14% 17% 15% 7% 

SIC= Standard Industrial Classification System used to categorize employment trends over time 

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services with calculations for % change completed by MFO. 

The shift in economic activity has been similar in San Juan County over the past several decades. 

As jobs were lost in mining in the late 1970s and early 1980s, jobs in trade and services 

increased dramatically. Today, the trade and service sector employees a large amount of people 

to support the tourism industry around Lake Powell; however, many of these jobs are seasonal in 

nature, with most lasting from April to mid October. 

Direct BLM Contributions to Area Economic Activity

Under the Federal Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) Program, payments from the BLM and 

other Federal agencies assist in financing the operations of local governments containing taxexempt public lands. The annual PILT payments serve as a subsidy to the local governments 

because, unlike privately owned lands, taxes are not collected from Federal lands. Payment 

amounts are based on a complex formula that considers among other things revenue sharing from 

the previous year, county population, and acreage of a county in Federal ownership. The PILT 

payments may be used for any governmental purpose including improving schools, road, water, 

and other infrastructure systems. Nearly 72% of Grand County is Federally owned land; 

therefore PILT payments are an important economic contribution to the area. PILT payments to 

Grand County have continually increased in recent years. Table 3.34 shows PILT Payments to 

Grand County between FY 2001 and FY 2005. 

Source: USDI 2005. 

3.13.1.6.7 LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AFFECTED BY BLM MANAGEMENT

Recreation and Tourism

The MFO hosts a variety of recreation enthusiasts to its 1.8 million acres of public lands. Persons 

visiting the planning area are involved in a multitude of outdoor activities, including mountain 

biking, hiking, boating, camping, climbing, off-highway vehicle (OHV) driving and general 

Table 3.34. PILT Payments to Grand County 

Year Total PILT Payment 

2001 $492,256 

2002 $516,376 

2003 $622,831 

2004 $640,349 

2005 $653,761 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-114

recreation. These activities occur in this area because of the large expanses of vast and relatively 

undeveloped lands and because of the unique geologic and scenic beauty the area has to offer. A 

BLM, MFO study indicates there were approximately 1.6 million recreational visitors to BLM 

lands in the MPA in 2004 (personal communication between Bill Stevens, BLM – MFO and 

Laura Burch, SWCA on January 6, 2006). This number exceeds visitation to Arches and 

Canyonlands National Parks and local state parks combined. More information on recreational 

visitation can be found in Section 3.10 – Recreation. 

Visitation and related recreation activities on Grand County's public lands generates positive 

income and employment effects in the local economy as visitors spend money on gasoline, 

lodging, and various supplies including food and equipment. These expenditures generate 

earning for local proprietors and support local employment. As mentioned in the Updated Grand 

County General Plan, tourism is the most important economic resource for the county today. As 

discussed above, the second home phenomenon and the demand of their owners for access to 

visual resources and recreation opportunities may also contribute positively to Grand County's 

economy. Given patterns in the rest of the West, as well as the recent trend in Grand County, 

there is no reason to believe that this sector of the economy will not grow in importance. 

Trends in traveler spending follow trends shown in other measures of the economy. As it became 

clear in the early 1990s that mining would not be the main contributor to the economy, tourism 

spending contributed just over $60 million to the county's economy. Throughout the 1990s 

traveler spending continued to grow to over $100 million in 1998 (Figure 3.8). The recession and 

the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 caused a slight decrease in tourist spending but the 

tourist contribution to the Grand County economy continues to remain around $100 million per 

year. 

In 2003, recreation and tourism generated $100.1 million out of $163.64 million in taxable sales 

of goods and services in Grand County. Thus, Moab's economy for 2003 was 61% tourism 

based. Although Grand County ranks seventh in the state for spending by travelers, taxable sales 

actually decreased 8.4% from 2002 (UDTD 2004). Travel and tourism-related employment has 

increased steadily since 1990s, with tourism spending levels in Grand County supporting 1,999 

jobs in 2003. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-115

Spending by Travelers (Current Dollars)

$68.1

$80.6

$86.5

$93.4 $95.4

$100.9 $98.7 $101.3 $99.2 $96.5 $99.7

$103.9

$0.0

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

$100.0

$120.0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001(o) 2001 (n) 2002 {r} 2003

Millions

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004. 

Figure 3.8. Tourist spending in millions, Grand County, 1993–2003. 

Local sales tax revenue from tourist related services has also risen steadily since the early 1990s. 

Similar to gross taxable sales, sales tax revenue decreased somewhat in 2001, quickly increased 

in 2002 and dropped slightly in 2003. In 2003 estimated local tax revenue was estimated at $2 

million, 8.4% less than 2002. Other tourism related tax revenue, such as gross taxable room 

rents, transient room tax, restaurant tax, and car rental tax, declined in 2001 and 2003. Despite 

recent rises and falls in traveler spending and sales tax revenue, the tourism-related revenues 

appeared to have leveled off and are not expected to make significant gains in the near future. 

Table 3.35 shows the contribution of tourism to the local economy.

Table 3.35. Tourism-Related Tax Trends in Grand County 

County Indicator 1997 2000 2003 

Spending and Employment 

Spending by Traveler (millions) $100.9 $99.2 $100.1 

Travel and Tourism Related Employment 

(jobs) 

1,853 1,878 1,999 

Tourism Tax Revenues (000s) 

Local Tax Revenue from Traveler Spending $2,098 $2,063.

0 

$2,095 

Gross Taxable Room Rents $25,557 $26,674 $25,148 

Transient Room Tax $754.8 $800.2 $754.4 

Restaurant Tax $29.3 $205.8 $222.4 

Car Rental Tax $2.9 $25.1 $14.2 

Gross Taxable Retail Sales (millions) $136.7 $162.9 $163.6 

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-116

It is important to note that on January 1, 2003, Grand County relinquished its portion of the city 

of Green River to Emery County. The annexation led to the loss of tourist revenue and tourism 

related employment because Green River serves as an important thoroughfare, with gasoline 

stations and lodging, for people traveling along I-70. 

Visitation data can also be used to illustrate tourism and recreation trends in the Grand County 

area. According to a BLM, MFO report, the BLM hosted at least 1.6 million visitors to its public 

lands (Goldhor-Wilcock and Stevens 2003). The most recent data out of the MFO suggests that 

visitors to BLM lands have increased and in 2004 visitation to the area is estimated at 2 million 

(personal communication between Bill Stevens, BLM – MFO and Laura Burch, SWCA on 

January 6, 2006). 

Visitation to the Grand County area, outside of BLM lands, follows the traveler-spending trend, 

as it increased throughout the 1990s and has leveled off in the new century. The following table 

shows visitation numbers for several locations in Grand County that can be used as indicators for 

visitation to the area. 

Table 3.36. Visitation Trends 

Regional Visitation Counts 1997 2000 2003 

I-70 UT/CO Traffic Count 1,888,875 2,314,830 2,459,005 

Thompson Springs Welcome 

Center 

108,212 97,896 93,905 

Glen Canyon N.R.A. 2,504,986 2,568,111 1,842,942 

Arches N.P. 856,016 786,429 757,781 

Canyonlands N.P. 447,527 401,558 386,985 

Dead Horse Point S.P 202,452 173,680 161,774 

Green River S.P 110,921 138,531 83,951 

Source: Utah Division of Travel Development 2004. 

Budget and Fee Collection for Programs

The Moab BLM Recreation Program is important to the local economy. Of the nearly $100 

million in sales revenue in Grand County, approximately $45 million is attributable to recreation 

on public lands. 

Due to a relatively flat base budget, the MFO has come to rely on user generated fees for needed 

funds to support intensive public use. Services to the public are provided from these fee monies, 

such as campground maintenance and expenses related to the Westwater Canyon permit system. 

Maintenance and operation of facilities is costly and requires a commitment of funds to provide 

safe and proper facilities. Given the large number of visitors to BLM lands and the lack of 

Federal funding to support the visitors, the MFO has had to become much more self-sufficient 

than typical BLM offices in order to provide for public safety and enjoyment. Table 3.37 

describes the current (2003) budget and fee programs and their allocations for the MFO. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-117

Table 3.37. Budget and Fee Collections for Programs in the 

MPA, 2003 

Revenue Generated on BLM Lands YR 2003 

Base recreation from non-fee accounts $208,000 

Annual recreation fees collected $512,000 

Total recreation budget (base and fees)* $720,000 

*Excludes Sand Flats Recreation Area 

Source: BLM 2005i. 

Recreation fees on BLM land also provide an economic benefit for Grand County. The county 

collected $236,498 in 2004 and $236,607 in 2005 for the Sand Flats Recreation Area. The 

revenue is used by the county to maintain and manage this area and employ local Grand County 

residents. None of the fees collected in this recreation area go to the MFO. 

Agriculture and Grazing

The agriculture industry has declined dramatically in the last three decades. In 1970, total net 

income from farming and ranching in Grand County was $901,000. By 1985, that number had 

dropped to $88,000. In 2000 this number had dropped to $-830,000. Negative income means that 

expenses outweighed revenue for farming and ranching operations. Most agricultural income 

(approximately 80%) is from cash receipts from livestock and crops, while the remaining 20% is 

from government payments. Employment based on farming and agricultural services accounts 

for only 2.6% of people working in Grand County in 2000 and this percentage has decreased 

since 1970 when it was 3.6%. 

The composition of livestock and crops has also shifted in the last decade. In 1970, 73% of gross 

farm income was from livestock, while 9% was from crops. By 2000, 47% of gross income was 

from livestock, and 32% from crops. Figure 3.9 below shows trends in agriculture as it relates to 

farm income since 1970. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-118

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992

1994199619982000

Personal Income

(Millions of 2000 dollars)

Gross income

Total livestock & products

Total crops

Imputed income & rent received 

Government payments

Sonoran Institute 2003 

Figure 3.9. Farm income by category. 

While the income generated from farming and ranching has decreased significantly in past 

decades, the number of farms has actually increased. In 1982 the number of farms was 59 and in 

2002 the number grew to 94. It is important to note that even with the numerical growth of 

farms, the amount of lands in farms decreased nearly 66% over the twenty-year span from 

156,557 in 1982 to 52,729 acres in 2002. The increase in the number of smaller farms may 

represent the rise in both long-time and new residents in the area who choose to have a farm as a 

hobby or for land conservation purposes, but who do not solely make their living on the 

agriculture industry. Table 3.38 shows the agricultural trends in Grand County. 

Table 3.38. Grand County Agricultural Data 

1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 

Farms (Number) 59 81 88 85 94 

Land in Farms (Acres) 156,55

7 

169,32

5 

63,1

16 

75,801 52,72

9 

Average Size of Farm 2,654 2,090 717 892 561 

Farms by Size 

 1 to 9 Acres 10 19 26 23 36 

 10 to 49 Acres 17 26 26 22 20 

 50 to 179 Acres 14 12 14 13 17 

 180 to 499 Acres 8 10 10 14 10 

 500 to 999 Acres 2 5 4 2 5 

 1,000 Acres or More 8 9 8 11 6 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-119

Table 3.38. Grand County Agricultural Data 

1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 

Market Value of Ag Products Sold 1,183 1,870 2,34

7 

2,289 2,176 

Operators by Principal Occupation-Farming 25 33 42 41 51 

Operators by Principal Occupation-Other 34 48 46 44 43 

Source: USDA 2002. 

The MPA provides livestock grazing opportunities for local ranchers through the administration 

of livestock grazing on public land allotments. These leases generate local income and 

employment benefits to ranchers and their employees as well as other economic benefits to the 

county, including sales, income tax revenue, and indirect expenditures made by ranchers to local 

service or industry. Changes in MFO grazing practices could potentially affect the local 

economy. Currently, 71% of the 42 livestock permittees in the planning area live outside of 

Grand or San Juan Counties. 

Livestock grazing allotments occur on approximately 95% of all lands located within the MPA. 

A total of 83 allotments occur within the boundaries of the MPA. Of this total, 77 are permitted 

for use by domestic livestock, and 6 allotments were unavailable to grazing by domestic 

livestock in 1995 and 1996. Reasons for closing the 6 allotments to grazing by domestic 

livestock included enhancement of wildlife, improvement of riparian vegetation, watershed 

benefits, and recreation values. 

Of the total 83 allotments within the MPA boundary, 73 are administered by the MFO. The 

Vernal Field Office administers 4 allotments, and 6 allotments are administered by the Grand 

Junction, Colorado, Field Office. 

A total of 107,931 animal unit months (AUMs) are currently active within boundaries of the 

MPA. Of the total authorized AUMs, 87,097 (81%) are used by cattle, 18,466 (17%) are used by 

sheep, and 485 (less than 1%) are used by horses. Through agreement with permittees, 1,883 

AUMs (2%) are held inactive due to conservation purposes. An additional 25,972 AUMs are 

allowed through exchange of use other ownership. Grazing is discussed in detail in section 3.5 of 

this RMP. 

Mineral Resources

In the second half of the twentieth century, mineral extraction served as the foundation for 

population and economic growth in Grand County. The minerals industry, including uranium, 

potash, oil, and gas, generated more than 62% of all income received by county residents in 

1980. In 2003 that number has fallen to 2% (Grand County 2004). Today, recreation and tourism 

has replaced resource extraction as the primary revenue and employment generator. 

According to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, oil production peaked in 1994, but 

dropped to approximately 200,000 barrels in 2000 (Figure 3.10). Gas production has fallen since 

1984, from approximately 10 million cubic feet (mcf) to under 6 million mcf in 2000. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-120

Source: UDOGM,2008 

Figure 3.10. Oil (barrels) and gas production (mcf) in Grand County, 1984–2007. 

Over the last 100 years, a large number of oil and gas wells have been drilled in Grand County. 

Most of these, however, are no longer producing and have been long since abandoned. The 

following table (Table 3.39) summarizes the current production situation in Grand County. 

Table 3.39. Current Oil and Gas Activity on Lands Administered by the MFO 

Activity Number 

Producing gas wells 244 

Producing oil wells 30 

Shut-in gas wells 113 

Shut-in oil wells 51 

Acres under lease (BLM lands only) 490,079 

Source: BLM 2004e 

. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-121

The economic benefit to Grand County of oil and gas activities comes primarily in the form of 

mineral lease payments and royalties from the state of Utah to Grand County. The state of Utah 

collects payments from a variety of sources, including lease and royalty payments made to the 

BLM and to the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior. Royalties are 

based on the sale of oil and gas and increase or decrease based on quantity of production and 

prices. Approximately one-half of the payments received by these agencies are remitted to the 

state of Utah, which in turn distributes about one-half to the counties. The state of Utah payments 

to the counties are based very closely on actual leasing and production activities within each 

county. In Fiscal Year 2003, Grand County received $312,000 in mineral lease monies from the 

state of Utah, most of which was the product of oil and gas activities on BLM lands in Grand 

County. Corresponding figures for FY 2001 and FY 2002 were $373,000 and $647,000, 

respectively. The decline in recent years has been due primarily to lower production in Grand 

County, according to the state of Utah. 

A potential benefit to Grand County from oil and gas production is in the jobs created, both in 

direct production activities and associated services; however, there are currently relatively few 

people employed in these areas in Grand County. Most of the current oil and gas activity is in the 

far eastern part of the county, which provides employment primarily to residents of western 

Colorado, who are located much closer to the activities. Goods and services are purchased in 

adjoining towns, including Grand Junction and Green River, by oil field workers. There is some 

employment provided to Grand County residents who work in the Lisbon Valley area, located 

south of Moab in San Juan County. There is also some oil and gas production occurring in San 

Juan County that is currently managed by the MFO. The revenue generated from this activity is 

difficult for the BLM to track because it goes directly to San Juan County. 

3.13.2 TRIBAL INTERESTS

Grand County comprises 198,339 acres (8.4%) of lands owned by Native Americans all of which 

are located in the northwest corner of the county on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. 

The Reservation is home to the Ute Indian Tribe and is located in a three-county area in 

Northeastern Utah, known as the Uintah Basin. The Uintah and Ouray Reservation covers a large 

potion of western Uintah and eastern Duchesne Counties, and at approximately 4.5 million acres 

it is the second largest Indian Reservation in the United States. The Reservation is home to the 

Whiteriver, Uintah, and Uncompahgre bands of Utes (UDTD 2004). 

According to the U.S. Census there are 19,182 people living on the Uintah and Ouray Indian 

Reservation. Of the people who identified themselves as residents of the Reservation, 2,780 

(14%) identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native (GOPB 2002). The majority of 

people living on the Reservation reside in Uintah and Duchesne Counties. Given the high 

elevation and rugged terrain of the Reservation in Grand County, it is unlikely that anyone lives 

on the Reservation in the county. 

The interaction with Tribes on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and the MFO is minimal. There 

is no road in Grand County that leads to the Reservation and given that, minimal activity occurs 

on the Reservation that prompts BLM involvement in Grand County, there is very little 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-122

communication between the tribes and the MFO. The Vernal Field Office handles the tribal 

issues pertaining to the Reservation in Uintah and Duchesne County. 

According to the 2000 Census, 327 Native Americans live in Grand County and it is assumed 

that few live in the city of Moab and most live in the unincorporated areas of the county. 

The Navajo Nation Reservation comprises 1.2 million acres (26%) of San Juan County. The 

entire Reservation also includes land in Arizona and New Mexico and totals nearly 14 million 

acres. Population on the Navajo Nation has grown steadily over the last two decades. In 1980 

population on the Reservation was 4,554, 5,252 in 1990 and 6,280 in 2000. Interactions between 

the Navajo Nation and MFO are minimal given that the Reservation is several hundred miles 

south of the MFO. 

3.13.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

3.13.3.1 BACKGROUND AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE

"Environmental justice" refers to the fair and equitable treatment of individuals regardless of race 

ethnicity, or income level, in the development and implementation of environmental 

management policies and actions. In February 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 

(EO) 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income 

Populations." The objective of this EO is to require each Federal agency to "make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of it programs, 

policies, and activities on minority and low income populations" (EO 12898). 

Convened under the auspices of the EO, the Interagency Working Group defines Black/African 

American, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut and other nonwhite persons as minority populations. Low-income populations are defined as persons living 

below the poverty level based on total income of $13,359 for a family household of four based 

on the 2000 census. Minority populations are identified as either: (1) the minority population of 

the affected area exceeds 50%, or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is 

meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other 

appropriate geographic area (BLM 2002c). 

3.13.3.2 MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS

Minority populations in Grand County have increased slightly since 1990. Of the total population 

in 1990, 95.8% of residents identified themselves as "White" as did 92.6% in 2000. Grand 

County is ranked eighth in the state in terms of minority percentage and minorities make up only 

10.8% of the county's population compared to 14.7% of the state population as a whole. As 

mentioned earlier, Grand County poverty levels are higher than the state as a whole (13.9% for 

Grand County vs. 10.0% for Utah). Table 3.40 illustrates the slight growth in minority 

populations in Grand County. 

As mentioned earlier within the context of "poverty" as an economic indicator for the economic 

well being, persons in Grand County living below the poverty line in 2003 was higher than the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.13 Social and Economic 

3-123

state average (13.9% vs. 10%). While Grand County poverty trends show a decrease over time 

they remain higher than the state average. The poverty level established by the by the Census 

Bureau in 2000 for a family of four is $18,244. In 2000 15.2% of Grand County residents were 

living below the poverty level. 

Table 3.40. Grand County Population by Race and Ethnicity

 1990 2000 

Total 

Population 

Percent of 

Total Total Population Percent of Total 

Race 

White 6,341 95.8% 7,861 92.6%

Black 7 0.1% 21 0.2%

American Indian 203 3.1% 327 3.9%

Asian 19 0.3% 19 0.2%

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 5 0.1% 4 0.0%

Other 45 0.7% 141 1.7%

Two or more races NA 0.0% 112 1.3%

Total 6,620 100.0% 8,485 100.0%

Ethnicity 

Hispanic 291 4.4% 471 5.6%

Non-Hispanic 6,329 95.6% 8,014 94.4%

Total 6,620 100.0% 8,485 100.0%

NOTE: Population is broken out by is broken out by both race and ethnicity because Hispanics can be of any race. 

Source: GOPB 2002. 

San Juan County: Unique to any other Utah county, populations typically known as "minority" 

comprise more than half of the population in San Juan County. San Juan County ranks first in the 

state for Native American/Alaskan Native population. San Juan County is home to 27% of the 

state's Native American population and at 55.7% of the county's total population, Native 

Americans are not the minority. In Utah, 93.8% of the entire population identify themselves as 

white and 1.3% of the population identify themselves as Native American/Alaskan Native 

(GOPB 2002). Therefore, when considered state or region-wide, Native Americans are 

considered a minority race. Despite the population data that indicates non-minority status within 

San Juan County, Native Americans are considered a minority group for the purposes of 

achieving environmental justice during this RMP process. 

The number of people in San Juan County living below the poverty line in 2003 was higher than 

the state average (22.6% vs. 10%). While San Juan County poverty trends show a decrease over 

time they remain higher than the state average. In 2003 the poverty level established by the by 

the Census Bureau for a family of four was $18,810 and in that year 31% or 4,443 people in San 

Juan County were living below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). In terms of race, 

the Native American population has the highest poverty level in the county at 48% or 3,809 

individuals. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soil and Water 

3-124

3.14 SOIL AND WATER

3.14.1 WATERSHEDS

3.14.1.1 DELINEATED WATERSHEDS

The USGS has divided and subdivided the United States into successively smaller hydrologic 

units which are classified into 6 levels: regions (largest), sub-regions, accounting units, subbasins, watersheds and sub-watersheds. Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic 

unit code (HUC) consisting of two to fourteen digits based on the level of classification (UGS 

2003. The MPA, located within the Upper Colorado Region, has portions of 8 sub-basins and 39 

watersheds in the planning area. 

3.14.1.2 CRITICAL WATERSHEDS AND SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS

A critical watershed is a planning designation for a watershed with a high percentage of sensitive 

soils such as highly saline soils and/or highly erodible soils. (See Map 2-13, Moderate to High 

Saline Soils). These watersheds need special management prescriptions to protect resources at 

risk. Some critical watersheds were delineated in the 1985 RMP. 

3.14.1.3 MUNICIPAL WATERSHEDS

The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires protection of underground sources of drinking 

water. The State of Utah requires owners of drinking water supplies to establish 2 levels of 

protection zones around their water sources and must obtain an agreement with the landowner if 

the applicants do not have complete ownership of the watershed or recharge area. Protection 

Zone 1 is a circle of a 100-foot radius from the well or margin of collection area. Protection Zone 

2 has a two-mile radius or is a variable area based on recharge characteristics. This protection 

zone can extend up to 15 miles above the source and 300 feet from each stream bank. 

The municipalities of Moab, Castle Valley, Thompson, Crescent Junction, and LaSal have water 

supplies that are wells and/or springs with recharge areas on adjacent BLM lands. There are 

several small public water supply systems within the planning area, including Hole 'n the Rock 

Rest Area, Windwhistle Campground, and Pack Creek Ranch. Thompson, Hole 'n the Rock Rest 

Area, and Pack Creek Ranch filed water source protection plans with the State of Utah that 

include adjacent BLM lands. 

A sole source aquifer designation is a Federal acknowledgement that an aquifer system is the 

sole source of drinking water available to the community. This acknowledgement supports 

efforts to keep the aquifers free from contamination. The designation requires that Federally 

financially assisted projects in the review area of the sole source aquifer undergo an EPA 

environmental review for compliance with the goals of the regulation. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soil and Water 

3-125

Both Moab and Castle Valley have filed for sole source aquifer designation. A total of 24,000 

acres in and around Castle Valley has been designated as the sole source aquifer recharge area 

(EPA 2003d). The city of Moab has requested 76,000 acres as its sole source aquifer recharge 

area. 

3.14.2 SOILS 

3.14.2.1 GENERAL 

Soils are the medium for plant growth, and provide nourishment for nearly all terrestrial 

organisms. They support a wide variety of plant and animal communities within the planning 

area. Soils have developed in bedrock, sedimentary ocean deposits, materials washed down by 

rivers and streams, and windblown sands and silts known as loess, residuum, colluvium, 

alluvium, eolian sands, and loess. They are derived primarily from the sedimentary geologic 

deposits that occur throughout the planning area. Soil temperature regimes are predominantly 

vary from mesic (moderate, mean annual soil temperatures are 46 to 59 F) at lower elevations to 

but may be cryic (cold, mean annual soil temperatures are less than 46 F, and they don't warm 

significantly in the summer) at higher elevations. Soil moisture ranges from aridic (very dry) to 

ustic (dry, but with some moisture in the growing season) throughout the MPA, with hydric 

(wet) soils occurring in riparian and wetland areas. 

There are a variety of soil types in the planning area, including highly saline and erodible soils. 

Sensitive soils need special management to protect resources at risk. This includes management 

of highly saline and/or highly erodible soils, biotic crusts, steep slopes, drought intolerant soils, 

dust source, and sink areas. Soils that are highly saline, highly erodible, have low water holding 

capacity (drought intolerant) may be especially vulnerable to impacts and harder to reclaim or 

restore after disturbance. Certain biological crust communities provide significant protection 

from wind and water erosion for some soils. Disturbance of soil biological crusts affects most 

soils, but some more than others, depending on the type of soil and biotic community. 

3.14.2.2 SENSITIVE SOILS

"Sensitive soils" are those identified as having characteristics that make them extremely 

susceptible to impacts or they may be more difficult to restore or reclaim after disturbance -- 

characteristics such as high wind or water erosion hazard, moderate to high salinity, low nutrient 

levels, high runoff, limitations to grazing, or very steep slopes. In this document, a sensitive soils

designation refers to highly erodible soils, saline soils, drought intolerant soils, biotic soil crusts, 

and steep slopes. Sensitive soils are difficult to reclaim or restore. Once they are disturbed, the 

impact usually is long-lasting (BLM 1993c:11). These soils need special management to protect 

resources at risk. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soil and Water 

3-126

3.14.2.2.1 HIGHLY ERODIBLE SOILS

There are soils in the planning area that are highly susceptible to wind and water erosion. 

Although these soils have naturally high rates of erosion, the erosion rates are easily accelerated 

by surface-disturbing activities. Best management practices to protect soil stability include 

limiting surface-disturbing activities such as grazing, off road travel, and mineral exploration and 

development. 

Wind erosion strips the surface horizon of soil and nutrients necessary for seed germination and 

plant recruitment. Wind erosion and subsequent deposition can result in the formation and 

expansion of sand dunes. These soils are especially susceptible to wind erosion when plant cover 

and/or biological soil crust cover is removed. In the planning area, moderately wind erodible 

soils occur over 1,303,433 acres based on SSURGO data. Highly wind erodible soils occur on 

39,350 acres of BLM-managed lands. Approximately 15,900 acres of soils with high water 

erosion ratings occur in the MPA. Potential for water erosion is commonly estimated using a 

combination of slope and k-factor (an erodibility constant or measure of how easily particles 

detach from one another). Soils considered to have a high potential for water erosion have a 

slope over 10% and a K-factor (erodibility constant) greater than or equal to 0.37; or a slope 

greater than 30% and a K-factor between 0.20 and 0.36. Accelerated erosion causes the 

formation of rills and gullies, and can contribute to excess sedimentation in streams and 

reservoirs. 

3.14.2.2.2 SALINE SOILS

Soil salinity can affect erosion levels and reclamation potential. Erosion of saline soils impacts 

the water quality of downstream watersheds. Highly saline soils are soils with electrical 

conductivity levels of greater than 16 mmhos/cm. Moderately saline soils fall between 8 and 16 

mmhos/cm. The planning area contains approximately 314,901 acres of saline soils, primarily 

confined to the Mancos lowlands along I-70 are shown in Map 2-13, Moderate to Saline Soils as 

determined from SSURGO data (BLM 2000). 

Specifically, The Greater Sagers Wash watershed (153,200 acres) was identified as one of the 

major salt production watersheds in the planning area (BLM 1993d). Approximately 60% of the 

watershed has Mancos Shale derived soils, which are naturally high salt producers. In addition to 

natural geologic processes, land uses that contribute to accelerated erosion include grazing, 

OHVs, mineral exploration and development, and road building (BLM 1993d). Areas 

undergoing accelerated erosion make up 64% of the watershed and contribute 29% of the 

potential salt yield (BLM 1993d:3). 

3.14.2.2.3 DROUGHT INTOLERANT SOILS

Certain soil types are severely impacted during drought conditions. The Grand County, Central 

Part Soil Survey (NRCS 1989) identified a number of soil units as drought intolerant. These soils 

and associated vegetation may be severely affected by drought. Severe drought may adversely 

affect the production of perennial vegetation.
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soil and Water 

3-127

3.14.2.2.4 BIOTIC SOIL CRUSTS

Many of the vegetative communities found in the MPA have evolved with the presence of 

biological soil crusts. Biotic soil crusts are made up of mats or filaments of cyanobacteria, 

lichens and mosses. Development of biotic soil crust is strongly influenced by soil texture, soil 

chemistry and soil depth. Crusts are more developed in shallow, sandy, non-saline soils, but can 

also be found throughout saline soil areas. They tend to be commonly found associated with soils 

high in gypsum. Although soil crusts can be found throughout the MPA, there are areas with 

high density or well-developed crusts or unusual crust components.

Biotic soil crusts play a major role in reducing water and wind erosion and in preventing the 

establishment of invasive annual grasses (BLM 2001d). They fix atmospheric nitrogen and 

carbon, retain soil moisture, and provide surface cover. Crust composition and level of 

abundance can be used to determine the ecological history and condition of a site (BLM 2001d). 

Loss of biotic soil crust leads to reduced soil productivity, decreased plant cover and vigor, and 

increased wind and water erosion. Severity, size, frequency, and timing of a surface-disturbing 

activity affect the degree of impacts to biotic soil crusts. Fine-textured soils have faster crust 

recovery rates than coarse-textured soils (BLM 2001d). Aeolian deposition of sediments can 

bury and kill biological soil crusts by prohibiting photosynthesis. 

3.14.3 SURFACE WATER 

There are three large rivers in the planning area: the Colorado, Green and Dolores Rivers. One 

thousand sixty-two miles of perennial stream flow year-round in at least some reaches. In 

addition, there are 8,995 miles of intermittent stream systems that flow at least part of the year 

(more than just storm runoff, UDEQ 2002). Major reservoirs include Ken's Lake. Perennial 

stream segments in the MPA include all or portions of: 

Beaver Creek Floy Creek Muleshoe Creek Seven Mile (north) 

Burkholder Granite Creek Nash Wash Spring Creek 

Castle Creek Green River Negro Bill Creek Ten Mile 

Coates Creek Hatch Wash Onion Creek Thompson Wash 

Colorado River Hatch Ranch 

Wash 

Pack Creek Three Mile Wash 

Cottonwood (Books) Hunter Creek Poverty Creek Trough Springs Creek 

Cottonwood (Black 

R.) 

Kane Creek Professor Creek Tusher (Books) 

Cowskin Canyon La Sal Creek Rattlesnake Creek Westwater Creek 

Diamond Creek Little Dolores Rill Creek 

Dolores River Little Water Ryan Creek 

Fisher Creek Mill Creek Salt Wash 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soil and Water 

3-128

3.14.3.1 WATER QUANTITY

BLM cannot hold instream flow rights in the state of Utah, but can protect senior water rights as 

needed. This is an issue in Thompson Wash, as the Thompson Special Service District has 

diverted most of the flow in Thompson Creek for municipal use. 

Another area with water quantity issues is Mill Creek. Water from Mill Creek is diverted to 

Ken's Lake to provide irrigation water to Spanish Valley. The diversion structure is on BLM 

lands, and is authorized with a Right of Way grant. BLM requires the Right of Way holder to 

maintain a minimum of 3 cfs in the stream downstream of the diversion. 

Many perennial streams in the MPA have diversions for agricultural use (Mill Creek, Thompson 

Wash, Granite Creek, Cottonwood Wash, Beaver Creek, Castle Creek, Buck Hollow, and Pack 

Creek.) 

3.14.3.2 WATER QUALITY

3.14.3.2.1 GENERAL

The BLM monitors surface water quality conditions by conducting both water chemistry and 

macroinvertebrate studies. BLM participates in a cooperative program with the Utah Department 

of Environmental Quality (Utah DEQ) to sample sites for water chemistry. BLM personnel take 

field measurements and samples. The State of Utah provides lab analysis and data management 

(including maintaining the STORET database, EPA 2003e). When necessary, BLM uses other 

EPA certified labs for analysis (i.e., American West Analytical Labs). 

The Utah DEQ also conducts an intensive sampling program every 5 years. This was conducted 

from July 2002 through June 2003. Sampling is conducted every 6 weeks on major streams and 

other requested sites. The next intensive survey will be held in 2007-2008. 

With sufficient data it can be determined if a stream is meeting state standards. If a problem is 

documented, that stream segment will be included by the State of Utah on the List of Impaired 

Waters of Utah (303d list) submitted to the EPA every 2 years. A schedule for a Total Maximum 

Daily Load study (TMDL) is set. This study determines how to reduce pollutants and restore all 

beneficial uses. The TMDL also establishes the amount of a pollutant allowed in the water. 

In 2000, the State of Utah identified Onion Creek, Mill Creek, Castle Creek and Ken's Lake as 

impaired. The TMDLs were completed in 2002 for Mill Creek, Onion Creek and Ken's Lake. 

The Castle Creek TMDL was completed in 2004. 

The Mill Creek TMDL entails an assessment of total dissolved solids (TDS) and stream 

temperature problems. The TMDL states the main sources of TDS are natural groundwater 

inflow and irrigation return flow, from the Pack Creek watershed. Impairments to temperature 

are related to riparian health and stream flow levels. The TMDL recommended riparian 

improvements and increased stream flow levels to improve temperature impairments. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soil and Water 

3-129

The Onion Creek TMDL entails an assessment of TDS and stream temperature levels. State 

standards for TDS may not be achievable due to high TDS input from natural sources. The 

TMDL also states high stream temperatures are a result of poor riparian conditions. The TMDL 

recommends better management of vehicle travel, restricting travel in the stream as much as 

possible. Other recommendations include riparian and floodplain improvements to reduce stream 

temperature. 

The Castle Creek TMDL addressed water quality impairments in 2002. The report concluded 

that impairments were a combination of natural conditions and low stream flows due to irrigation 

diversions. 

The Ken's Lake TMDL entails an assessment of water temperature conditions. The report 

concluded temperature impairment is a result of natural causes, and is not an impairment to the 

fish habitat. 

3.14.3.2.2 SALINITY

High salinity levels in water are a surface water quality concern of national significance 

recognized in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Salinity contributions are 

from both point sources and nonpoint sources. During low flow periods, salt contribution comes 

solely from seeps, springs, and groundwater flow. During high flow periods, erosion of saline 

soils becomes a major contributor to salinity problems. 

Point sources for salinity include discharge of saline groundwater from natural springs, seeps, 

flowing wells and gaining streams. The primary nonpoint sources of salinity are the diffuse 

overland runoff from saline soils and erosion and transport of saline soils during flow events. 

The Mancos Shale is recognized as the largest contributor of salinity in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin (Laronne 1977). There are approximately 314,900 acres of Mancos Shale-derived 

soils in the planning area. Any surface disturbance on these soils increases erosion and 

associated salinity contribution. 

3.14.3.3 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater occurs in both consolidated and unconsolidated rock aquifers. The main 

consolidated rock aquifer is known as the N aquifer, and includes the Wingate and Navajo 

Sandstones. Water from the N aquifer is generally of good quality and suitable for drinking. 

Unconsolidated rock aquifers are an important source of groundwater in Spanish Valley and 

Castle Valley. Recharge is from infiltration of precipitation and stream flow, primarily from the 

La Sal Mountains. 

There are five other potential aquifers in the planning area: Entrada, Morrison, Dakota, Wasatch, 

and Parachute Creek aquifers. These aquifers are not laterally or vertically homogenous 

(Eisinger and Lowe 1999). Shallow aquifers are better sources as they usually contain higher 

quality water and are more easily accessible. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.14 Soil and Water 

3-130

Due to evaporite deposits in the Paradox formation underlying much of the planning area, there 

is a significant occurrence of briny groundwater, with TDS concentrations exceeding 10,000 

milligrams per liter (mg/L). Groundwater quality below the N aquifer is generally saline. The 

unconsolidated aquifers have the potential for mixing with high saline groundwater, due to no 

confining layer in between. 

Groundwater use in the planning area is not fully documented, due to unreported withdrawal 

from industry and domestic wells. Groundwater is diverted from both springs and wells. The 

primary uses of groundwater within the planning area are for potable drinking water supply and 

industrial supply (UDWRe 2000). In 2002, municipal water suppliers provided approximately 

2,850 acre-feet of groundwater for potable supply (includes Moab, Thompson, Grand, and 

Arches National Park; UDWRi 2003). In 1996, 940 acre-feet of water were used for industrial 

purposes (UDWRe 2000). 

3.15 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

For the purposes of this analysis, Special Designations fall into three categories: Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs), Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), and Wilderness Study Areas 

(WSAs). Special designations may be given to areas meeting certain eligibility criteria. 

Descriptions of each of these areas and the criteria they meet are given below. 

3.15.1 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACECS) 

3.15.1.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

FLPMA defines an ACEC as an area "within the public lands where special management 

attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or 

scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life 

and safety from natural hazards." 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) states that the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) will give priority to the designation and protection of Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the development and revision of land-use plans. 

With ACECs, there is no one method of management for all areas. Special management is 

designed specifically for the relevant and important values, and therefore varies from area to 

area. The one exception is that a mining plan of operation is required for any proposed mining 

activity that would create surface disturbance greater than casual use within a designated ACEC 

(43 CFR 3809 Regulations). 

A total of 35 nominated areas (many of which overlap with each other in area) were evaluated 

for relevance and importance as part of the Moab land-use planning process. These evaluations 

have been completed in accordance with guidance provided in BLM regulations at 43 CFR part 

1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613-Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, which identify 

relevance and importance criteria that must be met for a nominated area to be considered as a 

potential ACEC. The boundaries of the potential ACECs were crafted by the BLM 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-131

interdisciplinary team and its cooperators to best incorporate the relevant and important values of 

each nomination. The proposals included areas previously nominated, nominations received from 

the public as part of scoping, and areas nominated, refined, or expanded by BLM staff 

specialists. As a result of work completed by the BLM ACEC interdisciplinary team and its 

cooperating agencies, 14 potential ACECs that meet both the relevance and importance criteria 

have been identified. A summary of these 14 potential ACECs are listed in Table 3.41 and are 

shown in Map 2-14. A description of the potential ACEC nomination along with its relevance 

and importance criteria follows Table 3.41. 

Table 3.41. Summary of Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Area Name 

Relevant and Important Values, 

Resources, Natural Processes or 

Systems, or Natural Hazards 

Acres 

Behind the Rocks Scenic values, sensitive plant species, 

cultural values 

17,836 

Book Cliffs Wildlife Area Wildlife resources 304,252 

Canyon Rims Scenic values 23,400 

Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog 

Complex 

Wildlife resources 125,620 

Colorado River Corridor Scenic, and cultural values, wildlife 

resources, rare plants, natural systems 

50,483 

Cottonwood-Diamond 

Watershed 

Natural hazards and natural systems 35,830 

Highway 279 Corridor/ Shafer 

Basin/ Long Canyon 

Scenic values and wildlife resources 13,500 

Labyrinth Canyon Scenic and historic values 8,528 

Mill Creek Canyon Scenic and cultural values, natural 

systems, fish resources 

13,501 

Ten Mile Wash Cultural values, wildlife resources, natural 

systems, natural hazards 

4,980 

Upper Courthouse Historic values, natural systems, rare 

plants 

11,529 

Westwater Canyon Scenic values and fish resources 5,069 

White Wash Natural systems 2,988 

Wilson Arch Scenic values 3,700 

More detailed information on the designation process, the ACEC team, and MFO relevance and 

importance evaluations can be found in Appendix I – Relevance and Importance Evaluations of 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Nominations. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-132

3.15.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF AREA AND RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE CRITERIA FOR POTENTIAL 

ACECS

The following descriptions and relevance and importance criteria are taken from the Relevance 

and Importance Evaluations of Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) nominations 

(BLM 2004f). 

3.15.1.2.1 BEHIND THE ROCKS (17,836 ACRES) 

Description of Area: Behind the Rocks is located west of the city of Moab and east of Kane 

Creek Canyon. It is an area of sandstone fins and deeply entrenched canyons, with arches and 

other features. Various boundaries were proposed by the several nominators. From these, BLM 

crafted the boundary of the potential ACEC to include all of the relevant and important cultural, 

wildlife, plant and scenic resources of the area. 

Relevance Criteria: The area contains significant cultural resources, including rock art and 

habitation sites. The scenic values are outstanding in the area, with slickrock domes and fins 

present on a grander scale than in Arches National Park. There are also several large natural 

arches in the area. The area contains habitat for several special-status wildlife species, including 

the peregrine falcon, southwest willow flycatcher, spotted bat and big free-tailed bat. Three 

special-status plant species occur in the area: the Canyonlands biscuitroot, alcove rock daisy and 

alcove bog orchid. The area is one of only three major population centers (and of these, the least 

imperiled) for the Canyonlands biscuitroot. Two narrowly distributed plants, the western hophornbeam and alcove death camas also occur. In addition, there are relict plant communities 

within the area that are valuable for scientific study. 

Importance Criteria: Within the area, cultural sites are distinctive and of special worth. Scenic 

values are nationally significant; Behind the Rocks is the best example of Navajo sandstone fins 

in the world, and provides the scenic backdrop to the town of Moab. The rare and endemic plants 

are fragile, rare and irreplaceable. Behind the Rocks is one of only 12 known areas with

occurrences of the alcove rock daisy, and one of three areas in which the Canyonlands 

biscuitroot is found. The area also contains plant communities and soils that have been little 

disturbed or altered, providing an uncommon remnant of the presettlement landscape. 

3.15.1.2.2 BOOK CLIFFS WILDLIFE AREA (304,252 ACRES) 

Description of Area: The Book Cliffs Wildlife Area ACEC is located on the southern flanks of 

the Book Cliffs from the Green River to Hay Canyon and from the Book Cliffs terraces north to 

the MPA boundary. (The boundary proposed by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance differed 

from that of BLM staff. BLM staff adjusted the boundary of the area with the assistance of data 

from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources). 

Relevance Criteria: The Book Cliffs Wildlife Area nomination meets the relevance criteria for 

wildlife and cultural values. The Book Cliffs area contains habitat essential for maintaining 

species diversity, including that of endangered, threatened and Utah sensitive animal species. In 

addition, the Book Cliffs provides important habitat for the following big game species: Rocky 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-133

Mountain bighorn sheep, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, mountain lion and black bear. Crucial 

fawning and calving grounds and crucial winter ranges for elk and deer are within the area. The 

Book Cliffs are essentially a natural system encompassing unfragmented, contiguous habitat for 

a great diversity of plant and animal communities. The area is also rich in cultural resources, and 

includes rock art, camp sites, cave excavations and brush structures. 

Importance Criteria: The Book Cliffs wildlife habitat is of more than local significance. There 

are no areas in the Western United States (outside of Alaska) that offer such a large, contiguous, 

unfragmented, and undisturbed habitat for such a large variety of animal species. This extensive 

habitat promotes biological and genetic diversity that is unavailable in most wildlife habitat 

areas. The remote areas of the Book Cliffs are important scientific reference sites. Human 

disturbance and/or development would permanently alter the unfragmented, remote and 

undisturbed nature of this wildlife habitat. This makes the Book Cliffs proposed ACEC highly 

vulnerable to adverse change. The habitat is also irreplaceable, exemplary and unique due to the 

rareness of large, unfragmented and undisturbed habitat for both plants and animals. 

In addition, cultural sites within the Book Cliffs have special worth because their remoteness has 

left them largely undisturbed, and thus of great importance to scientific study. 

3.15.1.2.3 CANYON RIMS (23,400 ACRES) 

Description of Area: The Canyon Rims ACEC nomination consists of the western rims of the 

Canyon Rims Recreation Area. This encompasses Needles, Anticline, Canyonlands and Minor 

Overlooks, which are developed recreation sites within the recreation area. 

Relevance Criteria: The scenic values of the western portions of the Canyon Rims Recreation 

Area are outstanding in quality and due to location, highly visible to the recreating public. 

Importance Criteria: The scenic values of the western portions of Canyon Rims are important to 

regional, national, and international visitors who view this area from developed overlooks. The 

Canyon Rims views are some of the most spectacular in the Western United States. They have 

special worth and consequence to many visitors, many of whom comment that the views are 

"more spectacular than the Grand Canyon." 

The threats to these scenic resources include oil and gas development and off highway vehicle 

use, making them subject to adverse change. 

3.15.1.2.4 CISCO WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG COMPLEX (125,620 ACRES) 

Description of Area: The ACEC boundary proposal from the Center for Native Ecosystems has 

been refined with the help of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources data to include public 

lands on both sides of I-70 from the Colorado State Line to the Cisco area. 

Relevance Criteria: The area meets the relevance criterion for wildlife values. White-tailed 

prairie dog is a Utah sensitive species, and has been nominated as threatened under the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-134

Endangered Species Act. UDWR has mapped historic and current prairie dog towns and their 

habitat. The habitat within this area is essential for maintaining this species. 

Importance Criteria: White-tailed prairie dogs are a Utah sensitive species; conservation plans 

are being developed to avoid the need to list them. The population of this species is declining 

throughout the West, including the area managed by the MFO. Large tracts of land are needed to 

maintain populations of this animal and of the predator species that depend on it. White-tailed 

prairie dog habitat is fragile and very sensitive to damage from OHV use, heavy grazing, drought 

and oil and gas disturbance. 

3.15.1.2.5 COLORADO RIVER CORRIDOR (50,483 ACRES)

Description of Area: The Colorado River Corridor area lies along Utah Highway 128 east of 

Moab, Utah. It includes the entire Richardson Amphitheater (including Fisher Towers, Onion 

Creek and Castle Rock), the canyon of Negro Bill and the Slickrock Bike Trail on the south side 

of the Colorado River. On the north side of the river, Dry Mesa, Cache Valley and other lands 

east of Arches National Park are included. (Boundary proposals by various nominators were 

adjusted by BLM staff and cooperators to determine the potential ACEC boundary.) 

Relevance Criteria: This area meets the relevance criteria for scenic, fish and wildlife, and rare 

and endangered plants. The scenery in the area is of outstanding quality, and as it is traversed by 

Utah State Scenic Byway 128, the scenery is accessible to all types of visitors. The area contains 

such scenic western icons as Fisher Towers, the Colorado River and Castle Rock. 

The potential ACEC includes crucial habitat for mule deer and desert bighorn sheep. It includes 

crucial bighorn lambing and rutting areas for desert bighorn sheep (particularly in the lands east 

of Arches National Park). The Colorado River is home to the razorback sucker, bonytail chub, 

humpback chub and the Colorado pikeminnow, all endangered species. Several birds on the state 

sensitive list, including yellow-breasted chats and Lewis woodpeckers, have known occurrences 

within the potential ACEC. State sensitive animals occurring in the area include river otter, 

spotted bat and big free-tailed bat. 

Three rare plants occur within the Richardson Amphitheater section of the area: the Jones 

cycladenia (Threatened), the Shultz stickleaf (Sensitive), and the Dolores rushpink (Sensitive). 

Relict plant communities also occur in the proposed ACEC. Two BLM sensitive plants (alcove 

rock daisy (Perityle specuicola) and alcove bog orchid (Habenaria zothecina) occur in Negro 

Bill Canyon. In addition, the endemic alcove columbine is also found. The hanging gardens of 

Negro Bill in which these plants are found range in size from a few square meters to huge classic 

alcoves. The Colorado River corridor is rich in rare and endangered plants. 

Importance Criteria: This area meets the importance criteria for scenic, fish and wildlife and rare 

and threatened plants. The entire area possesses Class A scenery of widely recognized value. It is 

internationally renowned for scenery, and has been the location site for 88 film permits from 

1998-2002. This area has some of the most significant, internationally recognized scenery in the 

Western United States. People throughout the world recognize the scenic resources contained 

within the area. The visual resources in this area are very rare, and do not exist anywhere else in 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-135

the world. At the same time, the area is subject to intense visitation, making the area susceptible 

to inadvertent damage.

The wildlife habitat in the area is of more than local significance, and is rare and irreplaceable. 

The very presence of the Colorado River provides wildlife habitat that is unique in the arid West. 

The rare and endangered fish in the Colorado River (razorback sucker, bonytail chub, humpback 

chub and the Colorado pikeminnow) are unique and irreplaceable. Lands crucial to desert 

bighorn sheep lambing and rutting (in Cache Valley east of Arches National Park) are similarly 

unique and vulnerable to adverse change. Several birds on the state sensitive list, including 

yellow-breasted chats and Lewis woodpeckers, have known occurrences within the proposed 

ACEC. State sensitive animals occurring in the area include river otter, spotted bat and big freetailed bat. 

The potential ACEC contains the only known location in the world of the sensitive Schultz 

stickleaf. Although only on the BLM state sensitive plant list (and not on the endangered species 

list), the Schultz stickleaf grows nowhere else in the entire world but in the proposed ACEC 

because of the special combination of soils in the area. The potential ACEC also contains 

threatened Jones cycladenia plants. This makes the area of special worth and consequence to 

these rare species. Although it is only listed as sensitive, the population of Shultz stickleaf plants 

is unique and irreplaceable as it is known to grow nowhere else in the world; the presence of 

other special species, both plant and animal, make the area unique and exemplary. 

The rare plants found in the hanging gardens of Negro Bill Canyon area also rare, fragile and 

exemplary. The cave primrose, alcove bog orchid, alcove columbine and alcove rock daisy are of 

far more than local significance, given their rarity. 

The heart of Negro Bill Canyon was designated an Outstanding Natural Area in the 1985 Grand 

RMP to protect both scenery and these sensitive plants. The scenery is of more than local 

significance, both in the canyon, and from the Slickrock and Porcupine Rim Trails above it. 

3.15.1.2.6 COTTONWOOD-DIAMOND WATERSHED (35,830 ACRES) 

Description of Area: This area is located in the Cottonwood-Diamond drainage of the Book 

Cliffs area. The area to be considered in this ACEC proposal is the area that was severely burned 

in 2002. 

Relevance Criteria: The area meets the relevance criteria for natural processes and for natural 

hazards. Due to severe fire damage in July 2002, the functioning of the natural system is at risk. 

Riparian areas and stream channels are the most at risk. This area is extremely susceptible to 

(and has experienced) dangerous flooding and landslides as a result of the large fire. Because of 

major vegetation loss and damage to soils (hydrophobic) and steep rocky slopes, storm runoff is 

at extreme levels and is causing peak flood levels and massive erosion. This area was identified 

by the Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) team in 2002 as posing significant 

hazards to life and property. In 2007, the floodplains and stream channels continue to 

substantially erode with each flood, making canyon bottoms unstable and unsafe. Restoring 

riparian vegetation and stable stream channels and floodplains is crucial to a functioning natural 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-136

process. Watershed health is not expected to return for another 4 to 10 years, requiring special 

management in the interim. 

Importance Criteria: The area meets the importance criteria for natural hazards and natural 

processes. The Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation report highlights significant hazards from 

floods, mudflows, and landslides that have already occurred, and are expected to reoccur. The 

severely burned area has qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy concerns about 

human life and safety. BLM has spent significant amounts of money to date on emergency 

stabilization (reseeding, hydro-mulching, and monitoring) to help restabililize the area to reduce 

these threats to human life and safety. 

3.15.1.2.7 HIGHWAY 279 CORRIDOR/SHAFER BASIN/LONG CANYON (13,500 ACRES) 

Description of Area: The area is a corridor along Utah Highway 279, including the extension of 

that road into the Shafer Basin. The Shafer Basin provides the viewshed from Dead Horse Point 

State Park. In addition, Long Canyon to the Dead Horse Mesa is included in this proposal. BLM 

has modified the boundary of the SUWA nomination to better incorporate the resource values 

that were found relevant and important in this area. 

Relevance Criteria: The area meets the relevance criteria for scenic, plant and wildlife resources. 

Utah Highway 279 is a state scenic byway; its scenery is enjoyed by over 250,000 thousand 

visitors per year as they drive along the Colorado River. The Shafer Basin provides the 

spectacular foreground scenery as viewed from the road and from Dead Horse Point State Park. 

Long Canyon also provides a scenic backcountry drive just off Utah Highway 279. The scenery 

is classified as Class A. 

A Utah BLM sensitive plant, Jane's globemallow, is found in the Shafer Basin. In addition, both 

the Shafer Basin and Long Canyon are important habitat to the desert bighorn sheep. As a result, 

the uplands north of Dead Horse Point State Park were found to have relevant values for wildlife 

and plants. 

Importance Criteria: The nomination meets the importance criteria for scenery, plant and for 

wildlife values only within the modified boundary. The stunning scenery within Shafer Basin 

and Long Canyon as viewed from State Scenic Byway 279 and Dead Horse Point State Park is 

internationally renowned. Highway 279, Shafer Basin and Long Canyon are also venues for 

many film permits, due to their spectacular scenic backdrops. Thus, these portions of the 

nominated area were found to meet the importance criterion for scenery, as they have more than 

local significance. 

Jane's globemallow, a BLM sensitive plant species, is rare and unique and is susceptible to harm. 

The presence of this plant in the Shafer Basin area meets the importance criteria. 

The wildlife values within the adjusted boundary also meet the importance criteria, as the Shafer 

Basin is primary habitat for desert bighorn sheep, which also utilize Long Canyon. These 

distinctive animals are unique and of more than local significance. Indeed, it is the Shafer Basin 

habitat that enabled the dwindling desert bighorn herd to survive. This bighorn herd is one of 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-137

only two indigenous native desert bighorn herds in the state of Utah, and the Shafer Basin herd 

has provided stock for restoring desert bighorns to other environments. The wildlife values in the 

uplands portion (north of Dead Horse Point) were not found to be of more than local 

significance, and thus did not meet the importance criterion. 

3.15.1.2.8 LABYRINTH CANYON (8,528 ACRES) 

Description of Area: Labyrinth Canyon is located along the Green River, and extends from Ruby 

Ranch to the border of Canyonlands National Park. This proposal is for the eastern side of that 

canyon. It complements that of the Price Field Office, which has an ACEC proposal for the 

western side of Labyrinth Canyon. BLM staff has modified the boundary to better incorporate 

those resource values identified as both relevant and important. 

Relevance Criteria: This nomination meets the relevance criteria for scenic, historic, fish and 

natural processes. The scenery in Labyrinth Canyon is outstanding, and is enjoyed by many river 

runners. Historic sites are prevalent along the Green River, and these meet the historic criterion. 

The Green River is home to four endangered fish species: Colorado pikeminnow, razorback 

chub, bonytail chub and humpback chub. The upland regions east of the river corridor do not 

meet the relevance criteria for scenic, historic, fish or natural processes. The wildlife relevance 

criterion is met for these upland regions, as the area is habitat to many animals, including desert 

bighorn sheep. 

Importance Criteria: The nomination meets the importance criteria for scenery and for historic 

values only in the Green River Canyon corridor. The scenery and the history along the river is of 

far more than local significance, which give it special worth and meaning. The Green River is 

nationally and internationally famous for its high cliff walls and outstanding scenery. It is an 

internationally recognized destination for canoe touring. The historic resources are unique and 

irreplaceable, telling the story of the early settlement of this region (and dating back to the time 

of the fur trappers). The importance criterion is also met for fish resources, as the endangered 

fish species live only in the Colorado River system, and are rare, irreplaceable and unique. The 

importance criteria for terrestrial wildlife values involving the upland regions east of the river 

corridor are not met, as these wildlife values are only of local significance. While the river 

corridor is a unique resource for endangered fish species, the upland regions are duplicated in 

many places across the Colorado Plateau.

3.15.1.2.9 MILL CREEK CANYON (13,501 ACRES) 

Description of Area: Mill Creek Canyon is located directly east of Moab. It consists of both the 

North Fork and South Fork drainages of Mill Creek from the National Forest boundary to 

Spanish Valley. 

Relevance Criteria: This nomination meets the relevance criteria for scenery, cultural values, fish 

and wildlife resources and natural systems. Mill Creek Canyon has significant scenic values, 

with Class A scenery and high sensitivity. The outstanding visual resources of the canyon are 

stunning, and of rare scenic quality. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-138

Cultural resources (including rock art, campsites, rock shelters, alcoves and special activity 

areas) are exceptional in the forks of Mill Creek, and have been the subject of several scientific 

studies. Mill Creek is one of five coldwater trout fisheries in the Colorado River system. Due to 

its perennial water, many wildlife species depend on Mill Creek. A rare and especially high 

quality riparian area, Mill Creek's ecological condition requires special management. The Mill 

Creek watershed is the municipal watershed of Moab and Grand County, providing water that 

sustains the human population. 

Importance Criteria: Mill Creek Canyon meets the importance criteria for scenery, cultural 

resources, natural riparian systems and fish and wildlife values. The scenery in Mill Creek 

Canyon is of national quality, and is far more than locally significant. Cultural resources are 

extensive and span the entire prehistoric context, giving these resources special worth and 

consequence. Both the scenic and cultural values in Mill Creek Canyon are easily damaged and 

in need of protection. Cultural resources are especially sensitive, irreplaceable and exemplary; 

similar cultural resources exist nowhere else. Mill Creek Canyon's cultural resources have also 

been identified as being of exceptional importance to Native Americans. Protection of these rich 

archeological areas is a national priority concern. The proximity of Mill Creek to Moab makes 

the drainage particularly vulnerable to adverse change. 

Fish and wildlife values meet the importance criteria, as the stream is one of the few cold water 

fisheries in the region. The wildlife importance criterion is met, as Mill Creek Canyon provides a 

migration corridor from the mountain range to the desert; the richness of the Mill Creek riparian 

habitat provides for a diversity of species not often found in a desert environment. The rarity of 

this type of habitat gives importance to this value. 

The water resource is a significant factor in the municipal water supply; the watershed is crucial 

to the public welfare of Moab and Grand County. 

3.15.1.2.10 TEN MILE WASH (4,980 ACRES) 

Description of Area: Ten Mile Wash is located northwest of Moab; it drains into the Green River 

just downstream of White Wash and upstream of Spring Canyon. The nominated area is 

composed of the Ten Mile drainage from the Green River to two miles upstream of Dripping 

Spring. 

Relevance Criteria: Ten Mile Wash meets the relevance criteria for scenic, cultural, wildlife, 

natural processes and natural hazards. Ten Mile Wash contains high quality scenery related to 

sandstone buttes, cliffs, side canyons and alcoves; the scenery is enhanced by the presence of a 

riparian greenbelt. Ten Mile Wash contains significant cultural resources, including important 

habitation sites and unusual artifacts. 

Ten Mile Wash contains perennial and intermittent flows that maintain ecological diversity in 

upland and riparian/wetlands-dependent wildlife within extremely arid portions of the basin. Ten 

Mile Wash contains a rich mixture of riparian, wetland and hydrologic resources. Perennial 

segments support well-developed wetlands that are rare and unusual in arid regions. Ten Mile 

Wash is subject to extreme flooding, increasing potential safety hazards to vehicle and camping 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-139

activities. The potential for flooding is great because the Ten Mile Wash watershed basin drains 

175,185 acres, making it the second largest tributary drainage in the MPA. 

Importance Criteria: This nomination meets the importance criteria for cultural, wildlife values, 

natural systems and natural hazards. Cultural resources in Ten Mile Wash are of more than local 

significance, and are fragile, rare and exemplary. Ten Mile Wash is wildlife habitat of extremely 

important consequence in the driest portion of the MPA, because it provides water and habitat to 

wildlife from a large geographic area. 

Riparian/wetland resources comprise less than 1% of the 22 million acres of public land within 

Utah. Within the MPA, just over 1,000 acres have been identified with wetland potential, of 

which Ten Mile Wash contains textbook examples. Riparian/wetland ecosystems in Ten Mile 

Wash are rare, sensitive resources vulnerable to degradation from surface disturbances. These 

wetland ecosystems are exemplary and rare; they serve as attractors for wildlife and for human 

activities, making the wash extremely susceptible to adverse impact. Riparian/wetland 

ecosystems are a national priority concern, and are managed for health and diversity as required 

by the Clean Water Act, Floodplain and Wetland Executive Orders, Rangeland Standards and 

Guidelines, and the National Riparian Area Policy. Ten Mile Wash contains extreme seasonal 

flooding potentials that warrant special management regarding public access and camping within 

the drainage. 

3.15.1.2.11 UPPER COURTHOUSE (11,529 ACRES) 

Description of Area: The area of the Upper Courthouse proposal is immediately south of the 

Blue Hills Road, 16 miles north of Moab. It includes Courthouse, Mill, Tusher and Bartlett 

Canyons, as well as the tops of various isolated mesas, including Big Mesa. 

Relevance Criteria: This nomination meets the relevance criteria for historic, paleontological, 

natural systems and rare plants. Courthouse Springs is a known location on the Old Spanish 

Trail, a National Historic Trail. This location later became the Halfway Stage Station, a 

significant historic resource. The area contains significant paleontological resources, and 

includes deposits of surface dinosaur bone 

Two rare plants occur within the area: the stage station milkvetch and Trotter oreoxis, both of 

which are on the state sensitive list. In addition, several of the mesa tops within the proposed 

ACEC have been little altered by direct human influences and thus support relict plant 

communities and well-developed, mature cryptobiotic soil crusts. Big Mesa is the largest of these 

untouched areas. It has never been grazed, nor has it been driven upon. 

Importance Criteria: This nomination meets the importance criteria for historic, rare plant and 

natural systems. The area has special worth due to the rare plant species and relict plant 

communities. The area contains almost all of the stage station milkvetch plants known in the 

entire world. This stage station milkvetch population is unique and irreplaceable, as is that of the 

Trotter oreoxis. Areas of relict vegetation on the mesa tops are representative of conditions on 

surrounding lands; these uncommon remnants of the presettlement landscape are extremely 

vulnerable and valuable for scientific study. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-140

 Historical resources in the area (including a known watering spot on the Old Spanish Trail) are 

distinctive and irreplaceable. Increasing recreation activity in the area makes these resources 

vulnerable to adverse change. The richness of its paleontological resources are of more than local 

significance, as the variety of dinosaur bone in the area rivals that found in Dinosaur National 

Park. 

3.15.1.2.12 WESTWATER CANYON (5,000 ACRES) 

Description of Area: Westwater Canyon is along the Colorado River six miles downstream from 

the Colorado border. 

Relevance Criteria: This nomination meets the relevance criteria for scenery and for endangered 

fish. The dramatic, scenic canyon is rated as Class A scenery, as well as VRM inventory Class I. 

Visiting the canyon and viewing the scenery is a highly sought experience. The most dramatic 

scenery within the canyon is the contrast of jet black Precambrian rock with the red sandstones 

above. These two rock layers are in rare juxtaposition in Westwater, making the scenic 

experience unique. In addition, four endangered fish inhabit the Colorado River, the Colorado 

pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker and bonytail chub. The upland regions 

surrounding Westwater Canyon do not meet the relevance criteria, as they do not have 

significant values. 

Importance Criteria: This nomination meets the importance criteria for scenery and for 

endangered fish. The inner gorge of Westwater Canyon is visually unique, with the primordial 

black Precambrian schist layer overlain by the red rocks of the Wingate sandstone. This 

irreplaceable canyon is a one-of-a-kind visual experience, which visitors from all over the world 

vie to enjoy. Westwater Canyon is rare, exemplary and unique in terms of its scenic values. 

Westwater Canyon has been described as the most scenic one day river trip in the entire United 

States. The endangered fish that inhabit its waters are also unique and found only in the Colorado 

River system. 

3.15.1.2.13 WHITE WASH (2,988 ACRES) 

Description of Area: White Wash is located 30 miles northwest of Moab. It consists of active 

sand dunes interspersed with cottonwood trees, surrounded by a intermittent wash that drains to 

the Green River. 

Relevance Criteria: White Wash meets the relevance criteria for scenery, cultural, wildlife and 

natural systems. The high quality scenery is related to the active sand dunes, Entrada sandstone 

buttes and a unique cottonwood riparian ecosystem. White Wash also contains significant 

sensitive cultural resources, including habitation sites. 

White Wash contains intermittent and ephemeral flows vitally important to support wildlife 

diversity within this extremely arid region. A small resident desert bighorn sheep population 

relies on upper White Wash for habitat and for water. White Wash contains a unique 

ecological/geological system related to cottonwood riparian woodlands located within the active 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-141

dune field and supported by localized subsurface moisture. This population of cottonwoods 

represents a relict ecosystem and is a rare riparian feature. 

Importance Criteria: This nomination meets the importance criteria for natural systems. Riparian 

resources comprise less than 1% of the 22 million acres of BLM land within Utah. Riparian 

resources in similar combination are not known elsewhere within the region. The White Wash 

Sand Dunes is a unique ecosystem with sensitive soils that are highly mobile and active. This 

ecosystem is highly unusual, rare, sensitive and vulnerable to degradation from surface 

disturbances, especially OHV riders using the cottonwood trees as slalom poles, adversely 

impacting soil and moisture patterns which support the reproduction and sustainability of the 

riparian ecosystem. 

Riparian/wetland ecosystems are national priority concerns and are managed for health and 

diversity as mandated by the Clean Water Act, Floodplain and Wetland Executive Orders, 

Rangeland Standards and Guidelines, and the National Riparian Area Policy. 

The area does not meet the importance criterion for cultural, scenery or for wildlife. Cultural 

sites in the area are not unique; similar wildlife habitat is available across the Colorado Plateau. 

3.15.1.2.14 WILSON ARCH (3,700 ACRES) 

Description of Area: Wilson Arch is located approximately 25 miles south of Moab on the east 

side of U.S. Highway 191. The nominated area includes the red rock basin that contains Wilson 

Arch. 

Relevance Criteria: Wilson Arch has significant scenic value. 

Importance Criteria: Located immediately adjacent to U.S. Highway 191, Wilson Arch is viewed 

and photographed by many visitors to the Colorado Plateau. This makes the scenic value of the 

arch more than locally significant, due to its extreme visibility. 

3.15.2 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (WSRA) established legislation for a National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) to protect and preserve designated rivers throughout the nation 

in their free-flowing condition and to protect and preserve their immediate environments. The 

WSRA includes policy for managing designated rivers and created processes for designating 

additional rivers for the NWSRS. 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 current planning process. 

The first phase of the WSR review is to inventory all potentially eligible rivers within the 

planning area to determine which of those rivers are eligible for consideration as part of the 

NWSRS. To be eligible, rivers must be free-flowing and possess at least one outstandingly 

remarkable value (ORV). ORVs are evaluated in the context of regional and/or national 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-142

significance and must be river-related. Each river/segment determined to be eligible is then given 

a tentative classification based on the current level of human development associated with that 

river/segment. The tentative classification is based on the criteria listed in the classification table 

from Wild and Scenic River Review in the State of Utah (BLM 1996) as noted below. 

• A Wild river is free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds essentially primitive, 

and with unpolluted waters. 

• A Scenic river may have some development, and may be accessible in places by roads. 

• A Recreational river is accessible by road (or railroad), may have more extensive 

development along its shoreline, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion 

in the past. 

The MFO ID Team has established WSR eligibility determinations and tentative classifications 

for 29 rivers/segments and they are summarized along with their ORVs in Table 3.42. For 

detailed information on MFO's WSR eligibility review, please see Appendix J – Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Review Eligibility Determination. 

The second phase of WSR review is to determine suitability through the planning process for this 

DEIS. The 29 eligible segments will be furthered reviewed as to their suitability for 

congressional designation into the National System. Please see Chapter 4, Envionmental 

Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives. 

It is BLM policy (8351 Manual, Section .32C) to manage eligible segments to protect their freeflowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classifications to the extent that 

BLM has the authority to do so. Until the ROD for the Moab RMP is signed, such protection 

involves case-by-case 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 Moab 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 BLM's 8351 Manual, Section .51. 

3.15.3 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS AND DESIGNATED WILDERNESS 

3.15.3.1 RESOURCE 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. With the passage of FLPMA in 1976 Congress directed the BLM to 

inventory, study, and recommend which public lands under its administration should be 

designated wilderness. 

Between 1979 and 1980, BLM inventoried approximately 22 million acres of public land in Utah 

for wilderness characteristics including the appearance of naturalness, outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation, and adequate size. With the completion of the 

inventory and resolutions of appeals, the BLM designated about 3.3 million acres of wilderness 

study areas (WSAs) statewide. Eleven of these WSAs (349,824 acres) are located completely or 

partly within the MPA. They are currently being managed to preserve their wilderness 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-143

characteristics until Congress either designates them as wilderness or releases them for other 

uses. Table 3.43 summarizes these areas, and Map 2-16, Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study 

Areas shows their location. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapt

3-144

Table 3.42. River Segments in the MPA Meeting Wild and Scenic River Eligibility 

River/Segment 

Name 

Segment Description and Approximate Length in FreeFlowing BLM River Miles (BLMRM), Total River Miles (TRM)* Outstandingly Remarkable Value

(1) Colorado/Utah Stateline to Westwater Canyon 

(BLMRM 1) (TRM 6.7) 

Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, culturaecological 

(2) Westwater Canyon, Mile 125, to River Mile 112 

(BLMRM 11.8) (TRM 13) 

Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, culturageology, ecological 

(3) River Mile 112 to confluence with the Dolores River 

(BLMRM 11.2) (TRM 15.7) 

Recreation, wildlife, fish, cultural, ecolog

(4) Confluence with the Dolores River to mile 49 near Potash 

(BLMRM 32.6) (TRM 53.5) 

Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, culturageology, ecological 

(5) River Mile 44.5 to Mile 38.5 State land boundary 

(BLMRM 6.1) (TRM 6.8) 

Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, culturaecological 

Colorado River TRM segments 1-6 is 99.5

(6) River Mile 37.5 State land to Mile 34 Canyonlands NP 

(BLMRM 3.8) (TRM 3.8) 

Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, culturaecological 

Cottonwood Canyon 

Source near Cottonwood Point to Private land boundary 

including the first half mile of Horse Canyon (BLMRM 10.4) (TRM 13.6) 

Scenery, wildlife, ecological 

(1) Source to Onion Creek road (BLMRM 3.5) Scenery, geology, ecological 

Onion Creek (2) Beginning of Onion Crk Rd to Colorado River 

(BLMRM 9) (TRM13.22) 

Scenery, geology 

Professor Creek (Mary Jane Canyon) 

Forest Service and State land boundary to Diversion near private land (BLMRM 7.4) (TRM 7.7) 

Scenery, recreation 

Salt Wash Arches NP boundary to the Colorado River 

(BLMRM 33) (TRM 6.33) 

Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, geolog

(1) From state land below rim to 1⁄4 mile from Colorado River 

(BLMRM 7.2) 

Scenery, recreation, ecological 

Negro Bill Canyon 

(2) Last 1⁄4 mile to Colorado River (BLMRM .25) (TRM 7.45) Scenery, recreation, ecological 

(1) Forest boundary to private property below the diversion 

(BLMRM 1.4) 

Mill Creek (Upper) Scenery, recreation, fish, cultural, ecolog (Middle) (2) T.26 S. R. 23 E., Sec. 19 to Power Dam (BLMRM 4.6) (TRM 12.6) Scenery, recreation, fish, cultural, ecologNorth Fork Mill Crk Forest boundary near Wilson Mesa to Mill Crk 

(BLMRM 11.2) (TRM 11.7) 

Scenery, recreation, cultural, ecological 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapt

3-145

Table 3.42. River Segments in the MPA Meeting Wild and Scenic River Eligibility 

River/Segment 

Name 

Segment Description and Approximate Length in FreeFlowing BLM River Miles (BLMRM), Total River Miles (TRM)* Outstandingly Remarkable Value

(1) Colorado-Utah Stateline to Fisher Creek (BLMRM 5.9) Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, geolog

ecological 

(2) Fisher Creek to Bridge Canyon (BLMRM 6.2) Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, geolog

ecological 

Dolores River 

(3) Bridge Canyon to Colorado River (BLMRM 9.9) (TRM 23.63) Recreation, wildlife, fish, geology, ecolog

(1) FS boundary to 1 mile from Dolores River (BLMRM 6.7) Scenery, recreation, fish, ecological 

Beaver Creek 

(2)One mile to Dolores River (BLMRM 1) (TRM 9) Scenery, recreation, geology 

Thompson Canyon Source of Thompson to Fisher Creek (Cottonwood Cyn) 

(BLMRM 5.5)(TRM 5.5) 

Scenery, ecological 

(1) Coal Creek to Nefertiti Boat Ramp (TRM 6) Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, 

cultural/historic, geology, ecological 

(2) Nefertiti Boat Ramp to Swasey's Boat Ramp (TRM 8) Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, 

cultural/historic, geology, ecological 

(3) Swasey's Boat Ramp to I-70 bridge (TRM 13) Scenery, recreation, wildlife, fish, 

cultural/historic, geology, ecological 

(4) I-70 Bridge to river mile 91 below Ruby Ranch (TRM 28) Scenery, recreation, fish, cultural/historic

paleontology 

(5) Mile 91 below Ruby Ranch to Hey Joe Canyon (TRM 15) Scenery, recreation, fish, cultural/historic 

Green River** 

(6) Hey Joe Canyon to Canyonlands NP boundary (TRM 29) Scenery, recreation, fish, cultural/historic 

Rattlesnake Canyon 

Source to Green Rvr (including Flat Nose George Trib) (BLMRM 31.6) (TRM 36) 

Scenery, wildlife, geology, ecological 

Source BLM 2004g. * Total River Miles (TRMs) are estimated. Segment 4 of the Colorado River TRM includes river along the Potash Plant. ** The Price Field Office (in coordination with the MFO) reviewed the Green River as part of the Price Field Office RMP. The Moab RMP will carry forward 

Moab side of the Green River. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-146 

Table 3.43. BLM Wilderness Study Areas under Jurisdiction of 

the MFO1 

Name Acreage 

Behind the Rocks 12,635 

Black Ridge 52 2 

Coal Canyon 60,755 

Desolation Canyon 81,603 3 

Floy Canyon 72,605 

Flume Canyon 50,800 

Lost Spring Canyon 1,624 4

Mill Creek Canyon 9,780 

Negro Bill Canyon 7,820 

Spruce Canyon 20,990 

Westwater Canyon 31,160 

Totals 349,824 

1 Except as noted, all acreage figures are from Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1990). 

2 Acres remaining after creation of Black Ridge Wilderness 

3 Desolation Canyon WSA spans three field offices; acreage shown is for MFO only 

4

 Acres remaining after transfer of part of this WSA to National Park Service 

A discussion of the current resource values and uses in each WSA, established in 1980 under the 

authority of Section 603(c) of FLPMA, can be found in the Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1990). Those values and resources described in the 

1990 document have not changed significantly since that time, as documented in monthly WSA 

monitoring reports available in the MFO. 

Although WSAs are by definition roadless, several of the WSAs in the MPA do include 

inventoried ways or known impairments (Table 3.44). During the 1979-1980 Utah Wilderness 

Inventory, it was necessary to divide routes used by motorized vehicles into "roads" and "ways." 

To be considered a road, three criteria had to be met: (1) constructed; (2) maintained by 

mechanical means; and (3) regular and continuous use. All other motorized routes were defined 

as ways, which could be left open to motorized travel as long as their use did not "impair" the 

suitability of the area for wilderness designation. 

Within the MPA, there is a portion (5,200 acres) of the congressionally designated Black Ridge 

Wilderness Area. The Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness is a Congressionally designated 

wilderness that is part of the McInnis Canyon National Conservation Area. It was established 

under the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness 

Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-353 of the 106th Congress). It was approved on October 24, 2000. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-147 

Table 3.44. Inventoried Ways and Known Impairments within WSA in the MPA 

WSA Name Acres 

Inventoried 

Ways 

(miles)1 

Known Impairments 

Behind the Rocks 12,635 3.55 

Coal Canyon 60,755 8.0 

Desolation Canyon 

(MFO) 

81,603 8.22 

Floy Canyon 72,605 23.5 

Flume Canyon 50,800 12.5 

Lost Spring Canyon 1,624 0.25 

Mill Creek Canyon 9,780 1.83 

Negro Bill Canyon 7,820 3.543 

Spruce Canyon 20,990 1.0 

Westwater Canyon 31,160 22.5 

Black Ridge 52 0 Agriculture trespass with irrigation pivots 

Total 353,615 84.62 

 Except as noted, motorized travel routes identified in the October, 1991, Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report (BLM 1991c)

2 Described in above document, but mileage not stated; estimated from GIS. 

3 Motorized travel routes (estimate) as depicted on the WSA legislative map submitted to Congress. No summary available in 

Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report

3.15.3.2 GUIDANCE AND MANAGEMENT FOR WSAS AND DESIGNATED WILDERNESS

FLPMA Section 603 (c) directs the BLM to manage the lands under wilderness review in a 

manner that will preserve their suitability for congressional wilderness designation. This 

language is referred to as the "nonimpairment" mandate or standard, and will remain in effect 

until Congress acts on the President's wilderness recommendation for WSAs in Utah. 

BLM policies and guidance providing for management of existing WSAs and consideration of 

values associated with wilderness characteristics in land-use planning are detailed in: 

• Manual Handbook H-1601-1, Land-use Planning Handbook 

• Manual Handbook H-8550-1, Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review (IMP) 

The BLM's IMP (BLM 1995) provides specific policy and guidance for management of most 

resource values and uses in WSAs. However, visual resource management decisions and off 

highway vehicle designations and route designations are made during land-use planning. A 

summary of some aspect of WSA management are as follows: 

• This standard applies to all uses and activities except those specifically exempted from this 

standard by FLPMA (grandfathered uses and valid existing rights). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.15 Special Designations 

3-148 

• Activities that are permitted in WSAs (except valid existing rights and grandfathered uses) 

must be temporary, create no new surface disturbance, and not involve the permanent 

placement of structures. There are exceptions to this standard. 

• Grazing, mining, and mineral leasing uses that existed as of the passage of FLPMA (October 

21, 1976) may continue in the same manner and degree, even if this would impair wilderness 

suitability. 

• WSAs may not be closed to location under the mining laws in order to preserve their 

wilderness character (although the wilderness character of the area cannot be impaired 

through actions to perfect claims located after October 21, 1976). Valid existing rights will 

be recognized. 

• WSAs will be managed to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation, as required by law. 

• The Black Ridge Wilderness Area is managed under the Management Plan for McInnis 

Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness. This plan was 

approved October 28, 2004. 

3.16 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Special status species occur in a variety of cover types across the planning area. For BLM 

management purposes, special status species include species listed as endangered, threatened, 

proposed, and/or candidate under the Endangered Species Act, as well as those species listed as 

sensitive in the State of Utah by the BLM. 

Species listed as threatened or endangered are afforded protection under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) (BLM Manual 6840). The BLM is required to consult with the USFWS on potential 

impacts to Federally listed species. The USFWS does not consult on candidate species, although 

they are included for informational purposes in consultation documents and USFWS may 

provide information and suggestions regarding them during consultation. Periodic review of the 

special status species list allows for additions and/or removals depending on the status of 

populations, habitats, and potential threats. A total of 10 Federally listed species were identified 

as having the potential to occur within Grand and San Juan Counties. These include 1 plant, 5 

wildlife and 4 fish species. 

Sensitive species shall be managed to prevent further listing, with the same level of protection as 

candidate species (BLM Manual 6840). BLM sensitive species are designated by the State 

Director under 16 U.S.C. 1536 (a) (2). The BLM has identified 43 Sensitive Species as having 

the potential to occur within Grand and San Juan Counties. These include 14 plant, 18 wildlife, 4 

fish, 6 reptiles and amphibians and 1 invertebrate species. (It should be noted that some of the 

TES species listed in Table 3.45 may occur on lands managed by agencies or organizations other 

than the BLM.) 

3.16.1 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified the following Threatened, 

Endangered and Candidate plant, wildlife and fish species as occurring in the MPA in the last ten 

years. Discussions of each species follow Table 3.45. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapt

3

3-149 

Table 3.45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species Occurring in 

Scientific Name

Common Name Habitat Status 

Area of Potential an

Known Occurrenc

Utah 

Plants 

Cycladenia humilis var. 

jonesii

Jones cycladenia 

Gypsiferous or saline soils on the Chinle, Cutler, and Summerville Formations. Barren slopes of the Moenkopi Formation. Mid-May to June. 4,400-6,000'. 

Threatened Emery County, Garf

County, Grand Counand Kane County. 

Wildlife 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed ferret 

Prairie dog towns associated with open grassland and prairies. 

Endangered May occur througho

eastern Utah, only kpopulation occurs in Uinta Basin. 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle1 

Roosts and nests in tall trees near bodies of water, 

Threatened Throughout Utah. 

Strix occidentalis lucida (Mexican) spotted owl 

Steep rocky canyons. Threatened Southern and easter

parts of Utah. 

Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow flycatcher 

Low scrub, thickets, or groves of small trees, often near watercourses. 

Endangered Throughout southern 

Utah. 

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (Western) yellow-billed cuckoo 

Riparian habitats. Candidate Throughout Utah. 

Gymnogyps californianus (California Condor) 

Roosts and nests in cliff habitat. Forages in open areas. 

Endangered, Experimental 

Very rarely throughoUtah. Usually south Interstate 70. 

Fish 

Gila elegans Bonytail 

Eddies, pools, and backwaters near swift current in large rivers 

Endangered Mainstem of the 

Colorado and Green rivers 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapt

3

3-150 

Table 3.45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species Occurring in 

Scientific Name

Common Name Habitat Status 

Area of Potential an

Known Occurrenc

Utah 

Ptychochelius lucius Colorado pikeminnow 

Adults can be found in habitats ranging from deep turbid rapids to flooded lowlands. Young prefer slow-moving backwaters 

Endangered Mainstem of the 

Colorado, Green, anSan Juan rivers 

Gila cypha Humpback chub 

Fast, deep, white-water areas Endangered Mainstem of the 

Colorado and Green rivers 

Xyrauchen texanus Razorback sucker 

Slow backwater habitats and impoundments Endangered Mainstem of the 

Colorado and Green rivers 

1 Bald eagle was removed from federal list of threatened and endangered species on August 8, 2007. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-151 

3.16.1.1 JONES CYCLADENIA 

Jones cycladenia is endemic to Utah and Arizona, and has been identified as occurring in Grand 

County, Utah, near lower Castle Valley. Jones cycladenia grows on barren slopes of the Chinle, 

Cutler and Summerville Formations in gypsiferous, saline soils. This species occurs in 

Eriogonum-ephedra, cool desert shrub and juniper communities at elevations ranging from 4,400 

to 6,000 feet. Blooming takes place from mid-May through June (Utah Native Plant Society 

2005; personal communication between Daryl Trotter, BLM and Susan Kammerdiener, SWCA 

on January 6, 2006). 

3.16.1.2 CALIFORNIA CONDOR

The California Condor is an federally-listed endangered species with non-essential, experimental 

status in Utah south of Interstate 70 and west of Highway 191. Under Section 10(j) of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 USC 1536[c]), this means that the species is treated as though 

it is proposed for federal listing, rather than as endangered. No condors are known to nest in the 

MPA, however, they have the potential to move through the area and potentially suitable nesting 

habitat does exist there. A few condors have been sighted throughout Utah since being released 

in northern Arizona in 1996 (USFWS 1996a). Any condors that leave the experimental 

population area will be considered as endangered. The agreement includes provisions for the 

capture and return of condors to the experimental population area should they be found outside 

of it (61 FR 54043 54060). California Condors prefer mountainous country at low and moderate 

elevations, especially rocky and brushy areas near cliffs. Condor colonies often roost in snags, 

tall open-branched trees, or cliffs, often near important foraging grounds (UDWR 2007). This 

species lays a single egg between late January and early April. The California Condor feeds only 

on the carcasses of dead animals and it prefers to do so in relatively open areas (USFWS 1996b). 

3.16.1.3 BLACK-FOOTED FERRET

The endangered black-footed ferret is considered the rarest mammal in North America; once 

common throughout the Great Plains now all native population have been extirpated. Successful 

captive breeding programs and reintroduction efforts are returning small population to their 

native ranges. Because the majority of their diet is comprised of prairie dogs, recent declines in 

prairie dog numbers have put reintroduced populations at risk. Within the MPA, no known 

populations occur, but historical native ranges exist. 

3.16.1.4 BALD EAGLE 

Utah's wintering bald eagle population is typically found near rivers, lakes, and marshes where 

unfrozen, open waters offer the opportunity to prey on fish and waterfowl. The Colorado and 

Green River corridors are used frequently by Utah's wintering bald eagles. The eagles begin to 

arrive in November and head north by March. Utah also hosts a small population of desert bald 

eagles that can be found in desert valleys, far from any water. These eagles feed primarily on 

carrion such as road and hunter kill. There are only eight known nest sites in Utah, three of 

which occur on the Colorado River within the MPA. Nesting bald eagles in the planning area 

return to their nesting territories in early spring. Egg laying and incubation occurs from February 

through May with eaglets hatching during May and early June and fledging by early July. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-152 

The bald eagle was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species on 

August 8, 2007. It continues to be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

3.16.1.5 MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL (MSO) 

Steep slopes and canyons with rocky cliffs characterize much of the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) 

habitat in Utah. Within the Colorado Plateau, owls are known to nest in steep-walled canyon 

complexes and rocky canyon habitat within desert scrub vegetation. The owl exists in small 

isolated subpopulations and is threatened by habitat loss and disturbance from recreation, 

overgrazing, road development, catastrophic fire, timber harvest, and mineral development. The 

MPA contains 55,645 acres of designated critical habitat for this species (Map 2-18, Mexican 

Spotted Owl Habitat). Within the planning area, one known nesting territory has been identified 

and is located approximately 0.5 miles outside the designated critical habitat. No known nesting 

territories have been identified within the planning area designated critical habitat. Nesting and 

breeding begins in March and eggs are laid in late March or early April and are incubated for 

approximately 30 days. The eggs usually hatch in early May. Nesting owls fledge from early to 

mid-June and disperse out of the natal area in the fall. 

3.16.1.6 SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER (SWFL) 

The southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL) utilizes and breeds in patchy to dense riparian 

habitats along streams and wetlands near or adjacent to surface water or saturated soils. These 

dense patches are often interspersed with small openings, open water, and/or shorter/sparser 

vegetation, creating a mosaic habitat pattern. Historically, nests were constructed in native 

willow species but currently the SWFL will utilize both native and exotic species, such as 

tamarisk and Russian olive that provide desired habitat requirements (Sogge et al. 1997). Nesting 

season typically begins in May when males arrive to establish breeding territories. The females 

arrive a week or two later and nest building begins. Eggs are laid and incubated from late May 

through July. Chicks fledge 12 to 15 days after hatching during July and August and migrate 

south in late August through early fall. Population declines are attributed to numerous, complex, 

and interrelated factors such as habitat loss and modification, invasion of exotic plants into 

breeding habitat, brood parasitism by cowbirds, vulnerability of small population numbers, and 

winter and migration stress. The MPA contains potential riparian habitat for this species. The 

exact amount of potential habitat is unknown and will require further field habitat evaluations. 

3.16.1.7 (WESTERN) YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO

The yellow-billed cuckoo is a Federal Candidate species that has been listed due to loss of 

riparian habitat from agricultural use, water use, road development and urban development. No 

known population of this species exists at present within the MPA. The yellow-billed cuckoo, 

however, is a neotropical migrant that utilizes riparian valleys throughout the state. Migrant or 

nesting populations may occur within the Book Cliffs, but there is inadequate sampling of 

potential habitat at this time UDWR). The planning area contains potential riparian habitat for 

this species. The exact amount of potential habitat is unknown and will require further field 

habitat evaluations. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-153 

3.16.1.8 BONYTAIL CHUB

The bonytail chub has drastically declined in numbers since the 1960s and little is known about 

its biological requirements. Historically it was once widespread throughout the Colorado River 

Basin. Today it is thought to be found in large river reaches of the Colorado and Green Rivers. 

The MPA contains both possible populations and designated critical habitat for this species. The 

designated critical habitat within the planning area is found on the Green River between the 

Yampa River and the Colorado River (74,644 m) as well as between the Desolation area and the 

Gray canyons area (130,729 m) (USFWS 1990b). 

3.16.1.9 COLORADO PIKEMINNOW 

Natural populations of the Colorado pikeminnow are restricted to the upper Colorado River 

Basin in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. The main stem of the Colorado River 

from Palisade, Colorado to Lake Powell has known population within this region (UDWR 

2005b). Flow regulations, migration barriers, habitat loss/alteration, and introduced non-native 

fish have all been identified as causes for population decline (UDWR 2005b). The MPA contains 

both populations and designated critical habitat for this species. The designated critical habitat 

within the planning area is found on the Green River between the Yampa River and the Colorado 

River (74,644 m), between the Desolation area and the Gray canyons area (130,729 m), the 

Dolores River 2km from the Colorado River (63,183 m), the Colorado River from I-70 to the 

boundary with the Monticello Field Office (13,210 m), and the Colorado River from the 

Westwater Canyon Area (125,972 m) (USFWS 1991).

3.16.1.10 HUMPBACK CHUB 

Populations of humpback chub have been identified in the Upper Colorado River Basin with the 

highest concentrations found in the Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon reaches of the Colorado 

River near the Colorado/Utah state line (UDWR 2005b). The presences of juvenile population 

suggest spawning may occur in the Upper Colorado River at Black Rocks, Westwater Canyon, 

Cataract Canyon, and Desolation/Gray Canyon (UDWR 2005b). Flow alterations have been 

identified as a significant cause of decline. The MPA contains both populations and designated 

critical habitat for this species. The designated critical habitat within the planning area is found 

on the Green River between the Desolation area and the Gray canyons area (130,729 m), and the 

Colorado River from Westwater Canyon Area (125,972 m) (USFWS 1990a).

3.16.1.11 RAZORBACK SUCKER 

The Green River has the only known spawning areas (UDWR) for the razorback sucker, some of 

which are found in the MPA. Populations have been identified in the Colorado River from Rifle 

Colorado to Lee's Ferry Arizona and also in areas of the Green, Gunnison, and Yampa Rivers 

(UDWR 2005b). The planning area contains both populations and USFWS designated Critical 

Habitat for this species. The designated critical habitat within the planning area is found on the 

Green River between the Yampa River and the Colorado River (74,644 m), between the 

Desolation area and the Gray canyons area (130,729 m), the Colorado River from I-70 to the 

boundary with the Monticello Field Office (13,210 m), and the Colorado River from Westwater 

Canyon Area (125,972 m) (USFWS 1999). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-154 

3.16.2 BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES

3.16.2.1 BLM SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES

The BLM Sensitive Fish and Wildlife Species presented in Table 3.46 have been detected in the 

MPA in the past ten years. A discussion of each of these species follows. 

Table 3.46. BLM Sensitive Species Occurring in the MPA 

Scientific Name

Common Name Habitat Status 

Area of 

Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Wildlife 

Idionycteris phyllotis

Allen's big-eared bat 

Rocky and riparian areas in woodland 

and scrubland regions, roosts in 

caves or rock crevices.

BLM Sensitive b Throughout 

southern Utah. 

Nyctinomops macrotis

Big free-tailed bat 

Rocky and woodland habitats, roosts 

in caves, mines, old buildings, and 

rock crevices.

BLM Sensitive a/b Throughout 

southern Utah. 

Myotis thysanodes

Fringed myotis 

Desert and woodland areas, roosts in 

caves, mines, and buildings.

BLM Sensitive b Throughout 

southern Utah. 

Euderma maculatum

Spotted bat 

Found in a variety of habitats, ranging 

from deserts to forested mountains; 

roost and hibernate in caves and rock 

crevices.

BLM Sensitive b Throughout 

Utah. 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii Townsend's 

big-eared bat 

Occur in many types of habitat, but is 

often found near forested areas; 

roosts and hibernates in caves, 

mines, and buildings.

BLM Sensitive a/b Throughout 

Utah. 

Vulpes macrotix 

Kit fox

Semi desert grasslands and open 

shrublands 

BLM Sensitive Throughout 

Utah. 

Cynomys gunnisoni 

Gunnison's prairie dog 

Grasslands, semidesert and montane 

shrublands 

BLM Sensitive Throughout 

southeastern 

Utah 

Cynomys leucurus 

White-tailed prairie dog 

Semi desert grasslands and open 

shrublands 

BLM Sensitive Throughout 

northcentral 

Utah. 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhyanchos

American white pelican 

Along lakes, ponds, creeks, and 

rivers. 

BLM Sensitive b Throughout 

Utah. 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Bobolink 

Riparian or wetland areas. BLM Sensitive a/b Throughout 

Utah. 

Athene cunicularia

Burrowing owl 

Open grassland and prairies. BLM Sensitive a Throughout 

Utah. 

Buteo regalis

Ferruginous hawk 

Flat and rolling terrain in grassland or 

shrub steppe; nests on elevated cliffs, 

buttes, or creek banks. 

BLM Sensitive c Throughout 

Utah. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-155 

Table 3.46. BLM Sensitive Species Occurring in the MPA 

Scientific Name

Common Name Habitat Status 

Area of 

Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Centrocercus minimus 

Gunnison sage-grouse 

Sagebrush and 

sagebrush/grassland habitats. 

BLM Sensitive 

a/b

Southeastern 

Utah. 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

Greater sage-grouse 

Sagebrush plains, foothills, and 

mountain valleys. 

BLM Sensitive a/b Throughout 

Utah. 

Melanerpes lewis

Lewis's woodpecker 

Burned-over Douglas-fir, mixed 

conifer, pinyon-juniper, riparian, and 

oak woodlands, but is also found in 

the fringes of pine and juniper stands, 

and deciduous forests, especially 

riparian cottonwoods 

BLM Sensitive a/b High and midelevation 

mountain ranges 

of Utah. 

Accipiter gentilis

Northern goshawk 

Mature mountain forest and riparian 

zone habitats. 

Conservation 

Agreement 

Species 

High and midelevation 

mountain ranges 

of Utah. 

Asio flammeus 

Short-eared owl 

Grasslands, shrublands, and other 

open habitats. 

BLM Sensitive a Throughout 

Utah. 

Picoides tridactylus

Three-toed 

woodpecker 

Engelmann spruce, sub-alpine fir, 

Douglas fir, grand fir, ponderosa pine, 

tamarack, aspen, and lodgepole pine 

forests. 

BLM Sensitive b High and midelevation 

mountain ranges 

of Utah. 

Oreohelix yavapai

Yavapai Mountainsnail 

Coves and valleys. BLM Sensitive b Navajo and 

Abajo 

Mountains. 

Fish 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus 

Colorado River 

cutthroat trout 

Cool clear water, high-elevation 

streams and lakes 

Conservation 

Agreement 

Species 

Upper Colorado 

River drainage 

Catostomus discobolus 

Bluehead sucker 

Fast flowing water in high gradient 

reaches of mountain rivers 

BLM Sensitive a 

Conservation 

Agreement 

Species 

Tributaries of the 

Colorado and 

Green rivers 

Gila robusta 

Roundtail chub 

Large rivers, and is most often found 

in murky pools near strong currents 

BLM Sensitive c 

Conservation 

Agreement 

Species 

Mainstem and 

tributaries of the 

Colorado and 

Green rivers 

Catostomus latipinnis

Flannelmouth sucker 

Large rivers, where they are often 

found in deep pools of slow-flowing, 

low gradient reaches 

BLM Sensitive a 

Conservation 

Agreement 

Species 

Mainstem and 

tributaries of the 

Colorado and 

Green rivers 

a

 Listed by the State of Utah as a species of special concern due to declining population sizes within the state. 

b

 Listed by the State of Utah as a species of special concern due to its limited distribution within the state. 

c

 Listed by the State of Utah as Threatened Sources: BLM 2002d; Atwood et al. 1991; Welsh et al. 2003. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-156 

Table 3.47 contains BLM Sensitive Species, which may occur within the MPA, but have not 

been detected in the MPA in the past ten years. 

Table 3.47. State/BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the MPA, 

though Not Detected in the Last 10 Years 

Scientific Name 

Common Name Habitat Status Area of Potential and/or Known Occurrence 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Bufo microscaphus 

Arizona toad 

Streams, washes, 

irrigated croplands, 

reservoirs, and uplands 

adjacent to water. 

State Sensitive 

(SP) 

Throughout Southern Utah 

Sauromalus ater 

Common chuckwalla 

Predominantly found 

near cliffs, boulders, or 

rocky slopes, where 

they use rocks as 

basking sites and rock 

crevices for shelter. 

State Sensitive 

(SP/SD) 

Along the Colorado River 

in Southern Utah 

Elaphe guttata 

Cornsnake 

Near streams, or in 

rocky or forest habitats 

State Sensitive 

(SP/SD) 

Throughout Southeast 

Utah 

Xantusia vigilis 

Desert night lizard 

Extremely secretive, 

spending much of its 

time hiding under 

desert shrubs. 

State Sensitive 

(SD) 

Throughout Southeastern 

Utah 

Opheodrys vernalis 

Smooth greensnake 

Moist grassy areas and 

meadows. 

State Sensitive 

(SP/SD) 

Occurs in the Wasatch, 

Uinta, Abajo, and La Sal 

Mountains. 

Bufo boreas 

Western toad 

Slow moving streams, 

wetlands, desert 

springs, ponds, lakes, 

meadows, and 

woodlands 

State Sensitive 

(SP) 

Throughout most of Utah. 

Invertebrates 

Oreohelix Eurekensis 

Eureka Mountainsnail 

Forested areas. State Sensitive 

(SD) 

East Tavaputs Plateau 

SP: Listed by the State of Utah as a species of special concern due to declining population sizes within the state. 

SD: Listed by the State of Utah as a species of special concern due to its limited distribution within the state. 

3.16.2.1.1 ALLEN'S BIG EARED BAT 

Allen's big eared bat is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species because of limited distribution within 

the state. Southern Utah is the northern extreme of this species distribution. It occurs in various 

habitats including riparian, desert shrub, pinyon-juniper and mixed forest (Oliver 2000). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-157 

3.16.2.1.2 BIG FREE-TAILED BAT 

The big free-tailed bat is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species because of declining population sizes 

and limited distribution within the state. It is a migratory species and is known from the southern 

half of Utah although it may range further north. The big free-tailed bat has been captured in 

riparian, desert shrub and montane forest habitat types (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.3 FRINGED MYOTIS BAT

The fringed myotis bat is listed as BLM Sensitive Species because of limited distribution within 

the state. This species occurs predominantly in southern Utah although records of this species 

occur throughout the state. Fringed myotis occur in a variety of habitat including riparian, desert 

shrub, pinyon-juniper, mountain meadow, ponderosa pine, and montane forest (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.4 TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT 

The Townsend's big-eared bat is a BLM Sensitive Species, and USFS-listed Sensitive species 

due to limited distribution and a declining population (Oliver 2000). The Townsend's big-eared 

bat is a cave-roosting species that moves into man-made caves such as mines and buildings. 

Unlike many other bats, they are unable to crawl into crevices and usually roost in enclosed areas 

where they are vulnerable to disturbance. The Townsend's big-eared bat is quite sensitive to 

human disturbance, and this appears to be the primary cause of population decline for this 

species. This bat is colonial during the maternity season, when compact clusters of up to 200 

individuals might be found. Maternity roosts form in the spring and remain intact during the 

summer. Site fidelity is high, and if undisturbed, the bats will use the same roost for many 

generations (Brown 1996). 

3.16.2.1.5 SPOTTED BAT

The spotted bat is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species and is considered rare in Utah (though the 

spotted bat's distribution ranges throughout the western states from British Columbia to Mexico). 

The spotted bat has a very low reproductive potential, and therefore once populations are 

reduced they rebuild very slowly. Several sightings were reported to the UDWR in the southern 

portion of the MPA in 1959 and 1965, though no current populations are known today (UDWR 

2005b). 

3.16.2.1.6 KIT FOX 

The kit fox is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. It opportunistically eats small mammals 

(primarily rabbits and hares), small birds, invertebrates, and plant matter. The species is 

primarily nocturnal, but individuals may be found outside of their dens during the day. The kit 

fox mates in late winter, with a litter of four to seven pups being born about two months later. 

Young first leave the den about one month after birth, in late spring or early summer. The 

species most often occurs in open prairie, plains, and desert habitats. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-158 

3.16.2.1.7 GUNNISON'S PRAIRIE DOG 

The Gunnison's prairie dog is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. This species is highly 

susceptible to sylvatic plague and has a low ability to repopulate once the plague has decimated a 

colony. Mortality from plague frequently exceeds over 99% within colonies. Additional threats 

include poisoning, agricultural conversion and urbanization and development (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.8 WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG

The white-tailed prairie dog is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. This species has declined by 

an estimated 84% in southern Utah. The decline can be attributed to this species' high 

susceptibility to sylvatic plague. Population numbers rarely rebound to previous numbers and 

occupied acreage once the plague has decimated a colony. Additional threats include poisoning, 

grazing, fire suppression, agricultural conversion, urbanization and oil and gas development 

(UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.9 AMERICAN WHITE PELICAN

The American white pelican is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. This species' preferred nesting 

habitats are islands, especially those associated with fresh water lakes. Preferred foraging areas 

are shallow lakes, marshlands, and rivers. In Utah, the only known breeding colonies are located 

in the northern portions of the state specifically within the Utah Lake/Great Salt Lake ecological 

complex (Parrish et al. 2002). 

3.16.2.1.10 BOBOLINK

The bobolink is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species and a State Sensitive Species because of 

(range-wide) declining populations and limited habitat. Wet Meadow habitats have been 

decreased and fragmented in Utah due to many of the same factors that impact riparian areas, 

e.g., agricultural encroachment, urban encroachment, road development, water development 

(reservoirs and in-stream flow depletions) and channelization. (Parrish et al. 2002). 

3.16.2.1.11 BURROWING OWL

The burrowing owl is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species to recent decreases in population size. 

Burrowing owls are neotropical migrants, nest underground in burrows, and are typically found 

in open desert grassland and shrubland areas that are level and well drained (Gleason and 

Johnson 1985). They depend on burrowing mammals for nest sites and are often associated with 

prairie dog colonies (Konrad and Gilmer 1984). The decline of the owl's population across its 

range appears to be due primarily to agricultural practices, use of pesticides, and the decline of 

prairie dog colonies (Haug et al. 1993). 

3.16.2.1.12 FERRUGINOUS HAWK 

The ferruginous hawk, BLM Sensitive Species, is the largest of the North American buteos. It is 

a neotropical migrant breeding from southwestern Canada to central Arizona, New Mexico, and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-159 

northern Texas and wintering in California to northern Mexico. It is a year-round resident from 

Nevada through western and southern Utah, northern Arizona, and New Mexico to eastern 

Colorado and South Dakota. In Utah, the ferruginous hawk nests at the edge of juniper habitats 

and open, desert and grassland habitats in the western, northeastern, and southeastern portions of 

the state. Within the MPA they are found through the Cisco Desert, along the Colorado and the 

Green Rivers and the Potash area. Ferruginous hawks are highly sensitive to human disturbance 

and are also threatened by habitat loss from oil and gas development, agricultural practices, and 

urban encroachment. They have experienced a decline across much of their range and have been 

extirpated from some of their former breeding grounds in Utah (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.13 GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE 

Sage-grouse require a variety of habitats found in large expanses of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) 

communities below 9,800 feet, with a diversity of grasses and forbs and healthy riparian 

ecosystems. Their habitat requirements differ both seasonally and for sex and age classes. The 

presence of each habitat type in healthy condition in close proximity to winter, lek, nest and 

brood-rearing habitat is essential. A large percent of each seasonal habitat must be in later seral 

stage ecological condition to meet the requirements of the grouse. Population declines are 

attributed to several factors, including habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from increased 

roads, housing developments, uranium mill tailings remedial action, power lines, and loss of 

riparian areas. Other issues decreasing habitat quality are livestock grazing, drought, land 

treatments, increased elk and deer populations, and herbicides. The MPA contains habitat for this 

species and has had documented populations through the mid-1990s. No sightings have been 

reported in the past ten years (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.14 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE 

The greater sage-grouse is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species because of their limited distribution 

within the state and because of recent decreases in population size. Greater sage-grouse are 

found in the sagebrush foothills and plains of the Intermountain Region. Since 1967, the 

abundance of male grouse on known breeding grounds in Utah has declined approximately 50%. 

Brood counts and harvest data show a similar downward trend. Habitat loss and fragmentation 

from agricultural encroachment, urbanization, and overgrazing are the primary threats to the 

greater sage-grouse (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.15 LEWIS'S WOODPECKER 

The Lewis's woodpecker is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species and USFWS Candidate species 

because of its limited distribution within the state and because of recent decreases in population 

size. This woodpecker is a permanent resident to western North America and, in Utah, is found 

primarily in the riparian habitats of the Uinta Basin and along the Green River. Formerly 

common in several areas of the state, the species distribution is currently reduced, and the 

species is experiencing a range-wide decline. This woodpecker usually feeds on flying insects in 

open areas interspersed with trees in the spring and summer. It feeds primarily on fruits and nuts 

in the fall and winter. It is adversely affected by loss of habitat from water development and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-160 

agricultural practices and may be increasingly affected by competition for nest cavities from 

non-native bird species (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.16 NORTHERN GOSHAWK 

The goshawk is a neotropical migrant raptor that can be found in mature mountain forests and 

valley cottonwood habitats. In the winter months goshawks are known to move into lower 

elevation to forage (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Due to low population densities, loss of timber 

habitat and development in riparian areas, populations have declined across the Colorado Plateau 

(UDWR). A Conservation Agreement has been developed for the Northern Goshawk to maintain 

and restore habitat for the northern goshawk on the National Forests in Utah and in small 

portions of Wyoming and Colorado. Threats that might lead to listing under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, will be eliminated or reduced through implementation of the 

Conservation Agreement and Conservation Strategy. The goals of the Agreement are to assure 

the long-term population viability of goshawks by maintaining adequate connected nesting and 

foraging habitat throughout the State of Utah. This will be accomplished through management 

that mimics the variability of size, intensity, and frequency of native disturbance regimes within 

the full historic range of variation, including extreme events. Within the MPA there is habitat 

and the possible presence of goshawk along the interface between BLM lands and the Manti La 

National Forest.

The goshawk is a neotropical migrant raptor that can be found in mature mountain forest and 

valley cottonwood habitats. In the winter months goshawks are known to move into lower 

elevation to forage. Due to low population densities, loss of timber habitat and development of 

riparian areas, populations have declined across the Colorado Plateau (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.17 SHORT-EARED OWL 

The short-eared owl is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. This owl is usually found in 

grasslands, shrublands, and other open habitats. There is some concern that short-eared owl 

populations are declining. It is an uncommon breeder in the northern half of the Utah, mostly in 

the northwestern portion of the state (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.18 THREE-TOED WOODPECKER 

The three-toed woodpecker is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species because of their limited 

distribution within the state. Because this species requires snags for feeding, perching, nesting, 

and roosting, it is threatened by activities such as logging and fire suppression which remove or 

eliminate snags. Salvage logging in beetle infested areas also reduces both food and nesting sites 

for Three-toed Woodpeckers. Salvage logging after a fire reduces or eliminates high quality 

foraging habitat. Fire suppression that eliminates fire-killed trees are also a threat (Parrish et al. 

2002). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-161 

3.16.2.1.19 YAVAPAI MOUNTAINSNAIL 

The Yavapai mountainsnail is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. It has not been detected in Utah 

since the original discoveries in 1919. This species has been reported only from 2 localities in 

Utah, one on Navajo Mountain and one in the Abajo Mountains near Monticello, both in San 

Juan County (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.20 COLORADO CUTTHROAT TROUT

There is a Conservation Agreement concerning the Colorado cutthroat trout (CRCT Task Force 

2001) to expedite implementation of conservation measures in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as 

a collaborative and cooperative effort among resource agencies. Threats that warrant CRCT 

listing as a special status species by state and Federal agencies and might lead to listing under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, will be eliminated or reduced through 

implementation of the Conservation Agreement and Conservation Strategy. The goals of the 

Agreement are to assure the long-term prosperity of CRCT throughout their historic range and to 

maintain areas which currently support abundant CRCT and manage other areas for increased 

abundance, to maintain the genetic diversity of the species, and to increase the distribution of the 

CRCT where ecologically, sociologically, and economically feasible. Within the MPA there is 

habitat and possible presence of CRCT is both La Sal Creek and Beaver Creek (according to the 

UDWR). The MFO manages approximately 0.08 miles of La Sal Creek and 6.6 miles of Beaver 

Creek as CRCT habitat (the upper two miles of Beaver Creek is considered native CRCT habitat) 

(UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.21 BLUEHEADED SUCKER 

The blueheaded sucker is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species, as it has been extirpated from 55% 

of its historical distribution. Within the MPA, populations can be found in the mainstream rivers 

and tributaries to the headwater reaches of the Colorado and Green Rivers and in the Dolores 

River. Declines in populations are attributed to hybridization, altered hydrological regimes, instream habitat loss and degradation and predation of non-native fish (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.22 ROUNDTAIL CHUB 

The roundtail chub is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species as it has been extirpated from 45% of its 

historical distribution in the Colorado River Basin. Within the MPA, populations are known to 

occur in the Colorado River from the Utah border to Moab and in the Green River from the 

Colorado-Green confluence upstream to Echo Park. Declines in populations are attributed to 

hybridization with other chub, habitat loss and degradation due to dam and reservoir 

construction, competition and predation of non-natives, parasitism, and dewatering activities 

(UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.23 FLANNELMOUTH SUCKER 

The flannelmouth sucker is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species, as it now occupies only 50% of its 

historical range within the Upper Colorado River Basin. Within the MPA, populations are known 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-162 

to occur in the Colorado, Green and Dolores Rivers. Populations have declined since the 1960s 

due to impoundment of the mainstem of the Green and Colorado Rivers. (Flannelmouths have 

been extirpated from portions of the Gunnison River.) This fish is also susceptible to altered 

thermal and hydrological regimes, hybridization and competition of non-native fish (UDWR 

2005b). 

3.16.2.1.24 ARIZONA TOAD

The Arizona toad is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. It occurs in isolated areas of the 

southwestern United States. In Utah, the Arizona toad is found only in the southwestern portion 

of the state. This species inhabits streams, washes, irrigated crop lands, reservoirs, and uplands 

adjacent to water (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.25 COMMON CHUCKWALLA

The common chuckwalla is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. It occurs in the southwestern 

United States and in parts Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs only in the southern portion of the 

state. It is included on the Utah Sensitive Species List because of habitat modification and other 

threats. Chuckwallas are predominantly found near cliffs, boulders, or rocky slopes (UDWR 

2005b). 

3.16.2.1.26 CORNSNAKE

The cornsnake is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species because of limited distribution and its 

potential for genetic uniqueness from the cornsnakes east of the Continental Divide. The 

cornsnake is associated with the Colorado and Green River corridors and population declines are 

attributed to habitat degradation, vegetative changes, and illegal collection (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.27 DESERT NIGHT LIZARD

The desert night lizard is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. In Utah, the desert night lizard 

occurs only in a few small areas of the southern portion of the state, and it is included on the 

Utah Sensitive Species List. 

3.16.2.1.28 SMOOTH GREENSNAKE

The smooth greensnake is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species because of its special habitat 

requirements, making it susceptible to habitat loss. The smooth green snake is associated with 

meadows and stream margins and habitat threats include livestock grazing, recreational 

activities, loss of wetlands, and human development (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.1.29 WESTERN TOAD

The western toad is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species. It occurs throughout most of Utah, and 

can be found in a variety of habitats, including slow moving streams, wetlands, desert springs, 

ponds, lakes, meadows, and woodlands (UDWR 2005b). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-163 

3.16.2.1.30 EUREKA MOUNTAINSNAIL

The Eureka mountainsnail is BLM Sensitive Species and is endemic to Utah and only four 

populations have been documented, one of which was located in northern Grand County in 1964. 

The precise location of this population is unknown and it has not been relocated since its 

discovery 39 years ago (UDWR 2005b). 

3.16.2.2 BLM SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES

The current BLM special status plant species list was updated in August 2002. The 14 sensitive 

plant species known in the project area are listed and discussed in Table 3.48. 

Table 3.48. BLM Sensitive Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the MPA 

Scientific Name 

Common Name Habitat Status 

Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Astragalus 

pubentissimus var. 

peabodianus 

Peabody's milkvetch 

Entrenched channels of 

escarpments draining 

south and west flanks of 

Tavaputs Plateaus. 

Pinyon-Juniper and 

mixed desert shrub. 

4,300-5,800'. Blooms 

May-early July. 

BLM Sensitive Grand County (type 

from Thompson 

Spring). 

Endemic to Grand 

and Emery Counties. 

Astragalus sabulous 

var. sabulous 

Cisco milkvetch 

Salt desert shrub in 

Mancos Shale Formation 

in Grand River Valley 

(Cisco desert). 

Selenophyte. Blooms late 

March-May. 4,260-5,250. 

BLM Sensitive Endemic. To Grand 

County (Thompson 

east to Cisco Mesa). 

Astragalus sabulous 

var. vehiculus 

Stage-station 

milkvetch 

Salt desert shrub in 

Morrison Formation. 

Selenophyte. Blooms 

April-May. 4500- 4,800'. 

Considered 

geographically isolated 

from var. sabulous.

BLM Sensitive Endemic to Upper 

Courthouse Wash, 

Grand County. 

Gilia latifolia var. 

imperialis 

Cataract Canyon gilia 

Shadscale and other 

mixed desert shrub 

communities, esp. wash 

bottoms and ledges. 

3,800-5,215'. Blooms 

June-October. 

BLM Sensitive Southeastern Utah 

Endemic. 

Habenaria zothecina 

(syn. Platanthera 

zothecina) 

Alcove bog orchid 

Moist streambanks, 

seeps, hanging gardens, 

in mixed desert shrub, 

pinyon-juniper, and 

oakbrush, associated with 

cottonwood and willow. 

Mid June-Aug. 4,360-

8,690'. 

BLM Sensitive Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan and 

Uintah Counties, Utah 

and Coconino, 

Arizona. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-164 

Table 3.48. BLM Sensitive Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the MPA 

Scientific Name 

Common Name Habitat Status 

Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Lomatium latilobum

Canyonlands 

lomatium (C. 

biscuitroot, or C. 

desert-parsley) 

Sandy soil or crevices in 

Entrada sandstone. Slot 

canyons. (Found in 

Navajo sandstone that 

weathers like Entrada in 

Sand Flat and Mill 

Creek.) Prefers the 

sheltered, cool habitat on 

all slopes and aspects. 

April-June. 4,800-6,855'. 

BLM Sensitive Endemic to San Juan 

County, Grand 

County (Wilson Mesa, 

Mill Creek Canyon, 

Burkholder Draw, Rill 

Creek) Southeastern 

Utah (and adj. Mesa 

County Colorado) 

Lygodesmia 

grandiflora var. 

doloresensis 

Dolores rushpink 

Reddish alluvial soil, 

juniper-grassland, 

sagebrush. June. 4,500-

4,700'. 

BLM Sensitive Endemic to Grand 

County, Utah and 

Mesa County, 

Colorado. 

Lygodesmia 

grandiflora var. 

entrada 

Entrada rushpink (or 

skeletonweed) 

Juniper, mixed desert 

shrub communities. June. 

4,400-4,800'. 

BLM Sensitive Endemic to Grand 

County, Emery Co 

and San Juan County. 

Type from 

Courthouse Wash. 

Mentzelia shultziorum 

Shultz' stickleaf (or 

blazing star) 

Shadscale, eriogonum, 

ephedra communities in 

Cutler Formation. 

Moderate to very steep 

slopes of Paradox and 

Moenkopi Formations. 

Silty clay loam or silty 

loam. 4,200-6,000'. 

Blooms from mid-June to 

September. 

BLM Sensitive Grand County (type 

along Onion Creek). 

Eight known 

populations southeast 

of Colorado River. 

Endemic to Emery 

and Grand Counties. 

Oreoxis trotteri 

Trotter's oreoxis 

(spring-parsley) 

Mixed juniper and warm 

desert shrub. Slickrock or 

Main Body Entrada 

sandstone on eastern 

slope of Courthouse Rock 

and Navajo sandstone 

below on flats. Most 

abundant on Moab 

Tongue white sandstone 

of Entrada. Late Aprilmid-June. 4,750-5,000'. 

BLM Sensitive Grand County (type 

Courthouse Rock, 

northwest of Moab). 

Endemic. 

Pediomelum 

aromaticum var. tuhyi 

Paradox breadroot 

Pinyon-juniper and mixed 

desert shrub on Entrada, 

Kayenta and Mossback 

Formations. 5,600- 

6,500'. Blooms MayJune. 

BLM Sensitive San Juan County 

endemic. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.16 Special Status Species 

3-165 

Table 3.48. BLM Sensitive Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the MPA 

Scientific Name 

Common Name Habitat Status 

Area of Potential 

and/or Known 

Occurrence 

Perityle specuicola

Alcove rock-daisy

Drier crevices in 

seasonally wet hanging 

gardens, and alcove 

communities. Navajo and 

Windgate sandstone and 

Rico Formation, but not 

substrate specific. 

Blooms mid-July-late 

Sept. 3,690-4,000'. 

BLM Sensitive San Juan County, 

Grand County (type 

north of Moab). 

Narrowly endemic to 

Colorado Plateau 

(from confluence of 

Colorado River with 

the Dolores and Dark 

Canyon. 

Sphaeralcea janeae 

(or S. leptophylla var. 

janeae) 

Jane's Globemallow 

Sandy soils of weathered 

white rim and Organ 

Rock members of Cutler 

Formation. Warm and salt 

desert shrub. 

4,000-4,600'. Blooms 

May-June. 

BLM Sensitive San Juan County 

(type near White Rim 

road), Grand County 

(questionable). 

Endemic to the 

Canyonlands in San 

Juan and Wayne 

Counties. 

Sphaeralcea 

psoraloides 

San Rafael 

globemallow 

Eastern and southeastern 

footslopes of the Swell. 

Saline and gypsiferous 

substrates. Zuckinephedra communities of 

Entrada siltstone. Blooms 

mid-May-June. 4,000-

6,000'. 

BLM Sensitive Grand County 

Endemic to San 

Rafael Swell (Wayne 

and Emery Counties). 

Sources: BLM 2002d; Atwood et al. 1991; Welsh et al. 2003. Utah Native Plant Society 2005; personal communication between 

Daryl Trotter, BLM and Susan Kammerdiener, SWCA on January 6, 2006. 

3.16.3 CONSERVATION AGREEMENT SPECIES

There are Conservation Agreements among resource agencies in Arizona, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah and Wyoming to expedite the implementation of conservation measures 

concerning the following species: Colorado cutthroat trout, the blueheaded sucker, the roundtail 

chub, the flannelmouth sucker and the northern goshawk. 

3.17 TRAVEL

3.17.1 OVERVIEW

In the past, travel management has focused on motor vehicle use; however, travel management 

encompasses all forms of transportation, including mechanized vehicles such as bicycles, 

motorcycles, and four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles, cars, and trucks. 

Off-highway vehicles (OHVs) (also known as off-road vehicles) include all-terrain vehicles 

(ATVs), off-highway motorcycles, and snowmobiles. These are vehicles capable of, or 

designated for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain. The current 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.17 Travel 

3-166 

1985 RMP included designations for Open, Closed, and Limited OHV areas. Areas designated as 

Open are open to cross-country motorized travel. Areas designated as Closed are entirely closed 

to motorized travel. Areas designated as Limited restrict motorized travel to either existing or 

designated routes, with Limited designations applying to both existing and designated roads and 

trails. Since 1992, the MFO has instituted several revisions to the original 1985 RMP (through 

plan amendments) as well as Federal Register notices regarding OHV use. These changes have 

resulted in changes from Open to Limited to Existing Roads and Trails, and in some cases from 

Open to Limited to Designated Routes. These changes attempted to reduce natural and cultural 

resource damage produced by unrestricted cross-country travel. 

The increase in the use of OHVs has created numerous issues within the MPA. The speed and 

increasing capability of OHVs allows easier access to remote parts of the planning area, makes 

management of this activity more difficult, and increases the potential range of adverse impacts 

to natural resources. Cross-country OHV use, in particular, is creating additional resource 

damage and is an important issue for the MFO. Also, the popularity of OHV-related activities 

continues to grow, both in private use and through special events, which exacerbates the 

management and resource impacts issues. 

3.17.2 VEHICULAR ROUTES

The MFO administers approximately 277 miles of roadway. The MFO also maintains the main 

entrance roads in the Canyon Rims Recreation Area (the Needles Overlook and Anticline 

Overlook Roads, both of which are State Scenic Backways). Other routes, which are primarily 

used for vehicular recreation, are those that are marked by the MFO, often in conjunction with 

OHV user groups. 

Many motorized routes within the MPA are used for recreational purposes. The most popular 

motorized routes include any of the 785 miles of the Jeep Safari Route system (this figure 

includes dirt roads within the planning area that are permitted for Jeep Safari use) (see Section 

3.10 – Recreation). 

There are no routes solely dedicated to OHV use. These activities take place on the same routes 

as used by four-wheel drive vehicles, motorcycles, and mountain bikes, and often occur on Jeep 

Safari routes. Additionally, there is an informal, user-made network of motorcycle routes in the 

White Wash Dunes area (see below). 

3.17.2.1 MOUNTAIN BIKE ROUTES

As mentioned above, mountain bike use occurs on many of the Jeep Safari routes as well as on 

other routes. Popular mountain bike routes include Gemini Bridges, Porcupine Rim, the 

Slickrock Bike Trail, Amasa Back, Flat Pass, Klondike Bluffs, Kokopelli's Trail, Poison Spider, 

Lower Monitor and Merrimac, Bartlett Wash, Moab Rim, Kane Creek Canyon Rim, Bar M, 

Hurrah Pass and Onion Creek. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.17 Travel 

3-167 

3.17.2.2 EAST OF HIGHWAY 191 

The area south of I-70 and east of U.S. Highway 191 borders Arches National Park. This area of 

public land includes the Klondike Bluffs Trail, the Copper Ridge, and the Bar M Loop Bike 

Trail. Cross-country OHV travel is prohibited in most of this area through a Federal Register 

notice. 

3.17.2.3 WEST OF HIGHWAY 191 

This area includes scenic driving and several motorized and non-motorized trailheads. U.S. 

Highway 191 from I-70 to its intersection with Utah Highway 128 is part of the National 

Prehistoric Highway National Scenic Byway. Although off-road driving is prohibited by Federal 

Register notice, substantial cross-country OHV travel is occurring. This off-road damage 

includes hill climbs, alternate route choice, play around OHV campsites and other forms of 

resources damage. The current vehicle designation (Limited to Existing Roads and Trails) is in 

effect until the approval of the proposed RMP. 

The area west of 191, south of I-70 and east of the Green River has seen substantial growth in 

recreation since the time of the 1985 RMP. This recreational growth includes motorized and nonmotorized recreation that often competes for the same locations. Motorized recreation includes 

jeeping and OHV use; non-motorized recreation includes mountain biking. The area west of 

Highway 191 has seen the largest growth in recreational user conflicts within the MPA (see 

Section 3.10 – Recreation). 

3.17.2.4 UTAH HIGHWAY 313

Utah Highway 313 is also known as the Dead Horse Mesa Scenic Byway (a State Scenic 

Byway), providing access to Canyonlands National Park, to Dead Horse Point State Park, and to 

Seven Mile Canyon. Off-highway vehicle restrictions implemented for this area are a result of 

two Federal Register Notices published in 2001, and are in effect until the completion of the 

proposed RMP. Resource damage is currently occurring in this area from OHV travel. 

3.17.2.5 KOKOPELLI'S TRAIL 

Kokopelli's Trail is a 140-mile multiple use trail connecting Loma, Colorado and Moab, Utah. 

Mountain bikers use this route heavily, although most portions are also suitable for OHVs and 

full-sized four-wheel drive vehicles. The route passes through lands administered by the MFO, 

the BLM Grand Junction Field Office, and the USDA Forest Service (Manti-LaSal National 

Forest), and was established for multi-day bike trips. 

3.17.2.6 WHITE WASH SAND DUNES/TEN MILE CANYON 

White Wash Sand Dunes are located east of the Green River and south of I-70. White Wash is 

very popular with OHV users, especially on spring and fall weekends. Off-highway vehicle 

riders also visit other sites in this area, including Ten Mile Canyon, Crystal Geyser, Red Canyon, 

Rainbow Rocks, and Duma Point. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.17 Travel 

3-168 

Off-Highway Vehicle use categories in this area are mixed. The current RMP has designated the 

northern part of the area as Limited to existing roads and trails. The southern portion of the area 

is limited to existing roads and trails through a Federal Register Notice (January 2001) and is in 

effect until the proposed RMP is approved. A middle portion of the area is Open to cross-country 

travel. Extensive resource damage is occurring from unrestricted vehicle travel. Resource 

damage from OHV use includes damage to soils, scenic quality, vegetation, cultural, and 

paleontological resource degradation as well as damage to riparian resources. 

3.17.2.7 UTAH RIMS

Utah Rims Recreation Area is a 15,400-acre area immediately west of the Colorado border and 

south of I-70. This area is primarily used for day use by western Colorado residents. Dirt biking 

is the primary recreational activity but the area is also popular with mountain bikers. Currently, 

resource damage is occurring as a result of OHV travel. 

3.17.2.8 THE COLORADO RIVERWAY

The Colorado Riverway includes the public lands managed by the BLM in the following areas: 

• Utah Highway 128 from Dewey Bridge to U.S. 191. Utah Highway 128 is a State Scenic 

Byway, and is also a portion of the Prehistoric Highway National Scenic Byway. 

• Utah Highway 279 from Moab Valley to Canyonlands National Park. Utah Highway 279 is a 

State Scenic Byway. 

• Kane Creek Road from Moab Valley to the block of state land south of Hunter Canyon, 

including Amasa Back. 

The Colorado Riverway is the most popular destination of MPA visitors, with recent annual 

visitation estimated to be over 1 million people. Visitors engage in four-wheel driving, scenic 

auto touring, mountain biking, and numerous other recreational activities. Since the approval of 

the current RMP, resource use problems within the Colorado Riverway have been addressed and 

corrected by the actions taken through the 1992 Colorado Riverway Management Plan (see 

Section 3.10 – Recreation); however, there are still some remaining resource use problem areas. 

Cross-country OHV travel restrictions were addressed through a Federal Register Notice (July 

1992), which is in effect only until the completion and approval of the proposed RMP. 

3.17.3 CURRENT MANAGEMENT

The current 1985 (Grand) RMP provides the framework for planning in the area. The RMP was 

completed prior to the rapid expansion of recreational vehicle use and visitation on public lands 

in the MPA. The RMP specifically addresses the Colorado and the Dolores Rivers, and the 

issuance of recreation permits as well as a few travel routes; however, most of the issues and 

locations that are now important to management of resources within the planning area were not 

addressed. The guidance given in the current RMP for management of roads, trails, and crosscountry-vehicle use lacks the specificity needed to manage the current burgeoning use of vehicle 

within the planning area. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.17 Travel 

3-169 

The 1985 RMP made the following OHV travel decisions: 

1. Designate 1,183,660 acres as open to OHV use; 

2. Designate 596,234 acres limited to existing roads and trails; 

3. Designate 24,454 acres as closed to OHV use; 

4. Designate 15,206 acres as in Mill Creek and East Mill Creek as limited to designated roads 

and trails. 

3.18 VEGETATION

3.18.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW 

Vegetation in the MPA provides direct economic benefits such as livestock grazing, as well as 

indirect benefits such as wildlife cover, browse, and nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife 

species. Vegetation also functions in the hydrologic cycle as a dynamic interface between the 

soil and atmosphere. It intercepts precipitation, retards overland flow, retains soil water and 

nutrients (root absorption), and transports water and nutrients back to the atmosphere via stems 

and leaves (evapotranspiration). Vegetation is also an integral part of what makes the Moab area 

an aesthetically pleasing destination for visitors. 

The State of Utah is divided into five major eco-regions determined by geographic and climatic 

similarity. The MPA occurs entirely within the Colorado Plateau ecological province. The 

unique climate and geology of the Colorado Plateau allow for the growth of many endemic and 

rare plant species and, thus, a substantial amount of biodiversity. The variety of elevations and 

precipitation zones within the planning area only enhances the area's biodiversity. 

3.18.2 DOMINANT VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

Vegetation across the MPA has been identified using Utah Gap Analysis data (Edwards et al. 

1995). Gap vegetation data were developed using multi-spectral satellite imagery in conjunction 

with image processing and classification software. The relationship between spectral signatures 

and a given vegetation type was further refined via development of models that incorporated a 

variety of topographic and distributional information for that given vegetation type. Utah Gap 

Analysis vegetation data were intended to be used for depicting the distribution of the state's 

various vegetation types at scales of 1:100,000 or smaller. While adequate for characterizing 

vegetation over large areas, this data is less accurate when viewed for smaller project areas. Utah 

Gap Analysis data indicate the following cover types and acreages in the planning area (Table 

3.49). Similar cover types have been grouped together and are described in the sections 

following Table 3.49. The cover types that do not have significant native vegetation (water, 

urban, barren and agriculture) are presented in the table, but not discussed in the document. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation 

3-170 

Table 3.49. Acres of Land by GAP Cover Type in the MPA 

Cover Type Acres 

Desert Shrub (includes salt desert scrub, grassland, blackbrush and 

greasewood) 

1,302,389 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland (includes sagebrush and 

sagebrush/perennial grass) 

248,461 

Oak/mountain shrub 310,673 

Pinyon-juniper (includes juniper, pinyon-juniper and pinyon) 841,077 

Conifer and mountain shrub (includes ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine/ 

mountain shrub, spruce-fir and fir/shrub, aspen and aspen-conifer) 

117,916 

Alpine 3,014 

Riparian and wetland 4,948 

Water 8,508 

Urban 4,153 

Barren 6,233 

Agriculture 6,133 

The distribution of vegetation types in the project area is primarily influenced by soil type, 

elevation, precipitation, and topography, but also by land management activities such as 

livestock and wildlife grazing, road and minerals development, and OHV use. Additionally, 

vegetation communities were impacted by severe drought conditions existing in the area from 

1998 through 2004. See Map 3-15, Vegetation Types for the distribution of vegetation across the 

planning area. 

3.18.2.1 DESERT SHRUB 

This vegetation type accounts for 41.1% of the cover in the MPA. Areas supporting desert shrub 

vegetation receive relatively low annual precipitation (5 to 10 inches), which results in very little 

soil moisture available for plant growth. Elevations range is from 4,000 to 5,400 feet. Soils are 

often very saline or alkaline and vary in moisture availability, from drier, well-drained areas to 

areas where the water table is near the surface (MacMahon 1988). Dominant shrub species 

include shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), blackbrush 

(Coleogyne ramosissima), four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), Nuttall's saltbush (Atriplex

nuttallii), mat saltbush (Atriplex corrugata), Mormon tea (Ephedra spp.), spiny hopsage (Grayia

spinosa), horsebrush (Tetradymia canescens), and rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus spp.). Dominant 

forb species include snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) and buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.). 

Dominant grass species include saline wildrye (Leymus salinus), galleta (Hilaria jamesii), Indian 

ricegrass (Stipa hymenoides) and sand dropseed (Sporobolus airoides). These communities are 

generally associated with Mancos-derived clay soils, which are extremely susceptible to wind 

and water erosion following surface disturbances (see Section 3.13 – Soils for more 

information). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation 

3-171 

3.18.2.2 SAGEBRUSH AND PERENNIAL GRASSLAND

This vegetation type accounts for approximately 7.8% of the cover in the MPA. The landscapes 

that support this vegetation community have moderately deep soils and precipitation totaling 11 

to 16 inches per year. Elevation ranges from 5,500 to 7,300 feet with little localized relief. Big 

sagebrush (Artemisa tridentata) dominates the vegetation in this community type. Elevation and 

soil depth influence the species composition and density, which may include horsebrush, 

rabbitbrush, spiny hopsage, saltbush, Mormon tea, and winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) 

(MacMahon 1988). Principle grass species include sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), 

western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii), Indian ricegrass and galleta. 

Land treatments, including crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) seedings, have historically 

occurred within this community type, and are considered altered ecological sites. Additionally, 

significant percentages of sagebrush have also been converted to monotypic stands of exotic 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) or Russian thistle (Salsola kali) as a result of wildfires, drought, 

and improper grazing management practices. Appropriate re-vegetation methods can be effective 

in restoring diverse community compositions in this zone, but large-scale rehabilitation has yet to 

be implemented successfully within the MPA (personal communication between Daryl Trotter, 

BLM and Susan Kammerdiener, SWCA on January 6, 2006). 

3.18.2.3 OAK/MOUNTAIN SHRUB

This vegetation type accounts for approximately 9.8% of the cover in the MPA. Deciduous 

shrubland principally dominated by alder-leaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), 

cliff-rose (Purshia mexicana), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), serviceberry (Amelanchier 

utahensis and Amelanchier alnifolia), buckbrush (Ceanothus spp.), chokecherry (Prunus 

virginiana), snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), point-leaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos pungens)

and bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi). Primary associated shrub species include gambel oak 

(Quercus gambelii), palmer oak (Quercus chrysolepis), Tucker's oak (Quercus welshii) 

Turbinella live-oak (Quercus turbinella), sagebrush and maple (Acer spp.) Primary associated 

tree species include quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and curl-leaf mountain-mahogany 

(Cercocarpus ledifolius).

3.18.2.4 PINYON - JUNIPER WOODLANDS

This vegetation type accounts for approximately 26.5% of the cover in the MPA. These 

woodland species generally grow at elevations between 4,700 and 8,600 feet where precipitation 

totals 12 to 18 inches per year. The supporting landscape varies in topography from level to steep 

slopes (0% to 80%). Dominant tree species include pinyon (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper 

(Juniperus osteosperma). Primary associated shrub species include sagebrush, Mormon tea and 

blackbrush. Dominant grass species include saline wildrye. Pinyon dominates the overstory as 

stands reach the upper limits of the elevational range, whereas juniper dominates at lower 

elevations. As elevation increases within this zone, stand structure changes from open overstory 

with a sparsely vegetated under-story to more dense with a greater variety of species. Land 

treatments followed by crested wheatgrass seedings have historically occurred within this 

community type and are considered altered ecological sites. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation 

3-172 

3.18.2.5 CONIFER AND MOUNTAIN SHRUB 

This vegetation type accounts for approximately 3.7% of the cover in the MPA. The annual 

precipitation ranges from 14 to 25 inches in areas that support this vegetation community. 

Elevations range from 6,000 to 9,000 feet, and slopes are often extremely steep. The soils are 

more fertile than those in other areas. Due to the extreme slopes and often rocky terrain, these 

community types are generally managed for wildlife habitat (Grand County Soil Survey, NRCS 

1981). This vegetation community is defined as a conifer forest or woodland with Douglas fir, 

ponderosa pine, or quaking aspen dominate/associate or co-dominate with mountain shrub. The 

principle tree species are Douglas fir (Pseudosuga menziesii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)

and quaking aspen. Principle shrub species include Gamble oak, bitterbrush, bigtooth maple 

(Acer grandidentatum), snowberry, serviceberry, manzanita and ninebark (Physocarpus spp.). 

Primary associated tree species include subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), white fir (Abies 

concolor), Englemann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis). Primary 

associated shrub species include common juniper (Juniperus communis), sagebrush, rabbitbrush 

and curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius).

3.18.2.6 ALPINE

This vegetation type accounts for approximately 0.1% of the cover in the MPA. It is comprised 

of high elevation tundra vegetation, including grasses, forbs, sedges and shrubs. Principle species 

include Ross' avens (Geum rossii), sedges (Carex spp.), tufted hair grass (Deschampsia 

caespitosa), Colorado fescue (Festuca brachyphylla), American bistort (Polygonum 

bistortoides), and willow (Salix spp.). The primary associated tree species is Engelmann sprucekrummholz (Picea engelmannii). 

3.18.2.7 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND 

This vegetation type accounts for approximately 0.2% of the cover in the MPA. Riparian and 

wetland areas contain vegetation associated with surface or subsurface moisture. Wetlands 

require prolonged saturation of soils and contain certain vegetative species dependent upon soil 

saturation. Less than 2% of the MPA area is riparian; these areas are located along major rivers, 

drainages, or spring sites. Riparian vegetation in the project areas is generally located in areas 

with an elevation of less than 5,500 feet. Principal woody species include Fremont cottonwood 

(Populus fremontii), salt-cedar (Tamarix chinensis), coyote willow (Salix exigua) and squawbush 

(Rhus aromatica var. trilobata). Principal wetland species include cattail (Typha latifolia), 

bullrush (Scirpus spp.) and sedge (Carex spp.) 

More detailed information concerning riparian and wetland species are located in Section 3.11 – 

Riparian of this EIS. 

3.18.3 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES 

Special status plant species include all Federally listed threatened and endangered species and 

BLM sensitive species. Special status plant species with potential to occur in the MPA are listed 

and discussed in Section 3.15 – Special Status Species. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation 

3-173 

3.18.4 INVASIVE SPECIES AND NOXIOUS WEEDS 

The BLM defines noxious weeds as "a plant that interferes with management objectives for a 

given area of land at a given point in time." Noxious weeds are defined in Rangeland Health 

Standards and Guidelines (BLM 1997a) as non-native plants that are especially undesirable 

because they have no forage value and are sometimes toxic, or are capable of invading plant 

communities and displacing native species. The BLM recognizes noxious weed invasions as one 

of the greatest threats to the health of rangelands nationwide. 

Invasive species include plants able to establish on a site where they were not present in the 

original plant composition. Invasive species aggressively out-compete native species within a 

community and often alter the physical and biotic components enough to affect the entire 

ecological community. Invasive species are of particular concern following a disturbance. They 

are often exotic species that do not have naturally occurring, local predators. 

Noxious and invasive species have been identified by county for the State of Utah. Russian 

knapweed (Centarea repens), salt-cedar (Tamarix chinensis), and Russian olive (Elaeagnus 

angustifolia) are all problematic species occurring in riparian areas of the MPA. Salt-cedar 

channelizes rivers with its deep roots and chokes out other vegetation. Purple loosestrife 

(Lythrum salicaria) has also been documented throughout the Colorado River system, from 

Westwater to Potash (personal communication with Daryl Trotter, BLM; field notes from site 

visit, December 2-6, 2002). In addition to noxious weed and invasive species encroachment 

along the river corridors, large areas of uplands and rangelands are being converted to invasive 

annual species including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), and 

Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). Those species of management concern for the MPA are included 

in Table 3.50. 

Table 3.50. Noxious and Invasive Species of Grand County, Utah 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon 

Bindweed Convolvulus spp.

Black henbane Hysocyamus niger 

Buffalobur Sloanum rostratum 

Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum 

Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica 

Diffuse Knapweed Centaurea diffusa 

Dyer's Woad Isatis tinctoria 

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus 

Hog millet Panicum miliaceum 

Houndstongue Hyoscyamus niger 

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.18 Vegetation 

3-174 

Table 3.50. Noxious and Invasive Species of Grand County, Utah 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Johnson Grass Sorghum halepense 

Perennial Sorghum Sorghum almum 

Musk Thistle Carduus nutans 

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum 

Perennial Pepperweed/Whitetop Lepidium latifolium 

Phragmites Phragmites spp.

Puncturevine Tribullus terrestris 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 

Quackgrass Elytrigia repens 

Russian Knapweed Centarea repens 

Russian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 

Russian thistle Salsola tragus

Salt-cedar Tamarix chinensis 

Scotch Thistle Onopordium acanthium 

Silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnifolium 

Spotted Knapweed Centaurea maculosa 

Squarrose Knapweed Centaurea squarrosa 

Water hemlock Cicuta douglasii 

Whitetop/Hoary cress Cardaria spp.

Whorled milkweed Asclepias subverticillata 

Yellow nutsedge Cyperus esculentus 

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris 

3.19 VISUAL RESOURCES

3.19.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The MPA is an internationally recognized, world-famous scenic destination. Containing an 

unusually large number of areas that possess a high degree of scenic quality and a high level of 

visual sensitivity, the planning area draws an increasing number of visitors each year who come 

to the area to recreate and sightsee. In general, high scenic quality within the planning area is a 

product of the extraordinary topography, geology, and cultural history. Scenically diverse vistas 

and canyon river ways, rare and unusual geological formations, colorful and highly contrasting 

sandstones, and numerous prehistoric rock art and structures contribute to the area's high visual 

quality. Areas with high visual sensitivity within the planning area are the result of the high 

degree of visitor interest in and public concern for a particular area's visual resources, an area's 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.19 Visual Resources 

3-175 

high degree of public visibility, the level of use of an area by the public, and the type of visitor 

use that an area receives (BLM 1992b). 

The major areas within the MPA that possess both outstanding scenic quality and high visual 

sensitivity include, but are not limited to: the Wilson Arch area; Canyon Rims (encompassing the 

area from Harts Draw to Hurrah Pass); the Dead Horse Point/Shafer Trail area; Mill Creek 

Canyon; an area including Negro Bill Canyon and extending to Porcupine Rim; Beaver Creek; 

Fisher Creek and its tributaries, the area around Mill and Tusher Canyons; and the Fisher 

Tower/Onion Creek area. Visually scenic and sensitive river areas include: the Colorado River 

(from Dewey Bridge to the border of Canyonlands National Park); the Westwater 

Canyon/Dolores River area; and Labyrinth Canyon (the Green River and its tributaries). 

Areas of high scenic quality and visual sensitivity that are associated with travel corridors 

include: the Kane Creek area (from U.S. Highway 191 to its confluence with the Colorado 

River); the non-paved portion of the Potash Road (Shafer Basin) from Utah Highway 279 to the 

border with Canyonlands National Park; and the State Highway 313/Seven Mile 

Canyon/Monitor-Merrimac Buttes area. Other major scenic travel corridors within the MPA 

include U.S. Highway 191 and State Highways 128, 279, and 313, which have been designated 

as State Scenic Byways, as well as Canyon Rims and the Manti-LaSal Loop Road that are 

designated as State Scenic Backways. The MPA also contains thousands of miles of jeep, bike, 

and foot trails that are traveled as scenic routes, many of which are internationally recognized. 

3.19.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Under the current RMP, a visual resource inventory was completed, but no management 

objectives were identified for VRM, and no management classes were established for the MPA. 

Visual resource inventory classes were considered in the EIS prepared for the RMP but the RMP 

did not recognize visual resources as a program requiring specific management actions. Visual 

resource management classes and objectives were established for Canyon Rims in 2002, through 

the Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plan (BLM 2003b). With the exception of 

Canyon Rims (which has VRM management objectives), site-specific mitigation of impacts to 

visual resources is being implemented through project-specific NEPA documents, with reference 

to the 1985 RMP visual resource inventory. 

Impacts to the landscape within the planning area are being produced by the tremendous 

increases in recreation and tourism, vehicular travel, the increasing number and length of roads 

and trails, and the increasing numbers of sightseers attracted to the planning area because of its 

extraordinary scenic qualities. Additional impacts are resulting from the development of utility 

corridors, from oil and natural gas exploration and development, from seismic exploration, and 

from other land-use disturbances. The greatest impacts are being created by recreational 

activities and OHV use (personal communication between Rob Sweeten, Visual Resource 

Specialist, BLM – MFO, and David Harris, SWCA, March 26, 2003). 

Recreational activities and OHV use are impacting visual resources most intensely in the areas 

surrounding the city of Moab north to I-70, south to Lisbon Valley, east to the Colorado state 

line, and west to the Green River. There have been recent resource conflicts between visual 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.19 Visual Resources 

3-176 

resources and oil and gas development/exploration in the Big Flat area along State Scenic Byway 

313 and in the Dome Plateau area. A conflict with visual resources also exists with the utility 

corridor along U.S. Highway 191. Commercial cinematography, rights-of-way, and range 

improvements are other sources of conflict with visual resources. 

The increased number of visitors attracted by the area's scenic quality has prompted the MFO to 

designate more roads for scenic drives and recreational use (see Section 3.10 – Recreation). The 

increasing number of roads being utilized by recreationists in the MPA is having indirect affects 

on visual resources. Seldom Seen zones (those areas that are not visible from major travel routes) 

are decreasing within the MPA, and an increase in the number of vehicles and people on BLM 

roads are creating changes in foreground and middleground views, and changes in visual 

sensitivity. An increasingly utilized network of two-track roads and routes are creating 

conditions that allow OHV users, campers, and woodcutters to expand surface disturbances and 

impact visual resources. 

Resource monitoring is occasional and intermittent, but monitoring does confirm the increased 

recreational use, the tendency for visitors to seek out new places to drive and to camp, and the 

associated land disturbances created by these activities. 

The tourist industry within the planning area is increasing, based on increased recreational and 

vehicular use within the planning area, and the increase in the number of visitors to Arches and 

Canyonlands National Parks who subsequently recreate on BLM-administered lands (see Section 

3.10 – Recreation). These increases in visitor use of recreational and tourist resources within the 

planning and within the nearby national parks are contributing to the impacts on visual resources. 

The increased use of OHVs, the increase in dispersed camping, and increases in trail use are 

having an impact on visual resources. Under the existing RMP, emergency limitations on offroad vehicle travel and camping have been and may continue to be increased to preserve visual 

resources. Oil and gas exploration and development are expected to continue within the MPA 

and will contribute some additional impacts to visual resources. In general, existing trends in 

recreation, visitation, and sightseeing, as well as continued oil and gas exploration and 

development, will likely result in increasing impacts to visual resources within the planning area. 

In 2003, a VRM inventory was conducted for the MPA, as part of the proposed RMP preplanning process. Table 3.51 depicts the acreages for each VRM inventory class. The acreages 

within each of the 2003 VRM inventory classes constitute the baseline by which impacts to 

visual resources will be analyzed in the EIS (see Map 2-23-A, Visual Resource Management –

Alternative A). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.19 Visual Resources 

3-177 

Table 3.51. 2003 VRM Inventory Classes 

VRM Class Acres 

I 349,029 

II 400,978 

III 799,836 

IV 271,531 

Total 1,821,374 

Source: BLM 2003c. 

3.20 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

3.20.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

The MPA is in the heart of the Colorado Plateau and has a great amount of landscape diversity. 

This location produces a unique combination of landforms and habitat types. This diversity of 

habitat in the planning area is reflected in the diversity of terrestrial and aquatic life that occurs 

within its borders. 

Species in the planning area include big game species such as mule deer (Odocoileus 

heminonus), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), 

bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (Felis 

concolor). Additional species of concern in the planning area fall within the general categories of 

upland game species, raptors, waterfowl, and shorebirds, fish and aquatic species, neotropical 

migrants and small mammals and reptiles. Management goals for most wildlife populations in 

the planning area are determined primarily by UDWR, with the exception of the Federally 

protected wildlife populations, which are determined by USFWS. The current RMP allocates 

forage for elk, deer and antelope. Resource allocations for raptors, reptiles, amphibians, and 

other non-game species in the planning area are limited to protecting individuals and the habitat 

of state and Federally listed species, and designating spatial and temporal barriers for nesting 

raptors. 

BLM's management of wildlife habitat in the MPA has had and will continue to have, an impact 

on both local communities and those that exist outside the Colorado Plateau. There is 

considerable regional interest in the overall condition and management of the planning area. 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 in the 

planning area, 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 planning 

area 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 planning area. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-178 

3.20.2 BIG GAME 

3.20.2.1 MULE DEER 

Mule deer occupy most ecosystems in Utah but likely attain their greatest densities in shrublands 

on areas characterized by rough, broken terrain and abundant browse and cover. In the Rocky 

Mountains, winter diets of mule deer consist of approximately 75% browse from a variety of 

trees and shrubs and 15% forbs. Grasses make up the remaining 10% of the diet during winter. In 

the spring, browse is 49% of the diet and grasses and forbs make up approximately 25% each. 

Summer diets are 50% browse, with forbs consumption increasing to 46%. Browse use increases 

again in the fall to approximately 60% of the mule deer diet, forb use declines to 30%, and 

grasses increase to 10% (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Mule deer summer range habitat types include 

spruce/fir, aspen, alpine meadows, and large grassy parks located at higher elevations. Winter 

range habitat primarily consists of shrub-covered, south-facing slopes and often coincides with 

areas of concentrated human use and occupation. Winter range is often considered a limiting 

factor for mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk in the Intermountain West. The portions of these 

acreages managed by the MFO are listed in Table 3.52 and shown on Map 2-27-A, Deer and/or 

Elk Protected Habitat-Alternative A. 

Table 3.52. BLM-managed Mule Deer Habitat in the MPA 

 Total Habitat Crucial Winter Fawning 

Total mule deer habitat in MPA (acres) 1,489,172 757,060 442,714 

Book 

Cliffs 534,400 266,787 72,848 Total mule deer habitat 

managed by BLM (acres) La Sal 313,498 311,271 2,275 

Because of learned behavioral use patterns, passed on from one generation to the next, deer 

migrate for the winter into the same areas every year, regardless of forage availability or 

condition. These generally are areas lacking in snow depth, which allow easier movement, with 

pinion-juniper and sagebrush vegetation types. These vegetation types provide deer with both 

escape and thermal cover. Sagebrush is their primary forage during the winter season. 

Over the past five years fawn production has been poor and the overall deer population has been 

declining in the planning area. Poor range conditions caused by severe drought could be a major 

factor causing the population decline (UDWR 2005a). Predation, while not within BLM's 

jurisdiction, can also contribute to deer population declines. 

The management goals for mule deer populations located in the MPA are to provide a broad 

range of recreational opportunities, including hunting and viewing; balance mule deer herd 

impacts with human needs, such as private property rights, agricultural crops, and local 

economies; and maintain the mule deer population at a level that is within the long-term 

capability of the available habitat. The target wintering mule deer herd size and annual harvest 

for the two wildlife management units associated with the planning area are described in Table 

3.53. Current mule deer numbers estimates are listed in Table 3.54. The deer in the Dolores 

subunit migrate onto this unit and are also hunted in Colorado, but Colorado figures are not 

known. The harvest figures are generally low for Utah because the deer are typically in Colorado 

at the time of the Utah deer hunting season. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-179 

Mule deer are used as a representative guild species for the following habitats in the district, 

deciduous woodland, riparian, mountain shrub, pinyon-juniper woodland and sagebrush. Impacts 

to this species can be partly assessed through the impact to these habitat types. 

Table 3.53. UDWR Target Wintering Mule Deer Herd Size and Annual Harvest 

for the Two WMUs Associated with the Planning Area 

Unit 

Number Unit Name (subunit) 

Winter 

Population 

Objective 

(# animals)*

Postseason 

Bucks/100 

Does 

Objective**

Classification 

% Bucks ≥ 3 

Points

10 Book Cliffs 

 

15,000 15-20 43%

13 La Sal (Total) 

 13A La Sal Mountains 

 13B Dolores 

18,100 15-20 

47% 

50% 

Source: UDWR 2008. 

*2008 Antlerless Deer Permit Summary and Recommendations 

**Utah Annual Big Game Report 2006 

Table 3.54. UDWR Current Mule Deer Estimates 

Unit 

Number Unit Name (subunit) 

Population 

Estimate 

(# animals)*

Percent of 

Objective 

Current 

Buck/Doe 

Ratio**

2007 

Harvest **

10 Book Cliffs 

 

7,350 49% 39/100 463 

13 La Sal (Total)

 13A La Sal Mountains 

 13B Dolores 

11,100 61% 

15/100 

17/100 

813 

Source: UDWR 2008. 

*2008 Antlerless Deer Permit Summary and Recommendations 

** Utah Annual Big Game Report 2006 

3.20.2.2 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK 

The Rocky Mountain elk is considered a generalist feeder (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). In the northern 

and central Rocky Mountains, grasses and shrubs compose most of the winter diet, with the 

former being of primary importance in the spring months (Kufeld 1973). Forbs become 

increasingly important in late spring and summer, and grasses again dominate in the fall. These 

feeding relationships may change somewhat, depending on location. Associated with seasonal 

changes in diet are seasonal changes in habitat. The season and function of use of these 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/meadow, and mountain brush habitats, and are 

generally in locations where cover, forage, and water are in close proximity (Fitzgerald et al. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-180 

1994). In western Colorado, for instance, most females calve within 660 feet of water (Seidel 

1977). Along the Wasatch Front, typical Rocky Mountain elk winter range occurs between 5,500 

and 7,500 feet elevation and comprises mountain shrub and sagebrush habitats. Crucial winter 

range is considered to be the part of the local deer and/or 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 middle and higher elevations of the MPA area sustain several 

large Rocky Mountain elk populations. The portions of these acreages managed by the MFO are 

listed in Table 3.55 and shown on Map 2-27-A, Deer and/or Elk Protected Habitat-Alternative A. 

Table 3.55. BLM-managed Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat in the MPA 

 Total Habitat Crucial Winter Calving 

Total elk habitat in MPA (acres) 1,070,044 246,653 289,781 

Book 

Cliffs 548,634 66,052 42,075 Total elk habitat managed by BLM (acres) 

La Sal 82,594 82,594 0 

Rocky Mountain elk populations are associated with the two wildlife management areas found in 

the MPA. The management goals for Rocky Mountain elk populations are to provide a broad 

range of recreational opportunities, including hunting and viewing; balance elk herd impacts 

with human needs, such as private property rights, agricultural crops, and local economies; and 

maintain the elk population at a level that is within the long-term capability of the available 

habitat. Rocky Mountain elk goals and numbers for the planning area are displayed in Tables 

3.56 and 3.57. 

Table 3.56. UDWR Wildlife Management Goals for Rocky Mountain Elk 

Unit 

Number 

Unit name 

subunit 

Winter 

Population 

Objective 

(# animals)*

Postseason 

Bulls/100 

Cows 

Objective***

Age Objective**

10 Book Cliffs 

 

7,500 15/100 5 to 6 years 

13 La Sal (Total) 

 13A La Sal Mountains 

 13B Dolores 

2,650 

1,800 

700 

15/100 5 to 6 years 

Source: UDWR 2008. 

 * Antlerless Elk Permit Summary and Recommendations. 

 **Utah Annual Big Game Report 2006. 

 ***Elk Management Plan
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-181 

Table 3.57. UDWR Current Rocky Mountain Elk Estimates 

Unit 

Number 

Unit name 

Subunit 

Population 

Estimate (# 

animals)*

Percent of 

Objective 

Current 

Bull/Cow Ratio 

2007 

Harvest **

10 Book Cliffs (Total) 

 10A Bitter Creek 

 10B South Book Cliffs 

4,500 60% 

31/100 

74/100 

338 

13 La Sal (Total)

 13A La Sal Mountains 

 13B Dolores 

2,500 94% 

 

24/100† 

40/100†

239 

Source: UDWR 2008

*Antlerless Elk Permit Summary and Recommendations. 

**Utah Annual Big Game Report 2006. 

†

2005 Data

A large portion of the Book Cliff wildlife management unit is located north of the MPA, in the 

Vernal Field Office area. Most of the elk associated with this unit winter in the Ten Mile 

drainage along East Willow Creek, West Willow Creek, and in She Canyon. The MFO 

administers portions of these areas, but the majority is administered by the State of Utah. 

Summer and fall livestock grazing along the Willow Creek drainage in the Bogart allotment has 

been identified as a conflict with elk habitat use. Other allotments or portions of allotments 

identified as elk winter range include Cottonwood, Crescent Canyon, Diamond Canyon, Floy 

Canyon, Rattlesnake North, Showerbath Springs and Thompson Canyon. An amendment to the 

current RMP reallocated forage in the Cottonwood and Diamond Canyon allotments to elk. 

Areas within the Cisco Desert contain yearlong elk habitat, and have also been identified as a 

conflict area between elk and livestock. Forage competition between livestock, other wildlife and 

elk is increasing in the Cisco Desert. These allotments include all or portions of Bar X, Cisco, 

Cisco Mesa, Corral Wash, Corral Wash Canyon, Crescent Canyon, Floy Wash, Floy Creek, 

Harley Dome, Pipeline, San Arroyo and Suphur Canyon. Other allotments containing yearlong 

elk range include all or portions of Bogart, Coal Canyon, Cottonwood, Diamond, Elgin, Horse 

Canyon, Lone Cone, Middle Canyon, Prairie Canyon, Rattlesnake North and Showerbath 

Springs. 

A majority of the elk in the La Sal wildlife management unit stay on private and USFS lands 

year-round; however BLM lands do provide some winter range. The La Sal Mountains elk herds 

may winter on portions of the Adobe Mesa, Black Ridge, Hatch Point, Lisbon, Mill Creek, North 

Sand Flat, Professor Valley, and South Sand Flat allotments as well as Polar Mesa and Taylor 

allotments on the north side of the mountains. The Dolores Triangle provides winter range for 

elk, which migrate from Colorado to habitat in all or portions of Big Triangle, Buckhorn, 

Gateway, Granite Bench, Granite Creek, Mountain Island, Sand Flats, Scharf Mesa, Spring 

Creek, Steamboat Mesa and Taylor allotments. The number of elk within the Dolores Triangle 

varies from year to year, depending on the severity of the winter; during mild winters, relatively 

few elk migrate into this area. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-182 

Rocky Mountain elk are used as a representative guild species for the following habitats in the 

district, grasslands, deciduous woodland, riparian, mountain shrub, pinyon-juniper woodland and 

sagebrush. Impacts to this species can be partly assessed through the impact to these habitat 

types. 

3.20.2.3 BLACK BEAR

In the Intermountain West, black bears are typically associated with forested or brushy mountain 

environments and wooded riparian corridors. They seldom use open habitats (Zeveloff and 

Collett 1988). Black bears tend to be nocturnal and crepuscular and are considered omnivorous. 

Preferred foods include berries, honey, fish, rodents, birds and bird eggs, insects, and nuts. Black 

bears obtain most of their meat from carrion. From November to April, bears enter a period of 

winter dormancy. Winter dens are located in caves, under rocks, or beneath the roots of large 

trees where they are kept nourished and insulated by a several-inch-thick layer of fat (Zeveloff 

and Collett 1988). 

The middle and higher elevations of the MPA sustain several large black bear populations. The 

planning area contains a total of 605,351 acres of black bear habitat. The BLM manages 146,716 

acres of black bear habitat in the Book Cliffs wildlife management unit and 14,957 acres of black 

bear habitat in the La Sal wildlife management unit. 

A black bear management plan for the State of Utah was completed by the UDWR in 2000. This 

plan outlines the historic and current management of black bears in the State. With respect to 

black bears, the goal of the wildlife management units in the planning area is to maintain a 

healthy bear population capable of providing a broad range of recreational opportunities 

(including hunting and viewing in existing occupied habitat) while considering human safety, 

economic concerns, and other wildlife species. The management objectives are to maintain bear 

distribution and increase it in suitable unoccupied or low density areas; maintain current bear 

populations with a reasonable proportion of older age animals and breeding females; balance 

bear population numbers with other wildlife species; minimize the loss in quality and quantity of 

UDWR-identified, crucial and high-priority bear habitat, including migration corridors between 

occupied areas; reduce the risk of loss of human life and reduce chances of injury to humans by 

bears; reduce the number of livestock killed by bears; and maintain quality consumptive and 

non-consumptive recreational opportunities (UDWR 2000b). 

Black Bear are used as a representative guild species for old growth conifer habitat in the district. 

Impacts to this species can be partly assessed through the impact to this habitat type. 

3.20.2.4 PRONGHORN 

Pronghorn can be found throughout the western United States, Canada, and northern Mexico. 

They are generally associated with open plains where they feed mainly on browse. Pronghorn 

prefer to occupy areas with large tracts of flat to rolling open terrain where they rely on keen 

eyesight and swift movement to avoid predators. They also rely on vegetation within the shrub 

and grassland plant communities for food. Pronghorn are often found in small groups and are 

usually most active during the day. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-183 

There are two pronghorn herds within the MPA: the Hatch Point herd and the Cisco Desert herd. 

The planning area contains a total of 1,000,537 acres of pronghorn habitat; the BLM manages 

743,524 acres of pronghorn habitat in the Book Cliffs wildlife management unit (Cisco Herd) 

and 78,822 acres of pronghorn habitat in the La Sal (Hatch Point herd) wildlife management unit 

(Map 2-25-A, Pronghorn Habitat-Alternative A). 

In 1971, 172 pronghorn were reintroduced to the Hatch Point area. The population appeared to 

increase for the first three years following their introduction, but has declined since 1975. 

Drought, severe winter weather, and predation could be factors in the depletion of this herd. 

The current Cisco Desert pronghorn herd originated from 48 animals that were released in 

Colorado in 1968. In 1983 an additional 150 pronghorn were released. This increased the herd to 

approximately 250 animals. In 1988, Colorado Division of Wildlife released another 90 

pronghorn near the Utah-Colorado state line. The Cisco pronghorn have expanded west and are 

sometimes seen near Green River and south of I-70. The herd had increased to approximately 

1,000 animals. However, pronghorn are responsive to climatic conditions and while mild winters 

and good moisture conditions prevailed, pronghorn numbers increased and their range expanded. 

During drought cycles, such as currently being experienced, pronghorn numbers sharply decline. 

The Cisco herd is currently believed to comprise less than 300 animals. 

A pronghorn management plan for the State of Utah is currently being developed by the UDWR. 

This plan will outline the historic and current management of pronghorn in the state as well as 

the management goals and objectives for pronghorn populations in the state. Table 3.58 outlines 

UDWR's management goals for pronghorn. 

Table 3.58. UDWR Wildlife Management Goals, Estimates, and Trends for Pronghorn 

Unit 

Number Unit Name 

Aerial

Population 

Counts*

Population 

Objective Buck/Doe 

Ratio**

Age 

Objective 

2007 

Harvest ** 

10 Book Cliffs 

10A Bitter Creek 

10B South Book

Cliffs

283 

644 

No Set 

Objective 

36/100 

28/100 

No Set 

Objective 

29 

13 La Sal 111 No set 

objective 31/100 No set 

objective 2 

Source: UDWR 2007. 

* Aerial Survey counts 2007. 

** Utah Annual Big Game Report 2006.

Pronghorn are used as a representative guild species for grasslands and desert shrub habitats in 

the district. Impacts to this species can be partly assessed through the impact to these habitat 

types. 

3.20.2.5 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

Desert bighorn sheep are uniquely adapted to inhabit some of the most remote and rugged areas 

in the MFO. Desert bighorns are sometimes referred to as a wilderness species because of the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-184 

naturally remote and inaccessible areas they inhabit. They prefer open habitat types with adjacent 

steep rocky areas for escape and safety. Habitat is characterized by rugged terrain including 

canyons, gulches, talus cliffs, steep slopes, mountaintops and river benches (Shakleton et al. 

1999). Desert bighorns generally occur in southern Utah and do not migrate. 

The MPA contains 422,192 acres of desert bighorn sheep habitat (Map 2-26-A, Desert Bighorn 

Sheep Protected Habitat). Of these acres, BLM manages 330,129. There are four herd areas for 

desert bighorn sheep in the MPA. They are located 1) in the southeast area of Westwater Canyon 

(the Dolores Triangle herd), 2) in the Potash-Mineral Bottom-Ten Mile area (the Potash herd), 3) 

on the north side of the Colorado River east of Arches National Park (the Professor Valley herd), 

and 4) on the south side of the Colorado River along Kane Creek (The Lockhart herd. The 

Monticello Field Office of the BLM manages the majority of the habitat for the Lockhart herd.) 

The BLM manages 22,949 acres in the Dolores Triangle herd area and 245,870 acres in the 

Potash herd area. There are 17,707 BLM acres of desert bighorn habitat in the Professor Valley 

herd area, and 43,603 acres in the Lockhart herd area. There is also evidence of the animals in 

the Lockhart area going up the Redd Sheep Trail to Hatch Point. 

Desert bighorn sheep (Potash herd) are common within portions of the Shafer Basin-Big FlatTen Mile-Arth's Pasture area. Only a small percentage of the Shafer Basin-Big Flat-Ten MileArth's Pasture area is considered to be suitable bighorn habitat. The habitat types preferred by 

bighorn are areas with steep rough terrain with good visibility (talus slopes and canyons) and 

flatter valley floors, which have rough terrain or escape cover nearby. Bighorn avoid flatter open 

terrain and pinion-juniper forests, because of poor visibility and/or lack of escape cover or 

terrain. 

The habitat provided by Shafer Basin-Big Flat-Ten Mile-Arth's Pasture area contributes 

significantly to the area's overall desert bighorn population. The Potash and adjacent 

Canyonlands National Park (Island in the Sky) bighorn herd is the only remaining native 

(meaning not transplanted or reintroduced) self-supporting desert bighorn herd in Utah. The 

combined population of this herd is estimated at 450-500 bighorn. Approximately 350 of these 

animals occupy the Island in the Sky and 150 to 200 inhabit adjacent lands managed by the 

BLM. 

The Professor Valley desert bighorn herd's habitat extends to the east of Arches National Park 

onto BLM-managed land in the Cache Valley and Dome Plateau area. This area is located north 

of the Colorado River. 

A state of Utah management plan for desert bighorn sheep was developed in 1999. This plan 

assesses current information on bighorn sheep, identifies issues and concerns relating to bighorn 

sheep management, and establishes goals and objectives for future bighorn management 

programs in Utah. 

Tables 3.59 and 3.60 outline the current desert bighorn sheep estimates in the MPA and the 

wildlife management goals for desert bighorn sheep in the planning area. Because the Lockhart 

desert bighorn sheep herd's habitat is primarily in the Monticello Field Office, that herd is not 

discussed in this table. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-185 

Table 3.59. UDWR Current Desert Bighorn Sheep Estimates in the MPA 

Unit Number Unit Name 

(subunit) 

Population 

Estimate*

Population 

Objective**

Percent of 

Objective 

2007 

Harvest*** 

13 

Desert Bighorn 

Sheep 

La Sal (Total)

Potash 

Professor Valley 

Dolores Triangle 

285 

230 

30 

25

595 

345 

125 

125 

48% 

67% 

24% 

20% 

3 

not 

hunted 

not 

hunted 

10 

Rocky Mountain 

Bighorn Sheep 

Bookcliff 

Rattlesnake 350 525 67% 5 

Source: UDWR 2007. 

*Utah Bighorn Sheep State-wide Management Plan. 

**Utah Bighorn Sheep State-wide Management Plan – Increase all existing herds by 50% with at least a minimum 

population of 125 

***Utah Annual Big Game Report 2006 

Table 3.60. UDWR Wildlife Management Goals for Desert Bighorn Sheep in the MPA 

Unit Number Unit Name 

(subunit) 

Objective 

Ram/Ewe**

Current 

Ram/Ewe Age Objective*

13 

Desert Bighorn 

Sheep 

La Sal 

 Potash 

 Professor Valley 

 Dolores Triangle 

No Set 

objective 52/100 

Unknown 

Unknown

30% of Rams > 6.5 

yrs 

10 

Rocky Mountain 

Bighorn Sheep

Bookcliff 

 Rattlesnake No Set 

Objective 67/100 

30% of Rams > 6.5 

yrs 

Source: UDWR 2007. 

 * Utah Bighorn Sheep State-wide Management Plan. 

 **Utah Annual Big Game Report 2006. 

Bighorn sheep require separation from domestic sheep to prevent the transmission of diseases 

against which they have no natural defenses. Water and vegetation improvements have also been 

shown to benefit bighorn sheep populations. Demands on most wildlife and their habitats within 

the planning unit are projected to increase. Future demands by other land uses are also expected 

to remain at current levels or increase, resulting in pressure upon existing wildlife habitat. 

3.20.2.6 ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep can be found in small herds in northern and central Utah. Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep experienced significant declines in numbers in the early 1900s. Utah has 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-186 

been involved in an aggressive program for the past 30 years to restore bighorn sheep to their 

native habitat. Most Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep have seasonal migrations. 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were reintroduced into the Uintah-Ouray Indian Reservation in 

the early 1970s. An additional 13 Rocky Mountain bighorn were obtained from Waterton Lakes 

National Park, Alberta, Canada in April 1973. A viable population has become established along 

the eastern portion of the Green River corridor. Rocky Mountain bighorn currently occupy the 

rugged Book Cliffs terrain, south from the Indian Reservation and eastward to Thompson 

Springs, Utah. 

The MPA contains 593,867 acres of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat (Map 2-28, Rocky 

Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat). There is one herd area for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in 

the MPA located in the Book Cliffs. This is called the Book Cliffs Rattlesnake herd. The MPA 

directly manages 424,859 acres in this herd area. 

3.20.2.7 MOUNTAIN LION (COUGAR) 

The mountain lion, or cougar, likely 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 are 

likely to closely parallel those of mule deer. 

3.20.3 UPLAND GAME

Upland game in the MPA includes populations of blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), chukar 

partridge (Alectoris chukar), Rio Grande turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), ring-necked pheasant 

(Phasianus colchicus) and sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Annual fluctuations for 

most upland game bird and small mammal populations very 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, 

especially during June, is generally considered vital for the survival of newly born young of 

many upland game species. Ring-necked pheasant and greater sage-grouse are two upland game 

species that have experienced a long-term decline as a result of degradation and loss of crucial

habitat (UDWR 2000a). Table 3.61 shows upland game habitat managed by the BLM. 

A Strategic Management Plan for greater sage-grouse was issued by the UDWR in 2002 and is 

available on the UDWR website (UDWR 2002). Overall habitat conditions within the remaining 

sage-grouse habitat within Grand and San Juan Counties are consistent with a landscape 

dominated by agriculture. Undisturbed native sagebrush communities are rare as the area is 

highly fragmented by cleared fields, roads, power lines and pipelines. Livestock grazing is 

heavy, non-native noxious weeds have invaded or replaced native shrub and shrub-steppe 

communities
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-187 

Table 3.61. BLM-managed Upland Game Habitat in the MPA 

Upland Game Species Total Habitat in MPA 

(acres) 

Total Area Managed by 

BLM (acres) 

Sage-grouse Winter Range 56,688 36,382 

Sage-grouse Brooding Range 97,257 42,497 

Rio Grande Turkey 189,320 13,8407 

Blue Grouse 219,707 31,402 

Chukar Partridge 1,738,282 1,328,451 

Ring-necked Pheasant 37,225 10,513 

on a large scale, and the overall level of human disturbance is relatively high. Furthermore, the 

ongoing severe drought of 1999–2003 has contributed substantially to habitat deterioration. 

Therefore, overall habitat conditions are relatively poor and unstable compared to optimal sagegrouse habitat elsewhere. Sage-grouse may be petitioned for Federal listing as either Threatened 

or Endangered species. 

Sage-grouse are used as a representative guild species for sagebrush habitat in the district. 

Impacts to this species can be partly assessed through the impact to this habitat types. 

3.20.4 RAPTORS

Special habitat needs for raptors include 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 

MPA are generally found along riparian areas and cliff faces. Juniper-desert shrub transition 

areas are identified as being important for nesting ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis). There is 

one known bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest on BLM land within the MPA; bald 

eagles use the MPA extensively for winter foraging. 

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) is a representative guild species for old growth conifer 

habitat in the district. The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and the prairie falcon (Falco 

mexicanus) are representative guild species for cliff rock habitat. The ferruginous hawk and 

burrowing owl (Athene canicularia) are representative guild species for grassland habitat. The 

ferruginous hawk is also a representative guild species for desert scrub habitat. Impacts to these 

species can be partly assessed through the impact to these habitat types. 

3.20.5 REPTILE, AMPHIBIAN, AND OTHER NON-GAME SPECIES

The MPA contains a high diversity of reptile, amphibian, and other non-game species, including 

small mammals, birds, and invertebrates, because of the variety of habitats found within the area. 

The area contains various riparian, talus slope, marsh, aspen-conifer, pinyon-juniper, and 

ridgetop habitats. (Special habitat needs for migratory birds include nest sites and foraging 

areas.) Very little is known about the status of most of these species, but an effort is being made 

to acquire basic information on those listed by state and Federal agencies as TES species. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-188 

3.20.6 RIPARIAN AND AQUATIC SPECIES

The riparian and aquatic habitat in the MPA is associated with the Green and Colorado Rivers 

and their tributaries. Riparian Species and Avian Riparian Species of Special Concern in the 

planning area include yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) and southwestern willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) (SWFL). The Green River sustains the largest breeding 

population of yellow-billed cuckoo in the state of Utah, with an estimated 10 to 20 pairs. SWFL 

also potentially occurs within the planning area. It is currently believed that the range of this 

subspecies extends north to the Sand Wash area of the Green River (near the Uintah-Carbon 

county line). Many other TES species are highly dependent on riparian areas, and they are also 

crucial to neo-tropical migrant birds. A primary concern with the riparian areas is the effect of 

decreased regeneration of cottonwood and willow stands and the invasion of non-native plant 

species such as salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) on riparian 

and aquatic wildlife species. 

Aquatic species in the planning area include several TES species such as bonytail (Gila elegans),

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychochelius lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus), roundtail chub (Gila robusta), blueheaded sucker (Catostomus discobolus), 

Colorado River cutthroat trout (Onycorhinchus clarki pleuriticus), and flannelmouth sucker 

(Catostomus latipinnis). Table 3.62 gives the current UDWR inventories of fisheries within the 

MPA. 

Table 3.62. UDWR Inventory of Fisheries within the MPA

Colorado River Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, razorback sucker, 

flannelmouth sucker, blueheaded sucker, channel catfish, roundtail chub, 

speckled dace, Plains killifish, fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner, 

smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, carp, black bullhead, walleye 

Green River Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, razorback sucker, 

flannelmouth sucker, blueheaded sucker, channel catfish, roundtail chub, 

speckled dace, fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner, smallmouth 

bass, largemouth bass, carp, black bullhead, yellow bullhead, walleye, 

northern pike 

Dolores River flannelmouth sucker, blueheaded sucker, channel catfish, roundtail chub, 

speckled dace, carp, fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner 

Castle Creek speckled dace, fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner, mountain 

sucker, bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker 

Onion Creek Speckled dace, fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner 

Kane Creek speckled dace, fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner, mosquitofish, 

plains killifish 

La Sal Creek Colorado River cutthroat, speckled dace, flannelmouth sucker, 

blueheaded sucker, mottled sculpin, speckled dace 

Beaver Creek Colorado River cutthroat, mottled sculpin 

Negro Bill Canyon 

Creek 

speckled dace, fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner, black bullhead, 

bluegill sunfish, common carp, flannelmouth sucker, green sunfish, 

largemouth bass, mountain sucker 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.20 Wildlife and Fisheries 

3-189 

Table 3.62. UDWR Inventory of Fisheries within the MPA

Mill Creek Brown trout, black bullhead, bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, 

sunfish, hybridized bluehead sucker/mountain sucker, largemouth bass, 

roundtail chub, mottled sculpin 

Cottonwood Wash Fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner 

Pack Creek Red shiner 

Mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) and macroinvertebrates are representative guild species for 

aquatic areas, marshes and lakes in the district. Yellow-billed cuckoo, southwestern willow 

flycatcher (SWFL), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), spotted towhee (Piplio maculatus), 

Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer are representative guild species for riparian habitat in the 

district. Impacts to these species can be partly assessed through the impacts to these habitat 

types.

3.21 WOODLANDS

3.21.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW

Woodland resources are generally defined as those tree species that are used as non-sawtimber 

products and are sold in units other than board feet. The woodland resources within the MPA 

consist primarily of pinyon pine and juniper; Two-needle pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah 

juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) are the most common woodland species of their type and are 

widespread throughout the planning area. Most of the pinyon-juniper grows at lower elevations, 

where precipitation is insufficient for commercial timber species. Annual precipitation typically 

ranges between 10 and 15 inches in pinyon-juniper woodlands, and tree species in these 

communities have evolved both cold and drought resistance. 

Typically, the pinyon-juniper plant community occupies an elevation zone from approximately 

4,500 feet to 7,500 feet. Pinyon dominates at higher elevations within the zone and tends to form 

closed-canopy stands with a shrub component commonly including oaks (Quercus spp.), 

mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), and some grasses. 

Juniper trees tend to grow and dominate at lower elevations, in more arid areas, as its scaled 

foliage allows it to conserve water more effectively than pinyon pine. Juniper-dominated 

woodlands tend to include open savannas of scattered trees without accompanying shrub 

communities, except in areas where sagebrush has become dominant as a consequence of 

overgrazing. A large transition zone (an ecotone) exists between the juniper and pinyon elevation 

extremes in which the two species are co-dominant. 

Woodland resources are used for firewood, fence posts, and Christmas trees, and also have value 

for watershed, wildlife habitat, recreation, and visual resources. There is some commercial 

harvesting (approximately 5% or less) of this resource. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.21 Woodlands 

3-190 

Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) is an additional component of woodland resources that grows in 

riparian areas. Cottonwood is critical to the proper functioning of riparian systems in that it 

provides shade and wildlife habitat. 

Timber resources (tree species that are used as sawtimber products) within the planning area 

consist of small stands of forest species comprising primarily of ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa), mountain fir, aspen (Populus tremuloides), and an aspen/conifer mix. These stands 

typically grow at higher elevations of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 feet, where annual 

precipitation is between 25 and 30 inches. In the planning area, these stands are in the Book 

Cliffs, in the northernmost portion of the planning area. The quantities of timber in the planning 

area are both inaccessible and too limited for either private or commercial harvesting. 

In general, the woodland and forest resources in the planning area are in a stressed and unhealthy 

condition. Over the past 100–125 years, grazing and fire suppression have altered the structure 

and species composition of these woodlands, allowing the development of closed canopies with 

little understory vegetation, decreasing biodiversity, and often resulting in increased soil erosion. 

Juniper-pinyon stands have increased in density in some areas, increasing the risk of large-scale 

crown fires (BLM 2002e). These same land-use management scenarios in the upper Book Cliffs 

have resulted in the build up of thick fuel ladders and dense ground litter that support large-scale, 

catastrophic, stand-replacing wildland fires, which indirectly produce devastating floods and 

losses of topsoil. Anecdotal evidence suggests that pinyon and juniper stand densities have 

increased, and have expanded upslope into ponderosa pine forests and down-slope into grass and 

shrub communities. 

With the onset of extreme drought conditions throughout much of the southwestern U.S. over the 

past eight years, drought-related stress has made the woodlands more susceptible to epidemic 

level disease and insect infestations. The current level of insect infestation of pinyon pine stands 

by bark beetles throughout many areas of the Southwest is rapidly becoming a concern in the 

MPA. Presently, it is unknown how rapidly the infestation is spreading or its extent. Based on 

similar infestations in other resource management areas, the infestation could cause a significant 

loss of woodland resources in the planning area in a relatively short time. In addition to the loss 

of individual pinyon-pine, insect infestation has resulted in increased fuel loading in the form of 

standing dead timber and deadfall. This has further increased the risk of large, potentially 

catastrophic wildfire. 

Cottonwood stands are diminishing within the planning area at an unnaturally rapid rate. The 

causes for the reduction of this resource are: 1) the spread of tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), which 

indirectly prevents the transplantation of cottonwood seedlings by entrenching river and stream 

systems; and 2) the preferential use of cottonwood groves by recreationists (who camp near 

streams and shade) for dispersed camping. In many of these high-use recreation areas, campers 

have inadvertently started fires, and have sometimes stripped live cottonwood trees (BLM 2002e, 

personal communication between Lynn Jackson, BLM – MFO and David Harris, SWCA, Salt 

Lake City, Utah, 11 March 2003). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.21 Woodlands 

3-191 

3.21.2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT

The original management objective for woodland resources under the current RMP allowed the 

sale of noncommercial woodland harvesting permits to the public "consistent with the 

availability of woodland products and the protection of sensitive resource values" (BLM 1985a). 

However, since the approval of the current RMP, woodland management objectives have 

changed for the MFO: 1) a greater emphasis is now being placed on pinyon-juniper management 

for long-term sustainability of the resource; 2) the Fire Program is assessing woodland 

conditions for potential re-treatments in past treatment areas and as part of the hazardous fuels 

reduction program; 3) infestations of the woodland resource by the Ips engraver beetle (resulting 

from sustained drought conditions) are being examined; and 4) there is an increase in active 

management of the resource (Jackson 2003). 

The MFO currently manages woodland products by controlling harvests and sales, and sells 

woodland products in informally designated areas for fuelwood, fence posts, Christmas trees, 

live pinyon transplants, and landscaping. Fuelwood harvests are limited to dead and down 

pinyon and juniper, and on-site harvests of woodland resources by recreationists are allowed 

only in some designated areas. 

The MFO has conducted a number of pinyon-juniper treatment projects, primarily completed in 

the 1960s and 1970s, in which a total of 28,117 acres were treated in 18 separate projects. The 

projects were conducted to remove pinyon-juniper, and convert woodlands to grasslands for 

livestock and wildlife forage. Many of these project areas are now in need of re-treatment 

because of subsequent re-growth of pinyon-juniper, which will be primarily managed through 

the MFO Fire Program. 

The Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program (Program 2823), as part of the MFO Fire Program, is 

projected to indirectly increase woodland health by approximately 2,500 acres each year for the 

next five years. This improvement would be in the form of reductions in canopy cover and stand 

density through thinning, and increases in native vegetation through reseeding (BLM 2002e). 

In response to the concerns regarding the loss of woodland resources adjacent to high-use 

recreation areas, the MFO has initiated wood gathering closures in these areas to allow the 

vegetation to restore itself. The MFO is also in the process of prohibiting wood gathering from 

riparian areas, and considering closing these areas to camping, in an attempt to preserve the 

existing cottonwoods in these areas. 

Monitoring of woodland resources is infrequent and limited. Fire personnel occasionally measure 

fuel loads, but information on the condition of woodland resources in the planning area is 

extremely limited, as is woodland inventory information. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

3.21 Woodlands 

3-192 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED PLAN AND 

DRAFT ALTERNATIVES

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the environmental consequences of the management actions for the 

Proposed Plan and the draft alternatives described in Chapter 2. These management actions were 

developed to look at a full range of reasonable options in the management of the public lands 

within the current Moab planning area (MPA), including management and allocation of public 

land resources, their uses, and protection. BLM decisions about resource use and management in 

the MPA will be based on this analysis. 

A Proposed Plan and 3 draft alternatives are analyzed. The analysis of the 3 alternatives that 

were considered in the DRMP/EIS is provided only for the purpose of comparison with the 

Proposed Plan. Alternative A (No Action) would be a continuation of existing management 

practices defined in the Grand Resource Management Plan (BLM 1985a) as amended. 

Alternative B would offer more protection for wildlife and other natural resources, and favor 

natural systems over commodities development. The Proposed Plan would protect important 

environmental values and sensitive resources while allowing commodities development. 

Alternative D would emphasize commodities development over the protection of natural 

resources. 

This PRMP/FEIS 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. The 

analysis in this chapter is an impact analysis of the alternative management actions and 

prescriptions as they impact the affected environment. Impacts are defined as modifications to 

the existing environment brought about by implementing an alternative. Impacts can be 

beneficial or adverse, result from the action directly or indirectly, and can be long-term, shortterm, temporary, or cumulative in nature. 

For the analysis, BLM staff used existing data, science, current methodologies, professional 

judgments, and projected actions and levels of use. The analysis takes into account the 

stipulations described in Chapter 2. 

4.1.1 ORGANIZATION OF CHAPTER

Chapter 4 details the environmental consequences of program decisions on each listed resource 

or resource use. Resources and resource uses are presented in alphabetical order. The 

environmental consequences of the decisions imposed by other programs on that resource are 

delineated for each of the four alternatives. For the majority of resources, the organization of the 

section lists the impacts of each of the other programs' decisions on the resource, and then lists 

impacts for each of the four alternatives. For example, the impacts of recreation decisions on 

riparian resources are listed by the decisions imposed by recreation under each of the four 

alternatives: 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-2 

 Riparian Resources 

 Impacts of Recreation Decisions on Riparian Resources 

 Alternative A 

 Alternative B 

 Proposed Plan 

 Alternative D 

Resources organized in this format include Fire Management, Minerals, Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics, Paleontology, Recreation, Riparian, Socioeconomics, 

Soils/Watershed, Special Designations, Special Status Species, Travel Management, Vegetation, 

Wildlife and Fisheries, and Woodlands. 

For six of the resources (those un-impacted by a large number of program decisions), the impacts 

are presented by each of the four alternatives. It was determined that the environmental 

consequences on these resources were more understandable using this format. For example, the 

impacts on Lands and Realty of decisions made under Alternative A are presented as a whole: 

Lands and Realty 

 Impacts of Alternative A 

 Impacts of Alternative B 

 Impacts of Proposed Plan 

 Impacts of Alternative D 

Resources organized in this format include Air Quality, Cultural, Health and Safety, Lands and 

Realty, Livestock Grazing, and Visual Resources. 

Sections entitled "Management Common to All" address impacts from actions to be carried out 

for that resource under all alternatives (that is, the action is common to the Proposed Plan and 

Alternatives A, B, and D, and thus the impacts associated with that action would apply under all 

alternatives). Sections entitled "Management Common to All Action Alternatives" address 

impacts from actions to be carried out for that resource under the Proposed Plan and draft 

Alternatives B and D. That is, these decisions would be common to all except draft Alternative 

A, which is the No Action Alternative. 

The reader is invited to utilize the Table of Contents as an outline while reading Chapter 4. 

4.1.2 ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS

The following are the general assumptions used for assessment under all alternatives. 

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. 

• The entire MPA is assigned one of the following leasing categories for oil and gas 

development: 

o Open Subject to Standard Lease Terms and Conditions 

o Open Subject to Timing Limitation and/or Controlled Surface Use Stipulations 

o Open with a No Surface Occupancy Stipulation 

o Closed 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-3 

• BLM would have the funding and work force to implement the selected alternative. 

• All lands identified for disposal meet FLPMA disposal criteria and can be considered for 

land tenure adjustments. Site-specific analysis is required for all parcels to determine that 

disposal is appropriate. 

• Demand for recreational activities (both dispersed and concentrated), energy production, 

vegetative resources, and wildlife use (non-consumptive and consumptive) would increase. 

• Short-term impacts are those that would last for fewer than 5 years. 

• Long-term impacts are those that would last for 5 years or more. 

• State highways and Class B roads through the MPA will remain open. 

• All decisions, projects, activities, and mitigation for the alternatives would be completed as 

described in Chapter 2 and Appendix C (Surface Stipulations Applicable to all Surfacedisturbing Activities). 

• Acreages were calculated using GIS technology; there may be slight variations in total acres 

between disciplines. These variations are negligible and will not affect analysis. 

• All acreages and percentages presented in this chapter pertain to BLM lands only within the 

MPA, unless otherwise specified. 

• Non-BLM lands would be minimally directly impacted by RMP decisions since BLM does 

not make land decisions on non-BLM lands. Non-BLM lands, including SITLA lands, could 

be indirectly or cumulatively impacted by BLM decisions. 

• Reasonable access to State lands, across BLM lands, would be provided under all 

alternatives. 

4.1.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR MINERALS DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS

A mineral potential report (MPR) was written in cooperation with the Utah Geological Survey 

for the Moab Field Office (MFO) in July 2005. The report outlined the potential for occurrence 

and development and included a reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) scenario of all 

mineral resources within the MPA In addition, a detailed RFD scenario report for oil and gas was 

prepared for the MFO in August 2005 with a revision added in September 2006. 

An RFD is a long-term projection of exploration, development, production, and reclamation 

activity for the next 15 years. A projection of 15 years was utilized because a longer projection 

(up to 20 years) becomes too speculative. For example, after the RFD for oil and gas was 

completed in 2005, the price of oil and gas increased significantly which manifested in a 

corresponding escalation in development that was not anticipated. This resulted in the need to 

revise the RFD in September 2006. Consequently, if the projections used in this impact analysis 

are significantly exceeded at some time in the future due to a continual increase in oil and gas 

prices, then the analysis will have to be updated again. 

4.1.3.1 OIL AND GAS 

The MPA was divided into seven Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) areas based on 

the geology, the potential for mineral occurrence, and the potential for mineral development (see 

Map 3-16). The potential for future oil and gas development and the associated surface 

disturbance is presented by RFD area in Table 4.1. This activity includes potential mineral 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-4 

development on State, Private, USFS, Tribal, BLM, NPS, and USFS-administered lands within 

the MPA and is the baseline for impacts analysis by alternative. 

Table 4.1. Predicted Oil and Gas Development and Associated Surface Disturbance for 

Each RFD Area within the MPA (All Lands) 

RFD Area Number of Wells 

Projected to be Drilled

Estimated Future Surface Disturbance 

from Drilling Wells (acres) 

Book Cliffs (per year) 3–15 45–225 

Greater Cisco (per year) 3–30 45–450 

Roan Cliffs (per year) 0–1 0–15 

Salt Wash (per year) 0–2 0–30 

Big Flat-Hatch Point (per year) 3–5 45–75 

Lisbon Valley (per year) 2–8 30–120 

Eastern Paradox (per year) 1–7 15–105 

Totals per year for next 15 years 12–68 180–1,020

Average per year for next 15 years 40 600 

Total for next 15 years 600 9,000 

Source: BLM 2005f. 

Predicted surface disturbance for oil and gas development by alternative on BLM lands only 

(versus all lands) was calculated by multiplying the percent of BLM lands open for development 

under each of the alternatives by the total number of wells predicted for all lands within the RFD 

area. For oil and gas, the resultant number of wells was multiplied by surface disturbance 

assumptions per well (assumed to be 15 acres of disturbance per well) to arrive at total 

disturbance (Table 4.2). Geophysical disturbances were calculated in the same manner except for 

the omission of well numbers and are presented in Table 4.3. It should be noted that the total 

number of wells cited in the RFD report does not represent upper limits on the number of wells 

that could be drilled in the MPA during the life of the plan. The RFD well totals were developed 

for the purpose 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 4.2. Summary of Predicted Surface Disturbance for Oil and Gas Activity on BLM 

Lands Only 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Book Cliffs 

Avg. Number of Wells over 15 years 104 64 104 105 

Avg. Surface Disturbance/yr. 104 64 104 105 

Avg. Surface Disturbance/LOP 1563 960 1556 1575

Greater Cisco 

Number of Wells over 15 years 196 85 197 197 

Avg. Surface Disturbance/yr. 196 85 197 197 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-5 

Table 4.2. Summary of Predicted Surface Disturbance for Oil and Gas Activity on BLM 

Lands Only 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Avg. Surface Disturbance over 15 years 2941 1275 2962 2962 

Roan Cliffs 

Number of Wells over 15 years 2 1 2 2 

Avg. Surface Disturbance/yr. 2 1 2 2 

Avg. Surface Disturbance over 15 years 30 11 27 29 

Salt Wash 

Avg. Number of Wells over 15 years 13 11 11 12 

Avg. Surface Disturbance/yr. 13 11 11 12 

Avg. Surface Disturbance over 15 years 189 159 171 186 

Big Flat-Hatch Point 

Number of Wells over 15 years 46 19 34 44 

Avg. Surface Disturbance/yr. 46 19 34 44 

Avg. Surface Disturbance over 15 years 697 292 508 665 

Lisbon Valley 

Number of Wells over 15 years 56 54 56 56 

Avg. Surface Disturbance/yr. 56 54 56 56 

Avg. Surface Disturbance over 15 years 840 813 836 836 

Eastern Paradox 

Number of Wells over 15 years 34 21 28 32 

Avg. Surface Disturbance/yr. 34 21 28 32 

Avg. Surface Disturbance over 15 years 512 320 423 486 

Total Number of Wells over 15 years 451 255 432 448 

These numbers are based on several calculations that have been pro-rated and subsequently 

rounded so there may be slight discrepancies in the summary numbers. For example under 

Alternative A and the Proposed Plan, 104 wells are predicted in the Book Cliffs over the life of 

the plan but the resulting surface disturbance numbers are slightly different. This is a result of the 

base well numbers being rounded. It could be assumed under Alternative A that the well number 

was closer to 104.2 whereas under the Proposed Plan the well number was closer to 103.7. 

Detailed information on the calculations can be obtained from the MFO. 

The assumptions for reclamation for oil and gas are that 50% of the wells drilled would be 

productive and 50% would be abandoned and reclaimed and revegetation would be successful 

within a scope of ten years. Therefore 100 wells (1,500 acres) would be reclaimed during the life 

of the plan. Only wells drilled during the first 5 years would be successfully reclaimed over the 

next 15 years (40 wells per year × 5 × 50% of wells abandoned and reclaimed = 100) (BLM 

2005f). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-6 

4.1.3.2 COAL-BED METHANE

Coal-bed methane development is expected to occur in the far northeastern corner of the MPA 

where there is high development potential. Future coal-bed methane exploration over the next 15 

years is expected to entail testing at three 5-spot well clusters, or 15 new wells with a cumulative 

surface disturbance of about 225 acres. 

4.1.3.3 POTASH AND SALT

Potash development in the Ten Mile area during the next 15 years is expected to entail the 

drilling of up to 10 new exploration wells on existing leases involving a total surface disturbance 

of about 50 acres. 

4.1.3.4 URANIUM-VANADIUM

New surface disturbance for uranium activity is estimated at about 20 acres per year for a total of 

300 acres of disturbance over the next 15 years. Most of this development is expected to occur 

within the historic mining areas rated with high development potential (Lisbon Valley and La 

Sal). 

4.1.3.5 COPPER

Copper mining at the Lisbon Valley copper mine site will continue under the approved plan for 

about 10 years (2016). The total surface disturbance area will amount to about 1103 acres. 

Exploration activities would be conducted outside the mine area involving 25 to 50 holes per 

year for the next 10 years involving about 2.5 acres to 5 acres. This would amount to a total of 

from about 25 acres to 50 acres of disturbance over the next 10 years. 

Copper drilling and some small scale mining could occur along the Salt Valley anticline area 

involving about 20 acres of surface disturbance sometime during the next 15 years. 

4.1.3.6 SAND AND GRAVEL

Sand and gravel development is expected to occur in the vicinity of the areas where historical 

production has occurred. This development would amount to about 24 acres of new surface 

disturbance per year and about 360 acres of over the next 15 years.

4.1.3.7 BUILDING STONE

One large-scale building stone operation is anticipated over the next 15 years in the vicinity of 

existing sites. This operation would result in 5 to 10 acres of surface disturbance. 

4.1.3.8 TRAVERTINE

Over the next 15 years new surface disturbance at the two existing travertine sites is expected to 

entail about 6 acres. 

4.1.3.9 CLAY

Clay production is anticipated in the vicinity of 2 existing sites over the next 15 years. New 

surface disturbance is estimated to range from 1 to 5 acres and would total about seven acres for 

both of the two sites. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-7 

4.1.3.10 HUMATE

There has been interest in developing the humate deposit at Harley Dome and the deposit is 

likely to see some limited development during the next 15 years. Total surface disturbance is 

expected to involve about 2 acres for exploration and up to 15 acres for production. 

The total predicted surface disturbance associated with all mineral development in the MPA is 

broken out by alternative in Table 4.3. The development projected for the minerals other than oil 

and gas involves small acreages of disturbance which in many cases would occur on existing 

leases or within the vicinity of existing mine areas and sites. Therefore, the projected 

development for these minerals is carried across all alternatives. 

Table 4.3. Summary of Total Predicted Surface Disturbance for Mineral Development 

Activities (acres) 

Mineral Category Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

Geophysical 2397 1404 2072 2329 

Oil and Gas 6772 3830 6483 6739 

Other Leasable 

Minerals 275 275 275 275 

Locatable 350 350 350 350 

Salable 390 390 390 390 

Total 10,184 6,249 9,570 10,083 

For geophysical exploration the assumptions are that reclamation of disturbance would be 

successful within a scope of ten years depending on reclamation times related to soils, 

vegetation, and rainfall (BLM 2005f). 

Surface disturbances from locatable, salable, and other mineral development would also be 

reclaimed but the timeframe is unknown. 

4.1.3.11 EXISTING OIL AND GAS LEASES 

About 820,000 acres of public lands in the MPA are currently under lease for oil and gas. These 

leases were issued with stipulations that were in place under the 1985 Grand RMP. Only a small 

percentage of these leases are currently under development or are expected to be developed. Oil 

and gas leases, unless held by production, are issued for a period of ten years. Undeveloped 

leases expire at the end of ten years. Thus, during the life of the plan, many of the existing leases 

will expire and will not be reissued. Any and all new leases will be subject to the management 

decisions in the Moab RMP. Due to these existing leases, it is possible that wells could be drilled 

in areas that are proposed in this plan to be managed as closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing. 

4.1.3.12 MINING CLAIMS FOR LOCATABLE MINERALS

Unless withdrawn from location, all public lands within the MPA are open to mining claim 

location under all alternatives. It is possible that mining claims could be located in areas where 

non-locatable minerals (oil and gas) would be severely restricted to protect important resource 

values. Therefore, claimants could conduct operations that would adversely impact the resources 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.1 Introduction 

4-8 

of concern. However, development in these restricted areas (NSO and closed) is not anticipated, 

and therefore, for this analysis, it is assumed that adverse impacts to these areas from locatable 

mineral development would not occur. Locatable minerals are subject to controlled surface use 

and timing limitation stipulations (see Appendix C) which are consistent with the rights granted 

under the mining laws. 

4.1.4 TYPES OF IMPACTS TO BE ADDRESSED

Direct impacts are attributable to implementation of an alternative that affects 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 reasonable foreseeable. Long-term impacts are those 

that would substantially remain for many years or for the life of the project. Temporary impacts 

are short-term 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 impacts. Cumulative impacts could also occur as the 

result of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions by Federal, state, and local 

governments, private individuals and entities in or near the MPA. Cumulative impacts could 

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions that take place over time. 

4.2 IMPACTS TO CRITICAL ELEMENTS

The BLM's NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) requires that all EISs address certain topics, which the 

BLM refers to as Critical Elements of the Human Environment. The list of elements contained in 

the BLM handbook has been expanded by BLM Instruction Memoranda and Executive Orders. 

These elements are presented in Table 4.4, followed by corresponding Relevant Authorities and 

the status of how the critical element is addressed in this document. 

This analysis was conducted using the best-available information. This includes but is not limited 

to landscape level data such as GAP-level vegetation data, SSURGO soils data, and MPA 

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 resource management activities. 

Table 4.4. Critical Elements 

Critical Element Relevant Authority Status 

Air Quality The Clean Air Act, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 

Addressed in its own section of the 

EIS 

Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 

seq.) 

Addressed in the Special 

Designations section 

Cultural Resources National Historic Preservation Act, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 470) 

Addressed in its own section of the 

EIS 

Environmental Justice1 EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-income Populations

Addressed in the Socioeconomic 

section 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-9 

Table 4.4. Critical Elements 

Critical Element Relevant Authority Status 

Farm Lands (prime or 

unique) 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) 

There is no identified prime 

farmland within the MPA. 

Floodplains EO 11988, Floodplain Management Addressed in the Soil and Water 

section 

Invasive, Non-native 

Species1

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as 

amended 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended; EO 13112, Invasive Species 

Addressed in the Vegetation section

Native American 

Religious Concerns 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996) 

EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites 

Addressed in the Socioeconomic 

and Cultural Resource sections 

Threatened or 

Endangered Species 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531) 

Addressed in the Special Status 

Species section 

Wastes (Hazardous or 

Solid) 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980 as amended (42 U.S.C. 

9615) 

Addressed in the Health and Safety 

and Socioeconomic sections 

Water Quality 

(Drinking/Ground)1

Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) 

Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 

et seq.) 

Addressed in the Soil and Water 

section 

Wetlands/Riparian Zones EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands Addressed in the Riparian and Soil 

and Water sections 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1271) 

Addressed in the Special 

Designations section 

Wilderness FLPMA and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 

U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) 

Addressed in the Special 

Designations section 

1Critical element added by IM-1999-178 [Interim Guidance - Changes to the List of Critical Elements of the Human Environment 

in BLM's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Handbook]

Certain resources and resource uses would not be impacted by any of the resource decisions 

presented in Chapter 2 and therefore they are not discussed in the subsequent analysis. Table 4.5 

summarizes the resources and resource uses that would not be impacted, by program. 

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES

Section 4.3 presents the impacts to each resource from management actions proposed by other 

resource programs, by alternative. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-10 

4.3.1 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE

This section presents an emission inventory of air pollutants associated with the Proposed Plan. 

The projected emissions are compared to base year emissions (2005) for Grand and San Juan 

County to provide context for the emission estimates. No assessment of air quality 

concentrations are included in this analysis. Existing conditions concerning air quality are 

described in Chapter 3. 

The MPA is located in a region designated as unclassifiable for PM10 and unclassifiable/ 

attainment for all other airborne pollutants [see 40 CFR Part 81] (UDAQ and EPA 2006). The 

alternatives discussed below have been evaluated to estimate emissions associated with each 

alternative and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.1.1 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The assessment of climate changing pollutant emissions and climate change is in its formative 

phase; therefore, it is not yet possible to know with confidence the net impact to climate. 

However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) recently concluded that 

"warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and "most of the observed increase in globally 

average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in 

anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gas concentrations." 

The lack of scientific tools designed to predict climate change on regional or local scales limits 

the ability to quantify potential future impacts. Currently BLM does not have an established 

mechanism to accurately predict the effect of resource management-level decisions from this 

planning effort on global climate change. However, potential impacts to air quality due to 

climate change are likely to be varied. For example, if global climate change results in a warmer 

and drier climate, increased particulate matter impacts could occur due to increased wind blown 

dust from drier and less stable soils. Cool season plant species' spatial ranges are predicted to 

move north and to higher elevations, and extinction of endemic threatened/endangered plants 

may be accelerated. Due to loss of habitat, or due to competition from other species whose 

ranges may shift northward, the population of some animal species may be reduced. Less snow 

at lower elevations would be likely to impact the timing and quantity of snowmelt, which, in 

turn, could impact aquatic species. In the future, as tools for predicting climate changes in a 

management area improve and/or changes in climate affect resources and necessitate changes in 

how resources are managed, BLM may be able to re-evaluate decisions made as part of this 

planning process and adjust management accordingly. 

4.3.1.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Certain management decisions for air quality resources apply to all alternatives. Management 

common to all alternatives for air quality resources relate to the application of standard State and 

Federal policy and regulations. These policies and regulations call for appropriate management 

of air quality resources within the MPA. This includes application of the best air quality control 

technology (BACT), provided by the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), as needed to meet 

air quality standards. Compliance with Utah Air Conservation (UAC) Regulation R307-205 

requires appropriate dust abatement measures for construction, demolition, clearing or 

excavation of land areas greater than one-quarter acre in size (UAC R307-205, 01 August 2006); 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-11 

Management of emissions must also prevent deterioration to air quality in Class I Areas (UAC 

R307-405, 01 August 2006). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 

4-12 

Table 4.5. Resources Not Impacted by Program Decisions in Chapter 2 (X = No Impact) 

Resource Title 

Air Quality and 

Climate 

Cultural 

Resources 

Fire 

Management 

Health and 

Safety 

Lands and 

Realty 

Livestock 

Grazing 

Minerals 

Non-WSA 

Lands with 

WCs 

Paleontological 

Resources 

Recreation 

Riparian 

Resources 

Soil and Water 

Special 

Desi

gnations 

Special Status Species 

Travel 

Mana

gement 

Air Quality and Climate X X X Cultural Resources X X X X Fire Management X X X X X Health and Safety X X X X X X X X X X X X X Lands and Realty X X X X X Livestock Grazing X X X X X Minerals X X X X X X Non-WSA Lands with WCs X X Paleontological Resources X X X X X Recreation Riparian Resources X X X X Socioeconomics X Soil and Water X X X Special Designations X Special Status Species X X X Travel Management X X X X X X X X X Vegetation X X X X Visual Resources Wildlife and Fisheries X X X Woodlands X X X X X X X X X X 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-13 

Projected emissions common to all alternatives include particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), 

CO, SO2, NOx,, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air pollutants (e.g. 

benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, ethylbenzene, and xylenes). Actual pollutant loads produced are 

dependant on the number and type of pollutant sources, source location, duration of loading, 

local topographical and meteorological conditions and other site-specific factors. 

Under all alternatives of the MPA Draft RMP, 5,000 to 10,000 acres would be treated with 

prescribed fire and non-fire treatments annually across the MPA depending on budgetary and 

time constraints. 

There are several criteria pollutants of concern specific to prescribed burning, chiefly particulate 

matter and carbon dioxide (CO2). Particulate matter produced in prescribed burns is 

predominantly PM2.5 (70% of the smoke produced in burns falls into this category). The 

generation of increased particulates is especially noticeable in high-intensity, catastrophic 

wildland fire. Fire also produces carbon dioxide (CO2). Biomass burning contributes to the 

release of greenhouse gases (such as CO2), and eliminates a carbon sink. The detrimental air 

quality impacts from wildfire would likely be greater than those from prescribed fire and exert a 

larger adverse effect on air quality in the MPA. 

Direct impacts of prescribed fire fall into two general categories: short-term and long-term. 

Short-term air quality impacts projected from prescribed burns include a general increase in 

particulates (primarily PM2.5), CO2 and ozone precursor emissions (NOx and VOCs) in burn 

areas and those locations immediately 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. Since prescribed 

burning occurs irregularly, it is generally possible to restrict burning in potential non-attainment 

areas on "bad air quality days" to avoid violating air quality standards. Long-term, direct airquality impacts projected from prescribed burns include a general increase in airborne 

particulates from the burn site as a result of ash dispersion and transport. BLM obtains a burn 

permit from UDAQ prior to initiating a prescribed burn. This increase would occur only until 

revegetation is complete and growth matures. 

Indirect impacts on air quality from prescribed burns (short-term and long-term) 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. Fuel reduction treatments, authorized by the LUP Amendment 

could potentially decrease the number and intensity of wildland fires with a concurrent 

"decrease" in the amount of particulates. A greater long-term effect of prescribed burning is a 

reduction in particulate, CO2 and ozone precursor emissions specific to wildfire in unmanaged 

areas. Ozone (a product of biomass combustion formed through the interaction of ozone 

precursors, volatile organic carbon compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides) is a precursor to 

greenhouse gases, and a major constituent of photochemical smog. Although generally ozone 

produced by prescribed fire is quickly diluted and dispersed into the air, it may 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. 

BLM fire management policy is consistent with UDEQ permitting process and, as such, would 

be timed in conjunction with meteorological conditions so as to minimize smoke impacts. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-14 

Specific policy, rules and procedures are implemented by BLM to minimize the air quality 

impacts and impacts to regional haze for fire events. Under these requirements, BLM would 

comply with the current Smoke Management Plan (SMP) and Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOU) between BLM, USFS, and UDAQ. The MOU, in accordance with UAC regulation 

R307-204, which requires reporting size, date of burn, fuel type, and estimated air emissions 

from each prescribed burn. All prescribed burns, mechanical, and chemical treatments and 

impacts would be analyzed under a project-specific NEPA compliant document. 

Additional restrictions would also apply for prescribed burns and Wildland Fire Use (WFU) 

treatments during certain conditions or near Visual Resource Management, Class I areas. All of 

these restrictions could impact the size and/or timing of fire management activities such as 

Wildland Fire Use and or prescribed burns. However, these limitations would not substantially 

reduce the effectiveness of long-term fire management or increase fire risk in the MPA. 

The application of fire management policy is projected to result in a reduction in available fuels 

and an associated reduction in wildfire severity across the treated areas, particularly in piñonjuniper woodland and wildland/urban interfaces. 

Abandoned mine sites, one aspect of health and safety management decisions general to all 

alternatives have the potential for direct, short-term, adverse impacts on air quality. Potential 

impacts are specific to the remediation of abandoned mine sites determined to pose a risk to 

human health and safety. Remediation techniques applied generally include collapsing or sealing 

of open shafts and adits or capping or removing tailings or other hazardous materials. Landdisturbance associated with these practices and operation of heavy equipment during remediation 

could result in incremental increases in short-term emissions of particulate matter (PM10 and 

PM2.5), SO2, NOx, hydrocarbons, radio-nuclides, and combustion by-products. Actual pollutant 

loads produced are dependant on the number and type of emission sources on-site, relative area 

of disturbed earth, source location, duration of work, local topographical and meteorological 

conditions and other site-specific factors. 

Specific actions for limiting activities during severe, extreme and exceptional drought conditions 

(as defined in Appendix M) are prescribed in the Adaptive Drought Management Plan (Chapter 

2, Alternatives Matrix). Actions implemented under this plan are anticipated to help preserve and 

enhance existing air quality through limitations on surface-disturbing activities, changes in 

grazing management, restrictions on OHV use and off-road events, prescribed burns and 

vegetative treatments, and other activity limitations that would minimize airborne particulate and 

preserve existing vegetative cover. 

4.3.1.3 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

The impacts of cultural resource management decisions to inventory, protect, preserve the 

resource, and to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; 

paleontological decisions to protect, evaluate, support scientific research, and allow recreational 

collection of fossils; special status animal species management decisions to protect listed species; 

and visual resource management decisions to protect scenic quality would have negligible 

impacts on air quality because these management activities would not produce quantifiable air 

pollutants. Therefore, the management of these resources will not be discussed further in this 

section. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-15 

Potential impacts of livestock grazing, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, riparian, 

soil and water, special designations, travel management, vegetation and special status vegetation, 

wildlife, and woodlands management decisions that limit or reduce surface and vegetation 

disturbance, grazing intensity, management for greater vegetation retention and generation; and 

improve/upgrade existing roadway surfaces are generally projected to result in negligible 

impacts on short-term air quality and negligible to incrementally beneficial impacts on long-term 

air quality. BLM assumes that emissions from these resources are very low. Proposed 

management decisions, including travel management, generally include lower overall 

surface/soil disturbance. Potentially beneficial outcomes from these management decisions 

include reduced PM10 and other windborne particulate from erosion of exposed soils. Short-term 

benefits to air quality would most likely not be measurable in the overall project area. 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. Wildlife 

management decisions would be based on seasonal restrictions, which would have negligible 

short-term impact on air quality in areas of specific wildlife habitat. Long-term impacts are 

generally projected to result in negligible to incrementally beneficial impacts on long-term air 

quality, primarily the result of limiting vehicular travel during critical wildlife periods. As the 

impacts of these management decisions are generally projected to be incrementally positive and 

not measurable on a site-specific basis, the management of these resources will not be discussed 

further in this section. 

Impacts of land and realty management decisions, outside of those specific to compressor 

stations discussed below, are projected to have no significant effect on air quality except as they 

impact other management decisions. It should be noted that while some compressor stations are 

authorized by rights-of-way, most are associated with oil and gas leases. The impacts from 

compressor stations and other associated activities are therefore assessed collectively in Section 

4.3.7 (Mineral Resources). 

Impacts of recreation and mineral development management decisions are projected to have the 

greatest potential for impacts on air quality of the resources assessed. The projected impacts of 

management decisions of these resources specific to the proposed alternatives will be discussed 

in greater detail in the following sections of this chapter. 

4.3.1.3.1 ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS

Mineral development potential was assessed in the Mineral Potential Report prepared for the 

MPA. A moderate to high development potential was identified for uranium/vanadium, and a 

high development potential for limestone, building stone and clay. The development potential for 

sand and gravel was rated as moderate to high depending on the relative distance from an 

established roadway. 

As mineral development is a permitted process, and a variety of multi-level regulatory processes 

(discussed in the introduction of this section) exist to ensure that pollutant levels do not increase 

above identified thresholds and/or air quality criteria, it is assumed that mineral development 

operations would be carried out in compliance with existing policies and regulations at both the 

state and Federal level. It is further assumed that roads, pipelines, excavations, and other mineral 

development-related disturbances in areas with soils susceptible to wind erosion would be 

appropriately surfaced (covering of piles where appropriate, graveling or surfactants applied to 

roads, etc.) to reduce fugitive dust generated by traffic and related activities. Such treatments 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-16 

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 the absence of quantitative data specific to localized development processes, and due to the 

fact that state and Federal pre-construction/excavation 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, management decisions specific to the development of these mineral resources are not 

projected to generate emissions sufficient to result in noncompliance with air quality criteria. 

Therefore, the management of these resources will not be discussed further in this section. 

Development potential for all locatable, salable and leasable mineral resources in the MPA is 

discussed in greater detail in Section 4.3.7 (Mineral Resources) of this document. 

The Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario prepared for the RMP identified high 

development potential areas for oil and gas (leasable mineral resources) within the MPA. 

Approximately 2,027 oil and gas wells have been drilled in the MPA between 1891 and 2004 

(UDOGM 2004), averaging approximately 18 wells per year. 

High development areas identified within the MPA include the Book Cliffs, Greater Cisco Area, 

Roan Cliffs, Salt Wash, Big Flat – Hatch Point, Lisbon Valley, and Eastern Paradox (BLM 

2005e; BLM 2005f) (Section 4.3.7 Mineral Resources). 

Primary emission sources for oil and gas development were identified as gas-fired compressors 

(estimated at 0.063 per producing well or a minimum of 2 per RFD area), glycol dehydrators 

(estimated at 1 per producing well), flaring (assumed to occur in 60% of the producing wells, 

with flared gas assumed to be 'sweet'), fugitive dust (from roadways and pads, with construction 

assumed to represent the critical period). Primary emission components were identified as CO, 

NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, CO2, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs). 

To assess the potential for air quality effects from oil and gas development, it was assumed that 

the average surface disturbance per existing well was representative of future well sites. In the 

RFD (BLM 2005f) and Mineral Potential Report (MPR; BLM 2005e), past development was 

used to predict future development. The total number of existing oil and gas wells (577 capable 

of producing oil and gas) and their associated roads and pipelines, covering a total area of 8,655 

acres, were used to calculate the projected, approximate surface disturbance per well: 15 acres 

(BLM 2005f). In the following analysis, 15 acres is assumed to be the projected disturbance per 

well under each alternative. This acreage is divided into 10 acres of road developed per well and 

5 acres of well pad disturbance. 

For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the number of wells likely to be drilled 

under each alternative would be proportional to the acreage of land open for mineral resource 

development under that alternative, as described in Section 4.3.7 Mineral Resources. For 

example, if an alternative had 90% of BLM lands in the MPA open for development, it would be 

assumed that 90% of the RFD on BLM lands would be drilled under that alternative. In addition, 

it was assumed that 50% of the wells drilled would be dry. The assumed maximum well pads 

constructed per year were also derived from the analysis of oil and gas development described in 

Section 4.3.7. Future oil and gas development over the next 15 years is projected to be between 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-17 

18 and 52 wells per year. This assumption projects a total number (over 15 years) of total 264 - 

451 wells and approximately 3,960 – 6,665 additional acres of disturbance (BLM 2005f). While 

special stipulations (timing limitations and controlled surface use) may impose minor 

restrictions, surface-disturbing activities could still occur and therefore, these special stipulations 

would not result in a reduction in the number of wells. 

Predicted number of wells and associated acreages on BLM lands within the RFD areas (Book 

Cliffs, Greater Cisco Area, Roan Cliffs, Salt Wash, Big Flat – Hatch Point, Lisbon Valley and 

Eastern Paradox), were used as the basis of analysis for air quality impacts specific to future oil 

and gas development within the MPA. Impacts on air quality were assessed as annual estimated 

emissions at peak oil and gas production during the lifetime of the RMP (15 years). 

Dispersion modeling was not conducted for this analysis, because the locations of oil and gas 

wells can not be determined at the programmatic planning level. AP-42, Fifth Edition 

methodology was employed to calculate total emissions from the following sources: 

compressors, glycol dehydrators, flaring, fugitive dust associated with well pad construction and 

vehicle travel to and from wells (EPA 2005). 

For each development scenario, the number of expected compressors was based on expected 

number of total producing wells and the expected gas production potential of each well. The 

number of compressors necessary for each alternative was calculated from an assessment of the 

average number of compressors (0.063 per producing well) required for projected oil and gas 

development in the Vernal FO, located to the north of the MPA (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). To 

accommodate the expansive distances potential between wells and the separate RFD areas, a 

minimum of two compressors per RFD area was assumed. The analysis assumed there would be 

one glycol dehydrator per gas well, with a well spacing of 40 acres. 

Generalized projected emissions from compressors include CO, NOx, CO2, SO2, PM10, and 

PM2.5, VOCs, Total Organic Compounds (TOC), and a variety of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs). Emission rates were calculated using AP-42, Fifth Edition factors for 4-stroke lean-burn 

engines (EPA 2003f, EPA 2006). Conversion between AP-42 factors (lb/MMBtu fuel input) and 

emission rates used in the analysis (grams/second) were based on the following assumptions 

derived from the Vernal FO Air Quality Model Report (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). Required 

compression was calculated based on the assumption that 1,100 hp of compression is required to 

move 10 million ft3/day of gas from a field pressure of 250 psi to a sales line pressure of 800 psi. 

The compressors are assumed to have a turbine efficient of 34%. NOx emissions rates for 

compressors were calculated based on a best available control technology (BACT) limit of 0.7 

grams per horsepower hour (g/hp-hr). Emission rates calculated for each pollutant are assumed to 

be emitted evenly throughout the year and are displayed in Table 4.6. In future sections and 

tables, "other hazardous air pollutants" will be grouped for analysis and discussion as these 

represent a small fraction of the total hazardous air pollutants emitted from compressors. 

Table 4.6. Emission Rates for Compressors 

Pollutant Emission Rate (g/sec) 

Criteria Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases 

CO 5.78E-01 

NOx 1.94E-01 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-18 

Table 4.6. Emission Rates for Compressors 

Pollutant Emission Rate (g/sec) 

CO2 1.14E+02

PM10 1.04E-02 

PM2.5 1.04E-02 

SO2 6.10E-04 

VOC 1.22E-01 

TOC 1.52E+00 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Acetaldehyde 8.67E-03 

Acrolein 5.33E-03 

Benzene 4.56E-04 

Ethylbenzene 4.12E-05 

Formaldehyde 5.48E-02 

H2S 0.00E+00 

Naphthalene 7.72E-05 

Toluene 4.23E-04 

Xylenes 1.91E-04 

Acenaphthylene 5.73E-06 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.72E-07 

Benzo(e)pyrene 4.30E-07 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4.29E-07 

Biphenyl 2.20E-04 

Carbon Tetrachloride 3.81E-05 

Chlorobenzene 3.15E-05 

Chloroform 2.96E-05 

Chrysene 7.19E-07 

Ethylene Dibromide 4.59E-05 

Fluroanthene 1.15E-06 

Fluorene 5.88E-06 

Methanol 2.59E-03 

Methylene Chloride 2.07E-05 

n-Hexane 1.15E-03 

Phenanthrene 1.08E-05 

Phenol 2.49E-05 

Pyrene 1.41E-06 

Styrene 2.45E-05 

Tetrachloroethane 2.57E-06 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-19 

Table 4.6. Emission Rates for Compressors 

Pollutant Emission Rate (g/sec) 

Toluene 4.23E-04 

Vinyl Chloride 1.55E-05 

Xylene 1.91E-04 

An average emission rate of 1.45x10-7 g/sec hydrogen sulfide (H2S) was assumed for all glycol 

dehydrators (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). All H2S was assumed to convert to SO2 (ATSDR 

1999) for the purposes of this assessment. Other emission estimates for glycol dehydrators are 

summarized in Table 4.7 and were derived from assumptions relating to glycol dehydrators in 

the Vernal FO (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Table 4.7. Emission Rates for Glycol Dehydrators 

Pollutant Emission Rate (g/sec) 

SO2 5.32E-02 

Benzene 3.68E-02 

Ethylbenzene 6.70E-03 

H2S 1.45E-07 

Toluene 5.78E-02 

Xylenes 1.09E-01 

Flaring was assumed to be required in 60% or less of the producing wells. Flared gas was 

assumed to be "sweet" and contain no sulfur. Flaring emissions applicable to this analysis were 

assumed to be primarily NOx and CO. Flaring emissions and relative percentage of wells flared 

were calculated using the generalized flaring emissions identified for the Vernal FO RMP 

(Trinity and Nicholls 2006) and are summarized in Table 4.8. 

Table 4.8. Emission Rates for Flaring

Pollutant Emission Rate (g/sec) 

CO 5.32E-02 

NOx 9.80E-03 

PM10 8.90E-04 

PM2.5 8.90E-04 

Fugitive dust emissions were estimated using AP-42, Fifth Edition Section 13.2.2 for 

construction traffic on roads and Section 13.2.3 for heavy construction operations of well pads 

and new roads. Section 13.2.3 estimates total suspended particulates which are converted to 

PM10 by applying a conversion factor of 0.26 (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). Conversion from 

PM10 to PM2.5 is similarly achieved through a conversion factor of 0.15. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-20 

Construction activity was assumed to occur for 14 days for each well pad developed, both 

producing and dry. It was assumed that the control efficiency (PM10 and PM2.5) for watering 

was 25% on construction sites including the well pad and on new resource roads. It was assumed 

that watering of all exposed disturbance areas at the well pad site itself would occur as 

appropriate during the construction period. It was assumed that 10% of the roads would be 

watered. The control efficient for graveling roads was assumed to be 75%; 40% of new roads 

were assumed to be graveled. It was therefore assumed that 50% of new roads would receive no 

treatment to reduce fugitive dust. All of these assumptions were taken from the Vernal FO Air 

Quality Model Report and fugitive dust calculations (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). A total of 12 

construction vehicles operating on-site at any one time were assumed with a total of 346 round 

trips (the majority of which are pick-up trucks for site visits). The average round trip distance 

was assumed to be 10 miles. Vehicle weights range from 8,000 lbs for a diesel pick-up truck to 

85,000 lbs for diesel low-boy equipment haulers, cementer trucks, and completion rigs. It was 

assumed that all mobile vehicles would be working at any one time on-site. This scenario is 

assumed to be representative of periods of intense activity and, therefore, serves as a 

conservative estimate of critical conditions. 

Soils in the MPA have been characterized as having low to moderate wind-erodibility. Soil 

moisture content of 5% and soil silt content of 5% were assumed. 

In addition to construction-specific actions, some additional post-construction particulate (dust) 

emissions are projected to occur on a short-term basis due to loss of vegetation within the 

construction and staging areas. Given appropriate soil stabilization and revegetation measures, 

these emissions are projected to be minimal to negligible. 

The contribution to the degradation of air quality from other [non-oil and gas] mineral 

development was considered nominal and oil and gas related activities were assumed to be the 

largest component of mineral related activity within the MPA. Therefore, only oil and gas related 

emissions were directly considered in assessing emissions. 

4.3.1.3.2 ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.1.3.2.1 Impacts of Recreation and Travel Management Decisions on Air Quality 

Recreation management decisions under Alternative A would maintain existing levels of 

motorized vehicle use without additional constraints. Projected effects on air quality would be 

primarily associated with combustion byproducts from automobiles, OHVs, and other 

hydrocarbon-combustion based transport, and surface disturbance related to off-trail and off-road 

activities. Projected air quality constituents of concern specific to recreational use include 

particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), hydrocarbons and combustion by-products. 

As the locations of all existing and future recreation sites within the MPA are not presently 

known, precise quantification of air quality impacts is not possible. As the MPA is not currently 

experiencing non-attainment, continued recreational use at the existing level is not projected to 

result in long-term, project-wide exceedances of ambient air quality standards. However, if 

heavy recreational use occurs in a relatively small area, local conditions may exist that contribute 

to short-term exceedance of air quality standards. 

Impacts of recreation management decisions that limit or reduce surface and vegetation 

disturbance, OHV and other off-trail access and improve existing roadway and trail surfaces are 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-21 

generally projected to result in negligible impacts on short-term air quality and negligible to 

incrementally beneficial impacts on long-term air quality. Short-term benefits to air quality 

would most likely not be measurable in the overall project area. 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. 

Alternative A is the least restrictive of cross country driving of all the alternatives, and therefore 

has the lowest associated potential benefit to air quality but is not expected to result in a 

substantial decrease in air quality. 

4.3.1.3.2.2 Impacts of Mineral Development Decisions on Air Quality 

Impacts of mineral development management decisions under Alternative A would maintain 

existing levels of use without additional constraints. Four primary BLM leasing categories for oil 

and gas have been identified within this assessment as outlined in Table 4.48: 

• Standard Lease Terms (Standard) 

• Special Conditions, or Timing Limitations and/or Controlled Surface Use (Limited) 

• No Surface Occupancy (NSO) 

• Closed (Lands designated as closed are not available for oil and gas development activities 

and therefore were not included in this analysis) 

Based on the proportion of BLM lands open for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 451 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the life of the RMP (Table 4.9) under 

Alternative A, and that 226 of these would produce oil or gas. Of the producing wells, 139 are 

estimated to require flaring (60%). The maximum number of well pads constructed per year is 

assumed to be 52 (See Section 4.3.7). Alternative A would require an estimated 21 compressors 

and 226 glycol dehydrators. Surface disturbance associated with these wells is estimated to 

involve approximately 6,765 acres over the life of the RMP. Oil and gas development is 

anticipated to occur in all RFD areas but is projected to be least likely to occur in the Roan Cliffs 

RFD area, while the Book Cliffs and Greater Cisco RFD areas are projected to experience the 

greatest amount of development. The greatest density of new wells is projected to occur in the 

Greater Cisco RFD area. Additional information on disturbance specific to salable resources, 

other leasable resources, and geophysical exploration is available in Section 4.3.7.3.2 Impacts of 

Mineral Resource Development Decisions on Mineral Resource Development. Calculated 

numbers of wells for each RFD area in Alternative A are also listed in Table 4.9. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-22 

Table 4.9. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD 

Areas under Alternative A over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted 

Oil and 

Gas 

Wells1

Predicted 

Producing 

Oil and 

Gas Wells 

Producing 

Oil and 

Gas Wells 

Estimated 

to Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2

Book Cliffs 104 52 32 4 52 

Greater Cisco 

Area 

196 98 59 7 98 

Roan Cliffs 2 1 1 2 1 

Salt Wash 13 7 5 2 7 

Big Flat – 

Hatch Point 

46 23 14 2 23 

Lisbon Valley 56 28 17 2 28 

Eastern 

Paradox 

34 17 11 2 17 

Total 451 226 139 21 226 

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only, and are specific to the life of the RMP (15 years). 

1 The number of oil and natural gas wells was calculated as a cumulative total, not independently. For the 

purpose of analyzing impacts of minerals decisions on the total number of oil and natural gas wells, BLM 

lands designated as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) were not considered open for development. 

2 Necessary compressors were calculated at 0.063 per producing well (minimum of 2 per RFD area). 

Necessary glycol dehydrators were calculated at 1 per producing well (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Total emissions (tons/year) of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from compressors, glycol 

dehydrators, flaring, and fugitive dust associated with construction activities for Alternative A 

are summarized in Table 4.10. The base-year emission inventory for Grand and San Juan 

Counties are also displayed for comparison purposes. Particulate emissions increases are 

expected to be 10% and 9% for PM10 and PM2.5 over base-year data respectively. A 2% 

increase in CO, a 7% increase in NOx, and a 5% increase in Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOCs) over base-year emissions is also expected. VOCs and NOx are precursors to ozone 

formation. No base-year TOC data are available for comparison. 

Table 4.10. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Baseyear Emissions for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas 

Development under Alternative A 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions under 

Alternative A 

(t/year) 

Grand 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent 

change 

from 

Regional 

Base-year 

CO 679 18,107 9,042 27,149 2% 

NOx 189 1,611 1,152 2,764 7% 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-23 

Table 4.10. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Baseyear Emissions for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas 

Development under Alternative A 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions under 

Alternative A 

(t/year) 

Grand 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent 

change 

from 

Regional 

Base-year 

CO2 83,271 No data No data No data No data 

PM10 245 851 1,529 2,380 10% 

PM2.5 46 200 332 532 9% 

SOx 0.4 27 67 94 0% 

VOC 1,744 36,803 1,533 38,337 5% 

TOC 2,767 No data No data No data No data 

1 2005 Emission inventory obtained from Utah Division of Air Quality. URL: 

http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/Emission-Inventory/2005_State/05_State_List.htm 

2 Regional base-year assumed to be total emissions in Grand and San Juan County. 

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are summarized in Table 4.11 for Alternative A. 

Base-year HAPs data from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality for Grand and San Juan 

Counties do not include emissions from existing oil and gas development and therefore were 

found not be appropriate for comparison. The largest projected emissions of HAPs are for 

benzene (290 t/year), toluene (455 t/year), and xylenes (858 t/year). All of the HAPs listed below 

with the exception of H2S and naphthalene are also considered VOCs and are included as such in 

the criteria pollutant discussion above. 

Table 4.11. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the Moab FO 

Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under Alternative A 

Pollutant Emissions from 

Compressors (t/year) 

Emissions from Glycol 

Dehydrators (t/year) Total Emissions (t/year) 

Benzene 0.30 289 289.4 

Ethylbenzene 0.03 52.7 52.7 

Formaldehyde 40.0 0.0 40.0 

H2S 0.00 <0.001 0.0 

Toluene 0.30 454.4 454.7 

Xylenes 0.10 858.2 858.4 

Other HAPs 13.80 - 13.8 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-24 

4.3.1.3.3 ALTERNATIVE B

4.3.1.3.3.1 Impacts of Recreation and Travel Management Decisions on Air Quality 

Under Alternative B, recreation management decisions would result in additional constraints to 

motorized vehicle use as compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts of recreation management decisions under Alternative B are expected to be similar in 

nature, but more widespread than those described for Alternative A 

In general, Alternative B allows no cross country driving, and is the most restrictive concerning 

surface-disturbing activities, and therefore has the highest potential for associated incremental 

benefit to air quality of all the proposed alternatives because cross country travel would be 

eliminated. 

4.3.1.3.3.2 Impacts of Mineral Development Decisions on Air Quality 

Based on the proportion of BLM lands open for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 264 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the life of the RMP (Table 4.12) under 

Alternative B, a decrease of approximately 41% from Alternative A. It is assumed that 134 wells 

would produce oil or gas. Of the producing wells, 83 are estimated to require flaring (60%). The 

maximum number of well pads constructed per year is assumed to be 29 (See Section 4.3.7). 

Alternative B would require an estimated 16 compressors and 134 glycol dehydrators. Surface 

disturbance associated with these wells is estimated to involve approximately 3,960 acres over 

the life of the RMP. Oil and gas development is anticipated to occur in all RFD areas but is 

projected to be least likely to occur in the Roan Cliffs RFD Area, while the Book Cliffs and 

Greater Cisco RFD Areas are projected to experience the greatest amount of development, 

similar to Alternative A. Additional information on disturbance specific to salable resources, 

other leasable resources, and geophysical exploration is available in Section 4.3.7.3.2 Impacts of 

Mineral Resource Development Decisions on Mineral Resource Development. Calculated 

numbers of wells for each RFD area in Alternative B are also listed in Table 4.12. 

Table 4.12. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD 

Areas under Alternative B over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted 

Oil and Gas 

Wells1

Predicted 

Producing 

Oil and 

Gas Wells 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Estimated 

to Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2

Book Cliffs 66 33 20 3 33 

Greater Cisco 

Area 

92 46 28 3 46 

Roan Cliffs 1 1 1 2 1 

Salt Wash 11 6 4 2 6 

Big Flat – 

Hatch Point 

19 10 6 2 10 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-25 

Table 4.12. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD 

Areas under Alternative B over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted 

Oil and Gas 

Wells1

Predicted 

Producing 

Oil and 

Gas Wells 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Estimated 

to Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2

Lisbon Valley 54 27 17 2 27 

Eastern 

Paradox 

21 11 7 2 11 

Total 264 134 83 16 134 

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only, and are specific to the life of the RMP (15 years). 

1 The number of oil and natural gas wells was calculated as a cumulative total, not independently. For the purpose of 

analyzing impacts of minerals decisions on the total number of oil and natural gas wells, BLM lands designated as No 

Surface Occupancy (NSO) were not considered open for development. 

2 Necessary compressors were calculated at 0.063 per producing well (minimum of 2 per RFD area). Necessary glycol 

dehydrators were calculated at 1 per producing well (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Total emissions (tons/year) of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from compressors, glycol 

dehydrators, flaring, and fugitive dust associated with construction activities for Alternative B 

are summarized in Table 4.13. Baseline base-year emission inventory for Grand and San Juan 

Counties are also displayed for comparison purposes. Particulate emissions increases are 

expected to be 6% and 5% for PM10 and PM2.5 over base-year data respectively. A 2% increase 

in CO, a 5% increase in NOx, and a 4% increase in Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) over 

base-year emissions are also expected. VOCs and NOx are precursors to ozone formation. No 

base-year TOC data is available for comparison. 

Table 4.13. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under Alternative B 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions 

under 

Alternative A 

(t/year) 

Grand County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent 

Change 

from 

Regional 

Base-year 

CO 475 18,107 9,042 27,149 2% 

NOx 136 1,611 1,152 2,764 5% 

CO2 63,444 No data No data No data No data 

PM10 138 851 1,529 2,380 6% 

PM2.5 27 200 332 532 5% 

SOx 0.3 27 67 94 0% 

VOC 1,049 36,803 1,533 38,337 4% 

TOC 1,829 No data No data No data No data 

1 2005 Emission inventory obtained from Utah Division of Air Quality. URL: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05_State_List.htm 

2 Regional base-year assumed to be total emissions in Grand and San Juan County. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-26 

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are summarized in Table 4.14 for Alternative B. 

Base-year HAPs data from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality for Grand and San Juan 

Counties do not include emissions from existing oil and gas development and therefore were 

found not be appropriate for comparison. The largest projected emissions of HAPs are for 

benzene (172 t/year), toluene (270 t/year), and xylenes (509 t/year). All of the HAPs listed below 

with the exception of H2S and naphthalene are also considered VOCs and are included as such in 

the criteria pollutant discussion above. 

Table 4.14. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the 

Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under 

Alternative B 

Pollutant Emissions from 

Compressors (t/year) 

Emissions from 

Glycol Dehydrators 

(t/year) 

Total Emissions 

(t/year) 

Benzene 0.3 171.4 172

Ethylbenzene 0.02 31.2 31.2

Formaldehyde 30.5 0 30.5

H2S 0 <0.001 <0.001

Toluene 0.2 269.4 270

Xylenes 0.1 508.9 509

Other HAPs 10.5 0 10.5

4.3.1.3.4 PROPOSED PLAN

4.3.1.3.4.1 Impacts of Recreation and Travel Management Decisions on Air Quality 

Under the Proposed Plan, recreation management decisions would result in minor additional 

constraints to motorized vehicle use as compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts of recreation management decisions under the Proposed Plan are expected to be similar 

in nature but more widespread than those described for Alternative A, and less widespread than 

those described for Alternative B 

In general the Proposed Plan is less restrictive of surface-disturbing activities, including cross 

country driving, than Alternative B, and more restrictive than Alternatives D or A, with the 

potential for a moderate associated incremental benefit to air quality, because cross country 

travel would be allowed only on 1,866 acres. 

4.3.1.3.4.2 Impacts of Mineral Development Decisions on Air Quality 

Based on the proportion of BLM lands open for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 432 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the life of the RMP under the 

Proposed Plan (Table 4.15), a decrease of approximately 4% from Alternative A. It is assumed 

that 217 wells would produce oil or gas. Of the producing wells, 134 are estimated to require 

flaring (60%). The maximum number of well pads constructed per year is assumed to be 50 (See 

Section 4.3.7). The Proposed Plan would require an estimated 21 compressors and 217 glycol 

dehydrators. Surface disturbance associated with these wells is estimated to involve 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-27 

approximately 6,480 acres over the life of the RMP (a decrease of approximately 4% from 

Alternative A). Oil and gas development is anticipated to occur in all RFD areas but is projected 

to be least likely to occur in the Roan Cliffs RFD Area, while the Book Cliffs and Greater Cisco 

RFD Areas are projected to experience the greatest amount of development, similar to 

Alternative A. Additional information on disturbance specific to salable resources, other leasable 

resources, and geophysical exploration is available in Section 4.3.7.3.2, Impacts of Mineral 

Resource Development Decisions on Mineral Resource Development. Calculated numbers of 

wells for each RFD area under the Proposed Plan are also listed in Table 4.15. 

Table 4.15. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD 

Areas under the Proposed Plan over 15 years 

RFD 

Area 

Predicted 

Oil and 

Gas Wells1

Predicted 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Producing 

Oil and Gas 

Wells 

Estimated 

to Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2

Book 

Cliffs 

104 52 32 4 52 

Greater 

Cisco 

Area 

197 99 60 7 99 

Roan 

Cliffs 

2 1 1 2 1 

Salt 

Wash 

11 6 4 2 6 

Big Flat – 

Hatch 

Point 

34 17 11 2 17 

Lisbon 

Valley 

56 28 17 2 28 

Eastern 

Paradox 

28 14 9 2 14 

Total 432 217 134 21 217 

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only, and are specific to the life of the RMP (15 years). 

1 The number of oil and natural gas wells was calculated as a cumulative total, not independently. For the purpose of 

analyzing impacts of minerals decisions on the total number of oil and natural gas wells, BLM lands designated as No 

Surface Occupancy (NSO) were not considered open for development. 

2 Necessary compressors were calculated at 0.063 per producing well (minimum of 2 per RFD area). Necessary glycol 

dehydrators were calculated at 1 per producing well (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Total emissions (tons/year) of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from compressors, glycol 

dehydrators, flaring, and fugitive dust associated with construction activities for the Proposed 

Plan are summarized in Table 4.16. The base-year emission inventory for Grand and San Juan 

Counties are also displayed for comparison purposes. Particulate emissions increases are 

expected to be 10% and 8% for PM10 and PM2.5 over base-year data respectively. A 2% 

increase in CO, a 7% increase in NOx, and a 4% increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-28 

over base-year emissions are also expected. VOCs and NOx are precursors to ozone formation. 

No base-year TOC data is available for comparison. 

Table 4.16. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Baseyear for the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development 

Under the Proposed Plan 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions 

under 

Alternative 

A (t/year) 

Grand 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent 

change from 

Regional 

Base-year 

CO 669 18,107 9,042 27,149 2% 

NOx 187 1,611 1,152 2,764 7% 

CO2 83,271 No data No data No data No data 

PM10 236 851 1,529 2,380 10% 

PM2.5 45 200 332 532 8% 

SOx 0.4 27 67 94 0% 

VOC 1,678 36,803 1,533 38,337 4% 

TOC 2,701 No data No data No data No data 

1 2005 Emission inventory obtained from Utah Division of Air Quality. URL: 

http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/Emission-Inventory/2005_State/05_State_List.htm 

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are summarized in Table 4.17 for the Proposed 

Plan. Base-year HAPs data from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality for Grand and San 

Juan Counties do not include emissions from existing oil and gas development and therefore 

were found not be appropriate for comparison. The largest projected emissions of HAPs are for 

benzene (278 t/year), toluene (437 t/year), and xylenes (824 t/year). All of the HAPs listed below 

with the exception of H2S and naphthalene are also considered VOCs and are included as such in 

the criteria pollutant discussion above. 

Table 4.17. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the 

Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development under the 

Proposed Plan 

Pollutant 

Emissions from 

Compressors 

(t/year) 

Emissions from 

Glycol Dehydrators 

(t/year) 

Total Emissions 

(t/year) 

Benzene 0.3 277.54 278.0 

Ethylbenzene 0.0 50.57 50.6 

Formaldehyde 40.0 0.00 40.0 

H2S 0.0 <0.01 <0.01 

Toluene 0.3 436.27 437.0 

Xylenes 0.1 824.06 824.0 

Other HAPs 13.8 0.00 13.8 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-29 

4.3.1.3.5 ALTERNATIVE D

4.3.1.3.5.1 Impacts of Recreation and Travel Management Decisions on Air Quality 

Under Alternative D, recreation management decisions would result in minor additional 

constraints to motorized vehicle use as compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts of recreation management decisions under Alternative D are expected to be similar in 

nature and area of influence to those described for the Proposed Plan. 

In general Alternative D is less restrictive of surface-disturbing activities, including cross 

country driving, than Alternatives B or C, and more restrictive than Alternative A, with the 

potential for a moderate associated incremental benefit to air quality. 

4.3.1.3.5.2 Impacts of Mineral Development Decisions on Air Quality 

Based on the proportion of BLM lands open for leasing and the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 448 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the life of the RMP (Table 4.18), a 

decrease of approximately 0.7% from Alternative A. It is assumed that 225 wells would produce 

oil or gas. Of the producing wells, 138 are estimated to require flaring (60%). The maximum 

number of well pads constructed per year is assumed to be 52 (See Section 4.3.7). Alternative D 

would require an estimated 21 compressors and 225 glycol dehydrators. Surface disturbance 

associated with these wells is estimated to involve approximately 6,720 acres over the life of the 

RMP (a decrease of approximately 0.5% from Alternative A). Oil and gas development is 

anticipated to occur in all RFD areas but is projected to be least likely to occur in the Roan Cliffs 

RFD Area, while the Book Cliffs and Greater Cisco RFD Areas are projected to experience the 

greatest amount of development, similar to Alternative A. Additional information on disturbance 

specific to salable resources, other leasable resources, and geophysical exploration is available in 

Section 4.3.7.3.2, Impacts of Mineral Resource Development Decisions on Mineral Resource 

Development. Calculated numbers of wells for each RFD area in Alternative D are also listed in 

Table 4.18. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-30 

Table 4.18. Average Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative D over 15 years 

RFD Area 

Predicted Oil 

and Gas 

Wells1

Predicted 

Producing Oil 

and Gas 

Wells 

Producing Oil 

and Gas 

Wells 

Estimated to 

Require 

Flaring 

Estimated 

Compressors 

Necessary2

Estimated 

Glycol 

Dehydrators 

Necessary2

Book Cliffs 105 53 32 4 53 

Greater 

Cisco Area 

197 99 60 7 99 

Roan Cliffs 2 1 1 2 1 

Salt Wash 12 6 4 2 6 

Big Flat – 

Hatch Point 

44 22 14 2 22 

Lisbon 

Valley 

56 28 17 2 28 

Eastern 

Paradox 

32 16 10 2 16 

Total 448 225 138 21 225 

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only, and are specific to the life of the RMP (15 years). 

1 The number of oil and natural gas wells was calculated as a cumulative total, not independently. For the purpose of analyzing 

impacts of minerals decisions on the total number of oil and natural gas wells, BLM lands designated as No Surface Occupancy 

(NSO) were not considered open for development. 

2 Necessary compressors were calculated at 0.063 per producing well (minimum of 2 per RFD area). Necessary glycol 

dehydrators were calculated at 1 per producing well (Trinity and Nicholls 2006). 

Total emissions (tons/year) of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from compressors, glycol 

dehydrators, flaring, and fugitive dust associated with construction activities for Alternative D 

are summarized in Table 4.19. The base-year emission inventory for Grand and San Juan 

Counties are also displayed for comparison purposes. Particulate emissions increases are 

expected to be 10% and 9% for PM10 and PM2.5 over base-year data respectively. A 2% 

increase in CO, a 7% increase in NOx, and a 5% increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

over base-year emissions are also expected. VOCs and NOx are precursors to ozone formation. 

No base-year TOC data is available for comparison. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-31 

Table 4.19. Summary of Predicted Emissions and Comparison to Regional Base-year for 

the Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under Alternative D 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

Emissions 

under 

Alternative A 

(t/year) 

Grand County 

Base-year1

(t/year) 

San Juan 

County Baseyear1

 (t/year) 

Regional 

Base-year2

(t/year) 

Percent 

change from 

Regional 

Base-year 

CO 677 18,107 9,042 27,149 2% 

NOx 189 1,611 1,152 2,764 7% 

CO2 83,271 No data No data No data No data 

PM10 245 851 1,529 2,380 10% 

PM2.5 46 200 332 532 9% 

SOx 0.4 27 67 94 0% 

VOC 1,736 36,803 1,533 38,337 5% 

TOC 2,760 No data No data No data No data 

1 2005 Emission inventory obtained from Utah Division of Air Quality. URL: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/EmissionInventory/2005_State/05_State_List.htm 

2 Regional base-year assumed to be total emissions in Grand and San Juan County. 

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are summarized in Table 4.20 for Alternative D. 

Base-year HAPs data from the State of Utah Division of Air Quality for Grand and San Juan 

Counties do not include emissions from existing oil and gas development and therefore were 

found not be appropriate for comparison. The largest projected emissions of HAPs are for 

benzene (288 t/year), toluene (453 t/year), and xylenes (855 t/year). All of the HAPs listed below 

with the exception of H2S and naphthalene are also considered volatile organic compounds and 

are included as such in the criteria pollutant discussion above. 

Table 4.20. Predicted Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for the 

Moab FO Related to Expected Oil and Gas Development Under 

Alternative D 

Pollutant 

Emissions from 

Compressors 

(t/year) 

Emissions from 

Glycol Dehydrators 

(t/year) 

Total Emissions 

(t/year) 

Benzene 0.3 287.8 288 

Ethylbenzene 0.03 52.4 52.5 

Formaldehyde 40 0 40 

H2S 0 <0.01 <0.01 

Toluene 0.3 452.4 453 

Xylenes 0.1 854.4 855 

Other HAPs 13.8 0 13.8 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.1 Air Quality and Climate 

4-32 

4.3.1.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Recreation and mineral management (oil and gas development) decisions would emit pollutants 

during operation (i.e., vehicle emissions, well operations, compressor engines, etc.), along with 

fugitive dust from public vehicle use, OHVs, construction and mineral development activities. 

Impacts to air quality from prescribed fire management decisions would generally be related to 

particulate matter (primarily PM2.5) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Impacts would generally be 

short term and would result in long-term benefits for other resources. 

With respect to oil and gas development alternatives, all of the alternatives would lead to 

additional emissions and impacts to air quality. These impacts were not assessed quantitatively in 

terms of concentrations of criteria air pollutants as the methodology employed in this analysis, an 

emissions inventory, precludes such analyses. However, the analysis provides for comparison to 

base-year emissions and a relative comparison among alternatives. The Proposed Plan would 

result in a 10% and 8% increase of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions over base-year data respectively. 

Increases in NOx and VOCs over base-year, the precursors for ozone formation, would be 7% 

and 4% respectively. This slight increase in emissions could affect ozone concentrations in 

Canyonlands National Park which are already close to the new 8-hr standard of 0.072 ppm (see 

Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.1). Of all of the alternatives analyzed, Alternative B is the most 

protective of air quality with total emissions ranging from 24 to 44% less than Alternative A for 

individual pollutants. The differences in air emissions between Alternative A and the Proposed 

Plan are very small (Table 4.21). 

Table 4.21. Comparison Among Alternatives of Emitted Pollutants Associated with Oil 

and Gas Development 

Alt. A Alt B Proposed Plan Alt. D 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Compare 

to Alt A 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Compare 

to Alt A 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Compare 

to Alt A 

Criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases 

CO 679 474.8 -30% 669 -1% 677 -0.30% 

NOx 189 136.2 -28% 187 -1% 189 -0.20% 

CO2 83,271 63,444.5 -24% 83,271 0% 83,271 0.00% 

PM10 245 138 -44% 236 -4% 245 0.00% 

PM2.5 46 27 -41% 45 -3% 46 

-

0.00001 

SOx 0.4 0.3 -24% 0.4 0% 0.4 0.00% 

VOC 1,744 1,049 -40% 1,678 -4% 1,736 -0.40% 

TOC 2,767 1,829 -34% 2,701 -2% 2,760 -0.30% 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Benzene 289 172 -41% 278 -4% 288 -0.40% 

Ethylbenzen

e 53 31 -41% 51 -4% 52 -0.40% 

Formaldehyd

e 40 30 -24% 40 0% 40 0.00% 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-33 

Table 4.21. Comparison Among Alternatives of Emitted Pollutants Associated with Oil 

and Gas Development 

Alt. A Alt B Proposed Plan Alt. D 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Compare 

to Alt A 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Compare 

to Alt A 

Total 

Emissions 

(t/year) 

Compare 

to Alt A 

H2S 0 0 -41% 0 -4% 0 -0.40% 

Toluene 454 269 -41% 436 -4% 452 -0.40% 

Xylenes 856 508 -41% 822 -4% 853 -0.40% 

Other HAPS 13.8 10.5 -24% 13.8 0% 13.8 0.00% 

Total 

Hazardous 

Air 

Pollutants 1,707 1,021.2 -40% 1,641 -4% 1,699 -0.40% 

4.3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section presents the impacts to cultural resources from management actions discussed in 

Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning cultural resources are described in Chapter 3. 

The required consultations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are in 

progress and will be completed prior to signature of the ROD. The BLM has forwarded to the 

Utah State Historic Preservation Office 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. 

Impacts to the cultural resources of the MPA could primarily result from activities associated 

with surface and subsurface disturbance such as development projects, recreational use/OHV 

travel, and fire management. However, impacts may also 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. Impacts to cultural resources 

may be indirect, negligible, or non-existent from decisions related to some resource programs. In 

particular, management decisions for air quality, health and safety, soil and water, wildlife, and 

special status species are expected to have little or no direct or indirect effect on cultural 

resources within the MPA. 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 management decisions with the potential to impact cultural 

resources either beneficial or adverse are discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter. 

Impacts to cultural resources from program decisions are considered to be long-term for the 

purpose of this analysis. 

Because the majority of cultural resources that have been identified in the MPA consist of 

archaeological sites, the primary concern for impacts relates to disturbance of the artifacts, 

features, and architecture of sites in ways that reduce their integrity, alter their association with 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-34 

traditional values, and reduce 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. Consequently, surface and subsurface disturbances have the greatest potential for 

adverse 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. Other impacts may include 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 and permanent; once an archaeological site has been impacted, 

the effect typically cannot be reversed. However, as stated previously, short-term effects from 

visual or auditory impacts may occur, and can often be mitigated or accommodated. 

Potential impacts to specific cultural resources from the various proposed management 

alternatives are difficult to quantify precisely. The management alternatives neither stipulate 

precise areas for surface-disturbing activities, nor are the precise locations of all cultural 

resources in the area 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 high or 

low probability of containing cultural resources. 

4.3.2.1 ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS

A model of cultural resource site density was developed as a means of estimating the general 

densities of sites at a landscape level. This model was developed by a professional BLM 

archaeologist using environmental variables that are known to coincide with land-use actions. 

The following variables were used to predict the occurrence of cultural sites in the MFO: 

• Lands within 0.5 mile of a spring 

• Lands within 1 mile of a river or major drainage 

• Lands within 0.5 mile of intermittent streams 

• Lands within 300 meters of a riparian area 

• Lands classified as Piñon-Juniper from Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project 

(SWREGAP) data 

• Lands classified as sand dunes using SWREGAP data 

• Lands within the following geologic types: Summerville Formation, Entrada sandstone, 

Morrison Formation, Navajo Sandstone, Alluvial and Aeolian deposits, Cedar Mountain 

Formation, and Wingate sandstone 

If only one of the above variables was present within a given area of the MPA, the area was 

classified as low probability for archeological sites. If two variables were present, the area was 

classified as medium probability for archeological sites. If an area had three or more variables, it 

was classified as high probability for archeological sites. To test the model, the MFO took all 

known (4,259) sites in the field office area and intersected them with the probability coverage. 

The assumption was made that if a point intersected with a medium or high probability polygon, 

it was a correct classification; if the point intersected a low polygon, it was an incorrect 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-35 

classification. Using a 15-meter buffer, the model correctly classified sites to 73% accuracy. That 

is, 3,103 of the 4,259 sites fell within the high or medium probability polygons. 

While the site density prediction model used in this analysis is by no means a perfect predictor of 

site density, it is sufficiently accurate (73% success rate) to be utilized as a tool for analyzing 

potential relative involvement of cultural resource sites in management decisions. It is therefore 

used in analyses in the RMP as a means of gauging whether a particular alternative would 

involve more acres of high or medium site density land than another. The model is not used to 

predict numbers of sites involved in decisions, nor should it be considered a replacement for full 

inventory for sites prior to surface disturbance or as a substitute for the Section 106 process of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Impacts of many of the proposed management actions are assessed in the following sections with 

regard to how much of the action is likely to result in surface-disturbing activities within the high 

or medium density zones. For the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that the potential for 

disturbance in high and medium site density areas is proportional to the total acres of land in 

each site density category within the area where the disturbance would take place. For example, 

assume that a particular area contains 100 acres, 20 acres (20%) of which are classified by the 

site density model as having high site density and 80 acres (80%) of which are classified as 

having low site density. Assume also that a particular management decision is expected to result 

in a total of 50 acres of disturbance within the 100-acre area. For the purpose of the analysis of 

impacts to cultural resources described in this document, it would be assumed that 10 acres 

(20%) of that disturbance would be located in the high site density area, and 40 acres (80%) of 

the disturbance would be located in the low site density area. Again, while not precise, this 

method enables a quantifiable assessment of probable relative effect(s) of planning action 

alternatives. 

4.3.2.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PLAN

Certain management decisions for cultural resources would apply to all alternatives and would 

impact such resources equally regardless of the alternative. Table 4.22 summarizes the 

anticipated impacts to cultural resources that may be anticipated under all alternatives. 

Table 4.22. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources Compliance with all existing statutes, regulations, formal agreements, 

Executive Orders, and policies applicable to cultural resources, including 

the NHPA, NAGPRA, and existing treaties and trust agreements, would 

reduce opportunities for short- and long-term, adverse impacts to 

cultural resources. Application of avoidance measures as part of 

compliance with Federal laws such as the NHPA would provide for longterm beneficial impacts to cultural resource sites. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-36 

Table 4.22. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Fire Management Protection of cultural resources was a key factor in determining fuels 

treatment and fire response actions included in the Moab Fire 

Management Plan (Moab FMP). As such, fire management in the MPA 

already includes measures to limit overall impacts on cultural resources. 

A total of 15,500 acres would be treated through prescribed fire every 10 

years. Approximately 5,860 acres of those treatments would occur in 

high cultural resource site density areas, and 6,217 acres would occur in 

the medium site density areas. An additional 7,450 acres would be 

treated through non-fire treatments, with approximately 1,347 acres of 

those treatments occurring in high site density areas and 3,063 acres 

occurring in medium site density areas. Reducing fuel loads reduce the 

risks of catastrophic fires that can damage cultural resources. BLM fire 

management policy is to conduct cultural resource identification surveys 

prior to treatment for fuels reduction through non-fire treatments or 

prescribed fire. As such, the actual risk to cultural resources within the 

MPA from fire management decisions is considered low. Up to 40,000 

acres every 10 years would be treated through use of wildland fire. Of 

this area, approximately 6,360 acres would be in high site density areas 

and 20,700 acres would be in medium site density areas. 

Lands and Realty WSAs and WAs would be exclusion zones for rights-of-way, which 

would afford a certain level of long-term benefit to cultural resources 

from reductions in ground disturbance and less human activity in the 

vicinity of sites. Continuation of mineral withdrawals for 78,333 acres of 

land would eliminate one source of potential ground disturbance and 

related secondary impacts to cultural resources over the short and long 

terms. 

Livestock Grazing Grazing would not be authorized on approximately 48,220 acres on 

several allotments in the MPA. Cultural resource sites within these 

allotments, regardless of site density, would experience long-term 

beneficial impacts as a result of reduced opportunities for trampling by 

livestock. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-37 

Table 4.22. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Minerals Approximately 353,510 acres within WSAs and Wilderness Areas would 

be closed to mineral leasing and development. Cultural resources within 

these closed areas would experience long-term beneficial impacts from 

reduced opportunities for both direct and indirect impacts resulting from 

surface disturbance and increased human presence that accompany 

mineral development. Outside of closed areas, application of BLM's 

standard policies and adherence with Federal cultural resource 

legislation as part of authorizing or permitting use of minerals resources 

includes measures for identifying cultural resources prior to development 

and avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures to reduce 

potential adverse impacts to cultural resources. However, areas open to 

mineral development do pose some indirect, yet unquantifiable risk to 

cultural resources. An estimated 173 acres of high site density lands and 

345 acres of medium site density lands within the MPA would be subject 

to potential surface disturbance over the life of the RMP for development 

of non-oil and gas leasable minerals, and locatable minerals. 

BLM would implement the Section 106 process for all mineral 

development, thereby providing opportunity to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate potential direct adverse impacts to cultural resources. Indirect 

adverse impacts to cultural resources would likely still occur from 

increased human activity associated with minerals development on MPA 

lands, which often leads to inadvertent impacts, vandalism, and looting. 

Mineral withdrawals would apply to 41,488 acres of high site density 

lands and 26,298 acres of medium site density lands. 

Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

There are no actions common to all alternatives for wilderness 

characteristics. 

Paleontological Resources Paleontological program decisions have the potential for minimal, 

indirect impacts, both adverse and beneficial, on cultural resources. 

Cultural resources could indirectly benefit from pre-development 

paleontological surveys in that such resources could be identified as a 

result of fossil surveys and avoided during development. Cultural 

resources could experience adverse impacts as an indirect result of 

existing permissions to collect certain types of fossil materials from BLM 

lands within the MPA. Casual collectors may not distinguish between 

paleontological materials and cultural resources or may not recognize 

that permissions to collect fossil materials do not also extend to cultural 

artifacts. 

Recreation Management of recreation stresses maintenance of rangeland health, 

which provides limited short- and long-term benefits to cultural resources 

through measures reducing ground disturbance and natural resource 

degradation. However, without additional measures focused on cultural 

resources, long-term adverse impacts may occur. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-38 

Table 4.22. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Special Designations A total of 71,460 acres in WSAs are located on lands classified as 

having high cultural resource site density. Another 172,334 acres are 

located on lands classified as having medium cultural resource site 

density. The same acres would be included in WSAs for all alternatives. 

Management of WSAs under the IMP includes restrictions on surface 

disturbance. These restrictions limit surface disturbance for new actions 

(valid existing rights and other pre-existing authorizations are 

recognized) to a level of disturbance that does not impair the wilderness 

suitability of the WSA in question. Because of these restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities, cultural resources within these areas of 

special designation would experience long-term indirect beneficial 

impacts through reduced opportunities for inadvertent disturbance. 

There are no actions Common to All Alternatives concerning ACECs or 

WSRs. 

Visual Resources Designation of WSAs and designated wilderness as VRM Class I would 

reduce opportunities for direct and indirect adverse impacts to cultural 

resources within those areas because surface-disturbing activities are 

excluded, thereby resulting in potential long-term, beneficial impacts to 

these resources. 

Woodlands Woodland harvest would result in long-term beneficial impacts on 

traditional cultural practices of Native Americans, and potential long-term 

beneficial impacts to cultural resources from reductions in fuels loading 

and a resulting reduction in the probability of catastrophic wildfire, which 

can severely damage certain types of cultural resources. Woodland 

harvest could have potential inadvertent indirect impacts to cultural 

resources from the cross country driving and surface disturbance 

associated with woodcutting activities. 

* high and medium site density land figures were derived from RFD impact tables with the assumption that the distribution of 

potential impact over the high and medium site density areas would be comparable to the ratio of high to medium density area 

within the combined WSAs and Was 

4.3.2.3 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND THE PROPOSED PLAN) 

Certain management decisions within this EIS are common to only the action alternatives 

(Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan) and not to Alternative A. These decisions have the 

potential to result in impacts to cultural resources within the MPA. Table 4.23 summarizes the 

potential impacts to cultural resources that could occur from these common actions under 

Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan. Fire management decisions apply to all alternatives, 

including Alternative A, and are discussed in Section 4.3.2.2. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-39 

Table 4.23. Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources Cultural resources would experience long-term, beneficial impacts from 

reduced opportunities for direct and indirect disturbance associated with 

recreational activities, improper livestock grazing, and OHV use. Specific 

provisions would be implemented to minimize or mitigate ongoing 

conflicts between cultural resources and other authorized land uses. A 

focus on proactive site inventory would expand the BLM's knowledge of 

the cultural resources under its jurisdiction and help the agency to refine 

management strategies. The identification of cultural resource sensitive 

areas would reduce opportunities for adverse impacts to cultural 

resources in those areas. The development of CRMPs for seven 

culturally sensitive areas would better integrate the management of 

cultural resources in these areas with management of other resources 

and land uses, which should benefit cultural resources. 

Livestock Grazing Identification and implementation of appropriate utilization levels would 

help reduce grazing intensity and the attendant erosion, which can 

directly and indirectly adversely impact cultural resources. 

Minerals The application of NSO stipulations for the protection of natural resource 

values and recreational opportunities in the Three Rivers and Westwater 

Mineral Withdrawal areas would indirectly benefit cultural resources in 

these areas by reducing potential sources of ground disturbance and 

human activity. Applications of NSO stipulations in the Moab and 

Spanish Valleys, Castle Valley (including Mayberry Orchard), Thompson 

Springs, Moab Landfill, Moab Airport and Dead Horse Point State Park 

would provide long-term indirect benefits to cultural resources for the 

same reason. 

Paleontological Resources Impacts would be effectively the same as described for all alternatives 

(Table 2.1). 

Recreation Management of recreational activity to sustain other resource values, 

including cultural resources, would provide long-term benefit to cultural 

resources by curtailing activities that have direct and indirect adverse 

impacts on these resources. Allowance of dispersed camping throughout 

much of the MPA places cultural resources in those areas at risk for longterm adverse impacts from direct disturbance, vandalism, and looting. 

More concerted development and promotion of recreational trails 

provides opportunities to educate the public about cultural resource 

preservation, thereby benefiting these resources. Development of 

SRMAs would have similar potential for beneficial impacts as described 

for recreational trails. 

Travel Management OHV use would be restricted to designated routes, resulting in variable 

beneficial impacts to cultural resources. 

Woodlands Restrictions on fuelwood gathering in riparian areas would reduce 

opportunities for adverse impacts to cultural resources. Closure of areas 

to wood gathering and wood harvest when unacceptable impacts to 

sensitive resources are identified would help minimize adverse impacts 

to cultural resources, though mitigation of adverse impacts for previously 

impacted cultural sites may be necessary. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-40 

4.3.2.4 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

Proposed management decisions for many resource programs within the MPA vary by 

alternative. The potential impacts of these varying decisions are discussed in the following 

sections by alternative. 

4.3.2.4.1 ALTERNATIVE A 

Impacts to cultural resources under Alternative B incorporate all of the impacts discussed in 

Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Additional impacts to cultural resources 

under Alternative B, excluding special designations, are described in Table 4.25. Because special 

designations incorporate an array of individualized management actions, the impact of their 

associated decisions on cultural resources is discussed separately, following Table 4.24. There 

are no alternative-specific management actions for fire or paleontological resources. 

Table 4.24. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative A 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources Current levels of beneficial and adverse impacts to cultural resources from 

authorized land uses would continue. All sites would be allocated to 

scientific use. 

Lands and Realty Designated utility corridors would encompass 3,776 acres of high site 

density lands and 7,930 acres of medium site density lands. This represents 

approximately 1.2% each of all high and medium site density lands in the 

MPA. 

Livestock Grazing Grazing would not be available on 126,907 acres of land (which is less than 

Alternative B, but more than Alternatives C or D). Grazing would not be 

available on 8% (24,329 acres) of high site density lands and 9% (55,395 

acres) of medium site density lands within the MPA. Grazing would be 

allowed on 278,247 acres (92%) of high site density lands and 569,771 

acres (92%) of medium site density lands. Cultural resources in areas 

available for grazing could experience minimal long-term adverse impacts 

from trampling and rubbing (e.g., on rock art panels) by livestock. All eligible 

sites would be mitigated. Cultural resources in areas not available for 

grazing would experience long-term benefits from reduced opportunities for 

direct and indirect impacts. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Book Cliffs RFD 

Approximately 79 acres of ground disturbance involving soil movement in 

high site density areas and 645 acres in medium site density areas would 

occur over the life of the RMP. This represents approximately 0.4% of all 

high site density lands and 0.6% of all medium site density lands in the RFD 

area. Standard BLM policy and the Section 106 process would be applied to 

all applications for disturbance, thereby reducing opportunities for direct 

adverse impacts related to this disturbance. Inadvertent impacts and 

impacts from vandalism and looting that may accompany increased human 

activity in developed areas may occur. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Greater Cisco RFD 

Approximately 110 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 490 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents approximately 0.8% of all high site density lands and 1% of 

all medium site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to 

those described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-41 

Table 4.24. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative A 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Roan Cliffs RFD 

Approximately 3 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 14 acres 

in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. This 

represents approximately 0.01% of all high site density lands and 0.03% of 

all medium site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to 

those described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Salt Wash RFD 

Approximately 17 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 52 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents approximately 0.3% of all high site density lands and 0.3% 

of all medium site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar 

to those described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Big Flat-Hatch Point 

RFD 

Approximately 151 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 203 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents approximately 0.2% of all high site density lands and 0.2% 

of all medium site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar 

to those described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Lisbon Valley RFD 

Approximately 174 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 361 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents approximately 0.7% of all high site density lands and 0.7% 

of all medium site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar 

to those described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Eastern Paradox RFD 

Approximately 84 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 163 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents approximately 0.07% of all high site density lands and 

0.07% of all medium site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be 

similar to those described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

geophysical 

An estimated 407 acres (0.1%) of land in high site density areas within the 

MPA and 815 acres (0.1%) of medium site density lands would be subject to 

disturbance for geophysical work over the life of the RMP. Cultural 

resources in these areas would be available for long-term adverse impacts. 

Adherence to standard BLM policy and the Section 106 process of the 

NHPA would reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts occurring as a result 

of geophysical activities. 

Minerals—salable 

(mineral materials) 

A total of 1,467,768 acres is available for the disposal of salable minerals. 

Although adherence to standard BLM policy and the Section 106 process of 

the NHPA would reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts, the greater the 

area available for salable minerals disposal, the greater potential for 

adverse impacts because of possible inadvertent impacts. 

Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

There are no specific management actions related to non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics under Alternative A. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-42 

Table 4.24. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative A 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Recreation Approximately 49,543 acres of high site density lands and 37,418 acres of 

medium site density land would be managed within SRMAs. This represents 

approximately 16% of all high site density lands and 6% of all medium site 

density lands in the MPA. The management and education of recreationists 

would generally have long-term beneficial impacts on cultural resources as 

direct and indirect disturbance of sites would be less likely occur either 

intentionally (e.g., vandalism and looting) or inadvertently. Careful 

monitoring by the BLM of site condition in these areas would help identify 

unacceptable impacts early on and allow for implementation of minimization 

and/or mitigation measures to address these impacts. 

Special Designations Although none of the eligible WSRs would be determined and managed as 

suitable for congressional wild and scenic designation in this alternative, 

they would all remain eligible and would continue to be managed to protect 

their outstandingly remarkable values, tentative classifications, and freeflowing nature on a case-by-case basis. This would provide a temporary 

benefit to cultural resources by reducing potential for direct and indirect 

impacts to site." 

Travel Management Approximately 1,049 acres (0.3%) of high site density lands and 1,844 acres 

(0.3%) of medium site density lands would be closed to OHV use. 

Approximately 208,757 acres (69%) of high site density lands and 386,579 

acres (62%) of medium site density lands would be in areas where OHV use 

is limited to designated routes, and 92,628 acres (31%) of high site density 

lands and 236,593 acres (38%) of medium site density lands open to cross 

country OHV use. Cultural resources in areas closed to OHV use would 

experience long-term reductions in risks of direct and indirect adverse 

impacts. Cultural resources located in areas limited to OHV use on 

designated routes would experience variable beneficial and adverse impacts 

in that cultural resources in areas located off of designated routes would 

experience lower levels of disturbance, but cultural resources located 

adjacent to designated routes would likely experience more concentrated 

disturbance. Cultural resources located in areas open to cross country OHV 

use would experience current, or potentially increased, levels of adverse 

impacts from direct and indirect disturbances. Alternative A would have 

more high and medium site density lands open to cross country OHV use 

and less closed to OHV use than any other alternative. 

Existing travel routes would remain open and available for use under current 

conditions. Existing levels of direct and indirect impacts, primarily adverse, 

to cultural resources would continue to result from inadvertent and induced 

impacts associated with human activity in areas containing sites. 

There are 148.2 miles of route identified as having possible cultural 

conflicts. 

Visual Resources Designation of 72,609 acres (24%) of high site density lands and 174,085 

acres (28%) of medium site density lands as VRM Class I conditions would 

benefit cultural resources in those areas by limiting surface-disturbing 

activities and the associated human activity. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-43 

Table 4.24. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative A 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Woodlands Woodland products use would be prohibited on 144,146 acres (47%) of high 

site density lands and 252,959 acres (40%) of medium site density lands 

within the MPA. Use of woodland products would be allowed on 158,768 

acres (53%) of high site density lands and 372,944 acres (60%) of medium 

site density lands. Cultural resources in areas open to woodland products 

use could experience long-term adverse impacts from direct disturbance 

(e.g., being driven over or subject to other surface disturbance such as 

mixing of soils containing artifacts in work areas and loading sites) or 

indirect disturbance (e.g., vandalism and looting). It is important to note that 

not all areas open to woodland products use contain actual woodlands that 

would be targeted for use; therefore, the actual acres of high / medium site 

density lands on where wood gathering or harvest would occur is expected 

to be much less than the sum total of lands open for such activities. 

Special designations management decisions under Alternative A would have both direct and 

indirect long-term impacts on cultural resources within the MPA. Special designations include 

WSAs, ACECs, and WSRs. The impact to cultural resources of management actions under 

WSAs were discussed under Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

The Negro Bill ONA is largely within a WSA and the restrictions associated with WSA were 

discussed in Impacts Common to All Alternatives. No WSRs would be established under this 

alternative. Portions of the ONA that would be managed under WSA special designations under 

Alternative A include approximately 243 acres of lands with high cultural resource site density. 

This area would be managed with restrictions on surface disturbance to protect non-motorized 

recreational (i.e., hiking) opportunities and outstanding natural resources. These restrictions 

would provide long-term benefit to cultural resources by reducing opportunities for direct and 

indirect impacts to sites. 

Other areas of the MPA to be designated ACECs under the action alternatives to protect relevant 

and important cultural values would not be designated under Alternative A. These areas would 

generally be managed to be consistent with the surrounding land management strategy and 

would, in most cases, allow for surface disturbance that could adversely impact cultural 

resources. 

4.3.2.4.2 ALTERNATIVE B

Impacts to cultural resources under Alternative B incorporate all of the impacts discussed in 

Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Additional impacts to cultural resources 

under Alternative B, excluding special designations, are described in Table 4.25. Because special 

designations incorporate an array of individualized management actions, the impact of these 

designations on cultural resources is discussed separately, following Table 4.25. There are no 

alternative-specific management actions for fire or paleontological resources. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-44 

Table 4.25. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative B 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources Priority for new inventory and assessment would encompass 50,000 

acres, resulting in refined knowledge of cultural resources within the 

MPA and a better ability to manage these resources effectively. More 

sites would be targeted for restoration and nomination to the NRHP 

under this alternative than under any other alternative, and fewer sites 

would be allocated or developed for public use. Restoration of damaged 

sites would result in long-term benefits to the targeted sites. Public 

interpretation of sites has both short-term and long-term beneficial and 

adverse impacts to cultural resources through raising awareness of the 

presence of such resources in the area and educating the public about 

protection of cultural sites. While education may encourage visitors to be 

more careful around cultural sites and avoid collecting or moving 

artifacts, raising the awareness of sites in a given area may lead some 

visitors to seek out unprotected sites for the purpose of looting. 

Lands and Realty Designation of ACECs as avoidance areas for rights-of-way would 

provide long-term benefits to cultural resources in these areas by 

removing one potential source of ground disturbance and related indirect 

adverse impacts. Designated utility corridors would encompass 6,309 

acres (2%) of high site density lands and 17,056 acres (3%) of medium 

site density lands. Cultural resources within these utility corridors would 

be vulnerable to adverse impacts from development of the utilities. 

Application of BLM standard procedures and the Section 106 process 

would reduce opportunities for such impacts and allow for avoidance, 

minimization, or mitigation of potential adverse impacts to a large 

degree. 

Livestock Grazing Grazing would be removed from or restricted in certain known high 

(sensitive) site density areas and would provide beneficial impacts to 

cultural resources from reduced opportunities for trampling, rubbing, and 

erosion from loss of vegetation. More such areas would exist under 

Alternative B (153,797 acres) than under any other alternative. Grazing 

would be prohibited on 29,758 acres (10%) of high site density lands 

and 63,524 acres (10.0%) of medium site density lands within the MPA. 

Grazing would be allowed on 272,818 acres (90%) of high site density 

lands and 561,641 acres (90%) of medium site density lands. Cultural 

resources in areas available for grazing could experience minimal longterm adverse impacts from trampling and rubbing (e.g., on rock art 

panels) by livestock. All eligible sites would be mitigated. Cultural 

resources in areas not available for grazing would experience long-term 

benefits from reduced risk for direct and indirect impacts. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Book Cliffs RFD 

Approximately 41 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 438 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.2% of high site density lands and 0.4% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Standard BLM policy and the Section 106 

process would be applied to all applications for disturbance, thereby 

reducing opportunities for direct adverse impacts related to this 

disturbance. Inadvertent impacts and impacts from vandalism and 

looting that may accompany increased human activity in developed 

areas may occur. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-45 

Table 4.25. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative B 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Greater Cisco RFD 

Approximately 70 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 253 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.5% of high site density lands and 0.6% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Roan Cliffs RFD 

Approximately 6 acres of disturbance in medium site density areas 

would occur over the life of the RMP. This represents 0.01% of medium 

site density lands in the RFD area. No high site density lands would 

likely be impacted. Impacts would be similar to those described for the 

Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Salt Wash RFD 

Approximately 23 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 41 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.4% of high site density lands and 0.3% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—Big 

Flat-Hatch Point RFD 

Approximately 55 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 76 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.08% of high site density lands and 0.08% of medium 

site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Lisbon Valley RFD 

Approximately 162 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 

349 acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the 

RMP. This represents 0.7% of high site density lands and 1.5% of 

medium site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to 

those described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Eastern Paradox RFD 

Approximately 44 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 100 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.04% of high site density lands and 0.04% of medium 

site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

geophysical 

An estimated 239 acres (0.08%) of land in high site density areas within 

the MPA and 477 acres (0.08%) of medium site density lands would be 

subject to disturbance for geophysical work over the life of the RMP. 

Cultural resources in these areas could be subject to long-term adverse 

impacts. However, adherence to standard BLM policy and the Section 

106 process of the NHPA would reduce the likelihood of adverse 

impacts occurring as a result of geophysical activities. 

Minerals—salable (mineral 

materials) 

A total of 836,137 acres is available for the disposal of salable minerals. 

Although adherence to standard BLM policy and the Section 106 

process of the NHPA would reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts, 

the greater the area available for salable minerals disposal, the greater 

the potential for adverse impacts because inadvertent damage could 

occur. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-46 

Table 4.25. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative B 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Management of 47,784 acres (16%) of high site density lands and 

83,191 acres (13%) of medium site density lands for protection of 

wilderness characteristics would benefit cultural resources in those 

areas by limiting surface-disturbing activities and the associated human 

activity. 

Recreation—SRMAs Approximately 217,994 acres of high site density lands and 391,125 

acres of medium site density land would be managed within SRMAs. 

This represents 72% of high site density lands and 63% of medium site 

density lands in the MPA. By managing and educating recreationists in 

these areas, long-term adverse impacts on cultural resources would be 

reduced. Careful monitoring by the BLM of site condition in these areas 

would help identify unacceptable impacts early on and allow for 

implementation of minimization and/or mitigation measures to address 

these impacts. Given that Alternative B would encompass less 

recreational development and slightly greater restriction on camping 

locations and group sizes, impacts to cultural resources under this 

alternative would be expected to be less than under any other 

alternative. 

Travel Management Approximately 72,415 acres (24%) of high site density lands and 

173,703 acres (28%) of medium site density lands would be closed to 

OHV use. Approximately 230,160 acres (76%) of high site density lands 

and 451,446 acres (72%) of medium site density lands would be where 

OHV use is limited to designated routes. No areas would be open to 

cross country OHV. Cultural resources in areas closed to OHV use 

would experience long-term reductions in opportunities for direct and 

indirect adverse impacts. Cultural resources located in areas where 

OHV use is limited to designated routes would experience variable 

beneficial and adverse impacts 

Approximately 327 linear miles of existing travel routes in high site 

density areas and 646 miles in medium site density areas would be 

closed to travel. Cultural resources in these areas would experience 

moderate, long-term beneficial impacts from reduced opportunities for 

inadvertent impacts, looting, and vandalism. Existing levels of direct 

disturbance of cultural sites from foot and motorized traffic along travel 

routes would continue at current levels. Additionally, indirect impacts 

such as increased risk of looting and vandalism from users of travel 

routes would also continue to occur at levels similar to Alternative A. 

There are 148.2 miles of designated routes with possible cultural 

conflicts. In Alternative B, 46.5 miles of these routes are not identified for 

travel. 

Visual Resources Designation of 106,105 acres (35%) of high site density lands and 

212,017 acres (34%) of medium site density lands for VRM Class I 

would benefit cultural resources in those areas by limiting surfacedisturbing activities with associated reductions in human activity, 

reducing both direct disturbance impacts and indirect risks of vandalism 

and looting. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-47 

Table 4.25. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative B 

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Woodlands Woodland products use would be prohibited on 183,677 acres (61%) of 

high site density lands and 337,089 acres (54%) of medium site density 

lands within the MPA. Use of woodland products would be allowed on 

119,237 acres (39%) of high site density lands and 288,814 acres (46%) 

of medium site density lands. As described under Alternative A, cultural 

resources in areas open to woodland products use could experience 

long-term adverse impacts from direct disturbance (e.g., being driven 

over or subject to other surface disturbance) or indirect disturbance 

(e.g., vandalism and looting). Not all areas open to woodland products 

use contain actual woodlands that would be targeted for use. As such, 

the actual acres of high and medium site density lands on which wood 

gathering or harvest would occur is expected to be less than the sum 

total of lands open for such activities. 

Within ACECs and WSRs, an array of management actions would be implemented that vary 

widely in terms of the level of surface disturbance allowed or prohibited. Since high cultural 

resource site density areas constitute the areas of greatest concern for potential adverse impacts 

to cultural resources, only those areas will be discussed relative to ACECs and WSRs. 

Areas that would be managed as ACECs under Alternative B include approximately 109,809 

acres of lands with high cultural resource site density in proposed ACECs and 45,113 acres of 

high site density lands in proposed WSRs. Within these areas, management actions include a 

range of measures that would benefit cultural resources by affording them direct and indirect 

protection from adverse impacts. These management actions include such measures as 

implementing NSO stipulations for leasable minerals and applying non–surface-disturbing 

requirements to salable minerals on approximately 45,806 acres of high site density lands (see 

Appendix C for a full explanation of stipulations applicable to oil and gas leasing and other 

surface-disturbing activities). Closing areas for leasable and salable minerals on 49,789 acres of 

high site density lands (where the ACEC overlaps a WSA), managing for VRM Class I (with 

attendant limitations on surface disturbance) on approximately 73,814 acres of high site density 

lands, eliminating OHV use on approximately 8,854 acres of high site density lands, restricting 

livestock grazing on 11,398 acres of high site density lands, and prioritizing cultural resource 

identification work on 67,126 acres of high site density lands would produce beneficial impacts 

for cultural resources. Table 4.26 lists the proposed special designations to which these 

stipulations apply and the acreages of high site density contained therein. If a proposed special 

designation area is not listed in the table, either the stipulations do not apply to the area or there 

are no estimated acres of high site density within the area. The stipulations noted above reduce 

the risk of cultural resource sites being inadvertently impacted by surface-disturbing activities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-48 

Table 4.26. Acres of High Site Density Lands in ACECs with Stipulations Affecting 

Cultural Resources, Alternative B 

Special Designation 

(All ACECs) 

NSO for 

Leasable/ 

Salable 

Minerals 

Closed to 

Leasable/

Salable 

Minerals 

Designated 

as VRM 

Class I 

Closed to 

OHV Use 

Unavailable

/ Limited 

Grazing 

Prioritize 

Cultural 

Survey 

Behind the Rocks 2,288 0 5,559 5,559 271 7,848 

Bookcliffs 2,353 40,033 40,033 0 6117 40,033 

Canyon Rims 3,510 0 0 0 0 0 

Cisco WTPD Complex 4,699 0 0 0 0 0 

Colorado River Corridor 9,592 0 9,592 0 4,233 0 

Cottonwood-Diamond 383 6,461 0 0 7,368 6,461 

Highway 279/ Shafer 

Basin/Long Canyon 3,915 0 3,915 0 645 0 

Labyrinth Canyon 5,202 0 5,202 0 0 0 

Mill Creek Canyon 3,325 0 4,590 0 4,265 4,590 

Ten Mile Wash 3,237 0 0 0 0 3,237 

Upper Courthouse 4,957 0 0 0 0 4,957 

Westwater Canyon 0 3,295 3,295 3,295 0 0 

White Wash 717 0 0 0 5 0 

Wilson Arch 1,628 0 1,628 0 5 0 

Totals 45,806 49,789 73,814 8,854 22,904 67,126 

Percent (%) of all 

high density lands 15% 16% 24% 3% 8% 22% 

Alternative B provides for substantially greater acres of NSO stipulations in high site density 

areas of special designations than any other alternative. Alternative B would also provide for 

more acres closed to leasable and salable minerals in ACECs than any other alternative. 

Alternative B would designate approximately 23 times higher site density lands in ACECs as 

VRM Class I than the next closest alternative (Proposed Plan) and would close slightly more 

land in high site density areas in ACECs to OHV travel than would the Proposed Plan. 

Alternative B would place slightly greater restrictions on livestock grazing in certain ACECs 

than the Proposed Plan, thereby providing slightly greater long-term benefit to cultural resources 

in these areas. Alternative B would also provide for the prioritization of cultural resources 

identification efforts on more acres than any other alternative. Therefore, ACECs proposed in 

Alternative B would provide for greater protection of cultural resources than in any other 

alternative. 

4.3.2.4.3 PROPOSED PLAN 

Impacts to cultural resource under the Proposed Plan incorporate all of the impacts discussed in 

Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Additional impacts to cultural resources 

under the Proposed Plan, excluding special designations, are described in Table 4.27. Because 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-49 

special designations incorporate an array of individualized management actions, the impact of 

these designations on cultural resources is discussed separately, following Table 4.27. There are 

no alternative-specific management actions for fire or paleontological resources. 

Table 4.27. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under the Proposed Plan

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources Priority for new inventory and assessment would encompass 30,000 

acres, resulting in refined knowledge of cultural resources within the 

MPA and a better ability to manage these resources effectively. More 

sites would be targeted for restoration and nomination to the NRHP 

under this alternative than under Alternatives A and D but fewer would 

be nominated than under Alternative B. Slightly more sites would be 

allocated or developed for public use under the Proposed Plan than 

under Alternative B, and fewer sites would be targeted for restoration. 

Restoration of damaged sites would result in long-term benefits to the 

targeted sites. Public interpretation of sites has both short-term and 

long-term beneficial and adverse impacts to cultural resources through 

raising awareness of the presence of such resources in the area and 

educating the public about protection of cultural sites. 

Lands and Realty Designation of ACECs as avoidance areas for rights-of-way would 

provide long-term benefits to cultural resources in these areas by 

removing one potential source of ground disturbance and related indirect 

adverse impacts. Designated utility corridors would encompass 28,400 

acres (9%) of high site density lands and 46,899 acres (8%) of medium 

site density lands. Cultural resources within these utility corridors would 

be available for adverse impacts from development of the utilities. 

Application of BLM standard procedures and the Section 106 process 

would reduce opportunities for such impacts and allow for avoidance, 

minimization, or mitigation of potential adverse impacts to a large 

degree. 

Livestock Grazing Grazing would not be available on 114,235 acres. Grazing would be 

restricted in certain known high (sensitive) site density areas and this 

would provide long-term beneficial impacts to cultural resources from 

reduced opportunities for trampling, rubbing, and erosion from loss of 

vegetation. Fewer such areas would exist under Alternatives A and B but 

more would exist under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative D. 

Grazing would be prohibited on 25,177 acres (8%) of high site density 

lands and 45,200 acres (7%) of medium site density lands within the 

MPA. Grazing would be allowed on 277,399 acres (92%) of high site 

density lands and 579,965 acres (93 %) of medium site density lands. 

Cultural resources in areas available for grazing could experience 

minimal long-term adverse impacts from trampling and rubbing (e.g., on 

rock art panels) by livestock. All eligible sites would be mitigated. 

Cultural resources in areas not available for grazing would experience 

long-term benefits from reduced opportunities for direct and indirect 

impacts. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-50 

Table 4.27. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under the Proposed Plan

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Book Cliffs RFD 

Approximately 74 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 641 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.3% of high site density lands and 0.6% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Standard BLM policy and the Section 106 

process would be applied to all applications for disturbance, thereby 

reducing opportunities for direct adverse impacts related to this 

disturbance. Inadvertent impacts and impacts from vandalism and 

looting that may accompany increased human activity in developed 

areas may occur. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Greater Cisco RFD 

Approximately 114 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 

497 acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the 

RMP. This represents 0.9% of high site density lands and 1.1% of 

medium site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to 

those described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Roan Cliffs RFD 

Approximately 3 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 12 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.01% of high site density lands and 0.03% of medium 

site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Salt Wash RFD 

Approximately 11 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 45 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.2% of high site density lands and 0.3% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—Big 

Flat-Hatch Point RFD 

Approximately 94 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 139 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.1% of high site density lands and 0.1% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Lisbon Valley RFD 

Approximately 171 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 

360 acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the 

RMP. This represents 0.7% of high site density lands and 0.7% of 

medium site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to 

those described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Eastern Paradox RFD 

Approximately 60 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 132 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.05% of high site density lands and 0.05% of medium 

site density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—geophysical An estimated 352 acres (0.1%) of land in high site density areas within 

the MPA and 705 acres (0.1%) of medium site density lands would be 

subject to disturbance for geophysical work over the life of the RMP. 

Cultural resources in these areas could be subject to long-term adverse 

impacts. However, adherence to standard BLM policy and the Section 

106 process of the NHPA would reduce the likelihood of adverse 

impacts occurring as a result of geophysical activities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-51 

Table 4.27. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under the Proposed Plan

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Minerals—salable (mineral 

materials) 

A total of 1,234,717 acres is available for the disposal of salable 

minerals. Although adherence to standard BLM policy and the Section 

106 process of the NHPA would reduce the likelihood of adverse 

impacts, the greater the area available for salable minerals disposal, the 

greater potential the or adverse impacts as inadvertent impacts could 

occur. 

Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Management of 12,773 acres (4%) of high site density lands and 20,309 

acres (3%) of medium site density lands for protection of wilderness 

characteristics would benefit cultural resources in the Beaver Creek, 

Fisher Towers and Mary Jane Canyon areas by limiting surfacedisturbing activities and the associated human activity. 

Recreation—SRMAs Approximately 160,885 acres (53%) of high site density lands and 

205,578 acres (33%) of medium site density land would be managed 

within SRMAs. By managing and educating recreationists in these 

areas, long-term adverse impacts on cultural resources would be 

reduced. Careful monitoring by the BLM of site condition in these areas 

would help identify unacceptable impacts early on and allow for 

implementation of minimization and/or mitigation measures to address 

these impacts. 

Travel Management Approximately 69,215 acres (23%) of high site density lands and 

170,608 acres (27%) of medium site density lands would be closed to 

OHV use. Approximately 232,875 acres (77%) of high site density lands 

and 453,658 acres (73%) of medium site density lands would limit OHV 

use to designated routes. Approximately 486 acres (0.2%) of high site 

density lands and 882 acres (0.1%) of medium site density lands would 

be open to cross country OHV use. Designated motorcycle routes would 

be established for approximately 19 miles on high site density lands and 

26 miles on medium site density lands. Cultural resources in areas 

closed to OHV use would experience long-term reductions in 

opportunities for direct and indirect adverse impacts. As described for 

Alternative B, cultural resources located in areas where OHV or 

motorcycle use is limited to designated routes would experience variable 

beneficial and adverse impacts, and cultural resources located in areas 

open to cross country OHV use would experience current, or potentially 

increased, levels of adverse impacts from direct and indirect 

disturbances. The Proposed Plan would have more high and medium 

site density lands open to cross country OHV use than Alternative B but 

less than Alternatives A and D. 

Approximately 238 linear miles of existing travel routes in high site 

density areas and 537 miles in medium site density areas would be 

closed to travel. Cultural resources in these areas would experience 

moderate, long-term beneficial impacts from reduced opportunities for 

inadvertent impacts, looting, and vandalism. As described under 

Alternative B, existing levels of direct disturbance of cultural sites from 

foot and motorized traffic along travel routes would continue at current 

levels. Additionally, indirect impacts such as looting and vandalism from 

users of travel routes would also continue to occur at levels similar to 

Alternative A. 

There are 148.2 miles of designated routes with possible cultural 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-52 

Table 4.27. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under the Proposed Plan

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

conflicts. In the Proposed Plan, 16.6 miles of these routes are not 

identified for travel. 

Visual Resources Designation of 74,672 acres (25%) of high site density lands and 

178,751 acres (29%) of medium site density lands as VRM Class I 

conditions would benefit cultural resources in those areas by limiting 

surface-disturbing activities and the associated human activity. 

Woodlands Woodland products use would be prohibited on 159,985 acres (53%) of 

high site density lands and 271,618 acres (43%) of medium site density 

lands within the MPA. Use of woodland products would be allowed on 

143,250 acres (47%) of high site density lands and 354,439 acres (57%) 

of medium site density lands. As described under Alternative B, cultural 

resources in areas open to woodland products use could experience 

long-term adverse impacts from direct disturbance (e.g., being driven 

over or subject to other surface disturbance) or indirect disturbance 

(e.g., vandalism and looting). Not all areas open to woodland products 

use contain actual woodlands that would be targeted for use. As such, 

the actual acres of high and medium site density lands on which wood 

gathering or harvest would occur is expected to be less than the sum 

total of lands open for such activities. 

Within ACECs and WSRs, an array of management actions would be implemented that vary 

widely in terms of the level of surface disturbance allowed or prohibited. Areas that would be 

managed as ACECs and WSRs under the Proposed Plan include approximately 19,029 acres of 

lands with high cultural resource site density for ACECs and 29,364 acres of high site density 

lands for WSRs. Within these areas, management actions include a range of measures that would 

benefit cultural resources by affording them direct and indirect protection from adverse impacts. 

These management actions include such measures as implementing NSO stipulations for leasable 

minerals and applying non–surface-disturbing requirements to salable minerals on approximately 

11,467 acres of high site density lands (see Appendix C for a full explanation), closing areas for 

leasable and salable minerals on 7,141 acres of high site density lands (where the ACEC overlaps 

a WSA), designating as VRM Class I (with attendant limitations on surface disturbance) on 

approximately 3,200 acres of high site density lands, eliminating OHV use on approximately 

7,141 acres of high site density lands, restricting livestock grazing on 10,761 acres of high site 

density lands, and prioritizing cultural resource identification work on 5,681 acres of high site 

density lands. Table 4.28 lists the special designations to which these stipulations apply and the 

acreages of high site density contained therein. If a particular special designation is not listed in 

the table, either the stipulations do not apply to the area or there are no estimated acres of high 

site density within the area. The stipulations noted above reduce the risk of cultural resource sites 

being inadvertently impacted by surface-disturbing activities. 

In general, the Proposed Plan would provide substantially less benefit to cultural resources and 

less reduction of risk of long-term adverse impacts to these resources than would Alternative B. 

The Proposed Plan would, however, afford greater protection and reduced risk of long-term 

adverse impacts when compared to Alternative A, which designates only a single ACEC, and 

Alternative D, which designates no ACECs. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-53 

Table 4.28. Acres of High Site Density Lands in ACECs with Stipulations Affecting 

Cultural Resources, the Proposed Plan 

Special Designation 

(All ACECs) 

NSO for 

Leasable/ 

Salable 

Minerals 

Closed to 

Leasable/

Salable 

Minerals 

Designated 

as VRM I 

Closed to 

OHV Use 

Unavailable/

Limited 

Grazing 

Prioritize 

Cultural 

Survey 

Behind the Rocks 2,444 0 0 0 0 2,444 

Cottonwood-Diamond 383 7,141 0 7,141 7,524 0 

Highway 279/ Shafer 

Basin/Long Canyon 3,915 0 3,200 0 0 0 

Mill Creek Canyon 1,488 0 0 0 0 0 

Ten Mile Wash 3,237 0 0 0 3,237 3,237 

Totals 11,467 7,141 3,200 7,141 10,761 5,681 

% of all high site 

density lands 4% 2% 1% 2% 3.9% 1.9% 

4.3.2.4.4 ALTERNATIVE D

Impacts to cultural resources under Alternative D incorporate all of the impacts discussed under 

Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Additional impacts to cultural resources 

under Alternative D are described in Table 4.29. There are no alternative-specific management 

actions for fire or paleontological resources, and no special designations would be implemented 

under this alternative. 

Table 4.29. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative D

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources Priority for new inventory and assessment would encompass 20,000 

acres, resulting in refined knowledge of cultural resources within the MPA 

and a better ability to manage these resources effectively. Fewer sites 

would be targeted for restoration and nomination to the NRHP under this 

alternative than under any other action alternative. More sites would be 

allocated or developed for public use than under any other alternative, and 

fewer sites would be targeted for restoration. Restoration of damaged sites 

would result in long-term benefits to the targeted sites. Public 

interpretation of sites has both short-term and long-term beneficial and 

adverse impacts to cultural resources through raising awareness of the 

presence of such resources in the area and educating the public about 

protection of cultural sites. 

Lands and Realty Designated utility corridors would encompass 29,983 acres (10%) of high 

site density lands and 51,499 acres (8%) of medium site density lands. 

Cultural resources within these utility corridors could be subject to adverse 

impacts from development of the utilities. However, application of BLM 

standard procedures and the Section 106 process would reduce risk of 

such impacts and allow for avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of 

potential adverse impacts to a large degree. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-54 

Table 4.29. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative D

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Livestock Grazing Grazing would not be available on 52,214 acres. Grazing would be 

removed from certain known high (sensitive) site density areas and 

provide long-term beneficial impacts to cultural resources from reduced 

risk of trampling, rubbing, and erosion from loss of vegetation. Fewer such 

areas would exist under Alternative D than under any other alternative. 

Grazing would be prohibited on 12,386 acres (4%) of high site density 

lands and 17,860 acres (3%) of medium site density lands within the MPA. 

Grazing would be allowed on 290,190 acres (96%) of high site density 

lands and 607,305 acres (97%) of medium site density lands. Cultural 

resources in areas available for grazing could experience minimal longterm adverse impacts from trampling and rubbing (e.g., on rock art panels) 

by livestock. All eligible sites would be mitigated. Cultural resources in 

areas not available for grazing would experience long-term benefits from 

reduced risk of direct and indirect impacts. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Book Cliffs RFD 

Approximately 79 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 725 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.4% of high site density lands and 0.6% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Standard BLM policy and the Section 106 

process would be applied to all applications for disturbance, thereby 

reducing risk of direct adverse impacts related to this disturbance. 

Inadvertent impacts and impacts from vandalism and looting that may 

accompany increased human activity in developed areas may occur. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Greater Cisco RFD 

Approximately 115 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 498 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.9% of high site density lands and 1% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Roan Cliffs RFD 

Approximately 3 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 13 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.01% of high site density lands and 0.03% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—Salt 

Wash RFD 

Approximately 13 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 51 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.3% of high site density lands and 0.3% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—Big 

Flat-Hatch Point RFD 

Approximately 136 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 197 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.2% of high site density lands and 0.2% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Lisbon Valley RFD 

Approximately 171 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 360 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.7% of high site density lands and 0.7% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-55 

Table 4.29. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative D

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Minerals—oil and gas—

Eastern Paradox RFD 

Approximately 77 acres of disturbance in high site density areas and 152 

acres in medium site density areas would occur over the life of the RMP. 

This represents 0.06% of high site density lands and 0.06% of medium site 

density lands in the RFD area. Impacts would be similar to those 

described for the Book Cliffs RFD area. 

Minerals—geophysical An estimated 396 acres (0.1%) of land in high site density areas within the 

MPA and 792 acres (0.1%) of medium site density lands would be subject 

to disturbance for geophysical work over the life of the RMP. As described 

for previous alternatives, cultural resources in these areas could be 

subject to long-term adverse impacts. Adherence to standard BLM policy 

and the Section 106 process of the NHPA would reduce the likelihood of 

adverse impacts occurring as a result of geophysical activities. 

Minerals—salable (mineral 

materials) 

A total of 1,387,473 acres is available for the disposal of salable minerals. 

Although adherence to standard BLM policy and the Section 106 process 

of the NHPA would reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts, the greater 

the area available for salable minerals disposal, the greater potential for 

adverse impacts because inadvertent impacts could result. 

Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

No areas would be managed for wilderness characteristics under 

Alternative D, resulting in greater adverse impacts to cultural resources in 

those areas because surface-disturbing activities would not be precluded. 

Recreation—SRMAs Approximately 74,278 acres (25%) of high site density lands and 83,056 

acres (13%) of medium site density lands would be managed within 

SRMAs. By managing and educating recreationists in these areas, longterm adverse impacts on cultural resources would be reduced. Impacts 

under this alternative would be similar to those described for the Proposed 

Plan except that fewer restrictions on group sizes would be implemented 

and more dispersed camping would be allowed. Total anticipated impacts 

to cultural resources under Alternative D would be greater than those in 

Alternative B or C because fewer recreationists would be managed and 

fewer restrictions would be placed upon them. 

Special Designations No areas would be managed as ACECs or WSRs under Alternative D. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-56 

Table 4.29. Impacts to Cultural Resources Under Alternative D

Resource Program Impact on Cultural Resources 

Travel Management Approximately 17,981 acres (6%) of high site density lands and 21,079 

acres (4%) of medium site density lands would be closed to OHV use. 

Approximately 283,951 acres (94%) of high site density lands and 602,749 

acres (96%) of medium site density lands occur where OHV use would be 

limited to designated routes. Approximately 643 acres (0.2%) of high site 

density lands and 1,321 acres (0.2%) of medium site density lands would 

be open to cross country OHV use. Approximately 21 miles of motorcycle 

routes on high site density lands and 36 miles on medium site density 

lands would be designated. As described in more detail under Alternative 

B, cultural resources in areas closed to OHV use would experience longterm reductions in risk of direct and indirect adverse impacts. Cultural 

resources located in areas where OHV and motorcycle use is limited to 

designated routes would experience variable beneficial and adverse 

impacts, and cultural resources located in areas open to cross country 

OHV use would experience current, or potentially increased, levels of 

adverse impacts from direct and indirect disturbances. Alternative D would 

have more high and medium site density lands open to cross country OHV 

use than Alternatives B and C but less than Alternative A. 

Approximately 214 linear miles of existing travel routes in high site density 

areas and 494 miles in medium site density areas would be closed to 

travel. Cultural resources in these areas would experience moderate, longterm beneficial impacts from reduced risk of inadvertent impacts, looting, 

and vandalism. As described for previous alternatives, existing levels of 

direct disturbance of cultural sites from foot and motorized traffic along 

travel routes would continue at current levels. Additionally, indirect impacts 

such as looting and vandalism from users of travel routes would also 

continue to occur at levels similar to Alternative A. 

There are 148.2 miles of designated routes with possible cultural conflicts. 

In Alternative D, 3.6 miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

Visual Resources Designation of 72,703 acres (24%) of high site density lands and 174,314 

acres (28%) of medium site density lands as VRM Class I would benefit 

cultural resources in those areas by limiting surface-disturbing activities 

and the associated human activity. 

Woodlands Woodland products use would be prohibited on 144,146 acres (48%) of 

high site density lands and 252,959 acres (40%) of medium site density 

lands within the MPA. Use of woodland products would be allowed on 

158,768 acres (52%) of high site density lands and 372,944 acres (60%) 

of medium site density lands. As described under Alternative A, cultural 

resources in areas open to woodland products use could experience longterm adverse impacts from direct disturbance (e.g., being driven over or 

subject to other surface disturbance) or indirect disturbance (e.g., 

vandalism and looting). Not all areas open to woodland products use 

contain actual woodlands that would be targeted for use. As such, the 

actual acres of high and medium site density lands on which wood 

gathering or harvest would occur is expected to be less than the sum total 

of lands open for such activities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

 4.3.2 Cultural Resources 

4-57 

4.3.2.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

In general, Alternative B provides for the most potential beneficial impact to cultural resources 

within the MPA of all the alternatives. This is because Alternative B would implement greater 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities (and the damage these activities could advertently or 

inadvertently cause to cultural resources) such as mineral development, greater restrictions on 

recreational use and OHV travel, and more areas of special designation with their attendant 

management restrictions on land use such as VRM Class I, surface disturbance, and OHV travel 

than any other alternative. These management decisions reduce the risk of cultural resources 

being inadvertently impacted in an adverse way. Alternative B would also implement more 

management decisions focused on pro-active management of cultural resources through the 

development of integrated cultural-recreational management plans. Based upon these same key 

elements, the Proposed Plan would provide the next greatest benefit to cultural resources, 

followed by Alternative A. Alternative D would provide the least amount of benefit to cultural 

resources in the MPA of all alternatives. 

4.3.3 FIRE MANAGEMENT

This section presents the impacts to fire management from management actions for the resources 

and resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning fire management are 

described in Chapter 3. 

The most direct and long-term impacts to fire management within the MPA would result from 

the decisions of the fire management program itself. As noted in Chapter 3, fire management 

within the MPA is the responsibility of the Moab Fire District (MFD), which encompasses the 

Monticello, Moab, and Price Planning Areas. The proposed decisions expected to affect fire 

management are: air quality, lands and realty, minerals, recreation, riparian, special designations, 

special status species, travel, wildlife, and woodlands. 

4.3.3.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.3.3.1.1 IMPACTS OF AIR QUALITY DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Under all alternatives, prescribed burns would be consistent with the State of Utah Department 

of Environmental Quality's (UDEQ's) permitting process and timed in conjunction with 

meteorological conditions so as to minimize smoke impacts. In addition, the BLM would comply 

with the current Smoke Management MOU between BLM, USFS, and UDAQ. This may restrict 

the use of prescribed fire in terms of timing and size of treatments. However, these limitations 

would not substantially reduce the effectiveness of long-term fire management or increase fire 

risk in the MPA. 

4.3.3.1.2 IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

The comprehensive Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management (LUP 

Amendment) of September 2005 (BLM 2005c) currently guides fire management in the MPA. 

Direction and guidance approved by the LUP Amendment is incorporated by reference into this 

RMP. The LUP Amendment provides fire management direction that is common to all 

alternatives being considered in this PRMP/EIS. Accordingly, the impacts of implementing the 

LUP Amendment within the MPA would also be identical for all alternatives. Readers should 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-58 

note that the potential impacts of implementing the LUP Amendment across the entire MFD, 

including the MPA, were analyzed as part of the Environmental Assessment prepared for that 

document (BLM 2005c: 4-1 to 4-50). 

Under all alternatives, the Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan (FMP) (BLM 2006b) will 

be updated and amended to meet the direction and objectives of this RMP. Under the revised 

FMP, fire management program decisions would focus on the goal of improving Fire Regime 

Condition Class (FRCC) and moving lands within the MPA toward the Desired Wildland Fire 

Condition (DWFC). These condition classes and desired conditions are discussed in greater 

detail in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIS and in the FMP (BLM 2006b: 3-27 to 3-32). The 

implementation goals of the FMP are to improve fire conditions, including achieving desired 

fuels loading, and controlling wildfire location, extent, and/or severity. Accordingly, this section 

quantitatively analyzes the impacts from fire management decisions based on the relative acreage 

of each vegetation cover type that would be treated to reduce fuels loading. 

Under all alternatives, 5,000 to 10,000 acres would be treated annually across the MPA 

depending on budgetary and time constraints. Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas, areas with 

fuel loading that could potentially result in the loss of ecosystem components following wildland 

fire, and areas that meet other management goals and objectives would be treated with prescribed 

fire and non-fire treatments (mechanical removal, chemical and biological treatments, manual 

removal, seeding). The overall impact of these treatments would be improvement in FRCC 

within the MPA and movement towards the DWFC for the treated areas. The majority of these 

treatments would likely be concentrated in the piñon-juniper vegetation type, including historical 

sagebrush/grassland that has been encroached upon by piñon-juniper (BLM 2005c: 2-4 to 2-6). 

The majority of this vegetation type is in FRCC 2 or 3, which indicates that it suffers moderate to 

high departure (>66% variation) from historical fire return interval and/or vegetation 

condition/fuel loading. The main reasons the majority of the piñon-juniper in the MPA falls 

within this FRCC are 1) loss of native understory of piñon-juniper stands; 2) cheatgrass invasion 

of disturbed piñon-juniper stands; and 3) fuel loading in uncharacteristically thick piñon-juniper 

stands (BLM 2006b: 3-30). 

Proactive fuels loading (vegetation) treatments would be prioritized for different areas based 

upon the severity of possible impacts from unplanned wildland fire. The priority areas include 

WUI zones, areas where fuels loading could potentially result in loss of ecosystem components 

following wildland fire, and areas where other resource management program goals are 

incompatible with unplanned wildland fire. Focusing treatment on these areas would reduce fire 

risk in the more vulnerable or sensitive locations of the MPA. 

If the MFD is able to successfully implement fuels treatments over a maximum number of 

desired acres in a given year, a general transition toward improved FRCC and DWFC in the 

MPA could eventually be realized. Landscape-level fuel treatments require a long-term 

commitment of resources to implement, monitor, and maintain; implementation can depend on a 

myriad of factors such as climate, threats or infestation from invasive species, and other 

variables; and, acreage goals can be altered or transformed by unexpected factors such as 

catastrophic wildland fire, drought, or changes in T&E habitat. In consideration of these various 

aspects, improved FRCC and DWFC as well as other management goals and objectives may take 

generations for actual accomplishments to be realized. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-59 

These treatment acreages identified in the LUP are only approximate long-term goals, but are the 

best available estimates for the purposes of analysis. 

4.3.3.1.3 IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Under all alternatives, minimum impact criteria for filming would prohibit the use of 

pyrotechnics and explosives, as well as limiting the numbers of people and vehicles in sensitive 

areas. This would provide a slight decrease in the risk of inadvertent fire starts from human 

causes. 

4.3.3.1.4 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Under all alternatives, integrated species management would continue to be used to accomplish 

riparian restoration through biological, chemical, mechanical, and manual methods (e.g., 

tamarisk control, willow plantings). These actions would substantially reduce the risk of wildfire 

in riparian areas, particularly in areas where native willow habitat has been restored. 

4.3.3.2 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

4.3.3.2.1 IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Minerals decisions impacting fire management are largely associated with potential increased 

risk of human-caused fires because of mineral development. These impacts are best compared by 

showing relative differences in the acreage of lands open for surface-disturbing minerals 

development under each alternative (Table 4.30). 

In general, Alternative B has the least amount of land available for surface-disturbing mineral 

extraction, followed by the Proposed Plan, then Alternatives D, and A respectively. Additionally, 

it should be noted that the actual amount of development predicted over the life of the plan is 

relatively low; therefore mineral development activities would likely have a relatively low 

impact on fire management and fire risk in comparison to other human activities such as 

recreational visitation. 

Table 4.30. Acreage of MPA Lands Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Development 

(% of Planning Area) 

Development Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Leasable 

Open (Standard 

Stipulations or TL/CSU) 

1,427,949 

(78%)

1,054,111 

(45%)

1,234,267 

(68%) 

1,387,473 

(76%)

Predicted acreage of 

disturbance (from RFD) 

6,765 3,975 6,480 6,720

Locatable 

Open 1,389,531

(76%)

1,389,531 

(76%)

1,373,649 

(75%) 

1,389,531 

(76%)
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-60 

Table 4.30. Acreage of MPA Lands Open to Surface-disturbing Mineral Development 

(% of Planning Area) 

Development Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Salable 

Open/Open Special 

Conditions 

1,467,768 

(81%)

836,137 

(46%)

1,234,267 

(68%) 

1,387,473 

(76%)

4.3.3.2.2 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

FIRE MANAGEMENT

4.3.3.2.2.1 Alternatives A and D 

No lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics under Alternatives A and D; there 

would be no impacts to travel management from these decisions. 

4.3.3.2.2.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, management of 266,485 acres (in 32 areas) of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would limit the types of fuel treatments and fire management activities 

that could be utilized to restore natural fire regimes in fire-dependent and adapted ecosystems. 

This would preclude mechanical treatments or other surface-disturbing treatments that could 

affect wilderness characteristics. When fire must be suppressed in these areas, the ESR plan 

would be required to restore the area to its natural character. 

4.3.3.2.2.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, management of 47,761 acres (in Beaver Creek, Fisher Towers, and 

Mary Jane Canyon) of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would limit the types of 

fuel treatments and fire management activities that could be utilized to restore natural fire 

regimes in fire-dependent and adapted ecosystems. This would preclude mechanical treatments 

or other surface-disturbing treatments that could affect wilderness characteristics. When fire 

must be suppressed in these areas, the ESR plan would be required to restore the area to its 

natural character. 

4.3.3.2.3 IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Recreation decisions impacting fire management include restrictions on campfires and dispersed 

camping in Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs). Camping and campfire restrictions 

would decrease the risk of human-caused wildland fire starts. Table 4.31 lists the acreage of 

SRMAs by alternative. 

Table 4.31. SRMA Acreage by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

SRMA Acreage 141,252 976,173 658,642 277,471 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-61 

Alternative B requires an SRP when a group has 15 vehicles, meaning that there would be more 

opportunity to educate visitors on preventing wildfire. Alternative B would have less risk of 

human-caused wildland fire than the other alternatives, although the Proposed Plan would pose 

less risk than that posed by Alternative D. 

4.3.3.2.4 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Special designations include ACECs, Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), Designated Wilderness 

and WSAs. Proposed management prescriptions for WSRs have negligible impact on fire 

management, as they do not further restrict vegetation management or woodland harvest. 

Additionally, fewer than 100 acres of prescribed fire and non-fire fuels treatments (each) are 

planned within riparian vegetation types in the MPA under the Moab FMP; therefore, proposed 

WSRs are unlikely to affect or be affected by potential fire management actions. Accordingly, 

WSR impacts on fire management are not analyzed further. 

Under all alternatives, a total of approximately 353,615 acres would be within WSAs. These 

acreages would be closed to woodland harvest and surface-disturbing vegetation treatments. 

Accordingly, this acreage (approximately 19% of the MPA) would have limited access for 

proactive fuel reduction or manipulation of vegetation types toward DWFC. However, over the 

long-term, some vegetation treatments may be allowed if they are non-impairing. These would 

include reseeding with native species after a fire and pruning. However, stand conversion 

activities such as mechanical removal of piñon-juniper encroachment or Douglas fir 

encroachment on aspen would not be permitted under H-8550-1 (Interim Management Policy 

For Lands Under Wilderness Review). Fire suppression would be permitted with the 

understanding that it would be conducted with a minimum amount of mechanical and/or 

motorized resources. Limitations on woodland harvest, surface-disturbing vegetation treatments, 

and fire suppression techniques in WSAs would increase the fire risk in these areas under all 

alternatives. 

Overall, designation of ACECs and the subsequent restrictions on surface disturbance in these 

areas would have the greatest impact on fire management activities in the MPA. Restrictions on 

vegetation treatments in ACECs could increase long-term fire risk due to fuel loading. Table 

4.32 below summarizes the restrictions on fire and fuels treatments in the MPA. 

Table 4.32. Acreage of ACEC Restrictions on Fire Management and Fuels Treatment 

(acres) 

Restriction Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

No Surface-disturbing 

Vegetation Treatments 

0 79,848 5,201 0 

Because Alternative B designates the greatest acres of ACECs among the four alternatives, it 

thereby restricts the greatest amount of acreage from vegetation treatments, followed by the 

Proposed Plan, then Alternatives D, and A, respectively. Accordingly, Alternatives A and D 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-62 

would likely result in the least amount of long-term fire risk in these areas, followed by the 

Proposed Plan and Alternative B, respectively. 

Restrictions on dispersed camping, which would lower the risk of human-caused fire ignitions, 

are imposed by ACEC management in Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. Alternative B 

restricts dispersed camping on 115,529 acres; the Proposed Plan restricts dispersed camping on 

13,902 acres. There are no ACECs proposed in Alternatives A and D, and thus no restrictions on 

dispersed camping. Therefore, Alternative B provides the least risk of human-caused fire 

ignitions. 

4.3.3.2.5 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Special status species have limited distributions and suitable habitat, making relocation or reestablishment elsewhere difficult if their habitat is disturbed or altered. Thus, the protection of 

special status species' habitat from disturbance generally restricts options for fuels reduction and 

vegetative treatments where habitat is present in the MPA. Restrictions due to the presence of 

special status species or their habitat are often seasonal and limited to relatively small areas, such 

as those surrounding nests or (sage-grouse) leks. Because federally threatened and endangered 

species are protected under the Endangered Species Act, their management prescriptions and the 

resulting restrictions on fire management are generally common to all alternatives. Fire 

management options, including surface-disturbing vegetative treatments and the use of wildfire 

and prescribed burns as management tools, are generally limited in the presence or habitat of 

threatened and endangered species. Species present in the MPA whose recovery plans place 

(widely variable) limitations on such treatments include: Mexican spotted owl, southwestern 

willow flycatcher, bald eagle, Colorado River endangered fish (several), golden eagle, burrowing 

owl, ferruginous hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, and Jones' cycladenia. 

The acres of habitat with seasonal restrictions on surface-disturbing activities vary for four 

special status species that are not threatened or endangered: the greater sage-grouse, the 

Gunnison sage-grouse, the white-tailed prairie dog, and the Gunnison prairie dog. These 

restrictions are shown in Table 4.33, below. 

Table 4.33. Acres of Seasonal Restrictions on Surface-disturbing Activities in Sensitive 

Species Habitat Areas (For Decisions Not Common To All Alternatives Only) 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Greater sage-grouse 0 12,850 3,068 1,986 

Gunnison sage-grouse 0 246,107 175,727 41,620 

White-tailed prairie dog 0 284,529*# 117,481+ 31,186+

Gunnison Prairie dog 0 10,700* 10,700+ 0 

*

Restrictions apply within 1300 ft of active colonies in this area 

+

Restrictions apply within 660 ft of active colonies in this area 

#

199,505 of these acres are subject to year-round restrictions as part of an ACEC. 

Thus, seasonal restrictions on surface-disturbing activities due to protection for special status 

species vary by alternative, with Alternative B being the most restrictive for fire management 

actions. Restrictions on fire management would increase the long-term risk of wildfire. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-63 

4.3.3.2.6 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Motorized use in the MPA creates a limited risk of human-caused fire. This risk includes heat 

and sparks from motors and exhaust systems. This risk is increased substantially if travel occurs 

off of designated routes. The cross-country motorized travel category poses the greatest risk of 

inadvertent wildland fire starts, followed by travel on designated routes. Cross country travel is 

much more likely to bring the heat and sparks from exhaust systems in direct contact with 

vegetation than travel on designated routes, which are typically devoid of vegetation. Closing 

areas to motorized travel largely eliminates the risk of inadvertent fire starts from motorized 

vehicles. 

All of the action alternatives would lessen the impact of human-caused fires than Alternative A 

due to the reduction of motorized cross-country travel under those alternatives (Table 4.34). 

Alternative B has the greatest acreage closed to motorized travel, followed closely by the 

Proposed Plan. Alternatives A and D have less area closed to motorized travel than Alternatives 

B or the Proposed Plan. Alternative D has the most acreage where motorized travel would be 

limited to designated routes (and the least amount of acreage closed to motorized travel), 

followed closely by Alternatives B and the Proposed Plan which have similar acreages, then by 

Alternative A. Thus, Alternative B provides the least amount of travel-related risk to fire 

management, followed closely by the Proposed Plan. Alternative D would have some additional 

risk and Alternative A would have substantially more risk than Alternative B and the Proposed 

Plan. 

Table 4.34. Travel Restrictions Impacting Fire Management and Risk (acres) 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

OHV Use Categories 

Open to Cross-Country Travel 678,250 0 1,866 3,348 

Limited to Existing/Designated 

Routes 

1,113,470 1,463,248 1,468,852 1,788,372 

Closed 29,654 358,126 349,843 29,654 

Miles of Designated Roads and Trails 

Primitive (Level D) Road 5,033 2,162 2,527 2,689 

Motorcycle Trail 129 122 221 255 

4.3.3.2.7 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Under all alternatives, surface-disturbing activities and vegetation alteration would be avoided 

during the nesting season for migratory birds (May 1 through July 30). In addition, surfacedisturbing activities would be precluded in 105,636 acres of deer and/or elk summer range 

(within the Book Cliffs and La Sal Wildlife Management Units) between May 15 and June 30. 

These restrictions would limit fuels reduction treatments during these time periods. 

Some management actions common to all alternatives would benefit fire management in the 

MPA. Dispersed camping in riparian areas would be restricted under all alternatives, which 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-64 

would slightly reduce the likelihood of human-caused wildfire in these areas, as would the 

implementation of a limited fire suppression policy (and initiation of prescribed fires) where 

treatment by fire would increase vegetation productivity and increase forage for wildlife, which 

is also proposed under all alternatives. A prescription to increase elk forage on 4,000 acres 

through vegetation treatments including prescribed fire would also benefit fire management 

under all alternatives. 

Seasonal restrictions on surface-disturbing activities specific to each alternative are shown in 

Table 4.35, below. These prohibitions would restrict fire management activities during specific 

time periods, and reduce the options available for fuels reduction, surface-disturbing vegetative 

treatments, and prescribed fire. In general, prohibitions on surface disturbance to protect wildlife 

would be most restrictive to fire management under Alternative B, followed by the Proposed 

Plan, then Alternatives D, and A, respectively. Alternatives that are the most restrictive to fire 

management carry the highest long-term risk of large or catastrophic wildfire due to increased 

fuel loading. 

Table 4.35. Acres of Seasonal Restrictions on Surface-disturbing Activities in Wildlife 

Habitat Areas (For Decisions Not Common To All Alternatives) 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Pronghorn 0 822,001* 293,741* 78,477*

Deer and/or Elk 0 635,774+ 349,955# 349,955&

*

Restrictions apply from May 1 to June 15 

+

 Restrictions apply from November 1 to May 15 

#

 Restrictions apply from November 15 to April 15 

&

Restrictions apply from December 1 to April 15 

4.3.3.2.8 IMPACTS OF WOODLAND DECISIONS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT

Under all alternatives, one of the goals of woodland management decisions would be to 

encourage, where feasible, the harvest of forest products in areas of proposed or existing 

vegetation treatments to lessen the need for additional treatment or land disturbance. Where 

feasible, this practice would help improve FRCC and reduce the need for additional fuels 

treatments to reach DWFC. All alternatives would seek to use woodland harvest to assist in 

managing woodlands to accomplish goals outlined in the Fire Management Plan. Thus, 

woodland management decisions would generally be made to support fire management goals, 

and the impacts of woodlands management decisions would generally have beneficial impacts on 

fire management. 

The primary means of assessing the impacts of woodland management decisions on fire 

management is the number of acres under each alternative that would allow or prevent woodland 

harvest and wood gathering, which are shown in Table 4.36, below. Alternatives that allow 

woodland harvest and wood gathering over larger acreages provide greater benefits to fire 

management goals by allowing woodland harvest to help reduce fuel loading. Alternatives A and 

D (equally) provide the greatest benefit to fire management, followed by the Proposed Plan and 

Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.3 Fire Management 

4-65 

Table 4.36. Woodland Resource Decisions Impacting Fire Management and Risk (acres) 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Open to Woodland Harvest and 

Wood Gathering 

1,243,734 1,071,335 1,212,886 1,243,734 

Closed to Woodland Harvest and 

Wood Gathering 

609,385 781,784 640,223 609,385 

4.3.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY

This section discusses impacts to health and safety from management actions of other resources 

and resource uses. 

Management actions associated with the following resources and resource uses would have 

negligible impacts on health and safety, regardless of the alternative chosen: air quality; cultural 

resources, paleontological resources; fire management; lands and realty; livestock grazing; 

recreation and travel management; vegetation, woodlands; riparian; soil and water; wilderness 

characteristics, wildlife; and special status species; special designations; visual resource 

management. The impacts would be negligible, and are dismissed from further analysis, 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. 

4.3.4.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

The sources of hazardous materials are subject to the Federal and state laws described in Chapter 

3. These laws and regulations are designed to safeguard human health and safety and to protect 

other environmental resources. Implementation of the laws and regulations would minimize the 

risks associated with the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. 

4.3.4.1.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all of the alternatives, environmental conditions, as well as public health and safety, 

would be protected as a result of the BLM hazardous materials management practices. 

Authorized uses of hazardous materials would adhere to Federal and state requirements to reduce 

or eliminate impacts. The procedures in place within the BLM as well as state and local agencies 

would address accidental events and unauthorized use. These procedures would help to minimize 

public exposure and environmental impacts to the extent possible. 

4.3.4.1.1.1 Minerals 

According to the Moab RFD, the projected maximum number of wells within BLM managed 

lands over the next 15 years is 451 with future oil and gas drilling projected at about 30 wells per 

year. The surface disturbance for construction of a well pad, road, and associated pipelines is 

estimated at 15 acres. The total projected surface disturbance for oil and gas drilling is 

approximately 6,772 acres. Given the small number of wells projected over the next 15 years 

regardless of the alternative, the overall hazardous material risk would be negligible. However, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.4 Health and Safety 

4-66 

any mineral exploration and development would cause increases in hazardous material risks in 

the MPA. These impacts would be adverse and long-term. The following are oil and gas related 

developments that would pose hazardous materials risks across all alternatives. 

4.3.4.1.1.2 Pipelines 

The installation of pipelines and supporting services for pipelines (e.g., compressor stations) 

would be necessary for oil and gas development. Pipelines and their associated features have the 

potential to leak or spill oil, gas, natural gas condensate, or other hazardous materials. The 

companies installing and operating pipelines in the MPA are responsible for understanding and 

abiding by the applicable hazardous material laws and regulations. The MFO would be 

responsible for inspecting and monitoring these operations to ensure that these companies are in 

compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 

4.3.4.1.1.3 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. 

4.3.4.1.1.4 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 data indicate that an average of one rupture 

annually should be expected for every 5,000 miles of pipeline (Office of Pipeline Safety 2005). 

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 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations (49 CFR Part 192, 

Transportation of Natural Gas by Pipelines). 

4.3.4.1.1.5 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. 

4.3.4.1.1.6 Geologic Hazards 

The potential risks associated with oil and gas development include geologic hazards. These 

hazards include natural gas seepage, hydrogen sulfide releases, abnormally high gas pressure, 

seismic activity, fires, and explosions. 

4.3.4.1.2 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

Due to the small amount of oil and gas wells (451) predicted over the next 15 years within the 

MPA and the fact that the amount of wells drilled between each alternative would vary only 

slightly, impacts between alternatives would also vary only slightly. However, the more acres 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.4 Health and Safety 

4-67 

open to oil and gas development, the more pipelines, power lines, transportation, etc. would be 

needed. Therefore, the alternative with the greatest amount of acreage open for development 

would have a slightly higher risk of hazardous materials impacts than the alternatives with less 

acreage open for development. For example, impacts would be slightly higher between 

Alternative D versus the Proposed Plan as more acres would be open to development and thus 

require more oil and gas infrastructure. 

Mining and exploration operations associated with other minerals such as uranium, copper, sand 

and gravel, are currently a minor user and producer of hazardous materials within the MPA. The 

potentially hazardous materials used in these operations are similar to those used by oil and gas 

development. As with oil and gas, the differences in potential mineral development between the 

alternatives are minor, with the same number of acres of surface-disturbance projected across 

alternatives. Therefore, the potential impacts are similar under all alternatives. 

4.3.4.1.2.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, approximately 1,427,949 acres of BLM administered lands would be open 

for oil and gas development with standard or controlled surface use/timing lease stipulations. 

About 451 wells are projected under this alternative. Oil and gas development under Alternative 

A would pose a hazardous materials risk that results from the use, generation, storage, 

transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous material on 451 wells. 

4.3.4.1.2.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, approximately 808,096 acres of BLM administered lands would be open 

for oil and gas development with standard or controlled surface use/timing lease stipulations. 

About 255 wells are projected under this alternative. This represents a 43% decrease in the total 

amount of acres available for leasing and the number of wells projected compared to Alternative 

A. A 43% decrease in the total number of acres open to oil and gas development and the number 

of wells projected would decrease the use, generation, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of 

hazardous materials. 

4.3.4.1.2.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 1,234,267 acres of BLM administered lands would be 

open for oil and gas development with standard or controlled surface use/timing lease 

stipulations. About 432 wells are projected under this alternative. This also represents a 14% 

decrease in the total amount of acres available for leasing and the number of wells projected 

compared to Alternative A. A 14% decrease in the total number of acres open to oil and gas 

development and the number of wells projected would slightly decrease the use, generation, 

storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. 

4.3.4.1.2.4 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, approximately 1,387,473 acres of BLM administered lands would be open 

for oil and gas development with standard or controlled surface use/timing lease stipulations. 

About 449 wells are projected under this alternative. This also represents a 3% decrease in the 

total amount of acres available for leasing and the number of wells projected compared to 

Alternative A. A 3% increase in the total number of acres open to oil and gas development and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.4 Health and Safety 

4-68 

the number of wells projected would minimally decrease the use, generation, storage, 

transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. 

4.3.4.2 ABANDONED MINE LANDS (AML) 

The MFO recognizes the need to identify and address physical safety and environmental hazards 

at all AML sites on public lands. Under all alternatives, 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. 

In conformance with BLM's long-term strategies and national policies regarding AML, this RMP 

recognizes the need to work with our partners toward identifying and addressing physical safety 

and environmental hazards at all AML sites on public lands. In order to accomplish this longterm goal, criteria under the national policies would be established under all alternatives to assist 

in determining priorities for site and area mitigation and reclamation. See the Alternatives Matrix 

in Chapter 2 (Table 2.1) for AML program priorities. 

4.3.5 LANDS AND REALTY

This section discusses impacts to soils from management actions of other resources and resource 

uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning lands and realty are described in 

Chapter 3. 

Impacts to the lands and realty program stem from those resource decisions that limit or hinder 

permitting rights-of-way (ROWs) or other land-use authorizations, or affect the BLM's ability to 

acquire and dispose of land or make other land tenure adjustments (LTAs). Rights-of-way are 

issued for the placement of roads, power lines, pipelines, communications sites, wind and solar 

energy sites on public lands. Within the RMP, such decisions primarily result from and are 

affected by management actions from the minerals, special designations and wilderness 

characteristics, as well as lands and realty itself. In addition, the wildlife, vegetation, recreation, 

riparian, soils/watersheds, visual resources, special status species, and cultural resources 

programs collectively impact the lands and realty program through a variety of restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities and availability of lands for disposal. As such, potential impacts 

from these program decisions will be analyzed in this chapter. 

The specific program management decisions regarding the following resources and resource uses 

would have negligible impacts (short-term and/or long-term, as well as direct and/or indirect) on 

lands and realty regardless of the alternative chosen: air quality; fire management; health and 

safety; livestock grazing; paleontological resources; and woodlands. The impacts would be 

negligible because protecting air quality, reducing wildland fire risks and the health and safety 

risks of hazardous materials, identifying livestock utilization levels and complying with the 

standards and guidelines for livestock grazing, protecting fossils for scientific study and 

recreational collection, and permitting woodland harvesting would not alter the Moab FO's 

authority to designate ROWs, or to withdraw, acquire, and/or exchange lands under its 

administration. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.5 Lands and Realty 

4-69 

4.3.5.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Wind and solar energy development would be permissible within the MPA. Authorizations for 

wind and solar energy uses would incorporate the best management practices contained in the 

Final Wind Energy Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005d: 2-10 to 2-24) and would be provided via 

ROW grants. Implementation of these measures would provide for the use of MPA lands for 

alternative energy and communications uses while meeting the individual and overall resource 

management goals of the RMP. 

A total of 354,015 acres (within WSAs and the Black Ridge Wilderness Area) are closed to 

surface-disturbing activities and thus exclude the granting of new ROWs with the exception of 

the obligation to grant reasonable access to in held State Trust lands. They are managed as ROW 

exclusion areas under all alternatives. The impacts of these exclusions include precluding the 

placement of ROWs and facilities, limiting future access, potentially delaying or increasing the 

cost of energy supplies, and creating communications dead zones or potentially delaying the 

availability of communications services. Exclusions on the placement of ROWs could also result 

in ROWs being located in less desirable or less economically feasible locations. It should be 

noted that this is a non-discretionary decision. 

ROWs would continue to be granted in certain areas under all of the management alternatives, 

and LTAs would also be allowed under all alternatives except in exclusion areas. Granting of 

ROWs generally would accommodate the placement of facilities, enhance access to facilities and 

lands within the MPA, and promote energy supply/transmission and communications. Granting 

of ROWs would also help to minimize the cost of energy and communications developments, 

and promote trails and recreation. LTAs would help to facilitate access to the MPA and adjoining 

properties, improve the BLM's management ability, reduce conflicts with adjoining landowners 

and surrounding communities, protect sensitive resources when lands are acquired, and 

accommodate surrounding communities' needs. 

Impacts common to all alternatives would also occur due to visual resource management 

decisions, cultural resource management decisions, and special status species management 

decisions. Utility corridors within areas designated as VRM Class II would be managed as VRM 

Class III for utility projects only. Downgrading the VRM class of utility corridors would result in 

fewer restrictions on utility projects and potentially reduce their cost. All ROW grants would 

comply with applicable rules and regulations regarding cultural resources and special status 

species, and the presence of protected resources could alter the route of proposed ROWs. 

Compliance measures and the presence of protected resources are unlikely to prevent the 

development of specific ROWs in available areas. 

4.3.5.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND THE PROPOSED PLAN) 

Several lands and realty decisions would have impacts common to all of the action alternatives, 

or all alternatives other than Alternative A. The MFO would work cooperatively with the State of 

Utah and with private landowners to identify opportunities for LTAs using the criteria 

established for disposal and acquisition of lands. LTAs would facilitate BLM efforts to meet 

management goals and objectives, as set forth in this RMP. The application of minimum-impact 

filming criteria (Appendix B) would streamline the permit application process and encourage 

filming companies to use previously approved locations. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.5 Lands and Realty 

4-70 

In addition, lands and realty decisions would place surface disturbance restrictions on several 

parcels affecting utilities and ROWs. A prohibition on surface disturbance within the Moab 

Canyon portion of the Hwy 191 utility corridor (for other than utility projects) would reduce 

surface use conflicts and maximize the efficiency of new utility projects. Allowing no surfacedisturbing activities within the Three Rivers and Westwater withdrawals would restrict the 

granting of new rights-of-way in these areas. The impacts of these avoidance areas include 

restricting the placement of ROWs and facilities, limiting future access, delaying or increasing 

the cost of energy supplies, and creating communications dead zones or delaying the availability 

of communications services. Limitations on the placement of ROWs could also result in ROWs 

being located in less desirable or less economically feasible locations. 

Finally, the existing utility corridor from Cisco to Highway 191 north of Arches National Park 

would be merged with the I-70 corridor under all action alternatives. Other corridors for utilities 

placement would be developed as part of individual action alternatives. These other utility 

corridors are discussed by alternative in subsequent sections of this chapter. 

4.3.5.3 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

4.3.5.3.1 ALTERNATIVE A

Land and realty decisions include the disposal of BLM lands, acquisition of non-Federal lands, 

modification of utility corridors, and designation of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. Under 

Alternative A, a total of 12,415 acres of land are identified for disposal. These lands meet the 

BLM requirements for disposal and their transfer out of BLM ownership would be consistent 

with the LTA policies of the agency. Additional lands are identified for further study to 

determine if they meet the criteria for disposal. The disposal of 12,415 acres would have a 

negligible impact on the net amount of land under BLM jurisdiction in the MPA. Fewer acres of 

land are identified for disposal under Alternative A than under any other alternative. Disposals 

would help accommodate resource management needs and the needs of adjacent communities. 

In addition to the 354,015 acres (within WSAs and the Black Ridge Wilderness Area) which 

exclude the granting of new ROWs, an additional 38,912 acres on which no surface-disturbing 

activities are allowed would be avoidance areas for new ROWs. Exclusion and avoidance areas 

impact lands and realty by restricting the placement of ROWs and facilities, limiting future 

access, delaying or increasing the cost of energy supplies, and creating communications dead 

zones or delaying the availability of communications services. Limitations on the placement of 

ROWs could also result in ROWs being located in less desirable or less economically feasible 

locations. Alternative A has the smallest area of exclusion and avoidance areas, and thus the 

fewest limitations on the placement of future ROWs. 

Under Alternative A, utility corridors would retain their current size and location. A total of 

32,502 acres would be designated as utility corridors. Alternative A would have approximately 

53% of the acreage of the utility corridor delineated in Alternative B, 20% of the acreage 

delineated in the Proposed Plan, and 16% of the acreage of the utility corridor delineated in 

Alternative D. With the exception of one corridor in Alternative A that has never been used, all 

alternatives contain the same corridors, but vary in width. In the future, decreased width could be 

a limiting factor in the ability to accommodate major utilities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.5 Lands and Realty 

4-71 

A wide variety of other resource management decisions can also affect or limit the placement of 

ROWs and facilities on BLM lands, due to timing or controlled surface use limitations on 

surface-disturbing activities. Resource actions affecting the size and duration of areas limiting 

surface-disturbing activities would occur from , riparian, soil and water, visual resources, special 

status species, and wildlife management decisions. Limitations on surface-disturbing activities 

would preclude or hinder the placement of new ROWs, including possibly increasing their cost, 

limiting access to some areas of the MPA, or delaying the completion of ROWs (in the case of 

seasonal limitations). Alternative A has 389,605 acres where restrictions would be imposed on 

the development and operation of ROWs. However, with 1,038,344 acres available for ROWs 

with no restrictions, Alternative A is the least restrictive of surface-disturbing activities, and thus 

has the least impact on the construction of future ROWs. 

Minerals and energy development decisions would affect the processing ROW grants (primarily 

roads and pipelines). A total of 451 wells are projected to be developed under Alternative A. The 

ROW development associated with 451 wells is similar to that projected for the Proposed Plan 

and Alternative D, with 449 and 451 wells, respectively. However, the ROW development 

associated with the 451 wells in Alternative A is 70% greater than the development associated 

with the 255 wells in Alternative B. 

4.3.5.3.2 ALTERNATIVE B

Under Alternative B, a total of 14,961 acres of land are identified for disposal. The disposal of 

14,961 acres would have a negligible impact on the net amount of land under BLM jurisdiction 

in the MPA or on the MPA's management. Slightly more acres of land would be disposed of 

under Alternative B than under Alternative A, and the same number as under the Proposed Plan 

and Alternative D. Disposals would help accommodate resource management needs and the 

needs of adjacent communities. No lands were targeted for acquisition under any of the 

alternative. Acquisitions must meet the criteria outlined in Appendix A. In general, acquisitions 

would benefit the lands program by improving access and/or BLM management. 

A total of 671,444 acres would be within ROW exclusion areas, and closed to surface-disturbing 

activities under Alternative B. A non-discretionary total of 353,510 acres designated as WSAs 

and Wilderness contribute to this total. In addition, 266,485 acres would be excluded from 

ROWs in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (all 32 areas), and 52,224 acres would 

be closed to protect watersheds in Spanish Valley and Castle Valley. These exclusion areas 

would have the same impacts as described under the Common to All Action alternatives. 

An additional 342,931 acres would be where surface-disturbing activities are limited or are 

avoidance areas for new ROWs. These avoidance areas result from ACEC designation, wildlife 

restrictions, protection of major river corridors, scenic driving corridors, high recreation use 

areas, developed recreation sites, and areas with surface-use conflicts. The general nature of 

impacts due to excluding and avoiding ROWs is the same as described under Alternative A. 

However, Alternative B has the greatest area of exclusion and avoidance areas, and thus the 

greatest limitations on the placement of future ROWs. 

Utility corridor adjustments under Alternative B would bring the total corridor area to 65,865 

acres. These adjustments include the designation of two new utility corridors (the [narrow width] 

I-70 Utility Corridor and the Moab Canyon Utility Corridor) and the splitting of the utility 

corridor south of Spanish Valley into two corridors identical to the existing corridors. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.5 Lands and Realty 

4-72 

Implementation of these decisions would provide more avenues for placement of utilities across 

MPA lands than under Alternative A, but fewer opportunities than under the Proposed Plan and 

Alternative D. 

Limitations on surface-disturbing activities (including ROWs), would have impacts of the same 

nature (though not magnitude) as described under Alternative A. Alternative B has 543,751 acres 

with timing and controlled surface use limitation stipulations. However, with 264,344 acres 

available for ROWs with no restrictions, Alternative B is the most restrictive of ROWs and other 

land-use authorizations, and thus has the most impact on the construction of future ROWs. 

Minerals and energy development decisions would effect the processing of ROW grants. A total 

of 255 wells are projected to be developed in the MPA under Alternative B. This would require 

the fewest ROWs to be granted of any of the Alternatives. Alternative B would have 

approximately 43% less well development than Alternatives A, D, and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.5.3.3 PROPOSED PLAN 

Land disposal and acquisitions under the Proposed Plan would be the same as under Alternatives 

B and D. Thus, slightly more acres of land would be disposed of under the Proposed Plan than 

under Alternative A, and the same number as under Alternatives B and D. Disposals would help 

accommodate resource management needs and the needs of adjacent communities. Acquisitions 

could result in improved access and BLM management. 

A total of 370,250 acres would be within ROW exclusion areas under the Proposed Plan. A nondiscretionary total of 353,520 acres designated as WSAs and Wilderness contribute to this total. 

An additional 217,480 acres where surface-disturbing activities are limited are avoidance areas 

for new ROWs. These avoidance areas result from ACEC designation, management of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics (47,761 acres in Beaver Creek, Fisher Towers and Mary 

Jane Canyon), wildlife restrictions, protection of major river corridors, high recreation use areas, 

developed recreation sites, and areas with surface-use conflicts. The general nature of impacts 

due to excluding and avoiding ROWs is the same as described under Alternative A. However, 

the Proposed Plan has less ROW exclusion and avoidance area than Alternative B, but more area 

than Alternatives A or D; it would therefore have corresponding limitations on the placement of 

future ROWs. 

Utility corridor adjustments under the Proposed Plan would bring the total corridor area to 

173,099 acres. These adjustments include the designation of two new utility corridors (the 

[moderate width] I-70 Utility Corridor and the Moab Canyon Utility Corridor). The two utility 

corridors south of Spanish Valley would be combined into a single corridor with 2 to 3 miles 

separating the two segments. This alternative would have approximately five times the acreage 

of utility corridor as Alternative A, two and a half times the acreage as Alternative B, and 

approximately 85% of the acreage as Alternative D. Thus, implementation of these decisions 

would provide more avenues for placement of utilities across MPA lands than under Alternatives 

A and B, but fewer opportunities than under Alternative D. 

Limitations on surface-disturbing activities (including ROWs) would have impacts of the same 

nature (though not magnitude) as described under Alternative A. The Proposed Plan has 806,994 

acres where restrictions would be imposed on development and operation of ROWs. However, 

with 427,273 acres available for ROWs with no restrictions, the Proposed Plan is less restrictive 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.5 Lands and Realty 

4-73 

on ROWs or other land-use authorizations than Alternative B but more restrictive than 

Alternative A or Alternative D, and would have corresponding impacts on the construction of 

future ROWs. 

The Proposed Plan is less restrictive of surface-disturbing activities than Alternative B, but more 

restrictive than Alternatives A or D. The processing of ROW grants in support of 432 

wells under the Proposed Plan would be similar to Alternatives A and D, and greater than under 

Alternative B. 

4.3.5.3.4 ALTERNATIVE D

Land disposal and acquisitions under Alternative D would be the same as under Alternative B 

and the Proposed Plan. Thus, slightly more acres of land would be disposed of under Alternative 

D than under Alternative A, and the same number as under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. 

Disposals would help accommodate resource management needs and the needs of adjacent 

communities. Acquisitions could result in improved access and BLM management. 

In addition to the non-discretionary 354,015 acres in WSAs and designated wilderness that are 

exclusion areas, an additional 84,772 acres where surface-disturbing activities are limited are 

avoidance areas for new ROWs. These avoidance areas result from protection of major river 

corridors, and areas with surface-use conflicts. The general nature of impacts due to excluding 

and avoiding ROWs is the same as described under Alternative A. However, Alternative D has 

less ROW exclusion and avoidance areas than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, but more 

area than Alternative A; it would therefore have corresponding limitations on the placement of 

future ROWs. 

Utility corridor adjustments under Alternative D would bring the total corridor area to 204,168 

acres. These adjustments include the designation of two new utility corridors (the [wide width] I70 Utility Corridor and the Moab Canyon Utility Corridor). The I-70 Utility Corridor under this 

alternative would differ from the same corridor under the Proposed Plan in that the corridor 

would be twice as wide as in the Proposed Plan. As with the Proposed Plan, the two utility 

corridors south of Spanish Valley would be combined into a single corridor with 2 to 3 miles 

separating the two segments under Alternative D. Implementation of these decisions would 

provide the most avenues for placement of utilities across MPA lands of any of the alternatives. 

Limitations on surface-disturbing activities, including ROWs, would have impacts of the same 

nature (though not magnitude) as described under Alternative A. Alternative D has 590,442 acres 

where restrictions would be imposed on the development and operation of ROWs. However, 

with 797,031 acres available for ROWs with no restrictions, Alternative D is less restrictive on 

ROWs than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, but more restrictive than Alternative A. It 

would therefore have corresponding impacts on the construction of future ROWs. 

In general, Alternative D is less restrictive of surface-disturbing activities than Alternative B and 

the Proposed Plan, but more restrictive than Alternative A. 

The processing of ROW grants in support of 448 wells under Alternative D would be similar to 

Alternative A and the Proposed Plan, and greater than under Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-74 

4.3.6 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

This section discusses impacts to livestock grazing from management actions of other resources 

and resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning livestock grazing are 

described in Chapter 3. Impacts on resources and resource uses resulting from implementation of 

the livestock grazing program are discussed in those particular resource sections of this chapter. 

Impacts on livestock grazing activities are generally the result of activities that affect forage 

levels. Conducting vegetation treatments would likely have the greatest effect on livestock 

grazing, as such treatments could increase vegetation production and forage available for 

livestock. Activities that result in surface disturbance (e.g., mineral development, ROW 

construction, and recreation) or management of resources that results in limiting surface 

disturbance (e.g., fish and wildlife, vegetation, water resources, soil resources, and visual 

resources) would also impact livestock grazing by affecting forage levels. Management of fire 

would affect livestock grazing by either preserving or increasing available forage for livestock 

over the long term. 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Livestock grazing will be managed in accordance with the Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah. 

• Livestock grazing will occur throughout the majority of the decision area. 

• In the short term, actual forage use in the decision area may increase due to improving range 

condition and range recovery from recent drought. Over the long-term, forage demand may 

continue at historic levels. 

Under all alternatives, there are no measurable impacts to livestock grazing from the following 

resources: air quality, human health and safety, paleontology, special designations (Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern, National Historic Trail, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness), 

visual resources, and woodlands management. Therefore, the impacts of management actions 

applicable to these resources will not be further analyzed. 

4.3.6.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Grazing practices would be modified if a grazing allotment fails to meet any of the BLM's Utah 

Standards for Rangeland Health (see Appendix Q), where it is determined that livestock grazing 

management practices are a significant factor in this failure. Modifications could include a 

change in stocking rate, kind of livestock, season of use, length of season, temporary closures, or 

any combination of these. These modifications could mean a temporary or permanent loss of 

acres or AUMs available to livestock for grazing in order to repair or rehabilitate an area, and to 

progress towards meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Data collected from rangeland monitoring studies would assist the Field Manager in the decision 

of whether or not to restrict livestock access to an area. These kinds of closures, although they 

cause a temporary loss of accessible forage, are implemented with the goal of restoring the area 

so that it can continue to support grazing and other resource uses. 

Under all alternatives, certain allotments could undergo season-of-use changes to facilitate 

grazing management while maintaining rangeland health standards. Changes in season of use do 

not affect forage, but they do impact the timing of its availability. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-75 

Livestock grazing would not be permitted in the following areas under all alternatives (see Table 

4.37): Poison Spider (Arth's Pasture Allotment), Between the Creeks Allotment, Castle Valley 

allotment, along the Colorado River between Hittle and to the North of Dewey Bridge, along 

Highway 128 from 191 to Castle Valley Road, along U.S. 191 from Moab to Highway 313, 

along Highway 279, Kane Spring Canyon between the open valley and the Colorado River, 

North Sand Flats Allotment, and South Sand Flats Allotment. The reduction in acreage available 

to livestock associated with these actions will be compared below. It was determined that the 

rationale provided and the analyses conducted under the NEPA documents and Plan Amendment 

which rendered these areas not available for grazing were still valid. 

Table 4.37. Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under All Alternatives 

Exclosure Allotment(s) Acreage AUMs 

Arth's Pasture portion Arth's Pasture 7,634 425 

Between the Creeks Between the 

Creeks 

3,960 221 

North Sand Flats North Sand Flats 18,246 798 

South Sand Flats South Sand Flats 10,209 592 

Castle Valley Castle Valley 6,074 190 

Along the Colorado River between Hittle and to 

north of Dewey Bridge 

Professor Valley 400 0 

Along Highway 128 from 191 to Castle Valley 

Road; along U.S. 191 from Moab to Highway 

313; along Hwy. 279 

None 1,139 0 

Kane Spring Canyon between the open valley 

and the Colorado River 

Kane Creek Springs 558 0 

Total 48,220 2,226 

All actions would be the same as those defined in the 1985 RMP with the exceptions of laws, 

regulations, and policies enacted since 1985 that affect management of the resources under all 

alternatives. Actions common to all alternatives that would affect livestock grazing by directly 

decreasing or increasing acres and AUMs available to livestock are as follows: 

• Wildfires would be allowed to burn according to the parameters of the Fire Management Plan 

unless they threaten Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas, threatened, endangered, or 

special status species, high priority sub-basins or watersheds, cultural resources and/or 

cultural landscapes, or sensitive ecosystems. If an area does not have any of the above 

resources, it may be allowed to burn. If a wildfire occurs on rangeland, it may result in a 

temporary loss of acres available to livestock. BLM guidelines usually require a burned area 

to be closed to livestock for a minimum of one complete growing season after a fire or until 

adequate vegetation rehabilitation is complete (BLM 1997a). 

• Any disposals, exchanges, or acquisitions of public rangelands could change acres available 

for livestock grazing. 

• Construction of any new wind, solar or communication sites would result in a temporary loss 

of acres and AUMs during construction and a permanent loss where the structure is sited. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-76 

• Surface-disturbing activities due to minerals extraction could lead to temporary and long 

term losses of acres accessible for livestock grazing. 

• Grazing would not be allowed on developed recreation sites. New recreation sites to be 

developed under this RMP would be excluded from grazing, in accordance with current 

management practices. 

• Construction of new roads or cross country OHV travel could decrease acres and AUMs 

available for livestock. 

• Since livestock grazing can have deteriorative impacts on riparian ecosystems (Armour et al. 

1994), " ... it may be necessary to temporarily restrict livestock use on riparian areas 

determined to be 'Functioning at Risk' and in a static or downward trend or 'Not 

Functioning'." In these cases, restrictions might be implemented to help the recovery of the 

site, meaning a temporary loss of acres available to livestock through seasonal restrictions, 

closures, and/or forage utilization limits. 

• Any actions, including improper grazing, that compromise water or soil quality in sensitive 

areas would be avoided. Improper livestock grazing can adversely alter ecosystems by 

increasing soil compaction, disturbing soil, and increasing soil erosion (Belsky and 

Blumenthal 1997), and therefore all uses would be managed to minimize and mitigate 

damage to soils. Grazing would be managed to minimize impacts to saline soils and reduce 

salinity in the Colorado River drainage in the following allotments: Athena, Cisco, Cisco 

Mesa, Crescent Canyon, Highland, Monument Wash, and Thompson Canyon. This could 

lead to a decrease in acres available to livestock through seasonal restrictions or closures. 

• Rangelands that have been reseeded and mechanically treated would be ungrazed for a 

minimum of two complete growing seasons following treatment. This could lead to a 

decrease in acres available to livestock through temporary closures of allotments following 

vegetation treatments. 

• In general, when livestock grazing threatens to damage the habitats of special status species 

and species that are listed, or proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act, changes would be made to grazing schedules or acreage available 

to livestock. 

• Construction of any new range improvements to benefit wildlife, such as precipitation 

catchments or development of new springs, would reduce acres by the amount of rangeland 

surface area replaced. However, they could increase the long-term available forage for 

livestock. 

• Any future proposal for a change in kind of livestock from cattle to sheep in Rocky Mountain 

or desert bighorn sheep habitat would be denied. This would have no impact in acres 

available to cattle. 

• The noise, dust, and human presence associated with any type of construction activity could 

also temporarily decrease the acreages or AUMs, although the degree to which these 

disturbances would affect livestock would be difficult to gauge. 

• If an allotment occurs in recognized Rocky Mountain or desert bighorn sheep habitat, a 

change in class of livestock from cattle to sheep would not be authorized. Sheep can transmit 

diseases such as pneumonia to native bighorn sheep, which is thought to have caused high 

numbers of bighorn fatalities (Foreyt and Jessup 1982; Jessup 1985). Forage and water 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-77 

competition by livestock also creates stress to bighorn sheep, and all such interactions would 

be avoided (Desert Bighorn Council Technical Staff 1990). 

4.3.6.2 ALTERNATIVE A 

The 48,220 acres (and 2,226 AUMs) listed above under Actions Common to All Alternatives 

would remain not available for grazing under this alternative. Table 4.38 lists additional areas 

and allotments that would not be available for grazing under Alternative A. 

78,612 additional acres would not be available for grazing, making a total of 126,832 acres and 

4,168AUMs are not available for grazing under Alternative A (Please see Map 2-4-A-Areas Not 

Available for Livestock Grazing-Alternative A). 

These exclusions lead to a total of 1,695,621 acres available for livestock grazing under this 

alternative (93.0% of total BLM lands in the MPA), and approximately 107,071 AUMs (96.2% 

of total current AUMs of forage available). 

Table 4.38. Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under Alternative A 

Exclosure Allotment(s) Acreage AUMs 

Bogart Bogart 14,744 209 

Cottonwood Cottonwood 27,193 900 

Diamond Diamond 18,620 588 

Pear Park Pear Park 14,201 200 

Spring Creek Spring Creek 1550 45 

Beaver Creek upper drainage Beaver Creek 2,304 0 

Total 78,612 1,942 

4.3.6.2.1 IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Livestock grazing on portions of allotments with saline soils would be adjusted to reduce impacts 

on highly saline soils and reduce salinity in the Colorado River drainage. These changes could 

decrease the amount of acres available to livestock. 

4.3.6.2.2 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Areas open to cross country OHV travel would result in loss of vegetation available for livestock 

grazing. In this alternative, 620,212 acres are open to cross country travel, possibly resulting in 

the destruction of forage.

4.3.6.2.3 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Land treatments on 11 allotments (see Alternatives Matrix) would be implemented to increase 

available forage by 8514 AUMs to allow for increased use by livestock and wildlife (split evenly 

where both are present). Prescribed fire and seeding would be implemented on approximately 

14,149 acres for the same purpose increasing AUMs by approximately 1,700 for livestock and 

wildlife. These vegetation treatments would cause a temporary reduction in the number of acres 

available to livestock, as it is necessary to leave treated rangelands ungrazed for a minimum of 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-78 

two complete growing seasons. However, these treatments could result in an increase in 

available forage for livestock and future increases in acres available to livestock. 

4.3.6.2.4 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

To improve pronghorn habitat grazing could be excluded from May 15 through June 20 or 

during extreme snow conditions. Changes in season of use could be made on fawning grounds to 

reduce disturbance to the pronghorn. 

Livestock grazing in pronghorn fawning areas would be excluded from May 1 till June 30 in the 

Hatch Point HMP. Changes in season of use, number of livestock (27% reduction), change in 

livestock class from sheep to cattle, fencing, seeding, and rest/rotation would be recommended to 

improve pronghorn habitat. Rest/rotation would be implemented on the three pastures of the 

Hatch Point Allotment. These changes to grazing management could reduce acres available to 

livestock. 

Livestock adjustment techniques would be implemented on Horsethief Point, Spring Canyon 

Bottom, and Ten-Mile Point allotments to improve or maintain bighorn sheep habitat. This could 

mean a change in the number of acres available to livestock. 

4.3.6.3 ALTERNATIVE B 

The 48,220 acres (and 2,226 AUMs) listed above under Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

would remain not available for grazing under this alternative. Table 4.39 lists additional areas 

and allotments that would be not available for grazing under Alternative B. 

Table 4.39. Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under Alternative B 

Exclosure Allotment(s) Acreage AUMs 

Bogart Bogart 14,744 209 

Cottonwood Cottonwood 27,193 900 

Diamond Diamond 18,620 588 

Pear Park Pear Park 14,201 200 

Spring Creek Spring Creek 1,550 45 

Beaver Creek upper drainage Beaver Creek 2,309 0 

Professor Valley Professor Valley 18,966 378 

Ida Gulch Ida Gulch 3,612 112 

River River 386 7 

Mill Creek Mill Creek 3,921 137 

Total 105,502 2576 

Thus, an additional 105,502 acres would be not be available for grazing in Alternative B, making 

a total of 153,722 acres and 4,802 AUMs not available for grazing (Map 2-4-B-Areas Not 

Available for Livestock Grazing-Alternative B). About 106,437 AUMs remain available for 

grazing under Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-79 

For purposes of analysis, Table 4.40 shows the following areas could also be unavailable for 

grazing under this alternative. 

These decisions (excluding the riparian acres and AUMs) lead to a total of 1,668,732 acres

available for livestock grazing under this alternative (91.6% of the MPA), and 106,437 AUMs of 

forage (95.7% of current available forage), both measurements being similar to those under 

Alternative A. 

Table 4.40. Riparian Acres Not Available for Grazing and AUMs of Forage under 

Alternative B1 

Exclusion Allotment(s) Acreage AUMs 

Seven Mile Canyon* Dalton Wells, Arth's Pasture, Big Flat/Ten Mile 459 2 

Hatch Wash * Hatch Point 476 10 

East Coyote Wash * Lisbon, East Coyote 391 56 

Kane Springs Kane Springs Canyon, Behind the Rocks 746 21 

Hatch Wash Hatch Point 476 10 

Lower Gray Canyon* Rattlesnake 1,628 84 

Riparian areas in Mill Creek 

Canyon* 

Mill Creek 42 1 

Day Canyon* Potash 22 1 

Ten Mile Wash* Ten Mile Point 434 18 

Total 4,422 203 

1Acreages are for BLM land only. 

*Grazing permits have not been authorized previously in the Pear Park and Spring Creek allotments, and therefore, estimations for 

available forage in AUMs are not available. 

4.3.6.3.1 IMPACTS OF MINERALS MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Under Alternative B, it is predicted that 426 acres of land would be disturbed annually due to 

minerals extraction. This is 253 fewer acres than Alternative A and, similar to Alternative A, 

represents a negligible decrease in the total forage available in the MPA. 

4.3.6.3.2 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Under Alternative B, 266,485 acres in 32 areas would be managed to protect their wilderness 

characteristics values. Livestock developments required through Standards and Guides 

assessments would be required to meet VRM II objectives as well as the naturalness criteria for 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This could preclude development of certain 

surface-disturbing rangeland projects, or require placement outside the wilderness characteristics 

areas. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-80 

4.3.6.3.3 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

The following portions of allotments could be not available for grazing (in order to further 

riparian management goals) under this alternative, in addition to those listed in Alternative A: 

Ten Mile from Dripping Springs to the Green River, Day Canyon, Mill Creek, Seven Mile 

Canyon, East Coyote, Cane Springs, Lower Gray Canyon, and Hatch Wash. Managed livestock 

grazing in all riparian areas would be allowed, although riparian areas would be managed to meet 

PFC. 

This could reduce the numbers of acres available to livestock grazing under Alternative B by 

4,422 acres and 203 AUMs as compared to Alternative A. 

4.3.6.3.4 IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Under Alternative B, some sites could undergo season-of-use changes in order to minimize 

impacts to saline soils. 

Grazing systems and AMPs would be used to minimize impacts to saline soils and reduce 

salinity in the Colorado River drainage in the following allotments: Agate, Big Flat-Ten Mile, 

Cisco Mesa, Corral Wash, Crescent Canyon, Floy Creek, Harley Dome, Highlands, and San 

Arroyo. These new AMPs may reduce acreage available to livestock if site closures are 

determined to be necessary. 

4.3.6.3.5 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Areas open to cross country OHV travel would result in loss of vegetation available for livestock 

grazing. In this alternative, 0 acres are open to cross country travel. This action could result in 

potential increases in forage. 

4.3.6.3.6 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Approximately 46,307 acres of vegetation treatments would be maintained to increase available 

forage. This is 20,818 acres (31%) less than Alternative A and is the same as Alternatives C and 

D. Vegetation treatments under this alternative would be used primarily to benefit wildlife. 

The areas set aside to be treated may be unavailable for grazing temporarily, but improvements 

to the rangeland may result in more acres available for grazing. This would be especially likely if 

an area is rehabilitated to the point of meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health where 

previously it was not available for grazing due to failing to meet the standards. However, these 

treated areas would not necessarily lead to an increase in acres available for livestock. Potential 

changes in forage available for livestock would be analyzed at the project implementation level 

with site-specific NEPA. 

4.3.6.3.7 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Spring livestock use could be limited on 188,975 acres on allotments within crucial pronghorn 

habitat in the Cisco Desert to encourage forb production. For purposes of analysis, this could 

lead to a total loss of 633 days (out of 1,691 total), or roughly a 37% decrease in livestock season 

of use in this area in comparison to Alternative A. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-81 

Pronghorn fawning areas in the Hatch Point HMP area could not be grazed from May 1 until 

June 30. 

For purposes of analysis, this could lead to a total loss of 86 days (out of 605 total), or roughly a 

14.2% decrease in livestock season of use in this area in comparison to Alternative A. 

Livestock utilization could be adjusted to protect desert bighorn sheep lambing areas, on North 

River and Taylor Allotments (Dry Mesa Pasture). 

For purposes of analysis, this could lead to a total loss of 137 days (out of 712 total), or roughly a 

19.2% decrease in livestock season of use in this area in comparison to Alternative A. 

Management of rangeland in the 458,242 acres of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat from 

the Green River to the Colorado border would include improving or maintaining habitat and 

vegetative conditions to benefit the bighorn sheep while maintaining or improving the overall 

ecological condition of the area. Conversion of sheep to cattle on allotments that are in the 

458,242 acres of managed Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat would be supported. This 

action would not result in overall AUM reduction, but would be a loss of opportunity for 

ranchers who graze domestic sheep. 

4.3.6.4 PROPOSED PLAN

The 48,220 acres (and 2,226 AUMs) listed above under Actions Common to All Alternatives 

would remain not available for grazing under this alternative (see Table 4.37). Table 4.41 lists 

additional areas and allotments that would not be available for grazing under the Proposed Plan. 

Table 4.41. Additional Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under the 

Proposed Plan 

Exclosure Allotment(s) Acreage AUMs 

Bogart Bogart 14,744 209 

Cottonwood Cottonwood 27,193 900 

Diamond Diamond 18,620 588 

Portions of Professor Valley, 

River Professor Valley, River 1,467 0 

Mill Creek Mill Creek 3,921 137 

Ida Gulch Ida Gulch 3,612 112 

Pear Park Pear Park 14,201 588 

Total 83,758 2,534 

Thus, an additional 83,758 acres would not be available for grazing, making a total of 132,047 

acres and 4,760 AUMs not available for grazing under the Proposed Plan (Map 2-4-C-Areas not 

available for livestock grazing under the Proposed Plan). 

Table 4.42 shows the riparian areas that could be unavailable for grazing under this alternative. 

These decisions (excluding the riparian acres and AUMs) lead to a total of 1,690,481 acres

available for livestock grazing under this alternative (92.8% of the total MPA), and 106,479 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-82 

AUMs (95.7% of current estimated forage amounts), both numbers being similar to Alternative 

A totals. 

Table 4.42. Acres Unavailable for Grazing and AUMs of Forage under the Proposed Plan 

Exclusion Allotment(s) Acreage AUMs 

Seven Mile Canyon* Dalton Wells, Arth's Pasture, 

Big Flat/ Ten Mile 

459 2 

East Coyote Wash* East Coyote, Lisbon 391 56 

Riparian areas in Mill Creek 

canyon* 

Mill Creek 42 1 

Day Canyon* Potash 22 1 

Ten Mile Wash, downstream 

from Dripping Springs* 

Ten Mile Point 434 18 

Total 1,169 78 

*These areas are considered for restriction using Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Management decisions would be the same as for Alternative A, with the exceptions outlined in 

the sections below. 

4.3.6.4.1 IMPACTS OF MINERALS MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Under the Proposed Plan, it is predicted that 701 acres of land would be disturbed annually due 

to minerals extraction. This is 22 more acres than Alternative A (3.3% increase), but still less 

than 1% of the total lands in the MPA. 

4.3.6.4.2 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Under the Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres in Beaver Creek, Fisher Towers and Mary Jane Canyon 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect their wilderness 

characteristics values. Livestock developments required through Standards and Guides 

assessments would be required to meet VRM II objectives as well as the naturalness criteria for 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. This could preclude development of certain 

surface-disturbing rangeland projects, or require placement outside the wilderness characteristics 

areas. 

4.3.6.4.3 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

The same riparian areas would be available for grazing as under Alternative B, except Lower 

Gray Canyon, Kane Springs and Hatch Wash, which would remain available. This is 1,169 more 

riparian acres (and 78 AUMs) potentially not available for grazing than under Alternative A. 

4.3.6.4.4 IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Grazing systems would be used and AMPs would be developed to minimize impacts to saline 

soils in the following allotments: Agate, Athena, Big Flat – Ten Mile, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Coal 

Canyon, Corral Wash, Crescent Canyon, Floy Creek, Harley Dome, Highlands, Horse Canyon, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-83 

Little Grand, Lone Cone, Monument, San Arroyo. This could result in a temporary decrease in 

acres available to livestock. 

4.3.6.4.5 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Areas open to cross country OHV travel would result in loss of vegetation available for livestock 

grazing. In this alternative, 1,866 acres are open to cross country travel; forage could be affected 

on this acreage. 

4.3.6.4.6 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

The same amount of vegetation treatments would be maintained as outlined under Alternatives B 

and D. The treatments would be used to benefit wildlife and livestock equally. 

4.3.6.4.7 IMPACTS WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Spring grazing would be adjusted on a case-by-case basis on 188,975 acres on allotments within 

crucial pronghorn habitat in the Cisco Desert to encourage forb production. These allotments 

include Athena, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Harley Dome, San Arroyo, and Corral Wash. 

Where applicable, a rest/rotation of pasture or other grazing management systems would be 

developed in allotments within crucial pronghorn habitat to encourage forb production prior to 

fawning. Change in livestock class from sheep to cattle, fencing, seeding and rest/rotation to 

improve habitat would be encouraged. 

To protect desert bighorn sheep lambing areas, Standards for Rangeland Health would be 

employed on the North River and Taylor allotments (Dry Mesa Pasture) For purposes of 

analysis, this leads to a total loss of 92 days (out of 712 total), or roughly a 12.9% decrease in 

livestock season of use in this area in comparison to Alternative A. 

Management of rangeland in 310,726 acres of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat from the 

Green River to the Colorado border would include improving or maintaining habitat and 

vegetative conditions to benefit the bighorn sheep while maintaining or improving the overall 

ecological condition of the area. Conversion of sheep to cattle on allotments in 310,726 acres of 

managed Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat would be supported. Once conversion occurs, 

reconversion (from cattle to sheep) would not be allowed. This action would not result in overall 

AUM reduction, but would be a loss of opportunity for ranchers who graze domestic sheep. 

4.3.6.5 ALTERNATIVE D 

The 48,220 acres (and 2,226 AUMs) listed above under Actions Common to All Alternatives 

would remain not available for grazing under this alternative. Table 4.43 lists additional areas 

and allotments that would not be available for grazing under Alternative D. 

Table 4.43. Additional Acres and AUMs of Forage Not Available to Grazing under 

Alternative D 

Exclosure Allotment(s) Acreage AUMs 

Mill Creek Mill Creek 3,921 137 

Total 3,921 137 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-84 

Thus, an additional 3,921 acres would not be available for grazing, making a total of 52,141 

acres and 2,363 AUMs not available for grazing under Alternative D (Map 2-4-D-Areas Not 

Available for Livestock Grazing - Alternative D). 

These exclusions lead to a total of 1,770,314 acres available for livestock grazing under this 

alternative (97.1% of the MPA) and 108,876 AUMs of forage (97.9% of estimated totals in the 

MPA), which is the most amount acreage and AUMs of any alternative. 

4.3.6.5.1 IMPACTS OF MINERALS MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

It is predicted that 743 acres of land would be disturbed annually due to minerals extraction 

under Alternative D. This is less than 1% of the MPA and is virtually identical to the total 

percent of lands that would be impacted under Alternative A. 

4.3.6.5.2 IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Grazing systems would be managed to minimize impacts to saline soils and reduce salinity in the 

Colorado River drainage in the following allotments: Athena, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Crescent 

Canyon, Highland Monument Wash, and Thompson Canyon. This may result in temporary 

decreases in acres available to livestock if site closures are determined necessary. 

4.3.6.5.3 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Areas open to cross country OHV travel would result in loss of vegetation available for livestock 

grazing. In this alternative, 3,064 acres are open to cross country travel and the forage on them 

would be subject to impacts. 

4.3.6.5.4 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

The same amount of vegetation treatments would be maintained as outlined under Alternatives B 

and C. Vegetation treatments would be used primarily to benefit livestock under this alternative. 

4.3.6.5.5 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE/FISHERIES MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON LIVESTOCK 

GRAZING

Seasons of use would be adjusted to protect desert bighorn sheep lambing areas in the same areas 

as outlined under the Proposed Plan. 

Rangeland from the Green River to the Colorado border (194,560 acres) would be managed as 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat. This management would include maintaining or 

improving habitat and vegetative conditions to benefit bighorn sheep while maintaining or 

improving the ecological condition of rangelands. Any future proposal for a change in kind of 

livestock from cattle to sheep in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat would be denied. This 

action would not result in overall AUM reduction, but would be a loss of opportunity for 

ranchers who graze domestic sheep. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-85 

4.3.6.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Alternative B would have the least number of AUMs available of all the alternatives followed by 

Alternative A, the Proposed Plan, and Alternative D respectively. Table 4.44 summarizes grazing 

exclusions by AUMs and the differences by alternatives. 

Table 4.44. Total AUMs of Forage Available and Not Available to Livestock by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

AUMs Available 107,071 106,437 107,179 108,876 

AUMs Not Available 4,168 4,802 4,060 2,363 

Compared to A -- +634 -108 -1805 

Compared to B -634 -- -742 -2,439 

Compared to the 

Proposed Plan 

+108 +742 -- -1,697 

Compared to D +1,805 +2,439 +1,697 -- 

Correspondingly Alternative B also has the fewest number of acres available for grazing 

followed by Alternative A, the Proposed Plan, and Alternative D, respectively. Table 4.45 

summarizes grazing exclusions by acres. 

Table 4.45. Total Acreage Available and Not Available to Livestock by Alternative1

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

Acreage Available to 

Grazing 

1,695,621 1,668,732 1,708,294 1,770,314 

Acreage Not 

Available to Grazing 

126,907 153,797 114,234 52,214 

Average annual disturbance caused by minerals extraction would have the following impacts in 

terms of acres under each alternative (Table 4.46). 

Table 4.46. Annual Average Acres of Disturbance Due to Minerals Extraction Activities 

Under All Alternatives, as well as Percent of Total Planning Area 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative D 

Annual acres of disturbance 679 417 638 672 

Percent of total planning area <1.0% <1.0% <1.0% <1.0% 

As shown, a very small percentage of the MPA would be affected by disturbance (i.e., loss of 

vegetation) each year. There is very little difference in yearly average acres of disturbance 

 

1

 Numbers are approximate due to GIS calculation variances. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

4-86 

between alternatives, so there would thus be very little difference in potential impacts by 

alternative. 

4.3.7 MINERALS

This section presents the environmental consequences of resource management decisions, 

proposed under each of the four alternatives described in Chapter 2, upon mineral resource 

development. Existing conditions concerning minerals are described in Chapter 3. In accordance 

with BLM policy and its recognition of the National Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 

2000 (EPCA), as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, mineral resource development would be allowed 

throughout the MPA subject to standard lease terms unless precluded by other program 

prescriptions, as specified in this PRMP/EIS. 

Stipulations would be developed in the RMP, where necessary, to mitigate the impacts of oil and 

gas and other mineral activity (see Appendix C). The stipulations identified in Appendix C 

would apply to all surface-disturbing activities, aside from the exception, modification, and 

waiver situations as determined by an Authorized Officer. The area-specific restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities listed in Table C.1 vary by alternative and detail limits on timing, 

surface use, and occupancy, as well as closures, throughout the MPA. Impacts to the mineral 

program from these stipulations are discussed throughout this section under the applicable 

impacting program. 

4.3.7.1 RESOURCE DECISIONS THAT WOULD HAVE NEGLIGIBLE IMPACTS ON MINERAL 

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Negligible impacts to mineral resource development would result from air quality, cultural 

resources, fire, health and safety, livestock grazing, travel, or woodlands management decisions. 

The impacts would be negligible because maintaining air quality within NAAQS thresholds 

through appropriate mitigation; identifying, protecting, and preserving cultural resources, and 

complying with section 106; reducing wildland fire risks; reducing the risks of hazardous spills, 

and maintaining safety around AML sites; establishing utilization levels and applying grazing 

standards and guidelines; designating recreational OHV access within the planning area; and 

permitting woodland harvesting would not reduce the opportunities for minerals leasing or for 

the exploration and development of mineral resources. Therefore, the impacts of management 

actions for these resources or programs on mineral resource development will not be analyzed 

further in this section. 

4.3.7.2 ASSUMPTIONS

For this analysis, it is assumed that: 

• 50% of the wells drilled would be productive, 

• the remaining 50% would be abandoned and reclaimed, and 

• revegetation would be successful within a scope of 10 years. 

In addition, the surface-disturbance associated with geophysical exploration would be 

successfully reclaimed within a scope of 10 years. 

Most geophysical exploration would occur in the Big Flat-Hatch Point, Lisbon Valley, and 

Eastern Paradox RFD areas. This exploration would beneficially impact mineral resource 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-87 

development and production, in that it would refresh or increase the data available for making 

prudent mineral resource development decisions (BLM 2005f). This beneficial impact cannot be 

quantified further because it is not possible to predict the number of wells that would ultimately 

result from this exploration or to predict whether such data would remain useful as datagathering technologies advance over the next 15 years. 

The RFD prepared in anticipation of this RMP utilizes data on past and current development to 

predict future development for all lands in the MPA, both BLM lands and non-BLM lands (BLM 

2005e, 2005f). The RFD is a hypothetical scenario which allows the discussion to focus the 

analysis on the potential impacts. For purposes of analysis, the average acreage of disturbance 

per well (including the well pad, roads, and pipelines) was estimated to be 15 acres. Therefore, 

15 acres is assumed to be the projected, approximate disturbance per well under each alternative. 

The percentage of all lands in the MPA determined to be administered by the BLM was 69.7% 

(Table 4.37). Assuming the RFD applies uniformly across all lands in the MPA, any calculations 

made, in conjunction with the disturbance per well number (15 acres) and the alternatives matrix 

in Chapter 2, can be used to estimate potential mineral resource development impacts (measured 

in number of wells and resulting acres of surface disturbance) on BLM lands for each alternative. 

It was assumed that the number of wells likely to be drilled under each alternative would be 

proportional to the acreage of land open for mineral resource development under that alternative. 

For example, if an alternative had 90% of BLM lands in the MPA open for development, it 

would be assumed that 90% of the RFD on BLM lands would be drilled under that alternative. 

Table 4.47 shows the acreages of and predicted number of wells on BLM lands within the seven 

RFD development areas, which are to be the focus of this analysis and of future oil and gas 

development within the MPA. 

Table 4.47. Baseline/RFD Acreages of Lands and Average Predicted Number of Oil and 

Gas Wells in the Seven RFD Areas, over 15 Years 

Acreage Wells RFD Area 

Total BLM 

BLM% 

of Total Total BLM 

Bigflat – Hatch Point 470,133 391,395 83 60 50 

Book Cliffs 326,070 255,074 78 135 105 

Eastern Paradox 1,121,340 675,577 60 60 36 

Greater Cisco 292,952 235,620 80 247 198 

Lisbon Valley 153,916 114,494 74 75 56 

Roan Cliffs 329,841 95,849 29 8 2 

Salt Wash 65,246 54,526 84 15 13 

Total1 2,759,498 1,822,535 69.7 600 459

Due to rounding, table totals may differ from the sum of the rows above. 

Using the above method, similar calculations can be made regarding impacts of geophysical 

exploration, in conjunction with the disturbance associated with linear miles of source line within 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-88 

the MPA (disturbance of 3,600 acres caused by 2,000 linear miles of source line; BLM 2005f). 

Table 4.48 shows the acreages for development of BLM lands throughout the MPA. 

Locatable and salable mineral resource development, in conjunction with the acres of 

disturbance within the MPA (disturbance of 350 acres caused by locatable mineral resource 

development and of 390 acres caused by salable mineral resource development; BLM 2005e) 

will be applied uniformly across the alternatives. 

Short-term and long-term impacts are discussed in the introduction to Chapter 4. Because the 

impact indicators for this resource are number of wells and the number of acres available for 

mineral resource development over the life of the RMP, short-term impacts are not distinguished 

from long-term impacts. 

The analysis of the impacts of NSO stipulations assumes that development and production of the 

underlying mineral resources are administratively available by directional drilling from outside 

the area. The extent of directional drilling technology is currently approximately 1 mile in this 

region; therefore, for this RMP, 1 mile was assumed. Because the resources underlying NSOstipulated surfaces are more difficult and costly to extract, developers are less likely to opt to 

develop in NSO areas if less restrictive leases are available to them. For these reasons, NSO 

lands experience far less development than lands with standard lease terms and special 

stipulations (timing limitations and controlled surface use). Since the unit of analysis in this 

section is acres of disturbance, and since NSO areas would not undergo surface disturbance, 

NSO and closed acreage has been combined in the analysis of surface disturbance. Acreage has 

been divided into those lands which allow surface disturbance and those lands on which surface 

disturbance is not allowed, and analysis performed on those two categories. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4-89 

Table 4.48. Acres of BLM Lands Available for Mineral Resource Development under Each Alternative 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

LEASABLE MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING OIL AND GAS Standard Lease Terms 1,038,344 264,344 427,273 Special Stipulations (CSU and TL) 389,605 543,751 806,994 Subtotal of Open Lands 1,427,949 808,096 1,234,267 No Surface Occupancy (NSO) Stipulations 38,912 342,931 217,480 Closed to Leasing* 353,293 671,444 370,250 Subtotal of Closed Lands** 392,205 1,014,375 587,730 All BLM Lands 1,820,154 1,822,471 1,821,997 SALABLE MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (MINERAL MATERIAL DISPOSAL) Standard Terms/Conditions 1,466,861 264,344 427,273 Special Conditions (CSU and TL) 543,751 806,994 Subtotal of Open Lands 1,466,861 808,097 1,234,267 NSO 342,931 217,480 Closed 671,444 370,250 Subtotal of Closed Lands** 1,014,375 587,730 LOCATABLE MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (MINERAL ENTRY) Open, Standard Terms/Conditions 1,389,531 268,873 427,273 Open, Special Conditions (CSU and TL) 1,120,658 962,258 Open within WSAs, Subject to IMP 353,510 353,510 353,510 Subtotal of Open Lands 1,743,041 1,743,041 1,743,041 Withdrawn 78,333 78,333 78,333 

* More than 350,000 of these acres are closed due to WSA designation (BLM 1990, 1991c, 1995, 1999; see the IMP). WSA closures are non-discretiona

scope of this EIS's analysis. WSA designations would continue to apply across all alternatives, including Alternative A. 

** See previous paragraph. NSO and closed lands compose this subtotal. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-90 

4.3.7.3 ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS

4.3.7.3.1 IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

4.3.7.3.1.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, approximately 78,333 acres of withdrawals from mineral entry (or 4.3% 

of BLM lands) would continue as follows (see Appendix C): 

• Three Rivers Withdrawal (65,037 acres) 

• Westwater Withdrawals (8,096 acres) 

• Black Ridge Wilderness Withdrawal (5,200 acres) 

These withdrawals constitute an adverse impact that would result in fewer opportunities for 

locatable mineral resource development on those parcels and less production and supply of 

locatable mineral resources (see Section 4.3.7.3.2.1). 

4.3.7.3.1.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed 

Plan) 

Under all action alternatives (i.e., excluding Alternative A), an NSO stipulation would be placed 

on oil and gas leasing, and other surface-disturbing activities would be precluded (see Appendix 

C) along the U.S. Highway 191 utility corridor within Moab Canyon and within the area of the 

existing withdrawals. These leasing restrictions would constitute adverse impacts compared to 

Alternative A. Only limited development (i.e., oil and gas production using directional drilling) 

would be conducted on the lands managed as NSO, which would result in a lower domestic 

supply of mineral resources and fewer royalties. 

4.3.7.3.2 IMPACTS OF MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS ON MINERAL 

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

4.3.7.3.2.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Adverse impacts to mineral resource development in the MPA result from discretionary land-use 

restrictions (e.g., seasonal wildlife restrictions). These restrictions would increase the cost, time, 

and effort devoted to production of mineral resources. In addition, non-discretionary procedures 

(i.e., protection of special status plant and animal species) would also increase the cost, time, and 

effort devoted to the production of mineral resources. 

Impacts of Federal Leases on Non-BLM Lands

Under all alternatives, the BLM controls Federal lease operations on certain lands not 

administered by the BLM, including: 

• 141,241 acres within the Manti-La Sal National Forest, Moab Ranger District, and 

• 29,678 acres on split-estate lands, of which 9,617 acres (or 0.5% of all Federally leased 

lands) would be subject to NSO or closed to leasing. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-91 

The impacts of administering leasing operations on these non-BLM lands within the MPA—a 

total of 170,919 acres—would result in a net benefit for mineral resource development, 

particularly of oil and natural gas, over the long term. Leasing of these non-BLM lands would 

result in the permitting of additional wells, which in turn would result in an increase in the 

domestic supply of oil and natural gas and increased royalties to the Federal government and the 

State of Utah. However, continued oil and gas extraction would, over time, reduce the quantities 

of finite fossil fuel resources in the MPA. It should be noted that these lands are considered in 

the RFD prepared in conjunction with this PRMP/EIS. 

Impacts of Mineral Leasing on Mineral Resource Development

Under all alternatives, potash solution mining exploration and development may occur on 

approximately 50 acres in the east-central portion of the MPA (i.e., the Big Flat – Hatch Point 

RFD Area). 

This decision would result in beneficial impacts, taking the form of small increases in the 

domestic supply of potash. Furthermore, the development of potash resources in this area is not 

expected to conflict with the development of other mineral resources, including oil and gas (even 

if these developments are co-located; BLM 2005e, 2005f), due primarily to the small scale of 

development. Thus, the net impact of this decision would be beneficial across all alternatives. 

Impacts of Salable Minerals on Mineral Resource Development

Under all alternatives, over the life of the RMP, sand and gravel resource development would 

continue at known deposits and could disturb approximately 360 acres in close proximity to 

transportation corridors and communities. Development of building stone, humate, and clay 

resources would also continue at existing and historical deposits and would disturb 

approximately 10, 17, and 7 acres, respectively, adjacent to existing and historical deposits. 

Therefore, a total of 394 acres are expected to be disturbed due to the development of salable 

minerals, which in turn would result in beneficial impacts of the types described above for 

potash, for similar reasons. Although development of salable mineral resources may be colocated with oil and gas and other mineral resource development, mineral material disposal 

operations are typically discrete sites, small enough to avoid conflicts with the development of 

other mineral resources. Very few adverse impacts in the form of resource conflicts between 

development and extraction of salable and other mineral resources would be anticipated. 

Impacts of Locatable Minerals on Mineral Resource Development

Approximately 1,743,041 acres of BLM land would remain open to development of locatable 

mineral resources (i.e., uranium-vanadium and copper) across all alternatives, and development 

of these mineral resources would continue during the life of the RMP at a consistent level, 

regardless of the alternative implemented. The impacts of any future development of locatable 

resources would be analyzed through site-specific NEPA when and if the project(s) are proposed. 

Approximately 300 acres (about 20 acres per year) could be disturbed for uranium-vanadium 

resource development over the life of the plan. This continuation of uranium-vanadium resource 

development would result in beneficial impacts described above for potash. Oil and gas 

development has some potential to co-occur with uranium-vanadium development. However, 

uranium-vanadium mining operations are small enough to preclude conflict or adverse impacts 

with oil and gas development at the planning area-wide scale (BLM 2005f). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-92 

Development of copper resources is expected to continue and expand slightly over the life of the 

RMP. The newly initiated Lisbon Valley Copper project—involving the Centennial, Sentinel, 

and GTO copper deposits—has begun copper production and is anticipated to utilize and then 

reclaim 1,103 acres over the life of the RMP. This multi-year copper resource development 

project would result in beneficial impacts, which would take the form of an increase in the 

domestic supply of copper. The project is, however, within an area of high development potential 

for oil and gas. The project's copper development operations could eliminate some opportunities 

for oil and gas exploration and development because oil and gas could not be developed where it 

would interfere with mining operations. Exploration and drilling is anticipated in the Lisbon 

Valley Copper area, which would amount to approximately 25–50 acres of surface disturbance 

over the next 10 years. In addition, along the Salt Valley anticline, drilling and potentially openpit mining or in situ leaching facilities may cause 20 acres of surface disturbance. All of this 

additional copper resource development (up to approximately 70 acres) would result in beneficial 

and adverse impacts of the same type as those described for the Lisbon Valley Copper project, 

for the same reasons. 

4.3.7.3.2.2 Alternative A 

Oil and Gas Resources

Approximately 1,427,949 (or 78.5%) of BLM lands within the MPA would be open for oil and 

gas leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions and special stipulations (see Appendix 

C) within the seven RFD development areas (see Table 4.48). Based on the proportion of BLM 

lands open for leasing, and on the information contained in the RFD scenario (BLM 2005f), it is 

estimated that 451 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the life of the RMP (Table 4.49; Map 

3-16). These restrictions are discussed under the resource section imposing the stipulation or 

closure. See the Socioeconomic analysis in this chapter (Section 4.3.12) for the projected 

production and revenue of oil and gas for Alternative A. 

Geophysical Exploration

Under Alternative A, approximately 1,332 linear miles of source line for geophysical exploration 

would be conducted over the life of the RMP for the purposes outlined in Section 4.3.7.2 and 

would result in approximately 2,397 acres of surface disturbance over the life of the RMP. This 

exploration would result in beneficial impacts to mineral resource development of the same type 

and quality described in Section 4.3.7.2, for the same reasons (BLM 2005f). 

Table 4.49. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD 

Areas under Alternative A, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year 

(MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Open # of Predicted Wells*

RFD Area 

Standard Special Total 

% of BLM 

Lands 

Open 15 Years MPY** 

Bigflat – Hatch 

Point 

242,405 121,185 363,590 93 46 4 

Book Cliffs 36,347 114,304 150,651 99 104 12 

Eastern Paradox 428,369 99,088 527,457 95 34 4 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-93 

Table 4.49. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD 

Areas under Alternative A, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year 

(MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Open # of Predicted Wells*

RFD Area 

Standard Special Total 

% of BLM 

Lands 

Open 15 Years MPY** 

Greater Cisco 182,272 33,440 215,712 99 196 24 

Lisbon Valley 102,100 12,303 114,403 100 56 6 

Roan Cliffs 6 3,144 3,150 100 2 1 

Salt Wash 46,845 6,141 52,986 97 13 2 

Total 1,038,344 389,605 1,427,949 451 52 

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only. 

*Oil and natural gas wells are considered together. 

**Based on the RFD (BLM 2005f), Maximum per Year (MPY) reflects the maximum development that could occur in any 

given year over 15 years. During most years, development per year would be less than this maximum. To find the average

development per year, take the Average over 15 years and divide it by 15, which is the number of years projected in the 

RFD. 

Other Leasable Resources

Under Alternative A, approximately 1,427,949 acres of BLM land would be open for the leasing 

of potash and salt. However, the same level of development is projected for all alternatives, as 

mentioned in Section 4.3.7.3.2.1. 

Salable Resources

Under Alternative A, approximately 1,466,861 acres of BLM land would be open to 

development of salable minerals. Although development could occur anywhere within this 

acreage, the same level of development is projected for all alternatives, as mentioned in Section 

4.3.7.3.2.1. The restrictions on salable resource development are discussed under the resource 

sections imposing these restrictions. 

4.3.7.3.2.3 Alternative B 

Oil and Gas Resources

Approximately 808,096 acres (or 44.3%) of BLM lands within the MPA would be open for oil 

and gas leasing subject to standard lease terms and special stipulations (see Appendix C), within 

the seven RFD development areas (see Table 4.48). Based on the proportion of BLM lands open 

for leasing under standard lease terms and special stipulations, and on the information contained 

in the RFD scenario (BLM 2005f), it is estimated that 264 oil and gas wells would be drilled 

over the life of the RMP (Table 4.50; Map 3-16; BLM 2005f). This alternative would result in a 

decrease of approximately 619,853 acres (or 34.1%) of BLM lands available for development 

and a decrease of 187 predicted oil and gas wells (or 41.4%) compared to Alternative A. The 

NSO stipulations and closures for mineral resource development are discussed under the 

resource sections imposing the restrictions. See the Socioeconomic analysis in this chapter 

(Section 4.3.12) for the projected production and revenue of oil and gas for Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-94 

Table 4.50. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative B, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Open # of Predicted Wells* 

RFD Area 

Standard Special Total 

% Of BLM 

Lands Open 15 Years MPY** 

Bigflat – Hatch Point 76,845 68,081 144,926 39 19 2 

Book Cliffs 23,515 72,486 96,001 63 66 7 

Eastern Paradox 80,032 237,603 317,635 59 21 2 

Greater Cisco 47,840 44,879 92,719 46 92 11 

Lisbon Valley 89 110,766 110,855 97 54 6 

Roan Cliffs 0 1,398 1,398 37 1 0 

Salt Wash 36,024 8,539 44,563 82 11 1 

Total 264,345 543,752 808,097 264 29 

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only. 

*Oil and natural gas wells are considered together. 

**Based on the RFD (BLM 2005f), MPY reflects the maximum development that could occur in any given year over 15 years. 

During most years, development per year would be less than this maximum. To find the average development per year, take the 

15 year projection and divide it by 15, which is the number of years projected in the RFD. 

Geophysical Exploration

Under Alternative B, approximately 780 linear miles of source line for geophysical exploration 

would be conducted over the life of the RMP for the purposes outlined in Section 4.3.7.2 and 

would result in approximately 1,404 acres of surface disturbance over the life of the RMP. This 

exploration would result in beneficial impacts to mineral resource development by providing 

new data for making prudent mineral resource development decisions. However, less exploration 

would happen under Alternative B than under Alternative A; 552 fewer miles of source line (a 

decrease of 41%) would be used under Alternative B compared to Alternative A. 

Other Leasable Resources

Under Alternative B, approximately 808,096 acres of BLM land would be open for the leasing of 

potash and salt. The same level of development is projected for all alternatives, as mentioned in 

Section 4.3.7.3.2.1. 

Salable Resources

Under Alternative B, approximately 808,097 acres of BLM land would be open to development 

of salable minerals (a decrease of approximately 659,671 acres, or 44.9%, compared to 

Alternative A). Although development could occur anywhere within this acreage, the same level

of development is projected for all alternatives, as mentioned in Section 4.3.7.3.2.1. The 

restrictions on salable resource development are discussed under the resource sections imposing 

these restrictions. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-95 

4.3.7.3.2.4 Proposed Plan 

Oil and Gas Resources

Approximately 1,234,267 acres (or 67%) of BLM lands within the MPA would be open for oil 

and gas leasing subject to standard lease terms and special stipulations (see Appendix C) within 

the seven RFD development areas (see Table 4.48). Based on the proportion of BLM lands open 

for leasing under standard lease terms and special stipulations, and on the information contained 

in the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is estimated that 432 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the life 

of the RMP (Table 4.51; Map 3-16; BLM 2005f). This alternative would result in a decrease of 

approximately 193,682 acres (or 10%) of BLM lands available for development and a decrease 

of 19 oil and gas wells (or 4%) compared to Alternative A. The NSO stipulations and closures 

for mineral resource development are discussed under the resource sections imposing the 

restrictions. See the Socioeconomic analysis in this chapter (Section 4.3.12) for the projected 

production and revenue of oil and gas for the Proposed Plan. 

Table 4.51. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under the Proposed Plan, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Available # of Predicted Wells* 

RFD Area 

Standard Special Total 

% of BLM 

Lands 

Available 15 Years MPY** 

Bigflat – Hatch Point 114,903 150,323 265,226 68 34 3 

Book Cliffs 37,257 113,105 150,362 99 104 12 

Eastern Paradox 115,124 321,160 436,284 78 28 3 

Greater Cisco 110,602 106,768 217,370 100 197 24 

Lisbon Valley 10,444 103,439 113,883 100 56 6 

Roan Cliffs 0 3,434 3,434 90 2 1 

Salt Wash 38,943 8,765 47,708 88 11 1 

Total 427,273 806,994 1,234,267 432 50 

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only. 

*Oil and natural gas wells are considered together. 

**Based on the RFD (BLM 2005f), MPY reflects the maximum development that could occur in any given year over 15 years. 

During most years, development per year would be less than this maximum. To find the average development per year, take the 

15 Year Average and divide it by 15, which is the number of years projected in the RFD. 

Geophysical Exploration

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 1,151 linear miles of source line for geophysical 

exploration would be conducted over the life of the RMP for the purposes outlined in Section 

4.3.7.2 and would result in approximately 2,072 acres of surface disturbance over the life of the 

RMP. This exploration would result in beneficial impacts to mineral resource development by 

providing new data for making prudent mineral resource development decisions. However, less 

exploration would happen under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative A; 181 fewer miles of 

source line (a decrease of 14%) would be used under the Proposed Plan compared to Alternative 

A. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-96 

Other Leasable Resources

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 1,234,267 acres of BLM land would be open for the 

leasing of potash and salt. However, the same level of development is projected for all 

alternatives, as mentioned in Section 4.3.7.3.2.1. 

Salable Resources

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 1,234,267 acres of BLM land would be open to 

development of salable minerals (a decrease of approximately 193,682 acres, or 10.6%, 

compared to Alternative A). Although development could occur anywhere within this acreage, 

the same level of development is projected for all alternatives, as mentioned in Section 

4.3.7.3.2.1. The restrictions on salable resource development are discussed under the resource 

sections imposing these restrictions. 

4.3.7.3.2.5 Alternative D 

Oil and Gas Resources

Approximately 1,387,473 acres (or 76%) of BLM lands within the MPA would be open for oil 

and gas leasing subject to standard lease terms and special stipulations (see Appendix C) within 

the seven RFD development areas (see Table 4.48). Based on the proportion of BLM lands open 

for leasing under standard lease terms and special stipulations and on the information contained 

in the RFD (BLM 2005f), it is estimated that 448 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the life 

of the RMP (Table 4.52; Map 3-16; BLM 2005f). This alternative would result in a decrease of 

approximately 40,476 acres (or 2.8%) of BLM lands available for development and a decrease of 

3 oil and gas wells (or 0.7%) compared to Alternative A. The NSO stipulations and closures for 

mineral resource development are discussed under the resource sections imposing the 

restrictions. See the Socioeconomic analysis in this chapter (Section 4.3.12) for the projected 

production and revenue of oil and gas for Alternative D. 

Geophysical Exploration

Under Alternative D, approximately 1,294 linear miles of source line for geophysical exploration 

would be conducted over the life of the RMP for the purposes outlined in Section 4.3.7.2 and 

would result in approximately 2,329 acres of surface disturbance over the life of the RMP. This 

exploration would result in beneficial impacts to mineral resource development of the same type 

and quality described in Section 4.3.7.2, for the same reasons (BLM 2005f). However, less 

exploration would happen under Alternative D than under Alternative A; 38 fewer miles of 

source line (a decrease of 2.9%) would be used under Alternative D compared to Alternative A. 

Table 4.52. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative D, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Available # of Predicted Wells* 

RFD Area 

Standard Special Total 

% of BLM 

Lands 

Available 15 Years MPY** 

Bigflat – Hatch Point 242,777 104,200 346,977 89 44 4 

Book Cliffs 42,733 109,467 152,200 100 105 12 

Eastern Paradox 241,991 259,192 501,183 90 32 4 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-97 

Table 4.52. Number of Predicted Oil and Gas Wells on BLM Lands within RFD Areas 

under Alternative D, Average over 15 Years and Maximum per Year (MPY) 

Acres of BLM Lands Available # of Predicted Wells* 

RFD Area 

Standard Special Total 

% of BLM 

Lands 

Available 15 Years MPY** 

Greater Cisco 194,535 22,902 217,437 100 197 24 

Lisbon Valley 25,261 88,650 113,911 100 56 6 

Roan Cliffs 0 3,746 3,746 98 2 1 

Salt Wash 49,734 2,285 52,019 95 12 2 

Total 797,031 590,442 1,387,473 448 52 

Note: Calculations based on BLM lands only. 

*Oil and natural gas wells are considered together. 

**Based on the RFD (BLM 2005f), MPY reflects the maximum development that could occur in any given year over 15 years. 

During most years, development per year would be less than this maximum. To find the average development per year, take the 

15 year average and divide it by 15, which is the number of years projected in the RFD. 

Other Leasable Resources

Under Alternative D, approximately 1,387,473 acres of BLM land would be open for the leasing 

of potash and salt. However, the same level of development is projected for all alternatives, as 

mentioned in Section 4.3.7.3.2.1. 

Salable Resources

Under Alternative D, approximately 1,387,473 acres of BLM land would be open to 

development of salable minerals (a decrease of approximately 40,476 acres, or 2.8%, compared 

to Alternative A). Although development could occur anywhere within this acreage, the same 

level of development is projected for all alternatives, as mentioned in Section 4.3.7.3.2.1. The 

restrictions on salable resource development are discussed under the resource sections imposing 

these restrictions. 

4.3.7.3.3 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

4.3.7.3.3.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, no acres of lands with wilderness characteristics are to be managed to 

protect these characteristics, resulting in no additional closures of BLM lands to salable and 

leasable mineral resource development. No impacts to mineral development would result in the 

form of lower supply of mineral resources and fewer royalties. 

4.3.7.3.3.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 266,485 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics (in 32 areas) would 

be managed to protect these characteristics. This would result in a closure of approximately 

14.6% of all BLM lands to salable and leasable mineral resource development. Closing these 

areas to leasing would preclude extraction of a) oil and gas resources in any of the 32 areas, b) 

coal-bed methane leasing and development in Hells Hole, Hideout Canyon, and Mexico Point, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-98 

and c) potash resources in Goldbar. An estimate of oil and gas wells foregone is 41 wells within 

the Bookcliffs RFD area, 8 wells within the Big Flat Hatch Point RFD area and 8 wells within 

Eastern Paradox RFD area over the 15 year RFD scenario. An estimate of coal-bed methane 

wells foregone is one 5-spot well cluster over the 15 year RFD scenario. 

Development of valid existing oil and gas leases on 50,516 acres within 20 of the 32 non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics could occur, however, additional mitigation may be 

required to protect wilderness characteristics values. 

There would be no potential for the expansion of existing salable mineral disposal sites into the 

Horsethief Point, Goldbar, Behind the Rocks and Mary Jane Canyon units. 

Alternative B represents the greatest adverse impacts to mineral resource development due to 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.7.3.3.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 47,761 acres (or 2.6% of all BLM lands) in Beaver 

Creek, Fisher Towers and Mary Jane Canyon would be managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics. This would include applying a NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and 

precluding other surface-disturbing activities to lands with wilderness characteristics. This would 

restrict development of leasable minerals (though still allow development at greater cost) and 

preclude the development of salable minerals. (Certain lands within the NSO areas unreachable 

by directional drilling would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Due to the small amount of 

acreage, it is not anticipated that this would affect the RFD scenario for oil and gas 

development.) 

There would be no potential for expansion of the two sand and gravel salable mineral disposal 

sites on the boundary of the Mary Jane Canyon into the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

This decision would result in impacts to mineral development, but the acreage affected would be 

far less than Alternative B, but more than Alternatives A and D. 

4.3.7.3.3.4 Alternative D 

Same as Alternative A. 

4.3.7.3.4 IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGY DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Under all alternatives (i.e., including Alternative A), lease notices, stipulations, and other 

requirements would be attached to permitted activities, including mineral resource development, 

to prevent the degradation or destruction of paleontological resources. These additional 

stipulations and requirements would result in an adverse impact that would take the form of 

additional expenditures of time, money, and effort by mineral resource developers in completing 

projects within the MPA. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-99 

4.3.7.3.5 IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

4.3.7.3.5.1 Alternative A 

The designation of SRMAs in Alternative A does not limit mineral resource development, and 

no other special recreation management decisions are proposed under Alternative A. Therefore, 

no recreation-related impacts to mineral resource development would occur under Alternative A. 

4.3.7.3.5.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, NSO stipulations would apply as follows: 

• in the Goldbar/Corona Arch Hiking Focus Area (4,781 acres) of the Labyrinth Rims/ Gemini 

Bridges SRMA, and 

• throughout the Sand Flats SRMA (6,246 acres). 

These limitations on 11,027 acres would have a slight, adverse impact on mineral resource 

development, in the form of additional costs for individual projects associated with NSO leases 

in these areas, and/or in the form of less domestic supply of oil and gas and fewer royalties. 

4.3.7.3.5.3 Proposed Plan 

Impacts under the Proposed Plan would take the same form as under Alternative B, but because 

the NSO stipulation would apply to 590 fewer acres under the Proposed Plan, the magnitude of 

the adverse impacts to minerals would be slightly reduced from Alternative B. 

4.3.7.3.5.4 Alternative D 

There would be no adverse impacts to mineral resource development from recreation 

management decisions under this alternative because no restrictions on mineral development are 

proposed. 

4.3.7.3.6 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN RESOURCE DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

Under all action alternatives, no surface disturbance would be allowed on lands within 100-year 

floodplains or within 100 m of riparian areas, public water reserves, or springs. This may result 

in additional costs to oil and gas developers because directional drilling would be required to 

access mineral resources in riparian zones. In Alternative A, some select floodplains within the 

MPA are identified for protection; however, the acreage is less than under the action alternatives, 

and the additional costs to oil and gas developers because of directional drilling would be less 

under Alternative A. 

4.3.7.3.7 IMPACTS OF SOIL AND WATER DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

4.3.7.3.7.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed 

Plan) 

Under all action alternatives, oil and gas developers would be required to follow the Guidance 

for Pipeline Crossings (see Appendix H), including conducting hydraulic analysis during the 

design phase to eliminate potential environmental degradation. This may result in adverse 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-100 

impacts to oil and gas development, as it would potentially increase the up-front cost of specific 

development projects. 

Under all action alternatives, any mineral resource development occurring in sensitive soils (see 

Table 2.1 in Chapter 2, Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives, and Section 3.14.2.2 Sensitive 

Soils in Chapter 3, Affected Environment) would require BMPs and applicable mitigation 

measures to minimize impacts. Requiring a project proponent to comply with BMPs and 

mitigation measures would result in adverse impacts to mineral resource development, as it may 

increase the cost and time required to fully implement a mineral resource exploration or 

development project in sensitive soils. 

Under all action alternatives, a controlled surface use stipulation (see Appendix C) would be 

applied on all slopes upwards of 30% throughout the MPA, and an additional timing limitation 

stipulation would be put into effect on steep slopes in the Book Cliffs RFD Area from November 

1 through April 30 (i.e., 181 days, or 50% of the year). These special stipulations would have an 

adverse impact upon mineral resource development, though these lands would still be open to 

development with the restrictions specified. 

4.3.7.3.7.2 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited on approximately 313,800 

acres of saline soils in Mancos Shale (or 17% of all BLM lands) from November 1 through April 

30 (i.e., 181 days). This timing limitation stipulation would have an adverse impact upon mineral 

resource development, for the reasons stated in Section 4.3.13.5. 

4.3.7.3.7.3 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the Castle Valley watershed and the Mill Creek–Spanish Valley watershed 

would be closed to leasing to protect the aquifers. These closures would result in adverse impacts 

to mineral resource development, as these lands would not yield a supply of mineral resources or 

royalties. Of all the alternatives, Alternative B represents the greatest impacts to mineral resource 

development due to the closure of these two watersheds. 

Under Alternative B, surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited on approximately 330,142 

acres of moderately to highly saline soils in Mancos Shale (or 18.1% of all BLM lands) from 

December 1 through May 31 (i.e., 182 days). This timing limitation stipulation would have an 

adverse impact upon mineral resource development, for reasons stated in Alternative A. Impacts 

would be essentially of the same magnitude as Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, a minimum of 487,917 acres of BLM lands (or 60.4% of open BLM lands) 

with highly limited sensitive soils/slopes would be subject to surface-disturbing mineral resource 

development with a timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulation (see Sections 3.13, 

Soil and Water, and 4.3.13, Soil and Water). These particular stipulations and their attendant 

impacts upon mineral resource development are described in Section 4.3.7.3.7.1. Alternative B 

represents the smallest acreage of sensitive soils/slopes available for leasing under standard lease 

terms and special stipulations because much of the acreage with sensitive soils/slopes is closed or 

NSO due to other resource decisions. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-101 

4.3.7.3.7.4 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the Castle Valley watershed and the Mill Creek–Spanish Valley 

watershed would be subject to NSO stipulations for leasing to protect the aquifers by allowing no 

drilling on the surface above them. These restrictions would result in adverse impacts to mineral 

resource development, as development of these lands would require directional drilling and the 

attendant increases in cost and effort. The Proposed Plan thus represents fewer impacts to 

mineral resource development than Alternative B (which closes these aquifers to leasing), but 

more than Alternatives A and D. 

The same timing limitation stipulation on the same moderately to highly saline soils in Mancos 

Shale under Alternative B would also apply under the Proposed Plan. Impacts under the 

Proposed Plan would be identical to those of Alternative B. 

Under the Proposed Plan, a minimum of 710,129 acres of BLM lands with sensitive soils/slopes 

are open to surface-disturbing mineral resource development (or 57.5% of open BLM lands) with 

a timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulation (see Sections 3.13, Soil and Water, and 

4.3.13, Soil and Water). These particular stipulations and their attendant impacts upon mineral 

resource development are described in Section 4.3.7.3.7.1. The Proposed Plan represents a much 

larger acreage of sensitive soils/slopes open to mineral leasing under standard lease terms and 

special stipulations than Alternative B because less acreage with sensitive soils/slopes is closed 

or NSO due to other resource decisions. 

4.3.7.3.7.5 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, no lease stipulations would be applied to the Castle Valley watershed or the 

Mill Creek–Spanish Valley watershed to protect the aquifers. Therefore, no impacts to mineral 

resource development in these areas would result. 

No timing limitation stipulations on the moderately to highly saline soils in Mancos Shale would 

be applied under Alternative D. Therefore, impacts to mineral resource development would be 

beneficial compared to Alternative A. Of all the alternatives, Alternative D has the least 

restrictions regarding saline soils in Mancos Shale, and is therefore the least impacting on 

mineral development. 

Under Alternative D, a minimum of 784,782 acres of BLM lands with sensitive soils/slopes are 

open to surface-disturbing mineral resource development (or 56.6% of open BLM lands) with a 

timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulation (see Sections 3.13, Soil and Water, and 

4.3.13, Soil and Water). These particular stipulations and limitations and their attendant impacts 

upon mineral resource development are described in Section 4.3.7.3.7.1. Alternative D is most 

like the Proposed Plan in acreage and proportion; therefore, the impacts to mineral resource 

development would be similar to the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.7.3.8 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

4.3.7.3.8.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

The MPA includes 11 Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and one Wilderness Area (WA), which 

together total 354,015 acres (or approximately 19% of BLM lands). WAs are closed to oil and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-102 

gas leasing pursuant to the Wilderness Act, and WSAs are closed to oil and gas leasing under the 

Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (BLM 1995). These areas are 

also closed to salable minerals. WSAs are open to the location of mining claims for locatable 

minerals; WAs are withdrawn from locatable minerals, and are therefore closed to development. 

WSA and wilderness designations would continue to apply across all alternatives and would 

remain closed to leasing due to their designation. These closures are non-discretionary and, thus, 

are beyond the scope of this analysis. 

4.3.7.3.8.2 Alternative A 

ACECs

In Alternative A, no ACECs are designated. However, the Negro Bill Outstanding Natural Area 

(1,287 acres) would continue. This area is entirely within the Negro Bill WSA, and is therefore 

closed to leasing and mineral development. This closure is non-discretionary and thus, is beyond 

the scope of this analysis. 

WSRs 

Under Alternative A, Colorado River Segments #1, #2, and #3 and all segments of the Dolores 

River are eligible. This eligibility results in 16,079 acres (or 0.8% of all BLM lands) managed as 

NSO. Therefore, these areas would be removed from mineral resource development except for 

directional drilling for oil and gas, which would add expense for individual oil and gas 

producers. 

4.3.7.3.8.3 Alternative B 

ACECs

Management of ACECs in the MFO would result in greater restrictions on mineral resource 

development, replacing standard lease terms or special stipulations with NSO stipulations. Under 

Alternative B, 610,714 acres of BLM lands would occur in ACECs (Table 4.53), all of which are 

subject to an NSO stipulation or closed to leasing. Since 309,599 acres (out of 610,714 acres) are 

automatically closed to leasing because they are located in WSAs, the remainder—301,115 

acres—would be managed with an NSO stipulation as a direct result of designation of the 

ACECs (see Table 4.43). Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, implementation of 

Alternative B represents a restriction of 16.5% of all BLM lands (301,115 acres) due to ACEC 

designation. ACEC designation under Alternative B would result in an adverse impact upon 

mineral resource development because the resources underlying NSO-designated surfaces are 

more difficult and costly to extract. In addition, developers are less likely to develop in NSO 

areas if less restrictive leases are available to them. Alternative B is more restrictive to mineral 

resource development than any of the other alternatives and thus would have the greatest overall 

adverse impact on mineral resource development. 

WSRs

Under Alternative B, all WSR segments are recommended as suitable. WSR suitability 

recommendations, of themselves, do not impose limitations on surface-disturbing activities, 

because limitations on surface disturbance would be imposed by other resource decisions, such 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-103 

as wilderness, wilderness characteristics, scenery, watershed, and the Three Rivers withdrawal. 

These other resource decisions would protect the outstandingly remarkable values of the WSRs. 

Therefore, with the exception of VRM Class, it was not necessary to impose duplicative 

restrictions on mineral development as a result of WSR suitability. Suitable segments tentatively 

classified as Wild would be designated as VRM Class I; all other segments would be designated 

as VRM Class II. As a result, except for VRM Class, recommendations of suitable WSR 

segments would not impose direct impacts to mineral resource development under Alternative B. 

The protections imposed by other resources are identified in Table 4.53, Acreages of Potential 

ACECs that are Available to Mineral Development under Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4-104 

Table 4.53. Acreages of Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource Development under Alte

Acres* Acres in Each Leas

ACEC 

Total Within WSA1 Outside WSA Standard Special 

Behind the Rocks 17,848 12,983 4,865 0 0 Bookcliffs Wildlife Area2 302,449 247,853 54,596 0 0 Canyon Rims3 23,414 0 23,414 0 0 Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex 117,481 0 117,481 0 0 Colorado River Corridor 50,708 2,752 47,956 0 0 Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed4 35,042 33,218 1,824 0 0 Hwy 279 Corridor/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon 

13,487 0 13,487 0 0 

Labyrinth Canyon 8,529 0 8,529 0 0 Mill Creek Canyon 13,501 7,833 5,668 0 0 Ten Mile Wash 4,980 0 4,980 0 0 Upper Courthouse 11,529 0 11,529 0 0 Westwater Canyon 5,069 4,960 109 0 0 White Wash 2,988 0 2,988 0 0 Wilson Arch 3,689 0 3,689 0 0 

1. Or with Wilderness values; always VRM I, or closed to leasing. 2. Portions of this ACEC lie within 5 WSAs. 3. Within Canyon Rims SRMA 4. Portions of this ACEC lie within 3 WSAs. *Acreage variations may be due to GIS rounding errors 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-105 

Table 4.54. Suitable Rivers and Restrictions on Mineral Development under Alternative B

Suitable River Oil and Gas 

Leasing Category 

Resource Imposing Oil and Gas 

Restriction VRM Class 

Beaver Creek NSO Three Rivers Withdrawal to protect 

scenery, recreation, wildlife, 

riparian; non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

II 

Colorado River NSO/Closed Three Rivers Withdrawal to protect 

scenery, recreation, wildlife, 

riparian; WSA. 

I in Westwater; 

otherwise II 

Cottonwood Creek Closed WSA. I 

Dolores River NSO Three Rivers Withdrawal. II 

Green River NSO Three Rivers Withdrawal. II 

Mill Creek (South 

Fork) 

Closed ACEC; Moab Watershed. I 

Negro Bill Creek Closed/NSO Three Rivers Withdrawal; WSA. I (in WSA) and II 

North Fork Mill 

Creek 

Closed WSA. I 

Onion Creek NSO/Closed Three Rivers Withdrawal; 

wilderness characteristics. 

II 

Professor Creek NSO/Closed Three Rivers Withdrawal; 

wilderness characteristics. 

II 

Rattlesnake Creek Closed WSA. I (Desolation WSA) 

Salt Wash NSO (Three Rivers) Three Rivers Withdrawal. II 

Thompson Creek NSO Wilderness characteristics. II 

4.3.7.3.8.4 Proposed Plan 

ACECs

Under the Proposed Plan, 63,781 acres of BLM lands would occur in ACECs (Table 4.55), all of 

which are subject to an NSO stipulation or closed to leasing. Since 33,218 acres (out of 63,781 

acres) are automatically closed to leasing because they are located in WSAs, the remainder—

30,563 acres—would be managed with an NSO stipulation as a direct result of designation of the 

ACECs (see Table 4.55). Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, implementation of the 

Proposed Plan represents a restriction of 1.7% of all BLM lands (30,563 acres) due to ACEC 

designation. ACEC designation under the Proposed Plan would result in less of an adverse 

impact upon mineral resource development than it does under Alternative B, but more than 

Alternatives A and D. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4-106 

Table 4.55. Acreages of Potential ACECs that are Available to Mineral Resource Development under the 

Acres* Acres in Each Leas

ACEC 

Total Within WSA1 Outside WSA Standard Special 

Behind the Rocks 4,687 0 4,687 0 0 Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed2 3 35,042 33,218 1,804 0 0 Hwy 279 Corridor/ Shafer Basin/Long Canyon 

13,487 0 13,487 0 0 

Mill Creek Canyon 5,585 0 3,721 0 0 Ten Mile Wash 4,980 0 4,980 0 0 1. Or with Wilderness values; always VRM I, or closed to leasing. 2. Portions of this ACEC lie within 3 WSAs. 3. Same as Alternative B. *Acreage variations may be due to GIS rounding errors. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-107 

WSRs

Impacts to mineral resource development from WSR suitability recommendations would be the 

same as under Alternative B, for the same reasons. Table 4.56 shows the WSR recommendations 

under the Proposed Plan, and the resource imposing the restriction on mineral development. 

Table 4.56. Suitable Rivers and Restrictions on Mineral Development under the Proposed 

Plan 

Suitable River Oil and Gas 

Leasing Category 

Resource Imposing Oil and Gas 

Restriction VRM Class 

Colorado River NSO/Closed Three Rivers Withdrawal to protect 

scenery, recreation, wildlife, riparian; 

WSA. 

I in Westwater; 

otherwise II 

Dolores River NSO Three Rivers Withdrawal. II 

Green River NSO Three Rivers Withdrawal. II 

4.3.7.3.8.5 Alternative D 

ACECs

Under Alternative D, zero acres of BLM lands would occur in ACECs. Though management 

prescriptions are made for these parcels of land (e.g., leasing and VRM categories, whether to 

allow minerals entry, disposal, or geophysical work), none of these prescriptions is associated 

with an ACEC designation. Therefore, under Alternative D, special designation decisions 

regarding ACECs would have no impacts upon mineral development. 

WSRs

Under Alternative D, none of the eligible WSR segments carried forward in this RMP would be 

determined suitable. Therefore, special designation decisions regarding WSRs would have no 

impacts upon mineral development. 

4.3.7.3.9 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

4.3.7.3.9.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

All alternatives require some degree of spatial or temporal limitation on surface-disturbing 

activities so as to protect special status species and their important habitats. In the case of 

mineral resource development, specific conditions of approval or lease terms are often required 

in order to mitigate the adverse impacts of development activities on special status species. 

Standard lease terms and conditions (lease notices) have been developed in consultation with the 

USFWS for mineral resource development and other surface-disturbing activities. The terms and 

conditions consist of specific measures to protect special status species and to comply with the 

Endangered Species Act (see Appendix C). These measures are required by law, are nondiscretionary, and are applicable under all alternatives. The impacts of these non-discretionary 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-108 

measures will not be analyzed in this document, as they are outside the scope of the planning 

process. 

4.3.7.3.9.2 Alternative A 

Because alternative-specific decisions regarding special status species are not specified under 

Alternative A, only the impacts common to all alternatives (see Section 4.3.7.3.8.1) would occur. 

4.3.7.3.9.3 Alternative B 

The following timing limitation stipulations would result in impacts to mineral resource 

development under Alternative B: 

• a 242-day timing limitation stipulation in greater sage-grouse habitat (on 12,850 acres or 

0.6% of all BLM lands), and 

• a 57-day timing limitation stipulation in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (on 246,107 acres or 

13.4% of all BLM lands). 

In both cases, the resulting impacts would be adverse compared to Alternative A and would take 

the form of extra cost and effort—for surveys, for the avoidance of occupied areas, for the rerouting of roads and pipelines and the re-siting of oil and gas facilities (i.e., permanent 

structures), or for directional drilling—or additionally operational time, if the surface-disturbance 

window does not accommodate an individual project's schedule and timeline and project 

activities need to be postponed. 

Various, year-round restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and structures would apply as 

follows: 

• within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse active strutting grounds (10,928 acres or 0.6% of all 

BLM lands); 

• within 6 miles of Gunnison sage-grouse leks (246,107 acres or 13.4% of all BLM lands); 

• within and near white-tailed prairie dog habitat (199,505 acres or 10.8% of all BLM lands); 

and 

• within and near Gunnison prairie dog colonies (10,700 acres or 0.7% of all BLM lands). 

Adverse impacts to mineral resource development would result from these decisions and would 

take the form of increased expenditures of time, cost, effort, and materials associated with resiting projects or individual facilities or conducting directional drilling. 

4.3.7.3.9.4 Proposed Plan 

The following timing limitation stipulations would result in impacts to mineral resource 

development under the Proposed Plan: 

• a 242-day timing limitation stipulation in greater sage-grouse habitat (3,068 acres or 0.2% of 

all BLM lands), and 

• a 57-day timing limitation stipulation in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (175,727 acres or 

9.6% of all BLM lands). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-109 

In both cases, the resulting impacts would be adverse to mineral resource development compared 

to Alternative A—though less so than Alternative B—and would take the form of extra cost, 

effort, or time, as described under Alternative B. 

Various, year-round restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and structures would apply as 

follows: 

• within 2.0 miles of greater sage-grouse active strutting grounds (3,068 acres or 0.2% of all 

BLM lands); 

• within 2.0 miles of Gunnison sage-grouse leks (175,727 acres or 9.6% of all BLM lands); 

• within and near white-tailed prairie dog habitat (117,481 acres or 6.4% of all BLM lands); 

and 

• within and near Gunnison prairie dog colonies (10,700 acres or less than 0.6% of all BLM 

lands). 

Adverse impacts to mineral resource development would result from these decisions—though 

less so than Alternative B due to lessened acreage affected—and would take the forms described 

under Alternative B. 

4.3.7.3.9.5 Alternative D 

The following timing limitation stipulations would result in impacts to mineral resource 

development under Alternative D: 

• a 242-day timing limitation stipulation in greater sage-grouse habitat (1,986 acres or 0.1% of 

all BLM lands), and 

• a 57-day timing limitation stipulation in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (41,620 acres or 2.3% 

of all BLM lands). 

In both cases, the resulting impacts would be adverse to mineral resource development compared 

to Alternative A—though less so than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan due to lessened 

acreage affected—and would take the form of extra cost, effort, or time, as described under 

Alternative B. 

Year-round restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and structures would apply: 

• within 0.25 miles of greater sage-grouse active strutting grounds (1,986 acres or 0.1% of all 

BLM lands); 

• within 0.25 miles of Gunnison sage-grouse leks (41,620 acres or 2.3% of all BLM lands); 

and 

• within and near white-tailed prairie dog habitat (41,620 acres or 1.7% of all BLM lands). 

Adverse impacts to mineral resource development would result from these decisions—though 

less so than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan—and would take the forms described under 

Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-110 

4.3.7.3.10 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT 

Under all action alternatives, the vegetation management decision to implement the restrictions 

under Extreme (D3) and Exceptional (D4) drought conditions would result in adverse impacts to 

new mineral resource development. Under D3, no new surface-disturbing activities would be 

permitted in areas with sensitive soils, and under D4, no new surface-disturbing activities would 

be permitted at all (subject to valid existing rights; see Appendix C and Appendix M). The 

impacts to mineral resource development would take the form of delayed completion of 

individual projects and the attendant increases in cost and effort. 

4.3.7.3.11 IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

4.3.7.3.11.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Mineral resource development would be subject to the VRM class objectives of the area within 

which development would occur. VRM management on areas with lower scenic values 

(designated as VRM Class III and IV) imposes minimal restrictions on mineral resource 

development. Designation of an area as VRM Class I essentially closes the area to mineral 

resource activity. Management of areas as VRM Class II allows alteration of line, form, color 

and texture that characterize the existing landscape, although the resulting contrast should not 

attract the attention of the casual observer. Meeting VRM Class II objectives imposes additional 

costs on mineral resource developers. Table 4.57 quantifies the acreages of land within each 

VRM class. 

Table 4.57. Acreages of Each VRM Class, by Alternative 

VRM Class Alternative A** Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

I 349,110 453,462 358,911 349,617 

II 401,015 373,647 365,567 245,773 

III 800,782 784,247 829,158 956,724 

IV 271,356 210,533 268,133 269,641 

Totals 1,822,263 1,821,887 1,821,768 1,821,755 

* Note that these acreages include the 354,015 acres of WSAs and WAs, which are managed as VRM Class I and are nondiscretionary closures. Table 4.49 and other tables discussing the impacts of mineral resource development decisions on mineral

resource development exclude these areas, and thus reflect different acreages. 

**In Alternative A, VRM class reflects the VRM Inventory (except for 33,037 acres of VRM Class II and 67,236 acres of VRM Class

III in management in Alternative A). 

4.3.7.3.11.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed 

Plan) 

Under all action alternatives, areas managed as VRM Classes II, III, and IV would typically be 

available to leasing with either standard lease terms or controlled surface use stipulations (see 

Table 4.57). This visual resource decision would generally have a beneficial effect on mineral 

resource development, in that more areas would be available under standard lease terms or 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-111 

controlled surface use stipulations, rather than being restricted with NSO. The beneficial impact 

would be that mineral exploration and development could still occur. 

Under all action alternatives, direct, adverse impacts to mineral resource development resulting 

from VRM class I designations would include the exclusion of lands available for mineral 

resource development, a lower number of locations where potential wells could be drilled, a 

lower yield and commercial supply of oil and natural gas, and fewer royalties. 

4.3.7.3.11.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, only WSAs would be designated as VRM Class I. Because the closure of 

WSAs to mineral resource development is non-discretionary, no impacts to mineral resources 

would result from visual resource management decisions under Alternative A. 

4.3.7.3.11.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, approximately 453,462 acres (or 24.9% of BLM lands, including WSAs) 

would be designated as VRM Class I, which limits lands as either NSO or closed. In addition, 

373,631 acres would be designated as VRM Class II, imposing additional costs on mineral 

resource developers. Adverse impacts resulting from these visual resource decisions under 

Alternative B would be of the same type as in Section 4.3.7.3.11.2. Alternative B proposes the 

greatest VRM-related limits to mineral resource development because the greatest number of 

acres would be designated as VRM Class I and Class II. 

4.3.7.3.11.5 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 359,020 acres (or 19.7% of BLM lands, including 

WSAs) would be designated as VRM Class I class, which limits lands as either NSO or closed. 

In addition, 365,567 acres would be designated as VRM Class II, imposing additional costs on 

mineral resource developers. Adverse impacts resulting from these visual resource decisions 

under the Proposed Plan would be of the same type as in Section 4.3.7.3.11.2, though less so 

than under Alternative B and more than under Alternative D. 

4.3.7.3.11.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, approximately 349,617 acres (or 19.2% of BLM lands, including WSAs) 

would fall into the VRM I class, which consistently limits lands as either NSO or closed. In 

addition, 245,773 acres would be managed as VRM II, imposing additional costs on mineral 

resource developers. Adverse impacts resulting from these visual resource decisions under 

Alternative D would be of the same type as in Section 4.3.7.3.11.2, though less so than under 

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.7.3.12 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON MINERAL RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT

4.3.7.3.12.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

All alternatives include some degree of spatial or temporal limitation on surface-disturbing 

activities to protect wildlife populations and their important habitats. In the case of mineral 

resource development, specific conditions of approval, lease terms, and/or discretionary 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-112 

measures are often required in order to mitigate the adverse impacts of development activities on 

wildlife. 

The discretionary measures include spatial and temporal limitations (hereafter referred to as 

controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations, respectively), which would have an 

adverse impact on mineral resource development by increasing exploration costs, time, and 

effort. However, the degree and magnitude of such increases depend on many factors, including 

the options for project siting, the locale of the lease, and the drilling schedule and window. 

The MFO coordinates with UDWR for the purpose of protecting wildlife species (see 

Appendixes K, N, and O). Under all alternatives, mineral resource developers would be required 

to avoid surface-disturbing activities in occupied, migratory bird habitat during nesting season. 

Under all alternatives, these timing limitation stipulations and the associated limited drilling 

window only apply to up to one mile around migratory bird and raptor nests. Therefore, impacts 

would be adverse for operators with leases within these buffer areas, but not elsewhere. These 

stipulations could be waived or modified, depending on the species (see Appendix C for details). 

In addition, spatial buffers and timing limitation stipulations would be applied to areas around 

occupied raptor nest sites during their nesting seasons. This would result in planning area-wide 

impacts upon mineral resource development (see Appendixes N and O). Adverse impacts upon 

mineral resource development, in terms of extra costs, time, and effort, would result. 

The exact impact of wildlife management decisions common to all cannot be quantified. Exact 

acreages of habitat to be restricted would depend on the results of field surveys associated with 

specific projects within the MPA. However, some general conclusions can be drawn regarding 

the timing limitation stipulations. The fall and winter months (i.e., September through February) 

generally would have the fewest timing limitation stipulations upon mineral resource 

development, while the spring and summer months (i.e., March through August) generally would 

have the most. The most restrictive months of the year would be April through July; most timing 

limitation stipulations would be in effect during that period. Together, these decisions would 

result in adverse impacts to mineral resource development at the planning area-wide level. 

4.3.7.3.12.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed 

Plan) 

Under all action alternatives, a 92-day timing limitation stipulation on surface-disturbing 

activities in the Hatch Point bighorn sheep habitat (9,278 acres, or 0.5% of all BLM lands) and a 

46-day timing limitation stipulation on surface-disturbing activities in deer and/or elk summer 

range (105,636 acres, or 5.8% of all BLM lands) would result in adverse impacts, in the form of 

delayed or slowed implementation of individual projects if the surface-disturbance limitation did 

not suit that project's schedule and timeline. 

Under all action alternatives, the timing limitation stipulations (see Section 4.3.7.3.2.1) and the 

associated limited drilling window only apply to 9,278 acres of bighorn lambing and rutting 

areas within Hatch Point. This constitutes less than 1% of the MPA. Impacts would be adverse 

for operators with leases within the habitat or buffer areas, but not elsewhere. These stipulations 

could be waived or modified, depending on the species (see Appendix C for details). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-113 

4.3.7.3.12.3 Alternative A 

Three wildlife management decisions would result in impacts to mineral resource development 

under Alternative A: 

• a Category 2 stipulation in 25,431 acres of desert bighorn sheep habitat, year-round; 

• a prohibition on surface disturbance in 42,500 acres of desert bighorn sheep lambing and 

breeding habitat; and 

• a prohibition on surface disturbance in 260,769 acres of deer and/or elk winter range. 

These decisions together would result in development limitations on a maximum of 328,700 

possible acres (or 18.1% of BLM lands) for 90 days of the year. This would be an adverse impact 

to mineral resource development and would take the form of delayed or slowed implementation 

of individual projects in these habitats if the surface-disturbance limitation did not suit that 

project's schedule and timeline. 

4.3.7.3.12.4 Alternative B 

The following wildlife management decisions would result in impacts to mineral resource 

development under Alternative B: 

• a 46-day timing limitation stipulation in pronghorn habitat (822,001 acres or 45.1% of all 

BLM lands); 

• a 92-day timing limitation stipulation in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat (458,242 

acres or 23.6% of all BLM lands); 

• a 196-day timing limitation stipulation on deer and/or elk winter range (635,774 acres or 

34.8% of all BLM lands); and 

• a year-round, NSO stipulation in desert bighorn sheep habitat (130,419 acres or 7.1% of all 

BLM lands). 

In all cases, the resulting impacts would be adverse compared to Alternative A and would take 

the form of extra cost and effort—for surveys, for the avoidance of occupied areas, for the rerouting of roads and pipelines and the re-siting of oil and gas facilities (i.e., permanent 

structures), or for directional drilling—or extra operational time, if the surface-disturbance 

window does not accommodate an individual project's schedule and timeline and project 

activities need to be postponed. 

4.3.7.3.12.5 Proposed Plan 

The following species management decisions would result in impacts to mineral resource 

development under the Proposed Plan: 

• a 46-day timing limitation stipulation in pronghorn habitat (293,741 acres or 16.1% of all 

BLM lands); 

• a 92-day timing limitation stipulation in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat (310,726 

acres or 17.1% of all BLM lands); 

• a 151-day timing limitation stipulation on deer and/or elk winter range (349,955 acres or 

15.2% of all BLM lands); and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.7 Minerals 

4-114 

• a year-round, NSO stipulation in desert bighorn sheep habitat (101,897 acres or 5.6% of all 

BLM lands). 

In all cases, the resulting impacts would be adverse to mineral resource development compared 

to Alternative A—though less so than Alternative B because of lesser time periods or reduced 

acreage—and would take the form of extra cost, effort, or time, as described under Alternative B. 

4.3.7.3.12.6 Alternative D 

The following wildlife management decisions would result in impacts to mineral resource 

development under Alternative D: 

• a 46-day timing limitation stipulation in pronghorn habitat (78,477 acres or 4.3% of all BLM 

lands); 

• the "recognition" of 194,560 acres, or 10.7% of all BLM lands as Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep habitat (BLM 1985a, 1986, 1993b); 

• a 136-day timing limitation stipulation on deer and/or elk winter range (349,955 acres or 

15.2% of all BLM lands); and 

• a 137-day timing limitation stipulation in desert bighorn sheep habitat (46,319 acres or 2.5% 

of all BLM lands). 

The resulting impacts would be adverse to mineral resource development compared to 

Alternative A—though less so than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan because of lesser time 

periods or reduced acreage—and would take the form of extra cost, effort, or time, as described 

under Alternative B. 

4.3.7.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

The alternatives propose varying amounts and types of restrictions on the exploration, 

development, and production of mineral resources. Generally, Alternative B is the most 

restrictive, while Alternative A is the least restrictive. Among the action alternatives, Alternative 

B is the least amenable, and Alternative D is the most amenable to the exploration, development 

and production of mineral resources. 

Impacts from lands and realty, paleontological resources, riparian areas, and vegetation 

management actions would result only in Impacts Common to All Alternatives (including 

Alternative A) or Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (excluding Alternative A). 

Withdrawal decisions would adversely impact 4.3% of all BLM land, other impacts resulting 

from lands and realty, paleontological, riparian, and vegetation decisions, while not quantifiable, 

generally would result in additional restrictions to mineral development. 

4.3.8 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

This section analyzes impacts to the 266,435 acres of non-WSA lands determined to have 

wilderness characteristics from management actions of other resources and resource uses 

discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. 

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 areas administratively 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-115 

endorsed for wilderness management, or, in accordance with the Wilderness' Act's language, 

areas "of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition." 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. These lands consist of landscapes 

generally in a natural or undisturbed condition. These areas also provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive forms of recreation (non-motorized and non-mechanized 

activities in undeveloped settings). All of the alternatives would impact the values of non-WSA 

areas with wilderness characteristics to some degree. Generally, actions that create surface 

disturbance impact the natural character 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. 

Resources or uses determined not to have any impacts on non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics include the following: Air Quality, and Health and Safety. There are no 

abandoned mine lands, unauthorized dumping sites, or hazardous materials spills that have been 

identified in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics; therefore, it is not an issue or 

resource for further analysis. 

4.3.8.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

There would be no impacts common to all alternatives for non-WSA lands managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics because no lands would be managed to maintain wilderness 

characteristics outside designated wilderness and WSAs in either Alternatives A or D. 

4.3.8.2 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

Impacts to non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are analyzed based on the 

enhancement (beneficial impacts) or degradation (adverse impacts) of naturalness and 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. 

4.3.8.2.1 IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.2.1.1 Alternative A 

Alternative A would not limit visitation or camping in high-density cultural sites when 

archeological site integrity may be endangered. However, areas where these high-density sites 

are primarily located (Behind-the-Rocks, Mill Creek Canyon, and Negro Bill Canyon non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics) are already in areas where OHV use is limited to 

designated routes and camping is restricted. 

4.3.8.2.1.2 Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed to protect, 

preserve and maintain their wilderness characteristics. This acreage includes the entire Beaver 

Creek area, and portions of the Mary Jane and Fisher Towers areas. (Mary Jane was reduced to 

16,499 acres in the Proposed Plan from 24,779 acres in Alternative B, and Fisher Towers was 

reduced to 5,540 acres in the Proposed Plan from 17,235 acres in Alternative B.) Under this 

management, these lands would be managed with a no surface occupancy stipulation. There 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-116 

would be no other surface-disturbing activities allowed within this acreage, including no new 

road building or construction. Cultural resource decisions are compatible with these protections. 

The cultural resource decisions under common to all action alternatives provide protection of 

cultural resources, including avoiding or minimizing impacts within Traditional Cultural 

Properties, closing areas to visitor use when it is endangering site integrity, prohibiting camping 

within or on archeological and historic sites, protecting and mitigating sensitive cultural sites 

being impacted by grazing activities, monitoring sites, inventorying new sites, ensuring 

compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, implementing interim protection to 

newly discovered sites, mitigating impacts to sites, allocating sites to public and scientific 

purposes, consulting with Tribes, and others. Protection of historic and prehistoric resources in 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would enhance opportunities for primitive forms 

of recreation. Knowing more about the cultural resources of an area, interpreting the resource in 

an appropriate fashion, and viewing cultural resource sites in the non-WSA areas with wilderness 

characteristics all add to the enjoyment of these areas for primitive recreational purposes. And, 

protection of cultural resources adds to the character of the setting that supports these 

recreational opportunities. 

There are no additional cultural resource decisions that would impact non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics under these alternatives. 

4.3.8.2.2 IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Under all alternatives, BLM would attempt to restore natural fire regimes in fire-dependent and 

adapted ecosystems through the use of prescribed or managed wildland fire. The MFO would 

base its priorities for all aspects of fire management decisions based on five categories (see Fire 

Management section in Chapter 2, Table 2.1, Moab RMP Description of Alternatives) to 

determine where fire is desired and where it is not. Further, following any wildland fire event, 

emergency stabilization and restoration (ESR) actions would be developed and implemented, as 

appropriate. Fuels treatment and management activities would be consistent with the resource 

goals and objectives in the RMP and may include mechanical treatments, manual treatments, 

prescribed fire, chemical spraying, or biological treatments and seeding. 

Restoration of the use of fire to fire-dependent and adapted ecosystems would restore a more 

natural vegetation community (in both species and composition) and watershed conditions and 

wildlife populations dependent on those communities. In the short-term, a burned landscape may 

reduce opportunities for primitive recreation. In the long-term, however, a more natural 

landscape would benefit the natural character of 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. This would enhance the natural 

conditions of these areas. 

Setting fire objectives through fire management categories would identify where fire is desired 

on the land, leading to the same benefits to natural conditions as restoring the use of fire to firedependent and adapted ecosystems. When it is necessary to suppress fire in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, development and implementation of the ESR plan will restore fire 

suppression disturbances to the land and vegetation (e.g., fire line construction), resulting in the 

restoration of the natural character of the non-WSA areas. Fuels treatments in non-WSA lands 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-117 

with wilderness characteristics would aid in restoration of a more natural fire regime in these 

lands. The use of fire to accomplish this reduction would be compatible with the natural 

character of these areas. The use of mechanical treatments would leave an apparent imprint of 

human work on the land that would degrade the natural character of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

In the short-term, fire operations (aircraft over-flights, fire line construction, etc.) would degrade 

the natural landscape and character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The 

noise and presence of the people, equipment, and operations would also diminish opportunities 

for solitude and 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. 

The effects of fire operations on opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would cease, 

restoring those opportunities. 

4.3.8.2.3 IMPACT OF LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS 

WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.2.3.1 Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, the Three Rivers withdrawal would remain in place. This would protect 

portions along the river of the Beaver Creek, Dome Plateau, Fisher Towers, Mary Jane Canyon, 

Gooseneck and Labyrinth Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The mineral 

withdrawal would continue to preserve the naturalness and opportunities for both solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation in each of these areas by preventing mining claims and the noise 

and presence of surface disturbance, people, vehicles, and equipment associated with mining. 

4.3.8.2.3.2 Alternative A 

This alternative proposes land disposal for about 1,300 acres of public lands on the east side 

portion of the Behind the Rocks non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Disposal of 

these lands would take them out of public ownership and allow for development and surfacedisturbing activities out of BLM's control. The wilderness characteristics would be foregone. 

All of Shafer Canyon and Gooseneck, and a portion of Goldbar (2,437 acres) and Labyrinth 

Canyon (12,000) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would continue to be rights-ofway avoidance areas (Table 4.58). These areas are to be avoided but may be available for 

location of right-of-ways with special stipulations if the proposal meets the goals and objectives 

of other resources and uses in the land-use plan. It is expected and assumed that the avoidance 

areas would protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands in these areas. However, the rest 

of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (249,363 acres) would remain available 

for the placement of rights-of-way. More permanent, long term impacts would occur if the rightof-way is for an overhead power line than for a buried pipeline. However, any surface-disturbing 

activity and/or placement of permanent visual facilities would detract from the natural character 

of the area and disrupt the setting needed to support primitive forms of recreation. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-118 

Table 4.58. Acres of Avoidance or Exclusion for Rights-of-way (ROWs) in Non-WSA 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Non-WSA Land 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Total Acres Alternative A

Alternative B 

(all acres are 

exclusion) 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

(all acres are 

avoidance) 

Alternative D

Arches Adjacent 6,396 0 6,396 513 513 

Beaver Creek 25,722 0 25,722 25,722* 8,152 

Behind the Rocks 3,643 0 3,643 1,582 55 

Big Triangle 5,200 0 5,200 0 0 

Coal Canyon 21,632 0 21,632 0 0 

Dead Horse Cliffs 797 0 797 98 0 

Desolation Canyon 10,498 0 10,498 985 244 

Dome Plateau 14,207 0 14,207 9,580 6,390 

Fisher Towers 17,235 0 17,235 8,153** 3,312 

Floy Canyon 9,983 0 9,983 0 0 

Flume Canyon 3,520 0 3,520 730 0 

Goldbar 6,437 2,437 6,437 6,064 543 

Gooseneck 843 843 843 843 0 

Granite Creek 4,528 0 4,528 0 0 

Harts Point 1,465 0 1,465 0 0 

Hatch/Harts/Lockhart 2,670 0 2,670 0 0 

Hatch Wash 10,983 0 10,983 0 0 

Hells Hole 2,538 0 2,538 0 0 

Hideout Canyon 11,607 0 11,607 0 0 

Horsethief Point 8,358 0 8,358 1,190 1,162 

Hunter Canyon 4,465 0 4,465 2,855 310 

Labyrinth Canyon 25,361 12,000 25,361 17,954 2,456 

Lost Spring Canyon 11,456 0 11,456 0 0 

Mary Jane Canyon 24,779 0 24,779 22,169*** 976 

Mill Creek Canyon 3,388 0 3,388 3,388 59 

Mexico Point 12,837 0 12,837 0 0 

Negro Bill Canyon 2,333 0 2,333 1,177 240 

Shafer Canyon 1,842 1,842 1,842 1,842 0 

Spruce Canyon 1,131 0 1,131 957 0 

Westwater Canyon 3,086 0 3,086 84 0 

Westwater Creek 7,188 0 7,188 0 40 

Yellow Bird 357 0 357 0 0 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-119 

Table 4.58. Acres of Avoidance or Exclusion for Rights-of-way (ROWs) in Non-WSA 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Non-WSA Land 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Total Acres Alternative A

Alternative B 

(all acres are 

exclusion) 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

(all acres are 

avoidance) 

Alternative D

Total Acres 266,485 17,122 266,485 105,886 24,455 

Total Acres Open for 

Rights of Way 

 249,363 0 160,599 242,030 

Note: All acreage not under exclusion or avoidance remains open for ROW. 

* All 27,722 acres of Beaver Creek are managed to protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness characteristics. Of these acres, 

6,358 acres are exclusion. 

**About 5,540 acres of the Fisher Towers area are managed to protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness characteristics. 

***About 16,499 acres of the Mary Jane area are managed to protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.2.3.3 Alternative B 

Under this alternative, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as 

right-of-way exclusion areas. Exclusion from future rights-of-way development for pipelines and 

power lines, corridor designation, or other rights-of-ways would protect the natural character in 

all these lands. Protection of the natural landscape would also preserve the setting needed to 

support primitive forms of recreation and experiences of solitude. The same protections would 

prevent corridor designations within any of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

thus protecting those values. 

4.3.8.2.3.4 Proposed Plan 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Included in the Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed to protect, 

preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. This acreage includes the entire Beaver 

Creek area, and portions of Mary Jane and Fisher Towers areas. Under this management, these 

lands would be managed with a no surface occupancy stipulation. There would be no other 

surface-disturbing activities allowed within this acreage, including no new road building or 

construction. These areas are avoidance areas for rights of ways. There are no designated utility 

corridors within this acreage. 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Not Included in the Proposed Plan

Both the Behind the Rocks and Floy Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would have small portions of them overlain by designated utility corridors. The Behind the 

Rocks non-WSA area (east side) would be partially overlain by the proposed Spanish Valley 

corridor. The southern-most part of Floy Canyon would be partially within the 1/2 mile width of 

the I-70 proposed utility corridor. Placement of future utility rights-of-ways within these portions 

of the corridors would diminish the wilderness characteristics by creating surface-disturbing 

activities (and possibly placing surface facilities) that would no longer maintain the wilderness 

characteristics values in the most southern portion of the Floy Canyon area. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-120 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that would remain open to rights-of-way 

permitting include all of 13 areas and portions of 15 areas, totaling 160,599 acres (see Table 

4.58). Presently there are no proposals for rights-of-ways in these areas; however, if that 

opportunity arises, more permanent, long term impacts would occur if the right-of-way is for an 

overhead power line than for a buried pipeline. Any surface-disturbing activity and/or placement 

of permanent visual facilities would detract from the natural character of the area and disrupt the 

setting needed to support primitive forms of recreation. 

There are 80,164 acres in 18 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas that would be 

protected, in whole or in part, from surface-disturbing activities under this alternative because 

they would be rights-of-way avoidance areas (see Table 4.58). Gooseneck, Mill Creek Canyon 

and Shafer Canyon would be completely within the avoidance areas. These areas are to be 

avoided but may be available for location of right-of-ways with special stipulations if the 

proposal meets the goals and objectives of other resources and uses in the land-use plan. It is 

expected and assumed that the avoidance areas would protect the natural character of the nonWSA lands in these areas. 

4.3.8.2.3.5 Alternative D 

Both the Behind the Rocks and Floy Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would have minor portions of them overlain by designated utility corridors. The Behind the 

Rocks non-WSA area (east side) would be partially overlain by the proposed Spanish Valley 

corridor (same as the Proposed Plan). Floy Canyon would be partially within the 1 mile width of 

the I-70 proposed utility corridor. Placement of future utility rights-of-way within these portions 

of the corridors would diminish the wilderness characteristics of these areas by causing surfacedisturbing activities (and possible placing surface facilities) that would no longer maintain the 

wilderness characteristics values. Floy Canyon would have more potential impacts than in the 

Proposed Plan because the corridor width would be 1 mile on each side of I-70, providing more 

room for the placement of additional rights-of-way. 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that would remain open to rights-of-way 

permitting include all of 18 areas and portions of 14 areas, totaling 242,030 acres. Presently there 

are no proposals for rights-of-ways in these areas, however, if that opportunity arises, more 

permanent, long term impacts would occur if the right-of-way is for an overhead power line than 

for a buried pipeline. Any surface-disturbing activity and/or placement of permanent visual 

facilities would detract from the natural character of the area and disrupt the setting needed to 

support primitive forms of recreation. 

There are 14 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas, totaling 24,455 acres that 

would be protected, in part, from surface-disturbing actives under this alternative because they 

would be rights-of-way avoidance areas (see Table 4.58). None of the areas would be completely 

within an avoidance area. These areas are to be avoided but may be available for location of 

right-of-ways with special stipulations if the proposal meets the goals and objectives of other 

resources and uses in the land-use plan. It is expected and assumed that the avoidance areas 

would protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands in these areas. Because none of the 

avoidance areas protect 5,000 acres of the stand alone areas, those areas could be subject to 

losing their wilderness characteristics if rights-of-way were developed on the non-WSA lands 

outside of the avoidance areas. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-121 

4.3.8.2.4 IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

Livestock grazing is guided by livestock objectives set in the Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Grazing Management. Proper levels of livestock use are guided by these 

objectives, thus, it is not anticipated that livestock grazing would have impacts on non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics under any alternatives because meeting these objectives 

would not permit degradation of the lands. When livestock use is properly managed, it would not 

affect the appearance of naturalness. Grazing assessments completed by MFO staff and any 

subsequent actions taken to remedy impending issues would enhance the natural character of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, improved natural condition would 

sustain the setting needed to support opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation and 

the experience of solitude that visitors seek. 

While there could be some visual evidence of livestock use in the areas (presence of livestock, 

feces, trampling of soil, fences, and consumption of vegetation), rangeland health and riparian 

conditions would be maintained through proper management under the Standards and Guides 

assessments, and the appearance of a natural condition of these areas would be maintained. For 

some visitors, the presence of livestock would be an adverse impact on the desired experience 

(connection with the natural world and experiences of solitude). However, this effect would be 

seasonal. At other times of the year, livestock would not be present, soils would recover, and 

vegetation would re-grow, reducing the impact on the visitor. 

Under all alternatives, the Negro Bill Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

area would remain unavailable for livestock grazing. In addition, small portions of some of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be unavailable for grazing under the range 

of alternatives. When some visitors encounter an area with little or no evidence of livestock use, 

their experience of solitude and primitive recreation may be enhanced. 

4.3.8.2.5 IMPACTS OF MINERAL RESOURCES ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.2.5.1 Oil and Gas 

The mineral assumptions for analysis and the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenarios 

presented in the beginning of this chapter were used in the analysis of impacts to non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. These RFD scenarios for oil and gas development were derived 

from the Mineral Potential Report for the MPA (BLM 2005e). Of the seven RFD areas identified 

in the MPA, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics fall within three of them. 

The Bookcliffs RFD Area totals 151,834 acres outside of WSAs. It encompasses seven nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas which total 60,453 acres, or about 39% of the 

RFD area (see Table 4.59). About 28,277 acres within non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are currently leased. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-122 

Table 4.59. Bookcliffs RFD Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Name of Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Percent of Bookcliffs RFD 

Area 

Acres of Unit with Existing 

Leases and % of Total 

Coal Canyon 14% 13,312 (62%) 

Flume Canyon 2% 1,355 (38%) 

Hells Hole 2% 1,724 (68%) 

Hideout Canyon 7% 5,399 (46%) 

Mexico Point 8% 6,294 (49%) 

Spruce Canyon 1% 161 (14%) 

Westwater Creek 5% 32 (<1%) 

The Big Flat-Hatch Point RFD Area has a total of 391,149 acres outside of WSAs. It includes 11 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas which total 66,864 acres, or about 17% of 

the area (see Table 4.60). About 10,127 acres within non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are currently leased. 

Table 4.60. Big Flat-Hatch Point RFD Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Name of Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Percent of Big Flat-Hatch 

Point RFD Area 

Acres of Unit with Existing 

Leases and % of Total 

Behind the Rocks <1% 0 

Dead Horse Cliffs <1% 237 (30%) 

Goldbar 2% 1,125 (17%) 

Gooseneck <1% 0 

Harts Point <1% 0 

Hatch Wash 3% 3,006 (27%) 

Hatch/Lockhart/Hart <1% 833 (31%) 

Horsethief Point 2% 838 (10%) 

Hunter Canyon 1% 251 (5%) 

Labyrinth Canyon 6% 3,658 (14%) 

Shafer Canyon <1% 179 (9%) 

The Eastern Paradox RFD Area has a total of 556,389 acres outside of WSAs. It encompasses 

fourteen non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas which total 138,410 acres, or 

about 25% of the area (see Table 4.61). About 12,117 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are currently leased. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-123 

Table 4.61. Eastern Paradox RFD Area and Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Name of Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Percent of Eastern Paradox 

RFD Area 

Acres of Unit with Existing 

Leases and % of Total 

Arches Adjacent 1% 56 (<1%) 

Beaver Creek 5% 0 

Big Triangle <1% 0 

Desolation Canyon 2% 0 

Dome Plateau 3% 2,364 (17%) 

Fisher Towers 3% 0 

Floy Canyon 2% 8,859 (86%) 

Granite Creek 1% 0 

Lost Spring Canyon 2% 771 (6%) 

Mary Jane Canyon 4% 0 

Mill Creek Canyon <1% 0 

Negro Bill Canyon <1% 0 

Westwater Canyon <1% 0 

Yellow Bird <1% 67 (18%) 

Each of the three RFD areas has differing projections for oil and gas development by alternative. 

Table 4.62 portrays those projections. It is assumed that 15 acres would be disturbed for every 

well drilled. 

Table 4.62. RFD Areas with Projected Number of Wells per Year, over 15 Years 

Projected Wells Per Year/over 15 Years RFD Areas (Acres outside WSAs) 

Alternative A Alternative B Proposed Plan Alternative D 

Bookcliffs (151,834) ~7 / 104 ~4 / 64 ~7 / 104 ~7 / 104 

Big Flat – Hatch Point (391,149) ~3 / 46 ~1 / 19 ~2 / 34 ~3 / 44 

Eastern Paradox (556,389) ~2 / 34 ~1 / 21 ~2 / 28 ~2 / 32 

Impacts Associated with Oil and Gas Leasing/Development under All Alternatives 

A number of variables would determine the degree of impact to non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, including where surface-disturbing activities occur, land form or topography, 

vegetation type, sequence of development, and reclamation time. Soil types and climate would 

affect the time it takes to reclaim disturbances. Successful reclamation would take about 10 

years. 

Construction and operation of oil and gas wells and associated support facilities, including roads, 

surface and buried pipelines, power lines, and compressor stations would create soil and 

vegetation disturbance and the presence of permanent structures that would degrade the natural 

characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. In addition to site-specific 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-124 

surface disturbance, the cumulative number of wells would change the appearance of 

naturalness. 

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 one-half mile 

beyond the direct loss of natural character. 

Table 4.63 displays the oil and gas leasing stipulations, by alternative, for each of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Table 4.63. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Leasing Stipulations By 

Alternative 

Name Total 

Acres 

Currently 

Leased Stipulation Alt. A Alt. B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alt. D 

Standard 6,396 0 0 0 

CSU/TL 0 0 5,883 5,883 

NSO 0 0 513 513 

Arches 

Adjacent 6,396 56 

Closed 0 6,396 0 0 

Standard 17,744 0 0 3,956 

CSU/TL 3,030 0 0 13,614 

NSO 4,948 0 22,561 8,152 

Beaver 

Creek 25,722 0 

Closed 25,722 2,977 0 

Standard 2,616 0 1,339 3,588 

CSU/TL 0 0 684 0 

NSO 1,019 0 1,582 55 

Behind the 

Rocks 3,643 0 

Closed 3,643 0 0 

Standard 137 0 659 659 

CSU/TL 5,063 0 4,541 4,541 

NSO 0 0 0 0 Big Triangle 5,200 0 

Closed 0 5,200 0 0 

Standard 15,145 0 6,831 13,069 

CSU/TL 5,129 0 14,801 8,563 

NSO 0 0 0 0 Coal Canyon 21,632 13,312 

Closed 0 21,632 0 0 

Standard 512 0 0 642 

CSU/TL 0 0 699 121 

NSO 250 0 98 34 

Dead Horse 

Cliffs 797 237 

Closed 35 797 0 0 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-125 

Table 4.63. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Leasing Stipulations By 

Alternative 

Name Total 

Acres 

Currently 

Leased Stipulation Alt. A Alt. B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alt. D 

Standard 1,378 0 411 1,286 

CSU/TL 9,120 0 9,102 8,968 

NSO 0 0 985 250 

Desolation 

Canyon 10,498 0 

Closed 0 10,498 0 0 

Standard 12,255 0 2,252 2,373 

CSU/TL 1,952 0 2,375 5,444 

NSO 0 0 8,267 6,390 

Dome 

Plateau 14,207 2,364 

Closed 0 14,207 1,313 0 

Standard 14,810 0 4,238 4,763 

CSU/TL 1,328 0 4,551 9,173 

NSO 1,097 0 4,528 3,312 

Fisher 

Towers 17,235 0 

Closed 0 17,235 3,625 0 

Standard 3,615 0 3,422 5,064 

CSU/TL 6,368 0 6,561 4,919 

NSO 0 0 0 0 Floy Canyon 9,983 8,589 

Closed 0 9,983 0 0 

Standard 1,709 0 1,952 1,263 

CSU/TL 1,682 0 838 2,257 

NSO 129 0 730 0 

Flume 

Canyon 3,520 1,355 

Closed 0 3,520 0 0 

Standard 4,565 0 0 5,802 

CSU/TL 1,735 0 373 419 

NSO 0 0 6,064 543 Goldbar 6,437 1,125 

Closed 0 6,437 0 0 

Standard 275 0 0 530 

CSU/TL 530 0 0 313 

NSO 0 0 843 0 

Gooseneck 843 0 

Closed 0 843 0 0 

Standard 431 0 1,378 13 

CSU/TL 4,097 0 3,150 4,515 

NSO 0 0 0 0 

Granite 

Creek 4,528 0 

Closed 0 4,528 0 0 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-126 

Table 4.63. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Leasing Stipulations By 

Alternative 

Name Total 

Acres 

Currently 

Leased Stipulation Alt. A Alt. B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alt. D 

Standard 0 0 0 33 

CSU/TL 1,436 0 1,429 1,432 

NSO 29 0 36 0 

Harts Point 

(MFO) 1,465 0 

Closed 0 1,465 0 0 

Standard 0 0 3,366 5,842 

CSU/TL 10,983 0 7,617 5,141 

NSO 0 0 0 0 Hatch Wash 10,983 3,006 

Closed 0 10,983 0 0 

Standard 0 0 0 114 

CSU/TL 2,670 0 2,670 2,556 

NSO 0 0 0 0 

Hatch/Lockh

art/Hart 2,670 833 

Closed 0 2,670 0 0 

Standard 0 0 0 180 

CSU/TL 2,538 0 2,538 2,358 

NSO 0 0 0 0 Hells Hole 2,538 1,724 

Closed 0 2,538 0 0 

Standard 0 0 0 0 

CSU/TL 11,607 0 11,607 11,607 

NSO 0 0 0 0 

Hideout 

Canyon 11,607 5,399 

Closed 0 11,607 0 0 

Standard 7,417 0 2,326 6,824 

CSU/TL 0 4,842 372 

NSO 816 0 1,190 1,162 

Horsethief 

Point 8,358 838 

Closed 125 8,358 0 0 

Standard 3,092 0 0 4,155 

CSU/TL 0 0 1,610 0 

NSO 1,373 0 2,855 310 

Hunter 

Canyon 4,465 251 

Closed 0 4,465 0 0 

Standard 20,545 0 6,774 15,534 

CSU/TL 2,105 0 271 7,053 

NSO 2,458 0 17,954 2,456 

Labyrinth 

Canyon 25,361 3,658 

Closed 0 25,361 0 0 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-127 

Table 4.63. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Leasing Stipulations By 

Alternative 

Name Total 

Acres 

Currently 

Leased Stipulation Alt. A Alt. B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alt. D 

Standard 11,456 0 5,588 4,363 

CSU/TL 0 0 5,823 7,093 

NSO 0 0 45 0 

Lost Spring 

Canyon 11,456 771 

Closed 0 11,456 0 0 

Standard 21,076 0 122 1,995 

CSU/TL 3,703 0 2,457 21,807 

NSO 0 0 8,993 946 

Mary Jane 

Canyon 24,779 0 

Closed 0 24,779 13,176 0 

Standard 0 0 0 0 

CSU/TL 12,837 0 12,837 12,837 

NSO 0 0 0 0 Mexico Point 12,837 6,294 

Closed 0 12,837 0 0 

Standard 3,051 0 0 192 

CSU/TL 0 0 3,127 

NSO 337 0 3,388 69 

Mill Creek 

Canyon 3,388 0 

Closed 0 3,388 0 0 

Standard 2,226 0 0 0 

CSU/TL 0 0 1,156 2,093 

NSO 107 0 1,177 240 

Negro Bill 

Canyon 2,333 0 

Closed 0 2,333 0 0 

Standard 900 0 0 129 

CSU/TL 0 0 0 1,700 

NSO 942 0 1,842 13 

Shafer 

Canyon 1,842 179 

Closed 0 1,842 0 0 

Standard 0 0 13 13 

CSU/TL 1,131 0 161 1,118 

NSO 0 0 957 0 

Spruce 

Canyon 1,131 161 

Closed 0 1,131 0 0 

Standard 2,251 0 1,835 1,876 

CSU/TL 0 0 1,171 1,170 

NSO 840 0 84 40 

Westwater 

Canyon 3,086 0 

Closed 0 2,328 0 0 

Standard 0 0 0 0 

CSU/TL 7,188 0 7,188 7,188 

NSO 0 0 0 0 

Westwater 

Creek 7,188 32 

Closed 0 7,188 0 0 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-128 

Table 4.63. Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Leasing Stipulations By 

Alternative 

Name Total 

Acres 

Currently 

Leased Stipulation Alt. A Alt. B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alt. D 

Standard 357 0 233 

CSU/TL 0 0 124 357 

NSO 0 0 0 0 

Yellow Bird 357 67 

Closed 0 357 0 0 

*In the Proposed Plan, 27,722 acres of Beaver Creek are managed to protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness 

characteristics. Of these acres, 22,561 acres are managed with a no surface occupancy stipulation, and 2,977 acres are closed 

to oil and gas leasing. 

In the Proposed Plan, 5,540 acres of the Fisher Towers lands with wilderness characteristics are managed to protect, preserve 

and maintain their wilderness characteristics. Of these acres, 1,629 are closed to oil and gas leasing, and 3,911 are open to 

leasing with a no surface occupancy stipulation. 

In the Proposed Plan, 16,499 acres of the Mary Jane lands with wilderness characteristics are managed to protect, preserve and 

maintain their wilderness characteristics. Of these acres, 7,525 are closed to oil and gas leasing, and 8,910 are open to leasing 

with a no surface occupancy stipulation. 

Alternative A

All or parts of the 32 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas would remain open to 

leasing and development under standard oil and gas stipulations or under controlled surface use 

or timing limitation stipulations (250,853 acres). This comprises about 94% of these areas. Six 

percent of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (within 12 areas) would be either 

closed to leasing or have a no surface occupancy stipulation on the leases. 

In the Book Cliffs RFD area, all seven non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas would remain 

open to leasing under standard stipulations or under controlled surface use or timing limitation 

stipulations (60,324). Only 129 acres in Flume Canyon (4%) would have a no surface occupancy 

stipulation applied to the lease. Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and the existing leases within those areas, the highest potential for leasing and/or 

development would be in Coal Canyon, Hideout Canyon, Mexico Point, or Hells Hole. Given 

that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is 7 wells/year for the whole RFD area, and that 

39% of the RFD area encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, up to three 

wells per year—or up to 45 wells over a 15 year period—could be drilled within these areas. 

This could disturb up to 45 acres per year, or up to 675 acres over the life of the plan. Leasing 

and development within these non-WSA areas would cause that portion to lose their natural 

character and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and 

development of oil and gas resources. However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas would 

lose their wilderness characteristics in totality because of the small amount of acreage projected 

to be disturbed and the number of projected wells in this RFD area over the 15 year scenario. 

In the Big Flat-Hatch Point RFD area, all eleven non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas 

would remain partially open to leasing under standard stipulations or under controlled surface 

use or timing limitation stipulations. However, 1,019 acres (28%) in Behind the Rocks, 285 acres 

(36%) in Dead Horse Cliffs, 941 acres (11%) in Horsethief Point, 1,373 acres (31%) in Hunter 

Canyon, 2,458 acres (10%) in Labyrinth Canyon and 945 acres (51%) in Shafer Canyon would 

be under a no-surface occupancy stipulation or closed to leasing. Based on the percentage of 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-129 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and the existing leases within those areas, the 

highest potential for leasing and/or development would be in Labyrinth Canyon, Hatch Wash, or 

Goldbar. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is 3 wells/year for the whole RFD 

area, and that 17% of the RFD area encompasses non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, up to one well per year—or up to 15 wells over a 15 year period—could be 

drilled within the non-WSA areas. This could disturb up to 15 acres per year, or up to 225 acres 

over the life of the plan. Leasing and development within these non-WSA areas could cause that 

portion to lose its natural character and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to 

exploration for and development of oil and gas resources. However, it is not anticipated that any 

of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in totality because of the small amount of 

acreage projected to be disturbed and the few projected wells in this RFD area over the 15 year 

scenario. 

In the Eastern Paradox RFD area, all fourteen non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas would 

remain open to leasing under standard stipulations or under controlled surface use or timing 

limitation stipulations (133,462 acres). However, 4,948 acres in Beaver Creek (19%), 1,097 acres 

in Fisher Towers (6%), 337 acres in Millcreek (10%), 110 acres in Negro Bill Canyon (5%), and 

840 acres in Westwater Canyon (36%), would be under a no-surface occupancy stipulation or 

closed to leasing). Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

and/or the existing leases within those areas, the highest potential for leasing and/or development 

would be in Beaver Creek, Desolation Canyon, Dome Plateau, Floy Canyon, Fisher Towers, 

Mary Jane Canyon and Lost spring Canyon. Floy Canyon would have the highest probability for 

development based on existing leases. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is two 

wells/year for the whole RFD area, and that 24% of the RFD area encompasses non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics open to leasing under standard stipulation, controlled surface use, 

or timing stipulations, up to one well per year—or up to 15 wells over a 15 year period—could 

be drilled within the non-WSA areas. This could disturb up to 15 acres per year, or up to 225 

acres over the life of the plan. Leasing and development within these non-WSA areas could 

cause that portion to lose their natural character and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation due to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources. However, it is not 

anticipated that any of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in totality because of 

the small amount of acreage projected to be disturbed and the few projected wells in this RFD 

area over the 15 year scenario. 

In summary, up to 5 wells per/year or up to 75 wells over the 15 year RFD scenario, disturbing 

up to 75 acres/year or 1,125 acres over the 15 year RFD scenario could occur in non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. Thirteen of the 32 areas have a higher potential for these wells to 

be drilled based on existing leases and/or percentages of non-WSA lands within the RFD area. 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, all lands within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be closed to leasing. However, existing leases still remain in 20 of the 32 non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics areas. Development of these leases could compromise wilderness 

characteristics values in these areas. Below is a breakdown of how or where that may occur 

based on the RFD areas and the predicted surface disturbance for oil and gas activity for this 

alternative. Those non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are not currently leased 

would be fully protected under the leasing closure under this alternative. This would preserve the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-130 

naturalness of the areas and maintain the outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation and 

solitude. 

In the Book Cliffs RFD area, all seven non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas have portions 

of the areas under existing leases comprising 28,277 acres. Based on the percentage of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics under existing leases, the highest potential for 

development of those leases would be in Coal Canyon, Hideout Canyon, Mexico Point, or Hells 

Hole. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is 4 wells/year for the whole RFD area 

under this alternative, and that 18% of the lands the RFD area encompasses are in non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics that are leased, approximately one well per year—or up to 

15 wells over a 15 year period—could be drilled within the non-WSA areas currently under 

lease. This could disturb up to 15 acres per year, or up to 225 acres over the life of the plan. The 

15 year projection is on the high side, given that leases, if not developed or held in production, 

will expire after 10 years. Development of any leases within the non-WSA areas could cause that 

portion to lose their natural character and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due 

to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources. Because of the small amount of 

acreage projected to be disturbed and the few projected wells in this RFD area over the 15 year 

scenario, it is anticipated that small portions of areas could loose their wilderness characteristics 

in any of the three large non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics with existing leases. Far 

less than 1% of any of those three areas would be at risk of loss of wilderness characteristics. 

However, if all of the development over the 15 year period occurs in the smaller Hells Hole area, 

approximately 9% of that area could lose its wilderness characteristics. 

In the Big Flat RFD area, eight of the eleven non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas have 

portions of the areas under existing leases comprising 10,127 acres. Based on the percentage of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics under existing leases, the highest potential 

for development of those leases could be in Labyrinth Canyon, Hatch Wash or Goldbar. Given 

that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is 1 well/year for the whole RFD area under this 

alternative, and that 3% of the lands the RFD area encompasses are in non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics that are leased, it is not anticipated that any well would be drilled 

within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Thus, all lands would maintain and 

protect their wilderness characteristics values in this RFD area. 

In the Eastern Paradox RFD area five out of the 14 non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas 

have portions of the areas under existing leases comprising 12,112 acres. The rest would all be 

closed to leasing (126,298 acres). Based on the percentage of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics under existing leases, the highest potential for development of those 

leases could be in Dome Plateau and Floy Canyon. Given that the projection for drilling for oil 

and gas is 1 well/year for the whole RFD area under this alternative, and that 2% of the lands the 

RFD area encompasses are in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are leased, it is 

not anticipated that any wells would be drilled within the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Thus, all lands would maintain and protect their wilderness characteristics values 

in this RFD area. 

In summary, up to 1 well per/year or up to 15 wells over the 15 year RFD scenario, disturbing up 

to 15 acres/year or 225 acres over the 15 year RFD scenario could occur on existing leased lands 

in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Three non-WSA areas in the Book Cliffs 

RFD area have the highest potential for these wells to be drilled based on existing leases in the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-131 

non-WSA lands within the RFD area. All other non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be protected from oil and gas leasing and developments activities by closing the areas to 

future leasing. 

Proposed Plan

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Included in the Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed to protect, 

preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. This acreage includes the entire Beaver 

Creek area, and portions of Mary Jane (16,499 acres) and Fisher Towers (5,540 acres) areas. 

Under this management, these lands would be managed as closed, or with a no surface 

occupancy stipulation. There would be no other surface-disturbing activities allowed within this 

acreage, including no new road building or construction. Minerals decisions would have no 

surface impacts upon the three non-WSA areas to be managed to protect, Preserve, and maintain 

their wilderness characteristics as no leases would be granted that would impact these wilderness 

characteristics. 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Not Included in the Proposed Plan

All or parts of 27 of the 31 non-WSA lands with Wilderness Characteristics areas would remain 

all or partially open to leasing and development under standard oil and gas stipulations or under 

controlled surface use or timing limitation stipulations (160,522 acres). This comprises about 

60% of non-WSA areas. About 80,241 acres of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics spread among 20 areas would be either closed to leasing or have a no surface 

occupancy stipulation on the leases. Three of those non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics areas would be protected, in whole, from all surface-disturbing activities: 

Gooseneck, Mill Creek Canyon, and Shafer Canyon. 

In the Book Cliffs RFD area, all seven non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas would remain 

all or partially open to leasing under standard stipulations or under controlled surface use or 

timing limitation stipulations (58,766 acres). However, a total of 1,687 acres would be under a 

no-surface occupancy stipulation or closed to leasing in the following areas: 730 acres in Flume 

Canyon (21%) and 957 acres in Spruce Canyon (85%). Based on the percentage of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics and the existing leases within those areas, the highest 

potential for leasing and/or development would be in Coal Canyon, Hideout Canyon, Mexico 

Point, or Hells Hole. Because well projections under this alternative are the same as in 

Alternative A, and generally the same percentage of lands in the RFD area encompass non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics, the same analysis portraying 3 wells in this area would be 

applied. 

In the Big Flat-Hatch Point RFD area, nine of the eleven non-WSA wilderness characteristics 

areas would remain all or partially open to leasing under standard stipulations or under controlled 

surface use or timing limitation stipulations (33,970 acres). However a total of 32,464 acres 

would be under a no-surface occupancy stipulation in the following areas: 1,582 acres in Behind 

the Rocks (43%), 98 acres in Dead Horse Cliffs (12%), 6,064 acres in Goldbar (94%), 842 acres 

in Gooseneck (100%), 36 acres in Harts Point (2%), 1190 acres in Horsethief Point (14%), 2,855 

acres in Hunter Canyon (64%), 17,954 acres in Labyrinth Canyon (71%), and 1,842 acres of 

Shafer Canyon (100%). Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and the existing leases within those areas, the highest potential for leasing and/or 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-132 

development would be in Labyrinth Canyon, Hatch Wash, or Goldbar. Given that the projection 

for drilling for oil and gas is 2 wells/year for the whole RFD area under this alternative, and that 

less than 9% of the lands the RFD area encompasses are in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (not under a no-surface occupancy stipulation), it is not anticipated that any wells 

would be drilled within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Thus, all lands 

would maintain and protect their wilderness characteristics values in this RFD area. 

In the Eastern Paradox RFD area, twelve of the fourteen non-WSA wilderness characteristics 

areas would remain all or partially open to leasing under standard stipulations or under controlled 

surface use or timing limitation stipulations (66,594 acres). However, a total of 24,055 acres 

would be under a no-surface occupancy stipulation or closed to leasing in the following areas: 

513 acres in Arches Adjacent (9%), 985 acres in Desolation Canyon (10%), 9,580 acres in Dome 

Plateau (67%), 45 acres in Lost Spring Canyon (<1%), 3,388 acres in Millcreek (100%), 1,177 

acres in Negro Bill Canyon (50%), and 84 acres in Westwater Canyon (4%). Based on the 

percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and/or the existing leases within 

those areas, the highest potential for leasing and/or development would be in Desolation Canyon, 

Dome Plateau, Floy Canyon, and Lost Spring Canyon. Floy Canyon would have the highest 

probability for development based on existing leases. Given that the projection for drilling for oil 

and gas is 2 wells/year for the whole RFD area under this alternative, and that less than 12% of 

the lands the RFD area encompasses are in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (not 

under a no-surface occupancy stipulation or closed to leasing), it is not anticipated that any wells 

would be drilled within the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Thus, all lands 

would maintain and protect their wilderness characteristics values in this RFD area. 

In summary, up to 3 wells per/year or up to 45 wells over the 15 year RFD scenario, disturbing 

up to 45 acres/year or 675 acres over the 15 year RFD scenario could occur in non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, most likely within the Book Cliffs RFD area. However, eleven of 

the 32 areas have a higher potential for these wells to be drilled based on existing leases and/or 

percentages of non-WSA lands within the RFD area. 

Alternative D

All or of the 32 non-WSA lands with Wilderness Characteristics areas would remain all or 

partially open to leasing and development under standard oil and gas stipulations or under 

controlled surface use or timing limitation stipulations (242,006 acres). This comprises about 

91% of non-WSA areas. Nine percent (24,479 acres) of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics spread between 16 areas would be have a no surface occupancy stipulation on the 

leases. 

In the Book Cliffs RFD area, all seven non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas would remain 

open to leasing under standard stipulations or under controlled surface use or timing limitation 

stipulations (60,453 acres). Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and the existing leases within those areas, the highest potential for leasing and/or 

development would be in Coal Canyon, Hideout Canyon, Mexico Point, or Hells Hole. Because 

well projections under this alternative are the same as in Alternative A, and generally the same 

percentage of lands in the RFD area encompass non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

the same analysis portraying three wells in this RFD area would be applied. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-133 

In the Big Fat-Hatch Point RFD area, all eleven non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas would 

remain all or partially open to leasing under standard stipulations or under controlled surface use 

or timing limitation stipulations (62,291 acres). However a total of 4,573 acres would be under a 

no-surface occupancy stipulation in the following areas: 55 acres in Behind the Rocks (2%), 34 

acres in Dead Horse Cliffs (4%), 543 acres in Goldbar (9%), 1162 acres in Horsethief Point 

(16%), 310 acres in Hunter Canyon (7%), 2,456 acres in Labyrinth Canyon (11%), and 13 acres 

of Shafer Canyon (<1%). Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and the existing leases within those areas, the highest potential for leasing and/or 

development would be in Labyrinth Canyon, Hatch/Lockhart/Hart, Hatch Wash, or Goldbar. 

Because well projections under this alternative are the same as in Alternative A, and generally 

the same percentage of lands in the RFD area encompass non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics (16%), the same analysis portraying one well in this RFD area would be applied. 

In the Eastern Paradox RFD area, all fourteen non-WSA wilderness characteristics areas would 

remain all or partially open to leasing under standard stipulations or under controlled surface use 

or timing limitation stipulations (118,498 acres). However, a total of 19,912 acres would be 

under a no-surface occupancy stipulation or closed to leasing in the following areas: 513 acres in 

Arches Adjacent (9%), 8,152 acres in Beaver Creek (32%), 250 acres in Desolation Canyon 

(2%), 6,390 acres in Dome Plateau (45%), 3,312 acres in Fisher Towers (19%), 946 acres in 

Mary Jane Canyon (4%), 69 acres in Millcreek (2%), 240 acres in Negro Bill Canyon (10%), and 

40 acres in Westwater Canyon (2%). Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and/or the existing leases within those areas, the highest potential for 

leasing and/or development would be in Desolation Canyon, Dome Plateau, Floy Canyon, and 

Lost Spring Canyon. Floy Canyon would have the highest probability for development based on 

existing leases. Because well projections under this alternative are the same as in Alternative A, 

and generally the same percentage of lands in the RFD area encompass non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics (21%), the same analysis portraying one well in this RFD area would 

be applied. 

In summary, like Alternative A, up to 5 wells per/year or up to 75 wells over the 15 year RFD 

scenario, disturbing up to 75 acres/year or 1,125 acres over the 15 year RFD scenario could 

occur in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Twelve of the 32 areas have a higher 

potential for these wells to be drilled based on existing leases and/or percentages of non-WSA 

lands within the RFD area. 

4.3.8.2.5.2 Coal-bed Methane 

Alternatives A, D, and the Proposed Plan

In the Book Cliffs RFD area there is potential for coal-bed methane development in Hells Hole, 

Hideout Canyon, and Mexico Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Predictions 

of up to 225 cumulative acres of disturbance from 15 wells over the 15 year RFD scenario is 

anticipated for an area three times as large as the non-WSA lands together. Due to the large area 

of potential development for coal-bed methane in the northeastern corner of the MPA, one 5-spot 

well cluster, and up to 75 acres may be disturbed within these areas over the next 15 years. The 

impacts to wilderness characteristics from coal-bed methane leasing and development would be 

the same as described for oil and gas leasing and development. Leasing would be subject to the 

same stipulations as oil and gas leasing portrayed in on Table 4.53. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-134 

Alternative B

None of the areas would be leased for coal-bed methane under this alternative, thereby protecting 

the wilderness characteristics resource from that potential development. 

In summary, Alternatives A and D would provide the most opportunities for oil and gas leasing 

and development to impact non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. In both alternatives, 

projections of up to five wells per year, or 75 wells over the 15 year RFD scenario could occur. 

This would cause surface disturbance and impact naturalness and outstanding opportunities for 

primitive recreation and solitude on up to 75 acres per year or up to 1,125 acres over the 15 year 

spread. 

Under Alternative B, although all areas would be closed to leasing, projected development tied to 

valid existing leases could allow for up to one well a year to be developed on non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. This could have surface impacts on up to 15 acres a year or up to 

225 acres over the 15 year RFD scenario. Statistics show that this development is most probable 

in the Coal Canyon, Hells Hole, Hideout Canyon, or Mexico Point areas. 

The Proposed Plan would allow opportunities for up to three oil and gas wells to be developed in 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas. This could disturb up to 45 acres per 

year of surface disturbance, and up to 675 acres of surface disturbance over the 15 year RFD 

scenario. 

Although oil and gas well development would cause surface-disturbing activities that may result 

in loss of wilderness characteristics in some areas, it is not expected under any alternative that 

the amount of disturbance based on well projections and the scattered nature of the wells would 

be substantial. Although small acreages may be lost in some of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristic, it is not predicted that any of the areas would lose the wilderness 

characteristics value in whole. 

4.3.8.2.5.3 Potash Leasing 

Alternatives A and D

Only the southernmost portion of the Goldbar non-WSA area with wilderness characteristics is 

intersected with a known potash leasing area. Under Alternatives A and D, this area could be 

leased and developed for potash. Approximately 15% of the Goldbar area would lose its 

wilderness characteristics if developed for potash. 

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan 

The 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands to be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their 

wilderness characteristics (Beaver Creek – 25,722 acres, Mary Jane – 16,499 acres, and Fisher 

Towers—5,540 acres) would not be leased for potash under the Proposed Plan, thereby 

protecting the wilderness characteristics resource from that potential development. 

Under these alternatives the integrity of the wilderness characteristics would be protected from 

surface-disturbing mining activities for potash because the area would be closed to leasing under 

Alternative B, and under a no-surface-occupancy stipulation under the Proposed Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-135 

4.3.8.2.5.4 Salable Minerals 

Alternatives A and D

Although salable mineral disposal is a discretionary decision, there is potential for expansion of 

existing salable mineral disposal sites that could encroach into four non-WSA areas with 

wilderness characteristics: Horsethief Point, Goldbar, Behind the Rocks, and Mary Jane Canyon. 

These areas remain available for salable mineral disposal under Alternatives A and D. There is 

one sand and gravel site near the northernmost boundary of Horsethief Point, one building stone 

site near the southernmost boundary of Goldbar, three sand and gravel sites and one building 

stone site on the boundary of Behind the Rocks, and two sand and gravel sites on the boundary 

of Mary Jane Canyon that could expand into small portions of these areas. Where surface 

disturbance would occur, naturalness and opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude 

would be foregone. 

Only minimal acreage within the non-WSA areas would be affected by surface-disturbing 

mineral disposal activities because the existing sites area on the boundaries of these areas, and 

quarries or sand and gravel operations could expand in other directions as well. If the gravel pits 

or building rock quarries have associated support facilities, including roads and power lines, 

additional soil and vegetation disturbance and the presence of permanent structures would 

degrade the natural characteristics of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The noise 

of the operations of sand and gravel pits or rock quarries, including the presence of work crews, 

vehicles, and equipment, would degrade opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive 

recreational opportunities in proximity to industrial development. As recreational visitors move 

away from the sources of development, the sights and sounds of development would diminish. 

However, it can be expected that sights and sounds from development would reduce 

opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation up to 1/2 mile beyond the 

direct loss of natural character, depending on topography. Up to five acres in each of these areas 

could loose their wilderness characteristics by future expansion of the existing sites. 

Alternative B

All non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to salable mineral disposal, 

thereby protecting the wilderness values of the four areas that contain the salable mineral 

sources. 

The Proposed Plan 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Included in the Proposed Plan

The 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands to be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their 

wilderness characteristics (Beaver Creek – 25,722 acres, Mary Jane – 16,499 acres, and Fisher 

Towers—5,540 acres) would not be available for salable mineral disposal under the Proposed 

Plan, thereby protecting the wilderness characteristics resource from that potential development. 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Not Included in the Proposed Plan

Only two of the four non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as described in Alternative 

A above would be open to salable minerals: one sand and gravel site at Horsethief Point, and 

three sand and gravel sites and one building stone area in Behind the Rocks non-WSA areas with 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-136 

wilderness characteristics. Where development would occur, the same impacts as described in 

alternative A would ensue. 

4.3.8.2.5.5 Locatable Minerals 

All Alternatives

There are eight non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics areas that are located within 

moderate potential areas for uranium and vanadium: Arches Adjacent, Beaver Creek, Behind the 

Rocks, Goldbar, Gooseneck, Horsethief Canyon, Labyrinth Canyon, and Yellow Bird. Most of 

the uranium/vanadium development is expected to occur within the historic mining areas with 

high development potential, which are outside of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. However, if new mining development does occur within these areas, direct loss 

of wilderness characteristics would be unavoidable due to major surface-disturbing activities. 

Although Behind the Rocks non-WSA lands would be within an ACEC under Alternative B and 

the Proposed Plan, and thus would provide for some mitigative actions, surface disturbance from 

mining would still occur. 

Existing mining claims currently overlay Floy Canyon, Goldbar, Dome Plateau, Beaver Creek, 

Hatch/Lockhart, and Hatch Wash. To date, there has been no activity associated with the claims 

within the non-WSA areas. New mining claims are filed continually, however, and changes 

could occur that would impact lands with wilderness characteristics by denuding the naturalness, 

and creating loss of primitive recreation activities and solitude for those areas where new mining 

activities may occur. 

4.3.8.2.6 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

There are 32 areas (outside of existing wilderness study areas [WSAs]) totaling 266,485 acres, 

that were found to have wilderness characteristics. See Tables 3.16 and 3.17 for a list of nonWSA areas with wilderness characteristics by name and acreage. 

4.3.8.2.6.1 Alternatives A and D 

Under these alternatives, there are no specific actions prescribed to directly protect or enhance 

the naturalness and opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation of the non-WSA areas. 

Thus, numerous allocations and uses could detract from the natural character or opportunities for 

solitude or primitive recreation of the non-WSA areas. 

4.3.8.2.6.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed with 

the following prescriptions: 

• Visual resource management (VRM) Class II objectives. 

• Limited to Designated Road and Trails for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. 

• Closed to oil and gas leasing. 

• Closed to disposal of mineral materials. 

• Retain public lands in Federal ownership. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-137 

• Rights-of-way exclusion area. 

• Closed to commercial and personal-use wood cutting 

• Closed to new road construction. 

This prescription would prevent road construction and surface disturbances that would degrade 

the natural character of the non-WSA areas, prevent surface disturbances and uses that would be 

incompatible with primitive recreation activities, and protect the setting needed to support the 

experience of solitude. This management prescription would protect the natural character of all 

of the non-WSA lands, and the opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation that exist within 

these areas. 

4.3.8.2.6.3 Proposed Plan 

There are 47,761 acres within Beaver Creek (25,722 acres), Fisher Towers (5,540 acres), and 

Mary Jane Canyon (16,499 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that would be 

managed to protect their wilderness characteristics through the following prescriptions: 

• Visual resource management (VRM) Class II objectives. 

• Limited to Designated Road and Trails for off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. 

• Closed or No Surface Occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing. 

• Closed to disposal of mineral materials. 

• Retain public lands in Federal ownership. 

• Rights-of-way avoidance area. 

• Closed to commercial and personal-use wood cutting 

• Closed to new road construction. 

This prescription, although not as restrictive as Alternative B, would still prevent new road 

construction and surface disturbances that would degrade the natural character of the non-WSA 

areas, prevent surface disturbances and uses that would be incompatible with primitive recreation 

activities, and protect the setting needed to support the experience of solitude. This management 

prescription would protect the natural character of all of the non-WSA lands, and the 

opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation that exist within these areas. 

For the other 218,724 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, there are no 

specific actions prescribed to directly protect or enhance the naturalness and opportunities for 

solitude or primitive recreation of the non-WSA areas. Thus, numerous allocations and uses 

could detract from the natural character or opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation of 

the non-WSA areas. 

In summary, Alternatives A, and D prescribe no specific management prescriptions would 

protect the naturalness or opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation of non-WSA lands. 

Alternative B however, would prescribe a management scheme that would protect the 

naturalness and opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation of all of the non-WSA lands 

(266,485 acres). The Proposed Plan would manage three areas (47,761 acres) to protect their 

wilderness characteristics to protect naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation in those areas. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-138 

4.3.8.2.7 IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGY DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.2.7.1 Alternative A 

Petrified wood gathering in Gooseneck, Goldbar, Dome Plateau, Mary Jane Canyon and Fisher 

Towers non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would continue to be allowed along the 

Colorado Riverway Special Recreation management areas, including commercial sales of this 

resource. This could impact the wilderness characteristics values by detracting from naturalness 

due to surface disturbance and affecting primitive recreational opportunities and solitude from 

commercial activities. 

4.3.8.2.7.2 Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan 

Petrified wood gathering and in Gooseneck, Goldbar, Dome Plateau, Mary Jane Canyon and 

Fisher Towers, would be prohibited within the Colorado Riverway Special Recreation 

Management Area to protect resources for future public enjoyment. In addition commercial sales 

of petrified wood would not be permitted. These decisions would maintain the wilderness 

characteristics of the areas. Like cultural resources, knowing more about the paleontological 

resources of the area, interpreting the resource in an appropriate fashion, and viewing fossil sites 

in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would add to the enjoyment of these areas 

for primitive recreational purposes. And protection of fossils adds to the character of the setting 

that supports these recreational opportunities. 

4.3.8.2.8 EFFECTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

The MFO does not prescribe specific allocation and use decisions for other resources in 

designated SRMAs. Each alternative designates SRMAs based on different types of recreational 

uses and opportunities in concert with other goals and objectives for those alternatives. 

4.3.8.2.8.1 Alternative A 

Two designated SRMAs overlay all or portions of six non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. All other non-WSA lands would be managed as an Extensive Recreation 

Management Area (ERMA) 

All of Hatch Wash, Harts Point, and Hatch/Lockhart non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics lie within the Canyon Rims SRMA. Although the SRMA is much larger than 

those three areas, the primary objectives for management of these scenic and remote lands is in 

accordance with the MFO's Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) inventory. Both the Hatch 

Wash and Hatch/Lockhart areas were inventoried as semi-primitive non-motorized areas 

primarily for hiking and backpacking opportunities within the canyons. Harts Point non-WSA 

wilderness characteristics area was inventoried as a roaded natural area for the opportunity of 

auto touring on primary roads and visiting scenic overlooks into the Colorado River canyon and 

Canyonlands National Park. The SRMA opportunities would protect the natural landscape and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation in all three areas, however, motorized 

vehicle use of designated routes in the Harts Point area would temporarily disrupt opportunities 

for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-139 

The Colorado River SRMA envelopes a portion of the Dome Plateau and Westwater Canyon 

non-WSA areas for a 1/2 mile on either side of the Colorado River, and a portion of the Beaver 

Creek non-WSA area along the Dolores River. The purpose of this SRMA is to focus on boating 

and river rafting opportunities and to preserve these areas for non-motorized primitive recreation 

opportunities. The SRMA recreational management focus would protect the natural landscape 

and opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation in all three areas. 

None of the other 26 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are within SRMAs under 

this alternative, therefore, there would be no recreational management objectives or focus within 

those areas. Because these lands are not within a managed SRMA with specific recreation 

objectives, they would be vulnerable to surface-disturbing uses including commercial permitting 

activities, special recreation permits, new road construction, and other activities that could 

impact the natural values and primitive recreational opportunities and solitude that currently exist 

in those areas. 

4.3.8.2.8.2 Alternative B 

All portions of 21 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and portions of seven others 

would be within eight designated SRMAs. Only four non-WSA land areas (Lost Spring, Granite 

Creek, Big Triangle, and Yellow Bird) would not be within a designated SRMA for focused 

recreation management. 

The Bookcliffs SRMA includes all of Hideout Canyon, Mexico Point, Hells Hole and portions of 

Desolation Canyon (90%), Floy Canyon (45%), and Coal Canyon (5%). This SRMA would be 

managed as an undeveloped SRMA for non-mechanized recreation use, including hiking and 

backpacking, among others. No motorized permits would be authorized. The primitive recreation 

setting of this large SRMA would enhance and preserve the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

The Canyon Rims SRMA incorporates all of Hatch Wash, Harts Point, and Hatch/Lockhart nonWSA areas. A focus area for non-mechanized recreation lies in Hatch Wash, which prioritizes 

this area for hiking and backpacking opportunities. Designated motorized routes to scenic vistas 

are near the Harts Point non-WSA area. The recreational management within this SRMA would 

maintain and preserve the wilderness characteristics in these three non-WSA areas. 

The Colorado Riverway SRMA includes all of Fisher Towers, Shafer Canyon, and portions of 

Dome Plateau (60%), Negro Bill (50%), and Mary Jane Canyon (90%). The main recreational 

emphasis in this SRMA would be to manage camping, boating, river access, trails, among others 

things, to protect the outstanding resource values of the area. Approximately half of the lands in 

Fisher Towers and 80% of the lands in Mary Jane Canyon would be non-motorized recreation 

focus areas. The priorities within these areas would be for hiking, climbing, and equestrian use. 

All of Negro Bill Canyon would be within a hiking and ecological study focus area and would be 

restricted to day use only. Managed recreation in these non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would help maintain and protect the natural character of the areas and provide for 

solitude and primitive recreation opportunities. 

The Dolores River Canyons SRMA envelops all of the Beaver Creek non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. It would be managed as an undeveloped SRMA with focus on nonmotorized boating, day hiking, and backpacking. Its remote setting would continue to protect and 

enhance wilderness characteristics values. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-140 

The Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA includes all of Labyrinth Canyon, Goldbar, 

Horsethief, and Dead Horse Cliffs non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and portions 

of Arches Adjacent non-WSA lands (25%). The major recreational management attention needed 

within this large area centers on river permitting, hiking and backpacking, camping, and 

motorized activities. Most of Goldbar non-WSA area would be a focus area for hiking to enjoy 

the scenic values of the area. Areas along the Green River (within the Labyrinth Canyon nonWSA area) would be a designated focus area for canoeing. The Labyrinth Canyon non-WSA 

area would also include a recreational focus area for hiking within Spring Canyon. All of these 

activities would help promote and maintain the wilderness characteristics values in these areas. 

Within the portion of Arches Adjacent non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics are two 

focus areas for mountain bike use. Although not a motorized use, mountain biking in those areas 

may detract from, and be in conflict with, solitude and a primitive recreation experience. 

The Sand Flats SRMA incorporates the southern portion of Negro Bill Canyon non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics (50%). Within this area, the Moab Slickrock Bike Trail would be 

closed to all motorized use which would enhance the experience of solitude. Mountain bikes 

would still be prevalent in the area which may detract from, and be in conflict with, a primitive 

recreation experience. 

The South Moab SRMA incorporates all of the Mill Creek Canyon and Behind the Rocks nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The recreation objective for these lands within the 

SRMA is to create a focus area for primitive hiking experiences. The recreational management 

within this SRMA would maintain and preserve the wilderness characteristics in these three nonWSA areas. 

The Two Rivers SRMA includes a portion of the Westwater Canyon non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics along the Colorado River (10%). The overall goal of this SRMA is to 

provide high quality opportunities for recreational boating and camping, and to protect the 

outstanding resource values. In the portion overlying the Westwater Canyon non-WSA area, the 

emphasis is for hiking and whitewater boating in a very primitive and remote setting. Managed 

recreation in these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would preserve the natural 

character of the areas and provide for solitude and outstanding primitive recreation opportunities. 

Those non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are not within an SRMA would be 

managed under an ERMA for recreational objectives. Because all of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics are protected by restrictive management prescriptions under this 

alternative, all of the wilderness characteristics values would continue to be preserved under this 

alternative, whether or not they are in an SRMA. 

4.3.8.2.8.3 Proposed Plan 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Included in the Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed to protect, preserve, 

and maintain their wilderness characteristics. This acreage includes the entire Beaver Creek area 

(25,722 acres) and portions of Mary Jane (16,499 acres) and Fisher Towers (5,540 acres) areas. 

Under this management, these lands would be managed with a no surface occupancy stipulation. 

There would be no other surface-disturbing activities allowed within this acreage, including no 

new road building or construction. Primitive and unconfined recreation would be emphasized. 

Beaver Creek is wholly contained within the Dolores River Canyons SRMA, which is an 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-141 

Undeveloped SRMA. The Mary Jane and Fisher Towers' acreage within lands to be managed to 

protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness characteristics are wholly within the Colorado 

Riverway SRMA. In addition, the Mary Jane and Fisher Towers acreage is wholly within the 

Richardson Amphitheater Focus Area, which emphasizes hiking, climbing and equestrian use. 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Not Included in the Proposed Plan

All portions of 16 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and portions of five others 

would be within seven designated SRMAs. Ten non-WSA land areas (Floy Canyon, Coal 

Canyon, Hideout Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Mexico Point, Hideout Canyon, Lost Spring, 

Granite Creek, Big Triangle, and Yellow Bird) would not be wholly or partially within a 

designated SRMA for focused recreation management. 

The analysis of SRMAs and their impacts on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would generally be the same as in Alternative B with the following changes: 

• The Bookcliffs SRMA, which includes all of Hideout Canyon, Mexico Point, Hell's Hole and 

portions of Desolation Canyon, Floy Canyon, and Coal Canyon, would not be designated an 

SRMA. It would be managed under an Extensive Recreation Management Area. 

• Only about 60% of the Fisher Towers non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be incorporated into the Colorado Riverway SRMA. The remaining portion of the area would 

be managed under an Extensive Recreation Management Area. 

All of the remaining non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are not within SRMAs 

under this alternative would be managed under an ERMA, with no specific recreational 

management focus within those areas. Although the Bookcliffs SRMA would not be designated 

under this alternative, specific management for the ERMA would be the same as for the SRMA 

(non-mechanized recreation, especially equestrian use, hiking, backpacking and hunting. New 

constructed routes would not be allowed, and commercial motorized permits would not be 

issued, and competitive events would not be allowed). Thus, the impacts of maintaining this area 

under an ERMA would be the same as for an SRMA for wilderness characteristics values. 

The other lands that are not within a managed SRMA with specific recreation objectives would 

be vulnerable to surface-disturbing uses, including commercial permitting activities, special 

recreation permitting, new road construction, and other activities that could impact the natural 

values and primitive recreational opportunities and solitude that currently exist in those areas. 

4.3.8.2.8.4 Alternative D 

All of five and portions of five more non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

within four designated SRMAs. All other non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be managed under an ERMA. 

The Canyon Rims SRMA and Sand Flats SRMA would remain the same as in Alternative B and 

C. For those non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that remain with SRMAs under this 

alternative, the impacts of their designation on non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be the same as in Alternative B. The following differences from Alternative B would be in 

place: 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-142 

• The Bookcliffs SRMA, which includes all of Hideout Canyon, Mexico Point, Hell's Hole and 

portions of Desolation Canyon, Floy Canyon, and Coal Canyon, would not be designated an 

SRMA. 

• Only about 55% of the Fisher Towers non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be incorporated into the Colorado Riverway SRMA. 

• The Dolores River Canyons SRMA would not be designated an SRMA. A narrow portion 

along the Dolores River with the Beaver Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be incorporated into the Two River SRMA. 

• The Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA, which includes all of Labyrinth Canyon, 

Goldbar, Horsethief, and Dead Horse Cliffs non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, 

and portions of Arches Adjacent non-WSA lands would not be designated an SRMA. 

• The South Moab SRMA, which incorporates all of the Mill Creek Canyon and Behind the 

Rocks non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would not be designated an SRMA. 

• The Two Rivers SRMA would include the Dolores River within the Beaver Creek non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics, as well as the portion of the Westwater Canyon nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics along the Colorado River. 

All of the remaining non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that are not within SRMAs 

under this alternative would be managed under an ERMA, with no specific recreational 

management focus within those areas. Although the Bookcliffs SRMA would not be designated 

under this alternative, specific management for the ERMA would be the same as for the SRMA 

(non-mechanized recreation, especially equestrian use, hiking, backpacking and hunting. New 

constructed routes would not be allowed, and commercial motorized permits would not be 

issued, and competitive events would not be allowed). Thus, the impacts of maintaining this area 

under an ERMA would be the same as for an SRMA for wilderness characteristics values. 

For the other lands that are not within a managed SRMA with specific recreation objectives, they 

would be managed as an ERMA and be vulnerable to surface-disturbing uses, including special 

recreation permitting, commercial permitting activities, new road construction, and other 

activities that could impact the natural values and primitive recreational opportunities and 

solitude that currently exist in those areas. 

4.3.8.2.9 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.2.9.1 Common to All Alternatives 

All non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics contain riparian ecosystems, except for the 

Hatch/Lockhart non-WSA area. The objective of riparian management is to manage riparian 

areas for properly functioning condition and to avoid or minimize loss or degradation of riparian, 

wetland and associated floodplains so as to preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values 

and provide for fish, wildlife, and special status species habitats. Decisions to implement any of 

these objectives would improve the natural vegetation condition of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, and thus its natural values. Improved riparian and wetland condition 

would enhance wildlife habitat, and thus, the natural values of non-WSA lands. Further, 

improved wildlife habitat would lead to increases in riparian obligate wildlife species 

populations and opportunities for wildlife viewing. And, improved riparian and wetland 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-143 

condition would improve the setting for other primitive recreational opportunities, including 

hiking, camping, and nature study. 

4.3.8.2.9.2 Alternative A 

Under the No Action alternative, there are no specific decisions to prevent surface-disturbing 

activities within 100-year floodplains or riparian areas or springs. In addition, lands with these 

scarce resources would also be available for disposal. Allowing surface-disturbing activities 

within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would degrade the wilderness 

characteristics values, especially that of naturalness. Depending on the extent of activity in 

riparian areas, the primitive recreation experience could also be diminished. 

4.3.8.2.9.3 Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan 

Under these action alternatives, prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within active floodplains 

or within 100 meters of riparian areas or springs would help restore cottonwood, willow, and 

other riparian species along major riparian and wetland areas. 

4.3.8.2.10 IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.2.10.1 Alternative A 

Under the No Action Alternative, there are no specific decisions to prevent surface-disturbing 

activities within 100-year floodplains or riparian areas or springs, nor are there slope restrictions 

for surface-disturbing activities, especially associated with oil and gas development. Because 

there are no restrictions on OHVs or construction of new routes in the Bookcliffs area, sensitive 

saline soils would continue to be disturbed. This would impact the natural character of the Floy 

and Coal Canyons non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Depending on the level of 

development or disturbance in these areas, solitude and primitive recreation opportunities could 

by foregone. 

4.3.8.2.10.2 Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed Plan) 

Decisions under these alternatives would prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 100 year 

floodplains, or within 100 meters of natural springs. They would also limit new OHV routes 

from being designated in saline soil areas, which include Floy and Coal Canyons. Applying these 

decisions would help maintain the natural values in these areas. 

4.3.8.2.10.3 Alternative B and the Proposed Plan 

The Mill Creek–Spanish Valley watershed would be closed to surface-disturbing activities to 

protect the aquifer for the Moab area. Protection of the watershed would preserve and enhance 

the natural character and opportunities for primitive forms of recreation present in the Mill Creek 

non-WSA area. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-144 

4.3.8.2.11 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

For the purposes of this section of the analysis, "Special Designations" include Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs) established under each alternative, rivers recommended 

eligible in Alternative A and suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System under the three action alternatives, and wilderness study areas (WSAs) being managed to 

protect their wilderness characteristics under each alternative. 

4.3.8.2.11.1 Alternative A 

Under the No Action alternative there would be no ACECs designated, therefore specific 

decisions that may protect the wilderness characteristics in non-WSA lands with those values 

would not be afforded through ACEC designation. 

Under this alternative, seven of the 32 non-WSA land areas intersect with eligible wild and 

scenic river segments, totaling 43.66 miles in those seven areas. There are 7.7 miles of Beaver 

Creek, 12.15 miles of the Dolores River, 2.06 miles of Onion Creek, 7.1 miles of the Green 

River, 12.47 miles of Professor Creek, 3.09 miles of Mill Creek, 0.08 miles of Negro Bill Creek, 

and 0.08 miles of Cottonwood that would be managed to preserve their wild and scenic river 

eligibility. Protection of river values would prevent uses and surface disturbances that would 

detract from the natural character of the Beaver Creek, Fisher Towers, Labyrinth Canyon, Mary 

Jane Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, Negro Bill Canyon, and Spruce Canyon non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics within the 1/2 mile river corridor (1/4 mile on each side of the river 

segment). The presence and noise of motor boat use along the Green River in Labyrinth Canyon 

non-WSA lands would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive recreation in 

these river segments. The impacts would last while motorized boats were present. 

Because Alternative A does not propose specific management to protect non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, contiguous WSAs and National Park Service lands would not have 

expanded opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation afforded to them. 

4.3.8.2.11.2 Alternative B 

Of the 14 ACECs that would be designated under this alternative to protect a variety of relevant 

and important values, 9 ACECs would overlay non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Those ACECs are Behind the Rocks, Bookcliffs, Canyon Rims, Colorado River Corridor, 

Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed, Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon, Labyrinth Canyon, 

Mill Creek Canyon, and Ten Mile Wash. The management prescriptions for these ACECs would 

protect naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in all of the non-WSA 

lands. 

Portions of the Behind the Rocks (1,460 acres) and Hunter Canyon (2,771 acres) non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics lie within the 17,836-acre potential Behind the Rocks ACEC. 

These non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, 

closed to woodcutting, limited to designated routes for OHV use, preclude vegetation treatments, 

and managed by VRM Class I objectives (preserve the characteristic landscape). These 

prescriptions would prevent surface disturbances and limit motorized uses and protect the natural 

character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-145 

and primitive recreation. The occasional presence and noise of OHV use would reduce 

opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation. 

Portions of Coal Canyon (6,854 acres), Desolation Canyon (8,970 acres), Floy Canyon (3,921 

acres), Spruce Canyon (1,120 acres), and Mexico Point (23 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics lie within the 304,252 acre potential Bookcliffs ACEC. These nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, closed to 

woodcutting, limited to designated routes for OHV use, and managed by VRM Class II 

objectives (retention of the characteristic landscape). This prescription would prevent surface 

disturbances and limit motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The 

occasional presence and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict 

with primitive forms of recreation 

Almost all of Harts Point (1,465 acres) and Hatch/Lockhart (2,027 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics lies within the 23,400 acres potential Canyon Rims ACEC. These nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, closed to 

woodcutting, limited to designated routes for OHV use, and managed by VRM Class II 

objectives (retention of the characteristic landscape). This prescription would prevent surface 

disturbances and limit motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The 

occasional presence and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict 

with primitive forms of recreation 

Portions of Dome Plateau (9,598 acres), Fisher Towers (6,466 acres), Mary Jane Canyon (17,305 

acres), and Negro Bill Canyon (9 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics lie 

within the 50,483 acres potential Colorado River Corridor ACEC. These non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, closed to woodcutting, limited 

to designated routes for OHV use, preclude vegetation treatments, and managed by VRM Class I 

objectives (preserve the characteristic landscape). This prescription would prevent surface 

disturbances and limit motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The 

occasional presence and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict 

with primitive forms of recreation. 

Portion of Flume Canyon (730 acres) and Spruce Canyon (960 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics lie within the 35,830 acres potential Cottonwood Diamond Watershed 

ACEC. These non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas 

leasing, closed to OHV use at end of the Class B-road system, and managed by VRM Class II 

objectives (retention of the characteristic landscape). This prescription would prevent surface 

disturbances and limit motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Portions of Dead Horse Cliffs, (784 acres), Goldbar (35 acres), and all of Gooseneck (843 acres) 

and Shafer Canyon (1,842 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics lie within the 

13,500 acre potential Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon ACEC. These non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, limited to designated 

routes for OHV use, and managed by VRM Class I objectives (preserve the characteristic 

landscape). This prescription would prevent surface disturbances and limit motorized uses and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-146 

protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The occasional presence and noise of OHV 

use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms of recreation 

Portions of Labyrinth Canyon (5,204 acres) and Horsethief Point (739 acres) non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics lie within the 8,528 acre potential Labyrinth Canyon ACEC. 

These non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, 

limited to designated routes for OHV use, closed to firewood cutting, and managed by VRM 

Class I objectives (preserve the characteristic landscape). This prescription would prevent 

surface disturbances and limit motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The 

occasional presence and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict 

with primitive forms of recreation. 

Portions of Mill Creek Canyon (2,335 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics lie 

within the 13,501 acre potential Mill Creek Canyon ACEC. These non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, limited to designated routes for 

OHV use, closed to firewood cutting, and managed by VRM Class I objectives (preserve the 

characteristic landscape). This prescription would prevent surface disturbances and limit 

motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The occasional presence 

and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms 

of recreation. 

A small portion of Labyrinth Canyon (232) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics lies 

within the 4,908 acre potential Ten Mile Wash ACEC. These non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, limited to designated routes for OHV use 

(no routes designated), and closed to firewood cutting. This prescription would prevent surface 

disturbances and preclude motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Under this alternative, seven of the 32 non-WSA land areas intersect with suitable wild and 

scenic river segments, totaling 43.66 miles in those seven areas. There are 7.7 miles of Beaver 

Creek, 12.15 miles of the Dolores River, 2.06 miles of Onion Creek, 7.1 miles of the Green 

River, 12.47 miles of Professor Creek, 3.09 miles of Mill Creek, 0.08 miles of Negro Bill Creek, 

and 0.08 miles of Cottonwood that would be managed for wild and scenic river designation with 

segment classifications of "scenic," "recreational" and "wild" (see Table 2.1). Protection of river 

values (until Congress acts on BLM's recommendations) would prevent uses and surface 

disturbances that would detract from the natural character of the Beaver Creek, Fisher Towers, 

Labyrinth Canyon, Mary Jane Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, Negro Bill Canyon, and Spruce 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the 1/2 mile river corridor (1/4 

mile on each side of the river segment). The presence and noise of motor boat use along the 

Green River in Labyrinth Canyon non-WSA lands would reduce opportunities for solitude and 

conflict with primitive recreation in these river segments. The impacts would last while 

motorized boats were present. 

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 Behind the Rocks, Coal Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Floy Canyon, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-147 

Flume Canyon, Lost Spring Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, Negro Bill Canyon, Spruce Canyon, 

and Westwater Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, to larger land areas, 

including both the WSAs and contiguous non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. In 

addition, Yellowbird, Lost Spring Canyon, Dome Plateau, and Arches Adjacent non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics are contiguous with Arches National Park; and Dead Horse 

Cliffs, Shafer Canyon, Gooseneck, and Horsethief Point non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics are contiguous with Canyonlands National Park. Similar to the WSAs, protecting 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to preserve their wilderness values would 

enhance and expand the opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.3.8.2.11.3 Proposed Plan 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Included in the Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed to protect, 

preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. This acreage is located within the Beaver 

Creek, Mary Jane and Fisher Towers areas. None of the five ACECs that would be designated 

under the Proposed Plan overlap these three areas. The Dolores River, which is proposed for 

Wild and Scenic River designation in the Proposed Plan, lies partially within the Beaver Creek 

area. 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Not Included in the Proposed Plan

Of the 5 ACECs that would be designated under this alternative to protect a variety of relevant 

and important values, all 5 ACECs would overlay some portions of non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Those ACECs are Behind the Rocks, Cottonwood Diamond 

Watershed, Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, and Ten Mile Wash. 

The non-WSA lands and their acreages that intersect with these five ACECs are the same as in 

Alternative B. Management prescriptions for the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

within the ACECs are slightly different, however, than in the Proposed Plan. This is because 

VRM Class II objectives (retention of the characteristic landscape) have been applied in most 

areas, and the non-WSA lands would have a no surface occupancy stipulation (NSO) for oil and 

gas leasing. The VRM Class II objectives and the NSO stipulation would preclude surfacedisturbing activities, thereby protecting naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation in all of the non-WSA lands. 

Portions of the Behind the Rocks (1,460 acres) and Hunter Canyon (2,771 acres) non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics lie within the 5,201-acre potential Behind the Rocks ACEC. 

These non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have a no surface occupancy (NSO) 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing, closed to woodcutting, limited to designated routes for OHV 

use, preclude vegetation treatments, and managed by VRM Class II objectives (retention of the 

characteristic landscape). This prescription would prevent surface disturbances and limit 

motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The occasional presence 

and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms 

of recreation 

Portion of Flume Canyon (730 acres) and Spruce Canyon (960 acres) non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics lie within the 34,027 acre potential Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed 

ACEC. These non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be NSO for oil and gas 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-148 

leasing and closed to OHV use at end of the Class B-road system. This prescription would 

prevent surface disturbances and limit motorized uses and protect the natural character of the 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. 

Portions of Dead Horse Cliffs, (784 acres), Goldbar Canyon (35 acres), and all of Gooseneck 

(843 acres) and Shafer Canyon (1,842 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics lie 

within the 13,500 acre potential Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon ACEC. These nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and gas leasing, limited to 

designated routes for OHV use, and managed by VRM Class I and II objectives (preserve and 

retain the characteristic landscape). This prescription would prevent surface disturbances and 

limit motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The occasional presence 

and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms 

of recreation. 

Portions of Mill Creek Canyon (2,335 acres) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics lie 

within the 3,721 acre potential Mill Creek Canyon ACEC. These non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be NSO for oil and gas leasing, limited to designated routes for 

OHV use, closed to firewood cutting, and managed by VRM Class II objectives (retention of the 

characteristic landscape). This prescription would prevent surface disturbances and limit 

motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The occasional presence 

and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms 

of recreation. 

A small portion of Labyrinth Canyon (232) non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics lies 

within the 4,980 acre potential Ten Mile Wash ACEC. These non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be NSO for oil and gas leasing, limited to designated routes for OHV use, 

and closed to firewood cutting. This prescription would prevent surface disturbances and limit 

motorized uses and protect the natural character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The occasional presence 

and noise of OHV use would reduce opportunities for solitude and conflict with primitive forms 

of recreation. 

Under this alternative, three of the 32 non-WSA land areas intersect with suitable wild and 

scenic river segments, totaling 16.00 miles in those three areas. There are 6.1 miles of the 

Dolores River, 2.8 miles of Onion Creek, and 7.1 miles of the Green River that would be 

managed for wild and scenic river designation with segment classifications of "scenic," 

"recreational" and "wild" (see Table 2.1). Protection of river values (until Congress acts on 

BLM's recommendations) would prevent uses and surface disturbances that would detract from 

the natural character of the Beaver Creek, Labyrinth Canyon, and Mary Jane Canyon non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics within the 1/2 mile river corridor (1/4 mile from the high 

water mark on each river bank) of the river segment. The presence and noise of motor boat use 

along the Green River in Labyrinth Canyon non-WSA lands would reduce opportunities for 

solitude and conflict with primitive recreation in these river segments. The impacts would last 

while motorized boats were present. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-149 

Because the Proposed Plan does not propose specific management to protect non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics contiguous to any WSAs or National Park Service lands, there 

would not be expanded opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation afforded to 

the WSAs or National Park lands. 

4.3.8.2.11.4 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, no ACECs would be designated; therefore, management prescriptions to 

protect relevant and important values would not be applied and would not afford protection of 

wilderness values in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under this alternative, no wild and scenic river segments would be found suitable. Therefore, 

management prescriptions to protect the suitable river segments would not be applied and would 

not afford protection of wilderness values in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Because Alternative D does not propose specific management to protect non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, contiguous WSAs and National Park Service lands would not have 

expanded opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of recreation afforded to them. 

In summary, Alternative B would provide the most long-term protection to the naturalness and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics by designating the most acres as ACEC and by recommending the longest 

stretches of waterways for protection in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, followed 

by the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan would provide some protection of the naturalness and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of non-WSA lands and recommend fewer 

river segments for protection in the National /Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Both Alternative 

A and D would provide the lowest level of protection, as neither one would designate ACECs or 

recommend suitable river segments for protection (although Alternative A does protect the 

eligible river segments for later study.) 

4.3.8.2.12 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Under all alternatives, management actions would focus on maintaining, protecting, and 

enhancing habitats for special status species. Decisions that could help protect non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics include avoiding construction of new roads within listed and nonlisted special status plant and animal species habitats. This would help to maintain the natural 

character of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics where they intersect with special 

status species habitat. Another common to all alternatives decision is to implement habitat 

manipulations where translocations and population augmentation of special status species would 

occur. Depending on the methods used, this could degrade the naturalness of the non-WSA 

lands. During the time the habitat manipulation is being conducted, the opportunity for solitude 

and primitive recreation would be disrupted. Under all alternatives, a decision to implement 

management strategies that restore degraded riparian communities could, in the short term, affect 

the naturalness of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Improvement of riparian 

condition, however, would also improve wildlife habitat for these species, improving wildlife 

viewing opportunities and the primitive recreational values of the non-WSA lands. In addition, 

any Recovery Plan actions that require fencing would introduce an unnatural element of human 

effects to the landscape, slightly degrading the natural condition of the non-WSA lands. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-150 

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities within the 100-year floodplain of the Colorado River 

for endangered fish would help protect the wilderness characteristics values in the Dome Plateau, 

Labyrinth Canyon, Beaver Creek, and Shafer Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics by maintaining the natural character along the river corridor. In addition, surfacedisturbing restrictions in suitable Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii habitat would protect the 

natural character of Mary Jane Canyon and Fisher Towers non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Specific management actions for oil and gas leasing in special status species habitat under all 

alternatives are related to timing stipulations and/or controlled surface use stipulations. These 

stipulations would not protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics from surface 

disturbance associated with oil and gas activities, impacting naturalness and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.3.8.2.13 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.2.13.1 OHV Travel Management 

Table 4.64 portrays all of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and displays how 

the OHV management would be applied under each alternative. 

Table 4.64. OHV Management in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

OHV Acres in Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative Alternatives 

Name Acres OHV 

Category A B PROPOSED 

PLAN* D 

Open 2,500 0 0 0 Arches Adjacent 6,396 Limited 3,896 6,396 6,396 6,396 

Open 21,366 0 0 0

Beaver Creek 25,722 Limited 4,356 25,722 25,722 25,722 

Open 5 0 0 0

Behind the Rocks 3,643 Limited 3,638 3,643 3,643 3,643 

Open 5,200 0 0 0 Big Triangle 5,200 Limited 0 5,200 5,200 5,200 

Open 11,099 0 0 0 Coal Canyon 21,632 Limited 10,533 21,632 21,632 21,632 

Open 25 0 0 0 Dead Horse Cliffs 797 

Limited 772 797 797 797 

Desolation Open 10,380 0 0 0 

Canyon 10,498 Limited 118 10,498 10,498 10,498 

Open 7,853 0 0 0 Dome Plateau 14,207 Limited 6,354 14,207 14,207 14,207 

Fisher Towers 17,235 Open 9,550 0 0 0 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-151 

Table 4.64. OHV Management in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

OHV Acres in Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative Alternatives 

Name Acres OHV 

Category A B PROPOSED 

PLAN* D 

Limited 7,685 17,235 17,235 17,235 

Open 8,339 0 0 0 Floy Canyon 9,983 Limited 1,644 9,983 9,983 9,983 

Open 3,520 0 0 0 Flume Canyon 3,520 Limited 0 3,520 3,520 3,520 

Goldbar 6,437 Limited 6,437 6,437 6,437 6,437 

Gooseneck 843 Limited 843 843 843 843 

Open 4,528 0 0 0 Granite Creek 4,528 Limited 0 4,528 4,528 4,528 

Harts Point 

(MFO) 1,465 Limited 1,465 1,465 1465 1465 

Hatch Wash 10,983 Limited 10,983 10,983 10,983 10,983 

Hatch/Lockhart 2,670 Limited 2,670 2,670 2,670 2,670 

Open 2,538 0 0 0 Hells Hole 2,538 Limited 0 2,538 2,538 2,538 

Open 11,607 0 0 0 Hideout Canyon 11,607 Limited 0 11,607 11,607 11,607 

Horsethief Point 8,358 Limited 8,358 8,358 8,358 8,358 

Hunter Canyon 4,465 Limited 4,465 4,465 4,465 4,465 

Open 2,798 0 0 0 Labyrinth Canyon 25,361 Limited 22,653 25,361 25,361 25,361 

Lost Spring Open 11,456 0 0 0 

Canyon 11,456 Limited 0 11,456 11,456 11,456 

Mary Jane Open 8,046 0 0 0 

Canyon 24,779 Limited 16,733 24,779 24,779 24,779 

Open 12,837 0 0 0 Mexico Point 12,837 Limited 0 12,837 12,837 12,837 

Mill Creek Open 402 0 0 0 

Canyon 3,388 Limited 2,986 3,388 3,388 3,388 

Negro Bill Open 1,363 0 0 0 

Canyon 2,333 Limited 970 2,333 2,333 2,333 

Shafer Canyon 1,842 Limited 1,842 1,842 1,842 1,842 

Open 1,131 0 0 0 Spruce Canyon 1,131 Limited 0 1,131 1,131 1,131 

Westwater 3,086 Open 1,479 0 0 0 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-152 

Table 4.64. OHV Management in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

OHV Acres in Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative Alternatives 

Name Acres OHV 

Category A B PROPOSED 

PLAN* D 

Canyon Limited 1,607 3,086 3,086 3,086 

Open 7,173 0 0 0 Westwater Creek 7,188 Limited 15 7,188 7,188 7,188 

Open 331 0 0 0 Yellow Bird 357 

Limited 26 357 357 357 

*All 47,761 acres of lands to be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics (25,72 acres in 

Beaver Creek, 5,540 acres in Fisher Towers and 16,499 acres in Mary Jane) are to be managed with travel limited to 

designated routes 

Alternative A

Under present management, cross-country motorized use is allowed for game retrieval and antler 

collection in areas open for motorized travel. The MFO also has the discretion to authorize crosscountry travel for any commercial or organized group events. These actions would continue to 

degrade the natural character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics by allowing 

new surface-disturbing activity from motorized vehicles, as well as conflict with solitude and 

primitive recreation experiences from the sights and sounds of vehicle travel. 

Current management practices designate 145,521 acres (55%) in twenty-three of the 32 nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics as open to cross-country travel (see Table 4.64). 

Cross country motorized travel in these non-WSA lands would result in surface disturbance to 

soils and vegetation that would alter the landscape and diminish the natural character of these 

non-WSA lands. 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, 120,964 acres within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be limited to OHV use. In these areas, 294.8 miles of routes would be designated in the 

following non-WSA lands: 

Arches Adjacent – 0.52 miles 

Beaver Creek – 18.75 miles 

Behind the Rocks – 7.17 miles 

Big Triangle – 0.64 miles 

Coal Canyon – 7.26 miles 

Desolation Canyon – 2.9 miles 

Dome Plateau – 2.11 miles 

Fisher Towers – 10.98 miles 

Floy Canyon – 18.19 miles 

Flume Canyon – 4.5 miles 

Goldbar – 13.64 miles 

Gooseneck – 0.66 miles 

Granite Creek – 0.35 miles 

Hatch Wash – 35.59 miles 

Hideout Canyon – 2.99 miles 

Horsethief Point – 1.27 miles 

Hunter Canyon – 4.09 miles 

Labyrinth Canyon – 60.26 miles 

Lost Spring Canyon – 48.44 miles 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-153 

Mary Jane Canyon – 33.32 miles 

Mexico Point – 0.19 miles 

Mill Creek Canyon – 7.99 miles 

Negro Bill Canyon – 5.67 miles 

Westwater Canyon – 3.83 miles 

Westwater Creek – 3.37 miles 

Yellow Bird – 0.27 miles 

Limiting OHV use would confine soil and vegetation disturbance caused by motor vehicles to 

existing routes, and result in no additional change to the natural character of the non-WSA lands. 

The presence and noise of vehicles using these routes, however, would reduce the opportunity of 

visitors to find solitude in the non-WSA areas, especially in proximity to the routes. Motorized 

uses would conflict with primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities sought in the nonWSA areas. 

Currently, there are no routes within Dead Horse Cliffs, Harts Point, Hatch/Lockhart, or Shafer 

Canyon, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Because no routes would be designated 

in these areas, surface disturbance caused by motorized travel, and the resultant impacts to the 

natural character of the non-WSA areas, would not be evidenced. Further, because there would 

be no OHV use in these areas, the opportunities for solitude or conflict with primitive forms of 

recreation in these areas could not be reduced. The natural character and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation of these non-WSA areas would be unaffected by OHV travel. 

While Hells Hole and Spruce Canyon non-WSA lands currently have no routes within them, they 

remain open to cross country OHV travel and impacts to wilderness characteristics could occur if 

OHV users choose to engage in cross country use. 

Common to Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan

Under all of the action alternatives, vehicles must stay on designated routes. Game retrieval and 

antler collection must be done on foot and vehicles cannot go off designated roads for such 

activities. The MFO would not authorize cross-country travel for any commercial or organized 

group events. All motorized routes that would not be designated as open would be signed as 

closed. These actions would continue to preserve the natural character of the non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics because no new surface-disturbing activity would be allowed 

from motorized vehicles. 

Alternative B

Under this alternative, all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be limited to 

designated routes. In these areas, 117.3 miles of routes would be designated in the following 

non-WSA lands: 

Beaver Creek – 5.69 miles 

Behind the Rocks – 2.33 miles 

Coal Canyon – 2.02 miles 

Desolation Canyon – 2.69 miles 

Fisher Towers – 4.3 miles 

Flume Canyon – 0.64 miles 

Goldbar – 5.39 miles 

Gooseneck – 0.66 miles 

Granite Creek – 0.13 miles 

Hatch Wash – 34.57 miles 

Hideout Canyon – 2.58 miles 

Hunter Canyon – 2.29 miles 

Labyrinth Canyon – 31.38 miles 

Lost Spring Canyon – 6.51 miles 

Mary Jane Canyon – 7.15 miles 

Mill Creek Canyon – 4.1 miles 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-154 

Negro Bill Canyon – 1.65 miles 

Westwater Canyon – 2.91 miles 

Westwater Creek – 0.32 miles 

Limiting OHV use to designated routes would confine soil and vegetation disturbance caused by 

motor vehicles to existing routes, and result in no additional change to the natural character of 

the non-WSA lands. The presence and noise of vehicles using these routes, however, would 

reduce the opportunity of visitors to find solitude in the non-WSA areas, especially in proximity 

to the routes. And, motorized uses would conflict with primitive and unconfined recreation 

opportunities sought in the non-WSA areas. The most notable areas where there would be a 

significant decrease in miles of routes would be in Labyrinth Canyon, Lost Spring Canyon, and 

Mary Jane Canyon. In addition, six areas that would have designated routes in Alternative A 

would have none in Alternative B. 

There would be no routes designated in Arches Adjacent, Big Triangle, Dead Horse Cliffs, 

Dome Plateau, Floy Canyon, Harts Point, Hatch/Lockhart, Hells Hole, Horsethief Point, Mexico 

Point, Shafer Canyon, Spruce Canyon, or Yellow Bird non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Because no routes would be designated in these areas, surface disturbance caused 

by motorized travel, and the resultant impacts to the natural character of the non-WSA areas, 

would not be evidenced. Further, because there would be no OHV use in these areas, the 

opportunities for solitude or conflict with primitive forms of recreation in these areas could not 

be reduced. The natural character and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of these 

non-WSA areas would be unaffected by OHV travel. 

Proposed Plan

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Included in the Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed to protect, 

preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. This acreage is located within the Beaver 

Creek, Mary Jane and Fisher Towers areas. Travel is limited to designated roads within these 

areas. No new routes would be constructed, eliminating surface disturbance from road building 

activity. There are 8.36 miles of route designated within the 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands 

managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. Of these miles of 

designated route, there are 0 miles in Fisher Towers, 0.2 miles in Mary Jane and 8.16 miles in 

Beaver Creek. 

Thus, there would be no impacts from Travel Management decisions in Fisher Towers as no 

routes would be designated. Impacts from Travel Management decisions in Mary Jane would be 

minimized because only 0.2 miles of route have been designated and 11 miles of route have not 

been designated. The 8.16 miles of route remaining in Beaver Creek (reduced form 12.45 miles), 

minimizes the impact from Travel Management decisions to Wilderness Characteristics. Beaver 

Creek is a remote area and travel on the designated route would be minimal. Opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation would be preserved. 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Not Included in the Proposed Plan

Under this alternative, and as in Alternative B, all non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be limited to designated routes. In these areas, 158.54 miles of routes 

would be designated in the following non-WSA lands: 

 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-155 

Behind the Rocks – 5.18 miles 

Coal Canyon – 3.04 miles 

Desolation Canyon – 2.9 miles 

Fisher Towers (not managed as wilderness 

characteristics) – 4.3 miles 

Floy Canyon – 3.7 miles 

Flume Canyon – 0.64 miles 

Goldbar – 9.54 miles 

Gooseneck – 0.66 miles 

Granite Creek – 0.13 miles 

Hatch Wash – 34.91 miles 

Hideout Canyon – 2.58 miles 

Hunter Canyon – 3.7 miles 

Labyrinth Canyon – 39.18 miles 

Lost Spring Canyon – 12.99 miles 

Mary Jane Canyon (not managed as 

wilderness characteristics) – 10.02 miles 

Mill Creek Canyon – 5.7 miles 

Negro Bill Canyon – 1.9 miles 

Westwater Canyon – 2.91 miles 

Westwater Creek – 2.0 miles 

Limiting OHV use to designated routes would confine soil and vegetation disturbance caused by 

motor vehicles to existing routes, and result in no additional change to the natural character of 

the non-WSA lands. The presence and noise of vehicles using these routes, however, would 

reduce the opportunity of visitors to find solitude in the non-WSA areas, especially in proximity 

to the routes. And, motorized uses would conflict with primitive and unconfined recreation 

opportunities sought in the non-WSA areas. The most notable areas where there would be a 

significant decrease in miles of routes would be in Labyrinth Canyon, Lost Spring Canyon, and 

Mary Jane Canyon. In addition, five areas that would have designated routes in Alternative A 

would have none in the Proposed Plan. 

There would be no routes designated in Arches Adjacent, Big Triangle, Dead Horse Cliffs, 

Dome Plateau, Harts Point, Hatch/Lockhart, Hells Hole, Horsethief Point, Mexico Point, Shafer 

Canyon, Spruce Canyon, or Yellow Bird non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Because no routes would be designated in these areas, surface disturbance caused by motorized 

travel, and the resultant impacts to the natural character of the non-WSA areas, would not be 

evidenced. Further, because there would be no OHV use in these areas, the opportunities for 

solitude or conflict with primitive forms of recreation in these areas could not be reduced. The 

natural character and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of these non-WSA areas 

would be unaffected by OHV travel. 

Alternative D

Under this alternative, and as in Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, all non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be limited to designated routes. In these areas, 169 miles of 

routes would be designated in the following non-WSA lands: 

Beaver Creek – 12.45 miles 

Behind the Rocks – 6.79 miles 

Coal Canyon – 3.42 miles 

Desolation Canyon – 2.9 miles 

Fisher Towers – 4.3 miles 

Floy Canyon – 3.7 miles 

Flume Canyon – 0.64 miles 

Goldbar – 9.54 miles 

Gooseneck – 0.66 miles 

Granite Creek – 0.13 miles 

Hatch Wash – 35.39 miles 

Hideout Canyon – 2.58 miles 

Hunter Canyon – 3.96 miles 

Labyrinth Canyon – 40.84 miles 

Lost Spring Canyon – 14.09 miles 

Mary Jane Canyon – 11.81 miles 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-156 

Mill Creek Canyon – 7.57 miles 

Negro Bill Canyon – 2.55 miles 

Westwater Canyon – 3.71 miles 

Westwater Creek – 2.0 miles 

Limiting OHV use to designated routes would confine soil and vegetation disturbance caused by 

motor vehicles to existing routes, and result in no additional change to the natural character of 

the non-WSA lands. The presence and noise of vehicles using these routes, however, would 

reduce the opportunity of visitors to find solitude in the non-WSA areas, especially in proximity 

to the routes. And, motorized uses would conflict with primitive and unconfined recreation 

opportunities sought in the non-WSA areas. The most notable areas where there would be a 

significant decrease in miles of routes would be in Labyrinth Canyon, Lost Spring Canyon, and 

Mary Jane Canyon. In addition, five areas that would have designated routes in Alternative A 

would have none in Alternative D. 

There would be no routes designated in Arches Adjacent, Big Triangle, Dead Horse Cliffs, 

Dome Plateau, Harts Point, Hatch/Lockhart, Hells Hole, Horsethief Point, Mexico Point, Shafer 

Canyon, Spruce Canyon, or Yellow Bird non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Because no routes would be designated in these areas, surface disturbance caused by motorized 

travel, and the resultant impacts to the natural character of the non-WSA areas, would not be 

evidenced. Further, because there would be no OHV use in these areas, the opportunities for 

solitude or conflict with primitive forms of recreation in these areas could not be reduced. The 

natural character and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of these non-WSA areas 

would be unaffected by OHV travel. 

In summary, Alternative A would continue to allow cross country travel in some of the nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics and also would designate the most miles of routes 

within the non-WSA areas. Alternative A would manage 6 areas without designated routes. 

Alternative B would limit travel to designated routes and reduce the number of miles of routes in 

these areas by 178 miles, or over 60%, from Alternative A. In addition, Alternative B would 

manage 13 non WSA areas without designated routes within them. The Proposed Plan would 

limit travel to 158.5 miles designated routes, adding 41.2 miles of routes over Alternative B into 

a mix of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The Proposed Plan would manage 

12 non-WSA areas without any designated routes within them. And finally, Alternative D would 

limit travel to 169 miles of routes, adding nearly 52 miles of routes into the mix from Alternative 

B. The same areas that had no designated routes in the Proposed Plan would hold for Alternative 

D. The highest level of protection of wilderness characteristics values from OHV impacts would 

be under Alternative B, then the Proposed Plan, then D, and last of all Alternative A. 

4.3.8.2.13.2 Mechanized Recreational Travel (Mountain Bikes) 

Alternative A

Areas currently open to motorized cross-country travel would continue to be open for crosscountry mountain bike use. In non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, this would be the 

same as described under Alternative A under the OHV Travel Management section above. Any 

new development of trails for mountain bikes in non-WSA areas would be in conflict with the 

primitive forms of trail use. If there were substantial levels of use on the trails (by foot, horse, 

and/or bike) in the non-WSA lands, the visitor's ability to find and experience solitude would be 

reduced. Construction of new trails would create surface disturbance that would detract from the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-157 

natural character of the landscape and non-WSA lands, depending on the type of landform and 

vegetation cover. The change to the natural landscape, however, is expected to be minimal. 

Common to Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan

Under the action alternatives, mountain bikes would only be allowed on routes open for 

motorized use for resource protection purposes. Some routes would only be designated for nonmotorized use only. Two of these non-motorized routes identified specifically for mountain bike 

use would be the "Baby-Steps" trail in Arches Adjacent non-WSA area and the Hunter Canyon 

Rim trail in the Behind the Rocks non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics. If there were 

substantial levels of use on the trails (by foot, horse, and/or bike) in the non-WSA lands, the 

visitor's ability to find and experience solitude would be reduced. The change to the natural 

landscape, however, is expected to be minimal. 

Under all of the alternatives are varying miles of projected mountain-bike routes that would be 

designated. Because they would generally be on already existing inventoried routes that would 

not be designated for motorized use, impacts to naturalness would be negligible on the non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Where mountain bike trails are designated within nonWSA areas, however, substantial levels of use on the trails (by foot, horse, and/or bike), would 

reduce the visitor's ability to find and experience solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.3.8.2.13.3 Non-Mechanized Recreational Travel (Hiking, Backpacking 

and Equestrian) 

Alternative A

Although numerous trails exist in non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, there would 

be no specific plans to design, implement, sign, or manage a non-mechanized trail system. 

Because these forms of recreation are complementary to the wilderness characteristic values of 

non-WSA lands, and can help focus the primitive recreational user, some opportunities to 

improve the recreational experience may be foregone. 

Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan

Under all of the action alternatives, the Amphitheater Loop and Fisher Towers Trails, both in the 

Fisher Towers non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and the Corona Arch Trail in the 

Goldbar non-WSA area would be managed for non-mechanized travel. In addition, there are 

varying miles of existing trails that would be specifically managed for hiking and other nonmechanized recreation opportunities under each of the action alternatives. All of them would 

convert existing inventoried routes to non-mechanized travel. Impacts to naturalness would be 

negligible on the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Managing additional trails for 

hiking and horseback riding would provide further opportunities for primitive forms of recreation 

where the trails would be located in any of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Under all three action alternatives, the Castleton trail in Mary Jane Canyon non-WSA area, and 

the Culvert-Goldbar loop trail in Goldbar non-WSA area would be marked and managed for 

hiking, and a new hiking trail would be signed and managed from Onion Creek to the 

Amphitheater Loop in the Fisher Towers non-WSA area. Any additional managed trails would 

be specified at the activity-level stage of planning following completion of the RMP. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-158 

4.3.8.2.14 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS

Under all alternatives, control of noxious weeds would have both positive and negative impacts 

on the wilderness characteristics of non-WSA lands, depending on the method of control. The 

use of fire, chemical, and biological treatments would control noxious weeds and insects with no 

apparent evidence of human intervention on the landscape. Thus there would be no noticeable 

effect on the natural character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, if those 

treatments were necessary in the non-WSA areas that have wilderness characteristics. Control of 

non-native vegetation, and restoration of native vegetation communities, however, would result 

in a more natural vegetation community and thus, natural condition of the non-WSA areas. The 

use of mechanical treatments to eradicate non-native vegetation and would leave a noticeable 

imprint of human work on the landscape, and degrade the natural character of non-WSA lands, if 

the treatments were to occur in the non-WSA areas. Depending on the vegetation community 

treated (grassland and shrubland versus a woodland or coniferous forest), the length of time the 

evidence of mechanical treatments remained on the landscape would vary before the surface and 

vegetation disturbances returned to a more natural or unmodified condition. 

Reclaiming or restoration of up to 257,809 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat would have the 

same impact on the natural character of the non-WSA lands as described above. Depending on 

the treatment method used, the effects on naturalness would be of little effect and beneficial to 

the natural condition of the non-WSA lands or an apparent evidence of human intervention on 

the land, and longer-lasting. 

4.3.8.2.15 IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS 

WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

There are four objectives for visual resources management (VRM Classes I through IV) that 

provide for various levels of landscape protection and change. The objective of Class I is to 

preserve the characteristic landscape, while the objective of Class IV provides for landscape 

modifications (see Section 3.19, Visual Resources). The only lands identified under all 

alternatives to be designated VRM Class I are lands within WSAs. VRM Class II objectives 

would retain the characteristic landscape, allowing for minor changes to the landform and 

vegetation. This objective would protect the natural condition of the land in non-WSA areas. The 

objective of VRM Class III is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape, allowing 

for moderate changes to land and vegetation. This objective is not compatible with preserving 

the natural character of non-WSA lands. Class IV objectives provide for major modification of 

the landscape and are clearly incompatible with preservation of the natural character of nonWSA lands. 

Table 4.65 shows the VRM designation (Classes I through IV) within non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics, by alternative. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-159 

Table 4.65. VRM Designation in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (acres)

Alternative 

Name of non-WSA Area Total Acres VRM 

Class A1

 B PROPOSED 

PLAN D 

Arches Adjacent 6,396 II 0 6,396 6,396 6,396

I 0 5,477 0 0

II 0 20,245 25,538 15,924 Beaver Creek 

 25,722

III 0 0 184 9,798

I 0 1,460 0 0

II 0 2,183 2,007 0 Behind the Rocks 

 3,643

III 0 0 1,636 3,643

II 0 5,200 0 0

Big Triangle 5,200

III 0 0 5,200 5,200

II 0 21,632 0 0

III 0 0 7,516 7,062 Coal Canyon 

 21,632

IV 0 0 14,116 14,570

I 0 35 0 0

Dead Horse Cliffs 797

II 0 762 797 797

II 0 10,498 9,076 9,092 Desolation Canyon 10,498

III 0 0 1,422 1,406

I 0 9,598 0 0

II 0 4,609 11,840 11,669 Dome Plateau 

 14,207

III 0 0 2,367 2,538

I 0 6,466 0 0

II 0 10,769 12,449 12,423 Fisher Towers 

 17,235

III 0 0 4,786 4,812

II 0 9,983 786 786

III 0 0 9,158 9,158 Floy Canyon 

 9,983

IV 0 0 39 39

II 0 3,520 0 0

III 0 0 1,471 1,418 Flume Canyon 

 3,520

IV 0 0 2,049 2,102

I 0 821 0 0

II 0 5,616 6,437 0 Goldbar 

 6,437

III 0 0 0 6,437

I 0 843 0 0

II 0 0 843 0

Gooseneck 

 843

III 0 0 0 843
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-160 

Table 4.65. VRM Designation in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (acres)

Alternative 

Name of non-WSA Area Total Acres VRM 

Class A1

 B PROPOSED 

PLAN D 

II 0 4,528 3,150 3,150 Granite Creek 4,528

III 0 0 1,378 1,378

II 1,425 1,465 1,425 1,425 Harts Point (MFO) 1,465

III 40 0 40 40

II 4,466 10,983 9,726 8,981 Hatch Wash 10,983

III 6,517 0 1,310 2,055

II 0 2,670 2,088 2,088 Hatch/Lockhart 2,670

III 0 0 582 582

II 0 2,538 0 180

Hells Hole 2,538

III 0 0 2,538 2,358

II 0 11,607 0 0

Hideout Canyon 11,607 III 0 0 11,607 11,607

I 0 739 0 0

II 0 7,619 6,026 1,171 Horsethief Point 

 8,358

III 0 0 2,332 7,187

I 0 2,771 0 0

II 0 1,694 4,465 0 Hunter Canyon 

 4,465

III 0 0 0 4,465

I 0 5,668 0 0

II 0 19,693 11,991 8,954 Labyrinth Canyon 

 25,361

III 0 0 13,370 16,407

II 0 11,456 7,095 7,095 Lost Spring Canyon 11,456

III 0 0 4,361 4,361

I 0 17,854 0 0

Mary Jane Canyon 24,779

II 0 6,925 24,779 24,779

II 0 12,837 3 3

Mexico Point 12,837

III 0 0 12,834 12,834

I 0 2,344 0 0

Mill Creek Canyon 3,388

II 0 1,044 3,388 3,388

I 0 170 0 0

Negro Bill Canyon 2,333

II 0 2,163 2,333 2,333

II 0 1,842 1,842 0 Shafer Canyon 1,842

III 0 0 0 1,842

Spruce Canyon 1,131 II 0 1,131 161 0
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-161 

Table 4.65. VRM Designation in Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (acres)

Alternative 

Name of non-WSA Area Total Acres VRM 

Class A1

 B PROPOSED 

PLAN D 

III 0 0 970 1,131

I 0 83 0 0

II 0 3,003 1,215 1,215 Westwater Canyon 

 3,086

III 0 0 1,871 1,871

II 0 7,188 0 0

Westwater Creek 7,188

III 0 0 7,188 7,188

Yellow Bird 357 II 0 357 357 357

1

VRM was not a management decision in the 1985 RMP (reflected in Alternative A), except for a plan amendment affecting 

only the Canyon Rims Recreation Area. 

4.3.8.2.15.1 Alternative A 

There were no VRM class objectives defined in the 1985 Grand RMP reflected in Alternative A, 

except for a plan amendment affecting only the Canyon Rims Recreation Area which 

incorporates Harts Point and Hatch Wash non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under 

this alternative, 5,892 acres in these two areas would be managed by VRM Class II objectives, 

protecting the natural character of those lands in the non-WSA areas. An additional 6,556 acres 

would be managed by VRM Class III objectives in these two areas. Because moderate changes 

could be allowed to the land and vegetation, this objective would not be compatible with 

preserving the natural character of non-WSA lands and could put these values at risk. 

4.3.8.2.15.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, all 266,485 acres would be managed by VRM Class II objectives in the 32 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Retaining the natural character of these areas by 

precluding surface-disturbing activities would protect the natural character of those lands in the 

non-WSA areas. 

4.3.8.2.15.3 Proposed Plan 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Included in the Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed to protect, 

preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. This acreage is located within the Beaver 

Creek, Mary Jane, and Fisher Towers areas. The entire acreage would be managed with VRM 

Class II objectives. Retaining the natural character of these areas by precluding surfacedisturbing activities would protect the natural character of those lands in the non-WSA areas. 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Not Included in the Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, 108,449 acres would be managed by VRM Class II objectives in all or 

parts of 24 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting the natural character of 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-162 

those lands in the non-WSA areas. Ten of the 24 areas (Arches Adjacent, Dead Horse Cliffs, 

Goldbar, Gooseneck, Hunter Canyon, Mary Jane Canyon (in portion not managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics), Mill Creek Canyon, Negro Bill Canyon, Shafer Canyon, and Yellow 

Bird) would be wholly under the VRM Class II objectives, fully protecting those areas from 

visual intrusions and maintaining the natural character of the areas. 

The areas not under the VRM II objectives would be managed by VRM III and IV objectives 

which would be incompatible with protecting wilderness characteristics values because changes 

to the landscape would be permitted. This would include all of seven non-WSA areas (Big 

Triangle, Coal Canyon, Flume Canyon, Hells Hole, Hideout Canyon, Mexico Point, and 

Westwater Creek) and portions of 22 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.2.15.4 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, 122,203 acres would be managed by VRM Class II objectives in all or 

parts of 19 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, protecting the natural character of 

those lands in the non-WSA areas. Six of the 19 areas (Arches Adjacent, Dead Horse Cliffs, 

Mary Jane Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, Negro Bill Canyon, and Yellow Bird) would be wholly 

under the VRM Class II objectives, protecting those areas from visual intrusions and maintaining 

the natural character of the areas. 

The areas not under the VRM II objectives would be managed by VRM III and IV objectives 

which would be incompatible with protecting wilderness characteristics values because changes 

to the landscape would be permitted. This would include all of 12 non-WSA areas (Behind the 

Rocks, Big Triangle, Coal Canyon, Flume Canyon, Goldbar, Gooseneck, Hideout Canyon, 

Hunter Canyon, Mexico Point, Shafer Canyon, Spruce Canyon, and Westwater Creek) and 

portions of 18 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

In summary, the visual resource management objectives proposed in Alternative B would 

provide protection of the natural character of all the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. VRM objectives in the Proposed Plan would provide protection to the natural 

character of the 156,210 acres in all or parts of 25 non-WSA areas, followed by Alternative D 

with 122,203 acres protected in all or parts of 19 non-WSA areas. Alternative A only has VRM 

class objectives for two non-WSA area, of which only a portion of each would fall into a VRM II 

management class. Visual resource objectives in Alternatives A and D provide the least 

protection to the natural character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.2.16 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON NON-WSA LANDS WITH 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.8.2.16.1 Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, a variety of actions would be implemented to restore, maintain, and 

enhance native wildlife populations. Improved wildlife populations would enhance the natural 

character of the land in all of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Further, larger 

and healthier wildlife populations would expand opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

recreation opportunities, including wildlife viewing, hunting, and natural history study. 

A goal of the Dolores Triangle HMP is to manage and benefit wildlife, bird, and fish species 

through the installation of fencing and enclosures in Granite Creek. This could affect the Granite 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-163 

Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Although a benefit for wildlife, 

construction of human made features on the land would degrade the natural, undeveloped 

character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative B, this 

activity would most likely be precluded or mitigated within the wilderness characteristics lands 

due to the restrictive decisions in place. 

Within pronghorn habitat, a common to all alternatives decision is to install and improve yearround water sources within the LaSal Management Unit and the Cisco Desert Herd Unit. This 

could affect the Hatch Wash and Harts Point non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in 

the LaSal Unit, and the Floy Canyon and Coal Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the Cisco Desert Herd Unit. Construction of water sources to support wildlife 

populations would result in more wildlife and the benefits described above. Construction of 

human made features on the land, however, would degrade the natural, undeveloped character of 

the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative B, new water 

developments or facilities would most likely be precluded or mitigated within the wilderness 

characteristics lands due to the restrictive decisions in place. 

In bighorn sheep habitat, a decision to increase bighorn populations would involve installation of 

new water facilities and new water developments every 5 square miles in or within 2 miles of 

escape terrain and lambing grounds. This would involve Labyrinth Canyon, Shafer Canyon, 

Gooseneck, Goldbar, Horsethief Point, Dead Horse Cliffs, and Hatch/Lockhart non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. These lands are small areas within a large habitat, and the 

animals move in and out of wilderness characteristics lands. Construction of water sources to 

support wildlife populations would result in more wildlife and the benefits described above. 

Construction of human made features on the land, however, would degrade the natural, 

undeveloped character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative 

B, new water developments or facilities would most likely be precluded or mitigated within the 

wilderness characteristics lands due to the restrictive decisions in place. 

Within deer and/or elk habitat, elk forage would be increased through vegetation treatments such 

as chemical, mechanical, and prescribed fire on approximately 40,000 acres of elk winter range. 

This could include areas in the Big Triangle, Westwater Canyon, Hells Hole, Hideout Canyon, 

Mexico Point, Westwater Creek, Flume Canyon, Coal Canyon, Floy Canyon and Desolation 

Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. The use of fire and chemical treatments 

would have no apparent evidence of human intervention on the landscape. Thus there would be 

no noticeable effect on the natural character of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, if those treatments were necessary in the non-WSA areas that have wilderness 

characteristics. Restoration of vegetation communities, however, would result in a more natural 

vegetation community and thus, natural condition of the non-WSA areas. The use of mechanical 

treatments for vegetation manipulations would leave a noticeable imprint of human work on the 

landscape, and degrade the natural character of non-WSA lands, if the treatments were to occur 

in the non-WSA areas. Depending on the vegetation community treated (grassland and shrub 

land vs. a woodland or coniferous forest), the length of time the evidence of mechanical 

treatments remained on the landscape would vary before the surface and vegetation disturbances 

returned to a more natural or unmodified condition. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-164 

4.3.8.2.16.2 Alternative A and D 

See Management Common to All. 

4.3.8.2.16.3 Alternative B 

Under this alternative, a NSO stipulation to protect bighorn sheep lambing, rutting, and migration 

habitat would be applied. This would involve small portions of Labyrinth Canyon, Shafer Canyon, 

Gooseneck, Goldbar, Horsethief Canyon, Dead Horse Cliffs, and Hatch/Lockhart non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics, and protect the natural character of these areas from surfacedisturbing activities associated with oil and gas development and other surface-disturbing 

activities. 

4.3.8.2.16.4 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, surface-disturbing activities in Fisher Towers, Beaver Creek, and Mary 

Jane would be precluded to protect natural resources including big-horned sheep. 

Impacts of Woodlands Decisions on Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Under all alternatives, permits for woodland products would continue to be sold to the public, 

consistent with the availability of woodland products and the protection of sensitive resource 

values. Each alternative prescribes areas where woodland product harvest is allowed or 

prohibited. Table 4.66 provides the acres of areas open or closed to woodland harvest by 

alternative for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Table 4.66. Wood-Cutting Restrictions in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Alternative Name of non-WSA 

Area Total Acres Availability

A B PROPOSED 

PLAN* D 

Open 5,407 0 5,407 5,407 Arches Adjacent 6,396

Closed 989 6,396 989 989

Open 25,722 0 0 25,722 Beaver Creek 25,722 Closed 0 25,722 25,722 0

Open 2,807 0 1,538 2,807 Behind the Rocks 3,643

Closed 836 3,643 2,105 836

Open 5,200 0 5,200 5,200 Big Triangle 5,200 Closed 0 5,200 0 0

Open 21,632 0 21,632 21,632 Coal Canyon 21,632 Closed 0 21,632 0 0

Open 482 0 482 482

Dead Horse Cliffs 797

Closed 315 797 315 315

Open 10,498 0 5,182 10,498 Desolation Canyon 10,498 Closed 0 10,498 5,316 0
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-165 

Table 4.66. Wood-Cutting Restrictions in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Alternative Name of non-WSA 

Area Total Acres Availability

A B PROPOSED 

PLAN* D 

Open 7,989 0 7,989 7,989 Dome Plateau 14,207

Closed 6,218 14,207 6,218 6,218

Open 9,699 0 9,559 9,699 Fisher Towers 17,235 Closed 7,536 17,235 7,676 7,536

Open 9,983 0 9,983 9,983 Floy Canyon 9,983 Closed 0 9,983 0 0

Open 3,520 0 3,520 3,520 Flume Canyon 3,520 Closed 0 3,520 0 0

Open 5,974 0 5,972 5,974 Goldbar 6,437 Closed 463 6,437 465 463

Gooseneck 843 Closed 843 843 843 843

Open 4,528 0 4,528 4,528 Granite Creek 4,528 Closed 0 4,528 0 0

Harts Point (MFO) 1,465 Closed 1,465 1,465 1,465 1,465

Hatch/Lockhart 2,670 Closed 2,670 2,670 2,670 2,670

Hatch Wash 10,983 Closed 10,983 10,983 10,983 10,983

Open 2,358 0 2,358 2,358 Hells Hole 2,538 Closed 0 2,538 0 0

Open 11,607 0 11,607 11,607 Hideout Canyon 11,607 Closed 0 11,607 0 0

Open 7,860 0 7,860 7,860 Horsethief Point 8,358 Closed 498 8,358 498 498

Open 4,150 0 1,378 4,150 Hunter Canyon 4,465 Closed 315 4,465 3,087 315

Open 19,738 0 19,530 19,738 Labyrinth Canyon 25,361

Closed 5,623 25,361 5,831 5,623

Open 11,456 0 11,456 11,456 Lost Spring Canyon 11,456 Closed 0 11,456 0 0

Open 4,618 0 3,799 4,618 Mary Jane Canyon 24,779 Closed 20,161 24,779 20,980 20,161
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-166 

Table 4.66. Wood-Cutting Restrictions in non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Alternative Name of non-WSA 

Area Total Acres Availability

A B PROPOSED 

PLAN* D 

Open 12,837 0 12,837 12,837 Mexico Point 12,837

Closed 0 12,837 0 0

Open 2,481 0 608 2,481 Mill Creek Canyon 3,388 Closed 907 3,388 2,780 907

Open 1,398 0 1,393 1,398 Negro Bill Canyon 2,333 Closed 935 2,333 940 935

Open 40 0 40 40

Shafer Canyon 1,842 Closed 1,802 1,842 1,802 1,802

Open 1,131 0 1,131 1,131 Spruce Canyon 1,131 Closed 0 1,131 0 0

Open 3,086 0 3,086 3,086 Westwater Canyon 3,086 Closed 0 3,086 0 0

Open 7,188 0 7,188 7,188 Westwater Creek 7,188 Closed 0 7,188 0 0

Open 367 0 357 367

Yellow Bird 357

Closed 0 357 0 0

*All areas managed to protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness characteristics would be closed to woodcutting. These 

areas include 25,722 acres in Beaver Creek, 5,540 acres in Fisher Towers and 16,499 acres in Mary Jane Canyon. 

Alternatives A and D 

Under both of these alternatives, wood-cutting would be prohibited on 62,563 acres on all or 

portions of 17 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Four non-WSA areas would be 

completely restricted from wood-cutting activities (Gooseneck, Harts Point, Hatch Wash and 

Hatch/Lockhart), thereby preserving the natural character of the landscape from surfacedisturbing activities associated with woodcutting. Those portions of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics in the other 13 areas that are restricted from wood-cutting activities 

would be provided the same protections. However, in the 203,922 acres that remain open for 

wood-cutting (and where the resource exists), wilderness characteristics may be compromised by 

surface-disturbing activities such as driving cross-country to the trees, cutting the trunks of trees 

and leaving stumps and debris, and by affecting the solitude and primitive recreation 

opportunities with chain saws and surface disturbances associated with human activity. 

4.3.8.2.16.5 Alternative B 

All 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the 32 areas within the 

MPA would be restricted from wood-cutting activities under this alternative. All wilderness 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-167 

characteristics values would therefore be protected from this activity and maintain the natural 

character and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.3.8.2.16.6 Proposed Plan 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Included in the Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed to protect, 

preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics. This acreage is located within the Beaver 

Creek, Mary Jane, and Fisher Towers areas. These acres are closed to woodcutting in their 

entirety and thus woodcutting activities would not affect their natural qualities. 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Not Included in the Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, wood-cutting would be prohibited on 52,740 acres on all or portions of 

19 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Four non-WSA areas would be completed 

restricted from wood-cutting activities (Gooseneck, Harts Point, Harts/Lockhart, and Hatch 

Wash), thereby preserving the natural character of the landscape from surface-disturbing 

activities associated with woodcutting. Those portions of the non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the other 14 areas that are restricted from wood-cutting activities would be 

provided the same protections. However, in the 165,984 acres that remain open for wood-cutting 

(and where the resource exists), wilderness characteristics may be compromised by surfacedisturbing activities such as driving cross-country to the trees, cutting the trunks of trees and 

leaving stumps and debris, and by affecting the solitude and primitive recreation opportunities 

with mechanical chain saws and surface disturbances associated with human activity. 

4.3.8.3 SUMMARY

The majority of adverse impacts to naturalness and outstanding opportunities would be caused 

by surface-disturbing activities such as woodland product harvest, land treatments, mineral 

development, and OHV use. 

Woodland product harvest and land treatments would have the potential to denude vegetation 

and create surface and visual disturbances, thereby degrading naturalness. The noise created by 

vehicles accompanying these activities would adversely affect the outstanding opportunities for 

solitude. Harvesting in areas where mechanized vehicular travel is limited to existing/designated 

routes would concentrate harvest next to access roads. Due to the low level of woodland harvest 

in the MPA, however, and the fact that opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation are 

already impaired next to roads, the impacts to wilderness characteristics from this activity would 

be minimal. As vegetation reestablishes, this effect would be less noticeable, although it could 

take decades before the treated area would be indistinguishable from its surroundings. In areas 

closed to woodland product harvest and firewood gathering, wilderness characteristics would be 

protected. 

In areas open to oil and gas leasing the presence and noise of people, vehicles, and equipment 

needed for exploration and production of energy resources would impact opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation in proximity to wells. Depending upon the terrain, vegetation, 

atmospheric conditions, etc., outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation 

could be lost in a substantial portion or the whole of these areas during the period of exploration 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-168 

and development. In areas that are managed as NSO or closed to oil and gas leasing, wilderness 

characteristics would be maintained. 

Wilderness characteristics would be adversely impacted by cross-country OHV use because of 

surface disturbance and noise. In the areas where OHV use is limited to designated routes there 

would be temporary impacts from noise. The noise and exhaust from vehicles may disperse some 

species of wildlife and may adversely impact recreationists seeking solitude. In areas that are 

closed to OHV use, wilderness characteristics would be protected. 

Realty actions such as road, power line or pipeline ROWs would be allowed in areas open to 

surface-disturbing activities. Generally, areas open to oil and gas leasing with standard lease 

terms and special stipulations are open to other surface-disturbing activities. Many realty actions 

would affect the natural character of the area within the viewshed of the development. Some 

developments, such as roads, would also affect opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. Managing lands as exclusion areas for ROWs would protect wilderness 

characteristics from adverse impacts. Managing lands as an avoidance area for ROWs may 

protect wilderness characteristics but this would not be guaranteed. 

Managing lands as VRM Classes III and IV would have adverse impacts on wilderness 

characteristics because these classes allow for moderate to major changes in the landscape 

thereby allowing large visual disturbances. Managing lands as VRM Class I would beneficially 

impact wilderness characteristics because this class precludes surface disturbance. VRM Class II 

management would keep the level of change to the landscape low but should not attract the 

attention of the casual observer. This would protect the natural character on a landscape level but 

there would risks of small localized impacts being visible. 

Tables 4.57–4.60 summarize how the 266,485 acres of land having wilderness characteristics 

would be managed by alternative, whether or not they are being managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics. In Alternative B, the entire 266,485 acres would be managed specifically to 

protect wilderness characteristics. In the Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres would be managed 

specifically to protect wilderness characteristics. The remaining acres in the Proposed Plan, as 

well as the total acreage in Alternatives A and D are not managed specifically to protect 

wilderness characteristics. 

The management of the entire 266,485 acres is shown by alternative for oil and gas leasing, 

VRM management, OHV use, and availability for woodland product harvest. Restrictions are a 

result of various management decisions, depending upon alternative. A discussion of impacts by 

alternative follows these tables. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-169 

Table 4.67. Summary of Oil and Gas Leasing Involving Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alternative D

Open to Leasing

Standard Lease Terms Acres 157,471 0 36,644 74,194 

% 59.0 0 14.0 28.0 

Controlled Surface Use/ Acres 93,382 0 124,537 157,939 

Timing Limitations % 35.0 0 47.0 59.0 

No Surface Occupancy Acres 13,033 0 87,512 34,352 

% 5.0 0 33.0 13.0 

Closed to Leasing

Closed Acres 2,598 266,485 17,792 0 

% 1.0 100 6.0 0 

Total 266,485 266,485 266,485 266,485 

*The 47,761 acres that are to be managed to protect, preserve and maintain their wilderness characteristics under the Proposed 

Plan are all no surface occupancy or closed. NSO = 35,630 acres Closed = 12,131 acres

Table 4.68. Summary of VRM Classes Involving Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alternative D

Class l Acres 130 45,048 2,689 0 

% "with WC" lands 1% 17% 1.0% 0% 

Class II Acres 168,983 221,437 147,799 115,995 

% "with WC" lands 63% 83% 55% 43% 

Classes III & IV Acres 97,462 0 115,997 150,490 

% "with WC" lands 36% 0% 44% 57% 

Total 266,485 266,485 266,485 266,485 

*The 47,761 acres that are to be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics under the Proposed

Plan would be managed as VRM II.
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-170 

Table 4.69. Summary of OHV Area Designations Involving Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alternative D

Open to cross- Acres 136,816 0 0 0 

country OHV use % "with WC" lands 58% 0% 0% 0% 

Limited to existing/ Acres 96,929 266,485 266,485 266,485 

designated routes % "with WC" lands 42% 100% 100% 100% 

Closed to OHVs Acres 0 0 0 0 

% "with WC" lands 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Total 266,485 266,485 266,485 266,485 

*The 47,761 acres that are to be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics under the Proposed

Plan would be managed as limited to designated routes. There are 8.36 miles of route designated in the Proposed Plan. 

Table 4.70. Acres of Woodland Harvest Designations Involving Non-WSA Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alternative D

Open to Woodland Acres 196,618 0 161,327 203,805 

Harvest % "with WC" lands 74% 0% 61% 76% 

Closed to Acres 69,867 266,485 105,158 62,680 

Woodland Harvest % "with WC" lands 26% 100% 39% 24% 

Total 266,485 266,485 266,485 266,485 

*The 47,761 acres that are to be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness characteristics under the Proposed

Plan would be closed to woodcutting.

4.3.8.3.1 ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, no acreage would be managed to protect lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Alternative A provides the least emphasis on management of naturalness and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation by: 

• Having the most lands available for rights-of-way permits (249,363 acres in all or portions of 

30 non-WSA areas) 

• Allowing for land disposal of some non-WSA lands 

• Providing the least restrictions for oil and gas leasing and development 

• Leaving the most amount of land available for salable mineral disposal 

• Focusing no areas within SRMAs for primitive recreation opportunities 

• Allowing for cross-county OHV travel in some areas. Within acreage limited for travel, 

294.8 miles of routes would be designated 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-171 

• Managing no acres for ACECs 

• Taking wild and scenic river studies only through eligibility findings 

• Having no VRM inventory management direction (with few exceptions due to a land-use 

plan amendment) 

• Closing only 62,563 acres of non-WSA lands to commercial and personal-use wood cutting 

(all or portions of 17 areas); 

Approximately 250,853 acres (94%) of the 266,485 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be open to mineral leasing with standard lease terms or with controlled surface use/timing 

limitation stipulations and would be subject to impacts from oil and gas development and other 

surface-disturbing activities. These adverse impacts would compromise the naturalness of nonWSA areas with wilderness characteristics. The wilderness characteristics within the Bookcliffs 

and Greater Cisco RFDs would be subject to greater potential impacts due to higher predicted 

number of wells to be developed over the life of the plan. See the minerals section (4.3.7) for 

more details on the number of wells and surface disturbance predicted for these RFDs. 

Approximately 36% of the lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed under VRM 

Classes III and IV. This would allow major surface-disturbing activities to occur and would 

potentially degrade the wilderness characteristics of the entire area. In addition 53% is open to 

cross-country OHV use and 74% is open to woodland harvest. Due to the high percentage of 

lands open to these surface-disturbing activities, wilderness characteristics would potentially be 

lost in the entire area over the life of the plan. 

4.3.8.3.2 ALTERNATIVE B

Under Alternative B, 100% of the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed specifically to protect these characteristics. Alternative B focuses on protection to the 

natural values and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation of the non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics (266,485 acres) by: 

• Making all non-WSA lands rights-of-way exclusion areas 

• Retaining all non-WSA lands in public ownership to facilitate management of wilderness 

characteristics 

• Closing all non-WSA lands to oil and gas leasing and development 

• Closing all non-WSA lands to salable mineral disposal 

• Focusing some SRMAs for primitive recreation opportunities 

• Designating 117 miles of routes in non-WSA lands to OHV use (limited OHV category) 

• Managing 9 ACECs overlying non-WSA lands to protect their relevant and important values 

• Managing 43.66 miles of eligible wild and scenic river segments within 7 non-WSA areas as 

suitable to protect their outstandingly remarkable values 

• Managing all non-WSA lands as VRM Class II to retain the characteristic landscape 

• Closing the non-WSA lands to commercial and personal-use wood cutting 

• Closing the non-WSA lands to road construction 

• Allowing no surface disturbance (see Appendix C for a description of surface-disturbing 

activities) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-172 

These prescriptions would have beneficial impacts by protecting naturalness and opportunities 

for solitude and primitive recreation from surface-disturbing activities and noise and enhancing 

the continuity of wilderness characteristic lands. Therefore the entire inventory (266,485 acres) 

of lands having wilderness characteristics would be preserved under this alternative. This 

management is far more protective of these areas than the management of these areas under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.8.3.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Included in the Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan manages 47,761 acres to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness 

characteristics. About 25,722 acres are in the Beaver Creek area, 5,540 acres are in the Fisher 

Towers area and 16,499 acres are in the Mary Jane area. These 47,761 acres would be: 

• Managed as avoidance areas for rights-of-way 

• Retained in public ownership 

• Managed with a NSO stipulation or closure to oil and gas leasing and development 

• Closed to salable mineral disposal 

• Managed for primitive recreation opportunities within two SRMAs 

• Managed as motorized travel limited to designated routes (with 8.36 miles of routes 

designated within the 47,761 acres), 

• Portions of the Dolores River would be managed as a wild and scenic river to protect its 

outstandingly remarkable values 

• Managed as VRM II 

• Closed to commercial and private woodcutting activities 

Based on the management prescription proposed for these 3 areas, wilderness characteristics 

including naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would 

be protected, preserved, and maintained. 

Impacts to Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Not Included in the Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan provides for some management of natural landscapes and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive forms of recreation by: 

• Making 112,838 acres of non-WSA lands (all or portions of 28 non-WSA areas) rights-ofway avoidance or exclusion areas 

• Retaining all non-WSA lands in public ownership 

• Applying a NSO stipulation or closure to oil and gas leasing and development on 57,543 

acres of non-WSA lands (all or portions of 21 areas) 

• Closing 57,543 acres of non-WSA (all or portions of 21 areas) lands to salable mineral 

disposal 

• Managing eligible wild and scenic river segments within 2 non-WSA areas as suitable to 

protect their outstandingly remarkable values 

• Focusing some SRMAs for primitive recreation opportunities 

• Designating 150.54 miles of routes in non-WSA lands to OHV use (limited OHV category) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-173 

• Managing 5 ACECs overlying non-WSA lands to protect their relevant and important values 

• Managing 108,449 acres of non-WSA lands as VRM Class II (all or portions of 25 areas) to 

retain the characteristic landscape 

• Closing 57,543 acres of non-WSA lands to commercial and personal-use wood cutting (all or 

portions of 19 areas) 

About 218,724 acres of lands that have wilderness characteristics would not be managed 

specifically to protect naturalness and outstanding opportunities. About 161,181 acres (61% of 

the acreage not managed to protect wilderness characteristics) would be open to mineral leasing 

with standard lease terms or controlled surface use/timing limitation stipulations, and would be 

subject to impacts from oil and gas development and other surface-disturbing activities. These 

adverse impacts would compromise the naturalness of areas with wilderness characteristics. The 

wilderness characteristics within the Bookcliffs and Greater Cisco RFDs would be subject to 

greater potential impacts due to higher predicted number of wells to be developed over the life of 

the plan. Please see the minerals section (4.3.7) for more details. 

While no acreage would be open to cross country OHV use, approximately 53% of these 

218,724 acres would be managed under VRM Classes III and IV, and 61% would be open to 

woodlands harvest. These actions would allow major surface-disturbing activities to occur and 

would potentially degrade the naturalness of those lands not managed specifically to protect 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.8.3.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

Alternative D provides for a lesser amount (than Alternative B or the Proposed Plan) of 

management of natural landscapes and opportunities for solitude and primitive forms of 

recreation by: 

• Making 242,030 acres of non-WSA lands (all or portions of 32 areas) rights-of-way 

avoidance or exclusion areas 

• Retaining all non-WSA lands in public ownership 

• Applying a NSO stipulation to oil and gas leasing and development on 34,352 acres of nonWSA lands (all or portions of 14 areas) 

• Closing 34,352 acres of non-WSA (all or portions of 14 areas) lands to salable mineral 

disposal 

• Focusing some SRMAs for primitive recreation opportunities 

• Designating 169 miles of routes in non-WSA lands to OHV use (limited OHV category) 

• Managing no ACECs overlying non-WSA lands to protect their relevant and important 

values 

• Managing no miles of eligible wild and scenic river segments as suitable to protect their 

outstandingly remarkable values 

• Managing 122,203 acres of non-WSA lands as VRM Class II (all or portions of 19 areas) to 

retain the characteristic landscape 

• Closing 62,563 acres of non-WSA lands to commercial and personal-use wood cutting (all or 

portions of 17 areas) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.8 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

4-174 

Under Alternative D, no acreage would be managed to protect lands with wilderness 

characteristics. About 232,133 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics (87%) would be 

open to mineral leasing with standard lease terms or with controlled surface use/timing limitation 

stipulations and would be subject to impacts from oil and gas development and other surfacedisturbing activities. These adverse impacts would compromise the naturalness of non-WSA 

areas with wilderness characteristics. The wilderness characteristics within the Bookcliffs and 

Greater Cisco RFDs would be subject to greater potential impacts due to higher predicted 

number of wells to be developed over the life of the plan. See the minerals section (4.3.7) for 

more details on the number of wells and surface disturbance predicted for these RFDs. 

Approximately 54% of the 266,485 acres having wilderness characteristics would be managed 

under VRM Classes III and IV. This would allow major surface-disturbing activities to occur and 

would potentially degrade the wilderness characteristics of the entire area. While no acreage 

would be open to cross country OHV use, 76% would be open to woodlands harvest. These 

actions would allow major surface-disturbing activities to occur and would potentially degrade 

the naturalness of those lands not managed specifically to protect wilderness characteristics. Due 

to the high percentage of lands open to these surface-disturbing activities, naturalness would 

potentially be lost in most of the non-WSA areas with wilderness characteristic over the life of 

the plan. 

4.3.9 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section discusses impacts to paleontological resources from management actions of other 

resources and resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning 

paleontological resources are described in Chapter 3. 

The BLM Regional Paleontologist for the State of Utah has classified all of the geologic units 

within the MPA according to the Potential Fossil Yield Classification System (PFYC). The BLM 

is currently using this study in lieu of the current paleontological resource management 

classification system in the process of considering the use of the PFYC as policy. The PFYC 

system is described in Section 3.9.4.2, and the results of the PFYC classification for the MPA 

form the basis for this impacts analysis. 

4.3.9.1 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

For this analysis, the 73 mapped geologic units which occur within the MPA were classified 

according to the PFYC, and the results are listed in Table 4.71. Nine units are Class 1, twentytwo are Class 2, twenty-seven are Class 3, thirteen are Class 4/5, and two are Class 5. Surficial 

exposures of Class 1 units comprise approximately 34,505 acres, Class 2 units approximately 

615,034 acres, Class 3 units approximately 722,457 acres, Class 4/5 approximately 378,366 

acres, and Class 5 approximately 67,114 acres. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-175 

Table 4.71. Mapped Geologic Units Within the MPA and their PFYC Classes in 

Approximate Descending Stratigraphic Order 

Age Mapped Geologic Unit(S) PFYC Class 

Quaternary (Holocene) Alluvial fan deposits, undifferentiated alluvial gravel, 

stream alluvium, bouldery colluvium, landslide deposits, 

slumps and slides, talus and colluvium, tufa deposits, 

alluvial mud, eolian deposits 

2 

Quaternary (Pleistocene) Basin fill alluvium, alluvial fan deposits, undifferentiated 

alluvial gravel, stream alluvium, pediment-mantle 

deposits, terrace gravel, bouldery colluvium, landslide 

deposits, slumps and slides, talus and colluvium, tufa 

deposits, alluvial mud, eolian deposits 

2 

Quaternary or Tertiary Collapse Breccia 2 

Tertiary Geyser Creek Fanglomerate 2 

Tertiary Green River Formation - Douglas Creek Member, 

Tongue a and Tongue c 

3 

Tertiary Green River Formation - Parachute Creek Member, 

Upper and lower parts 

3 

Tertiary Wasatch Formation 4/5 

Tertiary Wasatch Formation - Renegade Tongue 3 

Tertiary Wasatch Formation-Renegade Tongue, unit w and unit x 3 

Tertiary Green River Formation-Flagstaff Member and North 

Horn Formation 

4/5 

Cretaceous Mancos Shale 3 

Cretaceous Mancos Shale-Buck Tongue 3 

Cretaceous Mancos Shale - Bluegate Member 3 

Cretaceous Mancos Shale-Ferron Sandstone Member 3 

Cretaceous Mancos Shale-Lower Shale Member 3 

Cretaceous Mancos Shale - Sandstone Beds 3 

Cretaceous Mancos Shale - Sandstone Beds in Upper Shale 

Member 

3 

Cretaceous Mancos Shale - Tununk Shale Member 3 

Cretaceous Castlegate Sandstone 2 

Cretaceous Blackhawk Formation 4/5 

Cretaceous Farrer Formation 4/5 

Cretaceous Neslen Formation 4/5 

Cretaceous Sego Sandstone 2 

Cretaceous Price River Formation-Upper part 3 

Cretaceous Tuscher Formation 3 

Cretaceous Blackhawk Formation and Star Point Sandstone 4/5 

Cretaceous Castlegate Sandstone and Blackhawk Formation, 

undivided 

4/5 

Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone 3 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-176 

Table 4.71. Mapped Geologic Units Within the MPA and their PFYC Classes in 

Approximate Descending Stratigraphic Order 

Age Mapped Geologic Unit(S) PFYC Class 

Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone and Cedar Mountain Formation, 

undivided 

4/5 

Cretaceous Burro Canyon Formation 4/5 

Cretaceous Cedar Mountain Formation 5 

Jurassic Brushy Basin (Shale) Member of Morrison Formation 5 

Jurassic Salt Wash (Sandstone) Member of Morrison Formation 4/5 

Jurassic Tidwell Member of Morrison Formation 4/5 

Jurassic Summerville Formation and Morrison Formation-Tidwell 

and Salt Wash Members 

4/5 

Jurassic Morrison Formation - Tidwell Member and Summerville 

Formation, undivided 

3 

Jurassic Summerville Formation 3 

Jurassic Summerville and Curtis Formations, undivided 3 

Jurassic Carmel Formation-Dewey Bridge Member 2 

Jurassic Curtis Formation-Moab Member, Entrada Sandstone - 

Slick Rock Member, of Carmel Formation-Dewey Bridge 

Member 

2 

Jurassic Upper Carmel Formation 2 

Jurassic Lower Carmel Formation 2 

Jurassic Curtis Formation 2 

Jurassic Curtis Formation-Moab Member 3 

Jurassic Entrada Sandstone 2 

Jurassic Entrada and Carmel Formations, undivided 2 

Jurassic Curtis Formation-Moab Member, Entrada Sandstone - 

Slick Rock Member 

3 

Jurassic Entrada Sandstone-Earthy Member 2 

Jurassic Entrada Sandstone-Slick Rock Member 2 

Jurassic Entrada Sandstone-Earthy Member and Entrada 

Sandstone-Slick Rock Member 

2 

Jurassic Navajo Sandstone 2 

Jurassic Navajo Sandstone-Limestone beds 3 

Triassic and Jurassic Kayenta Formation 3 

Triassic and Jurassic Wingate Sandstone 2 

Triassic Chinle Formation 4/5 

Triassic Moenkopi Formation 3 

Permian Cutler Formation 3 

Permian Cutler Formation-Arkosic facies 3 

Permian Lower Cutler Group (Rico, Elephant Canyon, and 

Halgaito Formations) 

3 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-177 

Table 4.71. Mapped Geologic Units Within the MPA and their PFYC Classes in 

Approximate Descending Stratigraphic Order 

Age Mapped Geologic Unit(S) PFYC Class 

Permian White Rim Sandstone 3 

Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail Formation 2 

Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail Formation - Upper and Lower Members 2 

Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail Formation and Paradox Formation, 

undifferentiated 

2 

Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation caprock 2 

Proterozoic Aplite and pegmatite 1 

Proterozoic Granite 1 

Proterozoic Quartz pegmatite 1 

Proterozoic Granodiorite and quartz diorite gneiss 1 

Proterozoic Felsic gneiss 1 

Proterozoic Diorite, gabbro, and quartz diorite 1 

Proterozoic Early Proterozoic rocks 1 

Proterozoic Biotite gneiss, gneiss, and schist 1 

Proterozoic Amphibole gneiss 1 

Geologic mapping by Doelling 2002 (Moab and Eastern Part of San Rafael Desert 30' × 60' Quadrangle, scale 1:100,000); Doelling 

2004 (La Sal 30' × 60' Quadrangle, scale 1:100,000); Witkind 2004 (Huntington 30' × 60' Quadrangle, scale 1:100,000); and 

Gualtieri 2004 (Westwater 30' × 60' Quadrangle, scale 1:100,000). 

As discussed in Section 3.9.4.2, Class 1 geologic units have no sensitivity and no impact to 

paleontological resources is expected. Geologic units designated with a Class 2 have a low 

sensitivity, with little to low impact to paleontological resources anticipated. Class 3 geologic 

units have moderate sensitivity, and the risk of impacts to paleontological resources within these 

units is moderate. Class 4/5 and Class 5 geologic units have been designated high sensitivity 

units and have a high risk of adverse impacts. According to the PFYC (see Section 3.9.4.2 for 

detailed discussion), Class 4 units are Class 5 units with lowered risks of adverse impacts due to 

local conditions such as surficial cover and topography. Furthermore, Class 4 designations 

should be made on an action-specific basis once a determination of lowered risks to the resource 

has been made. For this analysis, probable Class 4 units are designated as Class 4/5 in order to 

best accommodate the language of the PFYC with the more programmatic approach of this 

study. For the purposes of this analysis, Class 3, 4/5 and 5 are considered sensitive geologic 

units, and Class 4/5 and Class 5 are considered highly sensitive. Since the risk of adverse impacts 

to paleontological resources in Class 1 and Class 2 units is negligible, only impacts to Class 3, 

Class 4/5 and Class 5 units are reported in the impacts analysis sections. 

Within the MPA, significant vertebrate and non-vertebrate paleontological resources are 

generally most abundant in the Chinle, Morrison, Cedar Mountain, Neslen, Farrer, North Horn, 

Green River, and Wasatch Formations (PFYC Classes 4/5 and 5); and are locally present but 

generally less abundant in the Cutler, Moenkopi, Kayenta, Summerville, Dakota, Tuscher, Price 

River, and Mancos Formations (PFYC Class 3). Significant vertebrate and non-vertebrate fossils 

occur but are generally uncommon in the Paradox, Honaker Trail, Wingate, Navajo, Entrada, and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-178 

Carmel Formations, the Sego Sandstone and Geyser Creek Fanglomerate, and Pleistocene-age 

surficial deposits (PFYC Class 2). Significant vertebrate and non-vertebrate fossils do not occur 

in relatively young (Holocene-age) surficial deposits (PFYC Class 2), or in igneous and 

metamorphic rock units such as granite, pegmatite, gneiss, diorite and schist (PFYC Class 1). 

4.3.9.2 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS

The loss of any identifiable fossil that could yield information important to prehistory, or that 

embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type of organism, environment, period of time, or 

geographic region, would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Direct adverse impacts 

on paleontological resources primarily concern the potential destruction of non-renewable 

paleontological resources and the loss of information associated with these resources. This 

includes the unlawful or unauthorized collection of fossil remains. If potentially fossiliferous 

bedrock or surficial sediments are disturbed, the disturbance could result in the destruction of 

paleontological resources and subsequent loss of information (adverse impact). Direct adverse 

impacts can typically be mitigated to below a level of significance through the implementation of 

paleontological mitigation. 

Surface disturbance may result in the exposure of fossils that may never have been unearthed via 

natural processes. If mitigation measures are implemented, these newly exposed fossils become 

available for salvage, data recovery, scientific analysis, and preservation into perpetuity at a 

public museum (beneficial impact). The positive impacts of the results of mitigation include 

advances in scientific knowledge by both permitted field researchers and paleontologists who 

study fossils in museum collections, contributions to public education and interpretation, and 

community involvement and partnerships. 

4.3.9.2.1 DIRECT IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Direct impacts result from activities planned or authorized by the BLM, and occur at the same 

time and place as the surface-disturbing action. The potential for direct impacts on scientifically 

significant surface and sub-surface fossils in fossiliferous sedimentary deposits is controlled by 

two factors. These include: 1) the depth and lateral extent of disturbance of fossiliferous bedrock 

and/or surficial sediments; and 2) the depth and lateral extent of occurrence of fossiliferous 

bedrock and/or surficial sediments beneath the surface. Ground disturbance has the potential to 

adversely impact an unknown quantity of fossils which may occur on or underneath the surface 

in areas containing paleontologically sensitive geologic units. Without mitigation, these fossils, 

as well as the paleontological data they could provide if properly salvaged and documented, 

could be destroyed, rendering them permanently unavailable for future scientific research. 

4.3.9.2.2 INDIRECT IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Indirect impacts are caused by land management actions and occur later in time or further away 

in distance than direct impacts, but are still reasonably foreseeable. They typically include those 

impacts which result from the continuing implementation of management decisions and 

associated activities, and/or the normal ongoing operations of facilities constructed within a 

specific project area. An example of an indirect adverse impact on paleontological resources 

would be the construction of a new road which increases public access to a previously 

inaccessible area, and results in unauthorized fossil collecting and vandalism. Mitigation 

strategies could include surveys by permitted and qualified paleontologists to collect significant 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-179 

surface fossils, transfer them to a public museum, and identify locations of fossil localities which 

have the potential to yield additional fossils as erosion occurs; augmentation of law enforcement 

staff and increased patrols; and the construction of protective fencing or other barriers around 

known paleontological sites. 

4.3.9.3 IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Management Actions under all alternatives would comply with Federal laws, regulations and 

agency guidelines governing the use and protection of paleontological resources, including but 

not limited to FLPMA, NEPA, CFR Title 43, Section 8365.1-5, and the BLM Manual H-8270-1 

(1998b). These authorities mandate and direct the treatment of paleontological resources in the 

MPA. Project-specific assessments and mitigation measures would be implemented wherever 

and whenever significant paleontological resources would be damaged or destroyed by surfacedisturbing actions. 

Management strategies common to all alternatives for paleontological resources would have both 

long- and short-term beneficial impacts, and would lessen potential adverse impacts to below the 

level of significance. Each alternative promotes appropriate assessment to facilitate scientific 

research, encourages partnerships, manages access to significant fossils, reduces unauthorized 

use of paleontological resources, and provides for the mitigation of adverse impacts by qualified 

and permitted paleontologists where necessary and appropriate to protect them. Appropriate 

recreational use of common invertebrate and plant fossils is encouraged, as are public education 

and interpretation of paleontological resources. 

The impacts of management actions related to fire management and paleontological resources on 

paleontological resources are common to all alternatives. 

Management actions related to air quality, cultural resources, human health and safety, soil and 

water, special status species, vegetation, visual resource management, and wildlife and fisheries, 

would have negligible impacts on paleontological resources, and therefore 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 soil and water resources, 

protecting federally listed species and their habitat, restoring and maintaining native vegetation 

communities, protecting non-listed wildlife and fish habitats, and maintaining scenic quality 

would neither inhibit nor enhance opportunities for the scientific study of important fossil 

resources nor the opportunities for recreational collection of fossils. 

4.3.9.3.1 IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Actions related to fire management could have long-term direct and indirect adverse and 

beneficial impacts on paleontological resources. Surface-disturbing actions such as road 

construction, the building of fire lines, and prescribed burns, could damage or destroy surface 

fossils in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. In these areas, paleontological 

mitigation would reduce potential direct adverse impacts to below the level of significance. 

Potential long-term adverse indirect impacts would result from the construction of new fire 

roads, which would increase access to BLM lands that were previously less accessible to the 

public, thus increasing the potential for unauthorized fossil collecting and vandalism. The 

recovery and preservation of fossils as the result of paleontological mitigation would be a 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-180 

beneficial impact because it would permanently preserve paleontological resources which may 

have otherwise never been discovered, and make them available for scientific research, education 

and display. 

4.3.9.3.2 IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES 

Paleontological resources identified as part of the Dinosaur Diamond National Prehistoric 

Byway would be recognized and protected. The Mill Canyon Dinosaur Trail, Copper Ridge 

Sauropod Trackway and Poison Spider Track Site would be managed as important scientific and 

public education resources as guided by future Special Recreation Management Area activitylevel plans. All permitted activities would have lease notices and stipulations to prevent damage 

to paleontological resources. In areas where surface disturbance threatens significant fossils, 

current BLM paleontological resource management policy would be used to assess the threat and 

mitigate potential damage. Lands identified for disposal would be evaluated to determine 

whether such actions would remove significant fossils from Federal ownership. Appropriate 

(authorized under BLM regulations) recreational use of common invertebrate and plant fossils 

would be encouraged, as would public education and interpretation of paleontological resources. 

Commercial sales of petrified wood would be prohibited because of its limited availability. The 

casting of vertebrate fossils, including dinosaur tracks, would be prohibited unless allowed under 

a scientific research permit issued by the Utah State BLM Office. Paleontological Resource Use 

Permits issued and administered by the Utah State BLM Office for scientific research would 

provide important information to the BLM MFO about the locations (both geographic and 

stratigraphic) and kinds of significant paleontological resources in their jurisdiction, while 

promoting and facilitating scientific research and education. Providing websites, local 

interpretive sites, and written information to the public about fossils and hobby collection would 

directly increase public knowledge of the earth sciences, encourage good stewardship, reduce 

illegal collection, and increase the likelihood that important paleontological discoveries would be 

reported to the BLM in the future. 

4.3.9.4 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

This section summarizes the impacts of the proposed management actions under each alternative 

on paleontological resources. Because the analyses of the management actions presented in this 

chapter do not reflect specific projects or actions, some impacts can only be expressed 

qualitatively. In most cases, subsequent site-specific analyses would be required in order to 

implement resource management decisions. These analyses would address potential site-specific 

impacts on a variety of resources, including (if appropriate) paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.4.1 IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Generally, land acquisitions by the BLM would affect paleontological resources by increasing 

public access to areas that contain paleontologically sensitive geologic units and areas that 

contain fossil localities. Public access to these areas could result in increased risk of adverse 

impact by the unauthorized collection or vandalism of paleontological resources. On the other 

hand, there would be an opportunity for the BLM to establish stewardship of paleontological 

resources on these newly acquired lands. This stewardship would include access to these lands 

by permitted paleontological researchers, and the resulting associated educational benefits 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-181 

including interpretive opportunities and the permanent storage of scientifically significant fossils 

collected in public museums (beneficial impact). Transfer of BLM (public) lands to private 

ownership would have long-term indirect and cumulative adverse impacts on paleontological 

resources by removing scientifically significant fossils from the public domain, thus rendering 

them permanently unavailable for scientific research and education. As discussed above, 

paleontological mitigation would reduce adverse impacts to below the level of significance by 

ensuring the preservation of fossils in a public museum where they would be available for 

scientific research, education and display. Lands and Realty management actions under each 

alternative concern proposals for utility corridors and LTAs. 

4.3.9.4.1.1 Alternative A 

Actions related to lands and realty under Alternative A would have long-term indirect adverse 

and beneficial impacts on paleontological resources. The utility corridors proposed under 

Alternative A are 1 mile wide. Of all the alternatives, Alternative A provides for the least amount 

of land to be available for use as utility corridors in areas containing paleontologically sensitive 

geologic units (21,701 acres). Of these, 4,110 acres are in areas containing highly sensitive 

geologic units. Thus, this alternative has the lowest potential for direct adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources as it could result in the least amount of surface-disturbance associated 

with construction within these utility corridors. This surface disturbance has the potential to 

damage or destroy an unknown quantity of scientifically significant fossils. New utility corridors 

would also facilitate greater commercial and public access to BLM lands via associated access 

routes, thus increasing the potential for unauthorized fossil collecting and vandalism (indirect 

adverse impact). 

4.3.9.4.1.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B an I-70 utility corridor would be designated that includes all existing rightsof-way identified in the existing RMP with a 100 foot width on each side of the widest Right-ofWay corridor, the existing Moab Canyon utility corridor would be designated, and the utility 

corridor south of Spanish Valley would be split into two corridors identical to the existing 

corridors. Of all the alternatives, Alternative B opens the second lowest acreage for use as utility 

corridors in areas containing paleontologically sensitive geologic units (38,633 acres). Of these, 

5,482 acres are in areas containing highly sensitive geologic units. Thus, this alternative has the 

second lowest potential behind Alternative A for direct adverse impacts on paleontological 

resources. 

4.3.9.4.1.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan an I-70 utility corridor would be designated that includes all major 

existing rights-of-way identified with a 100 foot widths on each side of the widest Right-of-Way 

corridor, the existing Moab Canyon utility corridor would be designated, and the two utility 

corridors south of Spanish Valley would be combined into a single corridor that would include 

the approximately 2 to 3 miles separating the two segments. Of all the alternatives, the Proposed 

Plan opens the second highest acreage for use as utility corridors in areas containing 

paleontologically sensitive geologic units (101,359 acres). Of these, 24,313 acres are in areas 

containing highly sensitive geologic units. Thus, this alternative has the second highest potential 

behind Alternative D for direct adverse impacts on paleontological resources. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-182 

4.3.9.4.1.4 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D the configurations of the proposed utility corridors are identical to those 

under the Proposed Plan, although the width is double. Of all the alternatives, Alternative D 

provides for the highest amount of land to be available for use as utility corridors in areas 

containing paleontologically sensitive geologic units (123,132 acres). Of these, 24,887 acres are 

in areas containing highly sensitive geologic units. Thus, this alternative has the highest potential 

for direct adverse impacts on paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.4.2 IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Under each alternative, livestock grazing would be managed according to BLM guidelines for 

Grazing Management to achieve Standards for Rangeland Health. Livestock grazing 

management actions under each alternative concern amounts of acreage available for livestock 

grazing with the MPA as well as seasonal grazing restrictions. 

4.3.9.4.2.1 Alternative A 

Actions related to livestock grazing under Alternative A could have direct and indirect adverse 

impacts on paleontological resources if grazing occurs in areas containing occurrences of 

scientifically significant surface fossils. This is because damage or destruction of surface fossils 

is known to occur as a result of trampling by livestock. Generally, grazing would be evaluated 

for significant paleontological resources if they occur in areas containing paleontologically 

sensitive units. Avoidance of sensitive resources could be accomplished with the construction of 

fencing or other barriers around known fossil localities. However, this could lead to an increased 

risk of unauthorized collecting or vandalism of the resources as it would increase their visibility. 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative A has the second least possibility for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because it opens the 

second least area (1,695,621 acres) to livestock grazing which could result in the destruction of 

some surface-occurring fossils by trampling. Of these, 394,972 acres are located in areas 

containing highly sensitive geologic units. 

4.3.9.4.2.2 Alternative B 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative B has the lowest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because the smallest area 

(1,668,732 acres) is potentially available for livestock grazing, thus creating the least likelihood 

of inadvertent surface fossil destruction by trampling. Of these, 394,718 acres are located in 

areas containing highly sensitive geologic units. 

4.3.9.4.2.3 Proposed Plan 

Of all the alternatives, the Proposed Plan has the third lowest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because the third smallest 

area (1,708,294 acres) behind Alternative B and the Proposed Plan is potentially available for 

livestock grazing, thus creating the second lowest likelihood of inadvertent surface fossil 

destruction by trampling. Of these, 394,841 acres are located in areas containing highly sensitive 

geologic units. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-183 

4.3.9.4.2.4 Alternative D 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative D has the highest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because the largest area 

(1,770,314 acres) is potentially available for livestock grazing, thus creating the highest 

likelihood of inadvertent surface fossil destruction by trampling. Of these, 394,832 acres are 

located in areas containing highly sensitive geologic units. 

4.3.9.4.3 IMPACTS OF MINERAL DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Management actions related to mineral development would provide for a variety of mineral 

exploration and development activities for leasable, locatable and salable minerals. Because of 

the potential large scale surface disturbance resulting from leasable oil and gas exploration and 

development, this category is analyzed quantitatively and separately from other mineral types. 

Because mineral exploration and development activities, including geophysical surveys, 

typically involve significant amounts of surface disturbance, adverse impacts on paleontological 

resources would result under all alternatives without mitigation. Commercial exploration and 

development of BLM lands for energy resources would have both direct and indirect adverse 

impacts on paleontological resources. Surface-disturbing activities associated with exploration 

and development could damage or destroy scientifically significant surface and sub-surface 

fossils (direct adverse impact). The ongoing operations of commercial energy facilities and 

associated infrastructure on BLM lands would have indirect adverse impacts on paleontological 

resources by increasing access to lands that were previously inaccessible through new road 

development, thus increasing the likelihood of unauthorized fossil collecting and vandalism. 

These impacts are most likely to occur in paleontologically sensitive units which are designated 

as Class 3, 4/5 and 5. Therefore, the sensitivities of geologic units and surface acreage eligible 

for minerals exploration and development is of critical consideration when analyzing potential 

impacts to paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.4.3.1 Alternative A 

The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing under both standard and special stipulations on 

BLM lands within each RFD area under Alternative A and corresponding paleontological 

sensitivities of geologic units are provided in Table 4.72. 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative A has the highest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because it opens the 

largest area (838,412 acres) to oil and gas leasing. Of these 838,412 acres in paleontologically 

sensitive geologic units, 262,895 acres are located in areas containing highly sensitive geologic 

units (Classes 4/5 and 5). For Alternative A, the Eastern Paradox RFD area has the highest 

potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources because it contains the largest acreage 

of sensitive geologic units, followed in descending order by the Greater Cisco, Bookcliffs, 

Bigflat, Lisbon Valley, Hatch Point, Salt Wash, and Roan Cliffs RFD areas. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-184 

Table 4.72. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative A for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Bigflat 3,875 123,354 79,179 19,838 5,809 

Bookcliffs n/a 22,427 65,766 62,458 n/a 

Eastern Paradox 16,665 200,657 224,685 52,718 31,777 

Greater Cisco 77 52,246 147,512 11,443 4,424 

Hatch Point 597 93,016 32,656 3,557 162 

Lisbon Valley n/a 56,059 16,282 35,930 6,133 

Roan Cliffs n/a 86 1,965 1,098 n/a 

Salt Wash 6,561 11,107 7,472 11,782 15,766 

Total 27,775 558,952 575,517 198,824 64,071 

See Section 3.9.4.2 for detailed PFYC class descriptions (Class 1 = no sensitivity, no anticipated impact; Class 2 = low 

sensitivity, little to low anticipated impact; Class 3 = moderate sensitivity, moderate anticipated impact; Class 4/5 = high 

sensitivity, high anticipated impact, but sensitivity level may be lowered based on site-specific assessments; Class 5 = high 

sensitivity, high anticipated impact. 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative A has the highest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because it opens the 

largest area (838,412 acres) to oil and gas leasing. Of these 838,412 acres in paleontologically 

sensitive geologic units, 262,895 acres are located in areas containing highly sensitive geologic 

units (Classes 4/5 and 5). For Alternative A, the Eastern Paradox RFD area has the highest 

potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources because it contains the largest acreage 

of sensitive geologic units, followed in descending order by the Greater Cisco, Bookcliffs, 

Bigflat, Lisbon Valley, Hatch Point, Salt Wash, and Roan Cliffs RFD areas. 

Under Alternative A, 2,397 acres of BLM Lands (3,504 acres of all lands) would be open to 

geophysical exploration within the MPA. Alternative A would have the highest potential for 

adverse impacts on surface fossils because it makes the most amount of land available for 

geophysical surveys. 

4.3.9.4.3.2 Alternative B 

The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing under both standard and special stipulations 

within each RFD area under Alternative B and corresponding paleontological sensitivities of 

geologic units are provided in Table 4.73. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-185 

Table 4.73. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative B for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Bigflat 624 53,742 26,779 2,472 1,249 

Bookcliffs n/a 15,959 41,642 38,562 n/a 

Eastern Paradox 12,566 120,870 133,236 33,790 29,574 

Greater Cisco 26 22,819 65,729 8,916 3,276 

Hatch Point 598 53,502 11,370 1,752 162 

Lisbon Valley n/a 54,243 15,259 35,213 6,134 

Roan Cliffs 6 n/a 1,392 n/a n/a 

Salt Wash 4,607 9,199 6,626 10,155 13,939 

Total 18,427 330,334 302,033 130,860 54,334 

See Section 3.9.4.2 for detailed PFYC class descriptions (Class 1 = no sensitivity, no anticipated impact; Class 2 = low 

sensitivity, little to low anticipated impact; Class 3 = moderate sensitivity, moderate anticipated impact; Class 4/5 = high 

sensitivity, high anticipated impact, but sensitivity level may be lowered based on site-specific assessments; Class 5 = high 

sensitivity, high anticipated impact. 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative B has the lowest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because it opens the 

smallest area (487,227 acres) to oil and gas leasing. Of these 487,227 acres in paleontologically 

sensitive geologic units, 185,194 are located in areas containing highly sensitive geologic units 

(Classes 4/5 and 5). For Alternative B, the Eastern Paradox RFD area has the highest potential 

for adverse impacts on paleontological resources because it contains the largest acreage of 

sensitive geologic units, followed in descending order by the Bookcliffs, Greater Cisco, Lisbon 

Valley, Salt Wash, Bigflat, Hatch Point, and Roan Cliffs RFD areas. 

Under Alternative B, 1,404 acres of BLM Lands (2,052 acres of all lands) would be open to 

geophysical exploration within the MPA. Alternative B would have the lowest potential for 

adverse impacts on surface fossils because it makes the least amount of land available for 

geophysical surveys. 

4.3.9.4.3.3 Proposed Plan 

The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing under both standard and special stipulations 

within each RFD area under the Proposed Plan and corresponding paleontological sensitivities of 

geologic units are provided in Table 4.74. 

Table 4.74. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

the Proposed Plan for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Bigflat 1,039 87,866 40,552 5,325 4,668 

Bookcliffs n/a 22,817 65,874 61,670 n/a 

Eastern Paradox 15,207 160,346 183,712 45,612 31,262 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-186 

Table 4.74. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

the Proposed Plan for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Greater Cisco 77 52,825 148,282 11,733 4,434 

Hatch Point 598 90,198 31,284 3,516 162 

Lisbon Valley n/a 55,884 16,040 35,825 6,135 

Roan Cliffs n/a 93 2,053 1,260 n/a 

Salt Wash 5,220 11,402 6,627 10,159 14,273 

Total 22,141 481,431 494,424 175,100 60,934 

See Section 3.9.4.2 for detailed PFYC class descriptions (Class 1 = no sensitivity, no anticipated impact; Class 2 = low sensitivity, 

little to low anticipated impact; Class 3 = moderate sensitivity, moderate anticipated impact; Class 4/5 = high sensitivity, high 

anticipated impact, but sensitivity level may be lowered based on site-specific assessments; Class 5 = high sensitivity, high 

anticipated impact. 

Of all the alternatives, the Proposed Plan has the second lowest potential behind Alternative B 

for adverse impacts on paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units 

because it opens the second smallest area (730,458 acres) to oil and gas leasing. Of these 

730,458 acres in paleontogically sensitive geologic units, 236,034 are located in areas containing 

highly sensitive geologic units (Classes 4/5 and 5). For the Proposed Plan, the Eastern Paradox 

RFD area has the highest potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources because it 

contains the largest acreage of sensitive geologic units, followed in descending order by the 

Greater Cisco, Bookcliffs, Lisbon Valley, Bigflat, Hatch Point, Salt Wash, and Roan Cliffs RFD 

areas. 

Under the Proposed Plan, 2,072 acres of BLM Lands (3,029 acres of all lands) would be open to 

geophysical exploration within the MPA. The Proposed Plan would have the second lowest 

potential behind Alternative B for adverse impacts on surface fossils because it makes the second 

least amount of land available for geophysical surveys. 

4.3.9.4.3.4 Alternative D 

The number of acres open to oil and gas leasing under both standard and special stipulations 

within each RFD area under Alternative D and corresponding paleontological sensitivities of 

geologic units are provided in Table 4.75. 

Table 4.75. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative D for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Bigflat 3,807 116,602 73,397 17,106 5,612 

Bookcliffs n/a 22,818 66,798 62,584 n/a 

Eastern Paradox 16,528 191,309 210,985 50,248 31,926 

Greater Cisco 76 52,880 148,291 11,737 4,433 

Hatch Point 598 93,099 32,532 3,547 162 

Lisbon Valley n/a 55,888 16,051 35,837 6,135 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-187 

Table 4.75. Proposed Acreages per PFYC Classes Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Under 

Alternative D for Each of the RFD Areas Within the MPA 

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 Class 5 

Roan Cliffs n/a 93 2,238 1,385 n/a 

Salt Wash 6,465 11,782 7,308 11,324 15,103 

Total 27,474 544,471 557,600 193,768 63,371 

See Section 3.9.4.2 for detailed PFYC class descriptions (Class 1 = no sensitivity, no anticipated impact; Class 2 = low sensitivity, little to low 

anticipated impact; Class 3 = moderate sensitivity, moderate anticipated impact; Class 4/5 = high sensitivity, high anticipated impact, but 

sensitivity level may be lowered based on site-specific assessments; Class 5 = high sensitivity, high anticipated impact. 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative D has the second highest potential behind Alternative A for 

adverse impacts on paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units 

because it opens the second largest area (814,739 acres) to oil and gas leasing. Of these 814,739 

acres in paleontogically sensitive geologic units, 257,139 are located in areas containing highly

sensitive geologic units (Classes 4/5 and 5). For Alternative D, the Eastern Paradox RFD area 

has the highest potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources because it contains the 

largest acreage of sensitive geologic units, followed in descending order by the Greater Cisco, 

Bookcliffs, Bigflat, Lisbon Valley, Hatch Point, Salt Wash, and Roan Cliffs RFD areas. 

Under Alternative D, 2,309 acres of BLM Lands (3,405 acres of all lands) would be open to 

geophysical exploration within the MPA. Alternative D would have the second highest potential 

behind Alternative A for adverse impacts on surface fossils because it makes the second least 

amount of land available for geophysical surveys. 

4.3.9.4.4 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Prescriptions for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would generally have long-term 

beneficial impacts on paleontological resources that occur within their boundaries. Impacts to 

paleontological resources vary among alternatives based on the acreage managed for wilderness 

characteristics and the oil and gas leasing stipulations assigned within them. 

4.3.9.4.4.1 Alternative A 

Alternative A would manage no lands to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Therefore, no restrictions on surface-disturbing activities would be imposed in Alternative A as a 

result of wilderness characteristics decisions and inadvertent adverse impacts to paleontological 

resources could occur. 

4.3.9.4.4.2 Alternative B 

Alternative B would manage 266,485 acres to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. These lands would be managed as closed to oil and gas leasing and with no 

surface disturbance allowed by other surface-disturbing activities. These restrictions would 

protect paleontological resources by precluding surface-disturbing activities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-188 

4.3.9.4.4.3 Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would manage 47,761 acres (in Beaver Creek, Fisher Towers and Mary Jane) 

to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. These lands would be managed as 

NSO for oil and gas leasing and by precluding other surface-disturbing activities. These 

restrictions would protect paleontological resources by precluding surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.9.4.4.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D would manage no lands to protect non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Therefore, no restrictions on surface-disturbing activities would be imposed in Alternative D as a 

result of wilderness characteristics decisions and inadvertent adverse impacts to paleontological 

resources could occur. 

4.3.9.4.5 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Under all alternatives, riparian areas would be managed for properly functioning condition and 

management actions would ensure that stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate 

for local soil types, climates, and landforms. The loss or degradation of riparian areas, wetlands 

and associated floodplains would be avoided or minimized; natural and beneficial values would 

be preserved and enhanced; and fish, wildlife and special status species would be provided for. 

Specifically, management of riparian areas under each alternative concerns the amount of land in 

riparian areas that could be available for grazing and the seasonal availability of these areas. 

Wherever riparian areas are underlain by paleontologically sensitive geologic units, surface 

disturbance (including ROWs) within these areas has the potential to adversely impact 

paleontological resources due to the trampling, breakage and crushing of fossil remains. 

Mitigation would include field surveys to collect significant surface fossils and associated data 

from bedrock exposures within areas that could be subject to trampling, and the transfer of all 

collected fossils to a public museum for curation and permanent storage. As an alternative 

mitigation avoidance of sensitive resources could be accomplished with the construction of 

fencing or other barriers around known fossil localities. However, this could lead to an increased 

risk of unauthorized collecting or vandalism of the resources as it would increase their visibility. 

4.3.9.4.5.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the Between the Creeks, North Sand Flats, South Sand Flats, Cottonwood 

and Diamond allotments would not be available for grazing to benefit riparian resources, and the 

Spring Creek, Castle Valley, Pear Park and Bogart allotments would continue to be managed as 

not available for grazing in order to protect riparian resources. Of all the alternatives, Alternative 

A places the fewest possible restrictions on grazing in riparian areas, both geographically and 

seasonally, and would therefore have the highest probability of short- and long-term direct 

adverse impacts on paleontological resources, although since most paleontological resources are 

subsurface, impacts would be minor. 

4.3.9.4.5.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, grazing within riparian areas would be evaluated for exclusion from the 

following drainages with the installation of fencing while allowing for water access: Ten Mile 

from Dripping Spring to the Green River, Lower Gray Canyon of the Green River, Day Canyon, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-189 

Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon, East Coyote, Kane Springs, and Hatch Wash (4,422 acres. 

Development and implementation of the Watershed Management Plans and riparian studies for 

the following areas would be prioritized: Mill Creek (including North Fork, Rill, and 

Burkholder), Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, White Wash, Bartlett Wash, Tusher Wash, Mill 

Canyon, Courthouse Wash, Professor Creek, Negro Bill Canyon, Cottonwood/Diamond, Spring 

Canyon, Red Wash, Green River, Colorado River, Onion Creek and Westwater Creek. Of all the 

alternatives, Alternative B places the most restrictions on grazing in riparian areas, both 

geographically and seasonally, and would therefore have the lowest probability of short- and 

long-term direct adverse impacts on paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.4.5.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, grazing in riparian areas would be evaluated for restriction while 

allowing for water access in the following drainages: Ten Mile from Dripping Spring to the 

Green River, Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon, and East Coyote (1,169 acres). Restrictions could 

include the development of an Allotment Management Plan, changing seasons of use, restricting 

the intensity of grazing, and the installation of fencing or other forms of exclusion. The 

development and implementation of the Watershed Management Plans and riparian studies for 

the following areas would be prioritized: Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, Bartlett Wash, Tusher 

Wash, Mill Canyon, Courthouse Wash, Cottonwood-Diamond, and Onion Creek. Of all the 

alternatives, the Proposed Plan places the second most restrictions on grazing in riparian areas 

behind Alternative B, both geographically and seasonally, and would therefore have the second 

lowest probability of short- and long-term direct adverse impacts on paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.4.5.4 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, grazing management in riparian areas would be identical as described in 

Alternative A. Watershed Management Plans would not be prioritized. Of all the alternatives, 

Alternative D places the second fewest restrictions on grazing in riparian areas behind 

Alternative B, both geographically and seasonally, and would therefore have the second highest 

probability behind Alternative A for short- and long-term direct adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.4.6 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

Management of special designations could have indirect adverse and beneficial impacts on 

paleontological resources. For the purpose of this analysis, Special Designations fall into three 

categories: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), 

and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). There are 14 potential ACECs, 13 WSRs, and 10 WSAs 

within the MPA. To the extent that Special Designations in paleontologically sensitive 

areas/geologic units result in restricted public access and use, and prohibit surface-disturbing 

actions, paleontological resources would be less likely to be unlawfully collected or vandalized, 

or damaged or destroyed by vehicular traffic or construction. Therefore, in this general sense, 

Special Designations represent a beneficial impact on paleontological resources because they 

lessen the probability of their permanent loss to science and education. If public access to Special 

Designation areas such as ACECs is encouraged, and surface-disturbing actions are permitted, 

adverse direct and indirect impacts on paleontological resources could occur. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-190 

For all alternatives, there are 343,997 total acres designated as WSAs. Table 4.76 shows the 

acreage of paleontologically sensitive areas contained within each WSA in the MPA. 

Table 4.76. WSA Acreages by PFYC Class 

WSA Total 

Acreage Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4/5 

Behind the Rocks WSA 13,056 9,044 3949 64

Black Ridge Canyons WSA 57 52 5 

Coal Canyon WSA 60,599 1,409 18,066 41,124 

Desolation Canyon WSA 81,363 828 37,392 43,060 

Floy Canyon WSA 71,899 2,310 24,849 44,740 

Flume Canyon WSA 47,823 909 17,098 29,816 

Lost Spring Canyon WSA 1,625 368 399 858 

Mill Spring Canyon WSA 9,841 380 5,953 3,507 1

Negro Bill Canyon WSA 7,557 3,630 3,880 46

Spruce Canyon WSA 20,263 7,327 12,937

Westwater Canyon WSA 29,914 4,998 10,020 11,803 2,748

Total 343,997 5,746 34,554 128,734 174,536

See Section 3.9.4.2 for detailed PFYC class descriptions (Class 1 = no sensitivity, no anticipated impact; Class 2 = low 

sensitivity, little to low anticipated impact; Class 3 = moderate sensitivity, moderate anticipated impact; Class 4/5 = high 

sensitivity, high anticipated impact, but sensitivity level may be lowered based on site-specific assessments; Class 5 = high 

sensitivity, high anticipated impact. 

For all alternatives, there are 5,106 total acres of designated wilderness (Black Ridge Wilderness 

Area within the Colorado Canyon National Conservation Area) within the MPA. These include 

871 acres underlain by Class 2 geologic units, 4,230 acres underlain by Class 3 geologic units, 

and 5 acres underlain by Class 4/5 geologic units. Thus, the designated wilderness provides some 

protection for paleontological resources. 

4.3.9.4.6.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, no areas are designated as ACECs. The Negro Bill Canyon Outstanding 

Natural Area is the only special designation. This area encompasses a total of 1,287 acres. It is 

underlain by 726 acres of Class 2 geologic units, and 561 acres of Class 3 geologic units. Of all 

the alternatives, Alternative A designates the second smallest amount of BLM lands as special 

designations and/or ACECs, and thus has the second highest potential for adverse impacts on 

significant paleontological resources because it would provide the second least amount of 

restrictions on land access and use. 

There are no rivers that would be managed as suitable for Congressional designation into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under Alternative A, However, because all eligible 

rivers would, by BLM policy, continue to be managed in a protective manner until suitability 

could be determined, paleontological values would benefit from that protection. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-191 

4.3.9.4.6.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, a total of 71,072 acres are would be determined and managed as suitable 

for congressional WSR designation with recreational, scenic and wild classifications. Of these, 

2,864 acres are underlain by Class 1 geologic units, 25,257 acres are underlain by Class 2 

geologic units, 21,962 acres are underlain by Class 3 geologic units, 14,128 acres are underlain 

by Class 4/5 geologic units, and 1,864 acres are underlain by Class 5 geologic units. Because no 

eligible rivers would be determined as suitable for congressional designation as WSRs under 

Alternatives A and D, and less acreage would be determined suitable and managed in a 

protective manner under the Proposed Plan, Alternative B would be most protective of 

paleontological resources because it determines and manages the most acreage as suitable 

Under Alternative B, 14 ACECs are designated encompassing a total area of 610,703 acres. Of 

these, 4,483 acres are underlain by Class 1 geologic units, 118,323 acres are underlain by Class 2 

geologic units, 273,861 acres are underlain by Class 3 geologic units, 195,305 acres are 

underlain by Class 4/5 geologic units, and 5,325 acres are underlain by Class 5 geologic units. Of 

all the alternatives, Alternative B designates the largest acreage of BLM lands as ACECs, and 

thus has the lowest potential for adverse impacts on significant paleontological resources because 

it would provide the most restrictions on land access and use, such as NSO or closed for mineral 

development. 

4.3.9.4.6.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, a total of 41,495 acres are proposed as suitable for congressional wild 

and scenic river designation with recreational, scenic and wild classifications. Of these, 2,651 

acres are underlain by Class 1 geologic units, 15,546 acres are underlain by Class 2 geologic 

units, 11,122 acres are underlain by Class 3 geologic units, 6,209 acres are underlain by Class 

4/5 geologic units, and 1,338 acres are underlain by Class 5 geologic units. Because no rivers 

would be determined suitable and managed in a protective manner under Alternative D, and the 

highest amount of acreage would be managed as suitable for congressional wild and scenic 

designation under Alternative B, the Proposed Plan has less potential than Alternative B but 

more potential than Alternative D to protect paleontological values from adverse surfacedisturbing impacts. Alternative A is probably more protective than the Proposed Plan, because 

all rivers would continue to be managed in a protective manner until suitability determinations 

can be made. 

Under the Proposed Plan, 5 ACECs are designated encompassing a total area of 63,232 acres. Of 

these, 131 acres are underlain by Class 1 geologic units, 9,632 acres are underlain by Class 2 

geologic units, 24,079 acres are underlain by Class 3 geologic units, 24,324 acres are underlain 

by Class 4/5 geologic units, and 0 acres are underlain by Class 5 geologic units. Of all the 

alternatives, the Proposed Plan designates the second largest acreage of BLM lands as ACECs 

behind Alternative B, and thus has the second lowest potential for adverse impacts on significant 

paleontological resources because it would provide the second most amount of restrictions on 

land access and use, such as NSO or closed for mineral development. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-192 

4.3.9.4.6.4 Alternative D 

There would be no rivers determined suitable and managed in a protective manner under 

Alternative D. Therefore, there is a higher potential for adverse impacts on paleontological 

resources than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. 

There are no ACECs (or ONAs) designated under Alternative D as this alternative has the 

highest potential for adverse impacts on significant paleontological resources because it would 

provide the least amount of restrictions on land access and use, such as NSO or closed for 

mineral development. 

4.3.9.4.7 IMPACTS OF RECREATION AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Under each alternative, decisions related to travel management would provide opportunities for a 

range of motorized recreation experiences on public lands while protecting resources and 

minimizing conflicts among various users. Specifically, travel management under each 

alternative address OHV use for both motorized and mechanized (e.g., mountain bikes) travel. 

All BLM lands would be designated as open, limited to designated routes, or closed. Areas that 

are either open to OHV use or limit OHV use to designated routes have the potential to adversely 

impact paleontological resources due to the resulting surface disturbance, and are analyzed 

separately below. 

Generally, the construction of travel infrastructure such as roads, trails, and trailheads would be 

associated with construction-related surface disturbance that could damage or destroy fossils in 

paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. The designation of new routes for motorized and 

non-motorized travel would facilitate access to areas that were previously prohibited or 

inaccessible. This would also increase the potential for adverse direct impacts on surface fossils 

in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units. The overall increase in public access to BLM 

lands associated with travel management would increase the potential for unauthorized fossil 

collecting and vandalism. 

4.3.9.4.7.1 Alternative A 

Impacts related to travel management under Alternative A include potential adverse direct and 

indirect impacts on paleontological resources associated with damage by vehicles, and increased 

public access to BLM lands resulting in a greater potential for unauthorized fossil collecting or 

vandalism. Interpretive signs and displays in paleontologically sensitive areas, as well as the 

encouragement of lawful collecting of invertebrate and plant fossils, could foster a greater 

overall appreciation for paleontological resources and their scientific significance. 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative A has the highest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because it opens the 

largest area (391,133 acres) to unrestricted OHV travel, and hence provides the greatest amount 

of access to the general public. This increases the potential for damage and destruction of surface 

fossils by running over them with motorized vehicles and crushing them, as well as unauthorized 

fossil collection and vandalism. Of these 391,133 acres in paleontologically sensitive geologic 

units, 182,687 are located in areas containing highly sensitive geologic units. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-193 

Alternative A designates 764,260 acres in paleontologically sensitive geologic units as limited to 

designated, existing or inventoried routes. 

4.3.9.4.7.2 Alternative B 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative B has the lowest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because it designates no 

lands as open to cross country OHV travel. Thus it prevents greater access to the general public 

which would increase the potential for damage and destruction of surface fossils by crushing, as 

well as unauthorized fossil collection and vandalism. Alternative B designates 860,291 acres in 

paleontologically sensitive geologic units as limited to designated routes. This alternative has the 

lowest overall potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources. Of the 860,291 acres 

in paleontologically sensitive geologic units, 270,937 are located in areas containing highly 

sensitive geologic units. 

4.3.9.4.7.3 The Proposed Plan 

Of all the alternatives, the Proposed Plan has the second lowest potential behind Alternative B 

for adverse impacts on paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units 

because it designates the second smallest area (7 acres in paleontologically sensitive geologic 

units) as open to cross country OHV travel. Thus it provides less access to the general public 

than alternatives A and D, decreasing the potential for damage and destruction of surface fossils 

by crushing, as well as unauthorized fossil collection and vandalism. None of the 7 acres in 

paleontologically sensitive geologic units are located in areas containing highly sensitive 

geologic units. The Proposed Plan designates 831,367 acres in paleontologically sensitive 

geologic units to OHV travel limited to designated routes. This alternative has the third lowest 

overall potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources. Of the 831,367 acres in 

paleontologically sensitive geologic units, 243,797 are located in areas containing highly 

sensitive geologic units. 

4.3.9.4.7.4 Alternative D 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative D has the second highest potential behind Alternative A for 

adverse impacts on paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units 

because it designates the second largest area (38 acres in paleontologically sensitive geologic 

units) as open to cross country OHV travel. This provides the second greatest amount of access 

to the general public, which increases the potential for damage and destruction of surface fossils 

by crushing, as well as unauthorized fossil collection and vandalism. It should be noted that 

although Alternative D has the second highest potential for adverse impacts behind Alternative 

A, Alternative D involves a much smaller area (38 acres in paleontologically sensitive geologic 

units) that is much closer is size to alternatives B (0 acres) and the Proposed Plan (7 acres in 

paleontologically sensitive geologic units), than A (391,133 acres in paleontologically sensitive 

geologic units). Alternative D designates 1,142,781 acres in paleontologically sensitive geologic 

units as limited to designated routes. This has the second highest overall potential for adverse 

impacts on paleontological resources. Of the 1,142,781 acres in paleontologically sensitive 

geologic units, 443,037 are located in areas containing highly sensitive geologic units. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-194 

4.3.9.4.8 IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Management of woodlands involves the harvesting of woodlands products for commercial and 

recreational uses on lands managed by the MFO. In general, the increase in public access 

resulting from new as well as existing routes would have indirect adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources because it could increase the potential for unauthorized fossil 

collecting and vandalism. On the other hand, an increase in public access could also benefit 

qualified and BLM-permitted paleontological researchers who are interested in conducting field 

research in the area, and facilitate the collection and study of fossils which may have otherwise 

never been discovered. The implementation of paleontological mitigation measures in 

paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units prior to and during the construction of new roads 

and other surface-disturbing activities related to woodlands management would reduce potential 

adverse direct and indirect impacts on paleontological resources to below the level of 

significance. 

4.3.9.4.8.1 Alternative A 

Actions related to management of woodlands under Alternative A would have direct adverse 

impacts on paleontological resources due to surface-disturbing actions associated with 

woodlands harvest. Of all the alternatives, Alternative A has the highest potential for adverse 

impacts on paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because it 

would result in the largest possible area (760,344 acres) of surface disturbance resulting from 

activities associated with woodlands product harvest. Of these, 249,548 acres are located in areas 

containing highly sensitive geologic units. 

4.3.9.4.8.2 Alternative B 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative B has the lowest potential for adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units because it would result in 

the smallest possible area (614,848 acres) open to surface-disturbing activities associated with 

woodlands harvest. Of these, 201,649 acres are located in areas containing highly sensitive 

geologic units. 

4.3.9.4.8.3 Proposed Plan 

Of all the alternatives, the Proposed Plan has the second lowest potential behind Alternative B 

for adverse impacts on paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units 

because it would result in the second possible smallest area (737,198 acres) open to surfacedisturbing activities associated with woodlands harvest. Of these, 241,866 acres are located in 

areas containing highly sensitive geologic units. 

4.3.9.4.8.4 Alternative D 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative D has the second highest potential behind Alternative A for 

adverse impacts on paleontological resources in paleontologically sensitive geologic units 

because it would result in the second possible largest area (760,198 acres) open to surfacedisturbing activities associated with woodlands harvest. Of these, 241,866 acres are located in 

areas containing highly sensitive geologic units, thus, impacts to highly sensitive paleontological 

resources would be the same as the Proposed Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-195 

4.3.9.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The impacts of implementing fire management, paleontological resources, lands and realty, 

livestock grazing, minerals development, riparian, special designations, travel management, 

wilderness characteristics, and woodlands decisions under all four alternatives are summarized in 

Table 2.2, located in Chapter 2. Those activities and alternatives which maximize the possibility 

of surface-disturbing activities provide the highest probability of adverse impacts to 

paleontological resources. Alternative B provides the most protection for these resources, 

followed by the Proposed Plan and Alternatives D and A, in that order. 

4.3.10 RECREATION

This section discusses impacts to recreation from management actions of other resources and 

resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning recreation are described in 

Chapter 3. The assumptions discussed below were made in order to analyze the level of impacts 

the proposed RMP management actions would have on recreational resources, opportunities, and 

expectations and on the likelihood for user satisfaction. Recreational resources are defined as the 

natural elements within the environment that provide the physical basis for recreation. 

Recreational opportunities are defined as the combination of the natural elements (e.g., scenery, 

vegetation, geology, land forms, weather) and human-controlled conditions (e.g., roads and 

trails, developed sites, signs, route markers, facilities) that create the potential for recreation. 

Recreational expectations are those assumptions made by the recreation resource user (e.g., the 

hiker, mountain biker, the scenic driver, etc.) that, having prepared for the desired recreational 

experience (e.g., choosing a recreation site, traveling to the site) and having entered the area of 

opportunity, he/she would have that desired experience (e.g., the natural sights and sounds of an 

undeveloped landscape along a hiking trail or an un-crowded and challenging mountain biking or 

driving while enjoying high quality scenery). It is important to note that achieving recreational 

expectations are not guaranteed even though the MFO manages the resource for a wide range of 

recreational opportunities. Unforeseen and/or changing conditions that are beyond the control of 

the BLM can influence and partially determine what the user experiences. Recreational user 

satisfaction can be defined as that subjective mental state in which the resource user is able to 

successfully benefit from the available recreational opportunities and recognizes that his/her 

recreational experiences meet or exceed his/her recreational expectations. 

• While recognizing that recreation resource users are individuals with uniquely personal 

expectations, goals, and levels of recreational satisfaction, it was assumed for the purposes of 

impact analysis that recreational users within the MPA could be classified into specific user 

groups, each of which has its own set of recreational opportunities and expectations. It was 

also assumed that, because each user group has group-specific opportunities and 

expectations, each group also has specific recreational conditions and criteria that increase 

the likelihood for having satisfying user experiences. The user-group criteria described below 

were used in the impacts analysis of the proposed RMP management actions to determine the 

degree to which those actions would adversely or beneficially impact recreation users within 

the MPA. The descriptions, expectations, and criteria of these groups were derived from 

MFO resource specialist knowledge of visitor use of recreational resources and of what 

constitutes user group satisfaction, based on informal, but long-term, in-field interviews with 

visitors recreating throughout the MPA. For the action alternatives (Alternatives B, D, and 

the Proposed Plan), the MFO's benefits-based recreation management goals and objectives 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-196 

(see Appendix F) for the proposed SRMAs were also used in analyzing the impacts of 

resource decisions on user groups and on the likelihood of those users having satisfying 

recreational experiences in these areas. The recreational user groups and assumed 

conditions/criteria for satisfactory recreational user experiences are as follows: 

o Scenic drivers – This group would include users of passenger cars and recreational 

vehicles (RVs) driving for pleasure while enjoying scenic attractions. 

This user group generally prefers paved access to scenic vistas, cultural sites, and 

interpretive stations with turnoffs and/or temporary parking. 

High traffic volumes, crowded parking areas, impacts to visual resources from paved 

viewpoints, and crowded developed campsites would adversely affect this user group.

o Motorized (off-highway) drivers – This group would include users of off-road 

motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and 4-wheel drive vehicles. 

This group generally prefers a somewhat natural-appearing environment with non-paved 

surfaces ranging from graded, dirt roads to challenging routes with some evidence of 

human sights, sounds, and disturbances to remote, natural-appearing environments. The 

presence of other users and some presence of human-constructed structures are 

acceptable. The impacts of routes and facilities provided for group activities (including 

parking lots, route information, trailheads, and toilet facilities) are generally positive for 

this group. 

Overcrowding and overuse of trails, particularly by slower users such as hikers or 

mountain bikers, would have adverse impacts on this group's recreational experience. 

o Mountain bikers – Mountain bike users generally prefer a relatively natural or naturalappearing environment with trails ranging from beginner to advanced. They also prefer 

an environment in which evidence of human disturbances, restrictions, and controls is 

present but not appearing to dominate the environment. Recreation facilities would be 

optional and ideally would blend in with the natural environment. Recreation 

management would encourage user dispersal. Preferred facilities include semi-primitive 

camping with basic facilities (parking lots, trailheads, and toilets). 

Overcrowded trails, noise (particularly from motorized users), dust/vehicle emissions, 

and poor trail etiquette by other users can have adverse impacts on this group's 

recreational experience. 

o Non-mechanized users – This group would include hikers, backpackers, and equestrians. 

This group prefers a natural-appearing environment with little evidence of disturbance, 

few restrictions or visitor controls, no motorized users, and few mountain bike users. 

Dispersed use is preferred. 

Adverse recreational experiences include those listed for mountain bikers and also the 

high speeds of mechanized and motorized users. The speed and noise of motorized users 

is a particular concern to equestrian users. 

o River floating users – This user group includes those recreating in boats, especially 

canoes, kayaks and rafts. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-197 

The needs of this group are similar to those of the non-mechanized user group. They 

prefer a natural-appearing environment that shows little evidence of human disturbances 

within the river corridor. Other than boat ramps and restroom facilities at the put-in and 

take-out locations and designated primitive campsites, needed facilities are few. 

Overcrowding within river corridors and at campsites, noise, and impacts to river corridor 

scenic quality would detract from this group's user experience. 

o Specialized recreation users – 

This group prefers locations that provide the conditions for specialized recreation. BASE 

jumpers generally prefer high cliffs with favorable wind conditions and safe landing 

zones. Rock climbers prefer a range of challenging routes in sufficient numbers so that 

crowding and waiting at routes are minimized. Competitive motorized and non-motorized 

trail users prefer challenging routes, often with enough distance and open area to allow 

for speed. 

Overcrowding within a given area may detract from the user or group experience for 

either BASE jumpers or rock climbers. Trail use conflicts with slower moving vehicles, 

people, or livestock would detract from the user experience for competitive motorized 

trail users. 

• It was assumed that the designation of SRMAs and the management of recreation resources 

and activities within each SRMA under its specific management plan would allow the MFO 

to 1) protect, manage, and improve recreation resources, and 2) continue to manage the MPA 

for a broad range of recreational opportunities that meet recreational user expectations. In 

addition, areas not managed as SRMAs would lack protection for recreational opportunities 

from the impacts of increased visitation in the MPA, resulting in increasing resource user 

conflicts and intensifying recreation resource degradation (as indicated by recreational use 

trends for the MPA). These trends and impacts are discussed in Section 3.10.2. 

• It was assumed that the management of recreation within the MPA through recreation focus 

areas would tend to concentrate specific recreational opportunities, activities, and users into 

spatially separate areas, thereby reducing conflicts among recreation resource uses. Focus 

areas are recreation management areas that promote specific recreational opportunities and 

activities while continuing to allow other recreational uses. It was assumed that a reduction in 

recreational use conflicts would enhance the recreational experiences within a particular 

focus area for certain user groups, because the focus area would be managed to meet the 

needs of specific user groups. It would do this by providing specific facilities and education 

to meet their needs (e.g., route marking, parking, campsites, and information), and thus the 

recreational experience would be more enjoyable and more likely to meet user recreation 

expectations. 

• The National Visitor Use Monitoring Study, completed in the MPA in 2006, provides 

reliable data on user group participation. Visitors were asked what their "main activity" was 

while visiting Moab, and what activities they were participating in during their visit. The 

numbers in Table 4.77 show what activities visitors engage in as a percentage of use. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-198 

Table 4.77. Recreation Activity Participation 

Activity Percentage 

Participating 

Percentage as 

the Main Activity 

Number of 

Respondents as 

Main Activity 

Hiking/Walking/Backpacking 53.3 18.9 220 

Equestrian 1.2 0.9 3 

Bicycling 17.9 13.5 118 

Scenic driving 36.3 10.4 60 

Viewing nature/Wildlife 96.9 9.7 89 

OHV Use/Motorized Trail Use 11.5 6.0 59 

Camping 22.6 2.8 26 

Relaxing 42.4 3.8 24 

Boating 6.9 3.9 27 

4.3.10.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND THE PROPOSED PLAN) 

Proposed recreation prescriptions common to all action alternatives (Alternative B, D, and the 

Proposed Plan) would: 

• Apply no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulations for oil and gas leasing within 0.5 miles of 

developed recreation sites, resulting in long-term, beneficial impacts on scenic drivers, 

mountain bikers, non-mechanized users, and some motorized users, because scenic values 

would be preserved in the immediate vicinity of the recreation site. 

• Apply adaptive management to dispersed camping (limiting camping to designated sites 

where dispersed camping is causing resource damage). This would be beneficial to all users, 

because management would ensure that a range of camping opportunities would be 

maintained for all visitors to the MPA. 

• Place the area of the current Colorado River SRMA within three SRMAs: the Two Rivers 

SRMA, the Colorado Riverway SRMA, and Dolores River Canyons SRMA to provide more 

focused management. This would be beneficial in the long-term for all recreation resource 

users, because the focus area concept would be applied to the SRMAs to reduce user 

conflicts, to maintain satisfying user recreational experiences, and to maintain opportunities 

for recreational benefits to users. 

4.3.10.2 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

This analysis discusses 1) the impacts to recreational resources (e.g., vegetation, soils, and scenic 

quality), 2) the impacts to recreational opportunities for the user groups described above, and 3) 

the likelihood of resource use conflicts and meeting resource use expectations for resource user 

groups. Quantitative analysis of impacts was based on 1) the acreages of SRMAs and focus areas 

within the SRMAs, with the assumptions discussed above, and 2) the miles of designated travel 

routes within the SRMAs. These were used as indicators of resource user conflicts and the 

likelihood of satisfactory recreational experiences. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-199 

Woodland areas were dismissed from impacts analysis because the prescriptions for managing 

woodland harvesting areas and permits and for imposing limitations and/or prohibitions on 

fuelwood gathering in specified areas would have negligible impacts on recreational resources 

and opportunities. 

4.3.10.2.1 IMPACTS OF AIR QUALITY DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES 

Air quality prescriptions common to all alternatives would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

recreation. As noted in "Visual Resources" below (Section 4.3.10.2.17), an important component 

of recreation is scenic quality, so impacts that diminish or degrade scenic quality through the 

impacts of smoke, haze, or other air pollutants would have potentially adverse short-term or 

long-term impacts on the recreational opportunities that include scenic quality as part of the 

experience. All of the alternatives would mitigate the potential impacts from prescribed burns by 

timing prescribed burns to minimize potential impacts to air quality. Other air quality-mitigating 

prescriptions would include BLM-authorized activities that are managed to maintain and comply 

with air quality standards and meet PSD Class II standards and protect the Class I Areas of 

Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. The common prescriptions would also comply with 

interagency MOUs regarding smoke management. Thus, the levels of smoke, haze, and other air 

pollutants produced within the MPA would be managed so as to not diminish or degrade scenic 

quality in the long term. These actions would be beneficial for all recreation user groups because 

it is assumed that high scenic quality is a recreational expectation for all visitors to the MPA. 

4.3.10.2.2 IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES 

Current Federal laws and BLM policy promulgated to protect cultural resources would have 

impacts on recreation under all of the alternatives. Recreational activities would be limited for all 

recreational users in the short term in areas where site restoration, surveying, inventory, and 

interpretive activities would be conducted. Recreational opportunities and activities for all user 

groups would be limited or prohibited in the long term in or near known important cultural sites. 

Dispersed camping would be prohibited within or on sites eligible for listing on the NRHP, 

limiting recreational opportunities for all user groups in these areas. Eligible cultural resources 

would be protected, having long-term, beneficial impacts on all recreational user groups that 

include scenic/cultural resources as part of their recreational expectations. The Sego and Wall 

Street Rock Art Sites would be further developed as interpretive sites, which would be beneficial 

in the long term because of the expanded recreational opportunities to sightsee and to enjoy and 

understand regional cultural resources. 

4.3.10.2.2.1 Alternative A 

This alternative would continue current prescriptions for cultural resources, including allocation 

of sites to scientific use or discharge of sites from management. Current grazing management 

would continue. There would be no priorities set for 1) public interpretation sites, 2) cultural 

resource field inventories, 3) scientific restoration of damaged sites, or 4) nominations for listing 

on the NRHP. These prescriptions would have long-term, adverse impacts on recreation 

resources, because they would not provide the flexibility to manage the increasing number of 

visitors to the MPA and the corresponding demand for recreational opportunities. These 

prescriptions would not manage the increasing number of motorized (OHV) users in the MPA 

and the associated surface disturbances created by these recreational activities in areas known to 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-200 

have high densities of cultural sites (see Sections 3.10.2.6 and 3.10.2.7.1 for a discussion of 

OHV-related resource use conflicts and impacts). Nor would these prescriptions provide 

protection from long-term, adverse impacts caused by livestock to recreation-related cultural 

resources (e.g., trampling sites and rubbing against rock art panels) (see Section 4.3.2.4.1). 

The impacts of Alternative A on all user groups that seek opportunities for cultural resource 

exploration, viewing, and interpretive study would be adverse in the long term, because the lack 

of specific prescriptions to address these concerns would perpetuate current conditions, 

exacerbate recreation-related cultural resource degradation, and allow resource user conflicts to 

intensify, resulting in a diminishing likelihood of recreation resource users having satisfactory 

recreational/cultural interpretive experiences. 

4.3.10.2.2.2 Alternative B 

This alternative would set priorities for cultural resource field inventories, with 50,000 acres 

prioritized for surveying. Scientific restoration would be conducted to prevent further 

degradation of cultural resources, sites would be developed for public interpretation, identified 

areas would be managed for grazing exclusion, and enhanced protection of resources would be 

implemented through the development of National Register nominations of sites within the 

MPA. These cultural resource protection-related actions would identify, preserve, and restore 

these resources, with long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation, because cultural resourcerelated scenic quality and interpretive opportunities would be maintained and enhanced. All 

recreation user groups that seek opportunities for cultural resource exploration, viewing, and 

interpretive study would benefit in the long term. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B 

would have more beneficial impacts to recreation resources and recreational/cultural 

opportunities, because its preservation and protection actions would enhance public enjoyment of 

the resource. 

4.3.10.2.2.3 Proposed Plan 

The impacts of this alternative on recreation resources and user groups would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative B, though to a lesser degree, because cultural resource protection 

and preservation-related actions would be reduced in scope. A total of 30,000 acres would be 

prioritized for cultural surveys; there would be fewer grazing exclusion areas; fewer cultural sites 

would be targeted for scientific restoration; and fewer sites would be nominated for listing on the 

NRHP. Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial for recreation 

for reasons similar to those discussed under Alternative B. 

4.3.10.2.2.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B, but to a lesser 

degree than under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, because the protection and preservationrelated actions for cultural resources would be less than under Alternative B and the Proposed 

Plan (with 20,000 acres prioritized for surveys, fewer areas with grazing exclusions, and fewer 

areas of scientific restoration). Compared to Alternative A, Alternative D would be more 

beneficial for the same reasons discussed under Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-201 

4.3.10.2.3 IMPACTS OF FIRE DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES 

All of the alternatives propose 5,000–10,000 acres/year for fuels reduction treatments, consistent 

with the 2005 Utah Plan for fire and fuels management (BLM 2005c). Prescriptions common to 

all of the alternatives would use fuels treatments, including prescribed fire, and chemical and 

mechanical treatments to restore ecosystems and to reduce hazards associated with fuel loading. 

Fire suppression would be a required consideration for all non-prescribed fires. The potential 

surface disturbances caused by these activities would have short-term impacts on recreational 

activities and recreation resources that could include the closing of recreational facilities and the 

loss of recreational opportunities within burned areas until the disturbed areas were adequately 

rehabilitated or restored. Scenic quality, as a component of recreational activities and 

experiences, would be degraded in the short-term in burned areas until vegetation re-growth. The 

long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources and opportunities would be produced for 

all user groups by the reduced risk or likelihood of naturally occurring and/or unplanned 

wildland fires within treated areas, and by the reduced risk of loss of remote and developed 

recreational areas and facilities from wildland fire. The improvement of wildlife habitat and 

enhancement of recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting in the long term by 

improving vegetation communities through fire management would be a long-term, beneficial 

impact to all user groups. It should be noted that fuels treatments to reduce the risk of wildland 

fire are similar to those used to improve vegetation communities and to improve or restore 

ecosystem health (see Section 4.3.10.2.16). 

4.3.10.2.4 IMPACTS OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SAFETY DECISIONS ON RECREATION 

RESOURCES 

The impacts on recreation resources and user groups of health and safety prescriptions common 

to all alternatives (e.g., improving the physical safety around abandoned mine land [AML] sites 

and mitigation and/or remediation of AML hazards) would be negligible in the short term but 

potentially beneficial in the long term. Sites within the MPA that are known to contain 

environmental hazards and that are a direct threat to public safety are incompatible with 

recreation. Therefore, in the short term the remediation and/or reclamation of these areas would 

have no impacts on recreation, because these areas would be closed to all recreational activities 

anyway. In the long term, once the health and safety concerns were addressed, these sites would 

be considered for recreation management, which could provide additional recreational 

opportunities (particularly as interpretive AML sites) for all user groups. 

4.3.10.2.5 IMPACTS OF LAND AND REALTY DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES

Under prescriptions common to all of the alternatives, lands along the Colorado, Dolores, and 

Green Rivers (65,037 acres), along the Westwater (8,096 acres), and in the Black Ridge 

Wilderness area (5,200 acres) would continue to be withdrawn from mineral entry. The impacts 

to all recreation groups would be beneficial in both the short and the long term, because 

recreational opportunities and scenic quality would be preserved from locatable mineral surface 

disturbances. River runners on the Colorado, Dolores, and Green Rivers would continue to enjoy 

high scenic-quality views along the undeveloped river corridors. Scenic drivers, hikers, and 

OHV users on travel routes and trails along the Colorado River would continue to have 

opportunities to experience the high scenic values along Routes 128 and 279, along hiking trails 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-202 

(e.g., Negro Bill, Fisher Towers), and on mountain biking and motorized OHV routes and trails 

within the riverway (e.g., Onion Creek, Wall Street, Poison Spider). 

Under prescriptions common to the action alternatives, NSO mineral leasing stipulations would 

be applied to the withdrawn areas discussed above. This would increase the long-term, beneficial 

impacts to recreation by also protecting these areas from leasable and salable minerals 

exploration and development impacts and other potential surface disturbances. These areas 

would be avoidance areas for ROWs, providing long-term beneficial impacts to recreation users. 

4.3.10.2.5.1 Alternative A 

Under this alternative, there are no other specific prescriptions and impacts applicable to 

recreation, except for those discussed above under management common to all alternatives. 

4.3.10.2.5.2 Alternatives B–D 

Prescriptions and impacts applicable to recreation include those discussed above under actions 

common to all action alternatives. Compared to Alternative A, these alternatives would preserve 

more recreational resources and maintain more recreational opportunities for all resource user 

groups than would Alternative A, because, as discussed above, higher levels of protection from 

surface disturbances would be stipulated under the NSO leasing category. 

4.3.10.2.6 IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES 

The impacts on recreation of livestock grazing prescriptions common to all alternatives would be 

beneficial in the long term. Under all alternatives, approximately 48,220 acres within existing 

grazing allotments would be not be authorized for grazing, but would be used to benefit wildlife 

by reallocating forage for that purpose. This would enhance the recreational opportunities for all 

user groups for wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and hunting by improving wildlife habitat. The 

North Sand Flats, South Sand Flats and Between the Creek allotments are not available for 

grazing; this would benefit recreationists using the Sand Flats and Colorado Riverway SRMAs 

by eliminating livestock-people conflicts. Narrow strips along Utah Highway 128 (278,000 

vehicles per year) and the Kane Creek Road (174,000 vehicles per year) would not be available 

for grazing, enhancing the safety of visitors 

Under actions common to all action alternatives the 96,951-acre Hatch Point Allotment would be 

changed from sheep to cattle in order to benefit desert bighorn sheep and pronghorn, as these 

species are susceptible to diseases carried by domestic sheep. As discussed above, these actions 

would enhance the recreational opportunities for all recreation users by providing the opportunity 

to view wildlife. 

4.3.10.2.6.1 Alternative A 

Under this alternative the impacts of livestock grazing actions, through making grazing not 

available on an additional 78,612 acres (126,907 total acres), would benefit wildlife and have 

indirect, beneficial impacts on recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting, as 

discussed above. Cottonwood, Diamond, Bogart and Pear Park allotments are in prime big game 

hunting areas; making them not available for grazing would benefit wildlife and hunters/viewers 

of wildlife by increasing wild game numbers. Beaver Creek would not be available for grazing, 

enhancing backpacking opportunities in this perennial stream. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-203 

Grazing would be excluded within specified riparian areas but allowed in others, which would 

maintain beneficial, long-term, wildlife-related recreational opportunities for viewing within the 

protected areas. Grazing allotment vegetation treatments on approximately 67,125 acres to 

increase forage for wildlife and livestock would have short-term, adverse impacts on recreation 

but long-term, beneficial impacts to recreation resources and opportunities, as discussed above 

under Fire Management (Section 4.3.10.2.3). 

4.3.10.2.6.2 Alternative B 

Under this alternative, grazing could be made not available on an additional 105,497 acres 

(153,797 total acres). This would benefit wildlife and have indirect, beneficial impacts on 

recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting, as discussed above. Cottonwood, 

Diamond, Bogart and Pear Park allotments are in prime big game hunting areas; making them 

not available for grazing would benefit wildlife and hunters/viewers of wildlife by increasing 

wild game numbers. Beaver Creek would not be available for grazing, enhancing backpacking 

opportunities in this perennial stream. In addition, three allotments along Utah Highway 128 

(Professor Valley, Ida Gulch and River) are in very high recreation use areas (over 278,000 

vehicles/year); not making grazing available in these allotments would benefit visitors and their 

safety by reducing cattle-traffic conflicts. Mill Creek, an allotment in a popular hiking location, 

would not be available for grazing, benefiting visitors by allowing a more lush riparian area to be 

enjoyed. 

In addition, 4,422 acres in riparian areas could be restricted using exclusion fences to protect 

vegetation and riparian areas in order to benefit wildlife. Vegetation treatments would be 

conducted on approximately 46,307 acres (69% of the acreage treated under Alternative A) to 

increase available forage for the benefit of wildlife. These actions would all have beneficial, 

indirect, and long-term impacts on recreation resources by improving wildlife habitat, thus 

enhancing the recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting for all recreational user 

groups. However, vegetation treatments would result in short-term, direct, adverse impacts on 

recreational resources and opportunities as discussed above under Fire Management. Compared 

to Alternative A, Alternative B would have similar impacts on recreation resources and 

opportunities but to a lesser degree, because fewer acres would be managed that would indirectly 

enhance opportunities for recreation-related wildlife viewing and hunting. 

Closing a portion of Lower Gray Canyon to livestock grazing would also have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on recreation by creating the conditions and recreational opportunities for 

wildlife viewing. This decision would also improve the recreational experience for river runners 

in Lower Gray Canyon by heightening the sense of naturalness and remoteness, allowing them to 

float the Green River without encountering cattle on the shore. 

4.3.10.2.6.3 Proposed Plan 

The beneficial impacts to recreation resources and opportunities under this alternative would be 

similar to those discussed under Alternative B (the Proposed Plan would manage for the same 

acreage of vegetation treatments as Alternative B), but to a slightly less degree because fewer 

areas and restrictions would be placed on grazing (an additional 99,827 acres, or 132,047 total 

acres) as well as restricting 1,169 acres within riparian areas from grazing or 32% of the areas 

under Alternative B). The impacts of this alternative on recreation would be similar to 

Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-204 

Cottonwood, Diamond, Pear Park, and Bogart allotments are in prime big game hunting areas; 

making them not available for grazing would benefit wildlife and hunters/viewers of wildlife by 

increasing wild game numbers. Beaver Creek would be available for grazing, detracting from 

backpacking opportunities in this perennial stream. In addition, three allotments along Utah 

Highway 128 (Professor Valley, Ida Gulch and River) are in very high recreation use areas (over 

278,000 vehicles/year). Ida Gulch would be unavailable for grazing. The portions of Professor 

Valley and River allotments along Utah 128 would not be available by constructing a fence 

along the road, thus benefiting visitors and their safety by reducing cattle-traffic conflicts. Mill 

Creek, an allotment in a popular hiking location, would not be available for grazing, benefiting 

visitors by allowing a more lush riparian area to be enjoyed. 

4.3.10.2.6.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B for vegetation 

treatments, because the number of treated acres would be the same. Grazing would be restricted 

on an additional 3,921 acres (52,214 total acres), and grazing management in riparian areas 

would continue current prescriptions, with impacts on recreation similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A. 

Cottonwood, Pear Park, Diamond, and Bogart allotments are in prime big game hunting areas; 

making them available for grazing would adversely impact wildlife and hunters/viewers of 

wildlife by reducing wild game numbers. Beaver Creek would be available for grazing, 

detracting from backpacking opportunities in this perennial stream. In addition, three allotments 

along Utah Highway 128 (Professor Valley, Ida Gulch and River) are in very high recreation use 

areas (over 278,000 vehicles/year). These allotments would continue to be available for grazing, 

adversely impacting visitors and their safety by reducing cattle-traffic conflicts. Mill Creek, an 

allotment in a popular hiking location, would not be available for grazing, benefiting visitors by 

allowing a more lush riparian area to be enjoyed. 

4.3.10.2.7 IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES 

Under all alternatives, the development projected on existing potash leases in the Ten Mile area 

could have adverse impacts on recreation users, because the surface-disturbing activities would 

potentially degrade scenic quality within this highly used recreation area. 

Under all action alternatives, beneficial impacts through avoiding surface disturbance would 

result from the withdrawal of lands from locatable mineral entry along the Colorado, Green, and 

Dolores Rivers and from NSO stipulations imposed to protect these areas from the impacts of 

leasable minerals development. No surface-disturbing activities, including the disposal of salable 

minerals, would be allowed within this area. NSO stipulations would also be applied to those 

areas where minerals development would unreasonably conflict with important natural resource 

values (see Appendix C for a list of these areas). The application of NSO stipulations in these 

areas would indirectly benefit recreation through preservation and protection of natural 

resources, including scenic quality, as surface-disturbing activities would be precluded. 

Table 4.78 below shows the proposed MPA acreages that would be open to minerals 

development by alternatives for leasable, locatable and salable minerals, and also shows the 15-

year RFD surface disturbances for fluid minerals (oil and gas) and geophysical exploration. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-205 

Table 4.78. Acres Open to Minerals Development and Projected Acres of Surface 

Disturbance (RFD) Associated with Oil and Gas Development, by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Standard and Timing and 

Controlled Surface Use 

(% of MPA) 

1,427,949 808,096 1,234,267 1,387,473 

Locatable Minerals 1,389,531 

(353,510 open 

under WSA 

IMP) 

1,389,531 

(353,510 open 

under WSA 

IMP) 

1,389,531 

(353,510 open 

under WSA 

IMP) 

1,389,531 

(353,510 open 

under WSA 

IMP) 

Salable Minerals 1,467,768 808,097 1,234,267 1,387,473 

Surface Disturbance from Oil 

and Gas Development 

(% of MPA) 

6,772 (0.4%) 3,823 (0.2%) 6,483 (0.4%) 6,739 (0.4%) 

RFD Geophysical 2,397 1,404 2,072 2,329 

Although the impacts of mineral development on recreation are discussed below throughout the 

MPA, it is important to note that recreation use does not occur equally within the MPA. It is 

estimated that recreation use occurs with regularity on 976,173 acres of the MPA (53% of the 

MPA). High use recreation areas are those that are proposed as SRMAs in one or more 

alternatives. Recreation use is generally highest in areas closer to the City of Moab. The impacts 

of minerals development on recreation are higher in areas receiving high recreation use, and 

lower in areas receiving less recreation use. The majority of impacts upon recreation users from 

mineral development would remain whether or not the area is managed as an SRMA, because 

SRMAs, for the most part, do not restrict mineral development. Since the projected levels of 

mineral development are not likely to impact current levels of recreation use, this use would 

most likely continue to occur (or increase) regardless of management direction. 

4.3.10.2.7.1 Alternative A 

The MPA acres open to leasable, salable, and locatable minerals development would be subject 

to surface disturbances that would potentially have direct, short-term, and long-term adverse 

impacts on recreational opportunities and experiences, because natural resources, including 

scenic quality could be affected. While all minerals surface disturbances and activities would be 

required to comply with the impact area's VRM class objectives, adverse impacts would be 

caused by the following: ground-surface disturbances during the cross-country seismic 

exploration for fluid minerals (i.e., geophysical exploration disturbances); construction of oil and 

gas wells and pads, access roads, and pipelines that would potentially intrude upon recreational 

areas; and noise associated with wells, gas compressor stations, and other infrastructure 

construction, maintenance, and operation. The development associated with locatable minerals 

(e.g., copper, vanadium, uranium, placer gold) would also create surface disturbances that would 

potentially impact recreation resources. Night lighting of oil and gas wells and facilities would 

also degrade scenic quality related to recreational opportunities and recreational expectations. 

Indirect, adverse impacts to recreation resources and opportunities would include 1) soil erosion 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-206 

from surface disturbances, 2) the potential creation of mine tailings piles during locatable 

mining, 3) potential air quality degradation from hydrocarbon releases during natural gas flaring, 

and 4) visual quality degradation from fugitive dust. 

The majority of the oil and gas wells would be located within the Book Cliffs (104 wells), 

Greater Cisco (196 wells), Big Flat-Hatch Point (46 wells), and Lisbon Valley (56 wells) RFD 

areas. Based on the expected level of oil and gas development within the MPA, the impacts to 

recreation would be adverse in the short and long term from the potential surface disturbance 

impacts to scenic quality and recreation resources, as discussed above. 

Under this alternative, geophysical RFD surface disturbances are estimated to affect 

approximately 0.1% of the MPA during the life of the RMP, with similar potential, long-term, 

adverse impacts to scenic quality because exploration activities could be permitted to travel 

cross-country off designated routes. 

Leasable minerals other than oil and gas (e.g., potash, and salt) as well as locatable and salable 

minerals are estimated under RFD projections to have a total disturbance of approximately 1,015 

acres (0.01% of the MPA) during the life of the RMP. The impacts to recreation resources would 

be adverse but minor, because of the relatively small area of potential surface disturbance. 

4.3.10.2.7.2 Alternative B 

The impacts of minerals development would be similar to but lesser than those discussed under 

Alternative A, because some types of activities would occur, the RFD prediction for oil and gas 

under this alternative would be approximately 56% of the level of disturbance expected under 

Alternative A, so these impacts would occur across less area. The majority of the oil and gas 

wells would be located within the Book Cliffs (64 wells), Greater Cisco (85 wells), Eastern 

Paradox (21 wells), and Lisbon Valley (54 wells) RFD areas. 

The geophysical exploration impacts are estimated to affect approximately 1,404 acres of the 

MPA (58% of the acreage affected under Alternative A), with impacts similar to those discussed 

under Alternative A. Impacts to recreation from leasable minerals other than oil and gas and 

from locatable and salable minerals would be similar to those under Alternative A, because the 

predicted number of impacted acreage would be the same as in Alternative A. 

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would have similar impacts, but to a lesser degree 

because fewer acres within the MPA would be potentially impacted by minerals exploration and 

development. 

4.3.10.2.7.3 Proposed Plan 

The impacts of minerals development on recreation would be similar to those under Alternative 

A because the same types of activities would occur, and the RFD for oil and gas under the 

Proposed Plan predicts a level of disturbance approximately 96% of that predicted under 

Alternative A. The majority of the oil and natural gas wells would be located within the Book 

Cliffs (104 wells), Greater Cisco (197 wells), Big Flat-Hatch Point (34 wells), and Lisbon Valley 

(56 wells) RFD areas. The RFD surface-disturbance acreages of leasable minerals other than oil 

and gas, locatable minerals, and salable minerals (e.g., sand and gravel, clay, building stone) 

would be the same as Alternative A. The estimated surface disturbances from geophysical 

exploration within the MPA would be 86% of the area estimated to be disturbed under 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-207 

Alternative A. Thus, the impacts to recreation under the Proposed Plan would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative A, because the estimated acreages of disturbance are similar. 

4.3.10.2.7.4 Alternative D 

The minerals impacts to recreation under Alternative D would be similar to those under 

Alternative A, because the RFD estimate of oil and gas development would be 99% of that under 

Alternative A, and because approximately 80% of the area proposed under Alternative A would 

be open to locatable mineral disposal. The majority of the RFD-predicted oil and natural gas 

wells would be located within the same RFD areas as discussed under Alternative A. The 

impacts on recreation from leasable minerals other than oil and gas, locatable minerals, and 

salable minerals, and from geophysical exploration would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A, because the predicted acreages and locations of impacts would be the same or 

similar to that of Alternative A. 

4.3.10.2.8 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON RECREATION RESOURCES

4.3.10.2.8.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, no specific prescriptions for non-WSA areas with wilderness 

characteristics were proposed. Thus, they would not be managed to retain those characteristics. 

In addition, Alternative A proposes management of large areas of land for cross country OHV 

use. This would adversely reduce the non-motorized recreational opportunities and degrade 

recreation resources in the long term for non-mechanized and other resource users that seek 

remote, primitive camping and hiking where solitude and natural landscapes are preferred. 

4.3.10.2.8.2 Alternative B 

Under this alternative, approximately 266,485 acres would be managed to maintain areas with 

wilderness characteristics in non-WSA lands, with vehicle use limited to designated routes and 

the preclusion of surface-disturbing activities. This would have beneficial, long-term impacts on 

recreational resources and on motorized and non-mechanized recreational opportunities because 

the recreational opportunities for remote OHV use along designated routes, and primitive 

camping and hiking where naturalness and solitude are the preferred recreational experiences, 

would be maintained. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would benefit some types of 

recreation because remote, wilderness-related non-motorized travel, camping, and hiking 

opportunities and recreational resources would be preserved. 

All of 21 and portions of 7 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would fall within 8 

designated SRMAs. These SRMAs would focus recreation opportunities on primitive recreation 

and solitude. This would preclude new mechanized route construction and limit or restrict 

motorized special recreation events, as well as cross country motorized use. 

4.3.10.2.8.3 Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would have similar impacts as Alternative B, but to a much lesser degree, 

because the prescriptions that affect recreation would be similar and 47,761 acres (or 20% of the 

area managed for wilderness under Alternative B) would be maintained for areas with wilderness 

characteristics. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial because 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-208 

remote, wilderness-related travel, camping, and hiking opportunities and recreational resources 

would be preserved, although to a lesser degree than Alternative B. 

Beaver Creek, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would fall within the Dolores 

River Canyons SRMA. Fisher Towers and Mary Jane Canyon would fall within the Colorado 

Riverway SRMA. SRMAs would focus recreation opportunities on primitive recreation and 

solitude. This would preclude new motorized route construction and limit or restrict motorized 

special recreation events, as well as cross country motorized use. 

4.3.10.2.8.4 Alternative D 

This alternative would have impacts similar to Alternative A because the prescriptions would be 

the same (no lands would be managed for non-WSA wilderness characteristics protection). 

However, since OHV use in Alternative D is largely managed as Limited to Designated Routes, 

adverse impacts on those resource users seeking remote areas would be lessened as compared 

with Alternative A. 

4.3.10.2.9 IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGY DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES 

4.3.10.2.9.1 Alternative A 

Beyond established BLM policy, there are no specified paleontological prescriptions that would 

impact recreational resources and user groups under Alternative A. Except where specifically 

prohibited, fossil collection is an acceptable recreational activity on BLM-administered public 

lands, and recreational collectors are allowed to collect and retain reasonable quantities of 

common invertebrates and plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use. 

4.3.10.2.9.2 Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan 

Under actions common to all action alternatives, paleontological resources would be protected 

within the Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Byway; recreation-related fossil collection would be 

prohibited within the Colorado Riverway SRMA; and fossil collection would be prohibited near 

high-use areas (but allowed in other non-high-use areas) of the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges 

SRMA. The impacts on paleontology-related recreation resources would be the long-term 

preservation and protection of paleontological resources and values in areas where the resource 

is vulnerable to depletion. The preservation of recreational opportunities to enjoy and appreciate 

this limited resource in high-use recreation areas would have long-term, beneficial impacts on all 

recreational user groups, who enjoy viewing paleontological resources. Compared to Alternative 

A, the action alternatives would be more beneficial to recreational resources and recreational 

opportunities, because they would provide greater protection to paleontological resource values 

within high-use areas of the existing and proposed SRMAs and Scenic Byways, and because 

recreational viewing and interpretive opportunities of paleontological resources would be 

maintained. 

4.3.10.2.10 IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES 

A summary of the recreation management actions by alternative is shown below in Table 4.79. 

An analysis of the impacts of the proposed recreation prescriptions follows the table. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-209 

Table 4.79. Summary of SRMA Recreation Analysis Data by Alternative 

SRMA Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Book Cliffs

SRMA Acres 

(non-motorized focus) 

None 348,140 None None 

Designated Routes in 

SRMA (miles of DClass Roads)

N/A 18 N/A N/A 

Cameo Cliffs

SRMA Acres 15,597 15,597 15,597 15,597 

Designated Routes in 

SRMA (miles of D 

Roads) 

62 61 61 61 

Canyon Rims

SRMA Acres 101,531 101,531 101,531 101,531 

Designated Routes in 

SRMA (miles of D 

Roads) 

291 222 276 289 

Non-Mechanized 

Focus Area (acres)

N/A 3,642 3,642 N/A 

Colorado Riverway

SRMA Acres 17,983 103,467 89,936 79,126 

Designated Routes in 

SRMA (miles of D 

Roads) 

45 84 77 66 

Non-Mechanized 

Focus Area (acres) 

N/A 37,277 33,451 1,287 

Specialized Nonmotorized Focus Area 

(acres) 

N/A N/A 42 42 

Scenic Driving Focus 

Areas (corridor width) 

N/A 1-mile width 1/2-mile width 1/4-mile width 

Boating – Commercial 30 

commercial 

outfitters 

permitted 

19 Unallocated, 2 

Allocated Permits 

(100 user-days 

each) 

21 Unallocated 

Permits 

25 Unallocated 

Permits 

Dolores River

SRMA Acres N/A 31,661 31,661 N/A 

Designated Routes in 

SRMA (miles of D 

Roads) 

N/A 14 30 N/A 

Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges 

SRMA Acres N/A 300,650 300,650 60,939 

(Dee Pass SRMA 

only) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-210 

Table 4.79. Summary of SRMA Recreation Analysis Data by Alternative 

SRMA Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Designated Routes in 

SRMA (miles of D 

Roads and motorized 

single track) 

N/A 813 881 D road; 

94 single track 

140 D road; 

83 single track 

Non-Mechanized 

Focus Area (acres) 

N/A 26,031 13,383 N/A 

Mountain Bike 

Backcountry Touring 

Focus Area (acres) 

N/A 17,530 23,702 N/A 

Motorized 

Backcountry Touring 

Focus Area (acres) 

N/A N/A 16,299 N/A 

Scenic Driving Focus 

Areas (corridor width) 

N/A 1-mile width 1/2-mile width 1/4-mile width 

Specialized NonMotorized Focus Area 

(acres) 

N/A N/A 928 N/A 

Specialized Motorized 

Focus Area acres 

N/A N/A 35,575 57,875 

Open OHV Focus 

Area (acres) 

N/A N/A 1,866 3,064 

Lower Gray Canyon 

SRMA Acres N/A 3,759 3,759 N/A 

Designated Routes in 

SRMA (miles of D 

Roads) 

N/A 0 0 N/A 

Boating 35,000 

passengerdays/year; 

limit of 6 

groups/day 

with group 

limits of up to 

25 persons. 

35,000 

passengerdays/year; limit of 

6 groups/day with 

group limits of up 

to 25 persons. 

35,000 

passengerdays/year; limit of 

6 groups/day with 

group limits of up 

to 25 persons. 

35,000 

passengerdays/year; limit of 

6 groups/day with 

group limits of up 

to 25 persons. 

Sand Flats 

SRMA Acres N/A 6,246 6,246 6,246 

Designated Routes in 

SRMA (miles of D 

Roads) 

N/A 20 23 25 

South Moab 

SRMA Acres N/A 63,999 63,999 N/A 

Designated Routes in 

SRMA (miles of D 

Roads) 

N/A 137 164 N/A 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-211 

Table 4.79. Summary of SRMA Recreation Analysis Data by Alternative 

SRMA Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Non-Mechanized 

Focus Area (acres) 

N/A 34,486 34,486 N/A 

Mountain bike 

Backcountry Touring 

Focus Area (acres) 

N/A 2,255 2,255 N/A 

Scenic Driving Focus 

Areas (corridor width) 

N/A 1-mile width 1/2-mile width NA 

Specialized NonMotorized Focus Area 

(acres) 

N/A 2,905 2,905 N/A 

Specialized Motorized 

Focus Area (acres) 

N/A N/A 41 N/A 

Two Rivers

SRMA Acres N/A 29,839 29,839 14,056 

Designated Routes in 

SRMA (miles of D 

Roads) 

N/A 5 12 18 

Boating Management 

Westwater Canyon Daily launch limit 

of 48 people for 

each sector. 

Maximum group 

size of 16 

(including guides 

on commercial 

trips). 

Commercial and 

private permits 

required. Daily 

launch limit of 75 

people per sector 

for both 

commercial and 

private. Maximum 

commercial trip 

size of 25 

passengers plus 

one guide/craft 

and two additional 

crew members. 

Permit 18 

commercial 

outfitters. Use 

levels distributed 

equally between 

commercial and 

private use. 

Maximum group 

size of 32 

(including guides 

on commercial 

trips). Daily 

launch limit of 128 

people for each 

sector 

(commercial and 

private). 

Cisco Landing to 

Dewey Bridge 

30 

commercial 

outfitters 

permitted. 

Maximum 

24,000 

passengerdays/year. 

No restrictions on 

private use. 20 

unallocated and 2 

allocated (100 

users/day each) 

permits for 

commercial use. 

No restrictions on 

private use. 22 

unallocated 

permits for 

commercial use. 

25 unallocated 

permits for 

commercial use. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-212 

Table 4.79. Summary of SRMA Recreation Analysis Data by Alternative 

SRMA Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Dolores River to 

Colorado River 

Confluence 

Bridge Canyon to 

Dolores/Colorado 

River confluence–

Maximum group 

size of 16 

(including guides 

on commercial 

trips). 

Bridge Canyon to 

Dolores/Colorado 

River confluence–

Commercial and 

private permits 

required. 

Maximum group 

size of 25 

(including guides 

on commercial 

trips). No daily 

launch limits. 

Permit 14 

unallocated 

commercial 

outfitters. 

Colorado State 

Line to Colorado 

River confluence–

Maximum group 

size of 32 

(including guides 

on commercial 

trips). 

Non-Mechanized 

Focus Area (acres) 

N/A 23,479 23,479 N/A 

Utah Rims

SRMA Acres N/A 15,424 15,424 N/A 

Designated routes 

(miles of D roads and 

single track routes) 

N/A 28 28 D road; 34 

single track 

N/A 

4.3.10.2.10.1 Book Cliffs SRMA 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A the Book Cliffs would not be designated as a SRMA; instead, the area 

would continue to be managed for general recreational use and impacted by conditions that 

currently affect the area. As discussed in Section 3.10.1.2.12, the Book Cliffs area is remote, 

containing five WSAs whose natural, undeveloped settings would be maintained. It is not 

heavily used for recreation nor do recreational trends indicate an increasing use of the area. 

Conflicts between user groups would be minor because of its light use, remoteness, and size. 

Thus, the impacts on recreation resources and users would be minor. 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the 348,140-acre Book Cliffs Undeveloped SRMA would be established as 

a focus area for non-mechanized recreational opportunities. Prescriptions would focus on 

promoting low-frequency visitor use and limiting OHV travel to 18 miles of designated routes, 

resulting in long-term, beneficial, protection-related impacts on recreation resources by limiting 

surface disturbances within the SRMA. Non-mechanized users would benefit in the long term 

from the focus on opportunities for remoteness, solitude, and naturalness, and from the reduced 

likelihood of recreational resource use conflicts with mountain biking or motorized users. Other 

user groups (e.g., motorized OHV users and mountain bikers), while limited to the designated 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-213 

OHV routes, would benefit in the long term from opportunities to access and recreate in the 

SRMA. Under this alternative, the long-term outcome of reducing resource use conflicts and 

increasing the likelihood of having satisfying recreational experiences in a remote setting would 

have individual benefits that include improvements in outdoor skills and knowledge, improved 

outdoor-recreation self-confidence, and a greater sense of closeness with the natural world. 

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would have greater beneficial impacts on recreation, 

because recreational resources would receive more protection from surface disturbances and 

because the potential for resource use conflicts between non-mechanized and mechanized user 

groups would be reduced. However, managing for non-mechanized use would adversely impose 

greater limits on recreational opportunities for other recreational user groups than the limits 

under Alternative A. 

Alternative D and the Proposed Plan

Because the Book Cliffs SRMA would not be established under these alternatives and, therefore, 

additional prescriptions would not be proposed, the impacts of Alternative D and the Proposed 

Plan on recreation resources and resource user groups would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.10.2.10.2 Cameo Cliffs SRMA 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the 15,597-acre Cameo Cliffs SRMA would be managed as a focus area for 

OHV (motorized) trail use, with use limited to designated trails. The impacts on recreation 

resources would be minor in the long term, because the area is currently managed for OHV 

motorized trail use with surface disturbances limited to designated routes. Management that 

promotes this kind of activity would result in long-term beneficial impacts on motorized and 

specialized-motorized users. 

Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan 

Under the action alternatives, Cameo Cliffs would be managed as a 15,597-acre SRMA, 

providing recreational opportunities for motorized and mountain biking use on designated trails, 

and non-mechanized hiking and equestrian opportunities. The SRMA would not be managed 

with user focus areas. Specific management goals would include providing opportunities for 1) 

ATV and other OHV motorized use on old mining exploration roads, 2) horseback riding on the 

Old Spanish Trail, and 3) hiking in Hook and Ladder Gulch. Prescriptions would include 

coordination with San Juan County to implement an ATV plan and protection of scenic, cultural, 

wildlife, and vegetation resources. Under this alternative, camping restrictions would be imposed 

as needed, and an OHV trailhead facility would be constructed. The impacts on recreation 

resources would be beneficial in the long term, because prescriptions would protect recreation 

resource values. The impacts on non-mechanized, OHV (motorized), and mountain biking user 

groups would also be beneficial in the long term, because 1) recreational opportunities would be 

enhanced and expanded by the construction of SRMA recreational facilities and the development 

of mountain biking and non-mechanized routes, and 2) the proposed ATV plan would reduce the 

potential for user conflicts between motorized users, mountain bikers, and non-mechanized 

users. The anticipated long-term, benefits-based management outcome for this area would 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-214 

include an increased sense of adventure, an appreciation for the region's history, and increased 

local, tourist-related revenue. 

Compared to Alternative A, the impacts to recreation under these alternatives would be more 

beneficial in the long term, because prescriptions would 1) provide more recreational 

opportunities for mountain biking and non-mechanized forms of recreation, 2) provide additional 

facilities for users; and 3) protect and maintain recreation resource values within the SRMA 

through RMP prescriptions and coordination with San Juan County. 

4.3.10.2.10.3 Canyon Rims SRMA 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the current 101,531-acre SRMA would maintain recreational opportunities 

for scenic driver, motorized OHV, mountain biking, specialized, and non-mechanized user 

groups. Also, the Hatch Wash and the lower section of West Coyote Creek would be managed 

for primitive, non-motorized recreation. The SRMA would be 1) open to mineral leasing under 

controlled surface-use stipulations except for developed recreational sites that would be managed 

as open with NSO stipulations; 2) managed for OHV use limited to existing routes but restricting 

motorized events and special events to the existing Jeep Safari route; 3) designated as VRM 

Class III except for VRM Class II designation of western rim lands at Hatch Point; 4) managed 

to improve developed recreation sites and to restrict camping near developed recreation areas; 

and 5) closed to woodcutting and gathering. 

Prescriptions 1 and 3 would have long-term, direct, adverse impacts on recreation resources by 

permitting potential mineral leasing activities within the eastern portion of the SRMA that would 

degrade scenic quality. Managing the SRMA under prescriptions 2, 4, and 5 would reduce 

surface disturbances and have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources by 

preserving and/or protecting recreation-related scenic quality. 

As the number of visitors to the SRMA increases and levels of recreational activity and demand 

also increase, there is the likelihood for increased recreational resource user conflicts between 

motorized and non-motorized user groups, with subsequently diminishing opportunities for 

satisfactory recreational experiences. As discussed in Section 3.10.2.6, the potential for 

displacement of non-mechanized users would likely increase as motorized OHV use increases 

along existing travel routes. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would have the same prescriptions as Alternative A except that: 1) a 3,642-acre, 

non-mechanized focus area would be managed at Hatch Wash, and 2) two scenic driving 

corridor focus areas would be designated along the Needles and Anticline Roads (with widths of 

one mile or to the border of the adjoining focus area). The Windwhistle Nature Trail, Anticline 

Trail, Needles Trail, and Trough Springs Canyon Trail would be designated for non-mechanized 

(hiking) use only. The SRMA management goals would be to 1) provide scenic driving 

opportunities along the scenic byway and along the backcountry road system, 2) provide scenic 

overlook facilities to enhance the visitor experience, 3) provide quality camping in developed 

campgrounds, and 4) provide hiking and backpacking opportunities. The long-term impacts to 

recreational users under this alternative would be a reduced likelihood of resource use conflicts 

and an increased likelihood of satisfying experiences for scenic driver and non-mechanized user 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-215 

groups within the SRMA, because of the management of focus areas that would emphasize 

activity areas and opportunities for each group. The beneficial impacts on recreational 

opportunities under this alternative would increase the likelihood that the benefits-based, 

targeted, recreational outcomes for the area would be achieved; these outcomes include 1) 

opportunities to escape from crowds to enjoy and appreciate nature; 2) easy access to natural 

landscapes for exercise and an improved capacity for outdoor physical activity; 3) increased 

tourism revenues; and 4) greater family bonding through a shared experience of the natural 

landscape. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial impacts on 

recreational opportunities and experiences, because the potential for resource use conflicts would 

be reduced. However, the potential for degradation of scenic quality from minerals development 

would be similar to that under Alternative A. 

Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, prescriptions would be the similar to those under Alternative B, except 

that the width of the proposed Needles and Anticline Roads scenic driving corridors would be 

1/2 mile (or to the border of the adjoining focus area), which would reduce the beneficial impacts 

to the scenic quality viewing experience within the scenic driving corridors by decreasing the 

width of the protected viewshed. The impacts on recreation resources under this alternative 

would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B, because the prescriptions are similar. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D prescriptions would be similar to those under Alternative B, except that the width 

of the proposed Needles and Anticline Roads scenic driving corridors would be 1/4 mile (or to 

the border of the adjoining focus area), and there would be no management of a non-mechanized 

user focus area. While the Windwhistle Nature Trail, Anticline Trail, Needles Trail, and Trough 

Springs Canyon Trail would be designated for non-mechanized (hiking) use only under this 

alternative, the lack of a 3,642-acre, non-mechanized recreation focus area would maintain 

conditions for resource use conflicts between non-mechanized, mountain biking, and motorized 

resource user groups, as discussed under Alternative A. Managing the scenic driving corridors at 

1/4 mile width would have similar beneficial impacts as discussed under Alternative B, but to a 

lesser degree, because the reduced width of the protected viewshed corridor would reduce the 

scenic quality of the viewing experience. Compared to Alternative A, opportunities for scenic 

driving users and hikers would be more beneficially enhanced by designation of scenic driving 

corridors and hiking-only trails; however, the impacts on other recreation resources and user 

groups under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, because 

the prescriptions would be similar. 

4.3.10.2.10.4 Colorado Riverway SRMA 

Alternative A 

Prescriptions under Alternative A for the existing 17,983-acre Colorado Riverway SRMA would 

include actions authorized under the current Colorado Riverway Plan that are focused on 

improving and constructing sites and facilities along the riverway to enhance the range of 

recreational opportunities, and to protect its scenic quality and other resource values. 

Prescriptions under this alternative would 1) include acquiring scenic easements on state and 

private lands, 2) restrict motorized and mountain biking travel to designated routes, 3) limit 

camping and campfires to designated sites, 4) close the area to woodcutting and limit wood 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-216 

gathering. The Colorado River shoreline within the Riverway is currently withdrawn from 

mineral entry. The Riverway plan would limit Fisher Towers, Negro Bill Canyon, Hunter 

Canyon, and Corona Arch trails to non-mechanized (hiking) use only. Recreational boating 

management within the Riverway (including the Colorado and Dolores Rivers) would continue 

as under current prescriptions, allowing 30 commercial operators and 24,000 passenger-days per 

year. 

Under this alternative, improving recreational facilities, maintaining the separation of 

recreational user groups and limiting surface disturbances would result in managing the SRMA 

to provide for satisfactory recreation opportunities and experiences by limiting user conflicts and 

maintaining the visual and resource setting. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would establish the Colorado Riverway SRMA as a Destination SRMA and would 

expand its boundary to 103,467 acres under the same prescriptions as discussed under 

Alternative A. The SRMA would be managed to provide opportunities for scenic driving, quality 

camping experiences in the developed campgrounds, river floating, hiking, and horseback riding. 

Camping would be prohibited on the north side of the river along Highway 128 and in the Kane 

Creek Crossing area. Boating activities would be managed to provide recreational opportunities 

for scenic whitewater river running. No focus area would be managed for specialized recreation 

activities, but 37,277 acres would be managed as non-mechanized focus areas in Negro Bill 

Canyon and the Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock area. Prescriptions would manage onemile-wide scenic driving focus areas along Highways 128 and 279 and along portions of the 

Lockhart Basin Scenic Byway and portions of the LaSal Mountain Loop Road. The prescriptions 

under this alternative would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation resources by 1) 

proposing an increased recreational area and additional recreational facilities for camping, 

information and education, trails and trail access, and sanitation; 2) managing focus areas for 

non-mechanized and scenic driving user groups; and 3) restricting camping to designated areas. 

The actions would have beneficial impacts on non-mechanized and scenic driving recreation 

because they would increase opportunities while reducing the potential for recreational user 

conflicts within the SRMA and would reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts currently caused 

by unmanaged camping within the SRMA (see Section 3.10.1.2.1). However, Alternative B 

would have no long term beneficial impacts on BASE jumping and rock climbing opportunities, 

because no specialized focus area would be established in the Kane Creek and Wall Street areas. 

River floating users would be adversely impacted in the long term by the elimination of camping 

opportunities along the north side of the Colorado River. The overall potential outcome would be 

a greater likelihood that the area's benefits-based, targeted outcomes would be achieved; these 

outcomes include increased tourism revenue and individual benefits such as an improved 

appreciation of nature's splendor, a greater sense of adventure, an enhanced awareness and 

understanding of nature, and improved outdoor skills. 

When compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would be more beneficial, because it would 1) 

increase the size of the SRMA by 85,484 acres 2) expand recreational opportunities for all user 

groups; 3) further reduce the potential for resource-use conflicts through recreation focus areas; 

4) further improve the likelihood of satisfactory recreational experience for all recreational 

resource users by proposing to construct or permit more recreational facilities within the SRMA; 

5) eliminate potential resource degradation caused by unmanaged, boating-related shoreline 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-217 

camping within the SRMA; and 6) designate more miles of OHV routes (84 miles under 

Alternative B compared to 45 miles under Alternative A). 

Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would establish the Colorado Riverway SRMA as an 89,936-acre Destination 

SRMA under the same prescriptions as discussed under Alternative A. The SRMA would be 

managed with prescriptions similar to those discussed under Alternative B, except that 1) the 

north shore of the Colorado River would be open to undeveloped camping and hiking 

opportunities (with prescriptions to protect wildlife habitat and other resource values); 2) the 

Kane Creek Crossing area would be open to designated camping; 3) two more facilities would be 

proposed than under Alternative B; 4) the focus areas for non-mechanized recreation would be 

managed on 33,451 acres in the same areas as Alternative B; 5) scenic driving focus areas would 

be managed along the same corridors as in Alternative B but with a 1/2-mile protected viewshed 

width; and 6) focus areas for specialized, non-motorized activities (e.g., BASE jumping and rock 

climbing) would be managed. The impacts on recreation would be similar to those discussed 

under Alternative B, except that there would be more beneficial impacts to non-mechanized and 

motorized OHV user groups from increased opportunities for camping, hiking, touring, and 

specialized recreation. The beneficial impacts to scenic drivers would be similar to those under 

Alternative B but reduced, because of the narrower corridors of protected viewsheds. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial for reasons similar to those 

discussed under Alternative B. The SRMA would be increased in size by 71,953 acres as 

compared to Alternative A; it would be managed for focus areas that would reduce user 

conflicts; and it would have an increase of 32 miles in the number of miles designated for OHV 

travel routes. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would establish the Colorado Riverway SRMA as a 79,126-acre SRMA, with 

prescriptions similar to those in the Proposed Plan except that 1) four fewer camping sites and 

facilities would be designated or proposed; 2) the non-mechanized focus area in Negro Bill 

Canyon would be reduced from 8,684 acres to 1,287 acres, and there would be no management 

of a non-mechanized focus area within the Richardson Amphitheater/Castle Rock area; and 3) 

the scenic driving corridors would have protected viewshed widths of 1/4 mile. This alternative 

would have long-term beneficial impacts on recreational resources and uses similar to those 

described for the Proposed Plan, but to a lesser degree than the Proposed Plan, because fewer 

recreational opportunities would be available within the smaller (and fewer) focus areas. There 

would be a greater likelihood for long-term adverse impacts from recreation user group conflicts 

between non-mechanized, specialized, mountain biking, and motorized users in the Richardson 

Amphitheater/Castle Rock area, because a focus area would not be established to manage the 

diversity and intensity of recreational use in this highly popular area (see Section 3.10.1.2.1). 

The reduction in size of the Negro Bill Canyon focus area under this alternative, when compared 

to the other action alternatives (an 11,223-acre reduction compared to Alternative B; a 7,397-

acre reduction compared to the Proposed Plan), would increase the likelihood for resource use 

conflicts in the SRMA. This alternative would not propose camping sites at Entrada Bluffs, 

Hittle Bottom, and Kane Creek Crossing, nor would it propose constructing sanitary facilities at 

the Wall Street climbing area, which would adversely diminish the recreational experience of 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-218 

recreation users in the long-term by not managing the proposed SRMA to meet the current or 

projected future need and demand for these facilities (see Section 3.10.2.5). 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial in the long-term for 

recreation resources and users for reasons as discussed under the Proposed Plan, because the 

prescriptions are similar. Under Alternative D, the SRMA would be beneficially increased in size 

by 61,143 acres (a four-fold increase in area over Alternative A) with 21 more miles of 

designated OHV routes. These increases would provide more managed recreational opportunities 

for all resource users than would Alternative A. 

4.3.10.2.10.5 Dolores River Canyons SRMA 

Alternative A 

Under this alternative, a portion of the Dolores River Canyons area would be managed for 

general recreational use under the current Colorado Riverway management plan. The potential 

impacts of this alternative on recreational resources in the Dolores River Canyons area would be 

adverse in the long-term, because no specific recreation management prescriptions or programs 

are proposed for this area, except for the current boating management limits discussed above 

under the Colorado River SRMA for Alternative A. The lack of specific recreation management 

prescriptions for this area would increase the likelihood of long-term degradation of recreation 

resources from lack of intensive management of shoreline use (e.g., overnight camping, 

campfires, and unrestricted wood gathering). 

Alternative B 

This alternative would manage the Dolores River Canyons as a 31,661-acre Undeveloped 

SRMA, separate from the proposed Colorado Riverway SRMA. Prescriptions for the Dolores 

River Canyons SRMA would prohibit motorized and mountain biking recreation within the 

Dolores River tributary canyons, consistent with the proposed Moab Travel Plan. The SRMA 

would be managed for recreational opportunities that include non-motorized boating, 

backpacking, and day hiking, with facilities that support primitive, non-motorized use of the 

SRMA. There would be no focus area management within the SRMA. 

The prescriptions under this alternative would have beneficial impacts on recreational resources, 

as well as on river floating and non-mechanized resource user groups, because boating group 

size limits would be imposed to ensure high-quality boating opportunities with an emphasis on 

primitive, non-motorized uses. There would be adverse impacts on motorized and mountain 

biking user groups, because no new motorized routes would be proposed within the SRMA, and 

OHV opportunities would be limited to 14 miles of designated routes. Beneficial, long-term 

impacts would include a reduction in potential recreational resource use conflicts by promoting 

remote, non-mechanized recreational opportunities. These beneficial impacts would increase the 

likelihood of achieving the MFO's targeted individual outcomes for the area, including 1) 

opportunities for solitary exploration of the area to gain a sense of adventure, 2) improvements in 

outdoor knowledge and increased self-confidence, and 3) enjoying the natural landscape to 

develop a closer relationship with the natural world. 

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would be more beneficial for non-mechanized and 

river-floating users, because there would be an emphasis on these recreational activities, and 

more recreational facilities would be proposed than under Alternative A. There would be more 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-219 

adverse impacts under Alternative B for mountain biking and motorized forms of recreation 

because of limitations and restrictions on these recreational activities. 

Proposed Plan 

The impacts on recreation under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B, because the prescriptions would be similar, except that 30 miles of designated 

routes would be open to OHV use within the SRMA, providing more opportunities for motorized 

use of the area. 

Alternative D 

The impacts of Alternative D on the Dolores River Canyons SRMA would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative A, because the SRMA would not be established under this 

alternative. 

4.3.10.2.10.6 Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA and Dee Pass SRMA 

Alternative A

This alternative would not establish a Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA, and recreationrelated prescriptions for the current RMP are not specified. Currently, under an interagency 

cooperative agreement with the State of Utah, the BLM manages a permit system for in-river and 

shoreline use, and river resources protection along the Green River. A one-mile-wide scenic 

corridor along SR 313 and the Island in the Sky entrance road is managed by the MFO for 

camping at designated campgrounds and for protection of scenic quality. The Gemini Bridges 

Road is similarly managed to protect resource values. The White Wash Sand Dunes area is 

managed for open (cross-country) OHV travel, and OHV use is limited to existing routes in an 

area south of Ten Mile Point Road. Current management and maintenance would continue for 

river takeouts, facilities, interpretive sites, and trails in the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges area. 

The 3-D, Crystal Geyser, Hellroaring Rim, Secret Spire, and Wipeout Hill areas would continue 

to be authorized for Jeep Safari and other uses. 

Under this alternative, the impacts on recreation resources would be beneficial in the short term 

by continuing to provide recreational opportunities and facilities for resource user groups. In the 

short term, maintaining the existing management practices would adequately address the present 

level of river use through the river permitting system, and limitations and restrictions on camping 

and OHV use would continue to protect resource values in those areas where camping and OHV 

use restrictions are in place. 

Resource use conflicts and user displacement in the Gemini Bridges area are presently occurring 

between motorized and mountain biking user groups (see recreation section 3.10.2 for a 

discussion of the area's current recreation conditions and trends). In the long term, the impacts on 

recreation resources in the area would be adverse because the lack of specific recreation-related 

prescriptions under this alternative would not address nor would be capable of adequately 

responding to the anticipated increase in visitor use of the area, the demand for recreational 

opportunities in the area, and the intensifying impacts of visitation on recreation resources. 

Long-term, adverse impacts on recreation would result in a degraded quality of recreational 

experiences, unsatisfied user expectations, and diminishing recreational opportunities for all user 

groups. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-220 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would establish the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges area as a 300,650-acre SRMA 

with 813 miles of designated D-Class roads/routes. The SRMA would have the same 

prescriptions as Alternative A but with the following additions: 1) the White Wash Sand Dunes 

would be managed for ecological restoration and scenic quality, and travel would be limited to 

designated routes; 2) camping would be prohibited within the Bartlett/Tusher/ Courthouse/Ten 

Mile Areas to protect resource values; 3) the river permit system would be expanded to further 

protect river resources; 4) camping would be limited to designated sites in high-use areas; and 5) 

backcountry areas would be managed for scenic motorized touring, and the Mill Creek Dinosaur 

Trailhead would be improved to accommodate passenger vehicles. Under this alternative, the 

SRMA recreational facilities and campgrounds would be increased by two campgrounds. The 

SRMA would manage focus areas for scenic drivers with one-mile protected viewshed corridors, 

for non-mechanized users (26,031 acres), and for mountain biking groups (17,530 acres), 

providing visitors with the opportunities to have quality river recreation, camping, on- and offtrail hiking, mountain biking, motorized backcountry, and scenic driving experiences. Under this 

alternative there would be no specific, intensive management for several mountain biking 

recreation focus areas (Tusher, Slickrock, Mill Canyon/Upper Courthouse, Bartlett Slickrock); 

there would be no specific, intensive management of the motorized backcountry touring focus 

area (Gemini Bridges/Poison Spider Mesa); there would be no specific, intensive management of 

the specialized (motorized) sport focus areas (Dee Pass, Airport Hills); and there would be no 

specific, intensive management of the specialized (non-motorized) BASE-jumping focus area at 

Mineral Canyon/Horsethief Point. By not specifically managing these potential focus areas, there 

would be the likelihood for increasing resource user conflicts and adverse and diminishing 

quality of experiences for motorized, mountain biking, and specialized groups in these areas. 

Alternative B prescriptions would have long-term beneficial impacts on recreation through the 

management of focus areas for some specific recreational uses (including non-mechanized and 

mountain biking) that would reduce or eliminate the potential for use conflicts in the managed 

focus areas. Under this alternative the proposed increase in the number of recreational facilities 

would ease user demands for these facilities and increase the likelihood of recreation users 

having satisfying experiences. The proposal to extend the existing cooperative permitting 

agreement with the State of Utah to commercial river use would beneficially maintain satisfying 

river recreational experiences and opportunities by reducing crowding and adverse impacts. 

Limiting camping to designated sites in high-use areas would reduce recreation-related surface 

disturbance impacts to the area and would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation 

resources by preserving visual quality. Managing the SRMA to maintain quality recreational 

opportunities and to preserve recreation resources would increase the likelihood for beneficial 

recreational outcomes that include 1) a greater sense of adventure and heightened outdoor selfconfidence from opportunities for individual exploration and enjoyment, 2) improved outdoor 

skills, and 3) opportunities to escape from crowds to gain a sense of freedom and to maintain 

mental health. 

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would be more beneficial to recreation because more 

areas would be managed to reduce resource use conflicts; the area would be managed to preserve 

recreation resources; more facilities would be proposed to accommodate the anticipated increase 

in recreational use and demand; and more routes would be managed for mountain biking and 

non-mechanized recreation to meet the anticipated demand for these activities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-221 

Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would establish the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges area as a 300,650-acre 

SRMA with 881 miles of designated routes. The SRMA would have the same prescriptions as 

discussed under Alternative A, with the following additions: 1) expand the BLM/State of Utah 

river permit system to further protect river resources; 2) limit camping to designated sites in 

high-use areas; 3) manage backcountry areas for scenic motorized touring; 4) improve the Mill 

Creek Dinosaur Trailhead to accommodate passenger vehicles; and 5) consider development of 

an alternative mountain biking route on Poison Spider Mesa. Under this alternative, the SRMA 

would be managed to provide visitors with the opportunities to have quality river recreation, 

camping, on-trail and off-trail hiking, mountain biking, and backcountry motorized and scenic 

driving experiences. 

The Proposed Plan prescriptions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on all recreation user 

groups through expansion of facilities and the management of focus areas for non-mechanized 

(13,383 acres), motorized (18,165 acres), mountain biking (23,702 acres), and specialized 

(36,503 acres) user groups. Scenic driving corridor focus areas with 1/2-mile protected viewshed 

widths along Highway 313 and the Island in the Sky road would be managed for this user group. 

These prescriptions would beneficially reduce the potential for resource-use conflicts, similar to 

the discussion of impacts under Alternative B but with more beneficial impacts on resource users 

than Alternative B offers, because the SRMA would be managed with more focus areas for a 

broader range of recreational activities. The proposal to extend the existing cooperative river 

permitting agreement would have similar impacts as discussed under Alternative B. 

Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial to recreation for the 

reasons discussed under Alternative B: 1) more areas would be managed to reduce resource use 

conflicts, 2) more facilities would be proposed to accommodate the anticipated increase in 

recreational use and demand, and 3) more routes would be designated for motorized and 

mountain biking recreational use to meet the anticipated demand for these activities. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would establish the 60,939-acre Dee Pass SRMA with a motorized trail-riding 

system at Dee Pass and the White Wash Open OHV-riding Focus Area. The proposed SRMA 

recreational facilities would be similar to those proposed under the Proposed Plan but with 

additional facilities to enhance motorized use of the White Wash Sand Dunes. No recreational 

focus areas would be managed except for the above-mentioned 57,875-acre specialized 

(motorized) area at Dee Pass and a 3,064-acre Open OHV area at White Wash Sand Dunes. 

The impacts on recreation under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A. While designating an SRMA for motorized recreation and managing motorized 

recreational use focus areas would reduce potential recreational resource use conflicts to some 

degree, the current conditions and trends toward adverse, long-term resource use conflicts 

between other recreational activities and user groups within the area would remain as cross 

country OHV use would continue in this area. Managing for motorized OHV use on designated 

trails and open OHV riding on the sand dunes would create opportunities for a sense of 

adventure, exploration, and excitement, with the likelihood of improvements in ATV-riding 

skills, a sense of freedom from urban living, and group enjoyment of the outdoors. Compared to 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-222 

Alternative A, the increased number of proposed recreational facilities under this alternative 

would provide a greater degree of resource protection and preservation. 

4.3.10.2.10.7 Lower Gray Canyon SRMA 

Alternative A 

Under this alternative prescriptions from the Desolation-Gray Canyons Management Plan would 

be brought forward. Current conditions and trends would continue, which include heavy 

recreational river use along Lower Gray Canyon. The area would continue to be managed for 

recreational river use with commercial and private river use stipulations. River use would remain 

set at a maximum carrying capacity of a total of 35,000 passenger-days per year, which balances 

recreational use of the river with resource protection. Minerals development would not be 

allowed within the river corridor, and motorized travel on the river would be regulated to 

preserve river resources. These prescriptions would continue to have a long-term, beneficial 

impact on non-motorized recreation within the Lower Gray Canyon area, because the current 

Desolation-Gray Plan would continue to protect recreation resources and river use by limiting or 

prohibiting motorized boat travel; seeking to acquire private land within the river corridor in 

order to protect the river corridor; establishing daily launch limits of 6 groups/day and group size 

limits of 25 persons; and managing waste within the river and along the river corridor (BLM 

1979). 

Alternative B 

Alternative B prescriptions would establish the Lower Gray Canyon as a 3,759-acre SRMA in 

coordination with the Price FO. The SRMA would be managed in accordance with the 

Desolation-Gray Canyons Management Plan, with the same group size and number limitations, 

and with the same resource protection prescriptions as discussed under Alternative A. The 

Desolation-Gray Plan would maintain opportunities for scenic river recreation on the Green 

River and opportunities for quality camping, hiking, and horseback riding within the river 

corridor. Prescriptions proposed under Alternative B would manage the existing riverside trails 

for non-mechanized recreational use, and vehicle camping would be limited to designated sites. 

The impacts of these management decisions would be beneficial in the long-term on recreation 

resources within the proposed SRMA, because the area would continue to be managed under the 

protection of the Desolation-Gray Plan prescriptions with additional beneficial prescriptions to 

provide riverside recreational opportunities. By maintaining recreation resources and 

opportunities within the SRMA, the MFO's targeted outcomes of beneficial visitor experiences 

would likely be met. These individual experiences would potentially include improvements in 

outdoor recreation skills from easy access to natural landscapes, strengthened family ties and 

friendships from group activities such as river floating and camping, and maintenance of mental 

health and reduction of mental stress from enjoyment of an uncrowded natural environment. 

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would have more beneficial impacts on recreation, 

because the alternative would expand the recreational opportunities within the proposed SRMA 

while continuing to protect resource values and current recreational opportunities. 

Proposed Plan

The impacts of the prescriptions under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B, because the prescriptions would be the same. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-223 

Alternative D 

Under Alternative D the Lower Gray Canyon SRMA would not be established, but the 

Desolation-Gray Plan would be used to manage river use. The impacts to recreation would be 

similar to, but more protective of, river resources and opportunities than under Alternative A, 

because controlled surface-use leasing stipulations would also be applied to limit river corridor 

surface disturbances, with beneficial impacts for the recreation user. 

4.3.10.2.10.8 Sand Flats SRMA 

Alternative A

This alternative would apply decisions found in the current Sand Flats Management Plan. These 

include 1) a cooperative agreement with Grand County in which the county would be authorized 

to collect fees and participate in the operational management of the area; 2) limiting motorized 

OHV and mountain biking travel to designated road and trails; 3) provisions for fee uses; 4) 

campground development; and 5) development of camping, parking, and sanitation facilities. 

Management of the area would also include prescriptions for visitor protection, development of 

an entrance station, and information services. Camping would be limited to designated sites, and 

wood gathering and collecting would be prohibited. 

While the prescriptions under the current Plan would, in the short term, beneficially address the 

need for recreational facilities in the area and control recreation-related surface disturbances, the 

long-term impacts to recreation resources and user groups would likely be adverse in that the 

prescriptions in the current RMP would not adequately address the intensifying user conflicts, 

the rising demand for OHV opportunities, the increasing number of visitors to the MPA, and the 

potentially adverse impacts that more visitors would have on the area's recreation resources. The 

lack of an adaptive-management plan for the area would, in the long term, have adverse impacts 

on the recreational experience and on user satisfaction because of over-crowding and resource 

use conflicts between mountain biking and motorized OHV user groups that would share the 

same travel routes. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would establish the 6,246-acre Sand Flats SRMA with 20 miles of designated 

routes. The prescriptions would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A, except that 

the Slickrock Bike Trail would be closed to all motorized users. The SRMA would be managed 

for a range of opportunities, including mountain biking on the Slickrock Trail, OHV challenge 

routes, and camping. No Surface Occupancy leasing stipulations would be applied to protect 

scenic and recreation values. 

Prohibiting motorized OHV use of the Slickrock Trail would reduce the recreational 

opportunities of this group and would have long-term, adverse impacts on this group. Mountain 

bikers would enjoy beneficial impacts, including increased safety on the trail and reduced 

potential for resource-use conflicts and user displacement by motorized OHV users. Mountain 

bike users would benefit most from prohibitions on motorized use of the trail. 

Beneficial impacts would also be produced through preservation and protection of scenic quality 

and other recreation values within the SRMA. The maintenance of recreational opportunities and 

resources within the proposed SRMA would also increase the likelihood of visitor-beneficial 

experiences that include physical challenges that could heighten the sense of adventure while 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-224 

improving outdoor skills, a greater sense of freedom from urban living, and strengthening family 

bonds and friendships by sharing outdoor experiences. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would have more beneficial impacts because surface disturbance would be precluded, 

providing greater resource protection, a potential reduction in resource-use conflicts, and 

increased safety within the SRMA. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan would apply similar prescriptions to Sand Flats as does Alternative B, except 

that while the Slickrock Trail would be closed to ATV and four-wheeled vehicles for safety 

purposes, OHV motorcycles would be permitted on the trail. This alternative would also 

designate 23 miles of routes within the SRMA. The prescriptions would have impacts similar to 

Alternative B except that 1) the long-term, adverse impacts on some motorized users would be 

reduced because of expanded motorized (OHV motorcycle) opportunities; 2) the benefits to 

mountain bikers would be reduced by increased potential for user conflicts with and 

displacement by motorcycles; and 3) the level of safety along the Slickrock Trail would be 

diminished because of the combined motorized and mountain biking uses. Compared to 

Alternative A, the impacts of this alternative on recreation resources and user groups would be 

more beneficial, because the prescriptions would provide greater protection to resource values by 

precluding surface disturbance and provide higher quality recreational opportunities than 

Alternative A provides. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would have the same prescriptions as in the Proposed Plan except that a Slickrock 

Trail mountain bike free-ride area would be established. Also, Controlled Surface Use 

stipulations would be applied to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities to limit 

these kinds of impacts to scenic values. The impacts of this alternative on recreation would be 

similar to those discussed under the Proposed Plan, except that there would be more recreational 

opportunities that would benefit mountain bike users than under Alternative A from designation 

of the Slickrock mountain bike free-ride area. 

4.3.10.2.10.9 South Moab SRMA 

Alternative A 

Under this alternative the Mill Creek Canyon hiking trailhead, the Ken's Lake recreation site, the 

Hidden Valley trailhead, and the Blue Hill trailhead would be managed as recreation sites. The 

Mill Creek trail, the Ken's Lake trail system, the Hidden Valley trail, the Steelbender/Flat Pass 

OHV/mountain bike route, the Behind the Rocks OHV route, the Strike Ravine OHV route, and 

the Kane Creek Canyon Rim OHV/mountain bike route would be managed as recreation trails. 

Camping would be limited to designated sites, with camping prohibitions on the west side of 

Spanish Valley and in Mill Creek. 

The impacts to recreation resources and to motorized, mountain biking, and non-mechanized 

user groups under this alternative would be adverse in the long term, because continuation of 

current prescriptions under this alternative, without specific prescriptions that respond to 

resource impacts and recreation needs, would be inadequate. As discussed in Section 3.10.2, 

current conditions within the area include increasing resource use conflicts and non-motorized 

user displacement; a demand for more recreation facilities; heightened visitor use and recreation 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-225 

resource use; adverse impacts to undeveloped camping sites; and increasing resource 

degradation. These use conflicts, lack of adequate facilities, and resource degradation would 

continue to occur. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would establish the 63,999-acre South Moab Destination SRMA, with the same 

prescriptions as in Alternative A with the following exceptions: 

• Recreation focus areas would be managed to provide opportunities for scenic driving along a 

one-mile-wide corridor that follows the LaSal Mountain Loop Road. 

• Mill Creek Canyon, Behind the Rocks, and Hidden Valley Trail would be managed as nonmechanized focus areas (34,486 acres). 

• Upper Spanish Valley would be managed as a mountain biking backcountry touring (2,255 

aces) focus area. 

• Potato Salad Hill would not be managed as a specialized (motorized) focus area. 

• Mountain biking speed-events would be managed in the Twenty Four Hours of Moab 

specialized (non-motorized) focus area (2,905 acres). 

• Additional emphasis would be placed on resource protection in the Ken's Lake area during 

development of a management plan for the area. 

• New mountain biking and non-mechanized trails would be established. 

• Existing trails would be extended in cooperation with municipal, state, and county agencies, 

and with private landowners. 

The impacts on recreation from these prescriptions would be beneficial in the long term, because 

the establishment of the area as an SRMA and the management of recreation focus areas would 

increase the likelihood for satisfying scenic driving, mountain biking, and non-mechanized 

recreation by expanding opportunities and reducing the potential for recreation resource-use 

conflicts and user group displacement. The creation and extension of hiking and equestrian trails 

and biking lanes would beneficially expand the recreation opportunities for these users. 

Management plan prescriptions for the SRMA would protect the recreational resources for all 

users of the area. Specialized recreation (motorized OHV) groups would be adversely impacted 

in the long term, because the Potato Salad Hill route would be closed to motorized travel, 

resulting in a loss of opportunities for challenging OHV hill climbing. 

Maintaining resource values and expanding recreational opportunities for non-motorized use 

under this alternative would increase the likelihood that individuals would have beneficial 

experiences that include enjoyable physical exercise and an improved capacity for recreational 

activities through easy access to the area's natural landscapes, improved outdoor knowledge and 

outdoor skills development, heightened self-confidence, and developing a greater sense of 

outdoor independence. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would be more beneficial, 

because it would more effectively address the recreation resource-use concerns associated with 

increased visitation, resource-use conflicts, and recreation resource degradation, while also 

providing more recreational opportunities than Alternative A. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-226 

Proposed Plan

The prescriptions under the Proposed Plan would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 

B, except for the following: 1) additional resource protection in the Ken's Lake area would not be 

emphasized during recreation plan development; 2) the LaSal scenic driving focus area would 

have a corridor width of 1/2 mile; and 3) a 41-acre specialized (motorized) hill-climbing focus 

area would be managed at Potato Salad Hill. 

The impacts to recreational opportunities for scenic, mountain biking, non-mechanized, and 

specialized motorized OHV users would be beneficial in the long term. These include expanded 

or maintained opportunities for these groups with the reduced potential for user-conflicts and 

displacement and the protection of recreation resources under the SRMA plan. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial for the same reasons as discussed under 

Alternative B. 

Alternative D 

No South Moab SRMA would be established under this alternative. The prescriptions and 

impacts to recreation resources and user groups would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.10.2.10.10 Two Rivers SRMA 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would continue to manage the Colorado and Dolores Rivers under existing river 

management programs, which focus on providing facilities and regulating commercial and 

private river use. Under this alternative, boating management would be a continuation of current 

prescriptions, including promoting safe and enjoyable river use while permitting 30 commercial 

outfitters and up to 24,000 passenger-days per year. The impacts of this alternative would be 

beneficial on river recreation and use in the short-term because management would be adequate 

for current levels of use. However, as demand increases for recreational use of the rivers (as 

recreational-use trends suggest [see Section 3.10.1.4]), resource-use conflicts and impacts to 

resources would likely increase, with long-term, adverse impacts on river resources and river 

running opportunities, particularly along river stretches that lie outside the proposed SRMA. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would establish the 29,839-acre Two Rivers Destination SRMA, with the 

management objective to continue to provide high-quality river-related recreational opportunities 

on the Colorado and Dolores Rivers for river running and boating, hiking, and camping, and to 

protect outstanding river resource values. Group-size and daily launch limits would vary, 

depending on the type of boating recreational opportunities for which a particular river segment 

would be managed (see Table 4.79, SRMA Recreation Summary Table). The SRMA boating 

recreational opportunities would range from primitive, remote, and challenging whitewater riverrunning to scenic whitewater and flat water boating. A non-mechanized recreation focus area 

(23,479 acres) would be managed for river use and shoreline hiking within Westwater Canyon. 

Under this alternative, additional public lands would be acquired for construction of additional 

facilities that would include river takeouts, parking and launch facilities, additional camping sites 

and additional access to camping sites. Prescriptions that would expand the number of facilities 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-227 

for recreational camping and boating would beneficially enhance the river experience for river 

floating and non-mechanized users. Prescriptions limiting the number of river permits and the 

size of permitted groups could adversely impact the river floating user group in the short term by 

potentially denying permits to those seeking to have a river experience. However, these 

prescriptions would provide long-term opportunities for satisfying recreational boating, shoreline 

hiking, and river floating experiences by beneficially dispersing river users and thus creating 

conditions of solitude, quiet, and a sense of naturalness. Managing the area for high-quality 

river-running, hiking, and camping would allow visitors to develop a closer relationship with the 

natural world by having satisfying recreational experiences. Being able to escape from crowds 

and from urban environments would allow visitors to maintain mental health, reduce stress, and 

encourage the development of a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle. 

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would be more beneficial to recreation users because 

of the reduced likelihood for use conflicts under the Alternative B permitting system. More river 

resource protection prescriptions would be applied, and more recreational facilities would be 

provided to enhance the river experience. 

Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan the boating management prescriptions would be similar to those in 

Alternative B, except that: 1) a proposed take-out facility at the Westwater Ranger Station would 

be developed separately from the existing station launch facility in order to reduce congestion at 

the ranger station and 2) permitted group size and daily launch limits would be greater than 

under Alternative B (i.e., group sizes would be nine persons greater, and launch limits would 

allow more individuals per day [see Table 4.79]). The impacts to river floating and nonmechanized groups would be similar to but more beneficial than those discussed under 

Alternative B, because more opportunities would be available to have a river experience. The 

Proposed Plan would be more beneficial to recreation users than Alternative A for the same 

reasons as discussed under Alternative B. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would manage the Two Rivers area as a 14,056-acre Destination SRMA to provide 

opportunities for high-quality boating and camping. Boating prescriptions would be the same as 

those in the Proposed Plan except that the permitted group size would be increased by seven 

persons, and daily launch limits would allow more people per day to access each river sector. 

The number and type of proposed facilities would be the same as discussed under the Proposed 

Plan, but a non-mechanized river focus area would not be established. The impacts of this 

alternative on recreation would be both adverse and beneficial in the long term. Adverse impacts 

to those seeking a quality boating experience would be produced by expanding the maximum 

group size and number of permits for river segments within the SRMA, which would potentially 

reduce the river opportunities for those users who seek a less-crowded river experience. 

Beneficial impacts would be similar to those discussed under the Proposed Plan, but to a lesser 

degree, because no focus area-related recreation opportunities for river use and hiking would be 

proposed under this alternative, and, therefore, there would be long-term, adverse impacts on 

opportunities for a river/shoreline hiking experience. This alternative would be more beneficial 

than Alternative A for the reasons discussed under the Proposed Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-228 

4.3.10.2.10.11 Utah Rims SRMA 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A the Utah Rims area would continue to be managed under the current, and 

limited, recreation management program for the area. Prescriptions would include limiting travel 

to existing routes, managing Kokopelli's Trail for recreational use, managing the Bitter Creek 

campsite for camping, and managing Utah Rims for general recreation. The impacts of this 

alternative on the Utah Rims area would be adverse in the long term from the limited 

prescriptions that would not adequately address the adverse impacts to recreation resources from 

OHV use (e.g., surface disturbances to wildlife and range habitat, cultural resources, noise 

impacts to non-motorized users). The Alternative A prescriptions would not address resource use 

conflicts between OHV, mountain biking users, and non-mechanized groups, which would have 

adverse impacts on non-mechanized and mountain biking group recreational opportunities from 

OHV noise, incompatible trail use, and from user displacement by motorized users. 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B Utah Rims would be managed as a 15,424-acre Community SRMA, with 

management goals to protect resource values while providing sustainable recreational 

opportunities for motorized and mountain biking scenic trail use, designated camping, and 

equestrian opportunities. Motorized and mountain biking travel would be limited to designated 

routes; a staging area would be developed for OHV group access to the trail system; limited 

camping facilities would be provided; and competitive, motorized events would be prohibited in 

order to maintain the area's single-track character. A separation of single-track use by time 

period would be considered. No new recreational routes would be established under this 

alternative. 

The impacts of this alternative on recreation would be beneficial in the long term for several 

reasons: 1) OHV-caused impacts to recreation resources would be reduced by limiting travel to 

designated routes; 2) the addition of facilities such as OHV staging areas and campsites would 

beneficially enhance the recreational experiences for motorized users by responding to this 

group's demand for more facilities; and 3) separating types of single-track use by time period 

would potentially reduce resource use conflicts. Managing the SRMA to enhance recreational 

experiences and expand the opportunities for motorized and non-motorized groups would have 

individual benefits for the area's visitors, including opportunities to enjoy strenuous physical 

exercise, improve outdoor skills and abilities, reduce physical and mental stress through escape 

from crowds and urban environments, and gain a greater sense of adventure by participating in 

challenging and enjoyable mechanized and non-mechanized recreational activities. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more long-term, beneficial impacts on 

recreation for several reasons: 1) it proposes a greater expansion of recreational opportunities for 

motorized and mountain biking resource users; 2) it proposes more recreational facilities to 

support the proposed SRMA trail system; 3) it would address OHV-caused impacts to recreation 

resources by controlling cross country travel; and 4) it would address resource-use conflicts and 

displacement concerns. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-229 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan prescriptions would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B; except 

that 1) the trail system would be expanded through acquisition of trail access across non-Federal 

lands; and 2) single-track routes would be added to the trail system upon adoption of the Travel 

Plan accompanying this RMP. 

The impacts on recreation resources and user groups would be similar to, but more beneficial 

than, those discussed under Alternative B, because more opportunities for trail riding would be 

available from expansion of the trail system within the SRMA. The impacts of this alternative, 

when compared to Alternative A, would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B, 

because the prescriptions are similar (although no new motorized routes would be established in 

Alternative B). 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would not establish a Utah Rims SRMA, so the impacts would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative A, but to a great degree, because user conflict could increase. 

4.3.10.2.10.12 Moab ERMA 

Under management common to the action alternatives, a management plan would be developed 

for the Moab ERMA to provide recreational management guidance for addressing changes in 

user demand and conditions. Facilities would be constructed, as needed, within the ERMA to 

ensure visitor safety, reduce user group conflicts, and protect resources. These prescriptions 

would be beneficial to all user groups and to ERMA recreational resources by protecting the 

areas' recreational resources, maintaining recreational opportunities, and managing the area to 

meet visitor demands. 

Alternative A 

Consistent with the current RMP, Alternative A would continue current prescriptions to improve 

recreation sites and areas within the ERMA to balance the demand for recreational opportunities 

with protection of resources. The Kokopelli's Trail would be managed as a multi-day mountain 

bike and vehicle route with associated camping areas. The impacts of this alternative on 

motorized OHV and mountain biking groups would be adverse in the long term because current 

user conflicts along the Kokopelli's Trail would continue and most likely would intensify as 

increasing numbers of visitors use the trail for mountain biking and motorized use. 

Alternative B 

The MFO's targeted recreation management goals for the ERMA would be backcountry touring, 

and primitive hiking, backpacking, and equestrian use. Alternative B would manage 335,457 

acres within the Bookcliffs area as an SRMA for non-mechanized recreation; the Sego Rock Art 

area would be managed for day-use (and provide a recreational opportunity to scenic drivers) and 

additional acquisition of adjacent land would be considered to expand this cultural/recreational 

interpretive site. Kokopelli's Trail would continue to be managed as a mountain biking and 

vehicle route with camping areas, and facilities would be developed at Lost Spring Canyon. 

Information boards would be installed along Interstate 70 main exits to inform visitors of such 

amenities. Current prescriptions would be followed to make improvements to sites and areas as 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-230 

necessary, and to manage the ERMA for very low visitation and provide a custodial-level of 

management for recreational use. 

Except for the long-term, adverse impacts to the Kokopelli's Trail from use conflicts (the 

prescriptions for the trail would be the same as Alternative A), the impacts of prescriptions under 

this alternative would be beneficial in the long term because developing additional recreational 

facilities and additional recreational opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation 

would alleviate potential resource-use conflicts and demands within the proposed SRMAs. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial to recreation users because 

it would continue to follow current prescriptions for the ERMA, as well as expand recreational 

opportunities and potentially enhance recreation experiences through informal recreation focus 

areas and facilities development. Visitor benefits from recreation in the ERMA would include 

opportunities to improve outdoor skills, maintain mental and physical health, and explore and 

experience a sense of adventure in remote, backcountry locales. 

Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would have prescriptions similar to Alternative B, except that the Upper 

Fisher Mesa would be managed as a 1,365-acre area emphasizing mountain biking. The impacts 

on recreation resources and user groups would be similar to Alternative B, but more beneficial, 

as there would be more opportunities for mountain bikers under this alternative than under 

Alternative B. 

Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would have impacts similar to Alternative B 

because the prescriptions are similar. However, the acreage of ERMA in the Proposed Plan is 

greater than that in Alternative B, so recreation management in the Proposed Plan is lessened. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would have the same prescriptions as the Proposed Plan. The impacts would be 

similar to those discussed under the Proposed Plan except to a lesser degree because of the 

decreased number of acres within SRMAs. The impacts of this alternative, when compared to 

Alternative A, would be similar to those discussed under the Proposed Plan, but to a lesser 

degree. 

4.3.10.2.10.13 Special Recreation Permits 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would continue current management for special recreation permits, including 

competitive and non-competitive OHV events. The prescriptions under this alternative would 

have beneficial long-term impacts on recreation by protecting recreation resources through 

permit stipulations while providing recreational opportunities for motorized tour groups, nonmechanized (horseback) groups, hunters, commercial outdoor education (survival school) 

groups, and other commercial and private enterprises, and managing and protecting recreation 

resources. These stipulations protect resources and help provide a quality recreation experience. 

Alternative B 

The prescriptions under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, 

but with more specific stipulations for protecting natural and cultural resources. For example, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-231 

permits would be required for all groups with 15 or more vehicles. Alternative B would have 

beneficial impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative A, but to a greater degree, 

because of the resource protection and preservation-related stipulations that would be associated 

with the issuance of special recreation permits. The stipulation that mandates a special recreation 

permit at 15 vehicles would beneficially impact user experiences because group size encounters 

would be smaller. 

Proposed Plan

The prescriptions under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B, 

except that permits would be required for all groups with 25 or more vehicles. The Proposed 

Plan impacts, when compared to Alternative A, would be similar to Alternative B because the 

group size of 25 is closer to the group size of 15 (Alternative B) than that of Alternative A 

(group size of 50). 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would have the same prescriptions as Alternative B, except that permits would be 

required for groups with 50 or more vehicles. This alternative would have similar impacts on 

recreation as discussed under the Proposed Plan, but to a lesser beneficial degree, because 

recreation and other resources would receive less protection (given the larger group size) under 

the special recreation permit process. In the short-term, this alternative's emphasis on providing 

more recreational opportunities to larger groups would have beneficial impacts (because permits 

would not be required until the threshold of 50 vehicles is reached) on all private user groups that 

require permits; however, the long-term impacts would be adverse because of the increased 

likelihood for recreation resource degradation and loss of recreation values. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial in terms of reducing user conflict and 

protecting resources because there would be more protection and preservation-related 

stipulations on cultural and natural resources while still managing for support of the local 

economy. 

4.3.10.2.11 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES 

Under all of the alternatives, riparian resource prescriptions would control recreational use, 

where necessary, and manage camping in riparian areas to reduce vegetation disturbances, in 

compliance with the MFO's Recreation Rules regarding dispersed camping (Appendix E) and 

The Guidelines for Recreation Management for BLM Lands in Utah (Appendix R). The 

recreation rules and guidelines stipulate that camping within riparian areas would be restricted if 

it was determined that the camping areas were becoming degraded, or camping would be 

reduced in order to minimize vegetation and sedimentation impacts. Restricting riparian 

dispersed camping areas would reduce recreational opportunities and have short-term, adverse 

impacts on users seeking this recreational activity, but the impacts would be beneficial in the 

long term as these areas would be managed to preserve the recreational resources within riparian 

areas for wildlife viewing, hiking, and sightseeing. 

4.3.10.2.11.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the riparian prescriptions discussed for management common to all 

alternatives would impact recreational opportunities while preserving the riparian resource. 

Additionally, current trends and conditions under this alternative would have indirect impacts on 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-232 

recreational opportunities: the current adverse impacts on riparian resources from OHV use, 

camping, trail erosion, livestock grazing, and exotic species encroachment (see Section 3.11.5.1) 

would continue to degrade riparian resources and would, in time, degrade recreational 

opportunities for wildlife viewing and sightseeing from the loss of riparian habitat. Scenic 

quality would be degraded and the risks of wildland fire in riparian areas would increase (with an 

associated increased risk of scenic quality degradation) from the invasion and establishment of 

exotic species. Livestock grazing in riparian areas could degrade such areas, reducing 

recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing, sightseeing, photography, day hiking, and 

camping for motorized OHV, mountain biking, and non-motorized recreational users. 

4.3.10.2.11.2 Alternative B 

Grazing prescriptions under Alternative B and riparian management common to all action 

alternatives would, where necessary, control livestock access to riparian habitat, restrict surfacedisturbing activities within riparian areas and floodplains, and restore at-risk or non-functioning 

riparian areas, which would improve riparian conditions and beneficially enhance riparian 

recreational opportunities in the long term by improving recreation resources. Control of 

recreation in riparian habitat would be adverse in the long term for some potential surfacedisturbing recreational opportunities, such as OHV use, because these activities would be 

reduced. However, prescriptions to reduce impacts to riparian resources would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on other recreational opportunities and experiences (e.g., day hiking, 

equestrian, wildlife viewing, photography, and day camping) because of improvements to 

riparian resources. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial to 

recreation users because it would apply more prescriptions to preserve and improve riparian 

recreational resources. 

4.3.10.2.11.3 Proposed Plan 

The impacts on recreation under this alternative would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B because the prescriptions concerning recreation use would be similar. 

4.3.10.2.11.4 Alternative D 

Impacts on recreation resources and opportunities under this alternative would be similar to 

Alternative B because prescriptions under management common to all action alternatives would 

manage riparian recreation resources for preservation, enhancement, and restoration. 

4.3.10.2.12 IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES

4.3.10.2.12.1 Alternative A 

The impacts of Alternative A on recreation would be negligible because either there are no 

specific soils prescriptions or they address grazing/saline soil concerns that would not impact 

recreational opportunities or resource uses. 

4.3.10.2.12.2 Alternative B 

Alternative B would have long-term, beneficial impacts on recreation from the closing of the 

Castle Valley and Mill Creek-Spanish Valley watersheds to all surface-disturbing activities, 

including oil and gas leasing and development. This would maintain recreation-related scenic 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-233 

quality in Castle Valley for sightseers and those touring the valley on the LaSal Mountain Scenic 

Byway, and for those participating in recreational activities in areas that have views of the 

valley. Steep slope areas (>30%) would also be restricted, with no surface-disturbing activities 

allowed, with resultant decreases in soil erosion and scenic quality degradation. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial to recreation because prescriptions 

would maintain recreation-related scenic quality. 

4.3.10.2.12.3 Proposed Plan 

The impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the prescriptions 

are similar, except that the Castle Valley and Mill Creek-Spanish Valley watersheds would be no 

surface occupancy. 

Soils and riparian decisions reduce motorized access to sensitive soil and riparian areas, 

impacting motorized users, but to a lesser degree than Alternative B (see Appendix G.) 

4.3.10.2.12.4 Alternative D 

The impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B, except that surfacedisturbance stipulations would not be applied to the Castle Valley and Mill Creek-Spanish 

Valley watersheds. This would result in possible degradation to the recreation-related scenic 

quality. 

Soils and riparian decisions reduce motorized access to sensitive soil and riparian areas, 

impacting motorized users, but to a lesser degree than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan (see 

Appendix G.) 

4.3.10.2.13 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES 

4.3.10.2.13.1 ACECs 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, no ACECs would be designated within the MPA. Thus, restrictions to 

protect recreation-related values would not be applied in this alternative. Therefore, these areas 

would be available for development, which would have adverse impacts on recreation resources 

as scenic quality could be diminished. 

Under this alternative, the Ten Mile Wash area would be open to competitive motorized events, 

and the White Wash area would be open to competitive motorized events and cross-country 

OHV travel. This would continue to benefit motorized recreation users because the recreational 

opportunities for specialized and motorized OHV recreation groups would be maintained. The 

impacts on non-motorized users would continue to be adverse, because of the impacts of cross 

country travel on scenic resources (see Section 3.10.1.2.7). 

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, approximately 610,086 acres would be designated as ACECs within the 

MPA for protection of relevant and important values that include cultural resources, 

paleontological resources, scenic quality, fish and wildlife, sensitive or endangered species, 

riparian resources and watersheds, and/or mitigation of wildland fire hazards. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-234 

Under this alternative, NSO minerals leasing stipulations would be applied to all ACECs, which 

would limit or prohibit surface-disturbance impacts to recreation resources, and have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on recreation because resources and opportunities would be preserved. 

Vehicle-based, designated camping restrictions would be applied to the Behind the Rocks, 

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon, Colorado River Corridor, Upper Courthouse, Ten 

Mile Wash, and White Wash ACECs. Management of Canyon Rims would be consistent with 

the Canyon Rims Recreation Area Plan, and the Colorado River Corridor, Mill Creek, and Upper 

Courthouse Wash ACECs would be managed consistent with the SRMA prescriptions proposed 

for these areas. These actions, by managing ACECs through recreation plans and limiting vehicle 

surface disturbances, would tend to preserve recreation resources and provide a range of longterm recreational opportunities that would benefit recreation. 

In the proposed Ten Mile Wash ACEC, no vehicular travel would be allowed from Dripping 

Springs to Green River, OHV competitive events would be prohibited in the White Wash and the 

Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Potential ACECs. Also, commercial guiding or special group 

permits would be suspended within the Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Potential ACEC. 

These prescriptions would restrict and/or prohibit motorized OHV, mountain biking, and 

specialized recreational use, which would have long-term, adverse impacts on opportunities for 

these recreational user groups. However, the emphasis on cultural resource interpretive rock art 

viewing along Wall Street in the Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon ACEC, and proposed 

hiking trail construction in the Wilson Arch ACEC would beneficially expand the recreational 

opportunities for scenic driving, mountain biking, and non-mechanized recreational user groups 

in these areas. 

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would be more beneficial for recreation because 

ACEC prescriptions would maintain recreation resources, limit surface disturbances, and, 

through SRMA-related management of these areas, provide a greater range of recreational 

opportunities for all resource user groups. 

Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 63,232 acres would be designated as ACECs for 

preservation of relevant and important values (11% of the area proposed under Alternative B). 

More area would be open to oil and gas leasing, geophysical exploration, and salable minerals 

disposal than Alternative B, but less than Alternative A (see 4.3.10.2.7 above). 

In areas proposed for ACEC designation under this alternative, and in non-ACEC proposed 

areas, recreation-related prescriptions would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B. 

Prescriptions that differ from Alternative B, because these areas are not proposed for ACEC 

designation under this alternative, and would affect recreation under this alternative include the 

following: 

Bookcliffs – Standard and timing and controlled surface use minerals leasing stipulations would 

be applied on approximately 54,174 acres within the Bookcliffs area (there would be no 

proposed ACEC designation under this alternative) with permitted minerals-related surfacedisturbances that could impact recreation-related scenic quality in the long term. The impacts on 

recreation resource users would be adverse, as approximately 1,563 acres of surface disturbances 

from oil and gas development are predicted within the Bookcliffs RFD Area during the 15-year 

life of the Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-235 

Canyon Rims – Standard and timing and controlled surface use leasing stipulations would be 

applied to approximately 23,400 acres (the area proposed as an ACEC under Alternative B). 

Permits would be required for motorized recreational use, if monitoring indicates long-term 

damage to resources, and permits would be required for groups using more than 25 vehicles. 

Competitive events would be prohibited. Prescriptions for the Canyon Rims area would permit 

minerals-related surface disturbances within the area, with subsequent long-term, adverse 

impacts on recreation resources and on the recreational experiences and opportunities for all user 

groups that recreate in the area. Adaptive-management monitoring and permitting of motorized 

recreational use would reduce these potentially adverse impacts to non-motorized recreational 

user groups by limiting user conflicts. Prohibitions on competitive events would limit the 

opportunities for specialized recreational use, with long-term, adverse impacts on the specialized, 

motorized, and mountain biking user groups. 

White Wash – Competitive motorized events would be allowed. This prescription would expand 

the recreational opportunities for specialized recreation in this OHV recreational focus area, with 

beneficial long-term impacts on specialized and motorized users. 

Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial for recreation resources 

and users because the area open to oil and gas development surface disturbances would be less 

than Alternative A, and the range of recreational opportunities would be maintained or expanded. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would not designate any ACECs for the protection of relevant and important 

resources values. Thus, restrictions to protect these values would not be applied in this 

alternative. Therefore, these areas would be available for development; this would have adverse 

impacts on recreation resources, similar to Alternative A. 

4.3.10.2.13.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Alternative A 

Under this alternative, no suitability determinations would be made for any eligible river 

segment within the MPA. Under the 1985 RMP, segments 1, 2, and 3 along the Colorado River 

and all Dolores River segments, with a total length of 46 river miles, were determined to possess 

ORVs and be eligible for suitability determinations. The impacts to recreation resources and 

users along the eligible Colorado and Dolores river segments would be negligible because they 

have been and would continue to be managed to prevent changes to their character (up to 1/4 

mile on each side of the eligible river segments) until suitability determinations were made by 

the MFO. The impacts to recreation resources along the remaining river corridors within the 

MPA could be minimal because these river corridors would be protected from surface 

disturbances on a case-by-case basis until a suitability determination is made. 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 28 river segments (totaling 287.5 river miles) would be recommended as 

suitable for Wild, Scenic, or Recreational classification under the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System (NWSRS). Those segments recommended as suitable for Wild classification 

would be managed under VRM Class I objectives; Scenic and Recreational-recommended 

segments would be managed under VRM Class II objectives. These VRM classes would protect 

scenic values. The impacts to recreation would be beneficial in the long term because recreation 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-236 

resources would be preserved along these river corridors, surface disturbances would be limited 

to VRM Class II objectives, and recreational opportunities would be available to all user groups 

along the river corridors. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial to 

recreation because more river miles would be preserved for their scenic, recreational, and wild 

qualities (6 times more river miles than Alternative A) while managing for a range of 

recreational opportunities, including boating and sightseeing, within these Wild and Scenic River 

corridors. 

Proposed Plan

This alternative would recommend 127.3 river miles (10 river segments) as suitable for Wild, 

Scenic, or Recreational classification. The impacts on recreation within river segments 

recommended as suitable would be beneficial, because VRM Class I and Class II objectives 

would be applied as discussed under Alternative B. Compared to Alternative D, this alternative 

would be more beneficial to recreation for similar reasons as discussed under Alternative B. 

However, because Alternative A would continue to protect all of the eligible rivers on a case-bycase basis, it may not be as protective as A. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would not recommend any eligible river segments as suitable. The river segments 

would not be managed to protect ORVs or their free-flowing conditions, with impacts similar to 

those discussed under Alternative A. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have 

more long-term, adverse impacts on river-related recreational opportunities and experiences 

because the recreation resource would receive less protection, be potentially open to more 

surface disturbances, and be less likely to satisfy the recreational expectations of river users. 

4.3.10.2.13.3 Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

BLM has no discretion to manage WSAs through planning, with the exception of decisions 

relating to VRM designation and motorized vehicle use (closing ways or limiting use to ways 

that were identified in the WSA). Under management common to all alternatives, Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs) would continue to be managed consistent with the Interim Management 

Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP). 

Alternative A 

The MFO currently manages WSAs to preserve their wilderness values under VRM Class I 

objectives. The impacts on recreation resources and on opportunities for all resource user groups 

from continuing to manage these areas to preserve their wilderness characteristics would 

continue to be beneficial in the long term because the areas have been and would continue to be 

managed so that their wilderness suitability would not be impaired, but would still allow all 

recreational activities that would not degrade existing wilderness character. All inventoried 

routes within WSAs would be open to OHV use under Alternative A (except those in the Behind 

the Rocks WSA, which was closed to OHV in the Grand RMP), but the numbers of miles of 

routes designated in WSAs would be fewer under the action alternatives. 

Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan 

The impacts on recreation resources within the WSAs under the action alternatives would be 

similar to those under Alternative A because the IMP would be applicable. However, managing 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-237 

OHV vehicle use as either closed or limited to designated routes in WSAs under the action 

alternatives would reduce the opportunities for motorized recreation, with adverse impacts on 

this user group. The impacts on other user groups would be negligible because the range of 

opportunities would not change from current conditions. Compared to Alternative A, the action 

alternatives would have adverse, but minor, impacts on motorized recreational opportunities. 

because all inventoried routes within WSAs would be open to OHV use under Alternative A, but 

the numbers of miles of routes designated in WSAs would be fewer under the action alternatives. 

In Alternative B, no inventoried routes would be open to motorized or mechanized travel. In the 

Proposed Plan, 3.1 miles of route would be designated, and in Alternative D, 16 miles of route 

would be designated. 

4.3.10.2.14 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES

Actions common to all of the alternatives for managing special status species would have longterm, beneficial impacts on recreational opportunities and experiences for all user groups by 

continuing to protect special status wildlife and plant species for sightseeing and nature study. 

Restrictions due to special status species management could impact the ability of recreationists to 

engage in permitted activities, as routes or areas could be temporarily prohibited to protect 

special status species. 

4.3.10.2.15 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES

4.3.10.2.15.1 OHV Travel 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, 620,212 acres would be open to cross-country OHV travel, 1,196,920 acres 

would continue to be designated as limited to designated and inventoried routes, and 24,454 

acres would be closed to OHV travel. Managing OHV use under the current open designation 

would be beneficial for motorized OHV recreational users because cross-country OHV use 

would continue to provide long-term recreational opportunities for this resource user group. 

However, the surface disturbance impacts to soils, water quality, scenic quality, cultural 

resources, wildlife, and vegetation (all components of the recreational experience) would 

continue to adversely impact recreation in the long term in the area designated as open to OHV 

use. Other OHV impacts to recreation would include the impacts associated with OHV noise and 

the potential user conflicts and user displacement associated with OHV use. The long-term 

impacts of OHV prescriptions under this alternative on natural and cultural resources, and on 

hikers, backpackers, mountain bikers, and equestrians, would be adverse because, as discussed in 

Sections 3.10.2.6 and 3.10.2.7, OHV use within the MPA is increasing, with the likelihood that 

OHV-related resource and recreation user conflicts with non-motorized users would continue to 

intensify. 

Under this alternative, 6,199 miles of maintained and un-maintained routes (B- and D-Class 

roads, respectively) would be designated for travel, but no miles would be designated for 

motorized, single-track use (i.e., motorcycles). The impacts on recreation would be negligible, as 

B- and D-Class routes are currently being used for recreation access. The impacts on motorcycle 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-238 

recreation would also be negligible, as 99% of the MPA would remain either open or limited to 

designated and inventoried-route recreation and access. 

There are 178.2 miles of route identified as having possible recreation conflicts. 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, no acres would be designated as open to cross-country OHV use, with all 

OHV travel (1,475,074 acres) limited to designated routes and 347,424 acres designated as 

closed to OHV travel. Site-specific route adjustments would be allowed, based on access needs 

and resource constraints, and routes would be closed or restricted if monitoring determines that 

OHV use was adversely impacting an area's natural character. The long-term impacts on 

recreation resources from these travel actions would be beneficial because the potentially adverse 

impacts to natural and cultural resources from cross-country OHV use would be eliminated by 

restricting this form of travel to designated routes (see Section 3.10.2.7 for a discussion of OHV 

impacts). The effects of OHV route designations on recreation resource users would be variable: 

scenic drivers, mountain biking, and specialized motorized recreation users would not be 

impacted as these user groups typically follow designated routes; motorized OHV users would 

be adversely impacted because the recreation-related travel opportunities for motorized users 

would be reduced; non-mechanized users would be beneficially impacted because restricting 

motorized users to designated routes and closing routes would reduce the likelihood of resource 

use conflicts between the two user groups. 

Under this alternative, no miles would be designated for motorized, single-track use, with 

adverse impacts on this user group because no recreational opportunities would be available. 

Approximately 3,278 miles of B- and D-Class roads (56% of the miles of designated routes 

proposed under Alternative A) would be designated as travel routes. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more adverse impacts on those 

recreational opportunities associated with cross-country OHV and motorcycle use because these 

opportunities would be eliminated. However, this alternative would also have more beneficial 

impacts on recreation resources and on recreational user groups than Alternative A because: 1) 

resource use conflicts would more likely be reduced through management of OHV route 

designation and use, and 2) surface disturbance-related impacts to natural and cultural resources 

from cross-country OHV use would be greatly reduced. 

There are 178.2 miles of designated routes with possible recreation conflicts. In Alternative B, 

120.6 miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan would designate 1,866 acres as open for cross-country OHV use, 1,481,334 

acres as limited to designated routes, and 339,298 acres as closed to OHV use. The impacts on 

recreation resources and user groups would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B 

because 1) the acreage designations are similar, with similar prescriptions, and 2) the open OHV 

area lies within a proposed Open OHV recreation focus area (1,866 acres within White Wash 

Sand Dunes) that would be managed for that activity. 

This alternative would designate 123 miles of motorized (motorcycle), single-track routes. 

Approximately 3,653 miles of B- and D-Class roads (63% of route-miles designated under 

Alternative A) would be designated as travel routes. Single-track route designation would be 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-239 

beneficial, in the long term, to motorized users as opportunities for this form of recreation would 

be available. The impacts to recreation-related travel along B- and D-Class roads would be 

similar to the impacts under Alternative B because the limitations on travel opportunities would 

be similar. 

The impacts comparison between Alternative A and the Proposed Plan would be similar to the 

discussion under Alternative B, except that the adverse impacts to OHV recreation users would 

be reduced because the opportunities for cross-country OHV use, though limited, would be 

available. The impacts on motorcycle users would be more adverse because fewer opportunities 

would be available than under Alternative A. 

There are 178.2 miles of designated routes with possible recreation conflicts. In the Proposed 

Plan, 59.8 miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

Alternative D 

This alternative would manage 3,064 acres as open to cross-country OHV travel, 1,762,083 acres 

as limited to designated OHV routes, and 57,351 acres as closed to OHV travel. Under this 

alternative, the impacts on OHV recreation users would be beneficial because OHV recreational 

travel opportunities along designated routes would be available on approximately 97% of the 

MPA. The open OHV areas would have negligible impacts on recreation resources because the 

cross-country OHV areas would be within Open OHV and Specialized Motorized focus areas 

(the Dee Pass motorized trail area and White Wash Sand Dunes) that are currently being used as 

OHV play areas. 

Alternative D would designate approximately 3,805 miles of B- and D-Class roads (66% of 

Alternative A), and 219 miles of motorized (motorcycle), single-track routes. The impacts would 

be similar to those discussed under the Proposed Plan, though to a more beneficial degree for 

motorized users, because more miles of single-track use (and opportunities for motorized 

recreation) would be available. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial recreational resource 

protection because less area would be open to cross-country OHV use. Because Alternative D 

would provide fewer opportunities for cross-country travel, the impacts on motorized OHV and 

motorcycle use would be more adverse than Alternative A, but more beneficial to non-motorized 

users by preserving scenic resources due to the lack of cross country OHV travel. 

There are 178.2 miles of designated routes with possible recreation conflicts. In Alternative D, 

29.7 miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

4.3.10.2.15.2 Mountain Biking 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, mountain biking would be allowed along the same OHV routes as 

motorized travel, with 4 miles of routes along the Jackson and Portal trails managed specifically 

for mountain biking travel. The impacts of these prescriptions on recreational mountain biking 

travel would be adverse in the long term because the actions do not address the current 

conditions within the MPA that indicate increasing recreation user conflicts, mountain biking 

user displacement, and recreational demand for mountain biking opportunities (see Sections 

3.10.2.6 and 3.10.2.7). Without addressing these recreational concerns, recreational opportunities 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-240 

and the likelihood of satisfying mountain biking experiences would be diminished in the long 

term. 

Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan 

Under the action alternatives, additional miles of routes would be designed and managed for 

mountain biking trail use. The miles of proposed routes range from 75 miles under Alternative B 

and 150 miles under the Proposed Plan, to 300 miles under Alternative D. All of these 

alternatives would increase recreational opportunities for this user group and reduce resource 

user conflicts and user displacement by motorized OHV users from designating additional routes 

for mountain bikers, which would have long-term, beneficial impacts on this form of travel. 

Compared to Alternative A, these alternatives would be more beneficial to mountain biking 

recreation because they would address the user conflicts between motorized recreation and 

mountain biking. 

4.3.10.2.15.3 Non-Mechanized Travel 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, non-mechanized travel (i.e., hiking, backpacking, and equestrian use) 

would be allowed along the same OHV routes as motorized and mountain biking travel, with 

similar adverse impacts to this form of travel for reasons as discussed above under Alternative A 

in Section 4.3.10.2.15.2: increasing numbers of users, user demand, and user conflicts. It should 

be noted that hikers and equestrian users are not restricted to designated routes. 

Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan 

Under the action alternatives, additional miles of trails would be designed and managed for nonmechanized travel. The miles of proposed routes range from 25 miles under Alternative B and 50 

miles under the Proposed Plan, to 100 miles under Alternative D. The impacts of these 

prescriptions would be similar to those discussed above for Alternatives B through D for nonmotorized/mechanized travel, except that the impacts would be applicable to non-mechanized 

users, with a similar comparison to Alternative A, except that the impacts would be applicable to 

non-mechanized recreation. 

4.3.10.2.16 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES

4.3.10.2.16.1 Alternative A 

No prescriptions for vegetation management are specified under Alternative A. However, 

prescriptions for Fire Management would have similar impacts on recreation resources, as 

discussed in Section 4.3.10.2.3. 

4.3.10.2.16.2 Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan 

The impacts on recreation of vegetation prescriptions common to all of the action alternatives 

would be similar to those discussed under Fire Management because the vegetation prescriptions 

would be similar. Vegetation communities would be managed for fire suppression, stabilization, 

and fuel reductions; vegetation treatments would be applied to control exotic and invasive 

species using methods similar to those for fire management; re-seeding, restoration, and 

rehabilitation of disturbed areas would use techniques similar to those used for areas impacted by 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-241 

prescribed and wildland fire. Potentially adverse short-term impacts to recreation would be 

produced by the drought management prescriptions for Extreme or Exceptional conditions if 

OHV use was restricted and if areas were closed to public entry during the time that these 

prescriptions were in effect. Under extreme drought conditions, specialized, motorized, and 

mountain biking recreational opportunities would be adversely reduced in the short term as 

access could be restricted; under exceptional drought conditions, recreational opportunities for 

the aforementioned user groups and non-mechanized users would be adversely impacted because 

areas could be closed to public entry to protect sensitive soils and reduce the risk of wildland 

fire. Compared to Alternative A, the action alternatives would be more beneficial to recreation 

because there are no specified prescriptions under Alternative A to enhance vegetation-related 

recreation resources, while the action alternatives would apply adaptive management, erosion 

control, fuel reductions, and vegetation treatments to reclaim and restore vegetation resources. 

4.3.10.2.17 IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES

Prescriptions common to all alternatives would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

visual/scenic quality recreation resources on 354,015 acres through the management of WSAs 

and designated wilderness areas as VRM Class I areas. The scenery in the WSAs would be 

preserved for public enjoyment. 

Under all of the action alternatives, recreational development (e.g., facility construction) would 

be required to meet both recreational and VRM management objectives if that development was 

sited within the foreground of sensitive viewing areas, in order to reduce visual contrasts that 

would detract from recreational scenic quality. This prescription would be beneficial to 

recreational resource users in the long term because it would require mitigation of potential 

impacts to visual/scenic quality in order to maintain recreational opportunities that include high 

scenic quality. No surface occupancy leasing stipulations (or closed to oil and gas leasing) would 

be applied to all VRM Class I areas for oil and gas development and other surface-disturbing 

activities, with long-term, beneficial, preservation-related impacts on recreation scenic quality. 

VRM Class II areas would be managed with a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas 

leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. (Note that acreages in Alternative A are inventory 

class, while acreages in Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan are management class). This 

stipulation would mitigate impacts to scenic quality by requiring screening and other actions, and 

thus, to recreation users. Table 4.80 displays VRM Class I and VRM Class II acreage, by 

alternative. 

Table 4.80. VRM Management Classes I and II Acreage, by Alternative 

VRM Class Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

I 349,110 453,462 358,911 349,617 

II 401,015 373,647 365,566 245,773 

4.3.10.2.17.1 Alternative A 

Under the Alternative A/VRM inventory, the impacts on recreation-related visual resources 

would be beneficial because Alternative A would attempt to manage recreation-related scenic 

quality as determined by the MFO's VRM inventory for scenic quality and viewer sensitivity 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-242 

(see Section 4.3.18 for a description of VRM Class acreages designated under each alternative 

and the VRM inventory process). As discussed above, WSAs, designated wilderness areas, and 

other VRM Class I areas (including the Negro Bill Outstanding Natural Area) would be managed 

to preserve their natural and scenic qualities, with long-term, beneficial impacts to recreation 

resources and to all user groups as scenery is preserved for their enjoyment. As mentioned in 

Section 4.3.18, under this alternative, the VRM inventory classes would become VRM 

management classes. 

4.3.10.2.17.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 453,462 acres would be managed to prevent or mitigate potential surface 

disturbances to visual/scenic quality under VRM Class I visual objectives, which would have 

more long-term, beneficial impacts on all recreational resource user groups as more scenery 

would be protected. Therefore, the impacts to recreation under this alternative would be more 

beneficial in the long term than Alternative A/VRM inventory. 

4.3.10.2.17.3 Proposed Plan 

Compared to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would manage 9,910 more acres under VRM 

Class I objectives for visual resource protection than was determined by the inventory, with 

long-term, beneficial impacts to all user groups as more scenery would be protected. This would 

reduce surface-disturbing impacts to recreational scenic resources and resource users that expect 

high scenic quality. When compared to Alternative A, fewer acres within the MPA under this 

alternative would be managed to preserve high-quality scenic landscapes under VRM Class II 

management, and more acres would be managed to allow surface disturbances, development, and 

man-made alterations of the existing landscape. These surface disturbances could degrade the 

scenic qualities that recreation users value. 

4.3.10.2.17.4 Alternative D 

Compared to the Alternative A, this alternative would manage 507 more acres under VRM Class 

I objectives for the highest level of scenic quality protection. However, impacts to recreationrelated scenic resources under this alternative would be more adverse in the long term because 

less of the MPA would be managed for the preservation of high scenic quality, and more of the 

MPA would be managed for permitted surface-disturbances and resources development. The 

impacts on recreation resources and user groups would be adverse in the long term because 

fewer areas, when compared to Alternative A, would be managed to maintain high scenic 

quality, which would diminish the recreational experiences and reduce recreation opportunities 

for all recreation resource user groups. 

4.3.10.2.18 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON RECREATION RESOURCES

Continuing to implement the Hatch Point, Potash-Confluence, and Dolores Triangle habitat 

management plans (HMPs) and conducting migratory bird conservation projects would benefit 

recreational wildlife viewing in the long term by maintaining deer, elk, bighorn sheep, raptor, 

game bird, and migratory bird populations under all of the alternatives. 

Under prescriptions common to all action alternatives, 9,278 acres would be managed along the 

rim of Hatch Point as part of the Lockhart bighorn sheep habitat area and 317,523 acres on 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.10 Recreation 

4-243 

grazing allotments would be managed as bighorn sheep habitat. In order to benefit wildlife 

populations, forage in specified grazing allotments would be reallocated to wildlife, native and 

naturalized fish and wildlife species would be re-introduced into suitable and/or historic ranges, 

and dispersed camping would be restricted in riparian areas (see Section 4.3.10.2.11) to protect 

riparian wildlife habitat. All of the prescriptions would be beneficial to recreation resources and 

to all recreation users in the long term by enhancing the opportunities for wildlife viewing and 

sightseeing. 

4.3.10.2.18.1 Alternative A 

Prescriptions to protect desert bighorn sheep habitat on 42,500 acres within the PotashConfluence HMP by preventing major human disturbances during lambing and breeding seasons 

would have adverse impacts on recreational opportunities by limiting, in the short-term, those 

activities that produce noise or that tend to have concentrated group use that could disturb 

wildlife. Recreational user groups that would be affected in the short term would include 

motorized, mountain biking, and specialized groups. The long-term impacts would be beneficial 

for all recreation user groups by improving the opportunities for wildlife viewing. 

4.3.10.2.18.2 Alternative B 

Under this alternative, dispersed camping in riparian areas would be restricted or prohibited, 

except in designated campsites, and camping would be prohibited in Shafer Basin and Long 

Canyon (encompassing approximately 13,500 acres) to protect bighorn sheep habitat. These 

prescriptions would adversely reduce recreational opportunities for long-term, dispersed camping 

in these areas. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more adverse to recreational 

users because more restrictions would be placed on dispersed camping opportunities than under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.10.2.18.3 Proposed Plan 

The impacts to recreation would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B because the 

prescriptions would be similar, although the acreage protected would be somewhat less. 

4.3.10.2.18.4 Alternative D 

Under this alternative, prescriptions would be the same as under Alternative B, except that 

camping would not be restricted to designated camping sites in lambing areas, benefiting those 

who value this experience. The impacts to dispersed camping recreational opportunities would 

be similar to those discussed under Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, because more areas 

would be open to camping in bighorn sheep habitat. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B. 

4.3.10.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 (of Chapter 2) summarizes the impacts of the various alternatives and their program 

actions on recreation. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-244 

4.3.11 RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Within the MPA, riparian areas are typically associated with perennial, intermittent, and 

ephemeral streams, as well as isolated springs and other water sources. Management decisions 

with the potential to impact riparian resource health, the proper functioning condition (PFC) of 

streams, water resources necessary to riparian zone establishment and survival, or the physical 

environment on which riparian vegetation depends (e.g., stream stability) were the decisions 

evaluated in this analysis. 

Analysis of impacts to the riparian resources of the MPA were conducted primarily by 

overlaying proposed management decisions (e.g., surface disturbances due to grazing, OHV 

travel, camping and other recreational use, and woodland harvest) upon the 13,450 acres of 

riparian areas in the MPA, as identified in the GIS-based, Utah GAP database (Lowry et al. 

2005) of vegetation types. Quantitative impacts were measured as acres of riparian resource. 

Where GIS or other quantitative data were unavailable, potential impacts to riparian resources 

were analyzed qualitatively, based on these same criteria. 

Under all alternatives, management actions for the following resources would result in negligible 

impacts to riparian resources: air quality, cultural resources, health and safety, paleontological 

resources, and visual 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 protecting scenic quality would neither degrade nor improve 

the water, soil and vegetation components that comprise riparian resources. Accordingly, the 

impacts of management actions for each of these resources are not analyzed further in this 

section. 

4.3.11.1 IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Under all alternatives, fire management would follow the guidelines in the Utah Land-use Plan 

Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management (LUP; BLM 2005c). Management actions under the 

Utah LUP would have generally beneficial impacts on riparian resources, since non-fire fuel 

treatments would promote diversity in native riparian vegetation types and reduce exotic species. 

4.3.11.2 IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Under all action alternatives, riparian areas are protected from the impacts of lands and realty 

decisions because of the stipulation that requires no surface-disturbing activities within 100 

meters of riparian areas. 

However, an exception could be authorized if there are no practical alternatives, impacts could 

be fully mitigated, or the action is designed to enhance the resource values (see Appendix C, 

Stipulations Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-disturbing Activities). In such 

instances that an exception is granted because there is no practical alternative, mitigation 

measures such as the Standards for Pipeline Crossings (See Appendix H) and the BMPs for soils 

and minerals would be employed. 

LTAs could acquire riparian areas, and LTA criteria call for the retention of those already in 

public ownership. This would beneficially impact riparian resources as they would be protected 

by the stipulations placed upon them under all action alternatives. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-245 

4.3.11.3 IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

In general, restricting grazing from riparian areas would provide long-term protection and 

enhancement of riparian areas because it would eliminate any improper livestock management 

practices that could result in the loss of riparian vegetative and cover and the trampling of 

riparian soils. Improper grazing practices may result in adverse impacts due to decreased growth 

or loss of riparian vegetation and possible loss or degradation of riparian soils, water quality, 

streambed and bank structure, and habitat quality." In this analysis, the impacts of livestock 

grazing decisions upon riparian resources are measured in the acres of riparian area that could 

become unavailable for grazing. Table 4.81 shows the riparian areas that could become 

unavailable due to grazing management decisions under each alternative. 

Table 4.81. Grazing Restrictions (i.e., in Riparian Areas, by Alternative) 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Acres unavailable 

(out of 13,450 acres) calculated 

using GAP (satellite photo) data 

% of Total Riparian 

Approx. 1,000 

7.4 

4,422 

32.9 

1,169 

8.7 

Approx. 500 

3.7 

Acres unavailable (out of 32,292) 

calculated by MFO using infrared 

photos and field tested 

4,414 4,946 4,392 1,177 

% of Total Riparian 13.7 15.3 13.6 3.6 

4.3.11.3.1 ALTERNATIVE A

Under Alternative A, current management, which prohibits grazing in the South Sand Flats, 

North Sand Flats, Between the Creeks, Pear Park, Beaver Creek (itself), Spring Creek, 

Cottonwood, Bogart, and Diamond allotments, would continue. These prohibitions prevent 

grazing on approximately 7.4% of the total riparian acres within the MPA using GAP data and 

13.7% using field data (see Table 4.81), resulting in beneficial impacts to riparian habitat in these 

areas, in the forms described above. 

4.3.11.3.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

In addition to the grazing exclusions specified under Alternative A, grazing would not be 

authorized in the Ida Gulch, River, Mill Creek and Professor Valley allotments. Grazing would 

also be unavailable in the riparian areas of the following drainages under Alternative B: Ten 

Mile from Dripping Spring to the Green River, Day Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, Seven Mile 

Canyon, East Coyote, Kane Springs, Lower Gray Canyon of the Green River, and Hatch Wash. 

Therefore, under Alternative B, grazing would not be permitted on approximately 32.9% of the 

total riparian acreage within the MPA—an increase of 444.6% in the amount of unavailable 

riparian acreage, compared to Alternative A (see Table 4.81). More riparian acres would be 

unavailable for grazing under Alternative B than under any other alternative. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-246 

4.3.11.3.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Grazing would not be allowed in the following allotments: Bogart, Cottonwood, Diamond, Ida 

Gulch, Pear Park, and Mill Creek. The riparian areas unavailable for grazing under the Proposed 

Plan are the same areas as under Alternative B, with the exception of Kane Springs, Lower Gray 

Canyon of the Green River, and Hatch Wash, which would remain available for grazing. 

Therefore, in total, grazing would be prohibited on approximately 8.7% of riparian areas within 

the MPA under the Proposed Plan, or 116.9% more than Alternative A (see Table 4.81). The 

Proposed Plan would protect more riparian acreage than Alternative A, but not as much as 

Alternative B. 

4.3.11.3.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

Grazing would be available in the Cottonwood, Diamond, and Bogart allotments. This would 

adversely impact riparian resources found in those allotments, including Cottonwood Wash, 

Diamond Canyon and Nash Wash. Impacts would be greater than under Alternative A because 

the acreage of riparian exclusion is far less in Alternative D. 

4.3.11.4 IMPACTS OF MINERAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Mineral resource decisions that would affect riparian resources include the continuation of 

existing mineral withdrawals and the application of a controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation, 

which would prohibit surface-disturbing activities within the 100 year floodplain or within 100 

meters of riparian areas. 

Under all alternatives, adverse impacts to riparian resources from mineral development would be 

avoided because the controlled surface use stipulation requires a proponent to move operations 

up to 100 meters to avoid riparian areas, benefiting riparian resources by protecting them from 

surface disturbance. 

However there are exceptions to this stipulation which allow for development in riparian areas if 

there are no practical alternatives, impacts could be fully mitigated, or the action is designed to 

enhance the resource values (see Appendix C). In such instances that an exception is granted 

because there is no practical alternative, mitigation measures such as the Standards for Pipeline 

Crossings (See Appendix H) and the BMPs for soils and minerals (Gold Book) would be 

employed. While some riparian resources could be removed in the course of such construction, 

the extent of the impact would be minimized using these measures. 

Existing mineral withdrawals along the Colorado, Dolores, and Green Rivers would be continued 

under all alternatives, providing an additional level of protection for riparian resources by 

excluding them from the adverse impacts of locatable mining operations. The application of a no 

surface occupancy stipulation for all surface-disturbing activities to these areas under all 

alternatives would further protect riparian resources along these major river courses from 

potential adverse impacts associated with surface disturbance (e.g., vegetation degradation and 

introduction of noxious weeds). This stipulation would leave the riparian vegetation intact. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-247 

4.3.11.5 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

RIPARIAN RESOURCES

In general, managing non-WSA lands to maintain their wilderness characteristics would be 

beneficial to riparian resources by applying NSO or closed stipulations to oil and gas leasing and 

precluding all surface-disturbing activities, limiting travel to designated roads, and allowing no 

new ROWs. NSO stipulations and precluding surface-disturbing activities would prevent impacts 

and habitat disruption that could result from surface-disturbing activities in and adjacent to 

riparian areas. Limitations on travel and new ROWs would beneficially reduce disturbances 

associated with stream crossings and off-road travel, resulting in no damage to, or removal of, 

riparian vegetation. 

Alternatives A and D would be the least protective of riparian resources, since they would not 

manage areas within the MPA to maintain wilderness characteristics. Alternative B would be the 

most protective since 266,485 acres would be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. 

The Proposed Plan, which would manage 47,761 acres to maintain wilderness characteristics, 

would have intermediate impacts on riparian resources. 

4.3.11.6 IMPACTS OF RECREATION AND TRAVEL DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Recreation management decisions affecting riparian resources include the number of acres 

managed as SRMA (specifying controls on recreation use, including controls on camping and 

campfires), limitations on the number of river users and their duration of use, and restrictions on 

OHV use and travel. See Table 4.82 for acreage of SRMA by alternative. Each of these 

limitations generally would reduce direct, adverse impacts to riparian resources by reducing the 

disturbance of riparian vegetation and stream banks, the spread of noxious weeds, soil 

compaction, and the potential for impacts due to human-caused fire. 

A recent United States Geologic Survey (USGS 2007) synopsis of relevant literature summarizes 

several studies indicating that motorized travel through riparian areas can have negative impacts 

on water quality. Other studies summarized by USGS indicate negative impacts from OHV use 

on soil properties and vegetative cover, which can result in accelerated rates of erosion and 

sedimentation and elevated levels of turbidity in affected watersheds. The USGS study is 

summarized in Appendix G. 

Table 4.82. Acreage Managed as SRMA, by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Acreage managed as 

SRMA 

141,234 976,173 658,642 277,471 

Percentage of MPA 

managed as SRMA 

8% 54% 36% 15% 

User numbers and OHV use decisions vary by alternative. Table 4.83 outlines the approximate 

amount of riparian area open and closed/limited to OHV use under the travel plan. The impacts 

of limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails would be the same as closure of riparian areas 

to OHVs. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-248 

Table 4.83. Acres of Riparian Areas, by OHV Area Designation, by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Calculated using GAP 

(satellite photo) data 

Acres Open 2,100 0 0 0 

Acres Closed or Limited 11,350 13,450 13,450 13,450 

Total 13,450 13,450 13,450 13,450 

Calculated by MFO using 

infrared photos and field 

tested 

Acres Open 

6,192 0 792 840 

Acres Closed or Limited 26,100 32,292 31,500 31,452 

Total 32,292 32,292 32,292 32,292

4.3.11.6.1 ALTERNATIVE A

Among the alternatives, Alternative A would provide the lowest level of management for 

recreation resources and, thus, the least amount of protection for riparian resources. Most of the 

MPA would be managed as an Extended Recreation Management Area (ERMA), which allows 

for only minimal restrictions on recreation use, rather than as SRMAs with provisions for 

controlled recreation use (141,234 acres, or 8% of the MPA, would be managed as SRMA under 

Alternative A). In addition, allowable river-user numbers would remain at current level. This 

management decision would result in adverse impacts to riparian resources, of the forms 

described above, as recreation users would impact riparian resources through unrestricted 

camping and other activities. 

Approximately 2,100 acres (using GAP data; 6,192 acres using field data) of riparian resources 

would be open to OHV use under Alternative A, which represents 16% and 47%, respectively, of 

the total riparian acreage within the MPA (see Table 4.83). Of all the alternatives, this 

management decision allows for the greatest potential adverse impacts to riparian resources as 

riparian vegetation would be destroyed by vehicles. 

There are 321.9 miles of route identified as having possible riparian conflicts. 

4.3.11.6.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Among the alternatives, Alternative B would manage 976,173 acres as SRMA (54% of the 

acreage in the MPA) and would provide the most intensive management for recreation use, and 

provide the most protection for riparian resources Alternative B would be most restrictive of user 

numbers on the Colorado and Dolores Rivers. River user decisions under Alternative B would 

therefore be beneficial to riparian resources by reducing the human imprint upon them, as 

compared to Alternative A, and would be the most protective to riparian resources of all the 

alternatives. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-249 

OHV use and camping would be limited to designated areas outside the riparian areas across 

most of the MPA, providing an increased level of protection from human disturbance for riparian 

resources, compared to Alternative A (see Table 4.83). This amounts to a beneficial impact to 

riparian resources compared to Alternative A because of the lack of recreation rules under 

Alternative A. 

There are 321.9 miles of designated routes with possible riparian conflicts. In Alternative B, 

179.6 miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

4.3.11.6.3 PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan would manage 658,642 acres as SRMA, providing management for 

recreation use (and protection of riparian resources) on 36% of the acreage in the MPA. The 

Proposed Plan would allow more visitors per day in the Colorado and Dolores River SRMAs 

than Alternative B, but fewer than Alternative A. Therefore, the Proposed Plan's adverse impacts 

to riparian resources from human use along the river corridors would be greater than under 

Alternative B but less than under Alternative A. 

OHV use impacts would be the same as under Alternatives B and D (see Table 4.83). However, 

camping would be more limited under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative A or D, and 

therefore it would have slightly more beneficial impacts on riparian resources protected from 

camping and campfires. Overall, the Proposed Plan would provide more protection for riparian 

resources than either Alternatives A or D, and provide less protection than Alternative B. 

There are 321.9 miles of designated routes with possible riparian conflicts. In the Proposed Plan, 

50.1 miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

4.3.11.6.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

Alternative D would manage 277,471 acres as SRMA, providing management for recreation use 

on 15% of the acreage in the MPA. More visitors would be allowed in the Colorado and Dolores 

River SRMAs under Alternative D than under Alternative B or the Proposed Plan, but fewer than 

under Alternative A. Therefore, this management decision would have a greater adverse impact 

on riparian resources by increasing human use along the river corridors than Alternative B or the 

Proposed Plan, but a lower adverse impact than Alternative A. 

OHV use impacts under Alternative D would be the same as under Alternative B and the 

Proposed Plan (see Table 4.83). 

There are 321.9 miles of designated routes with possible riparian conflicts. In Alternative D, 14.7 

miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

4.3.11.7 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.3.11.7.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Adherence with the Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health under all alternatives would 

promote the maintenance and restoration of the 13,450 acres of riparian resources in the MPA. 

Standard 2 states that "riparian and wetland areas [must be] in properly functioning condition 

(PFC). Stream channel morphology and functions [must be] appropriate to soil type, climate, and 

function" (BLM 1997a). Under all alternatives, the BLM would develop monitoring and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-250 

management strategies and restrictions as necessary to maintain or restore PFC, which would 

benefit riparian resources by ensuring that all stream corridors meet PFC criteria. 

Pipelines crossing perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams would be constructed to 

withstand 100-year floods under all alternatives (see Appendix H). This would minimize the 

likelihood of breakage and subsequent contamination of riparian areas during high flow events. 

Each surface crossing would be constructed at a height adequate to remain above peak flows. 

Each subsurface crossing would be buried deeply enough to remain undisturbed by scour 

throughout peak flows. These stipulations would minimize adverse impacts to riparian resources 

resulting from unrefined petroleum or hazardous substance release and/or flood flow obstruction. 

No new surface-disturbing activities would be allowed within active floodplains or within 100 m 

of riparian areas. Therefore, mineral activities in riparian areas and 100-year floodplains would 

not occur under any of the alternatives, thereby limiting the potential for adverse impacts to 

riparian resources from mineral development. 

Under all alternatives, the MFO would also comply with the Colorado River Salinity Control Act 

and with Utah's state water quality standards. Activities within the MPA would be managed to 

minimize and mitigate damage to soils, to maintain and/or restore overall watershed health, and 

to reduce erosion, stream sedimentation, and salinization of water. These reductions and 

minimizations would limit short- and long-term adverse impacts to riparian resources by helping 

to maintain and restore overall watershed health. Riparian vegetation, as an integral part of a 

watershed's ecosystem, would benefit directly (through less saline water) and indirectly (through 

maintenance of a naturally stable stream channel) from these management actions. 

Riparian areas would be excluded from public, commercial and private harvest of woodland 

products under all alternatives, except for Native American ceremonial purposes. Prohibiting 

woodland harvest would benefit riparian resources by limiting adverse impacts from vegetation 

disturbance, stream bank trampling, and the introduction/spread of noxious weeds during public 

access. Mechanical and other vegetation removal practices—for habitat, range, and watershed 

improvements—would be allowed and have been evaluated in the 1991 Vegetation EIS (BLM 

1991a). Riparian areas would be protected against surface disturbance by mechanized or 

motorized equipment and from structural development under all alternatives. 

Under all alternatives, requirements for the control of invasive and non-native weed species 

would minimize their introduction and spread in riparian areas, which would benefit the PFC of 

native riparian vegetation by reducing competition with invasive species. The MPA would 

reduce tamarisk where appropriate using allowable vegetation treatments. These actions would 

reduce and/or prevent adverse impacts to riparian resources from noxious weeds. 

4.3.11.7.2 IMPACTS VARYING BY ALTERNATIVE

Riparian management decisions that vary by alternative include limitations on livestock grazing 

in riparian areas and the development of Watershed Management Plans (WMPs). Each 

alternative limits grazing in different allotments and areas of the MPA and prioritizes different 

watersheds for the development of WMPs. 

These management actions are considered not only riparian management actions, but also 

livestock management and soil and water resource management actions, respectively, and 

represent one set of impacts each. To avoid duplication, the impacts of grazing restrictions in 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-251 

riparian areas upon riparian resources are considered in Section 4.3.11.3, and the impacts of 

WMPs upon riparian resources are considered in Section 4.3.11.8. 

4.3.11.8 IMPACTS OF SOIL AND WATER DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Under all alternatives, prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within 100-year floodplains 

would have a beneficial impact on riparian resources in the MPA; it would reduce the 

disturbance of riparian vegetation and soils and the introduction and establishment of weeds on 

floodplains. 

The prioritization of Watershed Management Plans (WMPs) and riparian studies would vary 

among alternatives. In general, the development of WMPs and riparian studies would have 

beneficial impacts on riparian resources by: 

• better integrating riparian management with watershed-wide management practices, which 

would improve the success of riparian management activities; and 

• providing better information and data, which would enhance the BLM's ability to adaptively 

manage riparian resources. 

4.3.11.8.1 ALTERNATIVE A

Because no Watershed Management Plans (WMPs) or riparian studies are mandated under 

Alternative A, this riparian management decision would result in no impacts to riparian 

resources. 

4.3.11.8.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Seventeen watersheds would be chosen for development and implementation of Watershed 

Management Plans (WMPs) and riparian studies under Alternative B, the most of any 

alternative. Thus, Alternative B would have the greatest beneficial impact to riparian resources 

resulting from this management decision. 

4.3.11.8.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Eight watersheds would be chosen for development and implementation of WMPs and riparian 

studies under the Proposed Plan: fewer than under Alternative B, but more than under 

Alternatives A and D. Thus, the Proposed Plan would have greater beneficial impacts to riparian 

resources resulting from this management decision than Alternatives A and D, but less beneficial 

impacts than under Alternative B. 

4.3.11.8.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A because no WMPs would be prepared. 

4.3.11.9 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Special designations decisions affecting riparian resources would include: (1) the designation of 

ACECs with management prescriptions protective of riparian resources, such as restrictions on 

dispersed camping and on surface-disturbing activities in riparian areas and (2) determinations 

that river segments are suitable for Wild and Scenic River (WSR) designation. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-252 

• The impacts of ACEC designations on riparian resources would depend upon each potential 

ACEC's management prescriptions and are, therefore, discussed under each alternative, 

below. 

• WSR designation would require that a river's "free flowing character" be maintained, and 

would prohibit activities that impact the "outstanding and remarkable values" of a river. 

Thus, any WSR designation would provide an increased level of protection for the given 

segment and would indirectly benefit riparian resources along that segment through the 

maintenance of the river's natural structure and ecosystem characteristics. It should be noted 

that riparian corridors would already be protected by the BLM National Riparian Policy and 

other stipulations proposed in this RMP. However, WSR designations may offer protections 

to those areas outside the riparian corridor but within the WSR management corridor, which 

is 1/4 mile from the high-water mark on each bank of the river segment. 

• The impacts of Wilderness and WSA management on riparian resources would be beneficial, 

as these areas are managed as closed to mineral development. 

4.3.11.9.1 ALTERNATIVE A

Under Alternative A, only the Negro Bill ONA (1,375 acres), a riparian corridor, would be 

designated. No ACECs would be designated under this alternative. No river segments would be 

determined suitable for WSR designation. Six segments of the Colorado and Dolores Rivers 

would remain eligible and would be managed to protect their ORVs, free-flowing nature, and 

tentative classification. This could offer some protections to riparian resources for those 

segments. Beneficial impacts associated with ONA designation would occur on only 1,375 acres 

and decisions on WSR suitability would not be made. 

4.3.11.9.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B, the designation of the Mill Creek Canyon ACEC would benefit riparian resources, 

as it would exclude livestock grazing and prohibit campfires in its riparian areas and maintain a 

3-cfs base flow in the South Fork of Mill Creek below the Sheley Diversion. This ACEC 

designation would reduce the adverse impacts of livestock grazing on riparian areas (in the forms 

described in Section 4.3.11.3.2) and reduce the risk of human-caused wildfire in riparian areas. 

Under Alternative B, the designation of the Ten-Mile Wash ACEC would benefit riparian 

resources by prioritizing the ACEC for riparian restoration. The ACEC would also prohibit 

camping in riparian areas, which would limit human disturbance of vegetation and the risk of 

human-caused weed invasion and fire. 

In addition, under Alternative B, designation of ACECs and the resulting no surface occupancy 

stipulation would protect riparian areas from destruction in the following ACECs: Colorado 

River Corridor, Behind the Rocks, Bookcliffs, Colorado River Corridor, Cottonwood-Diamond, 

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon, Labyrinth Canyon, Upper Courthouse, Westwater 

Canyon, and White Wash. 

Alternative B would recommend 71,300 acres as suitable for some level of WSR designation, 

which would protect riparian vegetation within that area. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-253 

Thus, special designations decisions under Alternative B would provide more protection and 

benefits for riparian resources than Alternative A, as more riparian areas would be protected in 

Alternative B. 

4.3.11.9.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Impacts from ACEC designation to Mill Creek Canyon and Ten Mile Wash would be the same 

as under Alternative B. Under the Proposed Plan, designation of ACECs and the resulting no 

surface occupancy stipulation would protect riparian areas in the following ACECs: Behind the 

Rocks, Cottonwood-Diamond, and Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon. 

The Proposed Plan would recommend 41,236 acres as suitable for some level of WSR 

designation, which would protect riparian vegetation within that area. Thus, the Proposed Plan 

would be less protective of riparian resources than Alternative B, but more protective than 

Alternatives A 

and D. 

4.3.11.9.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

Impacts from ACEC designation would be similar to Alternative A, although 1,375 acres of the 

Negro Bill ONA would not be designated. All river segments (other than Salt Wash) would be 

listed as "not suitable" for any WSR designation. Therefore, Alternative D provides the lowest 

level of protection of riparian resources. 

4.3.11.10 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Special status species management decisions would protect and/or enhance riparian resources 

under all alternatives. Recovery plans for the southwestern willow flycatcher, Colorado River 

fishes, bald eagle, and western yellow-billed cuckoo would benefit riparian resources via riparian 

habitat enhancement. The removal of invasive tamarisk for restoration or enhancement of these 

and other special status species' habitat would generally benefit riparian resources. 

Under all alternatives, special status species management decisions would avoid further loss of 

cottonwood gallery riparian habitats and would eliminate surface disturbance in riparian areas to 

protect bald eagle roosting areas. Any disturbed riparian vegetation would be replaced with 

native species or ecological equivalents in all special status species use areas. These actions 

would help maintain existing riparian resources. 

All alternatives would also impose year-round restrictions on surface-disturbing activities within 

300 feet of suitable habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed 

cuckoo—species that primarily use riparian areas for all life phases. Restrictions on surface 

disturbance would reduce potential disturbance or removal of riparian vegetation and soils and 

the introduction of invasive weeds. The eradication of tamarisk would create short-term surface 

disturbance but would result in long-term enhancement of riparian resources. 

All alternatives would also avoid loss of riparian habitats in designated critical habitat areas of 

endangered Colorado River fishes. Preserving riparian habitats along these drainages would 

prevent sedimentation and changes in water quality. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-254 

4.3.11.11 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Under all alternatives, vegetation treatment decisions would reduce the prevalence of invasive 

Russian olive and tamarisk throughout the MPA and replace them with native willow and 

cottonwood stands. This would have a beneficial impact of unknown magnitude on riparian areas 

(depending on the success and extent of the treatments), as it would restore their native 

ecosystem characteristics. 

4.3.11.12 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

4.3.11.12.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

• Implementation of the revised Dolores Triangle Management Plan would improve riparian 

habitat through the installation of fencing and exclosures in Granite, Coates, Ryan, and 

Renegade Creeks. This decision would prevent livestock from trampling riparian vegetation 

and carrying weed species into riparian areas, and it would prevent sedimentation and loss of 

soils. 

• Impacts resulting from limitations on livestock grazing to benefit wildlife would be the same 

as those described in Section 4.3.11.3. 

4.3.11.12.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND THE PROPOSED 

PLAN) 

• Restrictions on camping in riparian areas to protect wildlife habitat under all alternatives, 

including prohibition and restriction to designated areas, would benefit riparian resources by 

reducing vegetation and soil disturbance and the human spread of invasive weeds. 

• Management of migratory bird habitat would prioritize the maintenance and/or improvement 

of lowland riparian areas, which would have a beneficial impact of unspecified magnitude on 

those riparian resources. 

4.3.11.13 IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON RIPARIAN RESOURCES

All alternatives would prohibit public fuelwood gathering from riparian areas. This decision 

would have beneficial impacts on riparian resources by preventing disturbances and weed 

introduction associated with public access for fuelwood gathering. 

Under all alternatives, woodland management would allow sustainable harvest of willows and 

cottonwoods from riparian areas for Native American ceremonial purposes. This decision would 

have adverse, but negligible impacts on riparian areas due to the minimal removal of vegetation 

and associated disturbances. 

4.3.11.14 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

In general, Alternatives A and D would be the least protective of riparian resources, and would 

prioritize the least riparian area for restoration and enhancement-focused management. 

Alternative B would be the most protective by excluding the most areas from grazing, and 

prioritizing the most WMPs and riparian studies. It would therefore provide the greatest 

beneficial impacts and greatest reduction of past cumulative impacts on riparian resources. The 

Proposed Plan would provide an intermediate level of protection and restoration. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.11 Riparian Resources 

4-255 

Table 2.2 (located in Chapter 2) summarizes the impacts to riparian resources due to the 

management decisions of applicable resources under each alternative. 

4.3.12 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

This section discusses impacts to socioeconomic resources from management actions of other 

resources and resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning 

socioeconomic resources are described in Chapter 3. 

Grand County, Utah is entirely within the MPA, with approximately 1,500,000 acres of BLM 

land. In addition, approximately 300,000 acres of San Juan County fall under the jurisdiction of 

the Bureau of Land Management's MFO, comprising the entire northeast third of San Juan 

County. Therefore, land management decisions made in the MPA could have a potential impact 

on the socioeconomics of both Grand and San Juan counties. The following socioeconomic 

impact analysis includes Grand County as well as San Juan County where appropriate. 

Implementation of any of the alternatives likely would result in impacts to the social and 

economic conditions of Grand and San Juan Counties. While the range of these socioeconomic 

impacts may vary depending on the alternative implemented, some land management actions 

would have greater impacts than others, and these are disclosed in the following analysis. 

Potential economic impacts include changes in employment and income; changes in tax revenue 

for local, state, and Federal governments; and changes in the demand for housing and public 

service. Quantitative data was used to analyze these economic impacts, where available. Where 

quantitative data are not available, a qualitative analysis is performed based on the best available 

information. 

Social impacts to communities cannot be measured in economic terms except to the degree that 

economic problems (e.g., unemployment) may lead to social problems (e.g., divorce, substance 

abuse, crime, etc.). Human impacts that are difficult to quantify include enhancements to or 

detractions from existing lifestyles, sense of place, and community values, and disproportionate 

impacts on low-income or minority populations. Accordingly, these impacts are assessed 

qualitatively. 

Impacts to socioeconomic from implementation of alternatives would be considered significant if 

one or more of the following occurs and is attributable to the implementation of alternatives: 

• Substantial gains or losses in population/employment 

• Substantial alterations in the lifestyles or quality of life of individuals who use or inhabit the 

MPA. 

• Disproportionately adverse changes to environmental or human health within an identified 

minority or low-income population 

4.3.12.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.3.12.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires that disproportionately high and adverse 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-256 

human health and environmental impacts of Federal programs, policies, and activities to minority 

or low-income populations be identified and addressed. 

For each alternative, it has been determined that BLM resource management actions within the 

MPA would not result in disproportionate effects to "environmental justice populations" as 

defined in Executive Order 12898. Minority and low-income populations do exist in the MPA, 

but none of the proposed alternatives for BLM action would cause disproportionate adverse 

impacts to these populations in comparison to the general population. 

4.3.12.1.2 PILT (PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES) PROGRAM

None of the alternatives would result in significant changes in Federal ownership in the MPA. 

Any future land exchanges or sales would be assessed to determine specific impacts, but, in 

general, actions proposed with the PRMP/FEIS would not change payments to Grand and San 

Juan Counties made under the PILT program according to established formulas. 

4.3.12.1.3 POPULATION

Population changes in Grand and San Juan Counties that could be associated with the 

implementation of any of the alternatives considered in this EIS would likely be linked to 

employment changes. Activities such as livestock grazing and mineral development within the 

MPA that support jobs in the area are not expected to increase or decrease substantially under 

any of the alternatives (see impacts analysis below for further details). Therefore, it is not likely 

that BLM-related management decisions (apart from recreation decisions that could increase 

revenues to recreation-based businesses) would result in significant changes to current 

population trends (see Section 3.12.4.2.1 for local population data). 

4.3.12.2 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

4.3.12.2.1 IMPACTS OF AIR QUALITY DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

None of the decisions concerning air quality are expected to adversely affect the social or 

economic conditions of Grand and San Juan counties. 

4.3.12.2.2 IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS

The MPA has approximately 4,200 inventoried cultural sites. Cultural sites draw recreationists to 

the area. Increases or decreases in access to sites as well as changes to the quality of the sites 

have the potential to impact visitor experience and local revenues. 

Cultural resource management decisions could increase or decrease recreational visits to the 

sites, as well as influence the overall visitor experience. The level of impacts is related to several 

factors including 1) the importance of the sites to Native American communities in the area (the 

historic cultural sites in the area serve as a connection between the landscape and the local tribes' 

respective heritages), 2) any links between local residents and cultural sites, and 3) the degree to 

which specific sites draw visitors to the area. 

Potential economic impacts resulting from cultural resource management decisions could include 

an increase or decrease in visitor spending. Increasing access could increase visitor spending in 

the area in the short term, but degradation to sites could lead to long-term adverse economic 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-257 

impacts, as visitors may choose not to return to the area. For the purposes of this analysis, it is 

suggested that a greater emphasis on restoration, preservation, and inventories of cultural sites 

within the MPA would maintain and/or enhance recreationists' experience, leading to greater 

long-term beneficial impacts to socioeconomics. 

4.3.12.2.2.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A management of cultural sites would continue as it currently exists. No 

prioritizations would be made for field inventories, scientific restoration, public interpretation of 

sites, or nomination of sites to the National Register of Historic Places. The social and economic 

conditions resulting from the presence of cultural sites in the area would remain the same. 

4.3.12.2.2.2 Alternative B 

Alternative B offers the most protective plan for cultural resources within the MPA, because it 

would place greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities such as mineral development, 

recreation use, and OHV travel. Additionally, it would provide more special designations, which, 

in turn, would reduce the possibilities for inadvertent adverse impacts to cultural resources. 

Alternative B also provides a proactive approach to cultural resources through the development 

and implementation of integrated cultural-recreational management plans. 

Long-term beneficial impacts to local economic conditions resulting from cultural resource 

management decisions would be greatest under Alternative B. The identification, preservation, 

and restoration of sites within the MPA would attract the greatest number of visitors interested in 

the area's cultural history. Economic contributions to local towns from these visitors would be 

greatest under this alternative. 

The social benefits resulting from cultural resource management decisions such as visitor 

experience, Native American connections to historic sites, and social connections that tie the 

landscape to a rich cultural history would be greatest under Alternative B. The long-term social 

benefits would be directly related to the restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, the 

opportunities for public interpretation, and the implementation of cultural-recreational 

management plans. 

Revenue generated from cultural resource-related tourism and the historical and social 

connections would likely be greatest under Alternative B; however, impacts resulting from 

cultural resource management decisions could also have some adverse economic impacts to the 

area. By restricting surface-disturbing activities, such as mineral development and OHV travel, 

the revenue typically generated from these activities could be less under Alternative B in 

comparison to other alternatives. 

4.3.12.2.2.3 Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would provide the next-greatest benefit to socioeconomics from cultural 

resource management decisions, as it provides slightly fewer prioritizations that would reduce 

opportunities for adverse impacts to cultural resources compared to Alternative B. The 

prioritizations would lead to long-term beneficial economic impacts resulting from resourcerelated tourism. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-258 

Because the Proposed Plan allows for fewer restrictions that limit surface-disturbing activities, 

compared to Alternative B, opportunities for mineral development and OHV travel would be 

greater, thus allowing communities to generate revenue resulting from these activities. However, 

it is impossible to predict whether tourist-generated revenue would exceed commodity-based 

losses or revenues. 

4.3.12.2.2.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D would provide the fewest socioeconomic benefits from cultural resource 

management decisions in the MPA. Alternative D opens the most acres to surface-disturbing 

activities, and, therefore, the potential for degradation of cultural resources sites would be 

highest. However, more opportunities for surface-disturbing activities would allow for more 

revenue generation from these activities and thus short-term beneficial economic impacts to local 

communities. 

4.3.12.2.3 IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS

Impacts of fire management decisions on social and economic conditions would be the same for 

all alternatives. During a normal fire year the Moab Fire District averages 100 wildfires resulting 

in 10,000-16,000 acres of burned land. The Moab Fire District encompasses the Monticello, 

Moab, and Price Field Offices. Most fire activity occurs in the eastern half of the district, 

including the area of the MPA, although fires can occur in almost all areas of each field office. In 

the twenty-five-year period between 1980 and 2005, approximately 74% of wildland fires 

occurring in the Moab Fire District were lightning-caused. Prior to 1995, an average of 100 fires 

per year burned an average of 10,000 acres. The past decade has shown a trend of increasing 

wildland fire, with an average of 130 fires each year burning an average of 16,000 acres. In the 

MPA specifically, over this 10-year period, an average of 4,000 acres were burned each year 

(personal communication between Dave Engleman, FMO MPA and Laura Burch, SWCA 

October 31, 2006). This annual average does not include the Diamond Creek Fire that burned 

approximately 90,000 acres in 2001. See Section 3.4 for further fire management details. 

In the upper Snake River Plain, which has similar vegetation types as the Moab Fire District, the 

average cost of wildland fire treatment was estimated to be $105 per acre. The average cost for 

wildland fire suppression was estimated to be approximately $140 per acre (BLM 2006b). Based 

on an average of 4,000 acres burned per year in within the MPA, the annual cost to suppress fires 

would be an estimated $560,000. The cost of fighting fires, including supplies and labor, has the 

potential to impact local economies. 

Of the total expenditures for the fire management program, the following are estimates of 

percentages spent in each category. 

• 45% variable costs 

• 30% fixed labor costs 

• 25% other suppression costs (BLM 2006b) 

Increased fire treatment and suppression could lead to more seasonal jobs in the region, since 

more firefighters would be needed during fire season. The fixed labor costs for suppression (see 

above) would be funneled back into the community as the firefighters are generally employed 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-259 

locally and thus contribute to the local economy. Areas of the economy that are boosted by the 

variable costs for treatment and suppression include fuel, food, lodging, maintenance, vehicles, 

administration, aviation, warehousing, and seeding. 

It should be noted that the expenditures related to fire management within the Moab Fire District 

are made on an inter-agency basis and do not solely rely on BLM funding. Other agencies 

involved in management activities are the Bureau of Indian Affairs; Utah's Forestry, Fire, and 

State Lands office; the U.S. Forest Service; the National Park Service; and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Funding for treatment and suppression of fires within the MPA are often out of 

BLM control and therefore out of the scope of this RMP. However, by looking at the 

expenditures for fire management on an annual basis, specifically the variable and fixed labor 

costs, fiscal impacts to local communities can be estimated. 

Full suppression of increasingly larger fires could result in adverse fiscal impacts to affected 

agencies and local volunteer fire departments. If future demands for fire-fighting services cannot 

be met by current staffing levels and budgets, the MFO and other agencies that help fight BLM 

fires would be adversely impacted. Local governments may be required to expend money to fight 

larger fires. 

It should be noted that wildfire treatment, such as actively managing lands to reduce fuel loads, 

is less costly to agencies than fire suppression ($105 per acre vs. $140 per acre). Expenditures for 

fuels treatments in the Moab Fire District (MFD), however, are currently paid almost exclusively 

to out-of-area contractors, providing only marginal direct economic benefits to the local 

economy (personal communication between Bill Stevens, MFO, and Brain Keating, MFD fuels 

specialist, on June 27, 2007). Actively managing BLM lands to reduce fuel loads would 

potentially provide economic benefits associated with the reduced risk of large-scale fires that 

could damage personal property (e.g., homes) and fewer expenditures on fire suppression. 

Homes and structures that are located within areas faced by threat of wildfire are becoming 

increasingly susceptible to wildland fire; with that comes an accompanying risk to lives and 

property. Communities in need of management to reduce the threat from wildland fire on 

adjacent public lands are identified as wildland-urban interface areas, or "WUIs." WUIs 

presently recognized within the MPA include the communities of Brown's Hole, Castle Valley, 

Dewey, La Sal and Old La Sal, Moab and Spanish Valley, Pack Creek, Thompson Springs, 

Willow Basin, and Wilson Arch. Treatments to reduce fuel loads in these areas would potentially 

have long-term beneficial impacts on these communities because risk of damage to property is 

decreased. If there is a reduced risk of large-scale fires in WUI areas, people may be more likely 

to remain in these areas, and individuals interested in remote locations for primary or secondary 

homes could be more likely to build in these areas, thus maintaining or increasing the 

populations of local communities. 

4.3.12.2.4 IMPACTS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS

For all of the alternatives, health and safety management actions that would identify and address 

safety concerns about abandoned minelands, respond to hazardous waste releases, and protect 

public health and safety would have negligible adverse impacts to social and economic 

conditions of Grand and San Juan Counties because no local expenditures would be required. 

Long-term beneficial impacts to socioeconomics would likely result with the reclamation of 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-260 

abandoned mine land, as the lands would be safer to recreate on and improved soils and habitats 

could contribute to a positive visitor experience. The hazard management restrictions would not 

interfere with or restrict the local economy, government revenue, or the local social character of 

the two counties. 

4.3.12.2.5 IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

For all of the alternatives, management decisions regarding access to, permits for, transfer of, 

acquisition, or exchanges of lands within the MPA would have negligible adverse impacts on 

socioeconomics in Grand or San Juan Counties. Alternative B and the Proposed Plan provide for 

rights-of-way (ROW) exclusion areas, including in non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Alternative B could have adverse economic impacts to those individuals and 

businesses whose livelihood could be impacted by an inability to obtain a ROW. The Proposed 

Plan has 92 percent fewer acres (exclusive of WSAs) than Alternative B as ROW exclusion 

areas, with a corresponding reduced adverse economic impact. 

Filming permits, which authorize local revenue-generating activity, would be granted under all 

alternatives provided they meet the criteria outlined in Table 2.1, Lands and Realty, Actions 

Common to All. Wind and solar energy and communication sites, R&PPs and utility lines 

throughout the MPA would be considered under all alternatives 

4.3.12.2.6 IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

There are a total of 83 allotments within the MPA boundaries; 74 are administered by the MFO, 

and 68 are currently permitted for livestock use. Total BLM acres within allotments equal 

1,794,798 acres; of these, 1,706,171 acres are currently permitted for livestock use. 

Economic benefits associated with livestock grazing in the MPA are associated with income and 

employment generated by ranching operations on BLM lands. Indirect economic benefits are 

related to secondary jobs, income, and sales and income taxes. 

A decrease in the number of acres available for grazing has the potential to adversely impact the 

lifestyle of ranchers. Losses in grazing opportunities could result in lost income and 

consequently a decline in social well being for affected ranchers and their families. The inability 

for ranchers to continue with traditional practices could potentially impact the overall character 

and way of life for residents of Grand and San Juan Counties. 

However, it is important to note that the majority of grazing permittees within the MPA do not 

reside within the MPA. Therefore, contributions from these ranchers to the local economy could 

be minimal since supplies and materials are often purchased outside of the Grand and San Juan 

County communities. According to BLM records, of the 42 grazing permittees in the MPA, 15 

live within the MPA (BLM 2006a). 

Reductions in ranching-based income could make it more difficult for families to earn a living on 

ranching alone. Family members may have to get second jobs or work off the farm to bring in 

additional income. If ranchers are unable to continue operations, effects to local communities 

could include loss of business activity and/or the businesses themselves, and a decline in 

population if individuals have to relocate to earn a living. The positive direct and indirect 

economic impacts associated with livestock grazing (such as income, employment, sales, and 

income tax) would continue under all four alternatives. Due to the slight variation among 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-261 

alternatives in the acres and AUMs available for grazing (see Table 4.84), socioeconomic 

impacts would resemble current conditions regardless of the alternative selected. Because the 

acreage available for grazing differs by no more than 101,582 acres (out of 1,822,528 acres) 

across alternatives, it is unlikely that the lifestyle enjoyed by the local ranching community 

would be adversely impacted in the short-term or long-term. Approximately 77,256 acres are not 

available to grazing in the No Action Alternative (A); as a result, current livelihoods would not 

be affected. However, under Alternative B two allotments currently available for grazing would 

not be available. This could have adverse impacts on the permittee holding the allotments. In 

addition it should be noted that of the 153,797 acres under consideration for closures under 

Alternative B 126,907 acres are currently unavailable and were not available for grazing under 

the Grand RMP. Furthermore, impacts to local economic conditions would be minor because 

only a minority of grazing permittees live within the MPA and therefore they may not contribute 

substantially to the local economy. 

Table 4.84. Livestock Grazing Acres Available per Alternative 

Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

Acres Available 1,695,621 1,668,732 1,708,294 1,770,314 

Acres Unavailable 126,907 153,797 114,234 52,214 

AUMs available 107,071 106,437 107,179 108,876 

4.3.12.2.7 IMPACTS OF MINERALS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

4.3.12.2.7.1 Locatable Minerals 

Uranium

As mentioned in Section 3.12.1.5.7, recent increases in the price of uranium have led to a 

substantial increase in the filing of uranium claims within the MPA. Between FY 2004 and FY 

2006, 4,242 mining claims were filed within the MPA. While the exact percentage of uranium 

claims versus other locatable mineral claims is not known, it is likely that the majority of the 

claims filed were for uranium. In addition, the Mineral Potential Report (MPR) indicates a high 

potential for the occurrence of uranium in the La Sal and Lisbon Valley areas. Should extraction 

occur, the majority would take place on BLM land. While the increase in the filing of mining 

claims does not necessarily predict future development, any extraction activities would have 

beneficial impacts on local economic conditions, as developers would require goods and services 

in nearby towns. The number of acres open to uranium extraction is identical under Alternatives 

A, B, C and D, and represents no change from the current condition. Therefore, potential adverse 

impacts (i.e., restricting the number of acres open to extraction) would be negligible under all 

alternatives. 

Other Locatables

As in the case of uranium, the extraction of other locatables such as copper, placer gold, and 

limestone would not be adversely impacted regardless of the alternative selected. This is due to 

the large number of acres open to extraction under all alternatives and the small amount of 

mining that is likely to take place. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-262 

The recently opened copper mine, located within the MPA, could continue operations under all 

alternatives. Contributions to the social and economic conditions in Grand and San Juan 

Counties from employment, property taxes (the mine is located partially on private land as well 

as BLM land), and indirect retail goods and services could continue regardless of the RMP 

alternative selected. 

Salable Minerals

Sand, gravel, building stone, and clay have a high potential for occurrence, and extraction of 

these minerals would likely occur throughout the life of the RMP regardless of the alternative 

selected. Minor—or even negligible—impacts to socioeconomics would be likely since the 

operations are typically small, and the number of acres open to extraction would likely be 

adequate to accommodate demand. Alternative B has 808,097 acres open to development of 

salable minerals while the other three alternatives have over 1.2 million acres available. Under 

all alternatives, these acreages should be sufficient to meet demand for salable minerals (see 

Section 4.3.7.2 for exact acreages). 

4.3.12.2.7.2 Leasable Minerals 

Potash and Salt

Under all alternatives, the same minimum amount of potash and salt development would be 

expected. The expected level of development would not appreciably contribute to the economy 

of Grand County. 

Oil and Gas Development

The greatest socioeconomic impacts from minerals decisions would result from changes to the 

oil- and gas-leasing program that currently exists in the MPA. Because of undefined market and 

non-market factors, the following analysis is based on simplified assumptions used to quantify 

general estimates of development costs, employment, production, and production revenue. This 

analysis is based on the following assumptions pertaining to the number of wells drilled per year, 

employment, production, and fiscal impacts. 

Wells Drilled Per Year

This analysis is based on an estimate of potential oil and gas wells drilled annually over the life 

of the plan (LOP). The number of wells drilled per year has been figured by dividing the total 

number of wells per alternative by the 15-year life of the plan. Table 4.85 illustrates the annual 

well potential per alternative. 

Table 4.85.A. Summary of Well Potential and Acres Open to Leasing on BLM Land per 

Alternative 

Predicted Wells 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alternative D 

Acreage Open* 1,427,949 808,097 1,234,267 1,387,473 

% Of Total Acreage Open Compared 

to Alternative A -- -43% -13.5% -2.8% 

Total Number of Wells over 15 Years 451 255 432 448 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-263 

Table 4.85.A. Summary of Well Potential and Acres Open to Leasing on BLM Land per 

Alternative 

Predicted Wells 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN* Alternative D 

Total Annual Well Potential 30 17 29 30 

Total Number of Potential Oil Wells 4 2 4 4 

Total Number of Potential Gas Wells 26 15 25 26 

*"Open" refers to acreage open for development, and excludes acreage available for leasing with no surface occupancy 

stipulations. 

Employment

The drilling and completion of an oil well requires a crew of approximately 7 full-time 

employees (FTE). In addition to the crew members, several service and supply companies 

contribute to well development. One oil well could involve the services of up to 25 employees 

from drilling to completion. The majority of employees would be in the area on a short-term 

basis and would typically stay in a nearby hotel. Short-term construction workers may stay in onsite trailers or in local campgrounds. It is likely that the employees related to the oil and gas 

exploration and completion of wells within the MPA are not permanent residents of Grand or 

San Juan Counties (personal communication between Jeff Brown, Monticello FO, and Laura 

Burch, SWCA, on August 11, 2006). 

Given the number of wells predicted annually per alternative (17–30), it is reasonable to assume 

that 2 crews of 7 FTEs and approximately 2 groups of service professionals (or equivalent in the 

number of employees) would be responsible for all wells throughout completion. Because the 

employees responsible for drilling and completion typically do not live in the area and because 

the overall number of employees required to complete the initial development phases is 

relatively small, it is predicted that the overall contribution to employment opportunities in 

Grand and San Juan Counties from oil and gas development is minimal, regardless of alternative. 

It is not likely that the employment derived from the drilling and completion of wells in the area 

would positively impact poverty or unemployment rates in Grand and San Juan Counties. 

Employees working on-site may stay in local hotels and patronize local business while in town, 

thus contributing to the local economy, but these contributions would be short-term and would 

vary from year to year. It should be noted that many oil and gas workers live in Grand Junction, 

and spend little, if any money in Grand County. 

Once a well begins production (which can last up to 20 years), local employees could be 

employed on a long-term basis to maintain and operate the wells and to begin gradual 

reclamation of inactive wells and associated access roads. These oil and gas production jobs pay 

well (relative to other jobs within the county) and could employ up to 20-30 people over the life 

of the well. Because a small number of workers are needed to perform operation and oversight 

functions, contributions to the local economy and to overall county employment numbers are not 

significant. Employment related to all mining activities, including oil and gas development, only 

contributed 2.1% (120 jobs) to the total employment in Grand County and 5.6% (313 jobs) in 

San Juan County in 2000 (See Section 3.12.4.2.6). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-264 

Production

The majority of mineral development currently occurring within the MPA is natural gas 

production with 244 producing gas wells versus 30 producing oil wells on lands in the MPA (per 

Section 3.12.1.5.7, Table 3.40). Based on these numbers and historical trends, the following 

analysis assumes that 88% of the wells drilled in the MPA would be gas and 12% would be oil. 

See Table 4.85 for the number of oil and gas wells per year per alternative. 

According to the Energy Information Administration, in January 2007 current-day oil price was 

$56.29 per 42-gallon barrel (EIA 2007). In 2004, the average yearly production per oil well in 

Utah was 7,141 barrels of oil. Potential annual revenue per oil well is $401,966 assuming that 

7,141 barrels are recovered (7,141 × $56.29). The life of each well is estimated to be 15-20 

years. The rate of production per oil well declines approximately 10% per year after the initial 

year. Therefore, annual revenue per well would begin at $401,966 and decrease 10% per year 

throughout the life of the well. 

As of December 2006, the current natural gas price according to the Energy Information 

Administration was $6.65 per thousand cubic feet (MCF) for natural gas (EIA 2007). In 2004, 

the average yearly production per gas well in the state of Utah was 75,153 MCF (EIA, 2007), 

although gas wells in Grand County produce below the state-wide average. For analysis 

purposes, potential annual revenue per natural gas well is assumed to be at the state-wide average 

of $499,767 (75,153 × $6.65). The life of each well is estimated to be 20 years. The rate of 

production declines approximately 10% per year after the initial year, according to the UDNR. 

Therefore, the recovery value would begin at $499,767 and decline 10% per year throughout the 

life of the well. 

Fiscal Impacts

The drilling and completion of wells in the MPA would have an impact on local and state 

governments resulting from taxes and other revenue received. Tax and royalty revenue would be 

realized for the life of the well, with diminishing returns after maximum production is reached. 

The severance taxes and royalty revenues generated from natural resource development are 

dependant on the amount of the commodity produced. Given the uncertainty of the geology and 

the market, the quantification of revenue is speculative. 

Royalty revenue to the Federal, state, and county government equals 12.5% of production 

revenue. The Federal government returns 50% of the total royalties to the state where the mineral 

production occurs. The royalties are then distributed between the state and counties where the 

production takes place. Assuming the recovery value for one oil well is $401,966 per year, 

royalty revenues would be $50,245 per well at maximum production (401,966 × 0.125). If the 

recovery value for one natural gas well were $499,767 per year, royalty revenues would be 

$62,470 per well at maximum production ($499,767 × 0.125). The State of Utah receives 50% of 

this royalty payment, or $31,235 per gas well and $25,122 per oil well. Table 4.86.A. shows 

annual estimated royalty revenue by alternative. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-265 

Table 4.86.A. Annual Estimated Royalty Revenue per Alternative 

Estimated Revenue 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Oil Wells $200,980 $100,490 $200,980 $200,980 

Gas Wells $1,624,244 $937,050 $1,561,750 $1,624,244 

*Revenue shown is at maximum production. Table does not reflect 10% annual decrease in production and therefore, revenue. 

In addition to royalty revenue, developers pay several taxes that benefit state and local 

governments, including severance, conservation, mineral withholding, and payroll taxes. In 2002 

the severance tax rate for oil and gas development on Utah lands was 3% of the value up to and 

including the first $13 per barrel for oil, $1.50 per MCF of natural gas, plus an additional 5% of 

the value above these prices. The estimated ad valorem taxes for each mineral 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; with respect to this 

RMP, the greater the number of producing wells in the MPA, the greater the generation of 

property taxes associated with oil and gas extraction assets. 

The State of Utah collects severance taxes on oil and gas and mining production within the state. 

In fiscal year 2006, these totaled over $17 million from mining, and over $71 million from oil 

and gas2. The amounts collected are a function of sales prices and actual production, making 

estimates of future collections tenuous at best. Severance tax revenues are remitted directly to the 

State's General Fund, making them available for expenditures as the Legislature sees fit. There is 

no direct correspondence between a particular County's natural resource production and the 

amount (if any) of severance tax revenues flowing indirectly back to a County3. 

Although there is no direct relationship between the amount of severance taxes produced within 

the MPA by natural resource production, one can estimate the contribution production activities 

make to the State. According to State of Utah data, severance taxes paid across the State totaled 

$70.1M in FY 2007. Although the different types of wells pay severance taxes at slightly 

different rates, a County's share of total production, regardless of well type, is the best estimate 

available with non-proprietary data. Table 4.86.B shows current severance tax benefits based on 

actual production in Grand County and estimates of production in that portion of San Juan 

County within the MPA. Estimates of future severance tax impacts from Alternatives B-D are 

based on projected changes in well activity. The State also collects severance taxes on metal and 

metalliferous minerals, which also go directly to the State's general fund. However, there are no 

planning decisions expected to affect production of these resources. 

Figures from the Utah Tax Commission for 2006 indicate that estimated ad valorem (i.e., 

property) taxes collected from natural resources properties totaled $808,689 for Grand County, 

and $3,506,662 for San Juan County. The only property tax producing natural resources of 

significance in the MPA and potentially affected by planning decisions are oil and gas activities. 

Of those amounts, property taxes related to oil and gas were $593,754 for Grand and $2,855,217 

 

3

Source: Utah State Tax Commission, Annual Report 2006 Fiscal Year.

3

 Source: Conversation between Bill Stevens, Moab Field Office and Inge-Lise Goss, Auditing Division Manager, 

Minerals Section, Utah State Tax Commission, December 30, 2007. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-266 

for San Juan. On a per well basis, this averages to $1,041 per well for Grand and $3,767 per well 

for San Juan.4 These are taxes levied on natural resources for all lands in the two counties, of 

which BLM constitutes a part. Given that active wells in Grand County on BLM lands constitute 

approximately 77 per cent of all wells and assuming that each of these wells produced property 

taxes at the average rate for all wells in Grand County, we can conclude that Grand County wells 

on BLM produced approximately $457,000 in property taxes for Grand County in 2006. For San 

Juan County, and assuming that all wells in the MPA are on BLM, active wells produced 

approximately $117,000 in property taxes for San Juan County in 2006. Table 4.86.B shows 

annual estimated ad valorem taxes per alternative. 

Table 4.86.B. Annual Estimated Severance and Ad Valorem (Property) Taxes per 

Alternative 

Alterative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Estimated annual property tax 

benefit from oil and gas 

production 

$574,000 $321,440 $551,000 $574,000 

Estimated annual severance 

tax benefits to State from oil 

and gas production on BLM in 

the Moab Planning Area 

$865,732, 

based on 

relative share 

of total State 

production 

(State of Utah 

data, February, 

2008). 

Likely to be 

about 45 per 

cent less than 

A, due to 

decreased 

production 

opportunities 

Similar to A, 

since 

estimated 

production 

only slightly 

less than A 

Similar to A, 

since 

estimated 

production 

similar to A 

Bonus payments are one-time payments to the Federal government for a leased parcel of BLM 

land for a ten-year period that contribute to the state and local economies as a proportion of the 

payments are disbursed to state and local governments; these would continue under all 

alternatives. However, it is assumed that the more acres that are open to oil and gas development, 

the greater the opportunity for economic contributions from bonus payments. 

Annual rental payments—$1.50 per acre for the first 5 years and $2.00 per acre each subsequent 

year—would also continue to contribute to state and local revenues as a proportion of the 

payments are disbursed to state and local governments under all alternatives. As in the case of 

bonus payments, annual rental payments have the potential to be greater in the future if more 

acres are open to mineral leasing. 

As noted in Section 3.12.1.5.7, Grand and San Juan Counties receive a portion of Federal 

mineral lease monies returned to the State of Utah by the Federal government through the 

Permanent Community Impact Fund Board (CIB). The funds received by Grand and San Juan 

Counties for infrastructure projects would likely continue in amounts similar to recent 

contributions regardless of the BLM alternative selected, because CIB funding is not directly 

correlated with production by county but rather by applicant eligibility. 

 

4

 Most of the current production in San Juan County (and presumably, most of the property tax base for these wells) 

lies outside the Moab Field Office boundary. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-267 

Alternative A

The number of employees needed to drill and complete the wells would remain the same. Given 

the historically inconsistent number of wells drilled annually within the MPA, the number of 

short-term employees would vary yearly. Should the maximum number of wells be drilled in a 

given year, it is likely that 2 crews of 7 FTEs and approximately 50 well service employees 

would be required. Under Alternative A (as well as all the other alternatives) the number of 

employees responsible for long-term production of the wells is expected to remain relatively 

unchanged since few local employees are required to perform maintenance and operation duties 

over the life of the wells. Should drilling of the actual annual well potential occur (30 wells 

annually) for several consecutive years, additional production employees would likely need to be 

hired. However the number necessary would likely be few. These additional jobs would have a 

minor beneficial impact to the local economy. Poverty and unemployment rates would not be 

positively or adversely impacted as a result of oil and gas related employment. 

The annual estimated production royalty revenue from 4 oil wells would be $200,980; from 26 

natural gas wells it would be $1,624,244. The range of economic contributions would vary 

depending on the combination of oil and gas wells that are producing annually. Assuming that 

producing wells occur on public lands, 50% of the production royalty revenues listed in Table 

4.86 would go to the state; 10% of the royalties would go to the General Fund of the U.S. 

Treasury; and 40% of the royalties would to go the special purpose accounts of the reclamation 

fund (BLM 2005f). 

Property taxes, including ad valorem taxes resulting from oil and gas development, would 

increase or decrease in proportion to the amount of production occurring within Grand and San 

Juan Counties. Overall, the contributions to the local economy from property tax and from other 

tax revenue generated from oil and gas extraction companies would be similar to current 

contributions. Annual oil and gas lease rental payments would also continue to contribute to the 

economy in a similar fashion under all alternatives. 

Alternative B

Government revenues in the form of taxes and production royalties from oil and gas extraction 

under Alternative B would be less than those under Alternatives A, D, and the Proposed Plan 

given that the Alternative B's total well potential, at 255, is less (compared to approximately 450 

under Alternatives A, D, and the Proposed Plan). With annual estimated revenue at $100,460 for 

oil and $937,050 for gas, local economic contributions from production royalties would be less 

and would thus adversely impact the local economies when compared to the other alternatives. 

Acres open for oil and gas development would be substantially fewer under Alternative B than 

under the other alternatives (43% fewer than in Alternative A), giving developers fewer 

exploration and extraction location options within the MPA. Employment related to oil and gas 

development would be less under Alternative B in comparison to the other alternatives. Hiring 

additional employees to manage the long-term production of the wells would be the least likely 

under this alternative, thus allowing for less of a potential beneficial impact to the local economy 

in comparison to the other alternatives. 

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 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-268 

reduced if all or portions of these public lands are closed to new oil and gas leasing. This in turn 

could reduce the monies collected by the state (through SITLA), including royalties and 

severance taxes. These impacts can be estimated using current data, and incorporating several 

assumptions. If one assumes that SITLA lands whose perimeter is more than fifty per cent 

bounded by acreage closed to new oil and gas leasing as a result of implementing Alternative B 

would be unavailable for development, and using the projections of the RFD, one can project 

that fewer than six wells (5.65) 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 to not be drilled, the fiscal loss to the state would total 

$332,443 in royalties and $52,747 in severance taxes in any year in which all 5.65 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 wages foregone in Grand and San Juan Counties as a result of adopting Alternative B can be 

estimated, given the assumptions of employment per well outlined earlier. Assuming 7 full-time 

equivalent jobs per well, and assuming that the probability of a well being situated in an area of 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, the number of jobs foregone on BLM in Grand 

County would be 15.69 in any given year. In the MFO portion of San Juan County it would total 

1.88. These estimates are likely on the high side, given that direct employment in 2006 in Grand 

County (where most of the MPA's oil and gas activity occurs and is projected to occur in the 

future) was 25 employees, servicing over 250 wells. Using data provided by the University of 

Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research, the average earnings in the oil and gas 

industry in Grand County was $34,421 in 2006.5 (The study points out that most of the 

employees actually reside in Colorado.) Assuming that similar wages would be paid in Grand 

and San Juan Counties, and that these were new jobs going to county residents, the foregone 

wages would be $540,065 in Grand and $64,711 in San Juan County. Again, these estimates are 

likely on the high side, given that total wages in the industry in 2006 in Grand County were 

$829,000, which amounted to 0.8 per cent of total wages in the county. 

Proposed Plan

Government revenues in the form of royalties and taxes from oil and gas production under the 

Proposed Plan would be similar to those under Alternative A, given that the total well potential 

between the alternatives is similar (451 under Alternative A and 432 under the Proposed Plan). 

Although the number of acres open for oil and gas development is less under the Proposed Plan 

by 13.5% (see Table 4.85.A.), the number of wells projected to be drilled would be only one well 

per year less. Employment levels related to oil and gas development would be similar to 

Alternative A. 

Alternative D

Government revenues in the form of royalties and taxes from oil and gas production under 

Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative A, given that the total well potential 

between the alternatives is almost identical (451 under Alternative A and 448 under Alternative 

D). When compared to the No-Action Alternative, the numbers of acres open for oil and gas 

 

5

 Source: The Structure and Economic Impact of Utah's Oil and Gas Exploration Industry Phase III – Grand 

County, University of Utah, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (January, 2008) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-269 

development is less under Alternative D by 2.8% (see Table 4.85.A). Employment levels related 

to oil and gas development would be similar to Alternative A. 

4.3.12.2.8 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Alternatives A and D do not propose any lands be managed for wilderness characteristics. 

Therefore impacts to revenues from mineral development would not be affected. However, some 

recreation revenues could be lost due to fewer opportunities for non-mechanized recreation in 

Alternatives A and D. 

Alternative B proposes to manage 266,485 acres of lands to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics. These lands would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Under Alternative B, 

approximately 15.2% of all BLM lands would be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics 

In the Proposed Plan, the BLM would manage 47,761 acres of lands to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. These 47,761 acres (2.6%) would be limited to NSO. The management of 

wilderness characteristics under Alternative B (15.2%) and the Proposed Plan (2.6%) would have 

adverse impacts to oil and gas development and the subsequent revenue generated for the local 

economy, as fewer wells would be drilled, particularly under Alternative B. 

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 briefing paper prepared by the Wilderness Society 

(TWS 2004) 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. While 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. 

In the MPA, with its relatively large number of second homeowners, it is reasonable to expect 

that certain features of managing for wilderness characteristics, such as protection of visual 

resources, would contribute to the appeal of the area both as a second home locus and as an area 

in which to retire. This scenario could benefit the local economy to the extent that such 

newcomers spend locally on such items as housing (especially construction), financial services, 

and healthcare. For some current residents, however, the restrictions on mineral extraction in 

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, with any corresponding loss in employment opportunities 

or local tax revenues, could pose an additional economic hardship. 

In Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, OHV use on designated routes would be permitted on 

those lands with wilderness characteristics (see Section 4.3.8.2.13 for details). Thus, adverse 

social and economic impacts as a result of decreases in OHV use are not likely regardless of 

alternative selected, although greater opportunities for OHV use occur under Alternative A. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-270 

4.3.12.2.9 IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS

Management actions for paleontological resources would have negligible impacts on 

socioeconomic resources because the recreational and scientific collection of fossils, as well as 

the protection of these resources would be similar to current conditions and are the same across 

alternatives. Personal collection of invertebrate and plant fossils would be allowed throughout 

the MPA. The recreational collection of vertebrate fossils, as well as of noteworthy invertebrate 

and plant fossils, is already prohibited within the MPA. Therefore, the recreational collection of 

fossils from BLM-administered lands would have minimal impacts on the local economy. The 

permit-required scientific gathering of fossils within the MPA occurs rarely; approximately a 

half-dozen permits are issued annually (See Section 3.9.3). The economic contributions, 

including sales and hotel tax revenue, from scientific collection would also be negligible under 

all alternatives. 

4.3.12.2.10 IMPACTS OF RECREATION AND TRAVEL ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Proposed recreation management decisions for the MPA have the potential to impact the local 

and regional socioeconomic conditions. The socioeconomic impacts would be primarily in the 

form of income and employment effects in the economies that serve the recreational user. 

Because the majority of recreation revenue occurs in Grand County, as do the majority of goods 

and services accessed by recreational users and tourists, the following analysis will not focus on 

the socioeconomic impacts to San Juan County. See the Monticello EIS/RMP for recreation 

impacts to San Juan County. 

The relationship between changes in land-use decisions as they regard recreation and their 

associated social and economic impacts is difficult to quantify. Therefore, the following 

assumptions have been made: 

• Increasing recreation opportunities could positively affect visitation, which could also benefit 

local businesses and overall traveler spending in the region. 

• Improving the recreation experience would have a positive effect on the social component of 

recreation, potentially increasing visitation. 

• Recreation Focus Areas, which would tend to segregate or concentrate specific recreational 

opportunities, activities, and users into spatially separate areas, would reduce recreation 

resource use conflicts. Focus areas are recreational management areas that would emphasize 

specific recreational opportunities and activities while permitting other recreational uses, in 

accordance with the Moab Travel Plan. It has also been assumed that a reduction in 

recreational use conflicts would enhance the expected recreational experiences within a 

particular focus area for certain user groups. Focus areas would be managed to meet the 

needs of specific user groups and thus the recreational experience would be more enjoyable 

and more likely to meet user recreation expectations. The number of focus areas within the 

MPA differs for each alternative. The focus areas emphasize recreational opportunities 

through facilities and education. 

• 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 issues or 

management concerns occur. Both focus areas and SRMAs would still allow for other 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-271 

recreational uses within their boundaries in accordance with the Moab Travel Plan. For more 

information on the types of focus areas and SRMAs, see Section 4.3.10.2.10. Overall, focus 

areas and SRMAs would have long-term beneficial impacts on local socioeconomic 

conditions, because enhancing specific recreation opportunities in particular areas would 

likely reduce user conflict. With the reduction of user conflict in the MPA, it is likely that 

visitors would have a positive recreation experience and return to contribute more to the local 

economy. 

• Specific user groups have their own sets of recreational expectations, goals, and needs. It has 

also been assumed that, because each user group has specific needs, goals, and expectations, 

each group also has recreational conditions and criteria that provide the opportunity for a 

satisfactory user experience. The recreation user groups and assumed conditions/criteria for 

satisfactory recreational user experiences are found in Section 4.3.10. Restrictions on 

dispersed camping and access routes to campsites may negatively affect recreationists 

seeking this type of experience. 

With the trend toward increased recreation within the MPA, user conflicts are likely to remain an 

issue regardless of the alternative selected. User groups, as defined in Section 4.3.10, include 

motorized (on-road), motorized (off-road), non-motorized, non-mechanized, river floating, and 

specialized recreation. Increases in conflicts among user groups have the potential to adversely 

impact visitor experience to the area. The adverse impact to visitors regarding their recreation 

experiences would likely be short-term. However, long-term adverse impacts to the county's 

economy could be possible, as users might choose to recreate in other areas where they feel they 

are more likely to have a positive recreation experience. This would contribute to a loss in 

traveler spending in the area. 

A recent United States Geologic Survey (USGS 2007) synopsis of relevant literature summarizes 

numerous studies of the impacts of OHV use on other users, often addressing the issue in the 

context of user conflicts. Other studies summarized by USGS concentrate on the economic 

benefits resulting from expenditures on OHV-related activities; the USGS was unable to find any 

published studies on the socioeconomic costs produced by OHV use, but concluded that such 

costs could exist. The USGS study is summarized in Appendix G. 

4.3.12.2.10.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) would be issued under all alternatives as a discretionary 

means to help meet BLM management objectives, facilitate recreational use of public lands, 

control visitor use, protect recreational and natural resources, provide for the health and safety of 

visitors, and provide opportunities for economic activity in the nearby communities. The number 

of land based commercial SRPs would not differ among the alternatives. Revenues generated by 

commercial SRPs (2006) total $6,270,676; of these revenues, $2,762,175 was generated by 

commercial river companies, and $3,508,501 was generated by land-based outfitters. 

4.3.12.2.10.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed 

Plan) 

Among all action alternatives, within SRMAs, no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing and 

other surface-disturbing activities would be permitted within 0.5 miles of developed recreation 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-272 

sites, including current and potential future facilities. As a result, visitor experience within the 

SRMAs would likely be enhanced and user conflicts reduced. 

4.3.12.2.10.3 Alternative A 

As shown in Section 3.12.1.5.7, tourist spending in Grand County has grown consistently since 

the 1990s, contributing an annual average of $2 million in local sales tax revenue since 2000 

(UDTD 2004). Under current management actions, recreation use is projected to continue 

existing trends. Visitation to local attractions would be anticipated to follow the existing growth 

trend. Local and regional social and economic impacts from recreation and tourism would be 

similar to those experienced currently. 

Tourism-related spending in Grand County could total approximately $100 million dollars, as it 

did in 2003. Expenditures for leisure and hospitability services are taxed at the local and state 

level and are a benefit to counties. Under Alternative A, tax revenue from visitor spending (i.e., 

hotel, restaurant, and sales tax) would similarly contribute to the county's fiscal resource base. 

Travel- and tourism-related employment could continue to increase according to existing trends. 

Recent increases in travel- and recreation-related employment in Grand County are illustrated 

with a jump from 1,878 to 1,999 jobs between 2000 and 2003, a 6.4% increase (UDTD 2004). 

Increases would reflect the trends of recent years and would have a positive impact on the local 

economic conditions. However, it should be noted that with increases in higher wage jobs, such 

as construction and infrastructure development as a result of second-home ownership in a 

recreational setting, lower wage service jobs could potentially become harder to fill with local 

residents. 

Under Alternative A there would be 3 SRMAs (Canyon Rims, Cameo Cliffs, and Colorado 

River) totaling 135,094 acres designated, and no designation of focus areas. It is likely that user 

conflicts could increase as they have over recent years as more people come to the MPA for 

recreational purposes. User conflicts could result in adverse experiences for the users thereby 

decreasing the likelihood that they would return to the Moab area and patronize the local 

businesses, potentially a long-term adverse impact on the local economy. 

Under Alternative A, 620,212 acres would be designated as open to OHV use and 1,196,920 

acres would be designated as limited to Existing or designated routes. It is presumed that the 

number of acres available for OHV travel among all alternatives is sufficient to meet current 

demand (personal communication between Bill Stevens, MPA, and Laura Burch, SWCA, on 

November 9, 2006). However, if increased interest in OHVs continues as it has in recent years, 

the number of acres available under any alternative may not meet future need. 

This alternative represents the current conditions for OHV access, and, as such, it is likely that 

the economic contributions from the user group would be similar to current contributions. 

Contributions to the local economy from hotel taxes, retail, maintenance, and restaurant sales 

would continue along the current path. 

Recreational users who require motorized access would most enjoy short-term benefits under 

Alternative A. Fewer places would disallow motorized access, potentially decreasing the 

recreation experience and/or social well-being of individuals or groups who value solitude. 

Possible degradation of soil, water quality, cultural resources, wildlife, and scenic quality, in 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-273 

areas associated with high OHV use and cross-country travel, could adversely impact the 

recreation opportunities and visitation in the long-term. 

Special Recreation Permits are required for commercial outfitters along the Colorado Riverway 

SRMA and the Two Rivers SRMA. Both of these SRMAs permit a maximum of 30 outfitters 

and a total of 24,000 passenger days per year. Outfitters who currently receive permits would 

likely continue to receive permits, and the revenue generated from river runners within the local 

economy would continue at current levels. 

4.3.12.2.10.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B there would be 11 SRMAs totaling 1,016,554 acres and 22 focus areas. 

Generally, this alternative emphasizes non-motorized use while still providing opportunities for 

motorized vehicle use. Groups or individuals who value solitude and non-motorized activities 

would have the most places to enjoy under Alternative B, perhaps enhancing the visitor 

experience. This alternative is least responsive to the desires of individuals and groups who feel 

public lands should remain open to motorized vehicle access, potentially detracting from their 

social well-being. The potential for OHV-related damage to resources would be smallest under 

this alternative, thus having a long-term beneficial impact on visitation to the area. 

Because this alternative focuses on non-motorized activities, it is possible that the focus areas 

would see an increase in hikers and a decrease in OHV users. The emphasis on non-motorized 

use could lead to greater visitor satisfaction among non-motorized users and a decrease in 

satisfaction among motorized users. It is possible that dissatisfaction among OHV users could 

lead to decreases in their economic contributions to Grand County. Given the continuing increase 

of OHV use within the MPA, a decrease in use by motorized users could be of greater 

significance than a decrease in use by non-motorized users. Although it is not certain how much 

money each user group contributes on a daily basis in the Moab area, it is possible that local 

government revenue from hotel, restaurant, and sales tax on goods purchased would be reduced 

under Alternative B, should OHV use decline. The fiscal resources of local government would 

potentially be indirectly impacted by a decrease in recreational visits to the county. Expenditures 

for leisure and hospitality services are taxed at the local and state levels and are a benefit to local 

government. Because the proportion of recreation expenditures compared to expenditures from 

local residents and/or non-recreation consumers is not possible to quantify, it is generally 

concluded that a decrease in recreation use in the area would lead to a decrease in tax revenues 

for local government. 

Under Alternative B, zero acres would be designated as open to OHV use, with all OHV routes 

restricted to limited areas (1,475,074 acres). This alternative eliminates all acres open to crosscountry travel, which includes closure of the popular White Wash Sand Dunes. While this may 

lead to an adverse impact to users who enjoy cross-county travel, the majority of OHV use 

occurs on existing routes according to the best professional judgment of the MFO (Personal 

communication with Bill Stevens, MPA, and Laura Burch, SWCA, November 9, 2006). 

Although the exact number of OHV users who use the areas currently designated as open for 

cross country travel is not known, decreases in their visits to the area because of the restrictions 

under Alternative B could have minor adverse economic impacts to the county as discussed in 

the paragraph above. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-274 

The recent trend towards the construction of second homes in the Moab area may be due to the 

scenic and non-motorized recreational opportunities in the area. Although the MPA has not been 

studied specifically, a multi-county sponsored study in Colorado suggests strongly that second 

home buyers are attracted to areas primarily based on access to scenery and recreation 

(Venturoni et al. 2005). The same study found that 82 per cent of these second home owners 

indicated hiking and jogging as their favorite recreational activities. To the extent that these 

results can be extrapolated to the MPA, this suggests that an emphasis on preservation of scenery 

and an emphasis on non-motorized recreation opportunities could fuel continued growth in the 

second home industry, with concomitant economic benefits to local communities. With the nonmotorized focus of Alternative B, higher wage jobs such as construction and infrastructure 

development resulting from second home construction could likely increase similar to existing 

trends. The emphasis on non-motorized recreation would continue to draw those interested in 

non-motorized recreation opportunities to develop second homes and contribute to the local retail 

economy. 

A potential downside to the above scenario exists. Given a limited supply of housing, growth in 

second home ownership could drive up housing prices in general, as seems to have been the case 

recently in Grand County. An increase in housing costs could make it more difficult to attract 

and retain workers in lower wage industries, of which tourism is typically a segment. If tourismoriented employers find it more difficult to attract and retain employees, the kinds of services 

expected by al visitors may decline in quantity and/or quality. Such an outcome could pose 

adverse impacts to the local economy. Second home ownership also could cause changes in the 

demographic character of the local community, which some current residents may regard as 

undesirable for its perceived impacts on local culture and customs. 

Within the 2 SRMAs that require SRPs for river rafting, Alternative B allocates the fewest 

permits when compared to the other alternatives. Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA, 19 

unallocated permits and 2 allocated permits would be issued. Westwater Canyon, within the Two 

Rivers SRMA, allows for a daily 48-person launch limit for each sector (private and 

commercial). When compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative B has a 36% reduction 

in launch limits as compared to the Proposed Plan and a 63% reduction as compared to 

Alternative D. These reductions would have minor adverse impacts on socioeconomics as fewer 

river runners would be allowed to run rivers and contribute to the local economies before and/or 

after trips, assuming these river permits are at maximum capacity currently. Alternatively, a 

decrease in supply, even with demand constant, could allow commercial outfitters to increase 

prices, and therefore their own revenues. 

4.3.12.2.10.5 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan there would be 10 SRMAs totaling 658,642 acres and 30 focus areas. 

The Proposed Plan emphasizes a balance of recreational opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized uses within the MPA. Groups or individuals who value solitude and non-motorized 

activities would have the greatest number of focus areas emphasizing a range of recreational 

opportunities. This alternative also promotes the greatest amount of motorized backcountry 

touring and the most motorized, sporting-event focus areas (although the acreage for the White 

Wash Sand Dunes and Dee Pass is slightly reduced compared to Alternative D). This alternative 

is most responsive to those who feel that a balance of uses should be allowed within the MPA. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-275 

With its implementation of SRMAs and focus areas, the Proposed Plan would have the potential 

to reduce user conflicts to a greater degree than the other alternatives. The reduction in user 

conflict and the ability for user groups to recreate in specific areas geared toward their particular 

activities allow for the broadest range of satisfactory user experiences. By providing satisfactory 

experiences for the widest spectrum of users, the Proposed Plan would provide more potential 

for increased visitation and economic contributions to the region than would Alternatives A, B, 

and D. The Proposed Plan, therefore, potentially provides greater long-term economic 

contributions to the retail economy and, indirectly, to the local government in the form of sales 

tax revenue. 

This alternative would designate 1,866 acres (White Wash Sand Dunes) as open to OHV use, 

with 1,481,334 acres designated as limited for OHV use. Allowing cross-country travel in the 

White Wash Sand Dunes would permit motorized users to recreate in a manner not permitted 

under Alternative B. In addition, the Gemini Bridges/Poison Spider Mesa motorized backcountry 

touring area and the Dee Pass motorized trail area would be established as focus area for OHV 

use. By allowing for cross-country travel and other motorized trail access, the Proposed Plan 

gives OHV users more opportunities to meet their recreation expectations and needs than does 

Alternative B. Thus, the economic contributions to the local economy by OHV users would be 

greater under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative B. Moreover, while user conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized vehicle users would continue to occur under Alternative 

A, they would be less likely to occur under the Proposed Plan, and therefore the Proposed Plan 

would provide more satisfactory user experiences. 

By providing for a range of recreational opportunities for all users, the Proposed Plan could have 

a beneficial impact on local employment. Satisfactory user experiences would result in more 

tourists returning to the MPA and a corresponding increase in the need for goods and services. A 

range of jobs would be necessary to meet the needs of tourists, including lower wage service jobs 

and higher paying professional jobs. Given the reduction in user conflicts under the Proposed 

Plan, recreation- and tourism-related employment is likely to steadily increase as it has under 

current conditions. This increase is expected, in the long-term, to exceed the employment needs 

generated by Alternative A, because user conflicts and resource degradation would be less likely. 

The Proposed Plan would allow for similar amounts of Special Recreation Permits within the 

Colorado Riverway SRMA when compared to Alternatives B and D (21 commercial permits 

issued annually under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan and 25 under Alternative D). For 

Westwater Canyon, commercial and private permits are required. The daily launch limit would 

be 75 people and commercial group size would be 25 plus 3 additional crew. Because the 

Proposed Plan allows for 36% more people to be permitted on a daily basis on the SRMA rivers 

(compared to Alternative B), it improves the potential for an increase in local revenue 

generation. With a 41% decrease in launch limits, compared to Alternative D, potential revenue 

generated from river runners could be less under the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.12.2.10.6 Alternative D 

Alternative D emphasizes motorized uses and would provide 6 SRMAs totaling 277,495 acres 

and 10 focus areas. The majority of acres that would be designated as focus areas would be open 

to motorized vehicle use. Under Alternative D, 3,604 acres would be designated as open to OHV 

use, which includes White Wash Sand Dunes and Airport Hills. Alternative D would designate 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-276 

1,762,083 acres as limited to designated routes, including the Dee Pass Motorized Trail Focus 

Area. 

Emphasizing motorized recreation could have positive, short-term, social impacts on OHV user 

groups, because the specific group would have greater opportunities to meet their recreation 

objectives. However, impacts to all other user groups could be adverse under Alternative D and 

its emphasis on motorized use. Other user groups who believe that recreation on public lands 

should include opportunities for solitude would have a more challenging time finding places to 

meet their recreation objectives. The long-term impacts of emphasized motorized use would be 

adverse, as crowding, user conflicts, and the degradation of the environment would detract from 

the overall visitor experience for all user groups. 

Dissatisfaction among non-motorized users could lead to decreases in economic contributions to 

Grand County. The decreases in satisfactory recreational experiences by non-motorized users, 

such as hikers, mountain bikers, and river rafters, may result in fewer returns to the MPA. 

Although it is not certain how much money each user group contributes on a daily basis in the 

Moab area, it is possible that local government revenue from hotel, restaurant, and sales tax 

would be reduced under Alternative D should OHV use be emphasized. While OHV users would 

still continue to patronize local businesses, the contributions from the range of other users would 

decrease, adversely impacting local economies. The fiscal resources of local governments would 

potentially be indirectly impacted by a decrease in recreational visits to the county, as the localand state-level leisure and hospitality tax revenues would decrease. 

Impacts of Alternative D to local employment would be similar to those of Alternative B. By 

emphasizing the recreation opportunities for one user group and not others, user conflicts and 

decreases in satisfactory experiences by the other groups could lead to a decrease in visits to the 

MPA. Thus, fewer goods and services—and therefore employees—would be needed to meet the 

demand from recreation-based tourism. 

The number of individuals allowed per river trip within the Colorado Riverway SRMA and Two 

Rivers SRMAs is greatest under Alternative D. Should the demand for permits rise to meet 

Alternative D's permit maximums, benefits to local communities from recreation-based revenue 

would be greatest under this alternative. 

4.3.12.2.11 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Management decisions common to all alternatives for riparian resources would have negligible 

impacts to the social and economic conditions of communities in Grand and San Juan Counties. 

The impacts would be negligible because all floodplains and riparian/wetlands would be 

managed in accordance with Executive Orders, the Clear Water and Endangered Species Act, 

and Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health, and because there is opportunity for mineral leasing 

across all alternatives outside of riparian areas. These mandates and management actions would 

not allow great variation in the management of the resource such that it would have a substantial 

impact on the local economy or social character of communities. 

4.3.12.2.12 IMPACTS OF SOIL AND WATER ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Soil and water resource actions common to all alternatives would have negligible impacts on 

socioeconomics. Approximately 58% of lands available for surface-disturbing activities are 

overlain by sensitive soils with high limitations (See Section 4.3.7.3.7 for details). Any surface 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-277 

disturbance projects (e.g., minerals development) initiated on these sensitive soils would require 

the implementation of specifically tailored of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigation 

measures. Although the implementation of BMPs may result in minor increases in cost and time 

on behalf of the project proponent, the medium and high limitations do not prohibit development 

and therefore do not represent economic loss to the county. Under all alternatives developers 

would be able to extract oil and gas from over three quarters of medium- and high-risk soils and, 

as a result, generate revenues for Federal and local governments as well as provide limited 

opportunities for local employment. 

Development on slopes greater than 30% would require a controlled surface-use stipulation, and 

an additional timing limitation from November 1 through April 30 (181 days) for slopes such as 

those in the Book Cliffs RFD Area. These special stipulations may require additional costs and 

time to relocate well pads and pipelines, requirements that may result in a decrease in revenue 

for the developer. However, impacts to local economic conditions should be minor given that the 

lands would still be effectively open to development, assuming the requisite minimization of 

damage to sensitive soils is accomplished. 

4.3.12.2.13 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

4.3.12.2.13.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Protecting the relevant and important values associated with Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACECs) limits activities that are considered incompatible with the protection of the 

specific values and resources of concern. Specifically, surface-disturbing activities (mineral 

development, OHV use, road and facilities construction) would be limited as a result of ACEC 

designations. With specific regard to mineral resource development, ACEC designation could 

limit areas to development. ACEC designations could have adverse impacts upon oil and gas 

development in some locations and, therefore, to subsequent revenue for the local economy. 

Alternatives A and D do not designate ACECs and would not be limited by the special 

designation restrictions. Outside of WSAs, ACEC designation under Alternative B results in 

16.5% of BLM lands with major restrictions for oil and gas leasing (no surface occupancy or 

closed). ACEC designation under the Proposed Plan (with 63,232 acres designated) results in 

1.7% of BLM lands with a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing (See Section 

4.3.7.2 for details on acres of potential ACECs available to mineral development). Under 

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, the restrictions to and/or exclusion of lands from oil and 

gas development would 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, therefore, fewer royalties paid to the Federal, state, and local 

governments. An approximate monetary impact would be difficult to estimate, because desired 

future locations of development in proposed ACEC sites is unknown. 

Under the two alternatives where ACEC designations are proposed, OHV use would be allowed 

in ACECs on designated routes, although the miles of Class D roads would vary slightly among 

alternatives (see Table 4.136 in Section 4.3.16.2.6.1). Allowing OHV access within ACECs 

could 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. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-278 

4.3.12.2.13.2 Wilderness Study Areas and Wilderness Areas 

The MPA contains 11 existing WSAs totaling 348,815 acres (or approximately 16% of BLM 

lands). WSA designations would continue to apply across all alternatives and would be managed 

in a manner that does not impair their suitability for congressional designation (BLM 1991c). An 

ongoing debate exists in the literature as to the economic benefits (or lack thereof) of wilderness, 

and these arguments may extend to WSAs. However, management of WSAs is non-discretionary 

across alternatives, and therefore beyond the scope of this analysis. In addition, the management 

of the Black Ridge Wilderness Area (5,200 acres) is set by law and beyond the scope of this EIS. 

4.3.12.2.13.3 Wild and Scenic River Recommendations 

Under Alternative A, none of the eligible Wild and Scenic River (WSR) segments carried 

forward in this RMP would be evaluated for WSR suitability determination. However, the 6 river 

segments eligible for WSR designation would continue to be managed in a manner that would 

not impair the WSR eligibility. Social and economic impacts resulting from this management 

action would be similar to current conditions. Alternative D would not recommend rivers within 

the MPA for WSR designation. Therefore, special designation decisions under Alternative D 

regarding WSRs would have no impact on socioeconomics above and beyond current conditions 

(Alternative A). See Section 4.3.14.4 for river segments proposed for WSR designation under 

each alternative. 

Suitable WSR segments impose no restrictions on oil and gas leasing or other mineral 

development. Special restrictions were not necessary to protect WSR values because restrictions 

imposed to benefit other resource values, such as riparian, visuals, and floodplains, were 

sufficient. Socioeconomic impacts from the restrictions imposed to protect these other resources 

(riparian, visuals, floodplain) are discussed under the relevant sections. 

The designation of the WSRs under Alternative B 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 and an increase in tourist 

dollars spent in nearby communities. 

The designation of portions of the Colorado, Green and Dolores Rivers as suitable WSRs under 

the Proposed Plan 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 impact of the 

Proposed Plan is estimated to be approximately the same as in Alternative B because the major 

rivers used by the river industry are designated as suitable in the Proposed Plan. 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 and an increase in tourist dollars spent in 

nearby communities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-279 

4.3.12.2.14 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES AND OTHER WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Across all alternatives, the impacts to socioeconomics of management actions regarding special 

status species (e.g., temporary seasonal or spatial buffers and restrictions for roosting or nesting 

birds, and habitat enhancement to protect special status species) would be minor. Restriction on 

mineral development within Special Status Species habitats would adversely impact developers 

during specific times of the year (see Section 4.3.7.3.9). The timing limitations imposed by 

special status and other wildlife species could potentially hinder development. However, due to 

the large number of acres open to oil and gas development across alternatives (over 1 million 

acres) and the number of wells predicted annually (no more than 30 wells) within the MPA, a 

negligible to minor adverse economic impact would be anticipated, because drilling would 

commence during periods without seasonal restrictions and, in areas without restrictions, could 

go on year-round. 

4.3.12.2.15 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Vegetation management efforts may benefit the local economy if labor, seed, and equipment 

maintenance come from local communities. Since vegetation treatments are expected to be 

similar in size across all alternatives, there would be no differences among alternatives in social 

and economic conditions. 

4.3.12.2.16 IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

CONDITIONS

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 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 

4.3.12.2.10 for more details on recreation impacts to socioeconomics. 

Under all alternatives, designation of lands as VRM Class III or IV would not impose special 

restrictions on oil and gas development. However, VRM Class I and II do impose restrictions on 

oil and gas development. VRM Class I results in the imposition of major restrictions on oil and 

gas development (no surface occupancy or closed). VRM Class II results in the imposition of a 

controlled surface use stipulation, requiring specific controls or constraints to protect visual 

resources. Low levels of surface disturbance are permitted under VRM Class II, at a site-specific 

project level, as long as the disturbance is not visible over the long term, which often requires 

extensive mitigation. 

It should be noted that all WSAs are designated as VRM Class I for all alternatives. However, 

the limitations to oil and gas development are a result of the WSA designation and not the VRM 

I classification. Table 4.87 provides the acreage of VRM classes by alternative. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-280 

Table 4.87. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative6 

VRM Class Alternative A/ 

VRM Inventory Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

I 349,110 453,462 358,911 349,617 

II 401,015 373,647 365,566 245,773 

III 800,782 784,246 829,158 956,724 

IV 271,356 210,532 268,133 269,641 

Total 1,822,2631 1,821,887 1,821,768 1,821,755 

Source: BLM GIS form 2003 and 2006. 

Alternative D would have the least amount of lands with VRM Class I and II designations 

(595,390 acres) compared to the other alternatives and therefore the most acres open for oil and 

gas development and greatest potential for mineral-based revenue. Alternatives A, B, and C have 

similar acreages with VRM I and II (750,125 acres under A, 796,736 acres, under B, and 

714,840 acres under Proposed Plan) which would limit the placement of oil and gas wells. 

Therefore, the difference in economic impacts among Alternatives A, B, and the Proposed Plan 

would be minor. 

A potential decrease in revenue based on tourism and sightseeing-based revenue would be 

greater under Alternative D, should oil and gas wells be visible from popular tourist destinations. 

Alternatives A and B provide the greatest amount of viewshed protection with VRM Class I and 

II designations (750,125 acres under Alternative A and 799,736 acres under Alternative B), and 

therefore the greatest potential for sightseeing-based revenue. The Proposed Plan designates a 

similar amount of VRM Class I and II, with oil and gas development restricted on 714,840 acres. 

Overall, the socioeconomic impacts from visual resource management on oil and gas exploration 

would be relatively minor given that the maximum number of wells to be developed within the 

MPA is 450 (under Alternative A) and given the large amount of VRM Class II, III, and IV lands 

(over 1 million acres under every alternative) available for oil and gas development. The 

preservation of viewsheds with high scenic quality would allow for the greatest opportunity for 

recreation and sightseeing-based revenue, thus having long-term beneficial impacts on the local 

economy and visitor experience. 

4.3.12.2.17 IMPACTS OF WOODLAND DECISIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Woodland management actions common to all alternatives would have negligible impacts on the 

social and economic conditions of communities in Grand and San Juan counties, because the 

private and commercial use of woodland products is not a substantial contributor to the local 

economy. No commercial timber sales have occurred within the MPA due to the lack of timber 

resources. The number of wood gathering permits is not anticipated to increase over the life of 

the RMP, and the percentage of acres available for woodland gathering does not vary 

appreciably across any of the alternatives. 

 

6 Totals are not exact due to GIS shapefile variances. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.12 Socioeconomic Resources 

4-281 

Willow and cottonwood harvesting by Native Americans for ceremonial uses in riparian areas 

would be allowed under all alternatives, with negligible impacts to riparian vegetation, since the 

level of collection is low. 

4.3.12.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Overall, the local economy would not experience substantial adverse impacts from BLM 

resource management decisions in the form of lessened revenues. Beneficial impacts, in the form 

of positive visitor experiences and contributions to the local economy, are possible as a result of 

management decisions but benefits would not vary significantly among alternatives. Many 

resource management decisions regarding air quality, fire management, hazard management, 

paleontology, soil and water, special status species, and woodlands would have negligible 

impacts on the social and economic conditions of Grand and San Juan Counties. Resource 

management decisions regarding cultural resources, lands and realty, livestock grazing, minerals, 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, recreation and travel management, special 

designations, and visual resource management would have a greater impact. Population, 

employment, and local revenue would remain relatively unchanged with the implementation of 

any of the proposed alternatives. The influence of proposed resource management decisions 

would not contribute to a substantial change to the local economic diversity of Grand or San Juan 

Counties. 

4.3.13 SOIL AND WATER 

This section discusses impacts to soil and water resources from management actions of other 

resources and resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning soil and 

water resources are described in Chapter 3. 

For the purposes of this broad scale analysis, the primary indicator of impacts to soil and water 

resources is the amount of surface disturbance caused by management decisions made for other 

resources, particularly surface disturbance that occurs in highly erodible, reclamation-limited, or 

other sensitive soils. Another important indicator of impacts to water resources is a decrease in 

water quality conditions in perennial streams, including levels of suspended sediments, sediment 

bedload, dissolved solids, nutrient loads, bacteria counts, and water temperatures. Once these 

parameters exceed the State water quality standards at a site, the perennial stream is listed on the 

303d list, which is the final indicator of poor water quality conditions. 

Surface disturbance would impact soil and water resources to varying degrees, depending on the 

amount, location, and type of surface disturbance; the soil type; the time of year and the surface 

hydrology. Surface-disturbing activities that currently occur and that are expected to continue 

include grazing, oil and gas and mineral exploration and development and associated access 

routes, recreation and OHV use, and woodland harvest and other forms of vegetation removal 

and treatments. 

All soils in the MPA are susceptible to accelerated erosion, but sensitive soils are more 

susceptible to impacts. Surface-disturbing activities could result in any of the following impacts 

under any alternative: increased soil erosion and sedimentation, decreased soil productivity, 

changes to quantity and quality (e.g., salinity) of surface water and groundwater, loss of 

vegetation or prevention of revegetation, or introduction of noxious weeds and the attendant 

increases in water use (e.g., tamarisk uses large quantities of groundwater) and/or changes in soil 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-282 

chemistry and productivity. Analyses of impacts to soil and water resources in this section are 

based upon the factors contributing to site degradation and their inherent risks (Table 4.88), 

according to SSURGO soils mapping for the MPA. 

Some sites are at risk of degradation because surface layer wind and/or water erodibility factors 

are high. Kw refers to the relative ease of water erosion. The slope factor accounts for the 

tendency of steeper slopes to erode more easily. The wind erodibility group refers to the relative 

ease of wind transport of surface materials. 

Other sites are at risk of degradation due to reclamation-limiting factors (i.e., factors that prevent 

soils from being fully reclaimed following surface disturbance). See Table 4.88 for a list of these 

factors. In reclamation-limited soils, one or more factors make site reclamation difficult in semiarid environments, including alkalinity, droughty soils, soil rooting depth, salinity, available 

water capacity, and sodium adsorption. Available water capacity refers to the amount of water 

available for plant uptake. Salinity refers to the amount of salt within soils that can be dissolved 

in surface waters. The sodium adsorption ratio refers to the amount of sodium that can be held by 

the soils and influence nutrient uptake. Rooting depth refers to the depth of soil, which 

influences how far plant roots can grow. Finally, alkalinity refers to soil pH, which generally 

limits plants' ability to establish when it is higher (i.e., more basic). 

Table 4.88. Factors Contributing to Site Degradation and Their Inherent Risks* 

Factors High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Restrictive 

Feature 

Erodibility 

Kw Factor (surface 

layer) and Slope (sl)1 

K ≥ .37, sl ≥ 10%; or

K = .20-.36, sl > 30% 

K = .20-.36, sl 10-

30%; or K < .20, sl > 

30% 

K < .20, sl 10-

30%; or sl < 10% 

Water erosion 

hazard 

Wind Erodibility Group 

(surface layer) 

1, 2 3, 4, 4L 5–8 Wind erosion 

hazard 

Limits on Reclamation 

Available Water 

Capacity (average to 

40 inches; in/in)2 

< 0.05 0.05–0.10 0.10 < Droughty soils 

Salinity3 (mmhos/cm; 

surface layer) 

16 < 8–16 < 8 Excess salt 

Sodium Adsorption 

Ratio4 (surface layer) 

13 < 4–13 < 4 Excess sodium 

Depth to Bedrock or 

Hardpan (inches) 

< 10 10–20 20 < Rooting depth 

Alkalinity (pH of 

surface layer) 

9.0 ≤ 7.8–8.9 < 7.8 Excess alkalinity 

* Draft parameters developed by the BLM's National Science and Technology Center, SSURGO soils mapping. 

1 K Factor of surface layer adjusted for the effect of rock fragments. Slope is the maximum value for the range of slope of a soil 

component within a map unit. 

2 Maximum value for the range of available water capacity for the soil layer; inches of water per inches of soil. 

3 Maximum value for the range in soil salinity. 

4

 Maximum value for the range in sodium adsorption ratio. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-283 

An important soil component often affected by surface disturbance is the biological soil crust, 

comprised of cyanobacteria, lichens and mosses. These crusts help to stabilize soils, reducing 

erosion and increasing soil productivity. Biological soil crusts have not been mapped and could 

occur in most of the soils within the MPA. 

Throughout this analysis, highly erodible soils, reclamation-limited soils, and biological soil 

crusts are collectively referred to as sensitive soils. Biological soil crusts are discussed only 

qualitatively and are not included in the tables. However, any of the other soil parameters may 

overlap in any area, and so acreages presented in this analysis are not additive. For example, a 

particular acreage may have soils with shallow rooting depth as well as high wind erodibility. 

Acreages are also only approximate, due to limitations in soil mapping techniques and the 

planning area-wide scale of analysis. 

Decisions regarding the management of resources other than soil and water in the MPA may 

affect soil and water resources either directly or indirectly. Those impacts may be beneficial or 

adverse, and are described below. Management decisions regarding air quality, paleontology, 

socioeconomics, special status species, vegetation, visual resources, wildlife resources, or 

woodland resources would result in negligible impacts to soil and water resources. The impacts 

would be negligible because protecting air quality, allowing recreational fossil collection and 

scientific study of fossils, improving the local and regional economy, protecting federally listed 

species and their habitat under the Endangered Species Act, improving and maintaining native 

vegetation communities, protecting scenic quality, permitting woodland harvesting, and 

maintaining habitat for non-listed wildlife species would not have surface-disturbance impacts 

on sensitive soils and soil crusts. Therefore, impacts from these management decisions were not 

analyzed. Travel management decisions are included in the discussion of recreation decisions. 

4.3.13.1 IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SOIL AND WATER 

Under all alternatives, fire management would follow the guidelines in the Utah Land-use Plan 

Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management (LUP; BLM 2005c). Under all alternatives, 

estimated fuels reduction treatments of 5,000–10,000 acres per year would be targeted. Because 

specific areas are not designated for treatment each year, the specific soils affected are unknown; 

therefore, a qualitative assessment of short- and long-term impacts follows. Individual fire 

management projects will be analyzed at the implementation level with site-specific NEPA 

documentation under all alternatives. 

The impacts of fire management on soil and water resources would be adverse in the short term 

due to increased erosion and sedimentation and runoff from areas where vegetation is removed 

during prescribed burns or other fuels-reduction treatments. Fuels-reduction treatments would be 

designed to limit these impacts in areas with sensitive soils and to surface hydrology via 

implementation of emergency stabilization techniques described in the LUP, which would 

reclaim plant cover and reduce erosion and subsequent sedimentation of surface waters. 

Long-term, beneficial impacts to soil and water resources would occur under all alternatives due 

to a reduction of the risk of catastrophic fires and the establishment of a more natural fire return 

interval. Impacts would take the form of reduced frequency and number of high-intensity fires 

fewer hydrophobic soils, increased infiltration, decreased flood magnitude, and less erosion and 

sedimentation. These fire management decisions would also lower the potential for long-term 

loss of vegetative cover and the attendant stream sedimentation and changes in surface 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soil and Water 

4-284 

hydrology that can occur with increased runoff timing and intensity. A detailed analysis of these 

treatments' impacts to soil and water resources is included in the LUP's EA (BLM 2005c). 

4.3.13.2 IMPACTS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY DECISIONS ON SOIL AND WATER 

Under all alternatives, where Abandoned Mine Lands (AMLs) are rehabilitated, the management 

of hazardous materials would result in beneficial impacts to soil and water resources in the short 

and long term by reducing water quality-related threats to public health and/or the environment. 

The impacts would be identical under all alternatives. 

4.3.13.3 IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON SOIL AND WATER 

Under all alternatives, surface disturbance within utility corridors would potentially impact 

sensitive soils. Impacts to total acres disturbed and acres of sensitive soils disturbed were 

analyzed by alternative. Because no particular data on the distribution of biological soil crusts 

are available, only a qualitative discussion is included. The widths of proposed utility corridors 

vary by alternative, and are analyzed by approximate total acreage of disturbed soils and 

disturbed sensitive soils contained within the corridors. Table 4.89 presents these acreages within 

proposed utility corridors under each alternative. 

4.3.13.3.1 ALTERNATIVE A

Under Alternative A, utility corridors have the potential to impact up to 32,502 acres of soils and 

up to 25,700 acres of sensitive soils; see Table 4.89). Based on a comparison of these maximum 

acreages of total soils and sensitive soils across all alternatives, Alternative A represents the least 

adverse impact to total soils and sensitive soils due to surface disturbance associated with utility 

corridors. 

4.3.13.3.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, utility corridors have the potential to adversely impact up to 65,865 acres 

of total soils and up to 56,500 acres of sensitive soils (see Table 4.89). Impacts would take the 

forms described under Alternative A. This potential for adverse impacts is greater than 

Alternative A because there are more acres of designated corridors, but much less than the 

Proposed Plan and Alternative D because there are fewer acres in this alternative. 

4.3.13.3.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, utility corridors have the potential to adversely impact up to 173,099 

acres of total soils and up to 135,500 acres of sensitive soils (see Table 4.89). Impacts would take 

the forms described under Alternative A. This potential for adverse impacts is much greater than 

Alternatives A and B, and slightly less than Alternative D due to the total number of acres 

proposed within utility corridors. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3.13 S

4-285 

Table 4.89 Sensitive Soils in Designated Utility Corridors 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Sensitive Soil Acres % of MPA Acres % of MPA Acres O % of MPA Ac

Wind-erodible 650 <0.1 1,200 <0.1 3,700 0.1 3,Water-erodible 80 0.0 20 0.0 220 <0.1 Alkalinity 8900 .05 18,500 1.0 33,000 1.8 38,Droughty 13,000 0.7 24,700 58,700 3.2 68,Rooting Depth 25,700 1.4 56,500 1.4 135,500 7.4 164,Salinity 9,800 0.5 19,500 3.1 37,400 2.0 45,Sodium Adsorption 

9,800 0.5 19,500 1.0 37,700 2.0 46,

Total Acreage** 32,502 65,865 1.0 173,099 204,

* Comprises Standard Conditions and Controlled Surface Use/Timing Limitations leasing categories. ** Acreages of soil types are not additive, as some soils may exhibit more than one sensitive soil characteristic. Total acreage refers to Asensitive soils. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soil and Water 

4-286 

4.3.13.3.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, utility corridors have the potential to adversely impact up to 204,158 acres 

of total soils and 164,200 acres of sensitive soils (see Table 4.89). Impacts would take the forms 

described under Alternative A. This potential for adverse impacts is the greatest under 

Alternative D since the most acres would be proposed in utility corridors in this alternative. 

4.3.13.4 IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SOIL AND WATER 

Under all alternatives, the impacts of livestock grazing management decisions on soil and water 

resources would depend upon the number of acres of total and sensitive soils, acres of riparian 

zone, and the miles of perennial streams in each allotment that are available for grazing 

Depending on season and duration of use, grazing could have direct, adverse impacts on soil 

productivity and indirect, adverse impacts to water quality due to trampling of soils and loss of 

biological soil crusts and vegetative cover, especially in riparian areas. Changes in timing may 

affect the degree of these adverse impacts. For example, limiting grazing during the growing 

season allows stream banks to retain their vegetation, which protects them from erosion caused 

by high flows and results in fewer adverse impacts. In addition, if the grazing season on saline 

soils ends by March 2, the freeze-thaw cycle can partially restore soil infiltration rates and reduce 

compaction. 

Development of Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) and use of grazing systems, as well as 

the monitoring of grazing for compliance with all rangeland standards, would be beneficial to 

soil and water resources. AMPs and grazing systems promote proper grazing practices and 

reduce impacts to soils; where monitoring showed site degradation, adaptive management of 

livestock use would result in appropriate changes in seasons of use and other grazing 

management would mitigate impacts to soil and water resources. 

The acres of sensitive soils affected by each alternative are shown in Table 4.90. The alternatives 

vary season of use on certain sensitive soils, with varying impacts to these soils. Therefore, the 

discussion of impacts is qualitative and not quantitative. 

Livestock grazing would be excluded from riparian areas in the following allotments: Between 

the Creeks, North Sand Flats, South Sand Flats, and Castle Valley. This would provide relatively 

beneficial impact to 47,247 acres of soils, 10,026 acres of sensitive soils and 1,122 acres of 

riparian habitat. 

Livestock grazing is dispersed on BLM lands, lessening the impacts of soils compaction. Soil 

compaction is of greatest concern near water sources, on livestock trails and in other areas of 

livestock concentrations. Wet or moist conditions exacerbate soil compaction problems. 

The earlier in the year the grazing season ends, the fewer impacts to soil and water resources. 

Spring rest is important to soils, as the freeze-thaw cycle improves soil permeability and 

infiltration rates and therefore overall soil productivity. With productive soils, erosion is 

minimized and impacts to water quality are reduced. With later grazing seasons, soils are 

compacted and the freeze-thaw cycle improvements are negated. Also, late spring grazing tends 

to utilize riparian areas more, and may reduce proper functioning conditions and impact water 

quality conditions. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soil and Water 

4-287 

Table 4.90. Grazing Impacts on Erodible and Reclamation-limited Soils, by Alternative 

Erodible Reclamation-limited 

Alternative Status Winderodible 

WatererodibleHigh 

Alkalinity

Droughty 

Soils 

Rooting 

Depth 

High 

Salinity 

Sodium 

Adsorption

Acres Available 39,050 13,150 106,200 619,200 838,100 119,900 139,750 

Acres 

Unavailable 

700 2,800 550 71,450 22,950 250 250 A 

% Available 98.2 82.4 99.5 89.7 97.3 99.8 99.8 

Acres Available 37,850 13,100 106,200 602,300 823,250 119,900 139,750 

Acres 

Unavailable 

1,900 2,850 550 88,400 37,800 250 250 B 

% Available 95.2 82.1 99.5 87.2 95.6 99.8 99.8 

Acres Available 38,750 13,450 106,200 624,100 836,650 119,900 139,750 

Acres 

Unavailable 

1000 2,550 550 66,550 24,400 250 250 C 

% Available 97.5 84.1 99.5 90.4 97.2 99.8 99.8 

Acres Available 38,950 15,750 106,200 651,050 846,500 119,900 139,750 

Acres 

Unavailable 

850 250 550 39,600 14,550 250 250 D 

% Available 97.9 98.4 99.5 94.3 98.3 99.8 99.8 

Other grazing decisions that would vary among alternatives are the proposed adjustment of 

grazing practices, and the development of AMPs. These decisions, when implemented, would 

generally reduce surface disturbance. Manipulation would limit the intensity and duration of 

grazing impacts, but not entirely avoid them. AMPs would result in benefits because they may 

utilize both grazing manipulation and some timing restrictions. Timing restrictions would protect 

soils from compaction during wet periods and from subsequent increases in surface runoff and 

erosion, and would generally be the most protective of soil and water resources. 

4.3.13.4.1 ALTERNATIVE A

Management of grazing in saline soils would reduce impacts from saline soil erosion through 

grazing manipulations. This would reduce surface and vegetation disturbance on moderate to 

highly saline soils in the MPA, providing some protection for sensitive soils. These management 

actions would provide the lowest level of protection for sensitive soils of any of the alternatives. 

About 126,907 acres would not be available for grazing. This is a beneficial impact to 126,907 

acres of soils, 84,949 acres of sensitive soils, and 4,418 acres of riparian habitat. Impacts are also 

reduced in the Mill Creek and Castle Valley municipal watersheds and the Cottonwood-Diamond 

watershed (because of the exclusion of grazing in the Castle Valley, Cottonwood and Diamond 

allotments). This would reduce impacts to water resources and floodplains and would improve 

overall watershed. Removal of grazing in the Diamond, Cottonwood and Nash watersheds 

(within the Diamond, Cottonwood and Bogart allotments) would lead to increased stability of 

stream channels and improved riparian health. Erosion and sedimentation would decrease with 

the removal of grazing from these very steep allotments. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soil and Water 

4-288 

The 2003 catastrophic wildfire which severely burned the Diamond and Cottonwood allotments 

released erosion of loose alluvial sediments at an accelerated rate. The stream channels are very 

unstable, with excessive bank erosion. Beneficial impacts in these watersheds would be realized 

with the continued cessation of grazing. These impacts would include increased time for post-fire 

ecological recovery, decreased sedimentation and erosion, increased water quality conditions 

(water temperature, sediment loads and turbidity), increased aquatic habitat conditions and 

increased riparian health and post-fire recovery. 

While short term adverse impacts consisting of vegetation removal and soil erosion could occur, 

range projects, including vegetation treatments, implemented to benefit livestock and other 

resource values would result in long term benefits to soil and water resources. 

4.3.13.4.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, management of grazing in saline soils would reduce impacts from saline 

soil erosion by considering adjustments in seasons of use on allotments with saline soils to 

minimize soil compaction. Grazing management decisions would protect sensitive soils most 

under Alternative B; they would result in: 

• reduced soil compaction and erosion of saline soils, due to timing restrictions during critical 

months of the year; and 

• improved soil productivity and water quality over the long term. 

About 153,797 acres would not be available for grazing. This is a beneficial impact to 153,797 

acres of soils, 106,752 acres of sensitive soils and 4,953 acres of riparian habitat. Impacts are 

also reduced in the Mill Creek and Castle Valley municipal watersheds and the CottonwoodDiamond watershed (because of the exclusion of grazing in the Castle Valley, Cottonwood and 

Diamond allotments). This would reduce impacts to water resources and floodplains and would 

improve overall watershed health. Removal of grazing in the Diamond, Cottonwood and Nash 

watersheds (within the Diamond, Cottonwood and Bogart allotments) would lead to increased 

stability of stream channels and improved riparian health. Erosion and sedimentation would 

decrease with the removal of grazing from these very steep allotments. 

The 2003 catastrophic wildfire which severely burned the Diamond and Cottonwood allotments 

released erosion of loose alluvial sediments at an accelerated rate. The stream channels are very 

unstable, with excessive bank erosion. Beneficial impacts in these watersheds would be realized 

with the continued cessation of grazing. These impacts would include increased time for post-fire 

ecological recovery, decreased sedimentation and erosion, increased water quality conditions 

(water temperature, sediment loads and turbidity), increased aquatic habitat conditions and 

increased riparian health and post-fire recovery. 

Grazing in 4,422 acres of riparian resources and along 58 miles of perennial stream would be 

excluded. This would provide beneficial impacts to water resources and floodplain stability, and 

improve overall watershed health. 

While short term adverse impacts consisting of vegetation removal and soil erosion could occur, 

range projects, including vegetation treatments, implemented to benefit resource values would 

result in long term benefits to soil and water resources. No other alternative would implement 

range projects solely to reduce soil compaction and erosion; therefore, of all the alternatives, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soil and Water 

4-289 

Alternative B represents the greatest, short- and long-term, beneficial impacts to soil and water 

resources. 

4.3.13.4.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, management of grazing in saline soils would reduce impacts from 

saline soil erosion via AMPs. These protection measures would result in increased forage and 

improved soil productivity and water quality over the long term, due to implementation of 

vegetation treatments to benefit wildlife or watershed values. While short term adverse impacts 

consisting of vegetation removal and soil erosion could occur, range projects, including 

vegetation treatments, implemented to benefit livestock and other resource values would result in 

similar long term benefits to soil and water resources. 

About 114,234 acres would not be available for grazing. This is a beneficial impact to 114,234 

acres of soils, 80,178 acres of sensitive soils and 4,279 acres of riparian habitat. Impacts are also 

reduced in the Mill Creek and Castle Valley municipal watersheds and the Cottonwood-Diamond 

watershed (because of the exclusion of grazing in the Castle Valley, Cottonwood and Diamond 

allotments). This would reduce impacts to water resources and floodplains and would improve 

overall watershed health. Removal of grazing in the Diamond, Cottonwood and Nash watersheds 

(within the Diamond, Cottonwood and Bogart allotments) would lead to increased stability of 

stream channels and improved riparian health. Erosion and sedimentation would decrease with 

the removal of grazing from these very steep allotments. 

The 2003 catastrophic wildfire which severely burned the Diamond and Cottonwood allotments 

released erosion of loose alluvial sediments at an accelerated rate. The stream channels are very 

unstable, with excessive bank erosion. Beneficial impacts in these watersheds would be realized 

with the continued cessation of grazing. These impacts would include increased time for post-fire 

ecological recovery, decreased sedimentation and erosion, increased water quality conditions 

(water temperature, sediment loads and turbidity), increased aquatic habitat conditions and 

increased riparian health and post-fire recovery. 

The Proposed Plan would restrict grazing in 1,169 acres of riparian resources. This would 

provide beneficial impacts to water resources and floodplain stability, and improve overall 

watershed health along 28 miles of perennial stream. 

Overall, the Proposed Plan would provide more protection for saline soils than Alternatives A 

and D, but less protection than Alternative B. 

4.3.13.4.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

About 52,217 acres would be unavailable for grazing. This is a beneficial impact to 52,217 acres 

of soils, 43,999 acres of sensitive soils and 1,177 acres of riparian habitat. Impacts from grazing 

are reduced in the Mill Creek and Castle Valley municipal watersheds (because of the exclusion 

of grazing in the Mill Creek and Castle Valley allotments). This would reduce impacts to water 

resources and floodplains and would improve overall watershed. 

Under this alternative, the Cottonwood and Diamond watersheds (within the Cottonwood and 

Diamond allotments) would be available for grazing, with adverse impacts to these watersheds. 

These watersheds, which suffered a catastrophic fire in 2003, could be subject to increased 

erosion of loose alluvial sediments and sedimentation. Stream channel stability would decrease, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soil and Water 

4-290 

bank erosion would be excessive, and riparian health would deteriorate if grazing were to be 

reintroduced into these allotments. Adverse impacts in these watersheds would result with the 

reintroduction of grazing. These impacts would include decreased time for post-fire ecological 

recovery, increased sedimentation and erosion, decreased water quality conditions (water 

temperature, sediment loads and turbidity), decreased aquatic habitat conditions and decreased 

riparian health and post-fire recovery. 

4.3.13.5 IMPACTS OF MINERAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON SOIL AND WATER 

The impacts of mineral resource decisions on soil and water resources were assessed by the acres 

of potential surface disturbance to total soils/sensitive soils under each alternative. Throughout 

this analysis, it was assumed that areas open to minerals development would be more likely be 

subjected to surface-disturbing activities, although the actual amount of future mineral 

development cannot be predicted. 

As mentioned in Section 4.3.13, above, biological soil crusts, which have potential to be 

impacted by surface-disturbing activities, have potential to occur on any soils in the MPA. No 

quantitative data are available for these soils. Therefore, the quantitative analysis in this section 

applies only to reclamation-limited soils and highly erodible soils. 

Under all alternatives, disturbance of total soils/sensitive soils associated with mineral resource 

development would contribute to adverse impacts to soil and water resources in general, 

including loss of vegetative cover and soil productivity and sedimentation of surface waters. In 

particular, noxious weed infestation resulting from disturbance of reclamation-limited soils 

would impact soil productivity and would cause changes in surface water hydrology. Biological 

soil crusts would potentially be crushed during surface disturbance and would no longer be 

protected from wind and/or water erosion. Damaged biological soil crusts would also take longer 

to be reclaimed after the completion of development, due to the long period of time needed to 

develop these crusts (BLM 2001d). 

Under all alternatives, the acreage of total soils/sensitive soils in each BLM leasing category 

(i.e., Standard Conditions, Controlled Surface Use and/or Timing Limitations, No Surface 

Occupancy, and Closed, listed from greatest to least amount of surface disturbance) would 

quantify impacts to sensitive soils in terms of acres of surface disturbance. Generally, areas that 

are Closed to development or subject to No Surface Occupancy would experience little or no 

surface disturbance due to minerals development; thus, negligible or no adverse impacts to soil 

and water resources would occur. Areas of sensitive soils subject to Standard Conditions or 

conditions of Controlled Surface Use and/or Timing Limitations would experience short- and 

long-term impacts to soil and water resources from surface disturbance associated with minerals 

development. These short- and long-term adverse impacts would include destruction of 

biological soil crusts; erosion and subsequent sedimentation of surface waters; changes in surface 

hydrology and infiltration; and possible alteration of soil chemistry and/or productivity by 

noxious weeds. 

Across all alternatives, over the life of the RMP, projected surface disturbance in the Big Flat – 

Hatch Point, Eastern Paradox, Lisbon Valley, Roan Cliffs, and Salt Wash RFD areas would be 

minimal and negligible because the level of development is expected to be low. However, the 

Bookcliffs and Greater Cisco RFD Areas have far greater acreages of sensitive soils with 

potential to be impacted by surface disturbance associated with minerals development (BLM 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soil and Water 

4-291 

2005e; see Table 4.1). Analysis of the alternatives therefore focuses on the Bookcliffs and 

Greater Cisco RFD areas (Tables 4.91 and 4.92). Surface disturbance due to geophysical 

exploration also has the potential to impact soil and water resources under each alternative. 

Approximate acreages of exploration-associated surface disturbance over the life of the plan 

were determined (though exact locations of exploration and disturbance cannot be determined), 

and a quantitative analysis of impacts to sensitive soils due to geophysical exploration is also 

provided under each alternative. 

Finally, approximately 1,015 acres of surface disturbance are expected to occur due to the 

development and extraction of locatable, salable, and leasable (other than oil and gas) minerals 

under all alternatives (BLM 2005f). Although the locations of these surface disturbances relative 

to sensitive soils in the MPA are unknown, they would have a adverse impact on soil and water 

resources through soil disturbance, soil compaction, and mixing of soil horizons. They could 

potentially increase runoff and erosion as well, and lead to the invasion of noxious weeds. 

4.3.13.5.1 ALTERNATIVE A

Under Alternative A, at least 41% of soils in the MPA with at least one limiting factor have the 

potential to be disturbed by mineral resource development (see Table 4.91). Adverse impacts 

resulting from this disturbance would take the form of degradation of soil productivity, erosion, 

and sedimentation of surface waters. Under Alternative A, mineral leasing decisions would result 

in the highest total surface disturbance of all the alternatives. Therefore, Alternative A represents 

the greatest potential for adverse impacts to sensitive soils, because erodible, reclamationlimited, and biological crusted soils are most likely to be open to mineral development under this 

alternative (see Table 4.91). 

Within the Book Cliffs and Greater Cisco RFD areas (approximately 14.5% of the MPA; see 

Table 4.92), more surface disturbance is expected than under Alternative B. A total of 300 wells 

would be installed in these RFD areas over the life of the plan, resulting in surface disturbance 

on 4,504 acres and impacting soil and water resources in the short and long term. Surface 

occupancy for oil and gas leasing would be allowed on a similar acreage of reclamation-limited 

soils to Alternative D and the Proposed Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3.13 S

4-292 

Table 4.91. Sensitive Soils with Potential to be Impacted by Oil and Gas Leasing, All RFD Areas 

Alternative Status Wind- erodible Water- erodible Alkalinity Droughty Rooting Depth Sa

Acres Open1 36,800 9,700 106,600 519,800 743,250 12Acres Closed2 2,950 6,200 50 169,900 116,700 

Alternative A 

% of MPA Open 2.0 0.5 6.0 29.0 41.0 Acres Open1 23,300 4,450 106,200 282,650 470,300 10

Alternative B Acres Closed2 16,400 11,500 500 407,700 390,700 1

% of MPA Open 1.3 0.2 6.0 16.0 26.0 

Acres Open1 32,000 6,700 106,200 397,100 691,450 12Acres Closed2 7,800 9,200 500 293,200 169,500 

PROPOSED PLAN 

% of MPA Open 2.0 0.4 6.0 22.0 38.0 

Acres Open1 34,800 9,300 106,200 492,750 732,500 12

Alternative D Acres Closed2 4,900 6,700 500 197,900 128,550 

% of MPA Open 2.0 0.5 6.0 27.0 40.0 

1 Comprises Standard Conditions and Controlled Surface Use/Timing Limitations leasing categories. 2 Comprises No Surface Occupancy and Closed leasing categories.
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3.13 S

4-293 

Table 4.92. Oil and Gas Leasing Impacts on Erodible and Reclamation-limited Soils in the Bookcliffs and 

Areas 

Bookcliffs RFD Area Only Greater Cisco RFD 

Alternative Status 

Wind-erodible Water-erodible Reclamation- limited Wind-erodible Water-erodi

Acres Open1 0 3,300 74,000 2,200 430 Acres Closed2 

0 2,950 22,200 200 200 

Alternative A 

% of MPA Open 

0.0 <1.0 4.1 <1.0 <1.0 

Acres Open1 0 2,600 53,600 1,900 10 Acres Closed2 

0 3,700 42,900 500 630 

Alternative B 

% of MPA Open 

0.0 <1.0 3.0 <1.0 <1.0 

Acres Open1 0 3,200 21,600 200 400 Acres Closed2 

0 3,050 74,900 2,200 200 

PROPOSED PLAN 

% of MPA Open 

0.0 <1.0 4.1 <1.0 <1.0 

Acres Open1 0 3,300 75,300 2,200 200 Acres Closed2 

0 2,900 21,200 200 400 

Alternative D 

% of MPA Open 

0.0 <1.0 4.1 <1.0 <1.0 

1 Comprises Standard Conditions and Controlled Surface Use/Timing Limitations leasing categories. 2 Comprises No Surface Occupancy and Closed leasing categories. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soil and Water 

4-294 

Under Alternative A, geophysical exploration has the potential to disturb 2,397 acres within the 

MPA, any portion of which may be sensitive soils. Impacts, if they occur, would take the forms 

described above. 

Overall, because it represents the highest acreage of sensitive soils Open to mineral resource 

development (and surface disturbance) of all the alternatives, Alternative A is most likely to 

adversely impact sensitive soils on a planning area-wide level. Assuming all alternatives 

adversely impact sensitive soils, Alternative A would impact the same number of acres as 

Alternatives C and D also resulting in the greatest acreage of adverse impacts to sensitive soils. 

4.3.13.5.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, at least 26% of soils in the MPA with at least one limiting factor have the 

potential to be disturbed by mineral resource development (see Table 4.91). Adverse impacts 

resulting from this disturbance would take the forms described under Alternative A. Alternative 

B is 15% less than Alternative A and represents the least potential for adverse impacts to 

sensitive soils, because erodible, reclamation-limited, and biological crusted soils are least likely 

to be open to mineral development under this alternative (see Table 4.91). 

Under Alternative B, surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing would be allowed on 

reclamation-limited soils within the Book Cliffs and Greater Cisco RFD areas on approximately 

7.5% of the MPA, which is approximately 50% fewer acres of reclamation-limited soils open to 

surface disturbance than under Alternative A. A total of 149 wells would be installed in these 

two RFD areas over the life of the plan resulting in surface-disturbance on 2,235 acres, which 

would result in approximately 50% less surface disturbance than Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, geophysical exploration has the potential to disturb 1,404 acres within the 

MPA, any portion of which may be sensitive soils. Impacts would take the forms described 

under Alternative A. Geophysical exploration under Alternative B is much less likely to 

adversely impact sensitive soils than it is under Alternative A. 

Based on the acreages detailed in Tables 4.81 and 4.82, of all the alternatives, Alternative B 

would have the least adverse impacts to soil and water resources due to mineral resource 

development decisions. 

4.3.13.5.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, at least 38% of soils in the MPA with at least one limiting factor have 

the potential to be disturbed by mineral resource development (see Table 4.91). Adverse impacts 

resulting from this disturbance would take the forms described under Alternative A. The 

Proposed Plan, only 3% less than Alternative A, closely resembles that alternative as well as 

Alternative D, in the magnitude of impacts to sensitive soils from oil and gas leasing decisions 

(see Table 4.92). 

In addition, slightly fewer acres of reclamation-limited soils within the Book Cliffs and Greater 

Cisco RFD areas would be open to surface occupancy (approximately 14.5% of the MPA). The 

impacts from these activities would be extremely similar to other alternatives other than 

differences in the areas over which they would occur. 

Under the Proposed Plan, geophysical exploration has the potential to disturb 2,072 acres within 

the MPA, any portion of which may be sensitive soils. Impacts would take the forms described 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soil and Water 

4-295 

under Alternative A. Geophysical exploration under the Proposed Plan is somewhat less likely to 

adversely impact sensitive soils than Alternative A, but more likely than Alternative B. 

4.3.13.5.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, at least 40% of soils in the MPA with at least one limiting factor have the 

potential to be disturbed by mineral resource development (see Table 4.91). Adverse impacts 

resulting from this disturbance would take the forms described under Alternative A. Alternative 

D, being only 1% less than Alternative A, most closely resembles Alternative A in the magnitude 

of impacts to sensitive soils from oil and gas leasing decisions (see Table 4.91), but also closely 

resembles the Proposed Plan. 

This is true for the amount of reclamation-limited soils within the Book Cliffs and Greater Cisco 

RFD areas open to surface occupancy (approximately 14.5% of the MPA) as well 

Under Alternative D, geophysical exploration has the potential to impact 2,329 acres, any portion 

of which may be sensitive soils. This would result in the same amount of surface disturbance as 

under Alternative A and would take the forms described under Alternative A. 

4.3.13.6 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS RESOURCE 

DECISIONS ON SOIL AND WATER 

Management of lands that have wilderness characteristics varies by alternative. Generally, limits 

on surface disturbance and motorized recreation on lands with wilderness characteristics would 

protect soil and water resources from adverse impacts. 

4.3.13.6.1 ALTERNATIVE A AND ALTERNATIVE D 

There are no management decisions regarding non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

under Alternatives A and D. Therefore, no additional protection for soil and water resources 

would occur under these alternatives. 

4.3.13.6.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, management decisions regarding non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would occur on 266,485 acres. One such decision would prohibit surfacedisturbing activities on the entire 266,485 acres, any portion of which may be sensitive soils. Of 

all the action alternatives, Alternative B would manage the most acres to maintain wilderness 

characteristics. Management under Alternative B would therefore provide the most protection for 

sensitive soils against adverse impacts due to surface disturbance and motorized recreation. 

4.3.13.6.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, management decisions regarding non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would occur on 47,761 acres. One such decision would prohibit surfacedisturbing activities on the entire 47,761 acres. This restrictions applies on fewer acres than 

Alternative B, but more than Alternatives A and D. Management under the Proposed Plan would 

therefore potentially result in fewer impacts to soil and water resources than would Alternatives 

A and D. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soil and Water 

4-296 

4.3.13.7 IMPACTS OF RECREATION AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SOIL AND 

WATER 

Under all alternatives, recreation and travel management decisions—primarily regarding OHV 

use—would affect soils, biological soil crusts, and water quality. Surface disturbance from OHV 

use would increase soil erosion, decrease soil productivity and infiltration rates, and may 

decrease water quality. Disturbance levels would be related to the amount of surface disturbance, 

soil type and slope, and proximity to water resources. Limiting OHV use to designated routes 

and closing some areas would minimize or eliminate adverse impacts to soil and water resources. 

Where proposed under the alternatives, control of human waste through installation of vault 

toilets in high-use recreation areas generally would benefit water quality by reducing E. coli 

contamination and nutrient-loading of surface waters. Designation of camping areas generally 

would limit the surface disturbance that results from dispersed camping and unofficial fire pits 

and, thus, would limit adverse impacts to soils. 

Under all alternatives, the proper management of designated trails (e.g., installing signage, 

enforcing closures, proper trail design on slopes, etc.) would limit impact to soil and water 

resources. However, the alternatives differ in the total acres of soils and the number of acres of 

sensitive soils as well as miles of perennial streams and acres of riparian resources that are open 

or closed to OHVs or in which OHVs are limited to designated routes. Because closures and 

limiting OHVs to designated routes both generally result in no additional surface disturbance that 

impacts soil and water resources, these two OHV use categories were analyzed together for each 

alternative (Table 4.93). 

Under all alternatives, SRMAs would be established to manage recreational use and to mitigate 

impacts caused by this use, such as uncontrolled camping, parking, and other activities. The 

greater the proportion of public lands managed as SRMAs, the greater the ability to control the 

impacts resulting from recreation use, resulting in fewer impacts to soil and water resources. See 

Table 4.94 for acreage of SRMAs by alternative. In addition, river recreation user numbers differ 

by alternative, as specified in Chapter 2, Table 2.1. The user numbers for SRMAs, as specified in 

Table 2.1, are the basis for the analysis of impacts to soil and water resources resulting from foot, 

non-motorized, and motorized traffic and disturbance; fire; the potential for spread of noxious 

weeds; and potential for contamination in general. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3.13 S

4-297 

Table 4.93. Sensitive Soils with Potential to be Impacted by OHV Use, by Alternative 

Alternative Status Wind- erodible Water- erodible Alkalinity Droughty Rooting Depth Salin

Acres Open 11,300 8,000 10,450 213,900 262,900 11,1Acres Closed or Limited 

Alternative A 28,500 7,900 96,300 476,500 598,000 109,1

% of MPA Open 0.6 0.4 0.6 12.0 14.0 0

Acres Open 0 0 0 0 0 Acres Closed or Limited 

39,750 16,000 106,700 690,700 861,000 120,1

Alternative B 

% of MPA Open 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Acres Open 210 0 0 370 1,610 Acres Closed or Limited 

PROPOSED 39,500 16,000 106,700 690,300 859,400 120,1PLAN 

% of MPA Open <0.1 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0

Acres Open 270 0 0 1,150 2,700 Acres Closed or Limited 

39,500 16,000 106,700 689,500 858,300 120,1

Alternative D 

% of MPA Open <0.1 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.1 0
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-298 

Table 4.94. SRMA Acreage, by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Acreage of SRMAs 141,234 acres 976,173 acres 658,642 acres 277,471 acres 

A recent United States Geologic Survey (USGS 2007) synopsis of relevant literature summarizes 

numerous studies of the impacts of OHV use on soil and water resources. The USGS concludes 

that the research reviewed found important effects of OHV activities on the functioning of soil 

and water resources including soil compaction, diminished water infiltration, diminished 

presence and impaired function of soil stabilizers (biotic and abiotic crusts, desert pavement), 

and accelerated erosion rates. Compacted soil inhibits infiltration of precipitation. In turn, soil 

moisture available to vegetation is diminished, volumes and velocities of precipitation runoff 

increase, and soil erosion accelerates, leading to the formation of gullies and other surface 

changes. Additionally, soil compaction may inhibit root growth among plants, in which case 

organic matter, litter, soil fertility, and vegetative cover are diminished, further exacerbating the 

soil's susceptibility to erosion. Where biotic and chemical crusts or other soil stabilizers are 

disturbed or destroyed, soil erosion from water and wind may increase beyond rates found in 

undisturbed sites with similar soils and conditions; nutrient-cycling processes also are likely to 

be disrupted, potentially leading to declines in soil fertility. The USGS study is summarized in 

Appendix G. 

4.3.13.7.1 ALTERNATIVE A

Under Alternative A, a minimum of 620,212 acres of total soils and 262,000 acres of sensitive 

soils would be open to cross country OHV travel and associated surface disturbance due to 

recreation and travel management decisions. Twenty miles of perennial stream and 2,100 acres 

of riparian resources would be open to OHV travel and associated surface disturbance. If 

disturbed, these soils would be at risk of erosion and compaction, and water quality could 

decline. The numbers of acres (and the percentage of all BLM lands) open to cross country OHV 

use, and the potential for adverse impacts to soil and water resources, is by far the greatest under 

Alternative A. 

Under Alternative A, most of the MPA would be managed as a general Extensive Recreation 

Management Area (ERMA) rather than as SRMAs, and user numbers would remain at current 

levels—the highest levels of all alternatives. The least amount of area would be established as 

SRMAs in Alternative A, and thus impacts to soil and water resources from unmanaged 

recreation use would continue at the highest rate of any of the alternatives. Recreation decisions 

under Alternative A would also provide the lowest level of management for recreation resources 

of any alternative and would, therefore, result in the highest level of adverse impacts to soil and 

water resources from human-caused surface disturbance, including fire risk and the spread of 

noxious weeds. 

Under Alternative A, dispersed camping would be allowed at the Kane Creek Crossing. This is 

an adverse impact to soil and water resources in a major floodplain and stream corridor, and a 

public health and safety risk. Camping in the Bartlett/Tusher/Ten Mile area would also not be 

closed. This would provide an adverse impact to soil and water resources, because unrestricted 

camping leads to soil compaction and increased erosion. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-299 

There are 960.3 miles of route identified as having possible soils conflicts. 

4.3.13.7.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, the largest amount of area would be established as SRMAs, resulting in the 

greatest control of recreation use of any alternative. This would result in mitigating the greatest 

amount of potential impacts to soil and water resources from unmanaged recreation use, In 

addition, limitations on user numbers on the Colorado and Dolores Rivers within SRMAs would 

be greater than under any other alternative. No open OHV use areas would be designated (see 

Table 4.93), and camping would be limited to designated areas across much of the MPA, 

providing the greatest level of protection for soil and water resources of all the alternatives. 

The installation of vault toilets in areas of high visitor use would limit adverse impacts to soil 

and water resources in these areas by keeping the human waste flow from entering the soil and 

water. 

The Bookcliffs SRMA would provide non-mechanized recreation opportunities, with no new 

motorized routes and no motorized permits, which provides a relatively beneficial impact to soil 

and water resources in an area with a high density of steep slopes. The Canyon Rims SRMA 

would provide non-mechanized recreation opportunities, with no new motorized routes. This is a 

beneficial impact to soil and water resources. The Colorado Riverway SRMA would prohibit 

camping at the Kane Creek Crossing area. This would provide a relatively beneficial impact in 

this major floodplain and stream corridor, as well as protect public health and safety. Camping in 

the Barlett/Tusher/Ten Mile area of the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA would be closed, 

providing a relatively beneficial impact to soil and water resources because the soil compaction 

and erosion that accompany dispersed camping would not occur. 

There are 960.3 miles of designated routes with possible soils conflicts. In Alternative B, 337.6 

miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

4.3.13.7.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, the second largest amount of area would be established as SRMAs, 

resulting in the second greatest degree of control of potential impacts to soil and watershed. 

Under the Proposed Plan, more users would be allowed on the Colorado and Dolores Rivers 

within SRMAs than under Alternative B, but fewer than would be allowed under Alternative A, 

and Alternative D. Impacts from recreational users would take the forms described under 

Alternative A, but to lesser degree. 

Under the Proposed Plan, all but 1,866 acres of soils be closed or limited to OHV use. This 

alternative represents fewer protection benefits to soil and water resources than Alternative B, 

but many more protection benefits than Alternatives A and D (see Table 4.93). 

The Canyon Rims SRMA would provide non-mechanized recreation opportunities, with no new 

motorized routes. This is a beneficial impact to soil and water resources. The Colorado Riverway 

SRMA would provide responsible camping opportunities at the Kane Creek Crossing area. This 

would decrease adverse impacts in a major floodplain and stream corridor. Camping in the 

Bartlett/Tusher/Ten Mile area of the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA would not be 

closed, although it would be restricted to designated sites or campgrounds. This would provide a 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-300 

limited adverse impact to soil and water resources. This alternative is more beneficial than 

Alternatives A and D but less protective than Alternative B. 

There are 960.3 miles of designated routes with possible soils conflicts. In the Proposed Plan, 

167.5 miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

4.3.13.7.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, fewer acres of SRMA would be established, and more impacts to soil and 

water resources would result from unmanaged recreation use. This is particularly true because 

the Labyrinth-Gemini area, an area of very high recreation use, would not be managed as an 

SRMA and impacts to soils and vegetation from unmanaged recreation use would result. In 

addition, more users—including users of the Colorado and Dolores Rivers—would be allowed 

than under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, but less than under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, all but 3,096 acres of soils would be closed or limited to OHV use This 

alternative represents fewer protection benefits to soil and water resources than Alternative B 

and the Proposed Plan, but many more protection benefits than Alternative A (see Table 4.93). 

No vault toilets would be installed in high visitor use areas, and camping would not be limited to 

designated sites, except in a few specific areas, resulting in less protection than Alternative B and 

the Proposed Plan provide. 

The Colorado Riverway SRMA would promote responsible camping opportunities at the Kane 

Creek Crossing area. This would decrease adverse impacts in a major floodplain. Camping in the 

Bartlett/Tusher/Ten Mile area would not be closed. This would result in adverse impacts to soil 

and water resources. 

Overall, Alternative D would provide more protection for soil and water resources through 

recreation management than Alternative A provides, and far less protection than Alternative B 

and the Proposed Plan would provide. 

There are 960.3 miles of designated routes with possible soils conflicts. In Alternative D, 51.0 

miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

4.3.13.8 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SOIL AND WATER 

Under all action alternatives, no surface disturbance would be allowed within 100 meters of 

riparian areas, perennial streams and springs, public water reserves, and 100-year floodplains. 

This would protect soils by reducing erosion and subsequent sedimentation, stabilizing stream 

banks and floodplains, and improving water quality. Healthy riparian resources are integral to 

good water resource conditions. Impacts to riparian resources would affect water quality and 

quantities. 

The development and implementation of Watershed Management Plans (WMPs) would benefit 

soil and water resources because they would emphasize integration of soil and water resource 

management within basins for which plans are developed. All impacts associated with WMPs are 

described qualitatively. Generally, the alternatives differ in their development and 

implementation of the WMPs. 

Limitations on livestock grazing in riparian areas would relatively benefit soil and water 

resources for the reasons described in Section 4.3.13.4. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-301 

4.3.13.8.1 ALTERNATIVE A AND D 

Alternatives A and D do not direct the development or implementation of any WMPs. Therefore, 

these alternatives would not provide any of the benefits of these plans to soil and water 

resources. Livestock grazing would be managed less protectively of riparian resources under 

Alternatives A and D than under the other alternatives, and would therefore have a greater 

adverse impact. 

4.3.13.8.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative B would develop and implement WMPs in the greatest 

number of watersheds, including Mill Creek, Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, White Wash, 

Professor Creek, Negro Bill Canyon, Cottonwood/Diamond, Spring Canyon, Red Wash, Green 

River, Colorado River, Onion Creek, and Westwater Creek. Alternative B therefore represents 

the most beneficial impacts to soil and water resources of the forms described under Alternative 

A because specific management direction would be provided for these watersheds. 

Grazing would also be excluded from the following areas: Ten Mile from Dripping Springs to 

the Green River, Day Canyon, Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon, East Coyote, Lower Gray 

Canyon of the Green River, Kane Springs and Hatch Wash. This is a relatively beneficial impact 

to 4,422 acres of soils, and 28 miles of perennial stream. 

Alternative B would therefore achieve the greatest reduction of adverse impacts to soil and water 

resources. 

4.3.13.8.3 PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan would develop and implement WMPs in fewer watersheds than under 

Alternative B, but more than under Alternatives A and D. WMPs would be developed and 

implemented in Ten Mile Wash, Kane Springs, Bartlett Wash, Tusher Wash, Mill Canyon, 

Courthouse Wash, Cottonwood/Diamond, and Onion Creek. The Proposed Plan therefore 

represents fewer beneficial impacts to soil and water resources than Alternative B, but more 

beneficial impacts than Alternatives A and D. Impacts would take the forms described under 

Alternative A. 

Grazing would also be restricted in the following areas: Ten Mile from Dripping Springs to the 

Green River, Day Canyon, Mill Creek, Seven Mile Canyon, and East Coyote, This is a relatively 

beneficial impact to 1,169 acres of soils, and 28 miles of perennial stream. 

Livestock grazing would be actively managed on more acres to reduce adverse impacts to soil 

and water resources, as compared to Alternatives A and D, and on fewer acres as compared to 

Alternative B. The Proposed Plan therefore provides an intermediate level of protection for soil 

and water resources. 

4.3.13.9 IMPACTS OF SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SOIL AND WATER 

RESOURCES

4.3.13.9.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, the BLM would comply with all laws to protect municipal watersheds and 

the watersheds of any public or private water supply. The BLM would continue to manage soil 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-302 

and water resources in accordance with Executive Order 11988, the Clean Water Act, and the 

Endangered Species Act. These actions would have a beneficial impact of unknown magnitude 

on soil and water resources. BLM would also coordinate with UDOGM to remediate abandoned 

mine lands. The beneficial impacts of this remediation upon soil and water resources are 

discussed in Section 4.3.13.2. 

4.3.13.9.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND THE PROPOSED 

PLAN) 

The BLM would manage soil and water resources in accordance with Utah BLM's Rangeland 

Health Standards and Guidelines for Grazing and Recreation. This would maintain or improve 

soil and water conditions, and therefore would provide a beneficial impact common to all action 

alternatives. 

The following management decisions would result in beneficial impacts to soil and water 

resources by protecting and restoring watershed health, healthy soils and good water quality 

conditions: 

• Allow no surface disturbance within public water reserves, 100-year floodplains, or within 

100 meters of natural springs or perennial streams whenever possible, and within 100 m of 

riparian zones. 

• Continue to manage Mill Creek Planning Area in accordance with the Mill Creek 

Management Plan to provide relatively beneficial impacts on 1,164 acres of soils and 18 

miles of perennial streams. 

The following management decisions would reduce the accelerated erosion and other impacts 

associated with surface-disturbing activities. This can be considered a relative beneficial impact 

to soil and water resources. 

• BLM management would follow TMDL recommendations in Mill Creek and Onion Creek 

watersheds, and any other impaired watersheds as defined by the State of Utah and the 

current 303d list of impaired waters. These recommendations refer to improving water 

quality conditions to meet state standards. 

• Any proposed surface-disturbing activities, especially those located in sensitive soils (see 

Table 4.88) would incorporate BMPs and other mitigation measures to minimize soil erosion 

and maintain soil stability. 

• Continue to require the Grand County Water Conservancy District to leave 3 cfs of stream 

flow in Mill Creek, downstream of the Sheley Tunnel diversion structure, providing a 

relatively beneficial impact to 6 miles of perennial streams. 

• Apply a timing limitation to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activity 

prohibiting activities on moderate to highly saline soils (313,800 acres) from December 1 to 

March 31. This restriction includes road construction and traffic on existing roads associated 

with drilling operations. 

• Erosion control practices for slopes greater than 20% would follow Utah's Nonpoint Source 

Management Plan (UDEQ 2001). A controlled surface use stipulation would be applied to oil 

and gas leases and other surface-disturbing activities on slopes in the Bookcliffs that are 

greater than 30% from November 1 to April 30. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-303 

• Guidelines from Technical Reference 1730-2 (BLM 2001d, as revised) regarding biological 

soil crusts would be applied or followed where feasible, These decisions would reduce 

impacts to biological soil crusts and would constitute a beneficial impact. 

• Pipeline crossings would be constructed as recommended in the Guidance for Pipeline 

Crossings (Appendix H). 

• The limitation of new OHV routes saline soils (not in the proposed travel plan) would 

beneficially impact soil and water resources by not accelerating the natural rate of erosion, 

therefore providing a relative beneficial impact to soil and water resources. 

4.3.13.9.3 IMPACTS VARYING BY ALTERNATIVE

The primary municipal watersheds of concern in the MPA include the Castle Valley watershed 

aquifer system (a sole-source, unconfined surficial aquifer), the Thompson watershed, and the 

Mill Creek watersheds. These watershed sources provide drinking water for the towns of Castle 

Valley, Thompson and Moab respectively, as well as for the surrounding inhabited areas. Surface 

disturbance could lead to contamination of groundwater and surface waters by sediment and 

hazardous materials. Changes in surface hydrology due to road building would also have adverse 

impacts to these watershed resources, where rates of infiltration peak runoff would increase, 

causing lower rates of infiltration, increased peak runoff and higher rates of soil erosion. 

Generally, the elimination of surface-disturbing activities upstream of public water reserves 

would reduce adverse impacts to soil and water resources. 

Under some alternatives, road construction and traffic associated with drilling operations would 

be prohibited seasonally in areas with saline soils underlain by Mancos Shale when wet soils are 

most susceptible to impacts. These timing limitations would protect soil and water resources by 

reducing accelerated rates of erosion preventing erosion of the moderate to highly saline soils 

associated with the Mancos Shale and reducing subsequent contamination of water resources. 

Development of Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) and use of grazing systems would be 

beneficial to soil and water resources. The areas prioritized for AMPs vary by alternative, based 

on soil and water resource concerns. Because the development of AMPs is also proposed as a 

Livestock Management action, these impacts are discussed in Section 4.3.13.4. 

The development of Watershed Management Plans (WMPs) would also be beneficial to soil and 

water resources. Because the development of WMPs is also proposed as Riparian Management, 

these impacts are discussed in Section 4.3.13.8. 

4.3.13.9.3.1 Alternative A 

Alternative A does not include specific decisions regarding oil and gas leasing or other surfacedisturbing activities in the Castle Valley aquifer or the Mill Creek municipal watersheds. These 

water sources would therefore be subject to impacts such as surface disturbance and 

contamination of shallow groundwater by well drilling and changes in surface hydrology due to 

road building and access to lease areas, which would have and adverse impact on soil and water 

resources in these watersheds. (The Castle Valley municipal watershed totals 10,321 BLM acres; 

the Mill Creek municipal watershed not encompassed by the Mill Creek WSA totals 9,667 BLM 

acres.) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-304 

There is no restriction on new motorcycle routes on saline soils in Alternative A. This would 

have an adverse impact on soil and water resources because soil compaction and erosion would 

result. 

4.3.13.9.3.2 Alternative B and the Proposed Plan 

Alternative B would close the Castle Valley and Mill Creek municipal watersheds to oil and gas 

leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. These closures would protect these surface waters 

and shallow aquifers from potential impacts such as contamination with drilling fluids and 

sedimentation within these watersheds, and impacts described under Alternative A would be 

prevented under Alternatives B. This alternative would provide more protection for these 

watersheds than does Alternative A. 

The Proposed Plan would implement a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing 

and other surface-disturbing activities within the Castle Valley and Mill Creek municipal 

watersheds. This limitation would protect these surface waters and shallow aquifers from 

potential impacts such as contamination with drilling fluids and sedimentation within these 

watersheds, and impacts described under Alternative A would be prevented under the Proposed 

Plan. 

Under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, a timing limitation would be applied to 330,142 

acres of certain sensitive soils (saline or highly wind erodible) prohibiting surface-disturbing 

activities from December 1 to May 31. Additionally, road construction and use would be limited 

in these areas from December 1 to May 31, thus reducing short- and long-term, adverse impacts 

to soil and water resources. Alternative B and the Proposed Plan therefore provide more 

protection to sensitive soils, by area, than Alternatives A and D. Overall, Alternative B and the 

Proposed Plan would provide the greatest protection for soil and water resources. 

4.3.13.9.3.3 Alternative D 

Impacts regarding the Castle Valley and the Mill Creek municipal watersheds would be the same 

as under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, no timing limitations would be applied to surface disturbance of 

moderately and highly saline soils. Therefore, Alternative D would result in adverse impacts to 

saline soil and water quality compared to Alternative A and would be the most adverse of all the 

alternatives. 

4.3.13.10 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON SOIL AND WATER 

Although ACEC designation alone does not necessarily provide protection, special management 

attention designed for each ACEC often limits surface-disturbing activities, thereby protecting 

soil and water resources. Protections associated with ACEC designation that would affect soil 

and water resources include no surface occupancy stipulations, travel limitations, and grazing 

restrictions. Because of the complexity of the proposed ACECs' management criteria, their 

effects are addressed more generally under each of the alternatives. 

Under all alternatives, the management of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) would be consistent 

with the BLM's Interim Management Policy (1995), which does not allow any motorized use or 

surface disturbance within WSAs. Thus, no impacts to soils or water resources would occur 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-305 

within these areas under any alternative. Transportation and OHV management within WSAs 

varies between alternatives. These impacts are included in the discussion in Section 4.3.13.7 

(Impacts of Recreation and Travel Management on Soil and Water). 

Under all alternatives, designating specific river segments as Wild under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act would uniformly, beneficially impact soil and water resources, as it would protect 

sensitive soils. The designation of river segments as Wild would limit surface-disturbing 

activities within 1/4 mile of those river segments, which in turn would limit potential decreases 

in soil productivity and potential increases in sedimentation of surface waters. These protections 

(where proposed) would overlap riparian management prescriptions preventing surface 

disturbance within 100 meters of riparian areas, springs, and 100-year floodplains. 

The total number of river miles designated as Wild varies by alternative, as does the total number 

of acres of sensitive soils adjacent to those river segments (Table 4.95). 

Table 4.95. Acres of Sensitive Soils adjacent to River Segments Eligible for WSR 

Designation as Wild, by Alternative 

Alt. A Alt. B PROPOSED PLAN Alt. D 

Limiting Factor 

Acres Acres 

± Compared 

to 

Alternative A

Acres

± Compared 

to 

Alternative A

Acres 

± Compared 

to 

Alternative A

Wind-erodible 0 3,100 +3,100 2,700 +2,700 0 0 

Water-erodible 300 1,300 +1,000 700 +400 0 -300 

Alkalinity 0 100 +100 0 0 0 0 

Droughty 5,400 40,800 +35,400 25,900 +20,500 0 -5,400 

Rooting Depth 1,800 30,300 +28,500 18,400 +16,600 0 -1,800 

Salinity 0 100 +100 0 0 0 0 

Sodium Adsorption 0 200 +200 100 +100 0 0 

4.3.13.10.1 ALTERNATIVE A

Under Alternative A, no additional areas would be designated as ACECs, therefore no additional 

areas would be beneficially or adversely impacted by ACEC management prescriptions. Under 

Alternative A, no river segments would be determined suitable. However, all eligible rivers 

would continue to be managed as eligible under this alternative with the tentative classifications 

currently identified. Approximately 5,400 acres of sensitive soils are within 1/4 mile of the 

eligible river segments. These acres would continue to be protected from surface disturbance 

under Alternative A 

4.3.13.10.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

All of the 14 proposed areas would be designated as ACECs under Alternative B. Special 

management attention prescribed for ACECs during planning varies by ACEC. Where 

management would limit surface disturbance (for example, by closing or limiting motorized 

routes, placing limitations on recreational activities, placing limitations on mineral development 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-306 

activities, etc.) it would provide protection for soil and water resources. The CottonwoodDiamond Watershed ACEC, in particular, would protect public health and safety by protecting 

soil and water resources and floodplains. 

Because Alternative B would designate all 14 proposed areas as ACECs, it would result in the 

greatest amount of protection for soil and water resources compared to Alternatives A, D, and 

the Proposed Plan. 609,687 acres of soils, 398,318 acres of sensitive soils and approximately 100 

miles of perennial stream would be protected due to ACEC designation and associated 

management. 

Under Alternative B, the designation of river segments as suitable with a tentative classification 

as Wild would limit surface disturbance on 40,800 acres of sensitive soils adjacent to these 

segments. Designation of eligible segments as suitable in Alternative B, no matter what their 

tentative classification, would help protect 340 miles of perennial streams. Therefore, WSR 

designation decisions under Alternative B have the potential to provide the most protection to 

sensitive soils of all the alternatives. 

4.3.13.10.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, 5 of the 14 proposed areas (63,232 acres) would be designated as 

ACECs. Impacts would be similar to Alternative A for those areas not proposed, and similar to 

Alternative B for those that are designated. The Proposed Plan would therefore provide more 

protection of soil and water resources through ACEC designation than Alternatives A and D but 

less than Alternative B. Under the Proposed Plan, the designation of one river segment as Wild 

would limit surface disturbance on approximately 25,900 acres of sensitive soils adjacent to 

these segments, and protect 185 miles of perennial stream. Therefore, WSR designation 

decisions under the Proposed Plan have the potential to provide protection to more acres of 

sensitive soils than Alternatives A and D, but to fewer acres than Alternative B 

ACEC management would protect 63,252 acres of soils, 33,672 acres of sensitive soils and 15 

miles of perennial streams under this alternative. 

4.3.13.10.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

As with Alternative A, no additional ACECs would be designated under Alternative D. No river 

segments would be designated and managed as suitable for congressional wild and scenic river 

designation under Alternative D; therefore, no protections for soil and water resources adjacent 

to any river segment would occur. 

4.3.13.11 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

The management of many resources within the MPA would have the potential to impact soil and 

water resources. Impacts related to fire management and health and human safety would have the 

same impacts for all alternatives. Impacts related to cultural resources, livestock grazing, mineral 

and utility corridor development, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, recreation and 

travel, riparian, and special designations would have varying degrees of impact on soil and water 

resources. Table 2.2 (of Chapter 2) outlines the potential impacts for each alternative due to 

resource management. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.13 Soils and Water Resources 

4-307 

Generally, the greatest level of adverse impacts to soil and water resources would occur under 

Alternatives A and D, and the lowest level of impacts would occur under Alternative B. The 

Proposed Plan would generally have an intermediate level of impacts. 

The most significant difference between alternatives in terms of impacts to soil and water 

resources would be due to livestock grazing management, minerals development decisions, and 

the regulation of OHV use. 

4.3.14 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

This section discusses impacts to areas of special designation from management actions of other 

resources and resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning special 

designations are described in Chapter 3. 

Special designations include Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), a National 

Historic Trail (Old Spanish Trail), and Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs). The management of 

ACECs focuses on protecting specific relevant and important values. The management of the 

National Historic Trail seeks to enhance public enjoyment and understanding of the Old Spanish 

National Historic Trail. For river segments that are eligible/suitable for congressional designation 

as WSRs, management focuses on protecting specific, identified, outstandingly remarkable 

values, and the tentative classification and free-flowing character. 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Wilderness Areas (WAs) are also special designations that 

were previously established by law and policy. Nothing in this RMP will change these 

designations. There are eleven Wilderness Study Areas and one Wilderness Area (Black Ridge) 

in the MPA. The management of wilderness (WSAs and WAs) focuses on maintaining the 

wilderness characteristics of appearance of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude 

and/or primitive, unconfined recreation, and size and guidelines have already been established 

for managing these areas. The only decisions that will be made in the RMP for WSAs are: OHV 

designations, route designations, and VRM designations. There are no decisions to be made for 

the Black Ridge Wilderness 

4.3.14.1 ASSUMPTIONS

Some areas within the MPA may have two or more special designations. Any potential ACEC or 

WSR-eligible river segment that falls within a WSA7

 would be managed under the IMP, which 

strictly regulates surface disturbance8

 and protects the "relevant and important values" (in the 

case of an ACEC) or "eligibility" (in the case of a WSR) of the area. WSAs are closed to mineral 

leasing and development and most other surface-disturbing activities. Because WSA restrictions 

on surface-disturbing activities would generally protect the relevant and important values of 

potential ACECs, as well as the outstanding remarkable values of WSRs, the following analyses 

assume that WSAs have a beneficial impact on other lands considered for special designations. 

Because the management of WSAs is often more restrictive than the management of ACECs, the 

designation of an ACEC where a WSA already exists often does not provide significant 

additional resource protection. 

 

7 Some river segments border WSAs. Depending on the WSA border description, some of the area suitable for WSR designation 

would likely be within the WSA. 8 Subject to valid rights existing at the time of the enactment of FLPMA. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-308 

In addition to protecting scenic resources (see Section 4.3.14), Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) designation of an area influences the surface-disturbing activities that can take place. 

VRM Class I is the most restrictive, allowing virtually no surface-disturbing activity. VRM 

Classes II and III allow little to moderate surface disturbance, respectively, and VRM Class IV 

generally does not restrict surface disturbance. The following analyses therefore assume that 

more restrictive VRM Classes (I and II) are more beneficial to the values of specially designated 

areas than less restrictive classes, since they serve to protect scenic resources and reduce surface 

disturbance. 

Under all alternatives, mineral leasing would be conducted primarily for oil and gas within seven 

Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) areas, which cover the entirety of the MPA except 

for WSAs. (WSAs are closed to mineral leasing by law and policy, which is the same for all 

alternatives.) The level of development in each RFD area varies from alternative to alternative 

and from special designation to special designation (e.g., ACECs, WSRs). Under all alternatives, 

areas designated as open to leasing with standard lease terms and open to leasing with timing 

limitation and controlled surface use stipulations are most likely to experience surfacedisturbance due to oil and gas development. Therefore, the following analyses assume that 

acreage closed to leasing or managed with a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation for mineral 

leasing generally benefit areas considered for special designations by reducing or eliminating 

mineral development and associated resource impacts, such as surface disturbance. Conversely, 

the analyses assume that areas open to mineral leasing under standard terms or timing 

limitation/controlled surface use stipulations would be adversely impacted by mineral 

development. 

Under Alternative A, all lands outside WSAs are open to the disposal of salable minerals. 

However, the disposal of salable minerals is not anticipated in these areas. Under Alternatives B, 

D, and the Proposed Plan salable minerals are subject to the stipulations governing oil and gas 

leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. This means that a NSO stipulation closes land to 

salable mineral disposal. 

Under all action alternatives, the imposition of a closed or NSO stipulation for oil and gas 

leasing would preclude all other surface-disturbing activities, with the exception of locatable 

mineral development. 

Under all alternatives, all public lands within the MPA are open to mining claim location unless 

they are within an existing withdrawal. It is possible that mining claims could be located in areas 

proposed for Special Designation (eligible rivers for Congressional WSR designation, or 

ACECs). Wilderness Areas are withdrawn by Congress. Mining claims can be located within 

WSAs, but development is subject to the non-impairment standard. Except where WSAs are in 

place and where development of claims would be subject to a non-impairment standard, 

claimants could conduct operations that would adversely impact the resources of concern. 

Locatable mineral development would be subject to timing limitations and controlled surface use 

stipulations. However, development in these areas is not anticipated, and therefore, for this 

analysis, it is assumed that adverse impacts to these areas from locatable mineral development 

would not occur 

In general, the following analyses assume that woodland harvest would adversely affect the 

values of lands considered for special designations by increasing surface disturbance and human-
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-309 

related disturbance. However, the low level of woodland harvest in the MPA minimizes the 

adverse impacts to these areas. 

Except for Alternative A, NSO areas are avoidance areas for rights of way; closed areas are 

exclusion areas for rights of way. Rights of way are issued for roads, pipelines, power lines, wind 

and solar power sites, and communication sites. Rights of way in avoidance areas would only be 

granted if there are no feasible alternatives. Therefore, the following analyses assume that rights 

of way would not be placed within NSO or closed areas in any of the action alternatives. Rights 

of way could be granted in potential Special Designation areas under Alternative A. 

Except for Alternative A, where a NSO stipulation does not preclude other surface-disturbing 

activities, NSO areas are avoidance areas for rights-of-way; closed areas are exclusion areas for 

rights of way. Rights of way are issued for roads, pipelines, power lines, wind and solar power 

sites, and communication sites. Rights-of-way in avoidance areas would only be granted if there 

are no feasible alternatives. Therefore, the following analyses assume that rights-of-way would 

not be placed within NSO or closed areas in any of the action alternatives. Rights-of-way could 

be granted in potential Special Designation areas under Alternative A, except where WSAs or 

designated wilderness exist. 

Except for Alternative A, OHV use would be limited to designated routes unless otherwise 

specified. The following analyses assume that this would have beneficial impacts to the values of 

areas considered for special designations by eliminating surface disturbance from cross-country 

travel. Limiting OHV use to designated routes throughout the MPA would also likely result in 

fewer instances of inadvertent, casual, or deliberate illegal riding off designated routes, and 

would consequently also decrease the risk of impacts to resources within areas considered for 

special designations. 

4.3.14.2 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACECS) 

ACECs are designated to provide special management attention to "relevant and important" 

values, resources, natural systems, and natural hazards, including the following, which are found 

in the MPA: 

• Rare or relict plant species 

• Special status plant, fish, and animal species (designated as threatened, endangered, or 

candidate by the USFWS, or as sensitive by the BLM) 

• Important wildlife habitat 

• Riparian areas 

• Watersheds and other natural systems (e.g., flash flood hazards) 

• Dune systems and sensitive soils 

• Cultural resources (historical or prehistoric) 

• Paleontological resources 

• Scenic (i.e., visual) resources 

• Natural hazards 

Most of these are also resources in their own right requiring management and planning via this 

PRMP/FEIS, so they are discussed in greater detail at the planning area-wide level in other 

sections of this PRMP/FEIS. Therefore, the impacts analysis presented in this section focuses on 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-310 

comparisons among the alternatives, based largely on the assumptions described in the section 

above. More detailed analyses of the impacts of particular management decisions on specific 

relevant and important resource values can be found under each specific resource section. For 

example, the effects of watershed management decisions on riparian areas can be found in 

Section 4.3.11 (Environmental Consequences of Alternatives, Riparian). 

As stated above, any section(s) of a potential ACEC that falls within a WSA would be managed 

under the BLM's Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP), which 

strictly regulates surface disturbance and impacts that would alter the area's wilderness 

characteristics (appearance of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation) One of the practical effects of this interim management is 

that permitted activities in WSAs (except grandfathered uses and valid existing rights) are 

limited to temporary uses that create no new surface disturbance, nor involve permanent 

placement of structures. (H-8550-1 Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness 

Review; BLM 1995). All prescriptions for ACEC/WSA overlap areas must comply with the 

IMP. Since the IMP imposes these special management conditions, it is assumed that there 

would be no impacts to the relevant and important values in the overlap areas and that ACEC 

management would be duplicative in most instances. Table 4.96 lists the ACECs with the percent 

of WSA overlap. 

Table 4.96. Acres ACEC Designated and % WSA by Alternative 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

ACECs 

Acres % 

WSA Acres % WSA Acres % WSA Acres % WSA 

Behind the 

Rocks* 

0 NA 17,836 73% 5,201 0% 0 NA 

Book Cliffs 0 NA 304,252 81% 0 NA 0 NA 

Canyon Rims 0 NA 23,400 0% 0 NA 0 NA 

Cisco Whitetailed Prairie Dog 

Complex 

0 NA 117,481 0% 0 NA 0 NA 

Colorado River 

Corridor 

0 NA 50,483 5% 0 NA 0 NA 

CottonwoodDiamond 

Watershed 

0 NA 35,830 93% 35,830 93% 0 NA 

Hwy 279/Shafer 

Basin/Long 

Canyon 

0 NA 13,500 0% 13,500 0% 0 NA 

Labyrinth 

Canyon 

0 NA 8,528 0% 0 NA 0 NA 

Mill Creek 

Canyon* 

0 NA 13,501 58% 3,721 0% 0 NA 

Ten Mile Wash 0 NA 4,980 0% 4,980 0% 0 NA 

Upper 

Courthouse 

0 NA 11,529 0% 0 NA 0 NA 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-311 

Table 4.96. Acres ACEC Designated and % WSA by Alternative 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Westwater 0 NA 5,069 98% 0 NA 0 NA 

White Wash 0 NA 2,988 0% 0 NA 0 NA 

Wilson Arch 0 NA 3,700 0% 0 NA 0 NA 

Total 0 NA 613,077 50% 63,232 53% 0 NA 

*The Behind the Rocks and Mill Creek ACECs differ in size between Alternative B and the Proposed Plan.

Any section(s) of a proposed or existing ACEC that falls within a WSA would be managed under 

the BLM's Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP), which 

strictly regulates surface disturbance and impacts that would alter the naturalness, primitiveness 

and solitude of the area. One of the practical effects of this interim management is that permitted 

activities in WSAs (except grandfathered and valid existing rights) are limited to temporary uses 

that create no new surface disturbance, nor involve permanent placement of structures. (H-8550-

1 Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review; BLM 1995). All 

prescriptions for ACEC/WSA overlap areas must comply with or have a greater protective 

emphasis than those imposed by the IMP. Since the IMP imposes these special management 

conditions, it is assumed that there would be no impacts to the relevant and important values in 

the overlap areas and that ACEC management would be duplicative in most instances. Table 

4.96 lists the ACECs with the percent of WSA overlap. 

No beneficial or adverse impacts to these relevant and important values, resources, natural 

systems or hazards of the potential ACECs in the MPA would result from management decisions 

regarding air quality, or fire management. 

Twelve of the fourteen Potential ACECs have acreage that is leased for oil and gas under 

stipulations developed in earlier RMPs. These oil and gas leases would remain valid until they 

expire (leases are issued for ten years). While all leases do not proceed to development, 

stipulations developed in this RMP for oil and gas leasing would not apply to leases issued under 

previous RMPs. Table 4.97 predicts the number of wells that could be drilled under valid 

existing leases, by Potential ACEC. 

Table 4.97. Potential ACECs, Number of Wells Predicted, and Currently Leased Acreage 

Name of Potential 

ACEC 

Total Acreage 

in ACEC 

Acreage 

under Existing

Leases 

Percentage of 

Potential 

ACEC under 

Lease 

RFD Area 

Number of 

Wells 

Predicted 

under Existing 

Leases 

Behind the Rocks* 17,836 45 <1.0 Big FlatHatch Point <1.0 

Bookcliffs Wildlife 304,252 41,933 14 Bookcliffs 28.9 

Canyon Rims 23,400 9,348 39 Big FlatHatch Point 1.2 

Cisco White-tailed 

Prairie Dog 

117,481 58,846 50 Greater 

Cisco 

53.5 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-312 

Table 4.97. Potential ACECs, Number of Wells Predicted, and Currently Leased Acreage 

Name of Potential 

ACEC 

Total Acreage 

in ACEC 

Acreage 

under Existing

Leases 

Percentage of 

Potential 

ACEC under 

Lease 

RFD Area 

Number of 

Wells 

Predicted 

under Existing 

Leases 

Colorado River 

Corridor 

50,483 1,168 2 Eastern 

Paradox 

0.07 

CottonwoodDiamond Watershed 

35,830 1,592 4 Bookcliffs 1.1 

Highway 279/Shafer 

Basin/Long Canyon 

13,500 2,944 22 Big FlatHatch Point 0.37 

Labyrinth Canyon 8,528 41 0.48 Big Flat - 

Hatch Point 

0.005 

Mill Creek Canyon* 13,501 130 0.96 Eastern 

Paradox 

0.0078 

Ten Mile Wash 4,980 6 0.12 Big FlatHatch Point <.01 

White Wash 2,988 1,821 61 Salt Wash 0.43 

Wilson Arch 3,700 2,624 71 Lisbon 

Valley 

1.3 

* Behind the Rocks and Mill Creek ACECs include the WSA acreage in Alternative B; they do not include the WSA acreage in the 

Proposed Plan. 

Two potential ACECs, Bookcliffs and Greater Cisco, have 28 and 53 wells predicted that could 

be drilled under valid existing rights. This could adversely impact the relevant and important 

values found in these ACECs. Three potential ACECs (Canyon Rims, Cottonwood-Diamond and 

Wilson Arch) have around one well predicted, which could have a minor adverse impact to the 

relevant and important values found in these ACECs. On the remainder of the ACECs, fewer 

than one well is predicted. This would not adversely impact the relevant and important values of 

the ACEC in question. 

4.3.14.2.1 BEHIND THE ROCKS POTENTIAL ACEC (17,836 ACRES) 

If designated, the Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC would be managed to preserve the relevant 

and important special status and relict plant species, cultural and scenic values where designated 

(Alternative B and the Proposed Plan). 

The Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC would be managed to preserve the relevant and important 

values of special status and relict plant species, cultural resources, and scenery where designated 

(Alternative B and the Proposed Plan). 

Approximately 12,836 acres of the potential ACEC overlaps with the Behind the Rocks WSA. 

This would result in beneficial impacts to the ACEC, as described above. The area would also be 

within the Colorado Riverway Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). SRMAs are 

established to provide for intensive management of recreation activities, potentially benefiting 

the resource values of concern in the ACEC. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-313 

4.3.14.2.1.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC would not be designated an ACEC. 

The 5,201 acres of the proposed Behind the Rocks ACEC that do not overlap the Behind the 

Rocks WSA would not receive any special designation, and would be managed under the 

following stipulations: 

• OHV use would be limited to existing routes. 

• Rights-of-way could be approved outside the WSA. 

• Manage as VRM inventory class. 

• Oil and gas leasing would be closed on 3,652 acres. About 1,958 acres would be managed as 

no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing, while about 694 acres would be open under 

standard lease terms. 

Based on projections of oil and gas development in the Big Flat/Hatch Point RFD area, 

approximately 7.3 acres of surface disturbance within the proposed ACEC are likely to occur 

over the life of the plan (Table 4.98). This surface disturbance would detract from scenic values. 

Table 4.98. Acres of Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and 

Gas Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Behind the Rocks 7.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 

4.3.14.2.1.2 Alternative B (17,836 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 17,836 acres proposed would be designated and managed as an 

ACEC. Of this acreage, 12,635 acres are within the Behind the Rocks WSA, and 4,231 acres of 

non-WSA lands (in Hunter Canyon and Behind the Rocks) would be managed for wilderness 

characteristics. This decision would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to the relevant and 

important values of the ACEC. 

Management prescriptions on the entire area of the ACEC would generally be more beneficial 

than under Alternative A, and would include: 

• Limiting OHV use to designated routes. 

• Restricting vehicle-based camping to campgrounds and not allowing campfires outside of 

campgrounds. 

• Closing the area to surface-disturbing vegetation treatments except for treatments of noxious 

weeds and exotics. 

• Closing the area to woodland harvest. 

• Designating as VRM Class I. 

• Prioritizing Class III inventories for cultural resources. 

• The 12,635 acres within the Behind the Rocks WSA would be managed under IMP. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-314 

• Manage the 12,635 acres within the WSA and the wilderness characteristics acreage (4,231 

acres) as closed to oil and gas leasing. About 970 acres outside the WSA or wilderness 

characteristics area are managed as no surface occupancy for oil and gas leasing which 

precludes other surface-disturbing activities. The closed area is an exclusion area for rightsof-way, and the NSO area is an avoidance area for rights-of-way. 

Prioritizing Class III inventories for cultural resources would have a beneficial impact by 

identifying significant cultural sites so that management efforts can be taken to prevent damage 

from activities from other management programs 

Alternative B would have the least adverse impacts from oil and gas development (Table 4.98), 

and from all other surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.14.2.1.3 Proposed Plan (5,201 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under the Proposed Plan, 5,201 acres of the potential ACEC would be designated and managed 

as an ACEC. None of these acres are within the Behind the Rocks WSA. Of these 5,201 acres, 

4,231 acres of non-WSA lands are managed for wilderness characteristics. Management of the 

ACEC is similar to that described for Alternative B, except that the ACEC would be managed as 

VRM Class II9

 and the 4,231 acres with wilderness characteristics would be managed as NSO 

for oil and gas leasing as well as precluding other surface-disturbing activities. The impacts to 

the potential ACEC from the Proposed Plan would be essentially the same as under Alternative 

B. This is because the portion not designated would continue to be protected as a WSA, and 

management of the designated area as NSO for oil and gas leasing would also strictly limit all 

other surface-disturbing activities. As a result, the impacts to the ACEC from the Proposed Plan 

would be essentially the same as under Alternative B. 

4.3.14.2.1.4 Alternative D (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative D, zero acres would be designated as Behind the Rocks ACEC Although the 

WSA portion would be protected by the IMP, the 5,201 acres outside of the Behind the Rocks 

WSA would not be so protected. Although vehicle travel would be limited to designated routes, 

which is protective of the surface, in the non-WSA portion approximately 5,000 acres would be 

available for oil and gas leasing and development, which, along with a VRM Class III 

designation which allows for noticeable disturbance, could put scenic and cultural values and 

plant resources at risk in a portion of the potential ACEC. Based on projections of oil and gas 

development, approximately 7.0 acres of surface disturbance within the proposed ACEC are 

likely to occur over the life of the plan (Table 4.98). Therefore, Alternative D would have 

similar, although slightly less, potential for adverse impacts to the relevant and important values 

and resources of the ACEC than Alternative A. 

4.3.14.2.2 BOOK CLIFFS POTENTIAL ACEC (304,252 ACRES) 

If designated, the Book Cliffs Potential ACEC would be managed to preserve the relevant and 

important cultural resources, and important habitat for wildlife (i.e., Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep, mule deer, and elk) values where designated (Alternative B). 

 

9

 Barring any prior existing rights, no oil and gas related surface disturbance is projected to occur. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-315 

Approximately 250,207 acres of the potential ACEC overlap with the Desolation, Flume, Floy, 

Coal, and Spruce WSAs. All acreage within the WSAs would be managed as VRM I. 

4.3.14.2.2.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the Book Cliffs ACEC would not be designated. The 54,045 acres of the 

proposed Book Cliffs ACEC that are not within WSAs would not receive any special 

designation, and would be managed under the following stipulations: 

• Allow woodland harvest. 

• Rights-of-way could be approved outside the WSAs. 

• OHV use would be managed as open or limited to existing routes. 

• Leasable mineral development would be allowed on 15,757 acres with standard lease terms, 

and on 38,415 acres with timing limitations and controlled surface use stipulations. Other 

surface-disturbing activities, including salable mineral development, would be precluded. 

Based on projections of oil and gas development in the Book Cliffs, Roan Cliffs, Eastern 

Paradox and Greater Cisco RFD areas, approximately 841 acres of surface disturbance within the 

proposed ACEC (1.6% of the potential ACEC outside the WSAs) are likely to occur over the life 

of the plan (Table 4.99). This surface disturbance would impact wildlife habitat values. 

Table 4.99. Acres of Book Cliffs Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas 

Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Book Cliffs 841.0 0.0 805.9 805.9 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 

4.3.14.2.2.2 Alternative B (304,252 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 304,252 acres proposed would be designated and managed as an 

ACEC. This management decision would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to the relevant 

and important values of the ACEC. The area would also be within the Bookcliffs and Lower 

Gray Canyon SRMAs. SRMAs are established to provide for intensive management of 

recreation activities, potentially benefiting the resource values of concern in the ACEC. 

Alternative B management prescriptions would beneficially impact the ACEC area more than 

Alternative A by: 

• Restricting OHV use to designated routes. 

• Closing the area to harvesting woodland products. 

• Of the 54,405 acres outside the WSA, 34,363 acres are managed with a no surface occupancy 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. The remaining 

19,901 acres of non-WSA lands (in Coal Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Floy Canyon, Spruce 

Canyon and Mexico Point) are managed to protect wilderness characteristics and are closed 

to oil and gas leasing. Thus, no adverse impacts due to oil and gas development are expected 

under this alternative (Table 4.99). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-316 

• Prioritizing Class III inventories for cultural resources. 

• The 249,988 acres within the WSAs would be managed under IMP and would be closed to 

oil and gas leasing. 

• Designate the 19,901 acres with wilderness characteristics as VRM Class II. All areas of the 

proposed ACEC within a WSA would be designated as VRM Class I. 

4.3.14.2.2.3 Alternative D and Proposed Plan (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC 

Designation) 

Under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan, the Book Cliffs Potential ACEC would not be 

designated. The 54,045 acres of the proposed Book Cliffs ACEC that are not within WSAs 

would not receive any special designation. In addition, no acres would be managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics. The area would be managed under the same management 

prescriptions as Alternative A, with the following exceptions: 

• Approximately 1,800 acres outside the WSAs along the Green River would be closed to 

woodland harvest to protect recreational resources. 

• All mineral development would be subject to timing restrictions. The total acreage likely to 

be disturbed by mineral resource development would be 805.9 acres, or 1.5% of the potential 

ACEC lands that are outside the WSAs (Table 4.99). 

• All OHV use would be limited to designated routes. 

• Rights-of-way could be granted anywhere outside the WSA. 

Because of these exceptions, the overall net impacts to the relevant and important values in this 

area due to Alternative D and the Proposed Plan would be adverse compared to Alternative B, 

but beneficial compared to Alternative A. Wildlife values could be adversely impacted by the 

habitat fragmentation and disruption caused by surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.14.2.3 CANYON RIMS POTENTIAL ACEC (23,400 ACRES) 

If designated, the Canyon Rims Potential ACEC would be managed to preserve relevant and 

important scenic values where designated (Alternative B). 

Under all alternatives, the potential Canyon Rims ACEC is within the Canyon Rims SRMA, 

SRMAs are established to provide for intensive management of recreation activities, potentially 

benefiting the resource values of concern in the ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.3.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the proposed Canyon Rims ACEC would not be designated, but would 

continue to be managed as a SRMA. The majority of the area would be designated as VRM 

Class II, and mineral development would be allowed with controlled surface use stipulations to 

protect visual resources. 

Based on projections of oil and gas development in the Big Flat/Hatch Point RFD area, 

approximately 33.2 acres (0.1% of the potential ACEC lands) of surface disturbance within the 

proposed ACEC are likely to occur over the life of the plan (Table 4.100). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-317 

Table 4.100. Acres of Canyon Rims Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas 

Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Canyon Rims 33.2 0.0 24.0 31.7 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 

Adverse impacts to the relevant and important value in this area (i.e., scenic resources) would be 

caused by mineral, development and the development of rights of way. No adverse impacts to 

the relevant and important value would result from recreation decisions, since the area is n 

SRMA; camping would be limited to designated sites, and routes for motorized events and 

motorized, mechanized, and non-mechanized sight-seeing would be delineated. 

4.3.14.2.3.2 Alternative B (23,400 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 23,400 acres proposed would be designated and managed as an 

ACEC. Of this acreage, 3,417 acres of non-WSA lands (in Harts Point and Hatch/Lockhart) 

would be managed for wilderness characteristics and would be closed to oil and gas leasing. The 

remaining area would be managed with a NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing. Because the 

entire area is either closed or NSO, no oil and gas development is expected under this alternative 

(Table 4.100), compared to the 33 acres projected in Alternative A. In addition, other surfacedisturbing activities, including salable mineral development, would be precluded in the entire 

ACEC. Motorized or mechanized vehicles would be limited to designated routes, and no new 

routes would be allowed. As a result of the above management prescriptions, Alternative B 

would increase protection of scenic values over Alternative A. 

4.3.14.2.3.3 Alternative D and Proposed Plan (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC 

Designation) 

Under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan, none of the Canyon Rims Proposed ACEC would be 

designated as an ACEC. It would be managed as an SRMA. These alternatives would utilize the 

same management prescriptions as Alternative A, with the following exceptions: 

• A portion of the area (943 acres in the Proposed Plan and 2,266 acres in Alternative D) 

would be subject to standard lease terms. The remainder of the area would be subject to a 

controlled surface use stipulation to protect visual resources. The total acreage of ACEC 

lands likely to be disturbed by oil and gas development would be 24.0 acres under the 

Proposed Plan and 31.7 acres under Alternative D (Table 4.100). 

• A portion of the area (943 acres in the Proposed Plan and 2,266 acres in Alternative D) 

would be designated VRM Class III. As a result, the viewshed from the top of the canyon 

could be negatively affected by surface-disturbing activities. 

• OHV use would be limited to designated routes. 

• Due to the exceptions above, Alternative D and the Proposed Plan would result in less 

adverse impacts to the relevant and important value of scenery than Alternative A, but 

greater adverse impacts than Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-318 

4.3.14.2.4 CISCO WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG COMPLEX POTENTIAL ACEC (117,481

ACRES) 

If designated, he Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex ACEC would be managed to preserve 

the relevant and important value of wildlife where designated (Alternative B). White-tailed 

prairie dog habitat provides important habitat for other important wildlife species such as kit fox 

and ferruginous hawk. 

4.3.14.2.4.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex would not be designated as an 

ACEC. The area would be managed under the following actions: 

• OHV use would be managed as open or as limited to existing routes. 

• Leasable and salable mineral development would be primarily open under standard and 

special stipulations, with less than 1% of lands in this ACEC area being subject to no surface 

occupancy. 

• The area would be open to rights-of-way development 

• There are no visual resource management classes. 

Based on projections of oil and gas development in the Greater Cisco, Book Cliffs and Eastern 

Paradox RFD areas, approximately 1,249 acres of surface disturbance (1.1% of the potential 

ACEC lands) within the proposed ACEC are likely to occur over the life of the plan (Table 

4.101). 

Table 4.101. Acres of Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex Potential ACEC Likely to 

be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex 1,248.5 0 1,255.4 1,256.5 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area). The acreage of disturbance from oil and gas development includes ancillary facilities such as roads, pipelines, and power 

lines. There may be loss of individuals due to increased volume and speed of traffic. 

4.3.14.2.4.2 Alternative B (117,481 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 117,481 acres proposed would be designated and managed as an 

ACEC. Management prescriptions would be tailored to enhance habitat for the white-tailed 

prairie dog. The BLM would work with the UDWR and the USFWS to protect the species. OHV 

use would be restricted to designated routes, and no new routes for mechanized or mechanical 

travel would be allowed. Mineral leasing would be managed with a no surface occupancy 

stipulation. Because the entire area is managed as NSO, no oil and gas development is expected 

under this alternative (Table 4.101), compared to the 1,249 acres projected in Alternative A. 

Other surface-disturbing activities, including salable mineral development, would be precluded. 

Allotment Management Plans for grazing would be revised, which could include changing 

season of use, to protect prairie dog habitat. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-319 

Surveys for prairie dogs would be conducted prior to surface-disturbing activities. The results of 

these surveys will be used for avoidance and other mitigating measures. These measures would 

reduce the adverse impacts to prairie dogs and their habitat. 

Restricting surface-disturbing activities would be beneficial to the White-tailed Prairie Dog by 

reducing vegetation loss and disruption of burrows. Managing livestock grazing to maximize 

seed production would enhance prairie dog forage and have a beneficial impact on the species. 

Limitation of travel to designated routes would reduce travel- and OHV-related impacts relative 

to Alternative A. 

As a result of the above management prescriptions, Alternative B would offer an increase in the 

protection of wildlife values over Alternative A. 

4.3.14.2.4.3 Proposed Plan (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under the Proposed Plan, the Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex ACEC would not be 

designated. This alternative would apply the same management prescriptions as Alternative A, 

with the following exceptions: 

• The area of the ACEC would be open with standard lease terms and/or a controlled surface 

use stipulation. A 660-foot buffer would be required around known active prairie dog 

colonies. The total acreage likely to be disturbed by oil and gas development within this 

ACEC area would be 1,255.4 acres, or 1.1% of the potential ACEC lands (Table 4.101). 

• Rights of way could be authorized throughout the area 

• Livestock grazing would be managed to maximize seed production of range vegetation using 

AMPs (this would be done without changing the season of use). 

• OHV use would be limited to designated routes. 

• Surveys for prairie dogs would be conducted prior to surface-disturbing activities in addition 

to other avoidance and other mitigating measures. These measures would reduce the adverse 

impacts to prairie dogs and their habitat 

Because of these exceptions, the overall impacts to the relevant and important values in this area 

would be less adverse than under Alternative A, but also less protective than Alternative B. 

4.3.14.2.4.4 Alternative D (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Alternative D would have the same impacts as the Proposed Plan, except that livestock grazing 

would not be managed to maximize seed production. This would limit the amount of forage 

available for the white-tailed prairie dog, possibly adversely impacting their populations. 

About 86,295 acres would be open to oil and gas leasing with standard stipulations, rather than 

leasing with controlled surface use. This could have an adverse impact on the species, although 

surveys for prairie dogs would be conducted prior to surface-disturbing activities in addition to 

other avoidance and other mitigating measures. These measures would reduce the adverse 

impacts to prairie dogs and their habitat. Limitation of travel to designated routes would reduce 

travel- and OHV-related impacts relative to Alternative A. 

The total acreage likely to be disturbed by oil and gas development within this ACEC area would 

be 1,256 acres (Table 4.101). As in Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, OHV use would be 

limited to designated routes. Therefore, Alternative D is far less protective than Alternative B, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-320 

similar to the Proposed Plan, but slightly more protective than Alternative A, because surfacedisturbing activities could adversely impact prairie dogs. 

4.3.14.2.5 COLORADO RIVER CORRIDOR POTENTIAL ACEC (50,483 ACRES) 

If designated, the Colorado River Corridor ACEC would be managed to protect the relevant and 

important threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants, threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, 

and scenery values, where designated (under Alternative B). 

Of the 50,483 acres proposed for ACEC designation, approximately 7,280 acres are within the 

Negro Bill WSA and would be managed under IMP. This acreage would be closed to mineral 

development and all other surface-disturbing activities under all alternatives. This would result in 

beneficial impacts to the relevant and important values of the ACEC. 

Under all alternatives, impacts from the existing Three Rivers Withdrawal on a total of 18,519 

acres of the ACEC would reduce or eliminate impacts to the relevant and important values on 

that acreage, regardless of whether the ACEC is designated. The withdrawal precludes the 

development of locatable minerals. 

4.3.14.2.5.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (B, D, and the Proposed 

Plan) 

The potential Colorado River Corridor ACEC is located within the Colorado Riverway SRMA: 

recreation in the ACEC area is to be managed in accordance with the management prescriptions 

outlined in this SRMA. The area of the Three Rivers Withdrawal is NSO for oil and gas leasing 

and other surface-disturbing activities under all action alternatives 

4.3.14.2.5.2 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the Colorado River Corridor ACEC would not be designated. The 43,329 

acres10 of the proposed ACEC that are not within the Negro Bill Canyon WSA would have the 

following management stipulations: 

• A small portion of the river corridor would be managed for recreation activities as part of the 

Colorado River SRMA. A SRMA is established to provide for intensive management of 

recreation activities, potentially benefiting the resource values of concern in the ACEC. 

• The 43,329 acres of the proposed ACEC outside the WSA would be open to oil and gas 

leasing. Of these 43,329 acres, 10,864 acres would be managed with timing limitations and 

controlled surface use stipulations, 1,189 acres would be managed with a NSO stipulation, 

and 31,276 acres would be open under standard lease terms. 

• Woodland harvest would be limited to the area north of the Colorado River. 

• There are no visual resource management classes; VRM would be managed according to 

inventory class. 

Based on projections of oil and gas development in the Eastern Paradox RFD area, 

approximately 35 acres of surface disturbance within the proposed ACEC are likely to occur 

 

10 Due to acreage discrepancies between the existing RMP and new GIS data, the acreages for the mineral leasing categories do 

not match the acreage for the potential ACEC. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-321 

over the life of the plan (Table 4.102). This surface disturbance would adversely impact the 

scenic values and fragment wildlife habitat within the area. 

Table 4.102. Acres of Colorado River Corridor Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by 

Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Colorado River Corridor 34.8 0 26.1 30.4 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 

4.3.14.2.5.3 Alternative B (50,483 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, all 50,483 acres proposed would be designated and managed as an ACEC. 

Of this acreage, 7,280 acres are within the Negro Bill WSA, and 33,548 acres would be managed 

for wilderness characteristics. Management prescriptions applicable to the entire area would 

provide far more protection under this alternative than under Alternative A, due to the following 

prescriptions: 

• No vegetation treatments would be allowed except to treat noxious weeds. 

• The area would be managed as VRM Class I. 

• OHV and mechanized vehicle use would be limited to designated routes and there would be 

no competitive OHV events. 

• Approximately 40,828 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing (within the Negro Bill 

WSA and non-WSA lands wilderness characteristics areas in Dome Plateau, Fisher Towers, 

Mary Jane Canyon and Negro Bill Canyon). The remaining acreage (9,655 acres) would be 

managed with a no surface occupancy stipulation for oil and gas leasing and would preclude 

other surface-disturbing activities. Because the entire area is managed as closed or NSO, no 

oil and gas development is expected under this alternative (Table 4.102), compared to the 35 

acres of surface disturbance projected in Alternative A. 

• Special Recreation Permit issuance would be adjusted to not interfere with bighorn sheep 

lambing habitat. 

• Vehicular based camping (and associated campfires) would only be allowed in designated 

sites on the south side of the Colorado River. 

• All public lands in the proposed ACEC would be retained in public ownership except for a 

parcel identified in the Professor Valley land exchange, and acquiring inholdings would be 

prioritized. 

• No woodland harvest would be allowed. 

Restricting vehicular camping to the south side of the Colorado River, and timing SRP issuance 

and livestock grazing seasons of use so as to not interfere with bighorn sheep lambing habitat 

would have the beneficial effect of reducing human disturbance to ewes and lambs during their 

most vulnerable periods. This would reduce mortality to newborn lambs. 

The on-going Professor Valley land exchange has identified lands for disposal. Should the 

exchange fall through, the area proposed for exchange would be managed under the proposed 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-322 

ACEC. No other parcels within the ACEC would be considered for disposal. There would be a 

beneficial effect to all resources, since the disposed public lands would likely be developed. The 

same benefit would result from acquiring inholdings within the ACEC. 

Alternative B provides the greatest protection for the relevant and important values identified in 

the Colorado River Corridor Potential ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.5.4 Proposed Plan (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

The Colorado River Corridor ACEC would not be designated under the Proposed Plan, which 

would result in some adverse impacts to the relevant and important values of the area (Although 

T&E species would be protected by law). Overall impacts would be more adverse than under 

Alternative B. The area would be managed under the following management actions: 

• The recreation management prescriptions in the Colorado Riverway SRMA for the Dry 

Mesa/Cache Valley area north of the Colorado River would be the same as under Alternative 

B, except that the Proposed Plan does not restrict river-based camping. 

• The VRM designation outside the WSA would be VRM Class II. 

• Most of the potential ACEC would be managed as closed or with a NSO stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing as well as precluding other surface-disturbing activities. However, the 

northwest portion of the potential ACEC would be managed as open with timing limitations 

and controlled surface use stipulations. As a result, the acreage projected to be disturbed 

within the area (outside the WSA) would be 26.1 acres (Table 4.102). This represents more 

disturbance than the 0 acres projected to be disturbed in Alternative B. 

Because of the less restrictive VRM class, the Proposed Plan would have slightly less protective 

effect on scenic resources than would Alternative B. The prescriptions designed to protect desert 

bighorn would not be as stringent as in Alternative B. There would be less minerals-related 

surface disturbance than under Alternative A and D, but more than under Alternative B. 

Management of the potential ACEC under the Proposed Plan is more beneficial to the relevant 

and important values than under Alternatives A and D but less than under Alternative B. 

4.3.14.2.5.5 Alternative D (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Alternative D would result in nearly the same impacts to relevant and important values as the 

Proposed Plan, except that it would open the non-WSA, non-withdrawn lands to oil and gas 

leasing and other surface-disturbing activities with timing limitation and controlled surface use 

stipulations. This would result in more acreage open to oil and gas development than under 

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, thereby resulting in greater adverse impacts to relevant and 

important values. Oil and gas development is projected to disturb 30.4 acres within the potential 

Colorado River Corridor ACEC. 

Therefore, while many impacts to the relevant and important values would be the same as under 

the Proposed Plan, impacts from oil and gas development would be more adverse than under 

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, although less adverse than Alternative A. Protection of 

T&E plants would occur under Alternative D. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-323 

4.3.14.2.6 COTTONWOOD-DIAMOND WATERSHED POTENTIAL ACEC (35,830 ACRES) 

If designated, the Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed ACEC would be managed to preserve the 

relevant and important Cottonwood-Diamond watershed value, (under Alternative B and 

Proposed Plan). This area was severely burned in a 2003 wildfire. Since then, the danger of flash 

floods and mudslides has posed significant hazards to human life and safety. 

Under all alternatives, out of the 35,830 acres of the potential ACEC, a total of 34,004 acres are 

located within the Flume, Coal Canyon, and Spruce WSAs. This would result in beneficial 

impacts to the watershed within that acreage, as WSAs are closed to oil and gas leasing and other 

surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.14.2.6.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed ACEC would not be designated. 

Approximately 1,825 acres of the proposed Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed ACEC that are 

outside of WSAs would be managed with the following management prescriptions: 

• The potential ACEC is located within the Book Cliffs RFD area. Oil and gas development 

would be subject to timing limitation stipulations on 1,825 acres. On this acreage, it is 

projected that oil and gas development would result in about 1.1 acres of surface disturbance 

of the potential ACEC lands. 

• Rights-of-way could be granted in this area. 

• There are no visual resource management classes; VRM would be managed under the 

inventory class. 

• Livestock grazing would not be available in the Cottonwood, Diamond or Bogart allotments. 

• OHV use is limited to existing roads. 

4.3.14.2.6.2 Alternative B (35,830 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 35,830 acres proposed would be designated as the Cottonwood 

Diamond Watershed ACEC until the watershed is restored to a healthy and functioning condition 

(PFC.) Management prescriptions in Alternative B would provide additional protection to the 

watershed (compared to Alternative A) by closing all roads except for administrative access, and 

withholding Special Recreation Permits for the area. The acreage within the WSA would be 

managed under IMP. Oil and gas leasing is managed as closed in the WSA. In Alternative B, 

management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in Flume Canyon and Spruce 

Canyon would close an additional 1,690 acres to oil and gas leasing with a NSO stipulation in 

the remaining 135 acres. Because the entire area is managed as either closed or with a NSO 

stipulation, there would be 0 acres of surface disturbance due to oil and gas development, as 

compared to 1.1 acres in Alternative A. 

Alternative B would also designate the area as part of the Bookcliffs SRMA. A SRMA is 

established to provide for intensive management of recreation activities, potentially benefiting 

the resource values of concern in the ACEC. Closing roads and not issuing Special Recreation 

Permits would have the effect of reducing human presence in the area, thus reducing human 

impacts that would slow the rehabilitation of the area. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-324 

Under Alternative B the area would not be available for grazing, as both the Cottonwood and 

Diamond allotments are not available. This would have beneficial impacts to the watershed by 

eliminating the erosion caused by livestock. Under Alternatives B, managing the area as an 

ACEC would provide more beneficial impacts to the relevant and important values of watershed 

protection than under Alternatives A and D. 

4.3.14.2.6.3 Proposed Plan (35,830 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under the Proposed Plan, the entire 35,830 acres proposed would be designated as the 

Cottonwood Diamond Watershed ACEC until the watershed is restored to a healthy and 

functioning condition (PFC.) Management prescriptions in the Proposed Plan would provide 

additional protection to the watershed (compared to Alternative A) by closing all roads except 

for administrative access, and withholding Special Recreation Permits for the area. The acreage 

within the WSA would be managed under IMP. Oil and gas leasing is managed as closed in the 

WSA. The remaining 1,825 acres are NSO in the Proposed Plan. Because the entire area is 

managed as either closed or with a NSO stipulation, there would be 0 acres of surface 

disturbance due to oil and gas development, as compared to 1.1 acres in Alternative A. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the area would not be available for grazing, as both the Cottonwood 

and Diamond allotments are not available. This would have beneficial impacts to the watershed 

by eliminating the erosion caused by livestock. Under the Proposed Plan, managing the area as 

an ACEC would provide more beneficial impacts to the relevant and important values of 

watershed protection than under Alternatives A and D. 

4.3.14.2.6.4 Alternative D (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative D, the area would not be designated as an ACEC. OHV use would be limited 

to designated routes, which would be a beneficial impact to the relevant and important value of 

this area. Approximately 1.1 acres would likely be disturbed by oil and gas development. Under 

Alternative D, the area would be available for grazing, as the Cottonwood and Diamond 

allotments are available for livestock use. This would cause adverse impacts from the erosion 

caused by livestock. Adverse impacts, especially from the reinstatement of livestock grazing, to 

the relevant and important values are more than Alternatives B, A, or the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.14.2.7 HIGHWAY 279 CORRIDOR/SHAFER BASIN/LONG CANYON POTENTIAL ACEC

(13,500 ACRES) 

If designated, the Highway 279 Corridor/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon ACEC would be managed 

to preserve the relevant and important special status plant species, wildlife, and cultural and 

scenic resources values (under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan). 

Under all alternatives, impacts from the existing Three Rivers Withdrawal on a total of 2,034 

acres of the ACEC would reduce or eliminate impacts to the relevant and important values on 

that acreage, regardless of whether the ACEC is designated. The withdrawal precludes the 

development of locatable minerals. 

The majority of the potential ACEC is located within the Colorado Riverway SRMA; recreation 

in the ACEC area is to be managed in accordance with the management prescriptions outlined in 

this SRMA. SRMAs are established to provide for intensive management of recreation activities, 

potentially benefiting the resource values of concern in the ACEC. The area of the Three Rivers 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-325 

Withdrawal is NSO for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities under all action 

alternatives. 

4.3.14.2.7.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the area would not be designated as an ACEC, and would instead be 

subject to the following management: 

• OHV use would be limited to existing routes. 

• There are no visual resource management classes. VRM would be managed as inventory 

class. 

• The majority of the potential ACEC would be open to oil and gas leasing under standard 

lease terms. About 4,606 acres of the potential ACEC would be open subject to special 

stipulations (controlled surface use or timing limitations). As a result, based on projections of 

oil and gas development in the Big Flat – Hatch Point, RFD area, approximately 19 acres of 

surface disturbance within the proposed ACEC are likely to occur over the life of the plan. 

(Table 4.103). 

Table 4.103. Acres of Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon Potential ACEC Likely to 

be Impacted by Oil and Gas Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon 19.1 0 0.0 18.3 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 

4.3.14.2.7.2 Alternative B (13,500 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 13,500 acres proposed would be designated as an ACEC. In 

Alternative B only, 3,502 acres of the ACEC would be managed for wilderness characteristics. 

The following prescriptions would result in beneficial impacts to the ACEC: 

• Permitted activities would be confined to main roads within bighorn lambing habitat during 

lambing season. 

• Limit OHV use to designated routes. 

• The Wall Street rock art sites would be managed as interpretive sites. 

• Vehicle-based camping would be restricted to campgrounds, and campfires would not be 

allowed outside of campgrounds. 

• The area would be designated VRM Class I 

The restrictions on permitted activities, vehicle-based camping, and campfires would result in no 

adverse impacts to the relevant and important values in this ACEC. The adverse impacts from all 

recreation decisions would be reduced under this alternative as camping would no longer occur. 

Under Alternative B, 3,502 acres of non-WSA lands in Dead Horse Cliffs, Goldbar, Gooseneck, 

and Shafer Canyon that are managed for wilderness characteristics would be closed to oil and 

gas leasing. On the remaining 9,998 acres, oil and gas leasing would be managed with a NSO 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-326 

stipulation. Because under Alternative B, the entire potential ACEC would be managed as either 

closed or with a NSO stipulation, no oil and gas development is projected to occur. 

Setting up the Wall Street rock art sites as interpretive sites would have a beneficial effect by 

educating and enhancing the public's enjoyment of the resource. Although such development 

brings more human traffic to the sites, the higher level of management can reduce purposeful or 

inadvertent human-caused damage. 

Under Alternative B, managing the areas as an ACEC would provide more beneficial impacts to 

the relevant and important values than under Alternatives A and D. 

4.3.14.2.7.3 Proposed Plan (13,500 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under the Proposed Plan, the entire 13,500 acres proposed would be designated as an ACEC. 

The following prescriptions would result in beneficial impacts to the ACEC: 

• Permitted activities would be confined to main roads within bighorn lambing habitat during 

lambing season. 

• Limit OHV use to designated routes. 

• The Wall Street rock art sites would be managed as interpretive sites. 

• Vehicle-based camping would be restricted to campgrounds, and campfires would not be 

allowed outside of campgrounds. 

• The area would be designated VRM Class I and VRM Class II under the Proposed Plan. 

The restrictions on permitted activities, vehicle-based camping, and campfires would result in no 

adverse impacts to the relevant and important values in this ACEC. The adverse impacts from all 

recreation decisions would be reduced under this alternative as camping would no longer occur. 

The entire ACEC would be managed with a NSO stipulation under the Proposed Plan. Because 

under Proposed Plan, the entire potential ACEC would be managed with a NSO stipulation, no 

oil and gas development is projected to occur. 

Setting up the Wall Street rock art sites as interpretive sites would have a beneficial effect by 

educating and enhancing the public's enjoyment of the resource. Although such development 

brings more human traffic to the sites, the higher level of management can reduce purposeful or 

inadvertent human-caused damage. 

Under the Proposed Plan, managing the areas as an ACEC would provide more beneficial 

impacts to the relevant and important values than under Alternatives A and D. 

4.3.14.2.7.4 Alternative D (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

This area would not be designated as an ACEC under Alternative D. Management prescriptions 

under this alternative would generally be the same as under Alternative A, with a few exceptions. 

Under Alternative D, limiting travel to designated routes would benefit the relevant and 

important values by protecting these values from the damage caused by cross-country travel. 

Therefore, Alternative D would have slightly less adverse impacts to the potential values of the 

ACEC than Alternative A, but greater adverse impacts than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-327 

4.3.14.2.8 LABYRINTH CANYON POTENTIAL ACEC (8,528 ACRES) 

If designated, the Labyrinth Canyon ACEC would be managed to preserve the relevant and 

important special status fish species and scenic resource values (under Alternative B). 

Under all alternatives, impacts from the existing Three Rivers Withdrawal on the potential 

ACEC would reduce or eliminate impacts to the relevant and important values on that acreage, 

regardless of whether the ACEC is designated. The withdrawal precludes the development of 

locatable minerals. 

4.3.14.2.8.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the area would not be designated as an ACEC. It would be managed with 

the following stipulations: 

• OHV use would be limited to existing roads. 

• There would be no visual resource management classes; VRM would be managed as 

inventory class. 

• The majority of the area is open to oil and gas leasing under standard lease terms. Based on 

projections of oil and gas development in the Big Flat – Hatch Point, RFD area, 

approximately 12 acres of surface disturbance within the proposed ACEC (0.1% of the 

potential ACEC lands) are likely to occur over the life of the plan. (Table 4.104). 

Table 4.104. Acres of Labyrinth Canyon Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil 

and Gas Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Labyrinth Canyon 12.1 0 10.1 11.5 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 

4.3.14.2.8.2 Alternative B (8,528 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, 8,528 acres would be designated as an ACEC. Of the 8,528 acres, 5,492 

acres would be managed for wilderness characteristics. Management prescriptions would provide 

more protection of the relevant and important values under this alternative than under Alternative 

A, due to the following prescriptions: 

• OHV use would be limited to designated routes. 

• No new roads or trails for mechanized or motorized use would be authorized. 

• Approximately 5,943 acres of non-WSA lands in Labyrinth Canyon and Horsethief Point 

managed for wilderness characteristics and would be closed to oil and gas leasing. The 

remaining 3,036 acres would be managed with a NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing as 

well as precluding other surface-disturbing activities, including ROWs. Because the entire 

area is either closed or NSO, no oil and gas development is projected to occur under this 

alternative (Table 4.104), compared to the 12 acres projected in Alternative A. 

• Manage as VRM Class I 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-328 

Not allowing any new road construction would prevent the resultant erosion and sediment/salt 

travel to the Green River. This could have a beneficial effect on threatened and endangered fish 

by reducing negative impacts to water quality. The same effect would be achieved by the closed 

and NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. 

Changing the VRM Class from no management (under Alternative A) to VRM I (under this 

alternative) would preclude most surface-disturbing activities. This would have a protective 

effect for threatened and endangered fish by preventing erosion that could negatively affect 

water quality in the Colorado River system. 

As a result of the above management prescriptions, Alternative B would offer an increase in the 

protection of scenic and threatened and endangered fish values over Alternative A. 

4.3.14.2.8.3 Alternative D and Proposed Plan (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC 

Designation) 

This area would not be designated as an ACEC under Alternative D and Proposed Plan. The 

area's management prescriptions would generally be the same as under Alternative A, with a few 

exceptions. Under Alternative D and Proposed Plan, OHV use would be limited to designated 

routes, and the area would be designated as VRM Class II. Route designation would beneficially 

impact the relevant and important values by preventing the visual scarring of multiple travel 

routes, and the more stringent VRM class would slightly reduce adverse, surface-disturbance 

impacts Therefore, Alternative D and Proposed Plan would have similar impacts as Alternative 

A, with the exceptions stated above. Approximately 10-11 acres are likely to be disturbed by oil 

and gas development under these two alternatives. Thus, Alternative D and Proposed Plan are 

not as protective of the relevant and important values as is Alternative B, but they are more 

protective than Alternative A. 

4.3.14.2.9 MILL CREEK CANYON POTENTIAL ACEC (13,501 ACRES) 

If designated, the Mill Creek Canyon ACEC would be managed to protect the relevant and 

important cultural resources, fish and wildlife habitat, riparian/watershed and scenery values 

(under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan). 

Under Alternative B and Proposed Plan, the potential Mill Creek Canyon ACEC is located 

within the South Moab SRMA. SRMAs are established to provide for intensive management of 

recreation activities, potentially benefiting the resource values of concern in the ACEC. 

Approximately 9,780 acres of the potential ACEC (13,501 acres) are located within the Mill 

Creek Canyon WSA. This would result in beneficial impacts to the relevant and important values 

within that acreage because management under IMP would preclude surface-disturbing 

activities. 

4.3.14.2.9.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the Mill Creek Canyon ACEC would not be designated. The 9,780 acres 

within the WSA would continue to be managed under IMP. The 3,721-acre area proposed for 

designation that is outside the Mill Creek Canyon WSA would be subject to the following 

management: 

• Vehicles are limited to existing/designated routes. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-329 

• There are no visual resource management classes; VRM would be managed under the 

inventory class. 

• The area would be managed as open to oil and gas leasing under standard lease terms. Based 

on projections of oil and gas development in the Eastern Paradox RFD area, approximately 3 

acres of surface disturbance (0.1% of the potential ACEC lands outside the WSA) are likely 

to occur over the life of the plan. (Table 4.105). 

Table 4.105. Acres of Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil 

and Gas Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Mill Creek Canyon 2.8 0 0.0 2.7 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 

Despite the restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in riparian areas, the surface-disturbing 

activities allowed under Alternative A may result in erosion and water quality impacts. Although 

limiting camping to designated areas would help reduce human disturbances, the continued use 

of hiking and OHV routes for recreation would result in adverse impacts to the relevant and 

important values. Therefore, the overall impacts of this alternative to the area's relevant and 

important values would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, 

and similar to Alternative D. 

4.3.14.2.9.2 Alternative B (13,501 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 13,501 acres proposed, including the WSA acreage (9,780 acres) 

would be designated as an ACEC, with these specific prescriptions: 

• Only day-use recreation facilities could be developed. 

• Closed to vehicle-based camping, recreational mining, and woodland harvest.11

• Prioritized for Class III cultural inventories to protect Native American traditional cultural 

areas. 

• Maintenance of a 3 cfs flow in the South Fork of Mill Creek below the Sheley diversion. 

• Designate as VRM Class I. 

• Manage 2,335 acres of Mill Creek Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics as 

closed to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. 

• The portion of the ACEC that is within the Mill Creek WSA would be managed under IMP. 

• The area would be unavailable for grazing. 

This alternative would offer the greatest protection to cultural resources, scenery, and natural 

systems. Alternative B offers the greatest protection of all alternatives for the relevant and 

important values in the potential Mill Creek Canyon ACEC. 

 

11 Exceptions would be made for backpacking fires in the uplands; however, no campfires would be allowed in riparian areas. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-330 

4.3.14.2.9.3 Proposed Plan (3,721 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under the Proposed Plan, only the 3,721 acres outside the Mill Creek Canyon WSA would be 

designated as an ACEC. Impacts under the Proposed Plan would be essentially the same as under 

Alternative B, except that there would be slightly greater potential for surface disturbance 

(including ROWs) due to the designation as VRM Class II under the Proposed Plan. Therefore, 

the Proposed Plan is more protective of relevant and important values than are Alternatives A 

and D, but slightly less protective than is Alternative B. 

4.3.14.2.9.4 Alternative D (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Alternative D has impacts similar to Alternative A, and is more adverse than Alternative B and 

the Proposed Plan. However, it would result in slightly fewer adverse impacts than Alternative 

A, due to the following decisions under Alternative D: 

• All vehicles would be limited to designated routes. 

• Designate as VRM Class II. 

• The area would be unavailable for grazing. 

4.3.14.2.10 TEN MILE WASH POTENTIAL ACEC (4,980 ACRES) 

If designated, the Ten Mile Wash ACEC would be managed to preserve the relevant and 

important values of cultural resources, riparian/watershed and wildlife values under Alternatives 

B and C. 

4.3.14.2.10.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the potential Ten Mile Wash ACEC area would not be designated as an 

ACEC. The areas would be subject to the following management: 

• OHV use would be limited to existing routes 

• Woodland harvest would be allowed. 

• There would be no visual resource management classes; VRM would be managed as 

inventory class. 

• Oil and gas leasing would be open under standard lease terms. Based on projections of oil 

and gas development in the Big Flat – Hatch Point RFD area, approximately 7 acres of 

surface disturbance within the potential ACEC are likely to occur over the life of the plan. 

(Table 4.106). 

Table 4.106. Acres of Ten Mile Wash Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and 

Gas Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Ten Mile Wash 7.0 0 0.0 6.7 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-331 

4.3.14.2.10.2 Alternative B (4,980 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 4,980 acres would be designated as an ACEC, with the following 

prescriptions: 

• Woodland harvest, livestock grazing, and vehicular travel would not be allowed. 

• Voluntary relinquishment of grazing privileges allowed. 

• Apply a NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. Close 

232 acres of non-WC lands with wilderness characteristics in Labyrinth Canyon to oil and 

gas leasing. 

• Campfires and camping limited to Dripping Springs. 

• Designate as VRM Class II. 

• The area would be an avoidance area for ROWs. 

• Prioritize for Class III cultural inventories, riparian restoration, and scientific research. 

Restricting livestock grazing would have beneficial effects to riparian areas due to reduced 

trampling. Because the route in the wash is within the riparian area, closing the area to vehicular 

traffic would protect riparian areas and wildlife habitat, as well as making the area less accessible 

to human activity, reducing the safety hazard from flash flooding. 

A no surface occupancy leasing stipulation would preclude oil and gas development and other 

surface-disturbing activities. This action would protect natural resource values. Therefore, 

Alternative B is more protective of relevant and important values than are Alternative A and D. 

It is slightly more protective than is the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.14.2.10.3 Proposed Plan (4,980 Acres Designated as ACEC) 

The Proposed Plan would designate the Ten Mile Wash area as an ACEC. The Proposed Plan 

proposes the same management prescriptions as Alternative B except that vehicular travel would 

be allowed on the designated route within the wash. Adverse effects from this travel could 

include vandalism and looting of cultural sites. Travel within the bottom the wash could also 

increase the risk to human safety from flash flooding. The presence of the road could result in 

loss of riparian vegetation and increased erosion, thereby adversely impacting riparian/watershed 

resource values. Therefore, the Proposed Plan would be slightly less protective than Alternative 

B of the relevant and important values. 

4.3.14.2.10.4 Alternative D (0 Acres Designated as ACEC) 

Under Alternative D, the area would not be designated as an ACEC, and would there therefore 

be subject to more adverse effects than under Alternative B and Proposed Plan. Alternative D 

would result in slightly less adverse impacts than Alternative A, due to the following 

management: 

• Motorized travel would be limited to designated routes. 

• No campfires would be allowed outside of designated sites. 

• The area would be managed for oil and gas leasing with a timing limitation on 2,558 acres. 

The remaining 2,422 acres are open under standard lease terms. Oil and gas development 

would likely disturb 6.7 acres, or ~0.1% of the potential ACEC lands (see Table 4.106). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-332 

• The area would be available for ROWs. 

4.3.14.2.11 UPPER COURTHOUSE POTENTIAL ACEC (11,529 ACRES) 

If designated, the Upper Courthouse ACEC would be managed to preserve the relevant and 

important cultural resources, paleontological resources, and relict and special status plant species 

values, where designated (under Alternative B). 

The potential Upper Courthouse ACEC is within the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA 

under Alternatives B and C. SRMAs are established to provide for intensive management of 

recreation activities, potentially benefiting the resource values of concern in the ACEC. 

Under all alternatives, harvesting of woodland products would be prohibited. This management 

decision would eliminate potential adverse impacts from woodland harvest by eliminating the 

cross country travel that occurs in association with woodcutting. 

4.3.14.2.11.1 Alternatives A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternatives A, this area would not be designated as an ACEC, and would be subject to 

the following management: 

• Vehicle use would be managed as limited to existing routes. 

• There would be no visual resource management classes in Alternative A. 

• Oil and gas leasing would be managed as open under standard lease terms. Based on 

projections of oil and gas development in the Big Flat – Hatch Point RFD area, 

approximately 16 acres of surface disturbance (0.1% of the potential ACEC lands) within the 

potential ACEC are likely to occur over the life of the plan (Table 4.107). 

Table 4.107. Acres of Upper Courthouse Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil 

and Gas Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Upper Courthouse 16.3 0 11.9 15.6 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 

4.3.14.2.11.2 Alternative B (11,529 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 11,529 acres proposed would be designated as an ACEC. This 

alternative would be more beneficial than any other alternative due to the following protective 

prescriptions: 

• OHV use would be limited to designated routes. 

• Restriction of vehicle-based camping to campgrounds and prohibiting campfires outside of 

campgrounds. 

• Closing the area to vegetation treatments except to treat noxious weeds and exotics or to 

restore riparian areas. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-333 

• Apply a NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as precluding other surface-disturbing 

activities. The area would be an avoidance area for ROWs. 

• Prohibiting new range improvements. 

• Prohibition of petrified wood collection. 

• Protection of archaeological sites from livestock grazing. 

• Prioritization of Class III cultural resources inventories. 

Precluding surface-disturbing activities would protect relevant and important values because 

cultural and paleontological resources and relict plants would not be subject to inadvertent 

disturbance. Treatment of noxious weeds and exotics could benefit native vegetation, including 

relict vegetation. Alternative B would be the most protective of all alternatives of relevant and 

important values. 

4.3.14.2.11.3 Proposed Plan (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under the Proposed Plan, the area would not be designated as an ACEC. The Proposed Plan 

would be less protective than Alternative B, but would be slightly more protective than 

Alternatives A and D (largely because special stipulations are provided for relict plant 

communities), due to the following management: 

• In order to protect relict plant communities, mesa-top areas would be subject to a NSO 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. 

• The remainder of the area (outside of the mesa-tops) would be subject to NSO and timing 

limitation stipulations. The total acreage likely to be disturbed by oil and gas development 

would be 11.0 acres, or 0.1% of the potential ACEC lands (see Table 4.107). 

• Motorized travel would be limited to designated routes. 

• The area would be designated as VRM Classes II, III and IV. 

• The Proposed Plan is more protective of relevant and important values than Alternatives A 

and D, but less protective than Alternative B. 

4.3.14.2.11.4 Alternative D (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternatives D, this area would not be designated as an ACEC, and would be subject to 

the following management: 

• Vehicle use would be managed as limited to designated routes. 

• Designate as VRM Class III. 

• Oil and gas leasing would be managed as open under standard lease terms. Based on 

projections of oil and gas development in the Big Flat – Hatch Point RFD area, 

approximately 16 acres of surface disturbance (0.1% of the potential ACEC lands) within the 

potential ACEC are likely to occur over the life of the plan (Table 4.107). This would be 

more acres of surface disturbance than under Alternatives B or C. 

4.3.14.2.12 WESTWATER CANYON POTENTIAL ACEC (5,069 ACRES) 

If designated, the Westwater Canyon ACEC would be managed to preserve the relevant and 

important special status fish species and scenery values where designated (under Alternative B). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-334 

The area proposed for designation as the Westwater ACEC is entirely within the Westwater 

WSA. As such, it is managed under IMP in its entirety and closed to oil and gas leasing and 

other surface-disturbing activities. Woodland harvest is also precluded. As long as the area 

remains a WSA, these resources management prescriptions would result in no impacts to the 

relevant and important values. 

If the ACEC is designated, impacts from the acquisition and management of inholdings within 

that designated ACEC would be beneficial to the relevant and important values as surfacedisturbing activities could be prevented on these parcels. The continuation of the existing 

withdrawal from locatable minerals development would continue to reduce impacts to the 

relevant and important values. 

4.3.14.2.12.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative A, the potential Westwater ACEC area would not be designated as an ACEC, 

and the area would continue to be managed under IMP. However vehicle use on existing routes 

could result in adverse impacts to scenery as routes proliferate. 

4.3.14.2.12.2 Alternative B (5,069 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 5,069 acres proposed would be designated as an ACEC. In 

addition to the protections that WSA status confers upon this area and their attendant beneficial 

impacts for the relevant and important values (see above), all motorized travel would be limited 

to designated routes, and inholdings would be acquired. 

Designation of routes would reduce miles of routes in the area and could therefore result in a 

slight decrease in erosion of sediments that could be carried to the Colorado River. This 

alternative would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to relevant and important values. 

4.3.14.2.12.3 Alternative D and Proposed Plan (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC 

Designation). 

Under Alternative D and Proposed Plan, the area proposed as the Westwater ACEC would not be 

designated. Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A because it is a WSA under all 

alternatives, except that travel would be limited to designated routes rather than the more loosely 

defined existing route categorization. Alternatives A, D, and Proposed Plan are slightly less 

protective of relevant and important values than Alternative B. 

4.3.14.2.13 WHITE WASH POTENTIAL ACEC (2,988 ACRES) 

If designated, the White Wash ACEC would be managed to preserve the relevant and important 

riparian dune systems value, where designated (under Alternative B). 

Under all action alternatives, the potential White Wash ACEC is within a SRMA. SRMAs are 

established to provide for intensive management of recreation activities, potentially benefiting 

the resource values of concern in the ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.13.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

The potential White Wash ACEC would not be designated. It would be managed with the 

following stipulations: 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-335 

• The area would be open to cross country OHV travel and to woodland harvest. 

• Competitive motorized events would be allowed. 

• There would be no visual resource management classes; VRM is managed as inventory class. 

• The area would be subject to a NSO stipulation and open under standard lease terms for oil 

and gas leasing. Based on projections of oil and gas development in the Salt Wash RFD area, 

approximately 10.5 acres of surface disturbance (0.3% of the potential ACEC lands) are 

likely to occur over the life of the plan. (Table 4.108). 

Table 4.108. Acres of White Wash Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas 

Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

White Wash 10.1 0 9.4 10.2 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 

4.3.14.2.13.2 Alternative B (2,988 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, all 2,988 acres would be designated as the White Wash ACEC 

Management under Alternative B would be more protective than under Alternative A, primarily 

due to the prohibition of cross country OHV use and surface-disturbing activities, due to the 

following prescriptions: 

• The area would be managed with a NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as 

precluding other surface-disturbing activities. The area would be an avoidance area for 

ROWs. No surface disturbance due to oil and gas development is likely to occur (Table 

4.108). 

• Motorized travel would be limited to designated routes. 

• Vehicle-based camping would be allowed in campgrounds only. 

• No wood gathering or campfires would be allowed. 

• The area would be managed for primitive, non-motorized recreation as part of the 

Labyrinth/Gemini SRMA. 

4.3.14.2.13.3 Proposed Plan (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under the Proposed Plan, the area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management of the area 

would be similar to Alternative A, with the following exceptions: 

• The area would be designated as VRM Class III. 

• About 1,866 acres would be open to cross country OHV travel. The remaining 1,122 acres 

would be limited to designated routes. 

• Harvesting of woodland products would not be allowed. 

• Oil and gas leasing would be managed as open under standard lease terms. Oil and gas 

development would likely disturb 9.4 acres, or 0.3% of potential ACEC lands (Table 4.108). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-336 

This alternative would be more protective of the relevant and important values than Alternatives 

A and D, primarily because a portion of the area would be limited to designated routes, rather 

than be open to cross country motorized travel. About 1,866 acres would be open to OHV use 

under this alternative, making this alternative less protective than Alternative B. Alternatives A, 

D, and Proposed Plan are less restrictive to oil and gas development than Alternative B. 

4.3.14.2.13.4 Alternative D (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative D, the area would not be designated as an ACEC. Management prescriptions 

would be similar to Alternative A, except: 

• The area would be designated as VRM Class III. 

• The entire area would be managed for open OHV use as part of the Dee Pass SRMA. 

As a result, Alternative D would have more adverse impacts to relevant and important values 

than Alternative B because cross country OHV travel and surface-disturbing activities could alter 

the riparian dune system. Alternative D would have similar adverse impacts to relevant and 

important values as Alternative A and Proposed Plan, with surface-disturbing activities, 

including open OHV travel, potentially altering the riparian dune system. 

4.3.14.2.14 WILSON ARCH POTENTIAL ACEC (3,700 ACRES) 

If designated, the Wilson Arch ACEC would be managed to preserve the relevant and important 

value of scenery where designated (under Alternative B). Under all alternatives, the potential 

Wilson Arch ACEC is within the Cameo Cliffs SRMA. SRMAs are established to provide for 

intensive management of recreation activities, potentially benefiting the resource values of 

concern in the ACEC. Under all alternatives, travel is limited to designated routes. 

4.3.14.2.14.1 Alternative A (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternatives A and D, the area would not be designated as an ACEC. The following 

management prescriptions would apply: 

• There would be no VRM management for Alternative A; the area would be managed under 

the VRM inventory. 

• Under Alternative A, the area is open to oil and gas leasing with standard lease terms Based 

on projections of oil and gas development in the Lisbon Valley and Big Flat – Hatch Point 

RFD areas, approximately 26 acres of surface disturbance (0.7% of the potential ACEC 

lands) are likely to occur over the life of the plan (Table 4.109). This would be more acres of 

surface disturbance than under Alternative B and approximately equal to the Proposed Plan. 

Impacts would be very similar under these two alternatives, with slightly less adverse impacts 

under Alternative D because of a more restrictive VRM Class. Due to the potential impacts from 

oil and gas development, impacts to the relevant and important value of scenery would be similar 

under Alternatives A, D, and Proposed Plan and greater than under Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-337 

Table 4.109. Acres of Wilson Arch Potential ACEC Likely to be Impacted by Oil and Gas 

Development*, by Alternative 

ACEC Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Wilson Arch 25.9 0 25.6 25.7 

*Based on leasing stipulations and number of wells in the RFD scenario (pro-rated by the area of ACEC designated in each RFD 

area) 

4.3.14.2.14.2 Alternative B (3,700 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative B, the entire 3,700 acres proposed would be designated an ACEC, with the 

following prescriptions: 

• Both mechanical and motorized traffic would be limited to designated routes, and one hiking 

trail would be built up to Wilson Arch. 

• The area would be designated as VRM Class I. 

• Oil and gas leasing would be managed with a NSO stipulation, it would be an avoidance area 

for ROWs, and the area would be closed to woodland harvest. Alternative B would offer the 

highest level of protection of scenic resources of all the alternatives. 

4.3.14.2.14.3 Proposed Plan (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

The Proposed Plan would differ from Alternative A in that the area would be managed with 

timing limitations and controlled surface use stipulations for oil and gas leasing and other 

surface-disturbing activities. The area would be designated as VRM Class II. Therefore, this 

alternative would provide a higher level of scenic resource protection than Alternatives A and D, 

but less than Alternative B. Approximately 25.6 acres are projected to be disturbed by oil and gas 

development in the potential ACEC during the life of the plan, which is similar to Alternatives A 

and D, but more than Alternative B. This surface-disturbing activity would adversely impact the 

scenic values of the ACEC. 

4.3.14.2.14.4 Alternative D (0 Acres Proposed for ACEC Designation) 

Under Alternative D, the area would not be designated as an ACEC. The following management 

prescriptions would apply: 

• The area would be managed as VRM Class III. 

• The area is open to oil and gas leasing with timing limitations. Based on projections of oil 

and gas development in the Lisbon Valley and Big Flat – Hatch Point RFD areas, 

approximately 26 acres of surface disturbance (0.7% of the potential ACEC lands) are likely 

to occur over the life of the plan (Table 4.109). 

4.3.14.3 NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL – OLD SPANISH TRAIL 

In all alternatives, the Old Spanish Trail would be managed to enhance historic interpretation and 

public enjoyment and understanding of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail consistent with 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-338 

the Old Spanish Trail Comprehensive Management Plan. This would minimize adverse impacts 

to the historic integrity of the trail. 

4.3.14.4 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (WSRS) 

4.3.14.4.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND THE PROPOSED 

PLAN) 

In all action alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan), where eligible rivers are determined suitable, 

the BLM would manage these segments to protect or enhance the outstandingly remarkable 

values, tentative classification, and free-flowing nature of these rivers with specific protection 

allocations within the river corridor (1/4 mile of the high water mark on each side of the river). 

BLM management is limited to public lands, 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 riprapping would not be 

permitted along BLM shorelines. However, depending upon the alternative, values may be at risk 

from potential mineral development, OHV activity, or other surface-disturbing activities. Also, 

the protection is limited because there are no Federal reserved water rights established for instream flow purposes due to eligibility or suitability determinations. In addition, unless BLM 

land is involved in a proposed action, BLM has no control of potential modifications of the 

shoreline or other development (including development related to the perfection of water rights) 

on non-public lands. Because of these factors, there would be no effect on the Colorado River 

Compact from protective management of eligible/suitable segments. BLM's management 

authority only extends to public lands within the river corridor, and there are no water rights 

associated with suitability determinations. A suitability determination also has no effect on 

existing water compacts. 

Table 4.110 outlines the segments of rivers that would be determined suitable by alternative. 

Table 4.110. River Segments that would be Determined Suitable and Total River Miles 

by Alternative 

River/River Segment Alternative A 

(River Miles)1 

Alternative B 

(River Miles) 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

(River Miles) 

Alternative D 

(River Miles) 

Beaver Creek 

Segment # 1 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 

Colorado River 

Segment # 1 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 2 14.4 14.4 14.4 0.0 

Segment # 3 11.2 11.2 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 3(a) 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 

Segment # 3(b) 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 

Segment # 4 0.0 33.1 33.1 0.0 

Segment # 5 0.0 5.7 5.7 0.0 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-339 

Table 4.110. River Segments that would be Determined Suitable and Total River Miles 

by Alternative 

River/River Segment Alternative A 

(River Miles)1 

Alternative B 

(River Miles) 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

(River Miles) 

Alternative D 

(River Miles) 

Segment # 6 0.0 3.7 3.7 0.0 

Cottonwood Canyon 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 

Dolores River 

Segment # 1 5.9 5.9 5.9 0.0 

Segment # 2 6.3 6.3 6.3 0.0 

Segment # 3 9.9 9.9 9.9 0.0 

Green River 

Segment # 1 0.0 7.7 0 0.0 

Segment # 1(a) 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 

Segment # 2 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 3(a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 4 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 4(a) 0.0 0.0 49 0.0 

Segment # 5 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 6 0.0 29.3 0.0 0.0 

Mill Creek 

Segment # 1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 2 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 

Negro Bill Canyon 

Segment # 1 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 

North Fork Mill Creek 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 

Onion Creek 

Segment # 1 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 

Segment # 2 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 

Professor Creek 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 

Rattlesnake Canyon 0.0 31.6 0.0 0.0 

Salt Wash 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Thompson Canyon 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 

Totals 0.0 266.6 155.0 0.0 

1All river segments are eligible under Alternative A; those listed are considered suitable under Alternative A. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-340 

Valid Existing Rights and WSRs

Six of rivers listed above have acreage that is leased for oil and gas under stipulations developed 

in earlier RMPs. These oil and gas leases would remain valid until they expire (leases are issued 

for ten years). While all leases do not proceed to development, stipulations developed in this 

RMP for oil and gas leasing would not apply to leases issued under previous RMPs. Table 4.111 

predicts the number of wells that could be drilled under valid existing leases, by river. 

Table 4.111. WSRs, Number of Wells Predicted, and Currently Leased Acreage 

River Total 

Acreage 

Acreage 

under 

Existing 

Leases 

Percentage 

of WSR 

under 

Lease 

RFD Area 

Number of 

Wells 

Predicted 

under 

Existing 

Leases 

Beaver Creek 2,268 39 1.7 Eastern Paradox <1 

Colorado River 23,623 3,786 1.6 Eastern 

Paradox/Big Flat 

<1 

Cottonwood Canyon 2,938 907 30.0 Bookcliffs <1 

Dolores River 6,823 1,584 23.0 Eastern Paradox <1 

Green River 13,734 415 3.0 Big Flat <1 

Mill Creek 1,864 153 8.0 Eastern Paradox <1 

Fewer than one well is predicted because of current valid oil and gas leases on any river 

proposed for Wild and Scenic status. This would not adversely impact the outstandingly 

remarkable values of the WSR in question. 

4.3.14.4.2 ALTERNATIVE A

Under Alternative A, portions of the Colorado and Dolores Rivers were found suitable as part of 

the Wild and Scenic River Study Final EIS (NPS 1979). For the remaining river segments, a 

suitability determination would not be made, but the other river segments that were determined 

eligible in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Eligibility Determination for the MFO would 

remain eligible under this alternative (BLM 2004g). Where BLM manages the shoreline or other 

lands within the river corridors, they would be managed to maintain the free-flowing nature, 

outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification. Because the eligible river corridors 

would be subject to the existing land-use plan as far as resource allocations are concerned, they 

may be subject to case-by-case actions. These would be addressed through the NEPA process 

with mitigation applied if appropriate. If any proposed actions would affect the eligibility of the 

river segment, it is BLM policy to deny the action until suitability can be considered. 

All river segments not closed to oil and gas leasing due to WSA designation or management for 

other resources would be subject to leasing under standard lease terms or timing limitations and 

controlled surface use stipulation. This could result in surface disturbance to these river 

corridors. These segments include Beaver Creek, segments of the Colorado River below the 

Dolores River confluence, the Green River, Mill Creek, Onion Creek, Professor Creek and 

Thompson Canyon. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-341 

All segments except for those in the Three Rivers withdrawal (the Green, Colorado, and Dolores 

Rivers) would be open to mining claims for locatable minerals. Generally, impacts to riparian 

corridors would be avoided under standard lease terms and BLM riparian policy. Therefore, 

regardless of the leasing category, these areas would be protected from development. However 

there is an exception to allow for development in riparian areas if there are no other practical 

alternatives. In areas where the 1/4 mile WSR corridor extends beyond the riparian corridor, 

surface-disturbing activities may occur such as oil and gas or salable mineral development. 

These types of activities could adversely impact the outstandingly remarkable values of these 

rivers. Adverse impacts would include loss of vegetation, habitat fragmentation, and loss of 

scenic values. 

Under Alternative A, portions of the Colorado River (parts of segments #2, #3, and #4) would be 

managed as the Colorado River SRMA. This management would enhance this segment's 

recreational values by providing boating opportunities, 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 classifications of scenic, recreational and wild. 

Beaver Creek (Segment #2), the Colorado River (segments #2, #3(a), #3(b), and #4), 

Cottonwood Canyon, the Dolores River (Segments #1, #2, and #3), the Green River (Segments 

#3, #4(a), and #4(b)), Mill Creek (Segments #1 and #2), the North Fork Mill Creek, Onion Creek 

(Segments #1 and #2), Professor Creek, Rattlesnake Canyon, and Thompson Canyon would be 

open to cross-country OHV use, in part. Temporary impacts to their outstanding and remarkable 

values could occur from vehicular surface disturbance and noise. All the remaining eligible river 

segments would be in a limited or closed OHV category thereby protecting them from 

disturbance related to OHV activity. 

4.3.14.4.3 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, 266.6 river miles involving the Beaver Creek (Segments #1 and #2), 

Colorado River (Segments #1–6), Cottonwood Canyon, Dolores River (Segments #1-3), Green 

River (Segments #1–6), Mill Creek (Segments #1 and #2), Negro Bill Canyon (Segments #1 and 

#2), North Fork Mill Creek, Onion Creek (Segments #1 and #2), Professor Creek, Rattlesnake 

Canyon, Salt Wash, and Thompson Canyon river segments would be recommended as suitable 

for designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System (see Table 4.112). Overall, 

because of the increased acreage identified and managed as suitable, and because other resource 

allocations would be consistent with management of the rivers' suitability, this alternative would 

provide greater protection to outstanding remarkable values than does Alternative A. 

All of the segments recommended as suitable would be managed as closed or with a NSO 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing as well as precluding other surface-disturbing activities, 

including ROWs. All segments except for those in the Three Rivers Withdrawal (the Green, 

Colorado, and Dolores Rivers) would be open to mining claims for locatable minerals. Since the 

entire area is either closed or NSO, the risks to the outstanding and remarkable values are 

negligible. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4

4-342 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative 

Segment 

BLM River 

Miles (RM) 

and Acres 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Beaver Creek Segment #1 

RM: 6.7 Acres: 2,061 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: open with standard stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Within the Dolores River Canyon SRMA. All 6.7 miles managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: Closed. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Within the Dolores River Canyon SRMA. All 6.7 miles managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaOil a

Beaver Creek Segment #2 

RM: 1.0 Acres: 207 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: open with standard stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Within the Dolores River Canyon SRMA. All managed to preserve nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: Closed. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Within the Dolores River Canyon SRMA. All managed to preserve nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics (Beaver Creek WIA). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaOil aspec

Colorado River Segment #1 

RM: 1.2 Acres: 525 

Suitability not considered. Withdrawn from mineral entry. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: open with special stipulations. 

RecoSuitaWith(ThreOil aspec

Colorado River Segment #2 

RM: 14.4a

Acres: 4,531 

Suitability not considered. Overlaps the Westwater WSA.Within the Colorado River SRMA. Withdrawn from mineral entry. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Overlaps the Westwater WSA. Overlaps the Two Rivers SRMA. Overlaps the Westwater Canyon ACEC. Withdrawn from mineral entry. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Overlaps the Westwater WSA.Overlaps the Two Rivers SRMA. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

RecoSuitaOverOverSRMWith(ThreOpeOil a
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4

4-343 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative 

Segment 

BLM River 

Miles (RM) 

and Acres 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Colorado River Segment #3 

RM: 11.2 Acres: 4,200 

Suitability not considered. Within the Colorado River SRMA. Withdrawn from mineral entry.Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Overlaps the Two Rivers SRMA. Withdrawn from mineral entry. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

N/A Reco

SuitaOverSRMWithOil a

Colorado River Segment #3(a) 

RM: 9.3 Acres: 3,535 

Not proposed under this Alternative. 

Not proposed under this Alternative. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Overlaps the Two Rivers SRMA. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Not pAlter

Colorado River Segment #3(b) 

RM: 1.9 Acres: 665 

Not proposed under this Alternative. 

Not proposed under this Alternative. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Overlaps the Two Rivers SRMA. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Not pAlter

Colorado River Segment #4* 

RM: 33.1b

Acres: 12,151 

Suitability not considered. Partially within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. Withdrawn from mineral entry. Oil and gas leasing: open with special stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Partially within the Colorado River Corridor ACEC. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaWith(ThrePartiRiveOil a
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4

4-344 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative 

Segment 

BLM River 

Miles (RM) 

and Acres 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Colorado River Segment #5 

RM: 5.7 Acres: 1,275 

Suitability not considered. Withdrawn from mineral entry.Oil and gas leasing: open with special stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaWith(ThreOil a

Colorado River Segment #6 

RM: 3.7 Acres: 941 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: open with special stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Overlaps the Hwy 279 Corridor/ Shafer Basin/Long Canyon ACEC. Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Overlaps the Hwy 279 Corridor/ Shafer Basin/Long Canyon ACEC. Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaWithSRMOil astand

Cottonwood Canyon 

RM: 10.4 Acres: 2,938 

Suitability not considered. Canyon bottom is the border between the Spruce Canyon and Coal Canyon WSAs. Oil and gas leasing: Closed. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Canyon bottom is the border between the Spruce Canyon and Coal Canyon WSAs. 0.08 miles managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Canyon bottom is the border between the Spruce Canyon and Coal Canyon WSAs. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

RecoSuitaCanybetwand Oil a

Dolores River Segment #1 

RM: 5.9c

Acres: 1,889 

Suitability not considered. Withdrawn from mineral entry.Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaWith(Thre
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4

4-345 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative 

Segment 

BLM River 

Miles (RM) 

and Acres 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Dolores River Segment #2 

RM: 6.3d

Acres: 2,035 

Suitability not considered. Withdrawn from mineral entry.Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Portion managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Portion managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaWith(ThreOil a

Dolores River Segment #3 

RM: 9.9 Acres: 2,899 

Suitability not considered. Withdrawn from mineral entry.Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Within Two Rivers SRMA. Portion managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Within Two Rivers SRMA. Portion managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaWith(ThreWithOil a

Green River Segment #1 

RM: 7.7 Acres: 1,060 

Suitability not considered. Partially within the Desolation Canyon WSA. Withdrawn from mineral entry.Oil and gas leasing: mostly closed. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Partially within the Desolation Canyon WSA. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Partially within Lower Gray Canyon SRMA. Oil and gas leasing: NSO and closed. 

N/A because of differing segmentation. (see below). 

RecoSuitaPartiCanyWith(ThreOil aclose
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4

4-346 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative 

Segment 

BLM River 

Miles (RM) 

and Acres 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Green River Segment #1(a) 

Not proposed under this Alternative. 

Not proposed under this Alternative. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Partially within the Desolation Canyon WSA. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Partially within the Lower Gray Canyon SRMA. Oil and gas leasing: closed and NSO. 

Not pAlter

Green River Segment #2 

RM: 8.1 Acres: 1,471 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: mostly open with standard stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

N/A. Reco

Suita

Green River Segment #3 

RM: 1.5 Acres: 341 

Suitability not considered. Withdrawn from mineral entry.Oil and gas leasing: open with standard stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaWith(ThreOil a

Green River Segment #4 

RM: 12.9 Acres: 2,905 

Suitability not considered. Withdrawn from mineral entry. Oil and gas leasing: mostly open with standard stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Overlaps Labyrinth Canyon ACEC. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Overlaps Labyrinth Rim/Gemini Bridges SRMA. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

N/A because of river segmentation (see below). 

RecoSuitaWith(ThreOverOil a
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4

4-347 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative 

Segment 

BLM River 

Miles (RM) 

and Acres 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Green River Segment #4(a) 

RM: 49 Not proposed under this 

Alternative. 

Not proposed under this Alternative. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Overlaps East bank in Labyrinth Canyon ACEC. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Overlaps Labyrinth Rim/Gemini Bridges SRMA. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Not pAlter

Green River Segment #5 

RM: 15.8 Acres: 2,577 

Suitability not considered. Withdrawn from mineral entry.Oil and gas leasing: mostly open with standard stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). East bank in Labyrinth Canyon ACEC. Overlaps Labyrinth Rim/Gemini Bridges SRMA. About 7.1 miles managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

N/A because of river segmentation (see above). 

RecoSuitaWith(ThreOil a

Green River Segment #6 

RM: 29.3 Acres: 5,380 

Suitability not considered. Withdrawn from mineral entry.Oil and gas leasing: open with standard stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Withdrawn from mineral entry (Three Rivers Withdrawal). Overlaps Labyrinth Canyon ACEC. Overlaps Labyrinth Rim/Gemini Bridges SRMA. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

N/A because of river segmentation (see above). 

RecoSuitaWith(ThreOil a
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4

4-348 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative 

Segment 

BLM River 

Miles (RM) 

and Acres 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Mill Creek Segment #1 

RM: 1.4 Acres: 572 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Overlaps Mill Creek ACEC. Within the South Moab SRMA. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Overlaps Mill Creek ACEC. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaOil aspec

Mill Creek Segment #2 

RM: 4.6 Acres: 1,292 

Suitability not considered. Overlaps Mill Creek WSA. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: SuitableScenic. Overlaps Mill Creek WSA. Overlaps Mill Creek ACEC. Within the South Moab SRMA. 3 managed to preserve nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Overlaps Mill Creek WSA. Overlaps Mill Creek ACEC. Within the South Moab SRMA.Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaOverOil aspec

Negro Bill Canyon Segment #1 

RM: 7.2 Acres: 1,687 

Suitability not considered. Overlaps Negro Bill WSA. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild Overlaps Negro Bill WSA. Between the Sand Flat and Colorado Riverway SRMAs. Within Colorado River Corridor ACEC. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Overlaps Negro Bill WSA. Between the Sand Flat and Colorado Riverway SRMAs. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

RecoSuitaOverBetwColoOil a

Negro Bill Canyon Segment #2 

RM: 0.2 Acres: 262 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: open with special stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Between the Sand Flat and Colorado Riverway SRMAs. Within Colorado River Corridor ACEC. 0.08 miles managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Between the Sand Flat and Colorado Riverway SRMAs. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaBetwColoOil a
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4

4-349 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative 

Segment 

BLM River 

Miles (RM) 

and Acres 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

North Fork Mill Creek 

RM: 11.2 Acres: 3,027 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Overlaps Mill Creek WSA. Within the South Moab SRMA. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Overlaps Mill Creek WSA. Within the South Moab SRMA.Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

RecoSuitaOverOil a

Onion Creek Segment #1 

RM: 2.8 Acres: 726 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: open with special stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. Managed to preserve wilderness characteristics. Overlaps Colorado River Corridor ACEC. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. Managed to preserve wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaWithSRMOil aspec

Onion Creek Segment #2 

RM: 9.7 Acres: 2,420 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: open with special stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableRecreational. Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. 7.06 miles managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Within Colorado River Corridor ACEC. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. 7.06 miles managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaWithSRMgas stipu
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4

4-350 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative 

Segment 

BLM River 

Miles (RM) 

and Acres 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Professor Creek RM: 7.3 

Acres: 1,936 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: open with special stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. 7.3 miles managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Within Colorado River Corridor ACEC. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Within the Colorado Riverway SRMA. 7.3 miles managed to preserve non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaWithSRMOil aspec

Rattlesnake Canyon 

RM: 31.6e

Acres: 8,371 

Suitability not considered. Overlaps Desolation Canyon WSA. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Overlaps Desolation Canyon WSA. Overlaps Book Cliffs Wildlife Area ACEC. Within the Book Cliffs SRMA. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Overlaps Desolation Canyon WSA. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

RecoSuitaOverWSAOil a

Salt Wash RM: 0.3 

Acres: 96 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: open with special stipulations. 

 (Eligibility Determination Deferred) 

(Eligibility Determination Deferred) 

(EligDefe

Thompson Canyon RM: 5.5 

Acres: 1,620 

Suitability not considered. Oil and gas leasing: open with standard stipulations. 

Recommendation: SuitableWild. Within the Dolores River Canyon SRMA. Managed to preserve wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: closed. 

Recommendation: Not Suitable. Within the Dolores River Canyon SRMA. Managed to preserve wilderness characteristics. Oil and gas leasing: NSO. 

RecoSuitaOil aspec
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4

4-351 

Table 4.112. Management Proposed for River Segments Considered for WSR Designation, by Alternative 

Segment 

BLM River 

Miles (RM) 

and Acres 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

N/A = Not applicable or not considered under that alternative. *Alternative D includes only the portion from Hittle Bottom to Take Out Beach. a. Includes 2.0 miles of the Little Delores River, 0.5 miles of Marble Canyon, and 0.3 miles of Star Canyon. b. Includes 0.3 miles of Kane Springs Creek. c. Includes 0.3 miles of Fisher Creek. d. Includes 0.4 miles of Granite Creek. e. Includes 10.9 miles of Flat Nose George Canyon. f. Includes 11.2 miles of Flat Nose George Canyon. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-352 

Under Alternative B, Beaver Creek (Segment #1), Colorado River (Segments #2 and #6), 

Dolores River (Segment #2), Green River (Segments #1 and #5), Negro Bill Canyon (Segment 

#1), North Fork Mill Creek, Onion Creek (Segment #1), Professor Creek, Salt Wash, and 

Thompson Canyon would be designated as VRM Class I. The remaining segments would be 

designated as VRM II. Thus, all segments would have direct beneficial protection to their scenic 

values and indirect benefits to other resource values because VRM Class I and VRM Class II 

designation impose limits on surface disturbance. 

Beaver Creek (Segments #1 and #2), Colorado River (Segments #2, 3, 4, and 6), Dolores River 

(Segment #3), Green River (Segments #1 and #4-6), Mill Creek (Segments #1 and #2), Negro 

Bill Canyon (Segments #1 and #2), North Fork Mill Creek, Onion Creek (Segments #1 and #2), 

Professor Creek, Rattlesnake Canyon, and Thompson Canyon would be managed within SRMAs 

under Alternative B. The SRMAs would manage recreational activities and enhance these 

segment's recreational values, and would not affect the other outstandingly remarkable values. 

SRMA management would not affect the free-flowing nature of the river, and would be in 

keeping with the tentative classification of scenic. 

Beaver Creek (Segments #1 and #2), the Dolores River, Onion Creek, Professor Creek and 

Thompson Creek would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics under Alternative B. 

The management of these lands to maintain wilderness characteristics would protect 

outstandingly remarkable values and would not affect the free-flowing nature of the river. 

All river segments would be in a closed or limited to designated routes OHV category River 

corridors would thus largely be protected from disturbance related to OHV activity. No loss of 

outstandingly remarkable values from OHV use would therefore be anticipated during the life of 

the plan. 

4.3.14.4.4 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, 155 river miles involving the Colorado River (Segments #2, 3(a), 3(b), 

4, 5, and 6), Dolores River (Segments #1-3), and Green River (Segments #1(a) and 4(a)) 

segments would be recommended as suitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic 

River System (see Table 4.112). This alternative would be more protective to their outstanding 

and remarkable values than Alternative D, but less so than Alternative B. Since Alternative A 

protects the eligibility of all the river segments, it may be more protective than the Proposed 

Plan. 

All remaining river segments not recommended as suitable would be managed as either NSO or 

closed for oil and gas leasing, as well as precluding other surface-disturbing activities. This 

would result in no surface disturbance. All of the segments recommended as suitable for 

designation would also be managed as NSO or closed to oil and gas leasing. All segments except 

for those in the Three Rivers withdrawal (the Green, Colorado, and Dolores Rivers) would be 

open to mineral entry. 

Under the Proposed Plan, Colorado River (Segment #2) would be designated as VRM Class I 

and Colorado River (Segments #3(a), 3(b), 4, 5, and 6), Dolores River (Segments #1-3), and 

Green River (Segments #1(a) and 4(a)), would be designated as VRM Class II. These segments 

would have beneficial direct protection to scenic and other resource values because the 

classifications limit surface disturbance. The remaining river segments not recommended would 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-353 

be at risk for adverse impacts to their outstanding and remarkable values because surfacedisturbing activities could be allowed. 

Beaver Creek (Segments #1 and #2), Colorado River (Segments #2, 3(a), 3(b), 4, and 6), Dolores 

River (Segment #3), Green River (Segments #1(a) and 4(a)), Mill Creek (Segment #2), Negro 

Bill Canyon (Segments #1 and #2), North Fork Mill Creek, Onion Creek (Segments #1 and #2), 

Professor Creek, and Thompson Canyon would be managed as SRMAs. This would enhance 

these segments' recreational values as opportunities would be provide for recreation, 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. 

Areas within Beaver Creek (Segments #1 and #2), the Dolores River, Onion Creek, Professor 

Creek and Thompson Creek would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics under the 

Proposed Plan. The protection, preservation, and management of these lands to enhance 

wilderness characteristics would also enhance outstandingly remarkable values because surfacedisturbing activities would be precluded. It would not affect the free-flowing nature of the river. 

It should be noted that of the eligible rivers managed as suitable for designation under the 

Proposed Plan, only the Dolores River is within an area managed to preserve, protect, and 

maintain wilderness characteristics. This area is Beaver Creek, which contain Dolores River 

WSR mileage. 

All river segments would be in a limited to designated routes 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. 

4.3.14.4.5 ALTERNATIVE D 

No segments would be recommended for designation under this alternative. This alternative 

would offer the least protections to the WSRs in comparison to Alternatives A, B, and C. 

All river segments outside WSAs and outside of the Three Rivers Withdrawal area would be 

subject to oil and gas leasing under standard lease terms or with timing limitations and controlled 

surface use stipulations. These segments include Beaver Creek, Segment #6 of the Colorado 

River, Mill Creek, Onion Creek, Professor Creek and Thompson Creek. All segments except for 

those in the Three Rivers withdrawal (the Green, Colorado, and Dolores Rivers) would be open 

to mining claims for locatable minerals. However, as noted under Alternative A, riparian 

corridors would be avoided based on BLM Riparian Policy and through standard lease terms for 

oil and gas. 

Under Alternative D, all segments not specifically designated VRM Class I or II under other 

resource decisions would be designated as VRM Class III or IV. Unless other management 

prescriptions limit surface disturbance in these areas, river segments designated as VRM Class 

III or IV would be at risk for adverse impacts to their outstanding and remarkable values from 

surface disturbance, loss of vegetation, habitat fragmentation, and loss of scenery. 

Under Alternative D, parts of Colorado River (Segments # 2, 3, 4, and 6), Dolores River 

(Segment #3), Green River (Segment #4), Negro Bill Canyon (Segment #2), Onion Creek 

(Segments #1 and # 2), and Professor Creek would be managed as SRMAs. This would control 

recreational activities and would enhance these segments' recreational values. SRMA 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-354 

management would not affect the other outstandingly remarkable values. It would not affect the 

free-flowing nature of the river. 

All river segments would be in a limited to designated routes 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. 

4.3.14.5 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS (WSAS) AND WILDERNESS AREAS (WAS) 

4.3.14.5.1 WSAS

In all alternatives, WSAs are managed under the Interim Management Plan for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review (IMP), which directs the BLM to manage an area so as not to impair its 

suitability for preservation as wilderness. IMP applies to all uses and activities except those 

specifically exempted from this standard, such as grandfathered uses (BLM 1995). In this PRMP, 

decisions about OHV designations and VRM designation within WSAs will be made. There 

would be no impacts to WSAs from other resources from implementation of this plan. Table 

4.113 presents WSA acreages within the MPA. 

Table 4.113. WSA Acreages within the MPA 

WSA Acreage 

Behind the Rocks 12,635 

Black Ridge Canyons 52 

Coal Canyon 60,755 

Desolation Canyon 81,603 

Floy Canyon 72,605 

Flume Canyon 50,800 

Lost Spring Canyon 1,624 

Mill Creek Canyon 9,780 

Negro Bill Canyon 7,820 

Spruce Canyon 20,990 

Westwater Canyon 31,160 

Total 349,824 

4.3.14.5.1.1 Impacts to WSAs from Travel Management Decisions 

Table 4.114 presents the OHV designation, by WSA and by alternative. For WSAs in the 

"Limited" category, Alternative A limits travel to inventoried routes. Alternative D and Proposed 

Plan limits travel to a subset of the inventoried routes, which would be designated.
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-355 

Table 4.114. OHV Designations in WSAs, by Alternative 

WSA Acres Alt. A Alt. B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alt. D 

Behind the Rocks 12,635 Limited Closed Limited Limited 

Black Ridge 52 Limited Closed Limited Limited 

Coal Canyon 60,755 Limited Closed Closed Limited 

Desolation Canyon (MFO) 81,603 Limited Closed Closed Limited 

Floy Canyon 72,605 Limited Closed Closed Limited 

Flume Canyon 50,800 Limited Closed Closed Limited 

Lost Spring Canyon 1,624 Limited Closed Limited Limited 

Mill Creek Canyon 9,780 Limited Closed Closed Limited 

Negro Bill Canyon 7,820 Limited Closed Closed Limited 

Spruce Canyon 20,990 Limited Closed Closed Limited 

Westwater Canyon 31,160 Limited Closed Limited Limited 

Table 4.115 presents the miles of route designated, by WSA, by alternative:

Table 4.115. Miles of Route Designated, by WSA and by Alternative 

WSA Acres A B PROPOSED 

PLAN D 

Behind the Rocks 12,635 3.55 0 0.9 0.9 

Black Ridge 52 0 0 0 0 

Coal Canyon 60,755 8.0 0 0 1.5 

Desolation Canyon (MFO) 81,603 8.2 0 0 0 

Floy Canyon 72,605 23.5 0 0 1.55 

Flume Canyon 50,800 10.13 0 0 0 

Lost Spring Canyon 1,624 0.25 0 0.8 1.0 

Mill Creek Canyon 9,780 1.83 0 0 1.48 

Negro Bill Canyon 7,820 3.54 0 0 1.12 

Spruce Canyon 20,990 1.0 0 0 0 

Westwater Canyon 31,160 22.5 0 0 8.4 

Totals 349,824 82.5 0 1.7 16.0 

Travel management decisions which close WSAs to motorized travel promote opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined recreation, prevent additional intrusions, and enhance supplemental 

values; within the designated OHV category, those decisions which allow the least number of 

miles open to motorized travel are the most beneficial to these values and WSA management. 

Alternative B is the most restrictive of motorized travel within WSAs because all WSAs are 

closed to travel; Alternative B adversely impacts wilderness values the least. The Proposed Plan 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-356 

is less restrictive of motorized travel than is Alternative B, but it is more restrictive than 

Alternatives A and D. 

4.3.14.5.1.2 Impacts to WSAs from Visual Resource Management Decisions 

Under all alternatives, WSAs would be designated as VRM Class I. Therefore, the impacts to 

WSAs from VRM decisions would be the same for all alternatives. VRM Class I allows no 

change to the existing landscape, thereby preserving the naturalness of the WSAs. 

4.3.14.5.2 WAS

In all alternatives, the Black Ridge WA (5,200 acres) would be managed as part of the McInnis 

Canyons National Conservation Area. Management prescriptions would prevent impacts to the 

wilderness values of the area. 

4.3.14.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

4.3.14.6.1 ACECS

The management prescriptions for ACECs that would have the greatest impacts upon the 

relevant and important values in ACEC areas would be oil and gas leasing category, VRM 

designations and OHV/travel management. All fourteen of the potential ACECs (613,077 acres) 

would be designated under Alternative B, and would be managed with greater protection of their 

relevant and important values (see Table 2.2 of Chapter 2, Impact Summary Table). The 

Proposed Plan would designate five of the potential ACECs (63,232 acres), and provides 

protection of the relevant and important values within those areas. Alternatives A and D would 

not designate new ACECs, and would be the least protective of relevant and important values. 

Adverse impacts to potential the relevant and important values could occur under Alternatives A 

and D. 

Acreages within the potential ACECs in the Greater Cisco and Lisbon Valley RFD areas that are 

open to oil and gas leasing with standard lease terms or timing limitations or controlled surface 

use stipulations would be vulnerable to development that could degrade or eliminate relevant and 

important values proposed for protection. The potential Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex 

and the Book Cliffs ACECs would be most impacted by oil and gas development (see Table 2.2). 

4.3.14.6.2 NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL 

The Old Spanish Trail would be managed to provide for public understanding and enjoyment 

under all alternatives. 

4.3.14.6.3 WSRS 

In all action alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan), where eligible rivers would be determined 

suitable, the BLM would manage these segments to protect or enhance the outstandingly 

remarkable values, tentative classification, and free-flowing nature of these rivers with specific 

protection allocations within the river corridor (1/4 mile of the high water mark on each side of 

the river). BLM management is limited to public lands, and is subject to valid existing rights. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.14 Special Designations 

4-357 

Under Alternative A, a suitability determination would not be made, but those river segments 

that were determined eligible in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Eligibility Determination for 

the MFO would remain eligible under this alternative (BLM 2004g. Where BLM manages the 

shoreline or other lands within the river corridors, they would be managed to maintain the freeflowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification. Under Alternative 

B, 267 miles of river would be recommended as suitable, with the greatest beneficial impacts to 

WSRs. The Proposed Plan would recommend 155 miles of river as suitable. Alternative D would 

not find any segments suitable. 

4.3.14.6.4 WSAS

The management of WSAs would be the same under all alternatives, except for OHV 

management. Alternative B is the most beneficial to WSA management, followed by the 

Proposed Plan and Alternatives D and A. WSAs would be managed under the Interim 

Management Plan (IMP), which directs the BLM to manage the area so as not to impair their 

suitability for preservation as wilderness. 

4.3.15 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

This section discusses impacts to special status species from management actions of other 

resources and resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning special status 

species are described in Chapter 3. 

Because of the large number of special status species—including Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive species—in some cases, it was determined that the most effective way to disclose 

impacts at the programmatic level would be to analyze the impacts to the habitat cover types 

used by these species (see Chapter 3, Affected Environment) for species and habitat 

descriptions). Accordingly, for the purposes of analysis, the special status species described in 

Chapter 3, Section 3.3.16 are grouped here by habitat type, as shown in Table 4.116 below. 

Impacts to Federally listed species are also analyzed by habitat type, with the exception of some 

species for which site-specific population or other similar fine-scale data are available. In some 

areas, based on the limited impact varying by species type, impacts are discussed by alternative 

to give a more overall description of the impacts resulting from the management action. 

4.3.15.1 ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS

In all of the following sections, management actions discussed for each of the management 

alternatives are in addition to those discussed under Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

Furthermore, management actions discussed for Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan are in 

addition to those discussed under both Impacts Common to All Alternatives and Impacts 

Common to All Action Alternatives. The Proposed Action and alternatives have the potential for 

adverse impacts on special status species through management actions such as travel 

management, recreational use of the land, vegetation treatments, and oil or gas development. 

Air quality management does not directly result in additional emissions or air quality 

degradation. Potential impacts to air quality from actions, such as the construction of access 

roads to oil and gas development sites, would be analyzed as part of the energy and minerals 

program in the environmental analysis prepared for that action. Appropriate Section 7 

consultation with USFWS would be conducted as a part of the environmental process. Therefore, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-358 

any potential impacts to air quality would result from implementing aspects of the energy and 

minerals program Given the objectives and goals of the air quality program and the support 

function for maintenance of appropriate air quality standards, implementation of the air quality 

program would have not effect any of the listed threatened or endangered plant, fish, and animal 

species analyzed in this report and would not effect any of the designated critical habitat of the 

threatened or endangered fish and animal species analyzed in this report within the MPA. 

It was determined that quantitative analyses would be made for Federally listed species as well 

as a few BLM Sensitive species selected as representative of a variety of vegetation types. These 

species include southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL), endangered Colorado River fishes, 

Mexican spotted owl (MSO), bald eagle (nesting and wintering), Jones cycladenia, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, greater and Gunnison sage-grouse, and White-tailed and Gunnison prairie dog. The 

habitats associated with these species are representative of the habitats of the other special status 

species (Table 4.116). All habitat impacts analyzed in this section are approximations based on 

assumptions regarding the potential locations of facilities, vegetation treatments, grazing, and 

other management decisions. The black-footed ferret is not known to occur in the MPA. 

However, the possibility exists that at some point in time the introduction of experimental nonessential populations of ferrets may be considered. Because there are no specific plans or time 

frames for re-introductions, potential re-introductions are not analyzed and potential impacts to 

black-footed ferrets are not analyzed. 

Acreage calculations used for analysis for SWFL and yellow-billed cuckoo habitat were made 

using riparian vegetation acreages. Because both species utilize micro-habitats within riparian 

habitat, all habitat acreage calculations are likely over-estimations for these species. 

All references to the Colorado River fishes are specifically referring to the Federally endangered 

bonytail chub (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub 

(Gila cypha), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). These four species are managed 

similarly, and impacts can typically be analyzed as a group. 

The alternatives have the potential for both adverse and beneficial impacts on special status 

species through management actions such as travel management, recreational use of the land, 

vegetation treatments, and oil or gas development. Wherever possible, this document quantifies 

the amount and types of habitats that would be directly disturbed or reclaimed due to such 

actions. However, it is often difficult to quantify the loss or improvement of quality or condition 

of a habitat. Subtle increases or decreases in weeds, shrubs, forbs, water availability, undisturbed 

areas, or birthing or wintering grounds can greatly affect the distribution, health, and survival of 

a diversity of sensitive plant and animal species. The degree to which these impacts could occur 

varies by alternative, with alternatives that increase the amount of surface disturbance within 

special status species' habitats generally having greater potential adverse impacts on these 

species. Attempts are made to address potential impacts within each action analysis, but the 

discussions are often qualitative due to the difficulty in measuring such changes. 

Additional assumptions for this chapter include the following: (1) implementation of all of the 

alternatives would be in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and standard management 

guidelines; (2) actions associated with emergency or public safety would be performed at the 

discretion of the Authorized Officer; (3) though impacts resulting from implementation of any of 

the alternatives may extend beyond MPA boundaries, they will be analyzed to their logical 

conclusion even if they extend beyond MPA boundaries (an example of this would be analyzing 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-359 

impacts to aquatic species, including downstream impacts beyond the MPA boundaries); and 

that, (4) public land users will comply with the decisions and allocations contained in the 

alternatives. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3

4-360 

Table 4.116. Special Status Species in the MPA, by Habitat Type 

Habitat Type BLM Special Status Species Federally Listed Species Design

Wildlife

Allen's big-eared bat (Idionycteris phyllotis), big free-tailed 

bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), 

Gunnison prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni), White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (Map 2-22), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) (Map 2-22), desert night lizard (Xantusia vigilis). 

Wildlife

None. 

Wildlife

None. 

Desert Shrub Plants

Peabody's milkvetch (Astragalus pubentissimus var. peabodianus), Cisco milkvetch (Astragalus sabulous var. 

sabulous), stage-station milkvetch (Astragalus sabulousvar. vehiculus), Cataract Canyon gilia (Gilia latifolia var. 

imperialis), Entrada rushpink (Lygodesmia grandifloravar. entrada), Shultz' stickleaf (Mentzelia shultziorum), 

Trotter's oreoxis (Oreoxis trotteri), Paradox breadroot 

(Pediomelum aromaticum var. tuhyi), Jane's globemallow (Sphaeralcea janeae), San Rafael globemallow 

(Sphaeralcea psoraloides).

Plants

Jones cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var. 

jonesii) (T). 

Plants

None. 

Wildlife

Fringed myotis, Gunnison prairie dog, White-tailed prairie 

dog (Map 2-21), Gunnison sage-grouse, Greater sagegrouse (Map 2-20), burrowing owl, short-eared owl, ferruginous hawk.

Wildlife

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) (E)12. 

Black-foo

No criticabeen pub

Sagebrush and footed ferPerennial Grassland 

Plants

Cataract Canyon gilia (Gilia latifolia var. imperialis),Dolores rushpink (Lygodesmia doloresensis) 

Plants

None. 

Plants

None. 

12The black-footed ferret does not occur in the MPA, but is included here due to its potential to occur in association with prairie dog ha

4.3.15.1 Analysis Assumptions and 4.3.15.2.9 Impacts Common to All Alternatives for further discussion. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3

4-361 

Table 4.116. Special Status Species in the MPA, by Habitat Type 

Habitat Type BLM Special Status Species Federally Listed Species Design

Wildlife

Gunnison prairie dog, short-eared owl. 

Wildlife

None. 

Wildlife

Oak/Mountain Shrub None. 

Plants

None. 

Plants

None. 

Plants

None. 

Wildlife

Allen's big eared bat, fringed myotis, Townsend's bigeared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), Lewis's 

woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), short-eared owl, 

Western toad (Bufo boreas), Eureka mountainsnail (Oreohelix eurekensis). 

Wildlife

Mexican spotted owl (MSO; Strix occidentalis lucida) (T). 

MSO

Portions oCounties. designatewithin the 

Piñon-Juniper Woodland Plants

Peabody's milkvetch (Astragalus pubentissimus var. peabodianus), Dolores rushpink (Lygodesmia doloresensis), Entrada rushpink (Lygodesmia grandifloravar. entrada), Trotter's oreoxis (Oreoxis trotteri), Paradox breadroot (Pediomelum aromaticum var. tuhyi), Canyonlands lomatium (Lomatium latilobum). 

Plants

Jones cycladenia (T). 

Plants

None. 

Wildlife

Allen's big eared bat, big free-tailed bat, fringed myotis, spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, Lewis's woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker (Picoides 

tridactylus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). 

Wildlife

Mexican Spotted Owl (T).

Wildlife

None. 

Conifer and Mountain Shrub 

Plants

None. 

Plants

None. 

Plants

None. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3

4-362 

Table 4.116. Special Status Species in the MPA, by Habitat Type 

Habitat Type BLM Special Status Species Federally Listed Species Design

Wildlife

Allen's big eared bat, big free-tailed bat, fringed myotis, cornsnake (Elaphe guttata), smooth greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis), American white pelican (Pelecanus 

erythrorhyanchos), Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), northern goshawk, Arizona toad (Bufo microscaphus), 

Western toad, Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

(Map 2-19). 

Wildlife

Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL; Empidonax traillii) (E), Western yellow-billed cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) (C).

Southwe

flycatche

DesignateSWFL incWashingtsouthwes2005). 

Fish

Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus), bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), 

roundtail chub (Gila robusta), flannelmouth sucker 

(Catostomus latipinnis).

Colorado River Fishes

Bonytail (Gila elegans) (E), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychochelius lucius) (E), humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

(E), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) (E).

Endange

Fishes

Designateincludes pRiver dowYampa analong the Shiprock, Lake Powfloodplain 

Riparian and Wetland 

Plants

Alcove bog orchid (Habenaria zothecina [Platanthera zothecina]), alcove rock daisy (Perityle specuicola). 

Plants

None. 

Plants

None. 

Wildlife

Allen's big eared bat, big free-tailed bat, fringed myotis, spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, Yavapai mountainsnail (Oreohelix yavapai). 

Wildlife

Mexican Spotted Owl (T), California condor (E; Experimental). 

Wildlife

California nesting haMPA; howUtah are non-esse

Caves and Rock Crevices 

Plants

Alcove rock daisy (Perityle specuicola), Canyonlands lomatium (Lomatium latilobum). 

Plants

None. 

Plants

None. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3

4-363 

Table 4.116. Special Status Species in the MPA, by Habitat Type 

Habitat Type BLM Special Status Species Federally Listed Species Design

Wildlife

Yavapai mountainsnail, common chuckwalla (Sauromalus ater). 

Wildlife

Mexican Spotted Owl (T). 

Wildlife

None. 

Rocky Slopes and Canyons 

Plants

Canyonlands lomatium (Lomatium latilobum). 

Plants

None. 

Plants

None. 

(C) = Candidate for Federal listing. (T) = Federally listed as threatened. (E) = Federally listed as endangered. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-364 

4.3.15.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, the BLM would comply with management plans and conservation 

agreements for special status species as detailed in Chapter 2. Additionally, all special status 

species-related measures outlined in the BLM's Oil and Gas Stipulations (Appendix C), 

Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices for Federally Listed Species (Appendix 

K), and Best Management Practices and Recommended Buffers and Nesting Periods for Raptors 

(Appendix O) would be followed. Many of the special status species' habitat listed in Table 

4.116 would be indirectly protected by the restrictions and buffers in place for the SWFL, 

yellow-billed cuckoo, endangered Colorado River fishes, MSO, bald eagle, California condor, 

Jones cycladenia, greater and Gunnison sage-grouse, White-tailed and Gunnison prairie dogs, the 

black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, and ferruginous hawk. Specific protections that are in place 

for these special status species are outlined below.

4.3.15.2.1 SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER (SWFL) 

In Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL) riparian habitat, there would be no surface-disturbing 

activities within 100 feet of suitable riparian habitat under all alternatives, which would reduce 

long-term adverse impacts to riparian special status species and their habitats within those buffer 

zones by eliminating disturbance and habitat degradation. Construction and other disruptive 

activities would not be permitted within a 0.25 mile buffer of occupied SWFL breeding habitat 

from May 1 through August 15. These requirements would help reduce disturbance levels for 

breeding birds during the breeding and nesting season. As discussed in the MSO section below, 

these requirements would help to mitigate the adverse effects of human disturbance on sensitive 

bird species during breeding and roosting seasons. 

4.3.15.2.2 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO

In yellow-billed cuckoo habitat, there would be no surface-disturbing activities within 100 

meters of riparian habitat, which would have long-term beneficial impacts on riparian special 

status species and their habitats within those buffer zones by eliminating disturbance and habitat 

degradation. Construction and other disruptive activities would not be permitted within a 100 

meter buffer of occupied breeding habitat from May 15 through July 20. These requirements 

would help reduce disturbance levels for breeding birds during the breeding and nesting season. 

As discussed in the MSO section, these requirements would help to mitigate the adverse impacts 

of human disturbance on sensitive bird species during breeding and roosting seasons. 

4.3.15.2.3 ENDANGERED COLORADO RIVER FISHES

The BLM will continue to cooperate with the UDWR and USFWS to protect habitat for the 

endangered Colorado River fishes. All water depletions from any portion of the Upper Colorado 

River drainage basin above Lake Powell have been determined to adversely affect or modify the 

critical habitat of the four resident endangered fish species (Table 4.116). Any new depletions 

would require formal Section 7 consultation with the USFWS, and would require 

implementation of the Conservation Measures dictated in the Programmatic Biological Opinion 

for depletions to the Colorado River system (USFWS 1987). 

Surface-disturbing activities are precluded within the 100-year floodplain of the Colorado River, 

Dolores River, and at the confluence of the Dolores and Colorado Rivers, as well as backwaters 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-365 

(47,840 acres; see Map 2-17, fish habitat map). Surveys and monitoring would be implemented 

for authorized exceptions to this stipulation that take place within the 100-year floodplain. Loss 

or degradation of these riparian habitats and all designated critical habitat would require Section 

7 consultation with the USFWS. Any exceptions to the stipulation could affect, but are not likely 

to adversely affect, the endangered Colorado River fishes. The Utah Oil and Gas Pipeline 

Crossing Guidance would be implemented for all activities occurring near riparian areas (see 

Appendix H). These requirements would minimize adverse impacts on special status fish species 

within the MPA because of the associated reductions in human impacts such as grazing and 

surface-disturbing activities (Lentsch and Converse 1997). 

4.3.15.2.4 MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL (MSO) 

There would be no ground disturbing activities allowed within a 0.5-mile radius of known MSO 

nests. Because healthy, native vegetation is a key component of suitable habitat (food source and 

shelter for owl prey species), these restrictions would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

MSOs and other special status species in the same habitat type within the MSO nest buffer 

zones. MSO Protected Activity Centers (PACs) would be protected as outlined in the MSO 

Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995). MSO Designated Critical Habitat (55,645 acres) and suitable 

habitat would also be protected as outlined in the MSO Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) and 

would be avoided or use restrictions would be implemented. Within suitable habitat, these would 

include staying on designated routes or revegetating access routes created by a project, which 

would help mitigate the adverse impacts of any surface disturbance associated with road 

construction on MSO prey habitat. 

In addition, surveys would be required for temporary activities taking place within 0.5 miles of 

suitable MSO habitat (see Map 2-18, MSO habitat) during breeding season (March 1 through 

August 31). For all long-term actions, two years of surveys would be required prior to 

commencement of the activity. If owls were found during the surveys, no disturbing actions 

during breeding season, or permanent structures, would be allowed within 0.5 miles of any 

identified nest sites or PACs. Additionally, noise emissions would be reduced below 45 dBA at 

0.5 miles from suitable habitat. This would help reduce the stress of noise on MSOs during the 

breeding season. Various studies have shown that human presence and noise disturbance leads to 

a significant reduction in prey handling and delivery by females, which would reduce nest 

success (Frid 2002; Swarthout and Steidl 2003). These requirements would help to reduce the 

adverse impacts of human disturbance on MSOs during breeding season. 

4.3.15.2.5 BALD EAGLE

Activities on BLM lands containing nesting or winter roosting habitat for the bald eagle would 

be avoided or restricted (depending on the duration and timing of the activity). Raptors would be 

managed according to the USFWS Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land-use 

Disturbances (Romin and Muck 2002) and BLM BMPs. These management requirements would 

include restrictions and avoidance measures and would include required surveys prior to activity, 

monitoring during the activity, implementation of seasonal and spatial buffers during the 

breeding season of January 1 through August 31 and avoidance of disturbance in riparian areas 

unless impracticable. No ground disturbing activities or permanent structures would be 

authorized within one mile of known bald eagle nest sites year-round (2,439 acres). Deviations 

may be allowed only after appropriate levels of consultation and coordination with the USFWS. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-366 

Also, no permanent above-ground structures would be allowed within 0.5 miles of a winter roost 

site, if the structure would result in the habitat becoming unsuitable for future winter roosting by 

bald eagles. 

As discussed in the MSO section, these requirements would help to mitigate the adverse impacts 

of human disturbance on bald eagles during breeding and roosting seasons. 

4.3.15.2.6 CALIFORNIA CONDOR

Current threats to California Condors include collisions with man-made structures, including 

power lines. In addition, illegal shooting, poisoning, and habitat loss continue to threaten the 

species (USFWS 1996b). California condors and their habitat would be protected as outlined in 

the Recovery Plan for the California condor (USFWS 1996). If California condors are found to 

nest in the MPA, there would be no roads or permanent structures allowed within 1 mile of the 

nest. In addition, no surface-disturbing activities or special use permit groups would be allowed 

within 1 mile of the nest during breeding season. These requirements would help to mitigate the 

adverse impacts of human disturbance on nesting California condors. 

4.3.15.2.7 JONES CYCLADENIA

Site-specific plant inventories would be required prior to any proposed surface-disturbing 

projects in suitable Jones cycladenia habitat. Activities that would be avoided in suitable habitat 

include road construction, land disposal and approval of right-of-way (ROW) corridors, and 

grazing activities (trailing, salting, trailing, watering, and herding). All motorized travel would 

be limited to designated routes in suitable Jones cycladenia habitat. The use of herbicide and 

chemical treatments would be restricted. These avoidance measures and restrictions would help 

to mitigate the adverse impacts of habitat degradation and fragmentation for the Jones 

cycladenia. 

4.3.15.2.8 GUNNISON AND GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

Major threats to sage-grouse include the installation of roads which leads to destruction of 

vegetation and increased human activity, and fences and power poles that provide perches and 

viewing areas for raptors, which leads to an increase in predation levels in these areas (Connelly 

et al. 2000; Crawford et al. 2004). Additional threats to sage-grouse include reduction in native 

vegetation, fragmentation of suitable lekking and nesting habitat, and human disturbance during 

breeding and nesting season. The following plans would be implemented in suitable habitat in 

the MPA: BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004c), Strategic 

Management Plan for Sage-grouse (UDWR 2002), Conservation Assessment of Greater Sagegrouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), and the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (GSRSC 2005). Adherence to BLM plans would reduce adverse impacts 

to Gunnison sage-grouse and other sensitive sagebrush species in the MPA because of the habitat 

protections and restrictions on human disturbance specified in these plans. These restrictions 

include surface disturbance and permanent structures and other human activity in or near leks. 

Specific spatial and temporal stipulations for sage-grouse are discussed in Section 4.3.15.13.2.1 

below. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-367 

4.3.15.2.9 WHITE-TAILED AND GUNNISON PRAIRIE DOGS

Prairie dog habitats would be managed in accordance with UDWR and USFWS guidance and the 

White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Assessment. Additionally, cooperative agreements would 

be developed with other agencies to inventory prairie dog densities and identify suitable habitat 

for expansion. Adherence to the Conservation Assessment Plan would have beneficial impacts 

on White-tailed and Gunnison prairie dogs and other special status species in associated habitats 

in the MPA because of the habitat protection recommendations relevant to oil and gas 

development (including buffers around colonies), livestock grazing, and other potential threats. 

4.3.15.2.10 BLACK-FOOTED FERRET

No critical habitat rules have been published for the black-footed ferret. However, the 1988 

Recovery Plan states "direct reduction in the area occupied by prairie-dogs has been shown to 

reduce the number of black-footed ferrets linearly" (USFWS 1988). Therefore, it can be assumed 

that critical habitat for the black-footed ferret coincides with prairie-dog habitat including areas 

of short vegetation and bare ground, and that impacts described in this chapter for prairie dogs 

would be the same for the black-footed ferret. Sagebrush shrubs are among the largest plants 

found in the areas of preferred black-footed ferret and prairie-dog habitat (UDWR 2002). 

4.3.15.2.11 BURROWING OWL

No surface-disturbing activities would be allowed within 0.25 mile of a known burrowing owl 

nest from March 1 through August 31 due to the stipulations developed in cooperation with 

USFWS (USFWS Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land-use Disturbances, 

Appendix O) for oil and gas leasing and other surface disturbance activities. Additionally, no 

domestic sheep camps, temporary watering sites, or salt and mineral blocks would be allowed 

within 0.25 mile during the same time period to avoid the congregation of domestic sheep and 

activity around the nests. Ground squirrel and prairie dog colonies would be maintained to 

provide habitat and nesting burrows for burrowing owls. As discussed in the MSO section, these 

requirements would help to mitigate the adverse impacts of human disturbance on burrowing 

owls during breeding and roosting seasons. 

4.3.15.2.12 FERRUGINOUS HAWK

Management actions and impacts for ferruginous hawk would be identical to those described 

under burrowing owl except that no surface-disturbing activities would be allowed within 0.5 

mile of a known ferruginous hawk nest from March 1 though August 1, and the activities 

described above would not be allowed within 0.5 mile during the same time period. This spatial 

buffer would reduce human disturbances to nesting ferruginous hawks. 

4.3.15.3 IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.3.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan, all land-disturbing activities within Traditional 

Cultural Properties would be designated to avoid or minimize impacts, where reasonable. 

Proposed projects or actions would be modified to avoid the site or area, avoid time of use by 

Native American groups, or would be eliminated altogether. Cultural sites may be closed to 

visitation if it is determined that visitation is endangering the integrity of the site. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-368 

Implementation of these criteria would reduce negative impacts to special status species and their 

habitats in the MPA by reducing surface-disturbing activities and visitor use associated with 

cultural resources. Implementation of these criteria would reduce negative impacts to special 

status species and their habitats in the MPA by reducing surface-disturbing activities and visitor 

use associated with cultural resources. 

Under alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan, camping would be prohibited within 

archaeological and historic sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Eligible cultural sites would be protected from grazing activities when it is determined that they 

are being impacted, and any impacts would be mitigated. 

Class III cultural resources inventory would be conducted on designated ATV, and motorcycle 

and mountain bike routes that are 48 inches wide or less, based on potential resource conflicts. 

Routes identified for survey would be prioritized based on landscape level overviews, cultural 

resource predictive models, and available site location, environmental, and contextual 

information. If it is shown that eligible archaeological sites along these routes are being 

adversely affected by continued route use, impacts would be mitigated. Additionally, the BLM 

would cooperate with counties to ensure that county road and trail construction and maintenance 

activities minimize impacts to cultural resources. 

Cultural resource program-related actions include the development of interpretive sites, 

identification of cultural resources, increased vehicular traffic, the use of hand and power tools, 

the establishment of temporary camp sites, the building of fences, and the stabilization of 

deteriorating buildings. These actions have the potential to temporarily disturb or displace 

special status species due to the human activity associated with cultural resource actions. 

4.3.15.3.2 PIÑON-JUNIPER WOODLAND AND DESERT SHRUB HABITATS

Under the Proposed Plan, cultural resource related actions may occur within Jones' cycladenia 

and other special status plant occupied or potential habitat that could negatively affect the species 

through inadvertent trampling of individuals or habitats. The use of power tools and heavy 

machinery has the potential to crush and destroy individuals, populations and habitat. The 

proposed action is likely to adversely affect Jones cycladenia due to potential for surface 

disturbance within known or potential habitat. Occupied or potential MSO special status wildlife 

habitats may also be negatively affected by increased noise and visual stimulation. The Proposed 

Plan is likely to adversely affect the MSO where interpretive sites or preservation actions that 

result in public advertisement result in long-term adverse effects as a result of human presence. 

4.3.15.3.3 CONIFER AND MOUNTAIN SHRUB HABITAT

Occupied or potential MSO habitats may be negatively affected by increased noise and visual 

stimulation. Human activities in viable habitats may disrupt nesting and foraging behaviors and 

result in individual owls leaving the area or abandoning nests. The Proposed Plan is likely to 

adversely affect the MSO where interpretive sites or preservation actions that result in public 

advertisement result in long-term adverse effects as a result of human presence. 

4.3.15.3.4 RIPARIAN, WETLAND, AND STREAM HABITATS

Cultural resource program-related actions under the Proposed Plan are likely to adversely affect 

the SWFL where interpretive sites or any preservation actions that result in public advertisement 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-369 

result in long-term adverse effects as a result of human presence. The Proposed Plan is likely to 

adversely affect the endangered Colorado River fishes due to the potential for water quality 

degradation and aquatic habitat modification during cultural resource activities. 

4.3.15.3.5 CAVES AND ROCK CREVICES/ ROCKY SLOPES AND CANYONS HABITATS

Cultural resource program-related actions under the Proposed Plan are likely to adversely affect 

the MSO where interpretive sites or preservation result in public advertisement and associated 

long-term adverse effects as a result of human presence. 

4.3.15.4 IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.4.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions 

identified in consultation with the USFWS for the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and 

Fuels Management (BLM 2005c) would be implemented in fire-related actions. Maintenance of 

existing healthy ecosystems and protection of special status species are two of the criteria for 

establishing fire management priorities. Implementation of these criteria would reduce negative 

impacts to special status species and their habitats in the MPA by preserving native plant species 

and assuring that special status species would not be directly affected by fire. 

Fuels management actions would occur under all of the alternatives. Wildland fire use may be 

authorized for special status species habitats, which could negatively impact special status 

species by burning or cutting of vegetative cover, reducing the overall quantity or quality of 

habitat or forage, or mortality of individuals due to fire, trampling, or crushing. Indirect impacts 

to special status species and their habitats could include increased exposure to predators due to 

reduced vegetation cover, increased soil erosion, or other impacts to habitat quality. 

Wildland fire use would not be authorized in the following areas unless reasonable resource 

protection measures were in place: areas that are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire 

cheatgrass or other weed invasion, important terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and non-fire adapted 

vegetation communities (see Special Status Species section of Table 2.2, Summary of Impacts). 

This measure would also have beneficial impacts on special status species habitat by reducing 

the spread of weeds and preserving native plant species, thereby ultimately preserving the quality 

of special status species habitats. 

Fuels management actions include surface-disturbing treatments on 5,000 to 10,000 acres 

annually (dependent on budgetary and time constraints). Over the life of the plan, this would 

result in a maximum of 75,000 to 150,000 acres of land subject to fuels management. Impacts 

would be analyzed with site-specific NEPA once it is determined where individual treatments 

would occur. Fuels management actions include: mechanical and manual treatments, prescribed 

fire, chemical or biological vegetation control, and aerial/ground seeding. 

The LUP Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management indicates that the majority of treatments 

would occur in piñon-juniper woodland and sagebrush habitats and would impact the species 

dependent upon those habitats (Table 4.116). In the long term, however, vegetation treatments 

would benefit special status species habitat in an area by removing competition from weedy 

natives and invasive species. Once the competition is removed, a diverse native community has 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-370 

the potential to establish itself in the area, which means more available forage and cover for 

sensitive wildlife species and potential habitat for sensitive plant species (Stevens 2004). 

4.3.15.4.2 DESERT SHRUB HABITAT

Under all alternatives, wildland fire use or fuels management actions and associated surfacedisturbing treatments would not be authorized in desert shrub habitats, which are known to be 

highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or other weed invasion, unless reasonable Resource 

Protection Measures were in place. Protective measures would result in beneficial impacts 

because fire management activities that promote weed invasion could adversely impact special 

status plant species through direct impacts to individuals, competition from weed species, and 

indirectly impact special status wildlife through short and long-term changes in vegetation 

composition and structure, and weed-induced destabilization of biological soil crusts. 

4.3.15.4.3 SAGEBRUSH AND PERENNIAL GRASSLAND AND PIÑON-JUNIPER WOODLAND 

The LUP indicates that the majority of fuels management treatments would occur in piñonjuniper woodland and sagebrush habitats. Impacts would be analyzed with site-specific NEPA 

once it is determined where individual treatments would occur. Under all alternatives, fuels 

management actions would include surface-disturbing treatments on 5,000 to 10,000 acres 

annually within the MPA. Over the life of the plan, this would result in a maximum of 75,000 to 

150,000 acres of land subject to fuels management. 

Impacts to special status species would include trampling or removal of vegetation and 

associated disturbance to sensitive wildlife species from fire and human presence. In the long 

term, however, vegetation treatments would potentially benefit special status species habitat by 

removing competition from weedy natives and invasive species. Under the Proposed Plan, fire 

management decisions are likely to adversely affect the MSO and its habitat due to the loss of 

forage in piñon-juniper woodland habitat associated with wildland fire and prescribed fire. 

4.3.15.4.4 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITATS

Direct, adverse impacts from fire management actions include aquatic habitat degradation and 

modification including sedimentation and salinization resulting from soil erosion and stream 

bank destabilization, changes in water chemistry, changes in flow pattern, and possible water 

withdrawals (USFWS 2002a, BLM 2005c; Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Indirect, beneficial 

effects of fire management on special status species and their habitats include the reduction of 

catastrophic wildland fires that cause habitat modification, soil erosion, stream sedimentation, 

and water quality degradation. Indirect, adverse effects of fire management in riparian areas 

include the potential for alteration of plant community structure, species composition, and 

relative abundance of species. Fire is an imminent threat to special status species riparian 

habitats, as native riparian plants are neither fire-adapted nor are they fire-regenerated, whereby 

fires in riparian habitats can cause catastrophic, immediate and drastic changes in riparian plant 

density and species composition (USFWS 2002a). Under all alternatives, wildland fire and fuels 

management actions would not be authorized in potential special status species riparian habitats 

(see Section 4.3.15.1). Under the Proposed Plan, fire management decisions are likely to 

adversely affect the southwestern willow flycatcher and Colorado River fishes due to the 

potential for water quality degradation and habitat destruction or modification associated with 

fire and fuels treatments in riparian habitats. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-371 

4.3.15.4.5 ALL OTHER HABITATS IN THE MPA 

Under all other habitat types, wildland fire use would not be authorized unless reasonable 

Resource Protection Measures were in place if the habitat is deemed susceptible to post-fire 

cheatgrass or other weed invasion, important as terrestrial and aquatic habitat for special status 

species, or a non-fire adapted vegetation community. 

4.3.15.5 IMPACTS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.5.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, abandoned mine lands (AMLs) would be prioritized for area reclamation 

and mitigation. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be completed on all potential AML projects, 

thereby preventing adverse impacts to special status species. 

4.3.15.5.2 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITATS

Hazardous waste contamination from AML sites could directly or indirectly impact special status 

species in the short and long-term. Special status fish and amphibian species may be particularly 

vulnerable to adverse impacts to water quality, which could result in mortality of individuals, 

reduced forage or prey availability, or impacts to other habitat qualities. Any impacts to water 

quality could indirectly impact sensitive wildlife species that utilize affected riparian or wetland 

habitats through exposure to contaminants or impacts to prey availability or habitat quality. 

Under the Proposed Plan, health and safety management decisions are likely to adversely affect 

the endangered Colorado River fishes due to impacts to the primary constituent elements for 

their designated critical habitat. Actions associated with health and safety management decisions 

also have the potential to adversely impact the SWFL due to surface disturbance impacts 

resulting in temporary, localized and down-stream water quality degradation, and increased 

human activities during mine reclamations. 

Under all alternatives, some abandoned mine lands sites would be prioritized due to hazardous 

waste contamination and water quality issues. The top criteria used to prioritize water-qualitybased AML programs include threats to the environment (see special status section of Table 2.2, 

Summary of Impacts), which takes into account habitat quality for all special status fish species 

(see Table 4.116). These actions are conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authority and follow CERCLA 

processes. These reclamations would help to mitigate for the adverse impacts of poor water 

quality on special status fish species because the threat of groundwater contamination would be 

removed. Long-term water quality monitoring would be required.

4.3.15.5.3 CAVES AND ROCK CREVICES

In addition to naturally occurring caves and rock crevices, abandoned mining structures are often 

used as roosting habitat by bats, including sensitive bat species. Of the 18 bat species in Utah, 14 

species regularly occur in abandoned mines. One State special status species (Townsend's bigeared bat) has been found exclusively in abandoned mines (Grandison 2004). Of the special 

status bat species occurring in the MPA (see Table 4.116), three are known to use caves as 

winter, day, or night roosts (Townsend's big-eared bat, fringed myotis, and spotted bat; Oliver 

2000). These species have the highest potential for being adversely affected by reclamation and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-372 

mitigation of AMLs. Completely sealing off AML entrances could have direct adverse impacts 

to roosting individuals and populations, which could include the reduction of suitable roosting 

habitats. Under all alternatives, potential mitigations to avoid and/or minimize impacts to special 

status bat species would include pre-construction surveys and the installation of bat compatible 

mine gates and cupolas, which allow bats to pass through but prohibit human entrance. Use of 

mitigation structures and monitoring would lessen adverse impacts of mine closures on bats. 

Under the Proposed Plan, hazardous materials management activities is likely to adversely affect 

the MSO due to negative impacts to primary constituent elements of MSO designated critical 

habitat, and disturbance associated with the presence of humans and equipment.

4.3.15.5.4 ALL OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES HABITATS IN THE MPA 

Under all alternatives, impacts to all other special status species from health and safety decisions 

would be negligible because they do not occur in areas that would be impacted by abandoned 

mine reclamation. 

4.3.15.6 IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.6.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Lands and realty decisions that could potentially impact special status species include the 

following: access, easements, leases and permits, utility/transportation systems, exchanges, 

disposals and withdrawals. Under all alternatives, Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and 

Wilderness Areas would be exclusion areas for ROWs, and ACECs would be avoidance areas. In 

addition, the withdrawal of 78,333 acres from mineral entry within the MPA would be 

continued. Under all alternatives, the 65,037 acres from the Three Rivers Withdrawal and 8,096 

acres from the Westwater Withdrawal includes critical riparian habitat and would be managed as 

NSO. These actions would contribute to the avoidance of both long-term and short-term adverse 

impacts to riparian-associated special status species (see Table 4.116) in withdrawal areas by 

removing threats from the surface-disturbing actions associated with lands and realty decisions. 

All areas not identified as avoidance or exclusion would be available for ROWs and could be 

subject to multiple-use terms on a case-by-case basis (BLM 2004a). The use of ROWs for utility 

and communication infrastructure could have direct, long term, adverse impacts on special status 

plant and wildlife species habitat due to surface disturbance for utility lines, communication 

sites, solar and wind energy sites, or pipeline installation, trampling by workers and vehicles 

during construction activities, impacts to special status bird or bat species and migration routes 

from wind turbines, and construction of maintenance access roads. Additionally, noise and 

human presence associated with infrastructure installation could have adverse impacts on special 

status wildlife species in the MPA. 

4.3.15.6.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Applications for filming permits would have to meet criteria to avoid or minimize impacts to 

special status species and their habitats. Accordingly, implementation of these minimum impact 

criteria would help reduce adverse impacts to special status species from filming activities, such 

as surface disturbance due to vehicle use, noise and other human impacts, and an increased risk 

of fire. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-373 

4.3.15.6.3 DESERT SHRUB, SAGEBRUSH AND PERENNIAL GRASSLAND AND OAK/MOUNTAIN 

SHRUB HABITATS

Under all alternatives, the installation of power poles in these habitats would increase raptor 

predation on Gunnison prairie dog, White-tailed prairie dog, Greater sage-grouse, and Gunnison 

sage-grouse by providing hunting perches. Although this is a negative impact on these prey 

species, it would provide a short-term positive impact on special status raptor species in the MPA 

(Jacobsen 2005). Utility and communication infrastructure ROWs are also likely to fragment 

habitat, increase human access and increase invasive plants. These impacts would affect special 

status species, including prairie dogs and sage-grouse. Alternative A would impact the fewest 

acres of habitat (26,695 acres), followed by Alternative B (55,408 acres). Greater impacts to 

special status species would occur under the Proposed Plan (128,293 acres) and Alternative D 

(156,328 acres) (see Section 4.3.17.4, Table 4.137). Under the Proposed Plan, lands and realty 

management actions are likely to adversely affect Jones' cycladenia individuals or potentially 

suitable desert shrub habitats. 

4.3.15.6.4 PIÑON-JUNIPER WOODLAND HABITAT

Potential impacts to special status species from utility corridor development in piñon-juniper 

woodland habitat would be greatest under the Proposed Plan (41,672 acres) and D (44,189 

acres), followed by Alternative B (8,808 acres) and Alternative A (5,345 acres). Under the 

Proposed Plan, lands and realty management actions are likely to adversely affect Jones' 

cycladenia individuals or potentially suitable habitat, and the MSO and its designated critical 

habitats. 

4.3.15.6.5 CONIFER/MOUNTAIN SHRUB HABITAT

Potential impacts to special status species from utility corridor development in conifer/mountain 

shrub habitat would be limited to a maximum of 19 acres under Alternative D and Proposed 

Plan, with 9 acres potentially impacted under Alternative A, and no acres impacted under 

Alternative B. Under the Proposed Plan, lands and realty management actions are likely to 

adversely affect the MSO and its designated critical habitats. 

4.3.15.6.6 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITATS

For Federally listed species, changes in utility corridor widths among alternatives would 

primarily affect riparian habitat, which is utilized by wintering bald eagles, the four endangered 

Colorado River fishes, Southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo, and as 

foraging habitat by the Mexican spotted owl, and riparian-associated BLM special status species 

(see Table 4.116). Table 4.117 below details the acreage and percentage of habitat for these 

species that is included within utility corridors by alternative. Some overlap may exist among 

species. Specific adverse impacts of utility corridors on special status species are as described 

above. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-374 

Table 4.117. Federally Listed Species' Riparian Habitat Proposed for Utility Corridors, in 

Acres and Percent of Total Habitat in the MPA, by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Species 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

SWFL and Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo Habitat 

143 1 324 2 1,031 8 1,139 8 

Colorado River Fish Habitat 41 <1 281 1 565 1 571 1 

MSO Foraging Habitat 4,609 1 8,979 2 41,301 7 44,491 8 

Total Habitat Impacted 9,402 <4 13,806 <6 59,854 23 63,341 25 

 

Under Alternative A, utility corridor widths would remain 1 mile throughout. Under Alternative 

B, an I-70 utility corridor would be designated with a 100-foot width on each side of the widest 

ROW corridor. Under the Proposed Plan, a 0.5-mile disturbance width on either side of the I-70 

utility corridor would be designated. Also, under the Proposed Plan, a Moab Canyon Utility 

Corridor would be designated and expanded onto Gold Bar Rim, and two corridors south of 

Spanish Valley would be combined with 2–3 miles separating the segments, which would 

increase the number of acres in the MPA with potential to be adversely affected. Under 

Alternative D, allowable surface disturbance associated with the I-70 utility corridor would be a 

1-mile width on each side of the widest ROW corridor, which would further increase the number 

of acres in the MPA with potential to be adversely affected by surface disturbance associated 

with these management decisions. Overall, Alternative A would impact the fewest acres of 

riparian habitat, and would therefore have the lowest potential impacts to riparian special status 

species, followed by Alternative B, the Proposed Plan, and Alternative D, in ascending order (see 

Table 4.117). 

Under the Proposed Plan, lands and realty management decisions are likely to adversely affect 

the endangered Colorado River fishes due to direct and indirect impacts to designated critical 

habitat. Actions associated with health and safety management decisions are also likely to 

adversely affect the southwestern willow flycatcher due to habitat fragmentation and degradation 

resulting from surface-disturbing activities associated with utility corridor development. 

4.3.15.6.7 ALL OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES HABITATS IN THE MPA 

No utility corridors are proposed for caves and rock crevices or rocky slopes and canyons 

habitats. Overall, Alternative A would potentially impact the lowest number of acres across all 

special status species habitats of the alternatives, followed by Alternative B, the Proposed Plan, 

and Alternative D. 

ROW exclusion areas will be managed for wilderness characteristics by alternative, and would 

include no exclusions for wilderness characteristics under Alternatives A or D, 233,745 acres 

under Alternative B, and 47,761 acres under the Proposed Plan. Accordingly, the lowest 

potential impacts to special status species from ROWs in wilderness characteristics areas would 

occur under Alternative B, followed by the Proposed Plan, and Alternatives A and D, 

respectively. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-375 

4.3.15.7 IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.7.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Livestock grazing allotments occupy approximately 2,329,900 acres (95% of all lands) within 

the MPA. Detrimental impacts from grazing could include loss of biodiversity, lowering of 

population densities, disruption of some ecosystem functions, changes to community 

organization, and changes to the physical characteristics of both terrestrial and aquatic habitats 

(Chaneton and Lavado 1996; Fleischner 1994; Olff and Ritchie 1998). Within grazing 

allotments, special status species may be impacted by trampling, reduced forage or cover 

vegetation, reduced quality of riparian and wetland habitats, and other impacts to habitat quality 

or quantity. Those allotments that remain unavailable for grazing are not subject to these impacts 

to special status species. 

Under all alternatives, livestock grazing would be managed according to the Guidelines for 

Grazing Management to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health. By adhering to these 

Standards, the impacts from livestock grazing on special status species are expected to be 

minimal. Grazing use would not be authorized on approximately 48,220 acres in the MPA, 

wherein negative impacts to special status species by livestock would be reduced or eliminated. 

4.3.15.7.2 DESERT SHRUB

Grazing can increase salinity in already saline soils (Chaneton and Lavado 1996) and lead to 

inhibited plant diversity, especially in arid and relatively infertile soils (Olff and Ritchie 1998). 

Further, changes in salinity in bodies of water such as the Colorado River have been shown to 

modify species composition within an ecosystem (Galindo-Bect and Glenn 1999; Hart et al. 

1998). For these reasons, grazing eventually would reduce the habitat quality for special status 

species associated with riparian, desert shrub, and sagebrush habitats (see Table 4.116). 

Accordingly, Alternative B would exclude grazing from the greatest number of acres of 

potentially saline soils in desert shrub and sagebrush habitats (Table 4.118) and would have the 

greatest beneficial impacts to special status species, followed by Alternative A, the Proposed 

Plan, and Alternative D, in descending order. 

Table 4.118. Acres of Grazing Exclusions in Special Status Species Habitats, by 

Alternative 

Habitat Alternative A Alternative B Proposed 

Plan Alternative D

Desert shrub 13,697 23,880 23,280 13,324 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland 3,806 5,569 5,569 1,767 

Conifer and mountain shrub 23,155 23,404 22,579 587 

Piñon-juniper woodland 84,301 98,628 77,548 35,369 

Riparian/Wetland 1,568 1,852 1,556 862 

Agriculture, Developed, Disturbed, Water 316 388 291 238 

Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds 64 76 68 67 

Total 126,907 153,797 132,047 52,214 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-376 

Under the Proposed Plan, actions related to livestock grazing decisions are likely to adversely 

affect Jones' cycladenia individuals and desert shrub habitats due to direct effects from trampling 

and grazing, and indirect negative effects from soil compaction, incursion of weeds, and ground 

disturbance. 

4.3.15.7.3 SAGEBRUSH AND PERENNIAL GRASSLAND AND PIÑON-JUNIPER WOODLAND 

HABITATS

The recommendations of the National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004c) 

and the Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse (UDWR 2002) would be followed under all 

alternatives as applicable. These plans are designed to benefit sage-grouse species, and would 

also help avoid adverse impacts to all species associated with the sagebrush and perennial 

grassland habitat type by setting forth objectives and strategies aimed to retain the quality of 

these habitats. See Section 4.3.15.2.7, above, for details. 

Vegetation treatments for rangeland improvement in piñon-juniper woodland habitat are 

proposed under all alternatives. These treatments include plowing and seeding, chaining and 

seeding, drill seeding, and prescribed fire and seeding. See Table 4.116 to determine which 

special status species would be impacted by treatments to piñon-juniper woodland habitat. 

Potential short-term adverse impacts include mortality of individuals, displacement, and 

disturbance of habitat. However, in the long term, treatments would open canopy vegetation in or 

near special status species habitat, thereby improving conditions for re-colonization by native 

species. For example, the restoration of sagebrush habitats from piñon-juniper woodland 

encroachment can be done by cutting or chaining combined with post-treatment seeding (BLM 

2004c). Rangeland improvements like this would generally benefit sagebrush habitats and 

sagebrush dependent species such as the greater and Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Under Alternative A, vegetation treatments would be continued on 67,125 acres of piñon-juniper 

woodland habitat, including mechanical treatments on 11 allotments (52,976 acres) and 

prescribed fire treatments on 14,149 acres. Seeding would be done to ensure that forage would 

be created and enhanced for both wildlife and livestock. Special status wildlife species would 

likely have fewer adverse impacts with additional AUMs available, and sagebrush-dependent 

species would experience reduced impacts due to expanded habitat. Alternative B proposes 

46,307 acres for vegetation treatments in piñon-juniper woodland habitat, which is 20,818 acres 

less than Alternative A. Alternative D and Proposed Plan would conduct the same vegetation 

treatments as Alternative B, with an additional 6,900 acres of new vegetation treatment areas. 

Because the degree of direct and indirect impacts on special status species depends upon the 

quality of the treatment and the success rate of revegetating, differences among the alternatives 

are difficult to quantify. Alternative B would treat the fewest number of acres, followed by the 

Proposed Plan and Alternative D, with the largest treatment area under Alternative A. However, 

it is likely that Alternative B would have fewer improvements on special status species sagebrush 

habitat than the other Alternatives. Under the Proposed Plan, actions related to livestock grazing 

decisions are likely to adversely affect Jones' cycladenia individuals and piñon-juniper woodland 

habitats due to direct effects from trampling and grazing, and indirect negative effects from soil 

compaction, incursion of weeds, and ground disturbance. Livestock grazing under the Proposed 

Plan is likely to adversely affect the MSO and its habitats due to decreased habitat quality for 

MSO prey species. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-377 

4.3.15.7.4 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITATS

Although exclusions would help mitigate the adverse impacts of livestock grazing on water 

quality and riparian habitat in some areas, each alternative could result in direct and indirect, 

adverse impacts on riparian special status species in other areas. Indirect adverse impacts include 

loss of riparian habitat as a result of grazing of palatable native plant species, including 

vulnerable shrubs and tree saplings. Once disturbed, these areas are more susceptible to invasion 

by noxious and introduced weeds, which tend to be low value forage and cover species for 

sensitive wildlife (Popolizio et al. 1994; Kauffman et al. 1983; Sarr et al. 1996). Sensitive bird 

species relying on riparian habitat (e.g., bald eagles, SWFL, yellow-billed cuckoo) are typically 

adversely affected by the replacement of native vegetation with introduced species (Saab et al. 

1995), as they rely on native riparian trees for nesting and roosting sites and protection from 

predators. There could also be adverse impacts on endangered and special status fish and 

amphibian species habitats due to increased overland flow associated with upland soil 

compaction. Cattle hooves compact the soil on upland slopes, which results in less rainwater 

infiltration into soils and more overland flows. The result is large, short-lived flows rather than 

small, perennial flows (Trimble and Mendel 1995). 

Under Alternative A, grazing would continue to be excluded from 126,907 acres including 1,568 

acres of riparian habitat (see Table 4.118 above). Alternative B would exclude grazing on 

153,797 acres including 1,852 acres of riparian habitat which would have the lowest potential for 

adverse impacts to special status species from grazing under all alternatives. An additional 4,422 

acres of riparian habitat would be evaluated to determine if exclusion from grazing would 

improve riparian functioning condition under Alternative B. This would help mitigate the 

adverse effects of livestock grazing in riparian areas discussed under Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives. Under the Proposed Plan, grazing would be excluded from 114,235 acres including 

five riparian areas totaling 1,556 acres. An additional 1,169 riparian acres would also be 

evaluated to determine if exclusion from grazing would improve riparian functioning condition. 

Under Alternative D, grazing would be excluded from 52,214 acres, including 862 acres of 

riparian habitat. Under the Proposed Plan, impacts associated with livestock grazing in riparian 

areas are likely to adversely affect the SWFL due to potential habitat degradation. Livestock 

grazing under the Proposed Plan is also likely to adversely affect the endangered Colorado River 

fishes due to direct and indirect impacts to water quality and habitat degradation. 

4.3.15.7.5 CONIFER AND MOUNTAIN SHRUB HABITAT

The elimination of grazing could potentially provide short- and long-term benefits to special 

status species occupying conifer and mountain shrub habitats. As indicated by the acres of 

grazing exclusions listed in Table 4.118, there would be similar levels of impacts to special 

status species under all Alternatives, with Alternatives A and B being the least impactful, 

followed by the Proposed Plan and Alternative D. Livestock grazing under the Proposed Plan is 

likely to adversely affect the MSO and its habitats due to decreased habitat quality for MSO prey 

species. 

4.3.15.7.6 ALL OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES HABITATS IN THE MPA 

Livestock grazing would likely have negligible impacts on caves and rock crevices, or rocky 

slopes and canyons habitats. Nevertheless, the allotments that would be available for grazing in 

Alternative D, and not in Alternatives A, B and Proposed Plan, include potential canyon nesting 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-378 

and potential breeding habitat for MSO, as well as riparian habitat in the Cottonwood, Diamond 

and Nash watersheds. Accordingly, Alternative D would have more grazing-related adverse 

impacts on riparian-, piñon-juniper woodland-, mountain shrub-, and desert shrub-dependent 

special status species than Alternatives A, B and Proposed Plan. Overall, Alternative B would 

impact the fewest acres of special status species habitats, followed by the Proposed Plan and 

Alternatives D and A (Table 4.118). 

4.3.15.8 IMPACTS OF MINERAL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS 

SPECIES 

4.3.15.8.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Impacts to special status species associated with minerals exploration include loss and 

fragmentation of habitats, noise impacts to breeding and foraging activities, crushing or 

trampling of individuals, and changes in habitat structure or composition due to the introduction 

and spread of invasive and weedy plant species. In addition to specific protections for special 

status species (Section 4.3.15.1), approximately 358,806 acres of WSAs and Wilderness Areas 

would be closed to mineral leasing and development. This would eliminate loss of habitat and 

disturbance impacts to special status species using piñon-juniper and desert shrub habitats. All 

alternatives include the withdrawal of 65,037 acres along the Colorado, Dolores and Green 

Rivers from mineral entry, thereby eliminating surface-disturbing impacts to special status 

species riparian habitats in this area. Mineral exploration activities would also lead to greater 

road density, potentially creating greater opportunity for OHV and other human disturbance. 

Acreages under the categories Standard Stipulations and Timing Limitations and Controlled 

Surface Use (special conditions) reflect the total BLM-administered areas within the MPA open 

to surface-disturbing activities (Table 4.1 Predicted Oil and Gas Development and Associated 

Surface Disturbance for Each RFD Area within the MPA). The impacts of surface-disturbing oil 

and gas activities on native vegetation (present and potential special status species habitat) are 

discussed in Section 4.3.17.6. 

The oil and gas leasing stipulations (Appendix C) apply to all surface-disturbing activities, 

including the disposal of salable minerals. Closed and NSO restrictions do not apply to locatable 

minerals, although timing limitations and controlled surface stipulations are applicable. Under all 

alternatives, the projected development of salable and locatable minerals is expected to be minor 

and similar across all alternatives. A total of 27 acres per year of disturbance is expected due to 

the extraction of salable minerals and a total of 25 acres per year of disturbance is expected due 

to the extraction of locatable minerals. The impacts on special status species are therefore minor 

across all alternatives. 

4.3.15.8.2 DESERT SHRUB, SAGEBRUSH AND PERENNIAL GRASSLAND, PIÑON-JUNIPER 

WOODLAND, CONIFER AND MOUNTAIN SHRUB HABITATS

4.3.15.8.2.1 General Impacts 

Potential direct adverse effects of oil and gas development on special status species in desert 

shrub, sagebrush and perennial grassland, piñon-juniper woodland, and conifer and mountain 

shrub habitats (see Table 4.116 and species-specific analysis section below) include placement of 

facilities or roads within occupied habitat or potential habitat necessary for recovery, resulting in 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-379 

an overall reduction in suitable and potentially suitable habitat and an increase in habitat 

fragmentation (see Habitat Fragmentation and Road Impacts Analysis, below, and Table 4.123), 

as well as noise disturbance from construction and operation activities. Additional impacts 

include potential for spills, mortality from reserve pits, increased OHV access, and road 

mortality (see Section 4.3.19.6). The acreage of proposed surface disturbance differs by habitat 

type and alternative. 

Overall, Alternative B would pose the least potential impact from salable minerals on these 

special status species habitats (Tables 4.109 through 4.112; see Table 4.116 for special status 

species). The Proposed Plan would pose the second lowest impacts, followed by Alternative D. 

Alternative A would have the greatest impacts, based upon the large number of acres subject to 

standard stipulations and no limits on timing and/or controlled surface use or surface occupancy. 

Table 4.119. Salable Minerals Acres of Desert Shrub Habitat by Alternative 

Salable Minerals Category Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Standard stipulations 613,154 148,613 229,437 402,178

Timing limitations and/or 

controlled surface use 

0 195,559 281,105 164,370

No surface occupancy 0 249,975 92,081 46,646

Closed to leasing 147,717 166,724 158,249 147,677

Table 4.120. Salable Minerals Acres of Sagebrush and Perennial Grassland Habitat by 

Alternative 

Salable Minerals Category Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Standard stipulations 105,679 25,614 39,544 69,317

Timing limitations and/or 

controlled surface use 

0 33,705 48,449 28,330

No surface occupancy 0 43,084 15,870 8,040

Closed to leasing 25,460 28,735 27,275 25,453
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-380 

Table 4.121. Salable Minerals Acres of Piñon-Juniper Woodland Habitat by Alternative 

Salable Minerals Category Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Standard stipulations 607,166 147,162 227,196 398,250

Timing limitations and/or 

controlled surface use 

0 193,650 278,360 162,765

No surface occupancy 0 247,534 91,182 46,191

Closed to leasing 146,275 165,096 156,703 146,235

Table 4.122. Salable Minerals Acres of Conifer and Mountain Shrub Habitat by 

Alternative 

Salable Minerals Category Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Standard stipulations 57,974 14,051 21,693 38,026

Timing limitations and/or 

controlled surface use 

0 18,490 26,579 15,541

No surface occupancy 0 23,635 8,706 4,410

Closed to leasing 13,967 15,764 14,963 13,963

Implementation of minerals management decisions under the Proposed Action is likely to 

adversely affect Jones' cycladenia individuals and potentially suitable habitat due to 48% of the 

species piñon-juniper woodland and desert shrub habitats open to minerals exploration and 

extraction, and the likelihood of direct and indirect effects associated with these activities. 

4.3.15.8.2.2 Habitat Fragmentation and Road Impacts Analysis for Sage-Grouse 

Construction of roads and utility corridors related to oil and gas exploration and extraction 

fragments habitat for special status species. This fragmentation has various impacts, including 

direct mortality from construction activities and increased vehicular traffic. Indirect impacts 

include loss of ecosystem function due to decreases in undisturbed habitat size, barriers to 

migration, and loss of buffers around key habitat. In terms of special status species, this 

particularly impacts predators, migratory animals, and habitat specialists (HSUS 2006). 

For the purposes of this analysis, and as an example, the impacts of fragmentation were analyzed 

for greater and Gunnison sage-grouse. These species were analyzed for four reasons: First, they 

are species of high interest; second, manuscripts exist to analyze habitat fragmentation for these 

species; third, our GIS data could support such analyses for these species; and fourth, they 

represent a dominant habitat type in the RFD areas of the MPA. 

Methodology

The first step in analyzing the impacts of human-caused fragmentation on greater and Gunnison 

sage-grouse species required calculating the total number of acres of BLM-managed suitable 

habitat available for these species in the MPA. This was done by referring to habitat acreage 

proposed under Alternative B, which is the most inclusive of BLM-proposed habitat. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-381 

Next, the projected number of miles of road open in suitable greater and Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitats for the life of the plan was calculated for each alternative (see Section 4.3.19.18, Habitat 

Fragmentation). The existing condition was calculated by analyzing fragmentation from the 

existing travel plan (Alternative A), which presents the current locations of known roads in the 

MPA. 

The final step calculated the number of acres of greater and Gunnison sage-grouse habitat that 

could be impacted by vehicle and pedestrian traffic for all alternatives. It was assumed that the 

potential area of impact consisted of a 400 m area along each side of all proposed roads in the 

designated habitat. This number is an averaged distance based on applicable literature (Clark and 

Karr 1979; Connelly et al. 2000; Crawford et al. 2004; UDWR 2002). Note that this analysis 

could result in an overestimation of habitat degradation because road class and road use were not 

taken into account. It is possible that infrequently used roads would cause a disturbance less than 

400 m for sage-grouse species. It is also possible that the analysis could underestimate habitat 

degradation because more frequently used roads could cause disturbance greater than 400 meters 

from the road.

Impacts

Table 4.123 displays the percentage of greater and Gunnison sage-grouse habitat that would be 

affected by vehicle and pedestrian traffic under each alternative. 

Table 4.123. Percentage of Species Habitat Affected by Habitat Fragmentation, by 

Alternative 

Species Existing Condition Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Gunnison Sage-grouse 75% 76% 69% 74% 74% 

Greater Sage-grouse 37% 38% 33% 35% 35% 

For both species of sage-grouse, Alternative A would affect the greatest percentage of habitat. 

Alternative A would have virtually identical impacts as currently exist. Alternative B, which 

places the most restrictions on oil and gas activity, would reduce impacted habitat from the 

existing condition by 6% (15,276 acres) for Gunnison sage-grouse and 4% (484 acres) for 

Greater sage-grouse. The Proposed Plan and Alternative D have identical results for both 

species: 1% and 2% reductions from the existing condition for the Gunnison and sage-grouse 

species, respectively. 

Sage-grouse species are sagebrush habitat specialists. They require sagebrush for food yearround and for cover during the nesting and brood-rearing periods. Because of this relationship, 

small increments of habitat degradation can lead to disproportionate effects on sage-grouse 

populations. Conversely, seemingly small amounts of intact (unfragmented) habitat can greatly 

benefit populations. 

Although all alternatives propose oil and gas restrictions around specified distances from active 

leks (strutting grounds), none of the alternatives propose protection for nesting and/or brood 

rearing habitat. These activities have been documented an average of 0.6–3.9 miles from the lek, 

with some females nesting more than 12.5 miles away from a lek (as cited in UDWR 2002). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-382 

These numbers imply that sage-grouse species need a core of unaffected sagebrush habitat for 

breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing. Fragmentation of this core by roads can effectively reduce 

the suitable nesting area for this species by means of human-caused noise and physical 

disturbances to nesting and brooding females. As shown in Table 4.123, the existing project area 

condition includes a large proportion of fragmented habitat. Of the action alternatives, 

Alternative B would result in the least amount of fragmented habitat, followed by the Proposed 

Plan and Alternatives D and A, in ascending order. 

4.3.15.8.3 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITATS

Under the Stipulations Applicable to Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface Disturbance 

Categories (Appendix C), surface-disturbing activities are not allowed in riparian zones. 

However, this stipulation could be waived if there are no practical alternatives (such as a utility 

line to private property). Because of this restriction, combined with the spatial and temporal 

buffers for surface disturbance for SWFL and the yellow-billed cuckoo (see Section 4.3.15.2 and 

Appendix C), it is likely that these species and their habitat will experience minimal direct 

impacts from oil and gas development. However, indirect effects such as sedimentation, 

displacement, and the reduction of prey availability could still occur. Table 4.124 lists salable 

minerals acres in riparian habitat by alternative. 

Table 4.124. Salable Minerals Acres of Riparian Habitat by Alternative 

Salable Minerals Category Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Standard stipulations 17,235 4,177 6,449 11,305

Timing limitations and/or 

controlled surface use 

0 5,497 7,901 4,620

No surface occupancy 0 7,026 2,588 1,311

Closed to leasing 4,152 4,686 4,448 4,151

Development of oil and gas wells requires on average 2.4 acre-feet of water per well for drilling 

and extraction, which could adversely affect riparian habitat. Each contracting company would 

identify its own water source and disposal methods for waste products. If this water is taken from 

sources that feed the Colorado River system, they will contribute to the cumulative water 

depletions affecting the endangered fish species of the Colorado River system. These impacts 

would require the implementation of conservation measures required by the Programmatic 

Biological Opinion for water depletions from the Upper Colorado River system. In spite of this, 

some indirect, adverse impacts to water quality due to sedimentation associated with soil 

compaction could occur. Road construction and use on upland slopes results in soil compaction, 

which results in less rainwater infiltration and more overland flows (Trimble and Mendel 1995). 

However, the relative amount of reasonably foreseeable mineral development in the MPA, in 

conjunction with BMPs to minimize erosion, would likely result in relatively minor impacts on 

these species. 

Table 4.125, below, details the projected average acre-feet of water used for each alternative 

over the life of the plan (15 years). These projections were calculated by multiplying the average 

water requirement per well (2.4 acre-feet) by the average amount of wells projected for each 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-383 

alternative. Alternative B would have the least amount of water-withdrawal effects on riparian 

special status species because 42% less water would be withdrawn for drilling and extractions for 

oil and gas activities, followed by the Proposed Plan and Alternatives D and A, respectively. 

Table 4.125. Average Acre-Feet of Water Required for Drilling and Extraction by 

Alternative, Over the Life of the Plan 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

1,082 634 1,037 1,078 

These impacts would require the implementation of conservation measures required by the 

Programmatic Biological Opinion for water depletions from the Upper Colorado River system 

(see Section 4.3.15.2.3). In spite of this, some indirect, adverse effects to water quality due to 

sedimentation associated with soil compaction could occur. Road construction and use on upland 

slopes results in soil compaction, which results in less rainwater infiltration and more overland 

flows (Trimble and Mendel 1995). However, the relative amount of reasonably foreseeable 

mineral development in the MPA, in conjunction with BMPs to minimize erosion, would likely 

result in relatively minor impacts on these species. Under the Proposed Plan, implementation of 

minerals management decisions is likely to adversely affect the SWFL due to the potential for 

habitat degradation and modification in riparian areas. Adverse affects to the endangered 

Colorado River fishes are also likely due to the potential for water depletion and water quality 

degradation. 

4.3.15.8.4 ROCKY SLOPES AND CANYONS HABITATS

MSO are known to occupy the rocky slope/canyon habitat in the MPA. This habitat would be 

subject to mineral development; however, development activities would not be allowed in 

potential habitats until presence/absence determinations surveys are complete and lack of MSO 

occupancy is determined, or during the owl breeding season (March 1 through August 31). 

Additionally, no permanent disturbing actions would be allowed within 0.5 miles of areas where 

MSO surveys have found nesting individuals. These measures would reduce disturbance to 

individual species from oil and gas development, but habitat degradation may occur within MSO 

suitable habitat. Under the Proposed Plan, actions related to minerals management decisions are 

likely to adversely affect the MSO due to the large amount of habitat open to oil and gas leasing. 

4.3.15.8.5 ALL OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES HABITATS IN THE MPA 

Mineral and energy development would likely have negligible impacts on remaining special 

status species habitats in the MPA. Overall, Alternative B would impact the fewest acres of 

special status species habitats, followed by the Proposed Plan and Alternatives D and A, 

respectively. 

4.3.15.8.6 SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS

Table 4.126 below lists the acreage and percentage of protected species habitat that is designated 

as Closed or NSO by alternative. Note that the total habitat acreage used to calculate percentages 

differs by alternative. Spatially explicit protected habitat information is only available for these 

12 special status species. Qualitative impacts to these species could also affect other special 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-384 

status species utilizing similar habitat. See habitat groupings below and Table 4.116 to relate the 

species listed below with other species within habitat types. All acreages are approximate. 

Alternative B proposes the greatest amount of special status species habitat as NSO or closed to 

oil and gas leasing activities which would benefit special status species, followed by the 

Proposed Plan and Alternatives D and A, in descending order. 

Table 4.127 below displays the estimated annual acreage of oil and gas-related surface 

disturbance to special status species habitat by alternative. Annual habitat disturbance was 

estimated by multiplying the percentage of species habitat that is open to minerals leasing by the 

total acres of predicted annual surface disturbance under each alternative. Because exact well 

locations are not known at this time, this table serves to show the relative potential for 

disturbance among alternatives and does indicate exact disturbance acreages for each habitat 

type. Note that Alternative A does not designate habitat for Gunnison prairie dog, White-tailed 

prairie dog, Greater sage-grouse, or Gunnison sage-grouse. Additionally, no habitat acreage 

calculations for SWFL and yellow-billed cuckoo are shown in the table below because all 

riparian habitat is designated as NSO (see Appendix C). 

Table 4.126. Existing Protected Special Status Species Habitat, and Acres and Percentage 

of This Total Habitat Proposed as Closed to Leasing or NSO, by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Species Total 

Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

Desert Shrub Habitat 

Jones cycladenia 26,232 692 3 26,203 100 26,203 100 13,192 50

Sagebrush and Perennial Grassland Habitat 

Greater sage-grouse 11,309 0 0 9,380 83 1,103 58 46 6

Gunnison sagegrouse 

244,497 0 0 69,345 28 9060 5 2,670 6

Gunnison prairie dog 12,573 0 0 335 3 159 1 0 0

White-tailed prairie 

dog 

197,361 0 0 132,193 67 304 <1 0 0

Riparian and Wetland Habitat 

SWFL and yellowbilled cuckoo1 

13,454 5,115 100 10,737 100 8,833 100 7,297 100

Colorado River fish 47,843 19,074 40 44,366 93 42,224 88 38,392 80

Bald eagle (nesting) 2,394 1,523 64 1,635 68 869 36 840 35

Bald eagle 

(wintering) 

141,756 15,829 11 66,756 45 28,137 20 18,591 13

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 

(Conifer/Mountain Shrub, Caves/Rock Crevices, Rocky Slopes/ Canyons 

Mexican spotted owl 

(designated critical 

habitat-DCH) 

55,645 3,606 6 36,758 66 10,974 20 1,189 2
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-385 

Table 4.126. Existing Protected Special Status Species Habitat, and Acres and Percentage 

of This Total Habitat Proposed as Closed to Leasing or NSO, by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Species Total 

Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

Mexican spotted owl 

(potential breeding) 

335,936 155,423 46 272,843 81 220,080 66 172,002 51

Mexican Spotted Owl 

(potential foraging) 

590,302 179,360 30 327,953 56 230,887 39 184,397 31

1 Due to the Oil and Gas Stipulations (Appendix C) all riparian areas are managed as NSO. 
Moab Draft EIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3

4-386 

Table 4.127. Acres of Predicted Special Status Species' Habitat Disturbance in the MPA, by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN 

Species Acres of Habitat Open 

to Leasing 

(%) 

Adjusted 

Predicted 

Annual Habitat 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Acres of 

Habitat Open 

to Leasing 

(%) 

Adjusted 

Predicted 

Annual 

Habitat 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Acres of 

Habitat Open 

to Leasing (%)

Adjusted 

Predicted 

Annual 

Habitat 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Acr

Habita

to Le

(

Colorado River fish 28,416 (60%) 270 3,498 (7%) 19 5,616 (12%) 51 9,44MSO designated critical habitat 

51,972 (94%) 422 18,887 (34%) 90 44,671 (80%) 347 54,44

MSO (potential breeding) 

179,952 

(54%) 

242 63,093 (19%) 50 115,835 (34%) 149 163,93

MSO (potential foraging) 

410,056 

(70%) 

314 262,349 

(44%)

117 359,380 (61%) 263 405,91

Bald eagle nesting 868 (36%) 164 759 (32%) 84 1,525 (64%) 275 1,55Bald eagle wintering 

125,859 

(89%) 

401 75,019 (55%) 144 113,633 (80%) 346 123,18

Jones cycladenia 25,513 (97%) 439 29 (<1%) 0 65 (1%) 1 13,04Greater sagegrouse NMA (100%) NA 1,928 (17%) 45 806 (42%) 182 78Gunnison sagegrouse NMA (100%) NA 175,152 (72%) 191 166,312 (95%) 410 38,76Gunnison prairie dog 

NMA (100%) NA 12,238 (97%) 257 12,414 (99%) 427 NMA 

White-tailed prairie dog 

NMA (100%) NA 65,502 (33%) 88 124,989

(100%)

431 29,446 

NMA = No Management Actions; NA = Not applicable. Predicted Annual Surface Disturbance from Oil and Gas Development in MPA (acres): 451 acres under Alternative A, 264 acres under Alternative B, 432 Plan, 449 acres under Alternative D. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-387 

4.3.15.8.7 SUMMARY OF MINERALS IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

4.3.15.8.7.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, a total of 1,038,344 acres of land would be open for oil and gas leasing 

under standard stipulations, and 389,605 acres would be open for oil and gas leasing with special 

conditions. Much of the increased oil and gas mineral development within BLM administered 

lands in the MPA would occur primarily in the Greater Cisco Area, and secondarily in the Book 

Cliffs area. A total of 6,772 acres of surface disturbance is projected for the MPA over the life of 

the plan (or 451 acres annually). Possible adverse effects are described above under Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives. 

This disturbance would impact SWFL and yellow-billed cuckoo, Colorado River fish, wintering 

bald eagle, Jones cycladenia, and MSO potential breeding and foraging habitats. Additionally, all 

Gunnison prairie dog, White-tailed prairie dog and Greater sage-grouse, and Gunnison sagegrouse habitats would be open to oil and gas activities under Alternative A. These actions would 

lead to the greatest potential for negative effects on these species in comparison with the other 

alternatives. Similarly, Alternative A allows for the second largest number of acres of 

disturbance for MSO designated critical habitat and would, therefore, have the largest potential 

impacts after Alternative D. However, Alternative A would have fewer acres disturbance in bald 

eagle nesting habitat than Alternative D and the Proposed Plan, and more than Alternative B (see 

Table 4.127). 

4.3.15.8.7.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, a total of 264,344 acres of land would be open for oil and gas leasing under 

standard stipulations, and 543,751 acres would be open for oil and gas leasing with special 

conditions. A total of 3,963 acres of surface disturbance is projected for the MPA over the life of 

the plan, which is 2,809 acres less than Alternative A. Much of the increased oil and gas mineral 

development on BLM-administered lands in the MPA would occur primarily in the Greater 

Cisco RFD Area, and secondarily in the Book Cliffs RFD Area. Under Alternative B, 92 and 66 

acres of annual surface disturbance are projected for these areas, respectively—considerably less 

surface disturbance than is projected under Alternative A. Alternative B would allow the least 

amount of predicted surface disturbance for all species listed in Table 4.127. Therefore, this 

alternative would have the fewest negative impacts on special status species when compared to 

all other Alternatives (see Table 4.127). 

4.3.15.8.7.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, there would be a total of 427,273 acres of land open for oil and gas 

leasing-standard stipulations, and 806,994 acres open for oil and gas leasing with special 

conditions. A total of 6,483 acres of surface disturbance is projected for the MPA over the life of 

the plan, which is 289 acres less than Alternative A. The Proposed Plan proposes the second least 

amount of predicted special status species habitat disturbance for all species except bald eagle 

nesting. Therefore the Proposed Plan has the potential to negatively affect special status species 

more than Alternative B, but less than Alternatives A and D (see Table 4.127). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-388 

4.3.15.8.7.4 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, there would be a total of 797,031 acres of land open for oil and gas leasingstandard stipulations and 590,442 acres open for oil and gas leasing with special conditions. A 

total of 6,739 acres of surface disturbance is projected for the MPA over the life of the plan, 

which is 33 acres less than Alternative A. Among alternatives, acres of predicted annual 

disturbance are highest under Alternative D for nesting bald eagle, MSO designated critical, and 

Jones cycladenia habitats. Acreages of predicted surface disturbance would be the second highest 

for all other species (see Table 4.127). Furthermore, there would be no management actions 

proposed for the Gunnison prairie dog. Accordingly, this alternative would have the second 

greatest adverse impacts on special status species compared to Alternative A. 

4.3.15.9 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Management decisions regarding non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would 

generally reduce adverse impacts to the special status species that occur within their boundaries. 

Impacts to special status species vary among alternatives based on the acreage managed for 

wilderness characteristics and the oil and gas leasing stipulations assigned within them. 

4.3.15.9.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

There are no impacts common to all alternatives for lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.15.9.2 ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would not manage any non-WSA lands to protect wilderness characteristics, and 

would therefore have potentially adverse long-term impacts to special status species and their 

habitats. 

4.3.15.9.3 ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would manage 266,485 acres to protect wilderness characteristics. These lands 

would be managed as closed to oil and gas leasing and woodland harvest, and other surfacedisturbing activities would also be precluded. Alternative B would protect the largest number of 

acres with wilderness characteristics and therefore have the fewest adverse impacts to special 

status species. 

4.3.15.9.4 PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan would manage 47,761 acres to protect wilderness characteristics. These lands 

would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing as well as precluding other surface-disturbing 

activities. These actions would reduce adverse impacts to special status species habitat within 

this acreage, but would have greater adverse impacts than Alternative B. 

4.3.15.9.5 ALTERNATIVE D 

Alternative D would not manage any non-WSA lands to protect wilderness characteristics, and 

would therefore have the same potentially adverse long-term impacts to special status species 

and their habitats as Alternative A. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-389 

4.3.15.10 IMPACTS OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS 

SPECIES

4.3.15.10.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Management actions associated with paleontological resources program include survey and 

inventory, development of interpretive sites, establishment of temporary campgrounds, and 

construction of fences and erosion stabilization structures. Hand tools, power tools, and heavy 

machinery are used during these actions. Impacts to special status species may result from 

surface disturbance, foot traffic, soil erosion and compaction, and human presence. These actions 

can also result in increased potential for weed invasion or other changes to habitat structure and 

composition. Paleontological resource excavation or preservation actions are typically less than 

one acre in size and disturbances are generally isolated and short-term. Under all management 

alternatives, the collection of vertebrate fossils and associated activities would be limited to 

qualified individuals and would thereby limit surface-disturbing activities to permitted activities. 

Under the Proposed Plan and Alternatives B and D, surface disturbance could occur in 

association with recreational collection of vertebrate fossils and personal collection of 

invertebrate or plant fossils. 

4.3.15.10.2 PIÑON-JUNIPER WOODLAND AND DESERT SHRUB HABITATS

Under the Proposed Plan and other management alternatives, implementation of the 

paleontological resource management program is likely to adversely affect Jones' cycladenia due 

to the potential for surface disturbance associated with discovery activities within known or 

potential piñon-juniper woodland and desert shrub habitats. Paleontological activities are also 

likely to adversely affect MSO designated critical habitat in piñon-juniper woodlands due to 

paleontology related actions such as digging, fencing, and excavations that could alter the 

habitats utilized by MSO prey and disrupt foraging behaviors. 

4.3.15.10.3 CONIFER AND MOUNTAIN SHRUB HABITAT

Under the Proposed Plan and other management alternatives, paleontological activities are likely 

to adversely affect MSO designated critical habitat in conifer and mountain shrub habitats due to 

paleontology related actions such as digging, fencing, and excavations that could alter the 

habitats utilized by MSO prey and disrupt foraging behaviors. 

4.3.15.10.4 RIPARIAN, WETLAND AND STREAM HABITAT

Under the Proposed Plan and other management alternatives, paleontological activities are likely 

to adversely affect the SWFL due to actions such as digging, fencing, excavations, or 

establishment of temporary camp sites in riparian habitats. Associated human activities may 

disrupt nesting and foraging behaviors and result in reduced reproductive success. 

Paleontological activities may also adversely affect the endangered Colorado River fishes due to 

potential for water quality degradation and aquatic habitat modification during paleontologic 

activities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-390 

4.3.15.10.5 ALL OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES HABITATS IN THE MPA 

The impacts of paleontological resource management decisions on all other special status species 

habitats are expected to be negligible. Potential impacts are discussed in Section 4.3.15.11.1 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

4.3.15.11 IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.11.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Impacts to special status species from recreation include direct impacts from use of mechanized 

and non-mechanized vehicles, ground disturbance from trail development, trampling of 

individuals, habitat fragmentation, and increased access to fragile habitats and species vulnerable 

to illegal collection. Increased visitor use of recreational areas may also adversely impact special 

status species through increased noise and human presence. Indirect adverse impacts to riparian 

areas from recreation could include alternation of plant community structure and species 

composition, reduction in the relative abundance of species, and changes to stream channel 

morphology, all of which may contribute to habitat degradation. Management of recreational 

areas which includes measures to reduce surface disturbance and resource degradation would 

also reduce these negative impacts on special status species. 

The adverse impacts of recreation decisions would be partially mitigated by the required 

reclamation of disturbed areas to meet the Utah Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines 

for Recreation Management (Appendix R) and protective measures outlined for Federally listed 

species in Appendix C. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, non-motorized vehicle use, and 

dispersed camping are emphasized here due to the emphasis on these activities in the MPA and 

the potential for direct adverse impacts to Sensitive species and their habitats from these 

activities throughout the MPA. 

Under all alternatives, the Colorado River SRMA would be replaced with the Two Rivers, 

Colorado Riverway and Dolores River Canyons SRMAs to provide for more focused 

management. In addition, a River Management Plan, for the Dolores River, and for the Colorado 

River from the Colorado State Line to Castle Creek would be completed. The recreation 

restrictions outlined in the Management Plan would lessen the adverse impacts of visitor traffic 

on special status riparian species. Nevertheless, there would still be surface disturbance 

associated with the potential trampling and crushing of special status plant species and wildlife 

habitat by humans, horses, and vehicles. The surface disturbance associated with foot and vehicle 

traffic could also lead to the introduction of invasive plant species, which can have long-term, 

adverse impacts on special status species plant and animal habitats as discussed in previous 

sections. Additional impacts on special status species and their habitat include direct and indirect 

disturbance of individual wildlife species by human visitors. Wildlife species, birds in particular, 

are sensitive to traffic and other human-related noise. Traffic noise has been shown to directly 

interfere with bird vocal communication, which affects territorial behavior and mating success 

(Reijnen and Foppen 1994). Increased road traffic would also potentially increase the risk of 

direct mortality to some special status species due to vehicle impacts; carrion-eating raptors are 

especially vulnerable. 

Under all alternatives, dispersed camping would be allowed where not specifically restricted. 

Dispersed camping could lead to an increase in trampling and noise impacts to special status 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-391 

species and their habitats, which could have an adverse effect on individuals and populations. 

Dispersed camping may be closed seasonally or as impacts or environmental conditions warrant. 

Management actions limiting camping, wood gathering, firewood cutting, and requiring the use 

of fire pans and portable toilets would be carried forward in all alternatives. 

4.3.15.11.2 DESERT SHRUB, SAGEBRUSH AND PERENNIAL GRASSLAND, OAK/MOUNTAIN 

SHRUB, PIÑON-JUNIPER WOODLAND AND CONIFER AND MOUNTAIN SHRUB 

HABITATS

All alternatives would establish focus areas for motorized and multi-use recreation. Recreational 

OHV and mechanized travel would be consistent with area and route designations described in 

the travel management plan. The short and long term adverse effects of OHV use are varied and 

complex. Short-term adverse effects include human presence and noise disturbances (some 

species have become habituated to certain noises). Long-term adverse effects include habitat 

fragmentation from roads and cross-country riding, soil compaction, increased erosion, and 

reduced air quality. These impacts can reduce habitat quantity and quality for special status 

species. These effects can occur within any habitat type, and can affect a diverse range of 

species. For an annotated bibliography of the environmental effects of OHV use, see Stokowski 

and LaPointe (2000). Table 4.123, above, provides a relative comparison of the amount of 

habitat disturbance and fragmentation that would occur in the dominant sagebrush steppe habitat 

type under each alternative. 

Some of the SRMAs (and one area within the Moab ERMA) within the MPA would include 

special "non-motorized focus areas" under some of the alternatives. Not all of the SRMAs would 

contain these focus areas, and for those that would contain them, the size of the areas would vary 

by alternative. These non-motorized focus areas would be set aside for recreational activities that 

do not require motorized vehicles. Each area would have a slightly different emphasis; in 

general, these activities could potentially include hiking, mountain biking (including specialized 

speed events), ecological study, equestrian use, mountain climbing, and BASE jumping. The 

restriction of motorized vehicles from these focus areas would alleviate both short- and longterm impacts on special status species in these areas by decreasing human traffic, noise, and 

habitat disturbance resulting from OHV use (Table 4.128). 

Table 4.128. Acres of Designated Non-motorized Focus Areas, by Alternative 

SRMA Area Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D

Canyon Rims SRMA 0 3,642 3,642 0 

Colorado Riverway SRMA 0 37,277 33,451 1,287 

Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA 0 43,561 38,013 0 

South Moab SRMA 0 39,646 39,646 0 

Two Rivers SRMA 0 23,479 23,479 0 

Moab ERMA (Book Cliffs Area) 0 335,457 335,457 141,679 

Total 0 483,062 473,688 142,966
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-392 

Under Alternative A, the Book Cliffs area, Cameo Cliffs SRMA, and the White Wash Sand 

Dunes would remain open to OHV use. These areas consist of piñon-juniper, conifer and 

mountain shrub, and sagebrush and perennial grasslands habitats. Special status species utilizing 

these habitats would be adversely impacted by OHV use in these areas (see Table 4.116) as 

described in Impacts Common to All Alternatives, above. In the Colorado Riverway SRMA, 

Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges area, Sand Flats SRMA, South Moab area, and the Moab 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA), motorized and mechanized travel would be 

restricted to designated routes, partially mitigating for the adverse impacts of OHV use in piñonjuniper and desert shrub habitats (see Table 4.116). Areas that exclude motorized recreation 

would reduce adverse impacts to special status species because they help to mitigate the impacts 

of OHV use. While Alternative A limits some OHV use to designated routes, it does not set aside 

any acreage specifically for non-motorized recreation. Therefore, any of the other alternatives 

would be more beneficial for special status species in this respect. 

Under Alternative A, management aspects of the South Moab area would limit camping to 

designated sites and wood gathering would not be allowed, thereby limiting impacts to special 

status species in piñon-juniper woodland habitats. Adverse impacts of wood gathering are 

discussed under Section 4.3.15.18 of this chapter. 

Under Alternative B, a total of 483,062 acres would be designated non-motorized focus areas 

(see Table 4.128) and the Book Cliffs SRMA, Colorado Riverway SRMA, and Dolores River 

Canyon SRMA would be managed with an emphasis on non-mechanized recreation. The Cameo 

Cliffs SRMA would provide opportunities for motorized, mechanized, non-mechanized hiking, 

and equestrian activities. Additionally, the Moab Slickrock Bike Trail would be closed to all 

motorized vehicles. The remainder of BLM lands not established under this alternative as an 

SRMA would be managed as a Moab Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA), where 

335,457 acres would be managed for non-mechanized recreation. The majority of these areas 

consist of piñon-juniper woodland and desert shrub habitats; therefore the exclusion of motorized 

vehicles from these areas would help to avoid both short- and long-term impacts resulting from 

OHV use for special status species utilizing these habitats (see Table 4.116). Alternative B would 

pose the least adverse impacts to special status species from OHV use of the alternatives. 

Under Alternative B, Special Recreation Permits (SRP) would be given to groups with an 

emphasis on supporting conservation of natural and cultural resource values. Organized group 

permits would be required for groups with 15 or more vehicles, which would help to reduce 

adverse effects associated with visitor use. Adverse impacts due to heavy vehicle use described 

above under Impacts Common to All Alternatives would likely be incurred, although they would 

be fewer than under any other alternative. In the Colorado Riverway SMRA, Labyrinth 

Rims/Gemini Bridges SMRA would provide designated camping sites. The 

Bartlett/Tusher/Courthouse/Ten Mile area would be closed to camping. These actions would help 

to avoid the adverse effects of dispersed camping on piñon-juniper woodland and desert shrub 

associated species (see Table 4.116). 

Under the Proposed Plan, a total of 473,688 acres would be designated non-motorized focus 

areas (see Table 4.128). Impacts from the Cameo Cliffs SRMA, Canyon Rims SRMA, and 

Dolores River Canyon SRMA, would be the same as under Alternative B. In the Colorado River 

SMRA, a non-motorized focus area would be established on 33,573 acres, which is 3,740 acres 

less than Alternative B. The Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SMRA (300,650 acres) would be 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-393 

managed the same as under Alternative B with the following differences: 27,893 acres of nonmotorized focus area would be established, and 53,740 acres would be established for either 

motorized backcountry touring, motorized sport venues, or open OHV areas. Impacts from the 

Sand Flats SRMA would be the same as under Alternative B except that the high-use Moab 

Slickrock Bike Trail would be closed to all four-wheeled vehicles and ATVs (motorcycles would 

be allowed). The South Moab SRMA would be established and managed similarly to Alternative 

A, except for an additional emphasis on non-motorized trails. Under this alternative, 39,646 

acres of non-motorized focus areas and a 41-acre motorized focus area would be established. 

ERMA lands would be managed identically to Alternative B, except that the Upper Fisher Mesa 

(1,365) would also be managed to emphasize mountain biking. The Proposed Plan would pose 

greater impacts to special status species from OHV use than Alternative B, but less than 

Alternatives D or A, respectively. 

Under the Proposed Plan, special recreation permits would be given for a wide variety of uses. 

Organized group permits would be required for groups with 25 or more vehicles, which would 

create an increased risk of adverse impacts to special status species habitats relative to 

Alternative B. Under the Proposed Plan, implementation of recreation management decisions is 

likely to adversely affect Jones' cycladenia due to the potential for direct and indirect effects on 

individuals or potential piñon-juniper and desert shrub habitats. Recreation management 

decisions are also likely to adversely affect the MSO due to the high potential for human 

disturbance and indirect negative effects on prey habitat in piñon-juniper woodland and conifer 

and mountain shrub habitats. 

Under Alternative D, a total of 142,966 acres would be designated non-motorized focus areas 

(see Table 4.128). Impacts on special status species and their habitat in the Book Cliffs area and 

Cameo Cliffs area would be the same as under the Proposed Plan. Instead of establishing a 

Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges SRMA, the Dee Pass SRMA (60,939 acres) would be 

established. This area would consist of the Dee Pass motorized trail system and the White Wash 

Sand Dunes open OHV area (3,064 acres). Open OHV use in the Dee Pass SRMA could be 

detrimental to special status species utilizing desert shrub and piñon-juniper habitats as described 

above in Impacts Common to All Alternatives. The ERMA areas would be managed the same as 

under the Proposed Plan except that the Book Cliffs area (141,679 acres) would be managed for 

low frequency non-mechanized recreation. No new mechanized or motorized recreation would 

be established in the Book Cliffs area. This action would primarily reduce adverse impacts to 

species in piñon-juniper woodland and conifer and mountain shrub habitats (see Table 4.116). 

Alternative D would pose fewer impacts to special status species from OHV use than Alternative 

A, but would be more impactful than Alternative B or the Proposed Plan, respectively. 

Under Alternative D, special recreation permits management would be the same as under the 

Proposed Plan except for the following: Organized group permits would be required for groups 

with 50 or more vehicles, which represents a concomitant increase in disturbance risk in relation 

to Alternative B. Overall, Alternative B would pose the lowest impacts to special status species 

from dispersed camping and related activities, followed by the Proposed Plan and Alternatives D 

and A, respectively. 

4.3.15.11.3 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITATS

Under all action alternatives, the BLM would consider and, where appropriate, implement 

management methods to protect riparian resources and riparian-associated special status species 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-394 

habitat. Management methods may include: limitations of visitor numbers, camping and travel 

controls, implementation of fees, alteration of when use takes place, and other similar actions. 

Additionally, information would be provided to the public concerning the value of riparian 

wildlife habitat. These management and education efforts would reduce the adverse effects of 

visitor traffic on riparian associated special status species and their habitat. 

Under Alternative B, in the Colorado Riverway SMRA the north shore of the river would be 

managed for high quality bighorn sheep habitat. An additional emphasis would be placed on the 

protection of riparian values in the Kens Lake area (South Moab SRMA). Under Alternative D 

and the Proposed Plan, no competitive motorized events would be allowed in the Cameo Cliffs 

SRMA to maintain riparian values in a current or improved condition. Under the Proposed Plan, 

this same goal for riparian values would be in place in the Utah Rims SRMA. All of these 

actions would reduce adverse impacts to special status species living in riparian habitats by 

improving habitat quality and limiting impacts from recreation in riparian areas as described 

above in Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the implementation of recreation management decisions is likely to 

adversely affect the SWFL due to high potential for human disturbance and riparian habitat 

degradation. Actions associated with recreation management is also likely to adversely affect the 

endangered Colorado River fishes due to high potential for human disturbance and direct 

negative effects on water quality. 

4.3.15.11.4 CAVES AND ROCK CREVICES AND ROCKY SLOPES AND CANYONS HABITATS

Recreation activities such as climbing and canyoneering have the potential to impact caves and 

rock crevices and rocky slopes through increased access, therefore impacting canyon habitats. 

Dispersed recreation, such as rock climbing and canyoneering, in these habitats could potentially 

adversely impact roosting and hibernation sites for special status bat species, nesting MSO, and 

the alcove bog orchid which occurs in hanging garden and seep habitats in canyon. Adverse 

impacts may be greater under the Proposed Plan in the Colorado Riverway SRMA, due to a 

semi-developed campground to accommodate rock climbers as well as developments for the 

Wall Street Sport Climbing Focus Area. These activities may encourage more visitors and 

therefore lead to increased impacts through increased human presence. Under the Proposed Plan, 

recreation management decisions are likely to adversely affect the MSO and nesting habitat on 

rocky cliffs and caves due to high potential for human disturbance and indirect negative effects 

on prey habitat 

4.3.15.12 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.12.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, riparian resources would be managed to promote the proper functioning 

condition (PFC) of riparian resources. Proper functioning condition includes the presence of 

adequate vegetation, landforms, or large woody debris, which may be used by sensitive fish 

species for shelter and as habitat for forage, further improving habitat quality. Working towards 

PFC of riparian resources would be beneficial to all species utilizing riparian habitats. In 

particular, the promotion of adequate vegetation would imply improving habitat quality for 

riparian special status species. The SWFL recovery plan would be implemented in all suitable 

habitat areas. This plan would protect riparian areas determined as SWFL habitat from over-use 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-395 

and destruction (USFWS 2002d). Not only would this benefit the flycatcher, but other species 

utilizing these riparian areas would also benefit. 

4.3.15.12.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under all action alternatives, riparian restoration treatments would be allowed in riparian areas. 

These treatments would have both beneficial and adverse effects on vegetation in riparian 

habitat. Long-term, beneficial effects would include reduction of weed populations and creation 

of favorable conditions for establishment of native species. This, in turn, would improve riparian 

habitat for special status wildlife species. Short-term, adverse effects would include crushing and 

inadvertent removal of special status plant species during the treatment process. There could also 

be short-term adverse effects on special status fish species habitat due to increased overland flow 

associated with soil compaction on soils adjacent to riparian areas. The long-term, beneficial 

impacts of proper riparian functioning would outweigh short-term adverse impacts to special 

status species. 

Under all action alternatives, no surface-disturbing activities would be allowed in riparian areas 

(Appendix C). Except where withdrawn, they would be open to mineral entry. These restrictions 

would greatly decrease the intensity of the effects of surface disturbance on riparian habitat in 

the MPA because the adverse impacts of surface disturbances from minerals development would 

be avoided (see Section 4.3.15.7 for a description of impacts). 

4.3.15.12.3 ALTERNATIVE A 

Effects of riparian decisions on special status species under Alternative A are discussed in 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

4.3.15.12.4 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, some riparian areas would be closed to livestock grazing, while others 

would be subject to seasonal restrictions. These restrictions would lessen the number of acres of 

special status species habitat subject to the adverse impacts from surface disturbance in sensitive 

riparian areas. This alternative would be less impactful to special status species and their habitats 

than Alternatives A and D, and would have the same impacts as the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.15.12.5 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of riparian management decisions on special status species 

and their habitats would be the same as for Alternative B, with fewer adverse impacts than 

Alternatives A or D. Impacts associated with riparian management decisions are likely to 

adversely affect Jones' cycladenia, MSO, SWFL, and the endangered Colorado River fishes due 

to potential habitat modifications and degradation associated with vegetation treatments and 

riparian management. 

4.3.15.12.6 ALTERNATIVE D 

The impacts of Alternative D on special status species and their habitats would be similar to 

Alternative A, with greater potential adverse impacts than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-396 

4.3.15.13 IMPACTS OF SOIL AND WATER DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.13.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, all floodplains and riparian/wetlands would be managed in accordance 

with Executive Order 11988, which would protect the quality of stream water and Federally 

listed species habitat by requiring a site-specific NEPA analysis prior to disturbance within a 

floodplain. Also, all uses in the MPA would be managed to minimize and mitigate damage to 

soils, and activities located in areas with sensitive soils would be subject to site-specific NEPA. 

These restrictions would decrease the number of acres in the MPA subject to the adverse effects 

on special status species and riparian and rocky slopes and canyons habitats associated with 

surface-disturbing activities (see Table 4.116). This includes the indirect effects of potential 

stream water contamination associated with increased sedimentation from runoff associated with 

disturbed areas (see Chapter 3, Affected Environment, and Chapter 4, Environmental 

Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives). 

4.3.15.13.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

All action alternatives would prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 100-year floodplains, 

100 meters of riparian areas, public water reservoirs, and 100 meters of springs (Oil and Gas 

Stipulations, Appendix C). This would help to mitigate the adverse effects of these activities on 

riparian-associated special status species (described in Section 4.3.15.7 of this chapter; see Table 

4.116). 

Timing limitation stipulations prohibiting surface-disturbing activities would be applied to all 

slopes in the Book Cliffs greater than 30% from November 1 through April 30. A controlled use 

stipulation would be applied for all slopes in the MPA greater than 30%, and a timing limitation 

stipulation would be applied, prohibiting all surface-disturbing activities on 330,142 acres of 

saline soils from December 1 through May 31. These restrictions and stipulations would help to 

decrease erosion and the attendant habitat degradation for special status species using piñonjuniper, desert scrub, and rocky slopes and canyons habitats (see Table 4.116). This action would 

also help to mitigate adverse impacts on special status fish species and their habitat due to 

increased overland flow associated with upland soil compaction. Special status species in piñonjuniper woodland habitat would benefit most from the large number of acres protected from 

surface-disturbing activities due to slope (200,559 acres). Table 4.141 in the Vegetation Section 

(Acres of Each Vegetation Type Protected Due to Slope Steepness Category) provides the total 

number of acres of each vegetation type in the MPA with slopes greater than 30%. 

Grazing can increase salinity in already saline soils (Chaneton and Lavado 1996) and lead to 

inhibited plant diversity, especially in arid and relatively infertile soils (Olff and Ritchie 1998). 

Further, changes in salinity in bodies of water such as the Colorado River have been shown to 

modify species composition within an ecosystem (Galindo-Bect and Glenn 1999; Hart et al. 

1998). For these reasons, grazing eventually would reduce the habitat quality for special status 

species associated with riparian, desert scrub, and sagebrush habitats (see Table 4.116). 

Alternatives that would manipulate grazing in the fewest acres of allotments would reduce 

impacts on highly saline soils and salinity in the Colorado River drainage. Alternative B would 

exclude grazing from the greatest number of acres of potentially saline soils in desert shrub and 

sagebrush habitats (see Table 4.118), followed by the Proposed Plan and Alternatives D and A, 

in descending order. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-397 

4.3.15.13.3 ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, grazing would be manipulated on portions of ten allotments. Additionally, 

surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited on 313,800 acres of Mancos Shale from 

November 1 through April 30. Both of these actions would lessen impacts on saline soils and 

reduce salinity in the Colorado River Drainage, which would help to mitigate for adverse 

impacts on special status species utilizing riparian habitats (see Table 4.116). Specific impacts 

are described in Section 4.3.15.7 of this chapter. 

4.3.15.13.4 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, the Castle Valley and Mill Creek municipal watersheds would be closed to 

oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities (10,321 acres). This would reduce 

impacts primarily to piñon-juniper woodland associated special status species and habitats in this 

watershed by avoiding the adverse impacts of oil and gas development described in Section 

4.3.15.7 of this chapter (see Table 4.116). Watershed Management Plans would be developed 

and implemented for 17 areas under this alternative, and would generally reduce adverse impacts 

to special status species due to additional restrictions on human activities, grazing, and other 

surface disturbances. 

A timing limitation for surface-disturbing activities would be applied to 330,142 acres of Mancos 

Shale. This is 16,342 acres more than Alternative A, and so would be more effective at 

mitigating adverse impacts on special status species that utilize riparian habitats. Overall, soil 

and water decisions under Alternative B would provide the greatest level of protection to special 

status species of the alternatives. 

4.3.15.13.5 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, an NSO stipulation to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing 

activities would be applied in the Castle Valley and Mill Creek municipal watersheds. This 

stipulation would help to mitigate for the adverse effects of oil and gas development on piñonjuniper woodland associated special status species (see Table 4.116), but to a lesser degree than 

Alternative B, which would avoid these effects. 

Watershed Management Plans would be developed and implemented for 8 areas—9 fewer areas 

than under Alternative B. Although these plans would be beneficial for these areas, this action 

would have greater adverse impacts than Alternative B. 

Effects of management actions regarding timing limitations on Mancos shale would be identical 

to that described under Alternative B. The Proposed Plan would have greater adverse impacts 

than Alternative B and less impacts than Alternatives A or D, respectively. 

Soil and water resource management actions are likely to adversely affect MSO and SWFL due 

to potential habitat modification and reduction in prey species from increased erosion and water 

quality degradation. These actions are also likely to adversely affect the endangered Colorado 

River fishes due to potential water quality degradation and sedimentation. 

4.3.15.13.6 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of soil and water resource management decisions on special 

status species and their habitats would be similar to Alternative A, except there would be no 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-398 

timing limitations for surface-disturbing activities occurring on Mancos Shale. The allowance of 

surface disturbance on Mancos Shale in the winter could add to salinity in the Colorado River 

drainage and increase adverse impacts on special status species utilizing riparian habitats. 

4.3.15.14 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.14.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Special Designation areas, such as Areas of Critical Concern (ACECs), Wilderness Study Areas 

(WSAs), Wilderness Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers would generally reduce long-term 

impacts to special status species that occur within their boundaries. Impacts to special status 

species vary among alternatives based on the acreage of these specially designated areas and the 

oil and gas leasing stipulations assigned within them. ACECs are designated to protect identified 

relevant and important values such as cultural resources, scenic qualities, and natural systems. 

ACEC designation would reduce impacts to special status species and habitats by limiting human 

activity and surface disturbances, preserving habitat, and limiting noise. 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) are established in order to provide for the protection of 

wilderness character and for the use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner that leaves it 

unimpaired for future use. By definition, no surface disturbance, permanent new development, or 

rights-of-way would be allowed in the WSAs; the lands would be closed to oil, gas, and mineral 

leasing. Under all alternatives, where ACECs overlap WSAs, WSA management would take 

precedence. This land would be managed according to the Interim Management Policy and 

Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review (IMP). 

Under all alternatives, any river segments found suitable for designation as a Wild and Scenic 

River (WSR) would be recommended to Congress. Once identified—but prior to their official 

designation by Congress—these river segments would be managed to protect their free-flowing 

condition and outstandingly remarkable values. These qualities would be maintained within 1/4 

mile on each side of the river. The BLM would not seek water rights in these segments, and 

OHV travel would be limited to designated routes. 

Most of the proposed ACECs in the MPA would only be established under one or two of the 

alternatives. See Section 4.3.14 Special Designations for details on ACECs by alternative. Under 

all alternatives, when an ACEC is established it would be designated NSO or Closed for oil and 

gas exploration and development. Oil or gas development would still be permitted to occur 

beneath the surface of land within an NSO designated portion of an ACEC, but it would have to 

be pursued through horizontal drilling or on State or private land within the ACEC boundaries. 

An exception to the NSO designation could be authorized if the use is consistent and compatible 

with protection or enhancement of the resource values or if the use would provide suitable 

opportunities for public enjoyment of these resources. Due to these possible exemptions, an 

ACEC should not be considered blanket protection for special status species resources. 

As stated above, some of the proposed ACECs would not be established under certain 

alternatives. In those situations where an ACEC is not established, the land would be managed in 

a variety of ways (see Table 2.1 in Chapter 2, Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives), but would 

not be comprehensively designated NSO or Closed for oil and gas development. This means that 

a comparative analysis of the management (specifically relating to oil and gas leasing categories) 

of the ACECs under each alternative would be the best representative of potential impacts of 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-399 

Special Designation decisions on special status species. Impacts of surface-disturbing oil and gas 

activities on special status species and their habitats include direct and indirect human-caused 

disturbance (i.e., vehicular traffic, trampling of vegetation, noise, and human presence) of 

individual species and their habitats. Further discussion of the qualitative impacts of surfacedisturbing oil and gas activities on native vegetation (special status species habitat) can be found 

in Section 4.3.17.6. 

Under all alternatives, all designated ACECs would be avoidance areas for all rights-of-way, 

including wind, solar energy and communication sites. Prohibiting these uses within ACECs 

would assist in preventing adverse impacts to special status species related to surface and humancaused disturbances. Regardless of whether or not an ACEC is established, OHV use would 

generally be permitted on at least some portion of the MPA. Impacts of OHV use on wildlife 

species and their habitats are discussed in Section 4.3.19.13. 

4.3.15.14.2 DESERT SHRUB AND PIÑON-JUNIPER WOODLAND HABITATS

In many proposed ACECs, piñon-juniper woodland is the most prevalent habitat; though a few 

ACECs, including Cisco and White Wash, are dominated by desert shrub. Special status species 

that primarily use these habitats would experience the most protection under ACEC designation. 

Under Alternative A, none of the proposed ACEC sites would be established with the exception 

of the existing 605 acre Negro Bill ONA. The management of oil and gas leasing within most 

ACECs under this alternative would include Standard and Timing stipulations. Specifically, 47% 

of the land within the proposed ACEC sites would be managed as Open (Standard or Timing 

stipulations), while 53% of the land would be Closed (NSO or Closed) to oil and gas production. 

Under Alternative B, all of the proposed ACEC sites would be established. The management of 

oil and gas leasing within all thirteen ACECs under this alternative would exclude Standard and 

Timing stipulations and allow only NSO or Closed categories. Specifically, 0% of the land 

within the proposed ACEC sites would be managed as Open (Standard or Timing stipulations), 

while 100% of the land would be Closed (NSO or Closed) to oil and gas production. The acreage 

of Federally listed special status species that would be included in the ACECs, and therefore be 

managed as NSO or Closed, is shown in Table 4.129 below. ACECs are only listed if they 

encompass habitat for the species listed. 

Under the Proposed Plan, five of the thirteen proposed ACEC sites would be established. The 

management of oil and gas leasing within the ACECs under this alternative would include a mix 

of Standard, Timing, NSO, and Closed stipulations. Specifically, 34% of the land within the 

proposed ACEC sites would be managed as Open (Standard or Timing stipulations), while 66% 

of the land would be Closed (NSO or Closed) to oil and gas production (Table 4.130). Actions 

related to special designations management decisions are likely to adversely affect the due to 

potential habitat modification associated with mineral development and livestock grazing 

activities allowed in piñon-juniper habitats under special designations management. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3

4-400 

Table 4.129. Special Status Species Habitats Included within ACECs for Alternative B 

ACEC 

SWFL and 

Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo 

Colorado 

River Fish 

MSO Critical 

Habitat 

MSO 

Breeding 

Habitat 

MSO Foraging 

Habitat 

Bald Eagle 

Nesting 

B

W

Behind the Rocks 131 315 479 7,784 2,832 0 Book Cliffs 1,420 2,900 0 128,194 154,882 0 Canyon Rims 17 0 13,409 4,101 11,215 0 Cisco White-Tailed Prairie Dog Complex 

757 656 0 1,068 571 582 

Colorado River Corridor 

944 8,335 0 18,655 8,295 0 

Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed 

423 0 0 10,107 22,115 0 

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon 

416 4,529 9,349 6,570 1,923 0 

Labyrinth Canyon 1,461 7,197 0 4,037 1,087 0 Mill Creek Canyon 342 0 0 4,103 7,506 0 Ten Mile Wash 382 0 0 600 259 0 Upper Courthouse 123 0 0 1,471 688 0 Westwater Canyon 265 4,021 0 2,899 780 0 White Wash 3 0 0 70 0 0 Wilson Arch 0 0 0 684 817 0 Total 6,684 27,953 23,237 190,343 212,970 582 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed 

4.3

4-401 

Table 4.130. Special Status Species Habitats Included within ACECs for the Proposed Plan

ACEC 

SWFL and 

Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo 

Colorado River 

Fish 

MSO Critical 

Habitat 

MSO Breeding 

Habitat 

MSO Foraging 

Habitat 

Bald Ea

Nestin

Behind the Rocks 118 129 478 1,844 788 Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed 

423 0 0 10,107 22,115 

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon 

416 4,529 9,349 6,470 1,923 

Mill Creek Canyon 117 0 0 1,161 3,815 Ten Mile Wash 382 0 0 600 259 Total 1,456 4,658 9,827 20,182 28,900 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-402 

Under Alternative D, none of the thirteen proposed ACEC sites would be established. The 

management of oil and gas leasing within all ACECs under this alternative would include a mix 

of Standard, Timing, NSO, and Closed stipulations. Specifically, 43% of the land within the 

proposed ACEC sites would be managed as Open (Standard or Timing stipulations), while 57% 

of the land would be Closed (NSO or Closed) to oil and gas production. 

Alternative B would encompass the most habitat for Federally listed and special status species 

within ACECs. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative B would greatly reduce adverse 

impacts to special status species and their habitats as it would completely prohibit all 

disturbances related to oil and gas exploration and production within ACECs, leaving habitats 

intact and special status species undisturbed. The Proposed Plan would provide more protections 

than Alternatives D and A, respectively, but less than Alternative B. 

4.3.15.14.3 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITAT

The designation of a Wild and Scenic River would beneficially impact special status species that 

access the habitats directly associated with the river (e.g., SWFL, bald eagle, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, MSO, and the Colorado River fishes). See Section 4.3.15.10 (Impacts of Riparian 

Decisions on Special Status Species) for a discussion of the impacts of all alternatives on 

riparian-associated special status species habitat adjacent to wild and scenic rivers. See the 

Summary Table of Alternatives (Table 2.1) for detail on which river and stream segments would 

be considered for designation under each alternative. 

Table 4.131 below details the amount of habitat that would be managed as a Wild and Scenic 

River for the SWFL and yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle (nesting and winter), MSO (Critical, 

Breeding, and Foraging), and the Colorado River fishes. Alternatives A and D would not 

designate Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Table 4.131. Acres of Federally Listed Species Habitat Managed as Wild and Scenic River, 

by Alternative 

Species Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

SWFL and Yellow-billed Cuckoo 0 5,668 4,259 0 

Colorado River Fish Habitat 0 38,027 34,549 0 

Mexican Spotted Owl Critical 

Habitat 

0 0 2,190 0 

Mexican Spotted Owl Potential 

Breeding Habitat 

0 28,497 16,374 0 

Mexican Spotted Owl Potential 

Foraging Habitat 

0 15,680 5,027 0 

Bald Eagle Nesting Habitat 0 468 468 0 

Bald Eagle Wintering Habitat 0 5,731 2,748 0 

Alternative B would designate the most special status species habitat as WSRs and would 

therefore provide the most protection for these species, followed by the Proposed Plan. Because 

Alternatives A and D would not designated Wild and Scenic River segments, they would provide 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-403 

no additional protections for these species. As shown in Table 4.131, Alternative B would 

manage 94,071 acres of special status species habitat as Wild and Scenic Rivers, versus 65,615 

acres under the Proposed Plan, and no WSR designations under Alternatives A and D. Actions 

related to special designations management decisions are likely to adversely affect the SWFL 

due to potential riparian habitat modification allowed under special designations management. 

Adverse affects on the endangered Colorado River fishes are also likely due to the potential for 

increased recreational use and habitat modification and degradation. 

4.3.15.15 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.15.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

See Section 2.2 and Table 2.2 in Chapter 2 for specific impacts and management common to all 

alternatives regarding Special Status Species Decisions. There is currently no specific 

management under Alternative A for the habitats and species addressed below for desert shrub 

and sagebrush and perennial grassland habitats. The impacts of special status species 

management decisions for all other special status species and habitats would include those 

discussed in Section 4.3.15.2 Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

4.3.15.15.2 DESERT SHRUB AND SAGEBRUSH AND PERENNIAL GRASSLAND HABITATS

Special status species decisions are expected to provide additional protections to species 

associated with desert shrub and sagebrush and perennial grassland habitats (see Table 4.116 and 

Section 4.3.15.1). Adherence to the BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, 

UDWR and USFWS guidance and the White-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Assessment, and 

other conservation plans identified in Sections 4.3.15.2.7 and 4.3.15.2.8, would reduce adverse 

impacts to greater and Gunnison sage-grouse and other sensitive sagebrush species in the MPA 

because of habitat protections and restrictions on human disturbance. These restrictions include 

surface disturbance and permanent structures and other human activity in or near these species 

desert shrub, sagebrush and perennial grassland, and oak/mountain shrub habitats. 

4.3.15.15.2.1 Greater Sage-Grouse and Gunnison Sage-Grouse 

Under Alternative B, 12,850 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat and 246,107 acres of Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat would be subject to controlled surface use and timing stipulations. Timing 

stipulations would preclude surface-disturbing activities from March 1 through May 15 within a 

2.0 mile radius of an active greater sage-grouse strutting ground, and would apply to occupied 

nesting and brood-rearing habitat from March 15 through July 15, and occupied winter habitat 

from November 15 through March 14. For Gunnison sage-grouse, no permanent above-ground 

facilities would be allowed within a 2.0 mile buffer of year-round occupied habitat, and the 

construction of fence, power lines, and tall buildings would be prohibited or limited in yearround occupied habitat (within 6 miles of an active lek). These habitats would be managed to 

avoid or minimize any surface occupancy that would result in loss or fragmentation of sagebrush 

habitat. If surface occupancy could not be avoided, sagebrush habitat would be reclaimed at a 

ratio of 2:1. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of special status species management decisions on special 

status species and habitat would be the same as those discussed in Alternative B, except for the 

following: 3,068 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat (9,782 acres or 76% less than Alternative 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-404 

B) would be managed with the same management prescriptions as described under Alternative 

B; timing restrictions would preclude surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 miles from an 

active strutting ground, thereby reducing the acreage of sagebrush habitat under beneficial timing 

stipulations when compared to Alternative B. For Gunnison sage-grouse, 175,727 acres of 

habitat would be managed as described under Alternative B, and timing restrictions would 

preclude surface-disturbing activities within 2.0 miles of an active strutting ground. For both 

species, if surface occupancy cannot be avoided, sagebrush habitat would be reclaimed at a ratio 

of 1:1, which is 50% less than Alternative B. Because of these restrictions, there would be less 

adverse impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species in sagebrush habitat associated with this 

alternative than with Alternative A, but more than under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative D, 1,986 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat would be subject to surface use 

and timing stipulations with a 0.25 mile habitat buffer. For Gunnison sage-grouse, 41,620 acres 

of habitat (204,487 acres or 83% less than Alternative B) would be managed with the same 

management prescriptions as described under Alternative B. Timing restrictions would preclude 

surface-disturbing activities within 0.25-mile from active Gunnison sage-grouse strutting ground, 

thereby further reducing the acreage of sagebrush habitats under beneficial timing stipulations 

when compared to Alternative B and Proposed Plan. For both species, if surface occupancy 

cannot be avoided, sagebrush habitat would be reclaimed at a ratio of 1:1, 50% less than 

Alternative B, but the same as the Proposed Plan. The restrictions under Alternative D would 

have fewer adverse impacts on greater and Gunnison sage-grouse and other sagebrush associated 

special status species than under Alternative A, but greater impacts than under Alternative B and 

Proposed Plan. 

4.3.15.15.2.2 White-tailed Prairie Dog and Gunnison Prairie Dog 

Under Alternative B, 199,505 acres of historic white-tailed prairie dog habitat and 10,700 acres 

of Gunnison prairie dog habitat would be managed to prevent surface-disturbing activities within 

a 1,300-foot buffer of active colonies. This decision would reduce direct mortality, den 

destruction, habitat loss, and raptor predation in these colonies. Of this habitat, 117,481 acres 

would be managed as the Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex ACEC, which would be 

subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing, which in turn would preclude habitat loss 

from oil and gas development and other surface-disturbing activities. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of special status species management decisions on special 

status species and habitat would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B, except for 

the following: 117,481 acres of White-tailed prairie dog habitat (82,024 acres or 41% less than 

Alternative B) would be managed with the same management prescriptions described under 

Alternative B; no ACEC would be established for this species; and a 660-foot buffer around 

active colonies would be managed for controlled surface use. For the Gunnison prairie dog, a 

660-foot buffer around active colonies would be managed for controlled surface use and new 

power lines would be avoided. Because these restrictions would mitigate for adverse impact of 

oil and gas leasing and reduce raptor predation on prairie dogs, there would be fewer adverse 

impacts on special status plant and wildlife species in sagebrush habitat under the Proposed Plan 

than Alternative A, but more adverse impacts than under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of special status species management decisions on special 

status species and habitat would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B except for 

the following: 31,186 acres of White-tailed prairie dog habitat (168,319 acres or 84% less than 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-405 

Alternative B) would be managed as described under Alternative B; no ACEC would be 

established for this species; and a 660-foot buffer around active colonies would be managed for 

controlled surface use. Under Alternative D, there would be no management actions for 

Gunnison prairie dogs, which could result in adverse impacts from oil and gas leasing and other 

surface-disturbing activities. Because of these restrictions, there would be fewer adverse impacts 

on special status plant and wildlife species in white-tailed prairie dog habitat under this 

alternative than under Alternative A, but greater impacts than under Alternative B and Proposed 

Plan. Because there would be no restrictions for Gunnison prairie dogs, this alternative would 

pose similar impacts as Alternative A, as discussed in Section 4.3.15.1. 

4.3.15.15.3 ALL OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES HABITATS IN THE MPA 

The impacts of special status species management decisions on all other special status species 

habitats are discussed in Section 4.3.15.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 

4.3.15.16 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.16.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, any new trail designations would consider special status species habitat 

through a site-specific NEPA analysis, which could reduce the adverse impacts of surface and 

noise disturbance on sensitive plant and animal species. Potential impacts from travel 

management include direct and indirect, short- and long-term impacts on all habitat types from 

unrestricted, cross-country OHV use within open OHV areas (Table 4.132). Impacts include 

short-term adverse impacts to air quality from dust production, short- and long-term loss of 

vegetation cover from vehicle damage and soil disturbance, habitat fragmentation, introduction 

of invasive and exotic weed species, and associated impacts to habitat quality and quantity. 

A number of trails would be managed for non-mechanized travel (see Appendix G for list). 

Because these trails are already established and in use, there is not likely to be an appreciable 

increase in disturbance of special status species and habitat resulting from the continued use of 

these trails. There would also be trails and/or areas open to OHV use under all alternatives. OHV 

use can physically damage the vegetation in special status species habitat and cause noise 

disturbance, which could have direct, negative effects on special status species, especially birds, 

in the MPA (Reijnen and Foppen 1995; Gelbard and Belnap 2003). The surface disturbance 

associated with OHV use can have direct and indirect adverse effects on individual plants and 

animals as well as their habitat. These effects are described in Section 4.3.15.9, Impacts of 

Recreation Decisions on Special Status Species. Table 4.132 below displays the acreage 

proposed for each travel designation by alternative. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-406 

Table 4.132. Acreage of OHV Travel Designation Impacts, by Alternative 

Travel Designation Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Open 620,212 0 1,866 3,064 

Limited to Existing Roads and Trails 1,196,920 0 0 0 

Limited to Designated Routes 0 1,475,074 1,481,334 1,762,083 

Closed 5,062 347,424 339,298 57,351 

Total 1,822,194 1,822,498 1,822,498 1,822,498 

4.3.15.16.2 ALTERNATIVE A 

There are a total of 620,212 acres open to cross-country OHV use under Alternative A, and 

1,196,920 acres limited to existing trails and designated routes (including inventoried routes on 

309,749 acres within WSAs; see Table 4.132). This is more acreage open to OHV use than under 

any of the other alternatives. The majority of open OHV areas are in piñon-juniper and desert 

shrub habitat types. The large amount of acreage open to cross-country OHV travel could be 

detrimental to piñon-juniper woodland and desert shrub associated special status species because 

of the short and long term adverse effects described above in Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives (see Table 4.116). 

Alternative A designates 5,026 acres as closed to OHV use (2,330 acres of piñon-juniper 

woodland habitat, 1,360 acres of desert shrub habitat, and 1,337 acres of sagebrush and perennial 

grasslands habitat; see Table 4.155 in Section 4.3.19.13, Impacts of Travel Decisions on Wildlife 

for a breakdown of the closed areas by wildlife species habitat type). These closures would help 

to mitigate for the adverse effects of this alternative on special status species and their habitat in 

these protected areas by eliminating surface and noise disturbance associated with OHV use. A 

list of all areas that would be designated as closed to OHVs under each alternative is located in 

Table 2.1. Closed areas would include some ACECs and vegetation study areas. For a 

comparison of OHV closures within selected special status species habitats by alternative, see 

Table 4.133 below. 

Table 4.133. Acreage Within Select Special Status Species Habitats Closed to OHV Use, 

by Alternative 

Habitat Type Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

SWFL and Yellow-billed Cuckoo 30 3,105 2,450 678 

Colorado River Fishes Habitat 7 9,702 7,191 4,477 

MSO Critical Habitat 0 1 1 1 

MSO Potential Breeding Habitat 515 141,991 140,106 20,340 

MSO Potential Foraging Habitat 1,452 171,226 170,731 20,674 

Bald Eagle Nesting Habitat 313 327 327 327 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-407 

Table 4.133. Acreage Within Select Special Status Species Habitats Closed to OHV Use, 

by Alternative 

Habitat Type Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Bald Eagle Wintering Habitat 1,767 12,916 10,147 5,822 

Jones cycladenia 0 0 0 0 

The total acres closed to OHV use under each alternative in this table should only be used for 

comparative purposes; the totals do not correlate to the figures given in the text above for total 

acreages closed to OHV use. The reason for this discrepancy is that the habitat areas of the 

selected special status species often overlap and therefore some geographic areas are counted 

more than once in this table. 

4.3.15.16.3 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, there are a total of 0 acres open to OHV cross-country use. Approximately 

1,475,074 acres limit OHV use to designated trails. This is 28% more than under Alternative A. 

This alternative has 347,424 acres closed to OHV use, as compared with 5,062 acres closed 

under Alternative A (see Table 4.155 in Section 4.3.19.13 Impacts of Travel Decisions on 

Wildlife for a breakdown of the closed areas by wildlife species habitat type). These closures 

would affect species in all habitat types, and primarily in piñon-juniper and conifer and mountain 

shrub habitat (see Table 4.116). See Table 4.133 above for the acreage of special status species 

habitats closed to OHV use. The effects of this alternative are comparable to the effects of the 

Proposed Plan. There are fewer acres of native vegetation (special status species habitat) subject 

to adverse surface-disturbing effects under this alternative than under Alternative D. 

4.3.15.16.4 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, there are a total of 1,866 acres open to cross-country OHV use under 

this alternative. This open area is located in desert shrub habitat and would affect those species 

utilizing that habitat (see Table 4.116). There are 1,481,334 acres where OHV use is limited to 

designated routes, which is 29% more than under Alternative A. 

This alternative has 339,298 acres closed to OHV use, which is approximately 67 times more 

than under Alternative A. These closures would primarily affect special status species utilizing 

piñon-juniper woodland and conifer and mountain shrub habitats (see Table 4.116). Also, see 

Table 4.155 in Section 4.3.19.13, Impacts of Travel Decisions on Wildlife for a breakdown of 

the closed areas by wildlife species habitat type. See Table 4.133 above for the acreage of special 

status species habitats closed to OHV use. The effects of this alternative are comparable to the 

effects of Alternative B. There are fewer acres of special status species habitat subject to adverse 

surface-disturbing effects under this alternative than under Alternative D. 

Actions related to travel management decisions are likely to adversely affect Jones' cycladenia 

due to indirect affects from fugitive dust and incursion of invasive weeds associated with OHV 

use. Travel management decisions under the Proposed Plan are also likely to adversely affect the 

MSO and SWFL due to the potential increase of human presence and disturbance from OHV 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-408 

use. The endangered Colorado River fishes are likely to be adversely affected due to high 

potential for disturbance and water quality degradation. 

4.3.15.16.5 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, there are a total of 3,064 acres open to cross-country OHV use, as 

compared with 620,212 acres open to cross country travel under Alternative A. The majority of 

this open area is located in desert shrub habitat, and so would affect special status species 

utilizing that habitat type (see Table 4.116). There are 1,762,083 acres of the MPA with OHV 

limited to designated trails (including inventoried routes within WSAs). This is 53% more than 

under Alternative A. 

This alternative has 57,351 acres closed to OHV use, as compared to 5,063 acres under 

Alternative A. These closures would primarily affect special status species utilizing piñonjuniper and conifer and mountain shrub habitats (see Table 4.116; also see Table 4.155 in 

Section 4.3.19.13, Impacts of Travel Decisions on Wildlife for a breakdown of the closed areas 

by wildlife species habitat type). See Table 4.133 above for the acreage of special status species 

habitats closed to OHV use. The adverse effects of OHV travel on special status species under 

this alternative would be less than under Alternative A, but more than under Alternative B or 

Proposed Plan. 

4.3.15.17 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.17.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under all action alternatives, seed gathering and plant collection would be allowed in all areas 

meeting Utah's Rangeland Health Standards. This could have some short-term, direct, adverse 

impacts on special status species and their habitat due to trampling and human disturbance 

during collection activities. However, seed gathering is not widespread and is unlikely to have 

substantial impacts on special status species. 

Control of noxious, invasive and non-native weed species would be implemented through the 

BLM's weed management policies and action plans. Actions taken to help slow/stop the spread 

of weeds in the MPA would help reduce the adverse effects of surface disturbance to special 

status species habitat from grazing, oil and gas development and other surface-disturbing 

activities. 

Tamarisk and Russian olive would be treated in a number of areas to restore riparian areas (see 

Table 2.1). This could have short-term risk to special status species in the treatment areas, but 

would have long-term, beneficial effects on the treated, native vegetation community as a whole 

by removing undesirable, non-native plant species and providing riparian-associated special 

status species with improved habitat (see Table 4.116 for a list of species). In addition, the 

removal of noxious weeds and invasive species would benefit native riparian species by 

removing competition. 

Sagebrush habitat would be managed as described in the Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation 

Strategy (BLM 2004c). Up to 257,809 acres of sagebrush habitat and shrub steppe ecosystems 

would be reclaimed or restored. These restoration treatments would have long-term, beneficial 

impacts on special status species in native sagebrush and perennial grasslands communities by 

providing them with improved habitat. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-409 

4.3.15.17.2 ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, reclamation would be done on a site-specific basis. 

4.3.15.17.3 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, loss of sagebrush steppe habitat deemed essential to wildlife would be 

reclaimed at a ratio of 2:1. These restoration treatments would have long-term, beneficial effects 

on special status species in native sagebrush communities by providing them with expanded and 

improved habitat. 

4.3.15.17.4 ALTERNATIVE D AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan, any loss of sagebrush steppe habitat deemed 

essential to wildlife would be reclaimed at a ratio of 1:1, half the acres of sagebrush-steppe 

habitat that would be reclaimed under Alternative B. These restoration treatments would have 

fewer adverse impacts than Alternative A, and greater impacts to special status species sagebrush 

habitats than Alternative B. 

Under the Proposed Plan, actions related to vegetation management are likely to adversely affect 

Jones' cycladenia due to the potential for direct negative impacts during vegetation treatments 

from treatment error, chemical drift, or trampling of individual plants. Vegetation management 

actions are also likely to adversely affect the MSO and SWFL due to the potential for short-term 

adverse impacts to prey species, and potential modification and degradation of habitats. The 

endangered Colorado River fishes are likely to be adversely affected by short-term impacts to 

water quality and stream bank aquatic habitat. 

4.3.15.18 IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.18.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

All lands in the MPA would be inventoried as one of four visual resource management classes 

(see VRM Section 3.18 and Table 4.134 below). In areas designated as VRM III or IV, changes 

to the landscape could be moderate or high. Most types of surface-disturbing activities and 

human visitation would be allowed in VRM III or IV areas. These types of disturbance could 

have long-term adverse impacts on special status species habitat in the MPA. Under all 

alternatives, all WSAs would be managed as VRM I. 

Table 4.134. Acreages in Each VRM Class, by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

VRM I 349,110 453,462 358,911 349,617 

VRM II 401,015 373,647 365,566 245,773 

VRM III 800,782 784,247 829,158 956,724 

VRM IV 271,356 210,532 268,133 269,641 

Total 1,822,263 1,821,887 1,821,768 1,821,755 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-410 

4.3.15.18.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under all action alternatives, Wild and Scenic River segments would be managed as VRM I or 

II. Limited and very limited management activities would be allowed in areas designated as 

VRM I or II. All VRM Class I areas would be classified as NSO for oil and gas leasing. A 

controlled surface use stipulation would be applied to all areas managed as VRM Class II. These 

limitations on human presence would help mitigate the adverse effects of management activities 

in special status species habitat. 

4.3.15.18.3 ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, all lands have been inventoried, but only chosen portions would be 

managed under VRM classes. Of the four alternatives, this alternative would have the second 

largest area (750,125 acres) managed for VRM I or II restrictions. It would also have the second 

smallest area (1,072,138 acres) managed for VRM III or IV restrictions (see Maps 2-23 A-D for 

VRM locations). These Class II restrictions would beneficially affect a portion of piñon-juniper 

habitat and special status species utilizing it. The Class III restrictions under Alternative A would 

adversely affect an area of sagebrush and perennial grasslands habitat. See Table 4.116 to relate 

species with habitat types. 

4.3.15.18.4 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, some ACECs would also be managed as VRM I or II (see Summary Table 

of Alternatives, Table 2.1). Of the four alternatives, this alternative would have the largest area 

(827,093 acres) subject to VRM I and II restrictions. The VRM I and II areas would primarily 

affect the following habitat types: piñon-juniper, conifer and mountain shrub, desert shrub, and 

sagebrush and perennial grasslands. special status species associated with these habitats would 

gain the greatest benefits for this VRM class management (see Table 4.116). It would have the 

smallest area (994,780 acres) subject to VRM III and IV restrictions.

4.3.15.18.5 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, some ACECs would also be managed as VRM I or II (See Summary of 

Alternatives, Table 2.1). Of the four alternatives, this alternative would have the second smallest 

area (714,840 acres) subject to VRM I or II restrictions. These restrictions would affect the same 

habitat types listed under Alternative A, but would affect sagebrush and perennial grasslands 

habitat to a lesser degree. It would also have the second largest area (1,106,913 acres) subject to 

VRM III or IV restrictions. 

4.3.15.18.6 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, some ACECs would also be managed as VRM I or II (see Summary of 

Alternatives, Table 2.1). Of the four alternatives, this alternative would have the smallest area 

(595,390 acres) subject to VRM I or II restrictions. These restrictions would affect the same 

habitat types described under Alternative B, but would beneficially affect all of them to a lesser 

degree. It would have the largest area (1,226,365 acres) subject to VRM III or IV restrictions. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-411 

4.3.15.19 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.19.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, livestock grazing would not be allowed on 87,285 acres in order to protect 

wildlife resources. This would primarily take place within the following habitat types: piñonjuniper woodland, conifer and mountain shrub, and desert shrub (see Table 4.116). The removal 

of livestock grazing could have long-term beneficial impacts on special status species within 

these habitats by removing competition for food resources, improving vegetation composition, 

species diversity and age class, forage availability, vegetative cover, and reducing surface 

disturbance created by livestock. 

In occupied priority migratory bird habitat, no surface disturbance would be allowed from May 

1-July 30. Maintenance and/or improvement of lowland riparian, wetlands, and low and high 

desert shrub communities would be prioritized in the MPA. In addition, bird habitat conservation 

areas identified in the Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah 

(Martinsen et al. 2005) would receive priority for conducting bird habitat conservation 

projects—including offsite habitat compensation—through cooperative funding initiatives such 

as the Intermountain West Joint Venture. These actions would benefit both migratory bird and 

special status species by maintaining and improving habitat necessary for survival. 

Three Habitat Management Plans would continue to be implemented: the Hatch Point, PotashConfluence, and Dolores Triangle HMPs. These plans focus on improving upland and riparian 

habitat for big game species including pronghorn, bighorn sheep, elk and deer, as well as other 

wildlife species such as chukar partridges and peregrine falcons. Habitat improvements 

according to these plans would also reduce adverse impacts to special status species that utilize 

upland and riparian habitat (including sage-grouse, bald eagle, and special status fish species). 

4.3.15.19.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under all Action Alternatives, the reintroduction of native and naturalized fish and wildlife 

species into historic or suitable ranges would be considered where it is determined to be 

appropriate. If the species to be reintroduced is a special status species, (e.g., any of the four 

Colorado River endangered fishes), that species would experience a direct, long-term benefit 

from the action. Even in situations where the species to be reintroduced is not a special status 

species, this action could help to reestablish special status species by encouraging a more 

balanced ecosystem dynamic within the habitats of the MPA. 

Special status species that rely on riparian habitat for reproduction and survival (e.g., 

southwestern willow flycatcher, bald eagle, and yellow-billed cuckoo) would benefit from two 

decisions involving riparian areas. Dispersed camping would be restricted (limited to designated 

sites or prohibited, depending on the area) to protect riparian wildlife habitat. In addition, 

riparian areas would be managed for multi-aged, multi-layered vertical structure, allowing for the 

retention of snags and diseased trees. These actions would improve habitat quality for special 

status species that utilize riparian habitat because of the reduction in human trampling and noise 

and because of the improvement of habitat diversity and quality. 

Raptors would be managed under the auspices of the Best Management Practices (see Appendix 

O), including spatial and seasonal buffers, to ensure the protection of nests. These BMPs would 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-412 

directly benefit those raptors that are considered special status species, including the MSO, 

burrowing owl, bald eagle, golden eagle, and ferruginous hawk. 

An additional 3,263 acres of livestock grazing allotments (aside from those listed under Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives) would be removed in order to benefit wildlife resources. The 

removal of livestock grazing could reduce adverse impacts to special status species by 

reallocating forage in these areas from livestock to wildlife use. 

Fire suppression would be limited within the MPA and prescribed burns would be initiated in 

order to increase native vegetation productivity and forage for wildlife. Special status species 

that depend on habitat with new growth or relatively open ground (e.g., prairie dog and 

burrowing owl) may be adversely affected in the short term, but would experience long-term 

benefits from this action because of long-term habitat quality improvement. 

4.3.15.19.3 ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, pronghorn fawning would be seasonally protected from development 

between May 15 and June 20. Approximately 42,500 acres of desert bighorn sheep habitat would 

be improved by preventing major human disturbance during breeding and lambing seasons. 

Approximately 194,560 acres of land would be designated and managed as Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep habitat. Seasonal protection would also apply on 260,769 acres of deer and/or elk 

winter range; exploration, drilling, and other development activity would be allowed only from 

May 16 through October 31. These restrictions would also protect special status wildlife species 

in these areas by mitigating for the adverse effects of surface disturbance related to minerals 

development (see Section 4.3.15.2.6). 

Table 4.135, below, displays the total acreage of all wildlife timing limitations for each 

vegetation type by alternative. Total acreage includes deer and/or elk winter habitat; pronghorn 

fawning habitat; desert bighorn lambing, rutting, and migration habitat; and Rocky Mountain 

bighorn occupied habitat. Although these restrictions apply to big game habitats, special status 

species utilizing the habitat would benefit from surface disturbance restrictions. Tables S.1 

through S.4 (4 tables) in Appendix S itemizes the acreage for each habitat type. See Table 4.116 

to relate vegetation (habitat) types to special status species. Note that overlap occurs among 

species habitat and therefore acreage totals for each alternative may be more than the actual 

acreage represented on the ground. 

Table 4.135. Acreage of All Wildlife Timing Restrictions for Vegetation Types by 

Alternative

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Conifer/Mountain shrub 29,108 95,778 50,281 23,836 

Desert shrub 20,585 757,208 312,877 285,004 

Invasive species and weeds 818 21,950 15,222 15,024 

Piñon-juniper Woodland 188,574 979,393 553,653 449,148 

Riparian/Wetland 1,594 11,746 6,609 4,588 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-413 

Table 4.135. Acreage of All Wildlife Timing Restrictions for Vegetation Types by 

Alternative

Vegetation Type Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Sagebrush/Perennial 

grassland 

16,549 138,867 102,413 98,225 

Alternative A would have the least amount of wildlife habitat subject to special wildlife 

conditions (257,228 acres). Details on these conditions are found in the wildlife section and 

under Alternative B, below. Because timing limitations generally reduce adverse impacts to 

special status species utilizing big game habitat areas, Alternative A would provide the fewest 

beneficial restrictions. 

4.3.15.19.4 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, a total of 2,004,942 acres would be subject to timing and surface use 

stipulations to prevent disturbance and habitat impacts to pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep, deer, and elk. In addition to benefiting big game species, these restrictions would also 

protect special status wildlife and plant species in piñon-juniper woodland, desert shrub, and 

sagebrush and perennial grasslands habitats (see Tables 4.106 and 4.125). Maintenance and 

operation activities for mineral production as well as hunting would be allowed during seasonal 

restrictions. Therefore, these restrictions would offer only minor mitigation potential for the 

adverse effects of surface-disturbing activities on wildlife species and their habitats. Because 

timing limitations generally reduce adverse impacts to special status species utilizing big game 

habitat areas, Alternative B would provide the most beneficial restrictions for these species. 

4.3.15.19.5 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, 1,041,055 acres of wildlife habitat would be subject to timing or 

surface use restrictions. This would reduce impacts over a larger area of piñon-juniper woodland, 

desert shrub, and sagebrush and perennial grasslands habitats (see Table 4.116) than Alternatives 

A or D, and a smaller area than Alternative B. This alternative would provide more habitat use 

restrictions benefiting special status species than Alternatives A or D, but fewer restrictions than 

Alternative B. 

Actions related to wildlife management decisions are likely to adversely affect Jones' cycladenia, 

MSO and SWFL due to potential habitat modification and degradation from wildlife habitat 

enhancement and treatments. Adverse affects to the endangered Colorado River fishes are also 

likely due to potential habitat degradation resulting from wildlife habitat enhancements. 

4.3.15.19.6 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, 875,825 acres of wildlife habitat would be subject to timing or surface use 

restrictions. This would benefit special status species in piñon-juniper, desert shrub, and 

sagebrush and perennial grassland habitats (see Tables 4.106 and 4.125). Accordingly, 

Alternative D would provide more beneficial impacts for these species than Alternative A, but 

less than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-414 

4.3.15.20 IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4.3.15.20.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Impacts to special status species from woodland management activities include removal of trees 

used by these species as cover, roosting or breeding sites, direct impacts to individuals from 

trampling or crushing during harvesting, and indirect negative impacts due to changes in 

vegetation structure. Woodland harvest resulting in reduced probability of catastrophic wildfire 

would likely reduce potentially adverse impacts to special status species that occupy woodland 

habitats. 

Indirect, adverse effects of wood gathering include trampling and removal of native vegetation, 

which result in special status species habitat degradation that can include reductions in prey 

species, forage species, and cover. Table 4.143 in Section 4.3.17.16, Impacts of Woodlands 

Decisions on Vegetation Resources, presents the number of acres of each vegetation type closed 

to woodland harvest as presented for each alternative for the MPA. 

Sensitive wildlife species in piñon-juniper woodland habitat would face short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts from surface and noise disturbance associated with woodland harvest. 

4.3.15.20.2 ALTERNATIVE A 

Under this alternative, 1,243,743 acres of piñon-juniper woodland habitat would be open to 

woodland harvest and wood gathering. Of the four alternatives, this alternative would have the 

largest area open to woodland harvest and wood gathering, and therefore the greatest potential 

risk of disturbance to special status species utilizing this habitat (see Table 4.116). 

4.3.15.20.3 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, 1,071,335 acres of piñon-juniper woodland habitat would be open to 

woodland product harvest. Of the four alternatives, this alternative would have the lowest 

number of acres open to woodland harvest and wood gathering and, therefore, the lowest risk of 

disturbance for special status species utilizing this habitat. 

4.3.15.20.4 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, 1,212,886 acres of piñon-juniper woodland habitat would be open to 

woodland product harvest. This alternative would have fewer potentially adverse impacts on 

special status species in this habitat than Alternatives A or D, but more than Alternative B. 

Activities associated with woodlands management decisions are likely to adversely affect Jones' 

cycladenia due to 27% of potential habitat areas open for woodcutting and harvesting that could 

result in habitat degradation and trampling of individual plants. Woodland management under 

the Proposed Plan would likely adversely affect MSO due to forest treatments that could result in 

habitat loss, displacement or mortality of individual birds, or prey reductions. Adverse affects to 

the SWFL and endangered Colorado River fishes are also likely due to the potential for habitat 

modification and degradation associated with woodland product harvesting activities in riparian 

habitats. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.15 Special Status Species 

4-415 

4.3.15.20.5 ALTERNATIVE D 

The impacts of woodlands decisions on special status species under Alternative D are identical to 

those described for Alternative A. 

4.3.15.21 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 summarizes the impacts of the various alternatives and their program 

actions on special status species. 

4.3.16 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

This section discusses impacts to travel from management actions of other resources and 

resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning travel management are 

described in Chapter 3. 

Travel management would affect a variety of travel modes as discussed in Section 3.16.1. OHV 

(motorized vehicle) travel would be managed under four possible categories, based on BLM 

land-use planning decisions on route utility, and on decisions to protect natural resources and 

maintain public safety. The OHV categories are: 1) Open to unlimited, cross-country travel, 2) 

Limited to Inventoried or Existing routes (under Alternative A only), 3) Limited to Designated 

Routes, or 4) Closed to OHV use. 

The analysis of impacts to travel within the MPA was conducted under two assumptions. First, 

travel routes designated as available to OHV use would allow all forms of travel (i.e., motorized, 

mountain biking, and non-mechanized hiking and equestrian), which would have beneficial 

impacts to travel by providing opportunities for a wide range of travel modes. Second, routes not 

designated would adversely affect travel because of the reduced opportunities for mechanized 

and motorized access to areas within the MPA. The indicators for analyzing impacts to travel 

are: 1) miles of route (see below) designated or not designated for OHV use, and 2) the number 

of acres designated as open or closed to OHV access. 

Utah State road classes were considered in the impacts analysis. The road classification relevant 

to the analysis was the Utah Department of Transportation Class-D roads. These are unpaved 

roads, and not regularly maintained nor funded for maintenance by the state. Most of the routes 

within the MPA are in this road class (see Travel Plan, Appendix G). Utah Class-B roads are also 

proposed as designated routes under the Travel Management prescriptions (see Chapter 2, Table 

2.2 Impacts Summary Table); however, these routes were not used as analysis criteria because 

they are maintained San Juan County and Grand County roads that currently provide motorized 

access throughout the MPA and whose travel function or designation would not change under 

any of the proposed alternatives. 

4.3.16.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

After approval of the RMP, if the MFO Authorizing Officer determines that OHV travel use 

would cause or have the potential to cause adverse impacts, then an area could be closed to travel 

or travel restrictions would be imposed. This would potentially have long-term, adverse impacts 

on travel because opportunities would be reduced. 

Once Travel Plan routes are established in the RMP, (see Appendix G for a description of the 

route planning process) designated routes could be modified or adjusted at the implementation 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-416 

and project-planning level. The route adjustments would be done through a collaborative process 

involving local governments and the public. The impacts to travel management would be 

beneficial in the long-term because potential travel-related resource use conflicts would be 

identified and satisfactorily resolved since the route modification process would include 

interested and/or concerned stakeholders. 

4.3.16.2 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

Management decisions from the following resources would have negligible impacts on travel 

management and will not be analyzed further in this section: Fire Management, Health and 

Human Safety, Lands and Realty, Livestock Grazing, Paleontology, Recreation, Riparian, Soils/ 

Watershed, Special Status Species, Visual Resources, Wildlife and Fisheries, and Woodlands. 

The impacts would be negligible because reducing the risks of wildland fire; protecting public 

safety around AML sites and reducing the risks of hazardous materials spills; designating ROWs, 

lands acquisition, exchange, or sales; establishing livestock utilization levels and applying 

rangeland grazing standards and guidelines; managing recreational areas and user groups; 

protecting riparian areas, sensitive soils, water resources; protecting federally listed species and 

other non-listed wildlife and fish species; protecting scenic quality; and permitting woodland 

harvesting would not change designated travel routes and OHV travel within the MPA. 

4.3.16.2.1 IMPACTS OF AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

Air quality management common to all of the alternatives would require compliance with Utah 

air conservation regulations that prohibit the use, maintenance, or construction of roads without 

fugitive dust abatement measures. BLM policy requires monitoring and managing exhaust 

emissions and fugitive dust to prevent deterioration of air quality within potentially affected 

national park Class I area (for the MFO, this would include the adjacent Canyonlands and Arches 

National Parks). The impacts on travel would be minor and short-term along unpaved travel 

routes (i.e., Class-D roads, single-track routes, mechanized trails) that require road surfacingrelated dust abatement measures because travelers could experience some travel delays or rerouting around the affected road sections during dust abatement and maintenance projects. 

4.3.16.2.2 IMPACTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

4.3.16.2.2.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, there are no specific prescriptions that address travel opportunities or 

potential restrictions on travel within the context of cultural resources management. 

4.3.16.2.2.2 Alternatives B–D 

Under all of the action alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan), cultural sites could be closed to 

visitation if it were determined that travel-related activity threatens cultural site integrity. If sites 

were closed, then travel opportunities could be adversely affected in the short-term or long-term, 

depending on MFO decisions to protect a threatened site. Compared to Alternative A, the action 

alternatives would potentially have more long-term, adverse impacts on travel opportunities 

because access would be reduced to protect cultural resources. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-417 

4.3.16.2.3 IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

Minerals-related access roads would be constructed under all of the alternatives and would be 

generally available for use by the public, but the RFD-predicted level of mineral resource 

development would result in a relatively small number of additional access roads (i.e., spur roads 

to drilling sites) when compared to the existing or designated routes within the MPA. Minerals 

decisions that permit oil and gas exploration and development would have beneficial, but minor, 

impacts on travel access and opportunities because minerals-related access roads would increase 

opportunities. 

4.3.16.2.4 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

4.3.16.2.4.1 Alternatives A and D 

No lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics under Alternatives A and D; there 

would be no impacts to travel management from these decisions. 

4.3.16.2.4.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, over 177 miles of route within 26 non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics would not be designated for motorized travel (compared to 294 miles in 

Alternative A). An additional 7 non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would have no 

routes would designated for travel (Arches Adjacent, Big Triangle, Dome Plateau, Floy Canyon, 

Horsethief Point, Mexico Point, Yellow Bird.) This would adversely impact those recreationists 

engaging in motorized activities by removing 177 miles of available route. However, this would 

provide a beneficial impact to those recreationists seeking a more primitive experience. 

Development of routes for mechanized travel would not be permitted on the 266,485 acres of 

non-WSA lands managed for wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.16.2.4.3 Proposed Plan 

Travel in Beaver Creek would be limited to 12.45 miles of designated route (reducing route 

miles by 6.3 miles in Alternative A); travel in Fisher Towers would be limited to 4.3 miles of 

designated route (reducing route miles of 6.68 miles in Alternative A); travel in Mary Jane 

Canyon would be limited to 10.04 miles of designated route (reducing route miles by 23.28 miles 

in Alternative A). This would adversely impact those recreationists engaging in motorized 

activities by removing 36.26 miles of available route. However, this would provide a beneficial 

impact to those recreationists seeking a more primitive experience. Development of routes for 

mechanized travel would not be permitted on the 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands managed for 

wilderness characteristics. 

4.3.16.2.5 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

4.3.16.2.5.1 ACECs and Wild and Scenic River Segments 

Under all alternatives, OHV, mountain biking, and non-mechanized recreational travel and 

access opportunities within river segments being considered for WSR status, and travel within 

ACECs would be limited to routes either designated under prescriptions to protect resource 

values in these areas or under the Moab Travel Plan (see Section 4.3.16.2.6). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-418 

This would have negligible to minor impacts on travel opportunities because travel routes into 

these areas would be allowed under all alternatives. However, no areas would be designated as 

open to unlimited, cross-country OHV travel within special designations, which would have 

long-term, adverse impacts on this form of travel because cross-country travel opportunities 

within these areas would be prohibited. 

4.3.16.2.5.2 WSAs and Wilderness Areas 

Alternative A

Wilderness area and WSA prescriptions under Alternative A would continue to designate 12,635 

acres in the Behind the Rocks WSA as Closed to OHV access, and travel limited to inventoried 

routes on 82.5 miles of way within 309,749 acres of Wilderness and WSAs. The impacts to 

travel opportunities would continue to be adverse in the long-term within the Behind the Rocks 

WSA because OHV access and travel opportunities would not be available in this area. 

Alternative B

Alternative B prescriptions would manage all WSAs and the Black Ridge Wilderness (a total of 

354,015 acres) as closed to OHV travel, which would have long-term, adverse impacts on travel 

opportunities within these special designation areas. No routes would be designated. The impacts 

to travel would be more adverse under this alternative, when compared to Alternative A, because 

more area would be closed to OHV travel. 

Proposed Plan

Under the Proposed Plan, 344,056 acres of WSA and Wilderness would be closed to OHV travel, 

with 9,959 acres managed for OHV travel limited to designated routes (with 3.1 miles of route 

designated). The impacts to travel would be similar to Alternative B because only 3% of all 

WSA and Wilderness areas would be managed for OHV travel and access opportunities. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be similar to Alternative B because the total 

WSA area closed to travel opportunities would be similar. 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, motorized travel in all WSA and Wilderness areas would be designated as 

limited to designated routes (with 16 miles of route designated), with long-term, beneficial 

impacts on travel opportunities and access into these areas, since motorized opportunities will be 

available on these 16 miles of route. The impacts on travel would less beneficial to travel than 

Alternative A because although travel opportunities would be available in all WSA and 

Wilderness areas in Alternative D, there would be fewer miles of route available for use. 

4.3.16.2.6 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

4.3.16.2.6.1 Motorized (OHV) Travel 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, OHV travel would be managed under open, limited, and closed 

designations, as shown below in Table 4.136, with travel prescriptions as approved under the 

current RMP and subsequently modified by Federal Register limitations and restrictions issued 

after approval of the RMP. Alternative A would manage 620,212 acres as open for cross-country 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-419 

travel, 1,196,920 acres as limited to existing, inventoried and/or designated routes, and 5,062 

acres as closed to OHV travel. Designation of 620,212 acres of the MPA as open to OHV areas 

would have negligible impacts on travel opportunities because opportunities would be 

unrestricted for all modes of travel. Limited OHV use along inventoried and/or designated routes 

would also have negligible impacts on OHV travel because travel along these routes would 

remain unimpeded. The adverse impacts on OHV travel would be minor, in the long-term 

because, approximately 99% of the MPA would be accessible either by cross-country travel or 

along designated and inventoried/existing routes. 

Table 4.136. OHV Designations by Alternative 

Travel Designation Alternative 

A (Acres) 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Open 620,212 0 1,866 3,064 

Limited to Existing Roads and Trails 1,196,9204 

Limited to Designated Routes 1,475,074 1,481,334 1,762,083 

Closed 5,062 347,424 339,298 57,351 

Total1 1,822,194 1,822,498 1,822,498 1,822,498 

D routes (miles)2 4,673 2,144 2,519 2,671 

Designated Motorcycle Routes (miles)2 03 0 123 219 

1Acreage figures may vary by alternative due to the changes in GIS technology and variances in GIS shapefiles. 

2These are the miles of designated routes at time of EIS publication. After the issuing of the ROD, minor adjustments may be 

made by the MFO to more accurately define the designated routes. 

3The Slickrock Trail, while open to motorcycle use, was not designated as a motorcycle route under the current RMP. 

4 48,169 acres would be limited to designated roads and trails; and 309,749 acres would be limited to inventoried routes in 

WSAs. 

Alternative B

This alternative would designate no area as open to cross-country OHV travel. Limited OHV 

travel would be permitted on 1,475,074 acres of designated routes, with 347,424 acres closed to 

all OHV travel. These travel designations would allow opportunities on approximately 81% of 

the MPA, which would have adverse, long-term, but minor, impacts on travel opportunities 

because a small proportion (19%) of the MPA would not be available for travel access. 

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would manage the MPA with more long-term, 

adverse, restriction-related impacts on OHV travel, as 342,362 more acres would be subject to 

long-term prohibitions on OHV access under the closed designation. 

Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan would have impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B because 

the acreages designated as limited and closed to OHV use are similar, except that a small area 

(1,866 acres) would be designated as open to OHV travel within the White Wash Sand Dunes 

and managed as a motorized OHV focus area (see Recreation Section 4.3.10.2.10.6). Compared 

to Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would have impacts similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B because the acreage comparisons are similar: approximately the same number of 

acres would be closed to OHV cross-country travel. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-420 

By restricting the Bartlett Freeride area to bicycles only, open motorcycle opportunities would be 

restricted on 166 acres. 

Alternative D

Under Alternative D OHV travel prescriptions, 57,351 acres would be closed, 1,762,083 acres 

would be designated as limited to designated routes, and 3,064 acres would be open to crosscountry OHV travel within two motorized OHV focus areas (White Wash Sand Dunes and 

Airport Hills). Approximately 97% of the MPA would be available for travel opportunities and 

access. The impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, but to a lesser 

degree, because, although a large proportion of the MPA would be open to travel, the access 

would be along designated routes and not cross-country. 

4.3.16.2.6.2 D-Class Road Travel 

Note that the miles of D-Class routes are included within acreages of OHV travel discussed 

previously. Class B roads are available for travel under all alternatives. 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, 4,673 miles of D-class route would be available for travel (as either 

inventoried, existing or designated routes). About 122 miles would be available for single-track, 

motorized travel (i.e., motorcycle OHV travel). As shown above in Table 4.136, motorcycle use 

is currently allowed on the Slickrock Trail, but formal motorcycle trail-use designation was not 

included in the 1985 RMP. Under this alternative, the opportunities for travel along D-Class 

routes would be unimpeded, with long-term, beneficial impacts to travel. 

Alternative B

Alternative B would designate approximately 2,144 miles of D-Class routes, with no miles 

designated for single-track, motorized use. Under this alternative, travel opportunities would be 

adversely reduced in the long-term because 2,144 miles of inventoried routes would not be 

designated due to lack of an identifiable purpose and need, and 655 miles would not be 

designated because of resource use conflicts (cultural, wildlife, sensitive soils, recreation, 

riparian, wilderness values, and floodplains). See Appendix G for a discussion of the 

collaborative BLM/County route designation process. Compared to Alternative A, this 

alternative would have greater adverse impacts on travel opportunities because the proposed 

Travel Plan would eliminate 2,529 miles of routes within the MPA that would otherwise be 

available for travel. 

Proposed Plan

This alternative would propose approximately 2,519 miles of D-Class routes, and would 

designate 282 miles of motorcycle single-track routes. The impacts on travel would be similar to 

Alternative B and for the same reasons, except that the designated single-track routes would 

provide long-term, beneficial recreation-related travel opportunities for the off-highway 

motorcycle user group (see Recreation 4.3.10 for user group descriptions). When compared to 

Alternative A, the Proposed Plan would be similar to Alternative B because the miles of routes 

not designated (and the reduction in travel opportunities) would be similar: approximately 2,154 

miles of routes would not be designated, resulting in long-term, adverse impacts on MPA travel 

opportunities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-421 

Alternative D

This alternative would propose approximately 2,671 miles of D-Class routes and 340 miles as 

designated motorcycle single-track routes. When compared to Alternative A, the adverse impacts 

to travel would be similar to Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, because the miles of route 

closures would be similar. Approximately 2,002 miles of routes would not be designated, 

resulting in impacts similar to those identified in Alternative B. 

4.3.16.2.6.3 Mountain Biking Recreational Travel 

Under management common to all action alternatives, mountain biking travel opportunities 

would be allowed on all routes open to motorized travel use, and management would be applied 

to these routes to identify and modify routes, as needed, to meet mountain biking travel needs. 

Approximately 11 miles of existing single-track routes would be managed for mountain biking 

use only. These prescriptions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on mountain biking 

travel by expanding recreational travel and access opportunities for this user group. 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the impacts of management on mountain biking travel would be adverse in 

the long-term because none of the prescriptions would specifically or adequately address the 

current trends of increasing resource-user conflicts between motorized OHV and mountain 

biking travelers and mountain biking user displacement by motorized OHV users. Under this 

alternative, mountain biking travel conditions would be degraded in the long term, and 

recreational travel opportunities and experiences would likely be diminished for the 

aforementioned reasons. 

Alternatives B, D, and Proposed Plan 

Proposed management under the action alternatives would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

mountain biking travelers by developing additional mountain biking routes: 75 miles under 

Alternative B, 150 miles under the Proposed Plan, and 300 miles under Alternative D. These 

routes would include proposed additional support facilities (e.g., trailheads, signs, and route 

markers). The beneficial impacts would vary by degree, with Alternative D and the Proposed 

Plan having the most beneficial impacts on mountain biking travel. Compared to Alternative A, 

all of the action alternatives would be more beneficial to mountain biking travel because 1) travel 

user conflicts and displacement would be addressed by converting inventoried routes not 

designated for motorized OHV use to mountain biking travel; and 2) the demand for mountain 

biking travel facilities would be addressed by installing additional facilities. 

4.3.16.2.6.4 Non-mechanized Recreational (Hiking, Backpacking, Equestrian) 

Travel 

Management common to all action alternatives would provide non-mechanized travel 

opportunities on all routes open to motorized OHV and mountain biking users. Non-mechanized 

travel opportunities would be unrestricted within the MPA, except where limited or restricted to 

protect specific resources values. Seventeen miles of non-mechanized routes on existing trails 

would be managed for non-mechanized users. Equestrian users would be encouraged to 

participate with the MFO in identifying additional non-mechanized trails for development of 

equestrian and hiking routes. These actions would have long-term, beneficial impacts on non-
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-422 

mechanized travelers by expanding the travel opportunities for this user group and by reducing 

user-conflicts with motorized and mountain bike travelers. 

Alternative A

Under this alternative, equestrian use would continue to be discouraged in Negro Bill Canyon in 

order to protect canyon resources, but would have negligible impacts on non-mechanized travel 

as the canyon route would still be open to foot travel. Commercial equestrian use would not be 

allowed in Mill Creek Canyon, but private use would continue. In general, the prescriptions 

under Alternative A would have long-term, adverse impacts on non-mechanized travel because 

the alternative does not address current trends within the MPA, including: 1) the increase in 

resource user conflicts between non-mechanized and mountain biking travelers; 2) the increasing 

displacement of non-mechanized travelers from areas used by motorized OHV users and 

mountain bikers (see Section 3.10.2.6); and 3) the demand for recreational facilities to meet 

traveler needs, such as trailhead signs, route markers, and information kiosks (see Section 

3.10.2.5). 

Alternatives B, D, and Proposed Plan 

The specific prescriptions under these alternatives would be beneficial in the long-term to nonmechanized travel because resource-use conflicts between non-mechanized and mechanized 

(including OHV and mountain bike) users would be addressed by developing exclusively nonmechanized travel routes. Support facilities would be installed along existing and new trails, and 

specified existing trails would be managed for equestrian use (with hiking allowed). The 

difference in impacts between the alternatives varies by degrees: Alternative B, Proposed Plan, 

and Alternative D would develop up to 25, 50, and 100 miles of additional routes and appropriate 

support facilities, respectively. Compared to Alternative A, all of the action alternatives would 

have more beneficial impacts on travel by providing more opportunities and more facilities for 

non-mechanized travel. 

4.3.16.2.7 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON TRAVEL

4.3.16.2.7.1 Alternative A 

Under this alternative, there would be no impacts from vegetation-related prescribed fire/fuel 

reduction or invasive/non-native plant control projects on travel opportunities or access because 

no drought management prescriptions on travel would be in place. 

4.3.16.2.7.2 Alternatives B, D, and Proposed Plan 

For all of the action alternatives, prescriptions for managing drought conditions under the 

proposed adaptive drought management plan could adversely restrict travel or reduce travel 

opportunities in the short-term by closing areas to public entry. This would potentially have more 

adverse impacts on travel than Alternative A because closing areas to public entry under the 

drought plan would restrict travel opportunities; however, these impacts would be minor because 

they would likely be short-term and would only be imposed under exceptional conditions. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.16 Travel Management 

4-423 

4.3.16.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 summarizes the impacts of the various alternatives and their program 

actions on travel management. 

4.3.17 VEGETATION

This section discusses impacts to vegetation from management actions of other resources and 

resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning vegetation are described in 

Chapter 3. 

Vegetation types for the MPA were categorized as conifer/mountain shrub, desert shrub, piñonjuniper, riparian and wetlands, and sagebrush/perennial grass communities. 

For the purposes of this RMP, the primary indicator of impacts to vegetation is the acres of 

surface disturbance caused by management decisions regarding other resources. Such surface 

disturbance would impact vegetation resources to varying degrees, depending on the amount, 

location, and type of surface disturbance and the disturbed vegetation's characteristics or ability 

to withstand surface disturbance. Surface-disturbing activities that currently occur and that are 

expected to continue include grazing; minerals development; recreation and OHV use; woodland 

harvest; and vegetation treatments. 

The following resource management decisions would have negligible impacts to vegetation and, 

therefore, are not discussed further: air quality, cultural resources, human health and safety, 

paleontological resources, and visual resources. The impacts would be negligible because 

protecting air quality, protecting and inventorying cultural resources, maintaining public safety 

around AML sites and reducing the risks of hazardous materials spills and site cleanup, allowing 

scientific study of and recreational collection of fossils, and protecting scenic quality under 

designated VRM Class objectives would neither improve nor degrade vegetation resources 

within the MPA. 

4.3.17.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Weed management in the MPA would include control of existing noxious weed species and 

preventing the spread of invasive species. Restoration and rehabilitation activities would always 

use certified weed-free mulch and seed mixes; native seed mixes would be used whenever 

possible. Additionally, users with stock animals would be required to provide certified weed-free 

feed for stock animals. These actions would benefit vegetation resources by reducing the spread 

of noxious weeds. 

4.3.17.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

In accordance with the BLM sagebrush conservation guidance, the MPA would reclaim and 

restore up to 257,809 acres of sagebrush habitat and shrub-steppe ecosystems. Efforts would 

include prioritizing sagebrush-steppe communities for wildfire suppression, emergency 

stabilization and fuels reduction, and following the BLM's Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy. 

The Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy would be used, when applicable, in the development 

and implementation of vegetation and land treatments, livestock manipulation techniques, fire 

projects, energy exploration and development, and any surface-disturbing activity within 

sagebrush and shrub-steppe communities. All of these actions would have beneficial, protection- 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-424 

and enhancement-related impacts on native plant species from vegetation restoration and 

reclamation, and from the reduction of invasive species establishment. 

Vegetation treatments, including biological, chemical, mechanical, and prescribed burns, would 

be used to reduce tamarisk and Russian olive where appropriate. In addition, the MPA would 

incorporate vegetation treatments from the Utah Record of Decision (ROD) for Vegetation 

Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States EIS (BLM 1991a as amended). 

Management would also include restoration of riparian habitat to native willow and cottonwood 

communities, including replanting cottonwoods and willow subsequent to wildland fire or other 

disturbance in riparian areas, where appropriate. The impacts of the above-mentioned treatments 

and restoration activities on vegetation resources would be adverse, short-term, and minor due to 

vegetation removal and/or trampling; however, the treatments and restoration actions would 

reduce native species competition with noxious weeds and invasive plant species, which would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation resources. 

Under decisions common to the action alternatives, the MPA would establish criteria for 

restricting activities during drought, through an adaptive drought management program. These 

restrictions could result in beneficial, short-term and long-term impacts on vegetation because 

criteria would be established and BMPs applied to restrict or prohibit surface impacts to 

vegetation. These actions would result in beneficial impacts to vegetation from such actions as 

suspending or limiting seed collecting, suspending surface-disturbing activities, changing 

livestock use, and limiting prescribed burn and vegetation treatments during periods of drought. 

For more detail on adaptive drought management, refer to Chapter 2 Vegetation Management 

Common to All Action Alternatives. 

4.3.17.3 IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Under all alternatives, the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management 

would be implemented in fire-related actions (BLM 2005c). As discussed in Section 4.3.3 Fire 

Management, the MFO would treat 5,000 to 10,000 acres annually (approximately 0.5% of the 

MPA), depending on budgetary and time constraints. The majority of these treatments would 

likely be concentrated in piñon-juniper vegetation. Wildland fire use would not be authorized in 

areas that are known to be highly susceptible to post-fire cheatgrass or other weed invasion, areas 

with important terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and non-fire adapted vegetation communities 

unless reasonable resource protection measures were in place. These actions would have longterm, beneficial impacts on vegetation by reducing the opportunities for the spread of weeds and 

exotic, invasive species into native vegetation communities. 

Fuels management actions such as mechanical and manual treatments, prescribed fire, chemical 

or biological vegetation control, and aerial/ground seeding would have both beneficial and 

adverse impacts on vegetation communities in fire-treated areas. Long-term, beneficial impacts 

to vegetation would occur in treated areas once invasive species competition was eliminated or 

reduced, assuming that a diverse native community has the potential to establish itself in the 

area. The short-term, adverse impacts of fuels management actions on vegetation would include 

the unavoidable potential trampling and disturbance of rare native species, and the thinning and 

removal of ecologically desirable species. These actions could result in a short-term, adverse 

reduction of native species diversity. However, these treatments would improve vegetation 

communities in the long term once native or desirable non-native vegetation were reestablished. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-425 

These beneficial impacts would include more varied species and habitat structure, multiple age 

classes, and openings for forbs and woody species recruitment. 

4.3.17.4 IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Lands and Realty decisions that have the potential to have adverse impacts on vegetation would 

result from authorizations of right-of-way (ROW) grants and the expansion or development of 

utility corridors. These actions would create surface disturbances of various magnitudes 

depending on the size and location of the project. Impacts from minerals ROWs such as access 

roads and pipelines are accounted for in the minerals surface disturbance calculations (see 

Section 4.3.17.6). Surface impacts from construction of communication facilities and wind and 

solar energy development would be disclosed in site-specific NEPA documentation. There would 

also be potential for the introduction of noxious or invasive plant species via construction 

equipment, vehicles, and personnel. However, the adverse impacts would be mitigated through 

BMPs, noxious weed controls, and restoration and rehabilitation measures outlined in 

Management Common to All. 

Beneficial impacts would result from identification of exclusion and avoidance areas for ROWs 

and mineral withdrawals. Because withdrawals are generally for mineral entry, they are 

discussed in Minerals, Section 4.3.17.6. Exclusion areas would offer greater protections for 

vegetation than avoidance areas because they would completely preclude surface-disturbing 

activities. Exclusion and avoidance areas would include any areas proposed as Closed 

(exclusion) NSO (avoidance) due to lands being managed for wilderness characteristics, ACECs, 

WSAs, Wilderness Areas, or Threatened and Endangered species habitat. 

Under Alternatives A and D, potential vegetation-related surface disturbances within the 

proposed I-70 utility corridor would be up to 1-mile wide. Under the Proposed Plan, they would 

be up to a 0.5-mile wide and under Alternative B, they would be up to 100-foot-wide. The 

following Table 4.137 shows the acres of vegetation within each vegetation type under each 

alternative that would be potentially impacted by surface disturbances in the proposed utility 

corridors. Alternative A would have the least area of vegetation potentially impacted by the 

proposed utility corridors, followed by Alternative B, Proposed Plan, and Alternative D, 

respectively. Compared to Alternative A, all of the action alternatives would have potentially 

more adverse impacts on vegetation by expanding the width of MPA utility corridors. 

Table 4.137. Acreage of Vegetation Types Potentially Impacted in Utility Corridors, by 

Alternative 

Vegetation type Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 9 0 19 19 

Desert shrub 25,144 52,053 113,917 141,797 

Invasive species and weeds 308 1,327 2,084 2,492 

Piñon-juniper 5,345 8,808 41,672 44,189 

Riparian/wetland 143 323 1,031 1,139 

Sagebrush/ 

perennial grass 

1,551 3,355 14,376 14,531 

Total 32,500 65,866 173,099 204,167 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-426 

All alternatives would manage WSAs, and Wilderness Areas as exclusion areas, and all 

alternatives would manage ACECs as avoidance areas. Alternative B would manage non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics as exclusion areas and the Proposed Plan would manage 

them as avoidance areas. All action alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan) would manage areas 

with NSO stipulations as avoidance areas. Since Alternative B would manage 266,485 acres of 

lands with wilderness characteristics as exclusion areas, this alternative would offer the greatest 

protection to vegetation of all the alternatives. The Proposed Plan would manage for five ACECs 

totaling 63,232 acres and three areas with wilderness characteristics totaling 47,761 acres. As a 

result, the Proposed Plan would provide for the second largest area of protection but only as 

avoidance areas. Thus, there could be circumstances by which ROWs could be approved, with 

accompanying surface disturbance in these areas. Alternatives D would not designate any 

ACECs and would offer the least protection of all the alternatives; Alternative A would continue 

management of the existing 1,375 acres Negro Bill Canyon ONA, offering only slightly more 

protection to vegetation. Alternatives A and D do not propose to manage any lands for 

wilderness characteristics, offering less protection for vegetation than either Alternative B or the 

Proposed Plan. 

Under all of the alternatives, the continued withdrawal of lands from mineral entry along the 

Colorado, Dolores, and Green Rivers (encompassing 65,037 acres), and within the Westwater 

and Black Ridge wilderness areas (13,296 acres), would beneficially protect vegetation resources 

(mostly juniper and desert shrub) in the long term by eliminating potential surface-disturbancerelated impacts from mineral entry. 

4.3.17.5 IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

In general, making areas unavailable for grazing would provide long-term protection and 

enhancement of vegetation because it would limit the loss of vegetative cover and the trampling 

of species. Areas available for livestock grazing generally suffer some adverse impacts due to 

decreased growth or loss of riparian and other vegetation. 

Under all of the alternatives, livestock grazing would be managed according to the Guidelines 

for Grazing Management in order to achieve and maintain the Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Under the Guidelines, the proper functioning condition of wetlands and riparian areas would be 

promoted, the use and perpetuation of native species would be emphasized, noxious weed 

establishment and spread would be minimized, and adjustments would be made to grazing 

practices when vegetation proper functioning conditions are not being met. These guidelines and 

standards would generally mitigate the impacts of livestock grazing on vegetation resources. 

However, the potential for impacts still exists and would be greater under alternatives with a 

higher percentage of lands available for grazing. 

The following Table 4.138 shows a comparison of the numbers of acres excluded from livestock 

grazing by alternative. Alternative B would exclude the most acres, followed by Alternative A, 

the Proposed Plan, and Alternative D, respectively. Acreages vary slightly between alternatives. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-427 

Table 4.138. Acres of Each Vegetation Type Excluded from Grazing by Alternative 

Habitat Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Desert shrub 13,697 23,880 23,380 13,324 

Sagebrush and perennial grassland 3,806 5,569 5,569 1,767 

Conifer and mountain shrub 23,155 23,404 22,579 587 

Piñon-juniper woodland 84,301 98,628 77,548 35,369 

Riparian/Wetland 1,568 1,852 1,556 862 

Total 126,527 153,333 132,047 51,909 

More areas would be unavailable for grazing under Alternative B than Alternative A, the 

Proposed Plan, and especially Alternative D, which could have beneficial impacts on native 

vegetation depending on the success of re-vegetation and weed control efforts following the 

removal of livestock. Management under the rangeland standards and guidelines would increase 

the likelihood of native vegetation establishment, with long-term beneficial impacts to vegetation 

resources. In the long term, Alternative B would likely have fewer adverse impacts on native 

vegetation in the MPA when compared to any other alternative because of the additional 

unavailable for livestock grazing. Alternative D would have the greatest likelihood of adverse 

impacts on native vegetation in the MPA because fewer acres are rendered unavailable for 

grazing in this alternative. 

Fewer vegetation treatments are proposed under these alternatives than Alternative B, which 

would reduce the short-term surface disturbance impacts on vegetation removal but would also 

decrease the potential long-term benefits of increased vegetation health. 

Vegetation treatments under all of the alternatives in allotments to increase wildlife forage would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation by expanding the acreage of native and other 

desired vegetation species into existing piñon-juniper woodlands. Alternative B, Proposed Plan, 

and Alternative D would designate more area (a total of 46,307 acres under each alternative) for 

conversion than Alternative A (67,125 acres), but the relative size of the affected areas and the 

impacts under all of the alternatives would be similar. 

4.3.17.6 IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES 

Surface disturbance associated with mineral exploration and development would result in both 

short-term impacts and long-term adverse impacts on vegetation. In the short term, loss of 

vegetation associated with surface disturbances for well pads, access roads, and minerals 

infrastructure would increase the potential for invasion of undesirable plant species, including 

noxious weeds, and cause a potentially irretrievable loss of vegetation productivity during the 

period of disturbance and re-growth. 

While the RFD assumes that reclamation of disturbance would be successful within a scope of 

10 years, it does note that reclamation times would be dependent on soils, vegetation, and rainfall 

(BLM 2005f). The typically slow re-growth of vegetation within the MPA would cause surface 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-428 

disturbance to have long-term, indirect, adverse impacts on vegetation resources. Initial 

establishment of sagebrush and other native species following seeding is estimated to take 3 to 4 

years, depending on the successful exclusion of livestock and weedy annuals from the site during 

this time (Monsen et al. 2004). Revegetation is especially difficult in desert shrub habitat, 

because soils are shallow and highly saline, and moisture availability is relatively low (Monsen 

et al. 2004). The potential long-term, adverse introduction and establishment of undesirable plant 

species, particularly cheatgrass, is likely in the sagebrush/perennial grass vegetation cover type 

due to cheatgrass ability to out-compete native species in disturbed areas and to thrive in arid 

conditions (Morrow and Stahlman 1984; Piemeisel 1951). 

Although the acreages open to mineral leasing vary by alternative and would include a 

substantial portion of the MPA, the true indicator of impacts to vegetation come from the surface 

disturbance associated with the predicted RFD for minerals. Proposed surface disturbances from 

these activities are outlined in Table 4.139. Impacts to vegetation resources would be adverse, 

but would impact a relatively small portion of the MPA. 

Table 4.139. Predicted Surface Disturbance on BLM Lands from Minerals Activities 

for the 15-Year Life of the Plan (Acres) 

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Surface disturbance from oil and 

gas development 6,772 3,963 6,483 6,739 

Geophysical surface disturbance 2,397 1,404 2,072 2,329 

Surface disturbance from mineral 

activities other than oil and gas 1,015 1,015 1,015 1,015 

Total surface disturbance 10,184 6,382 9,570 10,083 

% of surface disturbance within 

the MPA 0.005 0.002 0.005 0.005 

4.3.17.7 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

VEGETATION RESOURCES

4.3.17.7.1 ALTERNATIVES A AND D 

Under these alternatives, no non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed 

to maintain those characteristics. The impacts on vegetation resources would be potentially 

adverse in the long term because no prescriptions specifically to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be specified to protect these areas from surface disturbances. 

4.3.17.7.2 ALTERNATIVE B AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan would manage for wilderness characteristics on 266,485 

acres and 47,761 acres, respectively. Logically, Alternative B would offer the greatest protection 

of all alternatives due to the large number of acres that would be managed as closed to mineral 

leasing and woodland harvest. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-429 

Non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be designated as VRM Class II in both 

alternatives and would be closed to oil and gas leasing in Alternative B and would be managed 

as no surface occupancy in the Proposed Plan. They would be closed to woodland harvest under 

both alternatives. These actions would preclude most large-scale surface-disturbing activities, 

thereby offering beneficial impacts to vegetation resources. 

Management of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (266,485 acres in Alternative B 

and 47,761 acres in the Proposed Plan) would limit the type of treatments needed to reclaim or 

restore sagebrush-steppe habitat. Mechanical treatments would not be allowed in these areas. 

4.3.17.8 IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

In general impacts from recreation activities on vegetation would be limited to isolated surface 

disturbances where activities such as dispersed camping and cross country hiking occur. These 

impacts would be mitigated by the application of the MFO Recreation Rules and the Standards 

for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management. Where recreation is 

managed using a Special Recreation Management Area, (SRMA) these rules and guidelines 

would limit or control activities through specialized management tools such as designated 

campsites, permits, area closures, and limitations on number of users and duration of use. In 

addition efforts would be made to educate public land visitors and users about the ethics of 

responsible use. 

4.3.17.8.1 ALTERNATIVE A 

The short-term and long-term, adverse impacts from recreational activities within the 132,832 

acres of existing SRMAs (Cameo Cliffs, Canyon Rims, and Colorado River) would be minor to 

vegetation because 1) motorized and non-motorized travel would be limited to existing, 

designated routes, and 2) adaptive management would be applied to camping sites to limit 

impacts to vegetation, as discussed above. Table 4.140 shows the approximate acreage of 

vegetation within each SRMA for all of the alternatives. 

Within the Moab ERMA, motorized recreational OHV use would have short-term and long-term, 

adverse impacts on all vegetation types from OHV-related surface disturbances as approximately 

620,212 acres (34% of the MPA) would continue to be designated as open to cross-country OHV 

use (see Section 4.3.17.13 below). This surface disturbance would adversely impact the scenic 

resources that visitors come to the MPA to enjoy. 

Table 4.140. SRMA Acreages Proposed Under Each Alternative 

SRMA Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

Bookcliffs 0 348,105 0 0 

Cameo Cliffs 15,456 15,473 15,473 15,473 

Canyon Rims 101,523 101,523 101,523 101,526 

Colorado 

Riverway 

15,853 101,523 87,336 76,375 

Labyrinth 0 298,711 298,711 0 

Lower Gray 0 3,527 3,527 0 

Sand Flats 0 6,245 6,245 6,246 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-430 

Table 4.140. SRMA Acreages Proposed Under Each Alternative 

SRMA Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

South Moab 0 63,577 63,577 0 

Two Rivers 0 28,540 28,540 12,481 

Utah Rims 0 15,175 15,175 0 

Dee Pass 0 0 0 60,421 

Total 132,832 982,399 620,107 272,522 

4.3.17.8.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would manage 982,399 acres under existing and proposed SRMAs (seven times 

more acreage than under Alternative A). The impacts to vegetation within these SRMAs would 

be as discussed under Alternative A because of prohibitions and/or restrictions on surface 

disturbances to protect recreation resources and scenic values. The impacts on vegetation within 

the ERMA would be minor to negligible also because no acres would be designated as open to 

OHV cross-country travel, and all recreation-related travel would be restricted to existing, 

designated routes. The impacts to vegetation from dispersed camping within SRMAs would be 

negligible, as adaptive management could be applied to manage surface disturbance impacts 

resulting from dispersed camping to these areas. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative 

would have greater, long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation because of the increased 

restrictions on cross-country OHV travel and dispersed camping. 

4.3.17.8.3 PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan would manage a total of 620,107 acres under SRMAs (approximately five 

times more acreage than under Alternative A). The impacts to vegetation would be similar to 

those discussed under Alternative B, except that 1,086 acres would be managed as Open to OHV 

cross-country use within the White Wash Sand Dunes area. The impacts on vegetation in this 

OHV area would be negligible, as very little vegetation covers this proposed open OHV focus 

area. 

4.3.17.8.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

The impacts on vegetation under this alternative would be similar to the discussion under the 

Proposed Plan, because the limitations on surface disturbances to vegetation would be similar. 

However, this alternative would designate 272,522 acres as SRMAs (twice as much area as 

under Alternative A, but three times less than the Proposed Plan), with travel within the MPA 

limited to designated routes except for 3,064 acres of open OHV use in the White Wash Sand 

Dunes focus area (an area, as discussed above, that has little vegetation). 

4.3.17.9 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Compliance with the BLM National Riparian Policy under all alternatives and the exclusion of 

surface-disturbing activities within 100 meters of riparian areas under all action alternatives 

would result in long-term, beneficial impacts to riparian vegetation. This stipulation would 

eliminate surface-disturbing activities because surface disturbances would be avoided in order to 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-431 

maintain and to improve riparian vegetation. These beneficial impacts would be the result of 

travel routes that would be located or re-located away from riparian areas; prohibitions on 

woodcutting (except for limited cutting of willows for Native American ceremonial purposes); 

dispersed camping in riparian areas that would be avoided and/or managed to reduce riparian 

vegetation impacts; exotic species management that would be applied to reduce their spread; and 

grazing actions that would be managed to ensure proper functioning condition of riparian 

vegetation. 

4.3.17.10 IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Generally any decisions that protect soils from surface disturbance would also protect vegetation 

as the two resources are closely linked. Under all action alternatives, vegetative cover would be 

maintained, based on desired future conditions, to provide adequate ground cover to prevent 

accelerated erosion of wind-erodible soils. In addition, limited OHV routes would be allowed in 

saline soils other than those already designated in the proposed Travel Plan. These actions would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation by maintaining and protecting vegetation in 

these areas. 

All of the action alternatives would also apply a controlled surface use stipulation excluding 

surface-disturbing activities within 100-year floodplains, within 100 meters of springs, or public 

water reserves. In addition, a controlled use stipulation would be applied to all slopes in the MFO 

greater than 30%. These management actions would benefit vegetation in the long term by 

limiting surface-disturbance-related impacts to the resource. Table 4.141 shows the size of 

vegetation communities protected by the controlled surface use stipulation on steep slopes. 

Table 4.141. Acres of Each Vegetation Type Protected in the Action Alternatives Due to 

Slope Steepness Category 

Vegetation Type Acres protected due to 

slopes >30% 

Acres protected due to 

slopes 21-30% 

Conifer/mountain shrub 33,954 13,856 

Desert shrub 20,707 16,146 

Invasive species and weeds 196 209 

Piñon-juniper 200,559 108,046 

Riparian/wetland 2,181 1,234 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 9,352 5,841 

266,949 145,332 Total (14.6%) (0.08%) 

4.3.17.10.1 ALTERNATIVE A 

Under this alternative, a timing limitation would prohibit all surface-disturbing activities on 

313,800 acres of saline, erodible, Mancos Shale soils (17% of the MPA) from November 1 to 

April 30. These restrictions would have indirect, beneficial impacts on vegetation by 1) reducing 

soil erosion that could otherwise adversely cover or bury existing plant communities, and 2) 

reduce the likelihood of exotic, invasive weed establishment in these areas as seeds are brought 

in by machinery. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-432 

4.3.17.10.2 ALTERNATIVE B AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

The indirect, beneficial impacts to vegetation would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A because the management actions are similar: timing restrictions would be applied 

to 330,142 acres of Mancos Shale soils (18% of the MPA). 

4.3.17.10.3 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under this alternative, no timing limitations on surface-disturbing activities within saline soils 

would be applied, which would have indirect, adverse impacts on Mancos Shale vegetation 

communities from potential surface disturbances that would increase the likelihood of invasive, 

exotic species establishment and erosion-related impacts to vegetation. Compared to Alternative 

A, this alternative would have greater adverse impacts on vegetation. 

4.3.17.11 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

4.3.17.11.1 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

Under alternatives B and C, where Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) overlap 

Wilderness Study Areas, WSA management would take precedence. This land would be 

managed according to the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review (IMP) which precludes surface-disturbing activities. This would have 

beneficial impacts on vegetation resources. Please see the WSA section for details. 

Any areas proposed for designation as ACECs would be managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing 

and preclude other surface-disturbing activities. They would also be managed as avoidance areas 

for ROWs. These actions would offer beneficial impacts because, as noted in the Lands and 

Realty section, surface-disturbing activities would be precluded. 

4.3.17.11.1.1 Alternative A 

No ACECs would be designated under Alternative A; therefore, no beneficial impacts would 

occur to vegetation as a result of ACEC designation. 

4.3.17.11.1.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, all 14 potential areas totaling 613,077 acres would be designated as 

ACECs. Approximately 309,599 acres of this total are within WSAs and would be protected 

under the IMP as noted above. The remaining 300,576 acres would be managed with either a 

NSO or closed stipulation for oil and gas leasing and preclude other surface-disturbing activities. 

Since surface disturbance is one of the greatest threats to vegetation (due to the displacement of 

soil and plant matter and the subsequent risk of noxious weed spread) this prescription offers a 

high degree of beneficial protections. 

Alternative B would include other management restrictions in each of the proposed ACECs that 

would provide greater increased protection for vegetation than the other alternatives. The 

additional management restrictions include restricting vehicle-based camping to campgrounds, 

not allowing campfires outside of campgrounds, closing areas to surface-disturbing vegetation 

treatments except for treatments for noxious weeds and exotics, and closing the area to 

harvesting woodland products. The greatest protection from the proposed ACECs would be to 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-433 

the piñon-juniper and desert shrub vegetation types largely due to their abundance in proposed 

areas. 

More restrictive management prescriptions to enhance white-tailed prairie dog habitat such as 

AMPs and grazing systems would be developed to benefit vegetation under Alternative B. 

Additionally, restrictions developed to protect the three special status plant species located in the 

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon and Behind the Rocks proposed ACECs including 

recreation restrictions for camping and OHV use would be beneficial to vegetation. Alternative B 

would not allow competitive OHV events in the Colorado River Corridor ACEC, thereby 

providing more protection that Alternative A. Additionally, no new road construction would be 

allowed in Labyrinth Canyon resulting in short- and long-term beneficial impacts to vegetation. 

Beneficial impacts would include protection from crushing, trampling, or uprooting by 

motorized vehicles. 

4.3.17.11.1.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 5 areas (63,252 acres) would be designated as ACECs including, 

Behind the Rocks, Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed, Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon, 

Mill Creek Canyon, and Ten Mile Wash. These designations would result in similar impacts to 

vegetation as discussed under Alternative B due to similar management requirements, but only 

for the five proposed areas. 

4.3.17.11.1.4 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, none of the potential ACECs would be designated, so impacts would be 

similar to those in Alternative A. In comparison to the other action alternatives, Alternative D 

would allow the greatest number of acres open to oil and gas leasing resulting in the greatest 

number of adverse impacts to vegetation. 

The Bookcliffs, Canyon Rim, Cisco White-tailed Prairie Dog Complex, Labyrinth Canyon, 

Westwater Canyon, and Wilson Arch areas would be managed with the same requirements as the 

Proposed Plan. Under this alternative, the Colorado River Corridor would experience similar 

impacts to vegetation as those described under the Proposed Plan with the exception that it 

would have greater potential for surface disturbance from the area being open to minerals 

material disposal and geophysical exploration for oil and gas 

Alternative D would manage the White Wash area under the prescriptions of the White Wash 

Sand Dunes Open OHV Area within the proposed Dee Pass SRMA. Competitive motorized 

events would be allowed; however, since the open use is in a designated area that lacks 

vegetation, it is not anticipated that there would be any adverse impacts to vegetation. The area 

does include some cottonwoods and rocky areas but would not be affected by motorized use. 

4.3.17.11.2 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan for Wild and Scenic Rivers, the stipulations that 

would be applied to oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities within suitable 

river segments were developed based on other resource values such as scenery, wildlife and 

fishery, riparian, and recreation. Any segments identified as suitable are either within areas either 

closed to oil and gas leasing or with a NSO stipulation under Alternative B and the Proposed 

Plan resulting in increased protection for riparian vegetation. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-434 

Under Alternatives A and D, no areas would be determined as suitable, thereby offering no 

protections to vegetation because of WSR designations. 

Under Alternative B 287.5 river miles would be determined as suitable. This would protect 

riparian vegetation within these areas because they would be managed as NSO areas. 

Under the Proposed Plan 112.3 river miles (9 river segments) would be determined as suitable 

and would be managed as NSO areas. About 15 river miles (Westwater Canyon of the Colorado 

River) would be determined as suitable and would be managed as closed to mineral leasing, as it 

is within the Westwater WSA. 

4.3.17.11.3 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS AND WILDERNESS AREAS

Under all alternatives, there is no surface disturbance, permanent new development, or rights-ofway allowed in WSAs or in Wilderness Areas. Additionally, these lands are closed to oil and gas 

leasing which would provide protection from surface-disturbing impacts to vegetation. 

Approximately 348,815 acres of the MPA are included as WSAs for each of the alternatives. 

WSAs include Behind the Rocks; Black Ridge and Lost Spring Canyon; Desolation Canyon, 

Floy Canyon, Flume Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, Negro Bill Canyon, and Spruce Canyon; and 

Westwater Canyon. Black Ridge is a 5,200 acre designated wilderness area 

Alternative B offers the most protection to vegetation by closing all WSAs and Wilderness Area 

to OHV use while Alternative A offers the least protection by limiting motorized use to 

inventoried areas. 

Additionally, all WSAs and Wilderness Areas would be designated as VRM Class I, which 

would preclude surface disturbance thereby offering beneficial protections to vegetation. 

4.3.17.12 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Under all of the alternatives, compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires 

avoiding and/or minimizing surface-disturbing activities in Threatened and Endangered species 

habitat. This would indirectly benefit vegetation by limiting or restricting activities that would 

disturb vegetation in these habitats. Managing sage-grouse as a Sensitive species, the BLM's 

National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, the Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats, and the Gunnison Sage-grouse Range-wide Conservation 

Plan would be implemented in suitable habitat in the MPA, including developing and 

implementing sage-grouse habitat restoration, conserving sage-grouse habitat, and identifying 

important habitat. Compliance with these plans would have similar beneficial impacts on 

vegetation resources by providing long-term, beneficial protection for sagebrush and perennial 

grassland vegetation types in the MPA. 

There would be no ground-disturbing activities allowed within a 1.0-mile radius of known bald 

eagle nests and within a 0.5 mile radius of Mexican spotted owl (MSO) nests, which would 

provide long-term protection to conifer and mountain shrub vegetation in those buffer zones. 

MSO Protected Activity Centers (PACs) would be protected as outlined in the MSO Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 1995), and cooperative agreements would be established with other agencies and 

entities to inventory and monitor existing potential habitat and annually schedule assessment 

plans of MSO habitat to determine quality of habitat and presence of species. These actions 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-435 

would have long-term, beneficial protection-related impacts on vegetation resources because 

habitat protection would also protect vegetation resources. 

In Jones Cycladenia and suitable habitat, site inventories for all surface-disturbing projects 

(including prescribed burns) would be required, and road construction, land disposal, and ROW 

corridors in suitable Cycladenia habitat would be avoided. The use of chemical treatments, 

herbicides, and habitat manipulations in this habitat would also be restricted, which would have 

long-term beneficial impacts on vegetation resources. 

Within endangered Colorado River fish habitat, there would be no surface-disturbing activities 

within the 100-year floodplain of the Colorado River, Green River, and at the confluence of the 

Dolores and Colorado Rivers, which would have long-term, beneficial impacts on riparian and 

wetland vegetation resources in those buffer zones. In addition, the riparian habitat utilized by 

southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo is governed by a controlled surface use 

stipulation excluding surface-disturbing activities, benefiting riparian and woodland vegetation 

resources. 

4.3.17.12.1 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

4.3.17.12.1.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, no management actions are specified for protection of sage-grouse habitat, 

except as discussed under actions common to all alternatives above. 

4.3.17.12.1.2 Alternative B 

The special status species management decisions for Alternative B would identify and manage 

more greater sage-grouse habitat acreage (12,850 acres) and this would benefit vegetation more 

than the other alternatives. This alternative would require that any surface occupancy that could 

result in the loss or fragmentation of this habitat be avoided or minimized. If surface occupancy 

cannot be avoided, sagebrush habitat would be reclaimed at a ratio of 2:1. This would 

beneficially protect approximately 12,850 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat in the long term 

from surface disturbance and occupancy. Also under Alternative B, in lek habitat (a 2-mile 

radius around an active strutting ground), there would be no surface-disturbing activities from 

March 1 to May 15, and no aboveground facilities would be allowed within a 2-mile buffer yearround. In nesting and brood-rearing habitat there would be no surface-disturbing activities from 

March 15 to July 15. In winter habitat there would be no surface-disturbing activities allowed 

from November 15 to March 14 on 12,850 acres. These restrictions would mitigate the adverse 

impacts of surface-disturbing activities in lek, winter, and nesting and brood-rearing habitat, with 

beneficial impacts on the vegetation resources within these areas. 

4.3.17.12.1.3 Alternative D and the Proposed Plan 

Alternative D and the Proposed Plan would identify 3,068 acres and 1,986 acres, respectively, of 

sagebrush habitat to be managed for sage-grouse. Similarly, the alternatives would avoid or 

minimize the loss or fragmentation of this habitat. If surface disturbance cannot be avoided, these 

alternatives would reclaim sagebrush habitat at a ratio of 1:1. Under all three action alternatives 

greater sage-grouse habitat would then be subject to controlled surface use and timing limitation 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-436 

stipulations with subsequent reduced risks of surface disturbance to vegetation resources in 1,986 

to 12,850 acres of sagebrush. 

The same timing restrictions applied to greater sage-grouse habitat discussed under Alternative B 

would also apply to Alternative D and the Proposed Plan with similar beneficial impacts on 

vegetation resources; , the lek habitat radius would be 2.0 mile for the Proposed Plan, and 0.25 

mile for Alternative D. The decrease in acreage excluded from surface disturbance and surface 

occupancy in and around sage-grouse leks would increase the risk of adverse impacts on 

vegetation resources. Under the Proposed Plan, 9,782 more acres (76%) of sage-grouse habitat, 

and under Alternative D, 1,082 more acres (35%) of greater sage-grouse habitat would be 

available for surface-disturbing activities and/or surface occupancy, compared to Alternative B. 

Compared to Alternative A, the action alternatives would be more beneficial because specific 

management prescriptions would be applied to protect greater sage-grouse habitat. 

4.3.17.12.2 GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE

Under Alternative B, 246,107 acres of pre-settlement Gunnison sage-grouse habitat would be 

subject to controlled surface use and timing stipulations if Gunnison sage-grouse are present. 

This area is 29% larger than the Proposed Plan (175,727 acres) and 83% larger than Alternative 

D (41,620 acres). 

All of the action alternatives would prohibit surface-disturbing activities from March 20 to May 

15 in lek habitat, and construction of fences would be prohibited or limited year-round. 

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan would provide for the highest degree of vegetation resource 

protection, with a 2-mile radius around active strutting grounds (within sagebrush and perennial 

grasses), which would have beneficial impacts as discussed above for greater sage-grouse. The 

impacts of Alternative D would also have habitat protection zones similar to greater sage-grouse, 

with impacts to vegetation resources as discussed above, with a similar comparison to 

Alternative A. 

4.3.17.12.3 WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG

Under Alternative B, 117,481 acres of white-tailed prairie dog habitat within the Cisco Whitetailed Prairie Dog ACEC would be managed to protect the species, which would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts to desert shrub vegetation by designating the area with an NSO leasing 

stipulation. An additional 82,024 acres of habitat outside of the ACEC would be managed as 

controlled surface use allowing no surface-disturbing activities within 1300 feet of prairie dog 

colonies. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would be more beneficial to vegetation 

resources because surface disturbances to vegetation would be restricted within the NSO and 

CSU areas. 

The Proposed Plan and Alternative D would manage 117,481 acres (41% less) of habitat and 

31,186 acres (84% less) of habitat (respectively) than Alternative B, with controlled use leasing 

stipulations within 660 feet of active prairie dog colonies. The impacts to vegetation resources 

would be beneficial in the long term near active colonies because surface disturbances would be 

prohibited; however, outside of these active areas, surface disturbances would be permitted, 

which would have long-term, adverse impacts to the resource. Compared to Alternative A, these 

alternatives would have similar impacts because the level of permitted surface disturbances to 

vegetation would be similar. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-437 

4.3.17.12.4 GUNNISON PRAIRIE DOG HABITAT

Under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, 10,700 acres of Gunnison prairie dog habitat would 

be managed under controlled use leasing stipulations, which would prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities within 1,300 feet of these colonies for Alternative B and 660 feet of prairie dog 

colonies for the Proposed Plan. The impacts to vegetation would be similar to those discussed 

above for the Proposed Plan and Alternative D for white-tailed prairie dogs because the habitat 

would be open to minerals-related disturbances except for the zones around active prairie dog 

colonies. The impacts to vegetation would be similar to those for the white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat and for the same reasons. 

4.3.17.13 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

A recent United States Geologic Survey (USGS 2007) synopsis of relevant literature summarizes 

numerous studies of the impacts of OHV use on soil and water resources. The USGS concludes 

that the research reviewed found important effects of OHV activities on soil and water 

functioning including soil compaction, diminished water infiltration, diminished presence and 

impaired function of soil stabilizers (biotic and abiotic crusts, desert pavement), and accelerated 

erosion rates. Compacted soil inhibits infiltration of precipitation. In turn, soil moisture available 

to vegetation is diminished, volumes and velocities of precipitation runoff increase, and soil 

erosion accelerates, leading to the formation of gullies and other surface changes. Additionally, 

soil compaction may inhibit root growth among plants, in which case organic matter, litter, soil 

fertility, and vegetative cover are diminished, further exacerbating the soil's susceptibility to 

erosion. Where biotic and chemical crusts or other soil stabilizers are disturbed or destroyed, soil 

erosion from water and wind may increase beyond rates found in undisturbed sites with similar 

soils and conditions; nutrient-cycling processes also are likely to be disrupted, potentially leading 

to declines in soil fertility. The USGS study is summarized in Appendix G. 

4.3.17.13.1 ALTERNATIVE A 

As discussed in Section 4.3.17.8 Recreation, Alternative A would have direct and indirect, shortterm and long-term, adverse impacts on all vegetation types from cross-country OHV use within 

the 620,212 acres (34% of the MPA) designated as open to OHV use (see Table 4.142 below). 

Short-term, direct impacts would include fugitive dust production that would adversely inhibit 

vegetation productivity. Long-term, direct impacts would include loss of vegetation and longterm loss of vegetation productivity in disturbed areas from trampling and crushing. Indirect, 

adverse impacts to vegetation would result from unvegetated or sparsely vegetated, exposed, 

disturbed soils that would increase the opportunities for the establishment and spread of nonnative, exotic weed species. 

Table 4.142. OHV Area Designations for All Alternatives 

Designation Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Total Closed Acres 5,062 347,424 339,298 57,351 

Total Open Acres 620,212 0 1,866 3,064 

Total Limited to 

Designated Routes Acres 

1,196,920 1,475,074 1,481,334 1,762,083 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-438 

4.3.17.13.2 ALTERNATIVES B, D, AND THE PROPOSED PLAN 

Under the action alternatives, travel within the MPA would be confined to designated routes for 

motorized (scenic and OHV) and non-motorized/mechanized (mountain bike) use. In addition, 

trails would be provided for non-mechanized (hiking, equestrian, backpacking) travel. The 

Proposed Plan and Alternative D would permit open OHV use only in the focus area within the 

White Wash Sand Dunes, but this area is sparsely vegetated and would have negligible impacts 

on vegetation resources within the 1,866 acres proposed under the Proposed Plan or the 3,064 

acres proposed under Alternative D. The impacts of travel along designated routes would have 

negligible impacts on vegetation because past and current use has already impacted these areas. 

Compared to Alternative A, these alternatives would be more beneficial to vegetation resources 

because the impacts from the open OHV use areas would be greatly reduced, and those areas 

impacted in the past could recover. 

4.3.17.14 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Under management common to all action alternatives, consideration would be given to the 

preservation and improvement of sagebrush plant communities during the implementation of 

vegetation and land treatments, and during wildland fire suppression planning. In accordance 

with sagebrush conservation guidance, up to 257,809 acres of sagebrush and scrub-steppe habitat 

would be reclaimed and restored. Riparian vegetation communities would be managed to restore 

native species and to reduce invasive, non-native species. All of these actions would have longterm, protection- and preservation-related beneficial impacts on vegetation resources. 

4.3.17.14.1 ALTERNATIVE A 

There are no specific vegetation management decisions under this alternative. 

4.3.17.14.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, the loss of sagebrush-steppe habitat from BLM initiated or authorized 

actions would be avoided or minimized, and loss of sagebrush-steppe habitat essential to wildlife 

would be reclaimed at a ratio of 2:1. This would have long-term, beneficial impacts on these 

vegetation communities because reclamation would expand the range of these communities. This 

alternative would have more beneficial impacts on sagebrush-steppe vegetation than Alternative 

A because Alternative A does not propose to reclaim sagebrush-steppe vegetation communities. 

4.3.17.14.3 ALTERNATIVE D AND THE PROPOSED PLAN 

Under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on 

vegetation resources would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B, but to a lesser 

degree, because the loss of sagebrush-steppe habitat essential to wildlife would be reclaimed at a 

ratio of 1:1 instead of 2:1. Therefore, 50% fewer acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat would be 

reclaimed when compared to Alternative B. Accordingly, these alternatives would have fewer 

beneficial impacts on vegetation resources than Alternative B, but compared to Alternative A the 

impacts would be more beneficial for reasons as discussed under Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-439 

4.3.17.15 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

4.3.17.15.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, surface-disturbance activities, vegetation-altering projects, and broadscale use of pesticides in identified occupied migratory bird habitat would be avoided during 

nesting season (May 1 through July 30). Under all of the alternatives, continued implementation 

and modification of three Habitat Management Plans (HMPs) would take place. Sagebrush 

habitat improvements would occur under the Hatch Point HMP providing protection for 

sagebrush vegetation species in these areas. Implementation of the Dolores Triangle HMP would 

result in habitat improvements for riparian and native and naturalized fish habitat thus benefiting 

riparian vegetation. Additionally, 278,000 acres of habitat on land administered by the BLM 

would be maintained in good condition and habitat would be improved where needed under the 

Potash-Confluence HMP thereby benefiting varied vegetation types. These actions would have 

long-term, beneficial impacts on native vegetation in lowland riparian, wetland, and upland 

communities in the MPA. 

4.3.17.15.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND THE PROPOSED 

PLAN) 

In the Cisco Desert HMP the percent of browse and forb species would be increased on 6,375 

acres of perennial grass vegetation, and livestock grazing activities would be excluded from May 

15 through June 20 to reduce disturbance and improve pronghorn habitat. In the Hatch Point 

HMP a total of 69 acres would be seeded with a combination of forbs, grasses, and shrubs, and a 

rest/rotation grazing plan would be recommended to improve pronghorn habitat. Improvement of 

42,500 acres of crucial bighorn sheep habitat by limiting major human disturbance would take 

place in the Potash-Confluence HMP. In addition, any future proposal for a change in kind of 

livestock from cattle to sheep in Rocky Mountain bighorn habitat would be denied. These 

changes would help mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on vegetation 

resources critical to pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

survival. For additional information on vegetation types included in these habitats, including the 

acreages, please refer to Section 4.3.19, Wildlife and Fisheries. 

4.3.17.15.3 ALTERNATIVE A

Under Alternative A, surface-disturbance restrictions would be in place for wildlife habitat only 

during parts of the year. Specifically, exclusions for grazing would be in place during May and 

June to protect and improve pronghorn habitat. Protections for bighorn sheep and Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep habitat including reductions in grazing and human disturbance would be 

beneficial to vegetation particularly in the piñon-juniper vegetation type. Compared to 

Alternative B, the Proposed Plan, and Alternative D, Alternative A would have the least amount 

of wildlife habitat subject to special wildlife conditions. 

4.3.17.15.4 ALTERNATIVE B

Under Alternative B, management actions in riparian areas would be implemented with the goal 

of ensuring a multi-aged community, allowing for retention of snags and diseased trees, and 

providing multiple layers of vegetation within 10 feet of the ground. Additionally, restrictions 

concerning surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities would be established for wildlife 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-440 

habitat during parts of the year, dispersed camping in riparian areas would be restricted, 

prescribed fire treatments would be judiciously applied to improve vegetation productivity, and 

grazing season of use would be modified to improve wildlife forage productivity. Current 

pronghorn habitat (822,001 acres) within Cisco Desert and Hatch Point (the La Sal Wildlife 

Management Units) would be protected by applying a timing limitation stipulation that would 

preclude surface-disturbing activities from May 1 to June 15. Spring grazing would be removed 

on 188,975 acres of allotments to protect crucial pronghorn habitat and encourage forb 

production. This would likely reduce grazing impacts to the desert shrub and piñon-juniper 

vegetation cover types. An NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and precluding other surfacedisturbing activities would protect desert bighorn sheep lambing, rutting, and migration habitat 

(130,419 acres) and the desert shrub vegetation type associated with this habitat. Under 

Alternative B, management of 458,242 acres of habitat for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

would include improving or maintaining vegetative conditions and the ecological condition of 

rangelands in the sagebrush and perennial grass vegetation types. All of these actions would have 

long-term, beneficial impacts on vegetation by 1) reducing and/or minimizing surface 

disturbances to vegetation, and 2) managing for achieving proper functioning conditions in 

wildlife habitat and in riparian areas. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have 

more beneficial impacts to vegetation resources because more area would be managed for 

protection of the resource. 

4.3.17.15.5 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, the impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on 

vegetation resources would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B, but to lesser 

degree because grazing restrictions would be applied to a smaller area (293,741 acres of crucial 

pronghorn habitat to encourage forb production) and fewer acres of protection for desert bighorn 

sheep (101,897 acres) and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (310,726 acres), Additionally, 

restrictions concerning surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities would be established 

for wildlife habitat during parts of the year. Under this alternative, there would be 42% more 

acres of recognized Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat than under Alternative A, benefiting 

sagebrush and perennial grass vegetation types, and 77% more acres of protected deer and/or elk 

habitat than under Alternative A, benefiting all vegetation types discussed in this section. 

Because of these differences, management decision under the Proposed Plan would be less likely 

to adversely affect vegetation resources in wildlife protection areas of the MPA than those under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.17.15.6 ALTERNATIVE D

Under Alternative D, the impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions on vegetation 

resources would be similar to the Proposed Plan, except that no season of use adjustments to 

protect pronghorn habitat would be made, pronghorn fawning habitat protection would 

encompass 78,477 acres, desert bighorn sheep protection would include 46,319 acres, and 

protection of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat would include 194,560 acres. When 

compared to Alternative A, this alternative would have more beneficial impacts to vegetation 

resources because management actions common to all action alternatives would ensure greater 

protection and enhancement of vegetation resources than Alternative A. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.17 Vegetation 

4-441 

4.3.17.16 IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Short-term, adverse, direct impacts of woodland harvest would include trampling of understory 

vegetation from vehicles accessing harvesting areas and during woodland harvesting and 

removal. Long-term, indirect impacts would include the potential introduction of weedy, nonnative species into areas with surface disturbances caused by woodland harvesting and removal, 

and related vehicle use. Table 4.143 shows the acreages open and closed to woodland harvest. 

Table 4.143. Number of Acres in the MPA Open and Closed to Woodland Harvesting 

Zone Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Total Closed 601,146 827,063 646,694 601,146 

Total Open 

(with comparison to 

Alternative A) 

1,217,635 991,198 

(-19%) 

1,172,436 

(-4%) 

1,217,635 

(0%) 

Actual Woodland Coverage 

(piñon-juniper) in Open 

Areas

437,216 

(35% of Open 

Area) 

329,895 

(31% of Open 

Area) 

411,905 

(34% of Open 

Area) 

437,216 

(35% of Open 

Area) 

The potential short-term and long-term, direct and indirect, adverse impacts to vegetation 

resources would be similar for all of the alternatives because all open harvesting areas with 

woodland coverage would be similarly impacted by vehicles accessing harvesting sites and by 

trampling and other surface disturbances related to this activity. Under Alternative B, the impacts 

would be to a lesser degree because a smaller total area (107,321 fewer acres) would be open to 

harvesting-related surface disturbances. 

4.3.17.17 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 (of Chapter 2) summarizes the impacts of the various alternatives and their program 

actions on vegetation. 

4.3.18 VISUAL RESOURCES

This section discusses impacts to visual resources from management actions of other resources 

and resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning visual resources are 

described in Chapter 3. 

The BLM's VRM class objectives were used in analyzing impacts on visual resources. These 

objectives provide a baseline for determining how much a proposed management action would 

affect visual resources/scenic quality, as well as determining the level of disturbance an area can 

support while still meeting visual resource objectives. 

The following BLM VRM class objectives and descriptions are summarized from BLM Manual 

Handbook H-8431-1 (1986b). 

VRM Class I

The objective of Class I is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class 

provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-442 

management activities. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very 

low and should not attract attention. 

VRM Class II

The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not 

attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes to the landscape must repeat the 

basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of 

the characteristic landscape. 

VRM Class III

The Class III objective is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level 

of change to the landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract the 

attention of the casual observer, but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape. 

VRM Class IV

The objective of Class IV is to provide for management activities that require major 

modifications to the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the landscape 

can be high. The management activities may dominate the view and may be the major focus 

of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these 

activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of the basic visual 

elements of form, line, color, and texture. 

In addition, since the current RMP did not identify visual management objectives for the MPA 

during the last RMP process (except for the Canyon Rims area) the VRM inventory will serve as 

the baseline (i.e., Alternative A) by which impacts to visual resources are analyzed in this EIS. If 

Alternative A were to be adopted, these VRM inventory classes would become management 

classes. The acres designated through the VRM inventory more accurately represent current 

scenic quality and visual sensitivity within the MPA. 

The criteria for analysis was the number of acres proposed for designation under the Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) classes, and the level of impacts and surface disturbances 

permitted under each class. At the broad-scale level, analyses of the impacts on visual resources 

are discussed in terms of the number of acres in each VRM class because the proposed RMP 

management actions would be required to comply with (i.e., not exceed) the designated VRM 

class objectives within the MPA. For the fine-scale analysis, potential impacts from mineral 

development are discussed in terms of the number of acres of surface disturbance predicted 

within selected MPA visually sensitive areas. 

The assumptions for analyzing the impacts to visual resources in the MPA are 1) that the greater 

the size and/or severity of surface disturbance and/or degree of air quality degradation, the 

greater the impact there would be to scenic quality, and 2) that all planning area resources with 

management actions that permit surface disturbances or degrade air quality would have adverse 

impacts on visual resources to some degree. Surface disturbances would introduce new visual 

elements onto the landscape or intensify existing visual elements, altering the line, form, color, 

and/or texture that characterize the existing landscape. Changes in air quality, either from smoke, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-443 

dust, haze, or other pollutants could potentially reduce or degrade scenic quality by obscuring 

distant views in the short-term and long-term. It should be noted, however, that the Clean Air 

Act sets limits on the allowable degradation of visibility within the adjacent national parks. 

Arches and Canyonlands National Parks have been designated as areas requiring the highest 

level of visibility (Prevention of Significant Deterioration [PSD] Class I), so smoke or haze that 

originates within the MPA cannot exceed the allowable NPS PSD I scenic quality standards for 

air pollutants. 

4.3.18.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Actions that would designate utility corridors as VRM Class III within inventoried VRM Class II 

areas would have long-term, adverse impacts on visual resources within the MPA. These areas 

were inventoried as VRM Class II because of their high scenic quality and managing them under 

less-stringent VRM class objectives would allow surface-disturbance-related impacts that would 

eventually decrease the long-term visual aesthetics of the area. 

Closed or No Surface Occupancy stipulations would be applied to all VRM Class I areas (see 

Tables VIS I and VIS II below), and VRM Class II-designated areas would have Controlled 

Surface Use leasing stipulations applied. These specific management actions would preserve 

and/or protect visual resources to the extent allowable under the VRM class objectives, with 

long-term, beneficial impacts on scenic quality in these areas. 

4.3.18.2 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

Table 4.144 shows the proposed acres designated as each VRM class for all alternatives. The 

analysis logically assumes that areas designated as VRM Class III and VRM Class IV objectives 

would permit more surface-disturbing impacts and potentially have greater adverse impacts on 

visual resources and scenic quality than those areas designated as VRM Class I and II objectives. 

Table 4.145 illustrates the increase and decrease in VRM class acreages (as a percentage) within 

the MPA, compared to Alternative A. Note that Alternative A acreages are those designated 

through the VRM inventory process; Alternative B, Proposed Plan, and Alternative D are VRM 

Class acreages. 

Table 4.144. VRM Class Acreages by Alternative 

VRM Class Alternative A 

VRM Inventory

Alternative B 

Proposed 

Management Class 

PROPOSED PLAN 

Proposed 

Management Class 

Alternative D 

Proposed 

Management Class 

Class II 349,110 453,462 358,911 349,617 

Class II 401,015 373,647 365,566 245,773 

Class III 800,782 784,246 829,158 956,724 

Class IV 271,356 210,532 268,133 269,641 

Total 1,822,2631 1,821,887 1,821,768 1,821,755 

Source: BLM GIS data 2003 and 2006. 

1Acreage figures vary by alternative due to variances in GIS shapefiles. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-444 

Table 4.145. MPA VRM Acreage Designations (by percent) 

VRM Class Alternative A 

% of MPA Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

Class I 19 25 (6)1 20 (1) 19 (0) 

Class II 22 20 (-2) 20 (-2) 14 (-8) 

Class III 44 43 (-1) 45 (1) 52 (8) 

Class IV 15 12 (-3) 15 (0) 15(0) 

1The numbers in parentheses represent the percent increase or decrease, compared to Alternative A. 

4.3.18.2.1 ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, the 2003 visual inventory determined that 349,110 acres would be assigned 

VRM Class I scenic values, 401,015 acres would be assigned VRM Class II scenic values, and 

1,072,138 acres would be assigned scenic values of VRM Class III and VRM Class IV. The 

impacts on visual resources under this alternative would be negligible because Alternative A 

would manage scenic quality as determined by the MPA VRM inventory. An acreage 

comparison of Alternative A with proposed VRM acreages under each action alternative is 

shown below in Table 4.146. Conversely, areas that were inventoried at high levels of scenic 

quality and were managed under lower VRM Class objectives would, in the long-term, assume 

the characteristics of lower VRM Classes because surface disturbances and visual intrusions 

would be allowed to degrade visual/scenic quality in those areas. So, the long-term shifts in 

scenic quality within the MPA would be based on the proposed VRM Classes. 

Table 4.146. Acreage Comparison of Action Alternatives' VRM Management Classes to 

Alternative A VRM Inventory Classes 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Class I 349,110 +104,352 +9,801 +507 

Class II 401,015 -27,368 -35,449 -155,242 

Class III 800,782 -16,536 +28,376 +155,942 

Class IV 271,356 -60,824 -3,223 -1,715 

4.3.18.2.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

More acres (6%) within the MPA would be designated as VRM Class I under this alternative 

than under Alternative A, which would have more direct, long-term, beneficial impacts because 

more acreage would be protected at the highest degree of visual resource protection than 

indicated by the VRM inventory. Thus, this alternative would be the most protective of visual 

resources. 

Under Alternative B, 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed as VRM Class II. This would preclude surface-disturbing activities that do not retain 

the characteristic landscape, and could impact all programs and activities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-445 

4.3.18.2.3 PROPOSED PLAN

In the long-term, the designation of VRM classes under this alternative would result in more 

beneficial impacts to visual resources than Alternative A because more acres (1%) within the 

MPA would be managed to preserve pristine and/or relatively undeveloped high-quality scenic 

landscapes than indicated by the VRM inventory. However, more acres would be designated as 

Class VRM III and IV (1%), with long-term, adverse impacts on those areas inventoried as 

having high scenic quality, but managed at lower levels of scenic quality. The Proposed Plan 

would, in the long-term, permit areas inventoried as having higher scenic quality to develop the 

characteristics of lower scenic quality areas because of permitted surface disturbances and visual 

intrusions, would be less protective of visual resources than Alternatives A or B. 

Under Proposed Plan, 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be 

managed as VRM Class II. This would preclude surface-disturbing activities that do not retain 

the characteristic landscape, and could impact all programs and activities. 

4.3.18.2.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

Compared to the Alternative A VRM inventory, Alternative D would have more long-term, 

adverse impacts on visual resources because more acres (8%) would be managed at lower levels 

of scenic quality protection (VRM Class III and IV) than indicated by the VRM inventory. This 

would subject a higher percentage of the MPA to surface-disturbing activities, and permit, in the 

long-term, areas with higher scenic quality to assume the characteristics of lower VRM Classes 

(III and IV). For this reason, Alternative D would manage the MPA with the least protection of 

visual resources. 

4.3.18.3 VISUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

Scenic and visually sensitive areas were selected within the MPA for analyses of impacts on 

visual resources. These visual analysis areas are Canyon Rims, Onion Creek, Fisher Towers, 

Richardson Amphitheater, the viewshed along the Colorado Riverway/Highway 128 from 

Dewey Bridge to the intersection of Highway 191, and public lands immediately adjoining 

Arches National Park. The analytical methodology of determining the impacts to these areas was 

a comparison of the VRM inventory with MPA management actions. 

All of the visually sensitive areas discussed below are within either the Big Flat-Hatch Point or 

Eastern Paradox RFD Areas. The RFD predicted number of oil and gas wells for the 15-year life 

of the RMP and related surface disturbances are tabulated below in Table 4.147. 

Table 4.147. The 15-year Oil and Gas Reasonably Foreseeable Development within the 

Big Flat-Hatch Point and Eastern Paradox RFD Areas 

RFD Area Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Big Flat-Hatch Point 

Number of wells 

predicted 46 19 34 44 

15-year average surface 

disturbance (acres) 697 292 508 665 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-446 

Table 4.147. The 15-year Oil and Gas Reasonably Foreseeable Development within the 

Big Flat-Hatch Point and Eastern Paradox RFD Areas 

RFD Area Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Eastern Paradox 

Number of wells 

predicted 34 21 28 32 

15-year average surface 

disturbance (acres) 512 320 423 486 

Source: BLM 2005f (RFD Scenario for the MPA) 

4.3.18.3.1 CANYON RIMS 

4.3.18.3.1.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the Canyon Rims SRMA was visually inventoried and is currently 

managed as VRM Class II (approximately 33,583 acres) along the western rim of the SRMA and 

the remainder of the area under VRM Class III objectives (67,943 acres). The western rim 

viewshed includes views along the Hatch Point escarpment that defines the boundary of the 

MPA, views into Lockhart Basin within the Monticello Field Office planning area, and views of 

the Island in the Sky and Needles Districts of Canyonlands National Park. 

Management actions under this alternative would have visual resource-related impacts because 

the SRMA is open to minerals development with Controlled Surface Use leasing stipulations. If 

oil and gas exploration and/or other mineral resource development projects were conducted 

within the Canyon Rims SRMA, then areas managed under VRM Class III objectives would 

permit moderate short-term and long-term surface disturbances. The SRMA is a portion of the 

Big Flat-Hatch Point RFD area, which is projected to have an estimated 46 oil and natural gas 

exploration wells drilled resulting in an estimated 697 acres of surface disturbance during the 15-

year life of the RMP. 

Areas managed under VRM Class II objectives would require mitigation to reduce surface 

disturbances to a level that would not attract the attention of the casual viewer. Surface 

disturbance impacts in Canyon Rims, when viewed from Lockhart Basin within the Monticello 

Field Office planning area, would not likely be visible because the angle of view from the basin 

and the variation in elevation between the canyon rim and the basin would block views of 

surface disturbances. Surface disturbances in Canyon Rims might be visible from Canyonlands 

National Park, but site-specific visual analyses would be required to determine the level of 

impacts to visual resources. The impacts of minerals-related surface-disturbance from fugitive 

dust during well pad construction, access road construction, and minerals-related vehicle traffic 

on the Canyonlands National Park viewshed could adversely degrade visual quality, but dustabatement mitigation would likely reduce this potential impact to a minor level, as required by 

the PSD standards mentioned in the introduction. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-447 

4.3.18.3.1.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, no acres within the Canyon Rims SRMA would be designated as VRM 

Class I, 40,450 acres would be designated as VRM Class II and 61,081 acres would be 

designated as VRM Class III. This is 6,867 more acres (7%) of VRM Class II than under 

Alternative A. The RFD for oil and gas development projects that 19 wells would be drilled 

during the 15-year life of the RMP in the Big Flat-Hatch Point RFD area, with approximately 

292 acres of associated surface disturbance. The impacts to visual resources would be less than 

under Alternative A because a smaller area (approximately 41% of the area under Alternative A) 

would be subject to surface disturbances, and because more area would be protected under VRM 

Class II objectives. 

4.3.18.3.1.3 Proposed Plan 

Under this alternative, 33,515 acres within the Canyons Rims SRMA would be designated as 

Class VRM II (68 fewer acres than Alternative A) and 68,016 acres as VRM Class III. There 

would be no lands designated as VRM I. The Proposed Plan would have less predicted surface 

disturbance than Alternative A, as 34 wells (508 acres of surface disturbance) would be 

developed under this alternative during the life of the RMP in comparison to 46 wells (697 acres 

of surface disturbance) under Alternative A. This is approximately 73% of the area predicted to 

be disturbed under Alternative A. Therefore, the potential impacts to scenic values under this 

alternative would be greater than Alternative B but less than Alternative A. 

4.3.18.3.1.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D would have the same reduction in acreage from VRM Class II to VRM Class III 

(with the same long-term impacts to scenic quality) and a predicted level of oil and gas-related 

surface disturbances very similar to that described for Alternative A (95% of the area under 

Alternative A). Consequently, this alternative would have a similar level of potential impacts to 

visual resources as Alternative A. 

4.3.18.3.2 ONION CREEK

4.3.18.3.2.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the Onion Creek trail system has a VRM Class II inventory classification. 

The western portion of the creek and trail lies within the Richardson Amphitheater. Upstream, 

the creek narrows into a steep-walled, scenic canyon. The area is a popular non-mechanized 

recreation destination for equestrian users, as well as a popular destination for mountain bike and 

motorized users. Surface disturbance impacts to this area include RFD predictions of 34 natural 

gas and/or oil wells drilled during the 15-year life of the RMP within the Eastern Paradox RFD 

area, with short-term and long-term degradation of visual/scenic quality associated with surface 

disturbances of approximately 512 acres from well pads, access roads, and infrastructure. (The 

Onion Creek area is a small portion of the Eastern Paradox RFD area). The locations of well sites 

are presently unknown; however, the VRM Class II objectives would require mitigation to 

reduce surface disturbances to a level that would not attract the attention of the casual viewer, so 

the impacts to visual resources would be minor. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-448 

4.3.18.3.2.2 Alternatives B 

Under Alternative B Onion Creek, as part of the Richardson Amphitheater Focus Area for nonmechanized recreation, would be established, within the proposed Colorado Riverway SRMA. 

The Onion Creek area would be designated as VRM Classes I and II; impacts to visual resources 

would be less than those discussed under Alternative A because the VRM Class I affords a 

higher level of protection. The RFD for oil and gas would be less than under Alternative A: 21 

wells under Alternative B, with surface disturbances totaling approximately 320 acres (62% of 

Alternative A) over the 15-year life of the RMP. Visual resource/scenic quality degradation 

would not occur because the VRM Class I and II designation for this area would be the more 

restrictive than the Alternative A/VRM inventory class designation for the area. Under 

Alternative B, designation of some portions of Onion Creek as VRM Class I would provide 

stronger levels of protection for visual resources than in any of the other alternatives. 

4.3.18.3.2.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, Onion Creek would be designated as VRM Class II. Impacts to visual 

resources would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A. The RFD for oil and gas 

would be less than under Alternative A, 28 wells in the Proposed Plan compared to 34 wells in 

Alternative A, with surface disturbances totally approximately 423 acres for the Proposed Plan 

(83% of Alternative A). Visual resource/scenic quality degradation would not occur because the 

VRM Class II designation for this area would be the same as the Alternative A/VRM inventory 

class designation for the area. 

4.3.18.3.2.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D would have impacts similar to Alternative A because the level of RFD for oil and 

gas drilling in the Eastern Paradox RFD area would be very similar. The area would be 

designated as VRM Class II Management objectives (the same as Alternative B and the Proposed 

Plan) with the same level of impacts as discussed under B and the Proposed Plan. As discussed 

under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, scenic quality degradation would not occur because 

the VRM Class II designation and objective would remain the same as the Alternative A/VRM 

inventory. 

4.3.18.3.3 RICHARDSON AMPHITHEATER/FISHER TOWERS

4.3.18.3.3.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the Richardson Amphitheater and Fisher Towers areas were visually 

inventoried as VRM Class II. As discussed above for Onion Creek, the Richardson Amphitheatre 

is a relatively flat, broad, and open area adjacent to the Colorado Riverway, bounded on its 

eastern side by scenic red-rock cliffs. The area is a popular hiking destination. Similarly, Fisher 

Towers is a popular hiking trail (see Section 3.10.1.2.18) that rises out of Fisher Valley and 

provides unobstructed views of Richardson Amphitheatre to the south, the Colorado Riverway 

and Arches National Park to the west, and views down into the Onion Creek Canyon from the 

eastern end of the trail. The RFD predicted level of surface disturbances from oil and gas 

development would be the same as discussed under Onion Creek because the area also lies 

within the Eastern Paradox RFD area. Impacts from surface disturbances within the Richardson 

Amphitheatre would be highly visible from the Fisher Towers trail because of the trail's elevated 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-449 

point of view. Surface disturbances to the west of the Colorado Riverway and adjacent to Arches 

National Park would potentially be visible from the trail, but site-specific visual analyses would 

be required to determine if visual mitigation could reduce visual contrasts to meet VRM class 

objectives. Minerals-related surface disturbances and fugitive dust production from mineralsrelated activities could have long-term, adverse impacts to the park viewshed, particular in areas 

open to minerals leasing adjacent to the park boundary, but site-specific analyses would be 

required to determine the level of impacts. 

4.3.18.3.3.2 Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternative B, the Proposed Plan, and Alternative D, the Colorado Riverway SRMA 

would be established, with VRM Class II Management objectives (except for areas of VRM 

Class I in Alternative B). The Richardson Amphitheater and Fisher Towers areas would be 

designated as recreation focus areas for non-mechanized recreation (hiking, backpacking, and 

equestrian use) under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. Under Alternative D, the focus areas 

would not be established. The potential impacts from oil and gas RFD surface disturbances under 

these alternatives would be the same as discussed under Alternative A because the level of 

predicted minerals-related surface disturbances would be the same. Under all of the action 

alternatives, the impacts to the Richardson Amphitheater/Fisher Towers area from potential 

scenic quality degradation would be negligible to minor because the Colorado Riverway would 

continue to be designated as VRM Class II to protect scenic quality, which is the same level of 

protection as indicated by the Alternative A VRM inventory. Under Alternative B, designation of 

some portions (approximately 6,700 acres) of the Richardson Amphitheater as VRM Class I 

would provide stronger levels of protection for visual resources than in any of the other 

alternatives. 

4.3.18.3.4 HIGHWAY 128/ COLORADO RIVERWAY

4.3.18.3.4.1 Alternative A 

As discussed above for the Fisher Towers and Richardson Amphitheater, the Highway 

128/Colorado Riverway recreation management area from Dewey Bridge to the intersection with 

Highway 191 was visually inventoried as VRM Class I (3,968 acres) and VRM Class II (13,761 

acres. Visual impacts to the river corridor viewshed under Alternative A would potentially be 

similar to those discussed for the Richardson Amphitheater and Fisher Towers because the level 

of RFD predictions for minerals-related surface disturbances and visual intrusions from oil and 

gas exploration and development would be the same, and the topography of the areas are similar. 

Minerals-related activities and surface disturbances within the Richardson Amphitheater would 

likely be visible from the Riverway because of the relatively unobstructed view of the area from 

the Riverway. 

4.3.18.3.4.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the Colorado Riverway SRMA would be established and expanded. The 

river corridor would be designated as VRM Class I, VRM Class II, and VRM Class III, with 

initial management guidance provided by the current Colorado Riverway Recreation 

Management Plan. The impacts of this alternative would be to proportionally increase the areas 

designated as VRM Classes I, II, and III when compared to the Alternative A VRM inventory for 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.18 Visual Resources 

4-450 

the area: approximately 15 times more acres (58,950 acres total) would be designated as VRM 

Class I; two and a half times more acreage (a total of 33,615) designated as VRM Class II. The 

impacts would be to protect and enhance scenic quality in the long-term because more acreage 

would be protected for preservation of scenic quality than indicated by the VRM visual inventory 

for the Riverway. The impacts from minerals development would be less than the impacts 

discussed under Alternative A because the level of RFD for oil and natural gas development 

would be less. 

4.3.18.3.4.3 Proposed Plan 

The impacts on visual resources would be similar to Alternative B, but to a lesser degree, 

because fewer acres would be designated as VRM Class I and Class II when compared to the 

VRM inventory for the Riverway. Four times more acres would be designated as VRM Class I 

(16,639) and five times more acres would be designated as VRM Class II (67,655). In the longterm, the impacts on visual resources would be beneficial because more area would be protected 

and enhanced than indicated by the Alternative A/VRM inventory classes. 

4.3.18.3.4.4 Alternative D 

The impacts of this alternative on visual resources within the Riverway would be similar to 

Alternative B, but also to a lesser degree because fewer acres would be designated as VRM Class 

I and II when compared to the Alternative A VRM inventory. Under this alternative, two times 

more area (7,552 acres) would be designated as VRM Class I and three and a half times more 

area (50,551 acres) would be designated as VRM Class II. The impacts on visual resources 

would be beneficial in the long-term because, as discussed for the other action alternatives, more 

area would be protected from scenic quality degradation when compared to the VRM inventory 

for the area. 

4.3.18.3.5 PUBLIC LANDS IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING ARCHES NATIONAL PARK

Under all alternatives, the public lands immediately adjoining Arches National Park would be 

designated as VRM Class II to protect the views from critical key observation points within the 

park. 

4.3.18.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 summarizes the impacts to visual resources in terms of acreages affected 

for each alternative. 

4.3.19 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

This section discusses impacts to wildlife and fisheries from management actions of other 

resources and resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning wildlife and 

fisheries are described in Chapter 3. 

The table below summarizes the habitat types utilized by the representative wildlife species 

found in the MPA. These representative species were chosen for their high public interest, such 

as deer or elk, or because they represent an important ecological group, such as neotropical birds. 

The Wildlife and Fisheries section in Chapter 3 (Section 3.20) explains the connection between 

specific habitat types and associated wildlife in more detail. Most of the quantitative analyses in 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-451 

this section report impacts by habitat type, since there are too many wildlife species to address 

each one individually. 

Table 4.148. Grouping of Wildlife Species by Habitat Type

Vegetation/ Habitat Type Wildlife Associations 

Aquatic Amphibians, fish, macro invertebrates 

Conifer / Mountain shrub Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, black bear (primarily in old growth 

stands), raptors, bobcat, coyote, neotropical birds, upland game 

birds, reptiles 

Desert shrub Pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, elk (winter), raptors, neotropical 

birds, upland game birds, reptiles, mountain lion, bobcat, fox, 

coyote 

Piñon-juniper Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, mountain lion, neotropical birds, 

upland game birds, reptiles, bobcat, weasels, raptors 

Riparian/ Wetland Mule deer, elk, mountain lion, neotropical birds, upland game 

birds, amphibian and fish species, reptiles, fox, coyote, bobcat, 

river otter, beaver 

Sagebrush/ 

Perennial grass 

Mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, mountain lion, 

neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles, pronghorn 

The BLM has designated habitat within the MPA for mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep, and desert bighorn sheep. Mule deer and/or elk habitats have been 

combined by the BLM in an attempt to simplify the management of their closely overlapping 

ranges. With the exception of Alternative A (see below), further discussions and analyses will 

consider the two species together. Where available and appropriate, BLM-designated habitats for 

particular species are used rather than vegetation types. The BLM-designated habitats proposed 

under Alternative B for each species are generally the largest. The Proposed Plan generally 

recognizes less habitat for each species, and Alternative D the least. 

The impacts analyses in this section are divided into impacts common to all alternatives 

(including Alternative A), impacts common to all action alternatives (Alternatives B, D, and 

Proposed Plan only), and impacts that vary by specific alternative. For each alternative, the total 

impacts include those specific to the alternative and those common to all alternatives (and all 

action alternatives where applicable). Therefore, the actions and impacts described under 

Alternatives B, D, and Proposed Plan include not only those actions and impacts unique to 

Alternatives B, D, and Proposed Plan but also those listed and discussed under, Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives and Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Impacts to wildlife and their habitats will vary between alternatives by size, condition, and 

quality of those habitats and the degree to which those habitats can support viable populations. 

Within habitats designated and managed for specific species, management prescriptions can be 

implemented that will benefit the target species as well as other wildlife species within the area. 

Increases in habitat size improve wildlife carrying capacity, thus benefiting wildlife. Within 

these habitats, management decisions from other resources could adversely impact wildlife 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-452 

Development activities and human disturbances may alter or eliminate wildlife use, thus 

affecting the quality of wildlife habitats. By reducing human-related disturbances and conflicts in 

critical locations and during critical times of the year, the quality of the habitat may be protected 

and improved. 

Surface-disturbing activities and other decisions that affect the biotic conditions of the vegetation 

and soil also affect wildlife habitats. Biotic conditions affect forage production and quality, 

vegetative cover, vegetative composition and species diversity. Changes in these biotic 

conditions affect the condition and quality of wildlife habitats and may alter or eliminate wildlife 

use. By reducing surface-disturbing activities and maintaining or improving biotic conditions, 

the condition and quality of the habitat may be protected and improved. The size of managed 

wildlife habitats, combined with the quality and condition of those habitats, will demonstrate 

impacts on those species. 

Improving or maintaining the size, quality and condition of habitats would be beneficial to target 

and most non-target species, while decreasing size or degrading the quality or condition of those 

habitats would adversely impact most wildlife species. 

4.3.19.1 IMPACTS OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS WITH NEGLIGIBLE IMPACTS ON 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

Management decisions related to the following resources would have negligible impacts on 

wildlife resources, and are therefore not included in the analyses below: Air Quality, Cultural 

Resources, and Paleontological Resources. The impacts of management decisions for these 

resources would be negligible because maintaining air quality, protecting and inventorying 

cultural resources, and allowing recreational fossil collection and scientific study of fossil 

resources would 1) not improve or degrade wildlife and fish habitat or 2) cause the gain or loss 

of wildlife and fish habitat. 

4.3.19.2 IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

The impacts of fire management on wildlife would be the same under all alternatives, with all 

use guided by the Utah Land-use Plan Amendment (LUP Amendment) for Fire and Fuels 

Management (BLM 2005c). Adherence with the LUP Amendment (which mandates the 

maintenance of existing healthy ecosystems and the protection of threatened, endangered, and 

special status species) would have beneficial impacts on wildlife habitat in the MPA wherever 

wildlife habitat overlaps with that of protected special status species, and would ensure that 

healthy ecosystems are not adversely impacted by fire management and fuels reduction. 

Wildland fire use would not be authorized in the following areas unless reasonable Resource 

Protection Measures (RPMs) were in place: areas that are known to be highly susceptible to postfire cheatgrass or other weed invasion, important terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and non-fire 

adapted vegetation communities. These RPMs would have beneficial impacts on wildlife habitat 

by reducing the spread of weeds and preserving native plant species, thereby maintaining 

suitable wildlife forage, cover, and habitat. 

Fuels management actions include fuels-reduction treatments on 5,000 to 10,000 acres annually. 

These actions include: mechanical and manual treatments, prescribed fire, chemical or biological 

vegetation control, and aerial/ground seeding. These fuels management decisions would likely 

have a beneficial long-term impact on wildlife and fish populations by helping to restore the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-453 

natural fire regime, which would improve habitat health (Lewis and Harshbarger 1976), forage, 

nesting opportunities, and cover. Restoring the natural fire regime would also reduce the chance 

of catastrophic fire, and the subsequent loss of major ecosystem components. In the short-term, 

vegetation treatments could result in trampling or removal of wildlife forage and/or habitat, and 

human-caused wildlife disturbance. 

4.3.19.2.1 TERRESTRIAL SPECIES 

Short-term adverse impacts from fire management actions include mortality, habitat destruction, 

and habitat displacement. These actions would likely affect habitat used by raptors, migratory 

birds, small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and big game species. Direct impacts from wildfire 

suppression could include habitat corruption from fire retardant and aviation fuel, soil erosion 

from fireline construction on steep slopes, and damaged vegetation and soils from heavy 

equipment and fire camps. 

The adverse impacts of fuels management actions include the short-term disturbance of wildlife 

habitat while it regenerates and the thinning and removal of ecologically desirable species. Shortterm impacts of treatments would include the mortality of non-target plants due to herbicide use 

and from seeding methods that cause soil-surface disturbance. These actions could result in a 

reduction of native species diversity and consequently a reduction in wildlife habitat. 

However, managed wildfire and prescribed burns provide long-term benefits to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. Fire produces a varied mosaic of habitats and results in the regeneration of old 

and decadent vegetation, which can be favorable to big game. Fuel reduction treatments also 

reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, which otherwise could cause the long-term loss of wildlife 

habitat. 

4.3.19.2.2 AQUATIC AND AMPHIBIOUS SPECIES

Adverse impacts to fish, amphibians, and other aquatic species would include an increased risk 

of contaminating water sources with fire retardant or vehicle fluids; soil erosion following 

surface-disturbing fire suppression measures; damage to riparian vegetation and soils by heavy 

equipment; and reduced stream flow where water for fire suppression is drawn directly from 

streams and water bodies. Erosion would increase the sedimentation of surface waters, which 

affects water temperature, turbidity, and chemistry. These changes in water quality would 

generally have adverse impacts on aquatic species. 

4.3.19.3 IMPACTS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Health and safety decisions would have the same impacts on wildlife and fisheries under all 

alternatives. The primary impacts on wildlife and fisheries would result from the prioritization of 

abandoned mine lands (AMLs) for reclamation and mitigation. 

Because abandoned mining structures are often used as roosting habitat by bat species, 

completely sealing off AML entrances during reclamation would have direct adverse impacts on 

roosting individuals and populations by displacing them from this habitat and reducing the 

availability of suitable roosting sites. Of the 18 bat species in Utah, 14 species regularly occur in 

abandoned mines (Grandison 2004). However, mines would be surveyed for bats prior to being 

sealed, and mitigation including the installation of bat-compatible mine gates and cupolas (which 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-454 

allow bats to pass through, but prohibit human entrance) would minimize the adverse impacts of 

mine closures on bats. 

Some AML sites would be prioritized for reclamation due to hazardous waste contamination and 

water quality issues. These reclamations would have long-term beneficial impacts on fish, 

amphibians, and other aquatic species by improving water quality and reducing groundwater 

contamination. 

4.3.19.4 IMPACTS OF LANDS AND REALTY DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

4.3.19.4.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

The following lands and realty decisions would impact wildlife and fisheries in the MPA: 

ROWs, easements, permits, utility/transportation systems, acquisitions and disposals, and 

withdrawals. Under all alternatives, Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) would be exclusion areas 

for rights-of-way (ROWs), which would benefit wildlife by preventing the fragmentation of 

habitat in WSAs. However, all areas not identified as avoidance or exclusion areas would be 

available for ROWs and could be subject to multiple-uses and surface disturbances. The 

authorization of ROWs for utility and communication infrastructure (among others) could have 

direct, long-term, adverse impacts on wildlife due to habitat loss or fragmentation and human 

disturbance during construction activities. 

The withdrawal of 78,333 acres from mineral entry within the MPA would be continued, thereby 

reducing or eliminating surface-disturbing activities and associated impacts to wildlife and their 

habitat. Under all alternatives, approximately 14,740 acres of land would be listed for potential 

disposal. This would include 12,470 acres of desert shrub, 1,794 acres of piñon-juniper, 102 

acres of riparian and wetland, and 208 acres of sagebrush/grassland habitats. Although disposals 

could lead to the loss of potential wildlife habitat, they could also lead to the beneficial 

acquisition of wildlife foraging habitat and relict vegetation areas as part of the exchange 

program. Where possible, TES species habitat, quality riparian areas, and key productive 

ecosystems would be retained or acquired under all alternatives. This would allow for protection 

and management of these key wildlife habitat areas, prevent their fragmentation from adjoining 

parcels, and mitigate the adverse impacts of land disposals. 

Surface-disturbing activities associated with authorizing ROWs, roads, and other development 

projects in the MPA would have the potential to adversely impact wildlife species and their 

habitats. The ROW utility corridor around Highway I-70 would vary in width across alternatives; 

regardless of width, surface-disturbing activities within the corridor would cause the long-term 

loss or degradation of wildlife habitat and avoidance of the area by wildlife. It could also provide 

increased predation of small prey species by raptors perching on utility poles, and potentially 

electrocution of some birds. 

4.3.19.4.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under Alternatives B, D, and Proposed Plan ACECs would be avoidance areas for ROWs. The 

impacts of ROWs are discussed above. Minimum Impact Criteria for filming permits would 

ensure that filming projects would not: impact Sensitive species habitat, use exotic species, 

adversely impact relict environments or riparian areas, utilize excessive numbers of livestock, or 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-455 

involve more than 15 vehicles and 75 people. These criteria would reduce human disturbance of 

wildlife and their habitat during filming. 

All action alternatives would identify the entire MPA as available for wind or solar energy 

development in the MPA except in areas identified as closed or NSO for oil and gas leasing. 

These stipulations would preclude all other surface-disturbing activities, including ROWs. Areas 

designated as NSO or closed include non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, WSAs, 

WSR corridors, ACECs, raptor habitat, and special status species habitat. These ROWs would 

have adverse impacts to wildlife similar to those described above, with the exception that wind 

energy development would adversely impact birds to a greater degree. 

4.3.19.4.2.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the impacts of lands and realty decisions on wildlife resources would be 

limited to those common to all alternatives. Under this alternative, the existing utility corridor 

would continue to disturb approximately 32,183 acres of habitat, primarily of desert shrub 

vegetation (Table 4.149) associated with pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, elk (winter), raptors, 

neotropical birds, upland game birds, and reptiles (see Table 4.148). 

4.3.19.4.2.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, an additional 100 ft would be added to each side of the existing utility 

corridor, resulting in a total of up to 64,539 acres of surface disturbance concentrated in desert 

shrub habitats. Impacts to rare riparian and wetland habitat would be almost double that of 

Alternative A, but would be mitigated by no surface occupancy stipulations for riparian areas. 

Table 4.149. Acres of Surface Disturbance due to Utility Corridors by Major Habitat 

Type 

Habitat Type Associated 

Wildlife Alt. A Alt. B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alt. D 

Desert shrub Pronghorn, desert bighorn 

sheep, elk (winter), raptors, 

neotropical birds, upland 

game birds, reptiles, 

mountain lion, bobcat, fox, 

coyote 

25,144 52,053 113,917 141,797 

Piñon-juniper Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, 

mountain lion, neotropical 

birds, upland game birds, 

reptiles, bobcat, weasels, 

raptors 

5,345 8,808 41,672 44,189 

Riparian and 

wetland 

Mule deer, elk, mountain 

lion, neotropical birds, 

upland game birds, 

amphibian and fish species, 

reptiles, fox, coyote, 

bobcat, river otter, beaver 

143 323 1,031 1,139 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-456 

Table 4.149. Acres of Surface Disturbance due to Utility Corridors by Major Habitat 

Type 

Habitat Type Associated 

Wildlife Alt. A Alt. B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alt. D 

Sagebrush 

and perennial 

grassland 

Mule deer, elk, Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep, 

mountain lion, neotropical 

birds, upland game birds, 

reptiles, pronghorn 

1,551 3,355 14,376 14,531 

Total 32,183 64,539 170,996 201,656 

Note: not every acre in a corridor would necessarily be disturbed.

Thus, impacts to riparian wildlife would primarily be caused by human disturbance, rather than 

physical disturbance of their habitat. Overall, Alternative B would disturb more than twice as 

much of most of the habitat types present as Alternative A. 

4.3.19.4.2.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, the surface disturbance to wildlife-associated habitat types would total 

170,996 acres, more than 2.5 times greater than under Alternative B and more than 5 times 

greater than Alternative A (Table 4.149). 

4.3.19.4.2.4 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the surface disturbance to wildlife-associated habitat types would total 

201,656 acres, slightly greater than the Proposed Plan, more than three times greater than under 

Alternative B, and more than six times greater than Alternative A (Table 4.149). 

4.3.19.5 IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Livestock grazing can have both adverse and beneficial impacts on wildlife. If not properly 

managed through Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management, 

harmful impacts to wildlife can include loss of biodiversity, lowering of population densities, 

disruption of some ecosystem functions, change in community organization, and change in the 

physical characteristics of both terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Chaneton and Lavado 1996; 

Fleischner 1994; Olff and Ritchie 1998). Improper grazing can further increase salinity even in 

already saline soils (Chaneton and Lavado 1996), leading to inhibited plant diversity, especially 

in arid and relatively infertile soils (Olff and Ritchie 1998). Decreased plant diversity would 

have long-term adverse impacts on wildlife habitat. Many of the adverse impacts listed above 

occur when livestock are not carefully managed, and an overconcentration of animals causes 

excessive grazing and long-term disturbances. Carefully managed livestock grazing can 

potentially benefit some wildlife habitat by promoting regrowth of forage species, reducing the 

prevalence of some invasive plants, and creating openings and disturbed areas utilized by some 

species (GSRSC 2005: 116). Because of the level of management required for beneficial impacts 

to occur and the sensitivity of desert ecosystems, the following analyses assume that livestock 

grazing could potentially cause adverse impacts on wildlife species, except where active 

management intended to benefit wildlife is proposed. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-457 

4.3.19.5.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, livestock grazing would be managed according to the Guidelines for 

Grazing Management to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health, which would benefit 

wildlife by maintaining or restoring the proper functioning condition (PFC) of riparian and 

wetland wildlife habitat, maintaining desired species (including native and non-native species) at 

a level appropriate to the site and conditions, and maintaining or improving aquatic habitat by 

ensuring that all state and Federal water quality standards are met. Additionally, the 

recommendations of the National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004c) and 

the Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse (UDWR 2002) would be followed where 

applicable. Sage-grouse management plans are generally beneficial for all sagebrush-associated 

species (see Table 4.148). 

4.3.19.5.1.1 Mule Deer, Elk, Pronghorn 

Management decisions common to all alternatives would exclude livestock grazing from certain 

allotments (including Between the Creek, North Sand Flats, South Sand Flats, and Castle 

Valley), directly benefiting big game by making more forage available. Vegetation treatments for 

rangeland improvement in piñon-juniper habitat are proposed under all alternatives, including 

plowing and seeding, chaining and seeding, drill seeding, and prescribed fire and seeding. 

Vegetation treatments would benefit pronghorn, deer, and elk by improving the quality of their 

winter habitats. 

4.3.19.5.1.2 Riparian Species 

Livestock grazing in riparian areas could have adverse impacts on riparian-associated wildlife 

species (Table 4.148). Direct adverse impacts would include competition with wildlife for 

forage, and possible trampling of individual animals or nests. Indirect adverse impacts of 

livestock use of riparian areas include an increased susceptibility to invasion by noxious weeds, 

which reduces the value of forage, and reduction of cover species for sensitive wildlife 

(Popolizio et al. 1994; Kauffman et al. 1983; Sarr et al. 1996). Bird species that rely on native 

riparian trees for nesting and roosting sites and protection from predators would be adversely 

affected by the replacement of native vegetation with introduced species (Saab et al. 1995). 

4.3.19.5.1.3 Fishes, Amphibians, and Other Aquatic Species 

Livestock-caused erosion in saline soils would contribute to increased salinity in the Colorado 

River and other surface waters in the MPA, which could modify species composition within an 

ecosystem (Galindo-Bect and Glenn 1999; Hart et al. 1998) and cause mortality of freshwater 

species (Nelson and Flickinger 1992). Sedimentation can also have similarly detrimental 

impacts. Soil compaction due to grazing in riparian areas would result in less rainwater 

infiltration into soils and more overland flow. The result would be large, short-lived flows rather 

than small, perennial flows (Trimble and Mendel 1995). This would reduce the duration of 

seasonal water availability for a wide range of wildlife species. 

4.3.19.5.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN ) 

Under all action alternatives, conversion of allotments from cattle to domestic sheep would not 

be considered in bighorn sheep habitat because of conflicts with bighorn sheep. This would have 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-458 

beneficial impacts to desert bighorn because it would maintain the separation of wild and 

domestic sheep, thereby reducing or eliminating the transmission of Pasteurella, which has been 

suspected as the cause of catastrophic bighorn die-offs (UDWR 1999). 

4.3.19.5.2.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, livestock would be excluded from a total of 126,907 acres (including the 

Beaver Creek, Bogart, Cottonwood, Diamond, Pear Park and Spring Creek allotments), in 

addition to those mentioned under Common to All Alternatives. Alternative A would exclude 

livestock from the second greatest amount of wildlife habitat, and would therefore have the 

second greatest beneficial impacts on wildlife forage, habitat, and cover as described above. 

Mule Deer, Elk, Pronghorn, Bighorn Sheep

The exclusion of livestock from the Bogart, Cottonwood, Diamond, Pear Park and Spring Creek 

allotments would have beneficial impacts, especially on mule deer and/or elk, because these 

allotments are in these two species' crucial winter range. Wintering deer and/or elk would not be 

forced to compete with livestock for sagebrush and early season grasses. Competition for forage, 

escape terrain, and thermal cover would not occur between livestock and deer and/or elk. 

Increased forage would lead to increased reproductive success for both deer and/or elk. 

Alternative A would continue vegetation treatments on 67,125 acres. This would include 

mechanical treatments on 11 allotments (52,976 acres) and prescribed fire treatments on 14,149 

acres. The increase in AUMs would be split evenly between livestock and wildlife where both 

are present. Wildlife species would benefit from additional AUMs available for their use, and all 

sagebrush-dependent species would benefit from expanded habitat as vegetation treatments 

would be used to restore sagebrush. 

Riparian Species

Under Alternative A, grazing would continue to be excluded from riparian areas within five 

allotments: South Sand Flats, North Sand Flats, Between the Creeks, Cottonwood, and Diamond 

(no acreages available). This action would benefit riparian-associated wildlife species by 

protecting their habitat from soil compaction, erosion, and grazing of vulnerable plant species. 

Alternative A would exclude grazing in the fewest acres of riparian habitat, approximately 53% 

of the area excluded under Alternative B, 72% of that excluded under the Proposed Plan, and 

94% of that under Alternative D. 

Fishes, Amphibians, and Other Aquatic Species

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would continue to be adjusted in order to reduce salinity 

in the Colorado River drainage in seven allotments (Athena, Cisco, Cisco Mesa, Crescent 

Canyon, Highlands, Monument Wash, and Thompson Canyon). Grazing exclusions in riparian 

areas under Alternative A would also help to mitigate the adverse impacts of soil compaction and 

salinization in the Colorado River drainage. 

4.3.19.5.2.2 Alternative B 

Grazing would be excluded from a total of 153,797 acres (including Beaver Creek, Bogart, 

Cottonwood, Diamond, Pear Park, Professor Valley, Ida Gulch, River, Mill Creek and Spring 

Creek allotments), in addition to those mentioned under Common to All Alternatives. This is 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-459 

26,890 acres more than proposed under Alternative A. Therefore, Alternative B would be more 

beneficial to wildlife species and their habitats than Alternative A. 

Mule Deer, Elk, Pronghorn, Bighorn Sheep

The continued exclusion of livestock from the Bogart, Cottonwood, Diamond, Pear Park, Mill 

Creek and Spring Creek allotments would have beneficial impacts similar to those described 

under Alternative A, especially on mule deer and/or elk, because these allotments are in these 

species' crucial winter range. 

Alternative B proposes 46,307 acres for vegetation treatments; 20,818 acres (35%) less than 

under Alternative A. Because the degree of indirect impacts depends upon the quality of the 

treatment and the success rate of re-vegetating, differences among the alternatives are difficult to 

quantify. However, it is reasonable to assume that fewer AUMs and/or less sagebrush habitat 

would be restored under Alternative B, and that big game species and other wildlife that depend 

on rangeland habitat would not benefit as much under Alternative B as under Alternative A.

Riparian Species

Under Alternative B, grazing would be excluded from 4,673 acres of riparian habitat in nine 

allotments. These exclusions would help mitigate the adverse impacts of livestock grazing in 

riparian areas discussed under Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Therefore, livestock 

management under Alternative B would be the most beneficial for riparian habitat and associated 

wildlife because more acres would be unavailable for livestock grazing. 

Fishes, Amphibians, and Other Aquatic Species

Under Alternative B, grazing systems and Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) would be used 

on nine grazing allotments to minimize impacts to highly saline soils and reduce salinity in the 

Colorado River drainage. Aquatic species such as fish and amphibians would benefit from these 

AMPs with the subsequent reductions in turbidity and salinity and increased water availability. 

In addition, aquatic species would benefit from the continued exclusion of grazing from 

Cottonwood, Diamond and Bogart allotments.

4.3.19.5.2.3 Proposed Plan 

Grazing would be excluded from a total of 132,047 acres (including Bogart, Pear Park, Ida 

Gulch, Cottonwood, Diamond, portions of Professor Valley, and River along Highway 128 and 

Mill Creek allotments), in addition to those mentioned under Common to All Alternatives. This 

is slightly less acres excluded from livestock grazing than under Alternatives A and B, and more 

than under Alternative D. Therefore, the impacts of these exclusions on wildlife would be very 

similar to Alternative B and Proposed Plan, but more protective of wildlife than Alternative D. 

Mule Deer, Elk, Pronghorn, Desert Bighorn Sheep

The exclusion of livestock from the Bogart, Cottonwood, Pear Park, Diamond, and Mill Creek 

allotments would have beneficial impacts especially on mule deer and/or elk, because these 

allotments are in these species' crucial winter range. These beneficial impacts include lack of 

competition with livestock for sagebrush and early season grasses, the elimination f competition 

for forage, escape terrain, and thermal cover, and increased reproductive success of deer and/or 

elk. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-460 

The impacts of vegetation treatments on big game would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative B because the acreage proposed for treatment is similar. 

Riparian Species

Under this alternative, grazing would be restricted in 1,169 acres of riparian habitat in five 

allotments. Restrictions would include the development of AMPs. In addition, 77 acres in Day 

Canyon would be unavailable for grazing. This alternative would protect more riparian wildlife 

habitat from the detrimental impacts of livestock grazing than Alternatives A and D, and less 

than Alternative B. 

Fishes, Amphibians, and Other Aquatic Species

The Proposed Plan would implement AMPs on more allotments than under Alternative B. 

Therefore, livestock management under the Proposed Plan could increase salinity in soils and 

freshwater systems more than under Alternative B, and would have correspondingly greater 

impacts to fisheries and aquatic species. In addition, aquatic species would benefit from the 

continued exclusion of grazing from Cottonwood, Diamond, and Bogart allotments.

4.3.19.5.2.4 Alternative D 

Grazing would be excluded from a total of 52,214 acres under Alternative D. The only allotment 

excluded, other than those in Common to All Alternatives, would be Mill Creek. The impacts of 

these exclusions on wildlife, especially deer and/or elk, would be more adverse than under any of 

other alternatives. In addition, many of the allotments available in this alternative (including 

Bogart, Diamond, Cottonwood, and Pear Park) are largely inaccessible, making management of 

livestock, including distribution, difficult to implement and maintain. Difficulties with cattle 

distribution could lead to greater adverse impacts to wildlife, especially to big game animals.

Grazing would only be restricted as needed to mitigate conflicts with wildlife under Alternative 

D. This would result in more detrimental consequences for wildlife than under Alternative B and 

Proposed Plan, because livestock-wildlife conflicts would not be avoided (as under Alternative B 

and Proposed Plan). 

Mule Deer, Elk, Pronghorn, Desert Bighorn Sheep

Cottonwood, Diamond, Bogart, Spring Creek, and Pear Park, all allotments in deer and/or elk 

crucial winter range, would be available for grazing (cattle only). This would mean that cattle 

would compete with deer and/or elk for forage in these allotments. As a result, there would be 

less forage for established deer and/or elk herds. The social intolerance of elk for cattle would 

lead to the rate of elk use decreasing on these crucial winter grounds. Competition for forage, 

escape terrain, and thermal cover would occur, leading to decreased reproductive success for 

deer and/or elk. This would result in a reduction in herd viability and a decrease in herd 

population. 

The impacts of vegetation treatments on big game would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative B because the same number of acres are proposed for treatment. 

Riparian Species

The adverse impacts of livestock grazing decisions in riparian areas on wildlife species would be 

greater than discussed under Alternative A because while North Sand Flats, South Sand Flats, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-461 

and Between the Creeks would continue to be unavailable for grazing, the riparian systems 

within the Bogart, Cottonwood and Diamond allotments would be available for livestock 

grazing. Because management in these allotments would be difficult due to their inaccessibility, 

needed riparian protections could not be implemented. This would result in watershed 

degradation in the headwaters of these large canyon systems, resulting in habitat loss. 

Fishes, Amphibians, and Other Aquatic Species

The impacts of livestock grazing decisions on fish, amphibians, and other aquatic species would 

be the most adverse in Alternative D because the aquatic habitat in Bogart, Cottonwood and 

Diamond allotments would be available for grazing. Aquatic environments are rare in the MPA, 

and the species that they harbor are highly susceptible to environmental changes. Grazing would 

result in alteration of the aquatic habitat, which would result in habitat loss and species 

abandonment in the canyon systems within those allotments. 

4.3.19.6 IMPACTS OF MINERALS DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Impacts from minerals decisions on wildlife and their habitats would include habitat loss and 

degradation resulting from the removal of vegetation (surface disturbance) and subsequent 

occupation of areas for oil/gas well pads, open pit mines, and associated roads and infrastructure. 

Wildlife avoidance of disturbed and occupied areas would reduce their value as habitat. Many 

species of wildlife avoid areas with high or inconsistent levels of noise, roads with frequent 

automobile/truck traffic, areas that are heavily lit at night, and areas surrounding structures. 

Adverse impacts of minerals decisions on wildlife resources would be reduced by the 

implementation of BMPs outlined in Section 2.1 and Appendix O. Restrictions include no 

surface-disturbing activities within riparian habitat, required revegetation of oil and gas well sites 

upon project completion, and land management that meets or moves toward meeting Utah's 

Standards for Rangeland Health. In addition, the implementation of BMPs for the benefit of 

wildlife and their habitats (e.g., centralization of drill rigs and storage tanks, reduction of the 

number of access roads, and interim and final reclamation practices) would also reduce some of 

the short- and long-term adverse impacts listed above. Interim reclamation occurs during the 

operational phase of a project and consists of revegetating all areas surrounding wells and roads 

that are not actively used during oil or gas production. Final reclamation occurs when a well has 

been decommissioned and includes the practices of recontouring soil surfaces to match 

surrounding landforms, replacing topsoil, and reseeding with native plant species wherever 

possible. The number of years required for successful final reclamation would depend on the 

habitat type; grasslands recover more quickly than sagebrush or desert shrub, which recover 

more quickly than forested areas such as piñon-juniper or conifer habitat. A commonly used 

average value and goal for reclamation across the project area is 10 years. Following the 

successful reclamation of a well site or road, the long-term adverse impacts to wildlife species 

would be largely eliminated. 

The amount of land that is open to oil and gas leasing or other mineral use is not necessarily 

indicative of the number of acres that would be directly disturbed. Areas managed under 

Standard or Timing and/or Controlled Surface Use stipulations allow minerals development, but 

not all of those acres would be subjected to surface disturbance. Habitat quality may be 

preserved by the implementation of seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers that protect crucial 

habitats. Areas categorized as NSO or Closed preclude all surface-disturbing minerals 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-462 

development and therefore improve the quality and condition of wildlife habitats. Riparian and 

wetland habitat, lands with a slope greater than 30%, and VRM Class I areas have been excluded 

from analysis because they have been assigned the leasing category of NSO, which precludes 

them from all surface disturbance. 

The impacts of minerals decisions are analyzed for the entire MPA rather than for each 

individual RFD area for the purposes of comparison. Impacts may be concentrated in particular 

RFD areas, however. Depending on the distribution of wildlife habitat across particular RFD 

areas with high levels of disturbance, the amount of particular habitats disturbed may not match 

the composition of vegetation in the MPA. The Bookcliffs and Greater Cisco RFDs are projected 

to experience the greatest minerals development-related disturbances, and therefore impacts to 

wildlife and their habitat. The Bookcliffs RFD contains predominantly piñon-juniper habitat with 

conifer/mountain shrub habitat as the second most common habitat. Greater Cisco is dominated 

by desert shrub followed by piñon-juniper. 

Of the seven oil and gas development areas within the MPA, wildlife habitat in the Greater Cisco 

RFD area is expected to be most heavily impacted by minerals decisions because it has the 

highest predicted levels of oil and gas well development (almost 45% of the 451 wells in the 

MPA would likely be sited in the Greater Cisco RFD). Site-specific analysis would be necessary 

to determine the exact impacts to wildlife from oil and gas development. Appendix S, Wildlife 

Impacts by RFD Area provides the estimated number of acres of disturbance in each wildlife 

habitat type under all alternatives given the assumption that disturbance would occur 

proportionally to the vegetation distribution within each RFD. 

4.3.19.6.1 ALTERNATIVE A 

4.3.19.6.1.1 Leasable Minerals 

Surface disturbance and human-caused disturbance (noise, night-lighting, increased automobile 

traffic, and habitat fragmentation and loss) associated with well, pipeline, and road construction 

would result in both short- and long-term adverse impacts on wildlife. Surface disturbance would 

result in loss of habitat and would increase the potential for invasion of undesirable plant species, 

including noxious weeds (Piemeisel 1951). This loss of native vegetation would result in longterm adverse impacts on wildlife by decreasing the amount of available habitat and degrading 

existing habitat. 

Wildlife species that use piñon-juniper and desert shrub habitats would be the most heavily 

impacted by surface disturbance and related impacts due to oil and gas development (Table 

4.150) because these are the predominant habitat types in the areas most likely to be developed. 

Human occupancy and activities would cause the adverse displacement of wildlife. 

Under Alternative A, approximately 277,678 acres of piñon-juniper habitat would be managed as 

either NSO or Closed, while approximately 41,086 acres of desert shrub would be managed 

under the same designations. A total of 389,633 acres (of all habitat types) would be managed as 

NSO or Closed. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-463 

Table 4.150. Estimated Surface Disturbance (in acres) for Oil and Gas Well 

Development, by Vegetation (Wildlife Habitat) Type 

Habitat 

Type Associated Wildlife Alternative A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Conifer 

and 

Mountain 

Shrub 

Mule deer, elk, mountain 

lion, black bear (primarily in 

old growth stands), 

neotropical birds, upland 

game birds, reptiles 

267 157 256 266 

Desert 

Shrub 

Pronghorn, desert bighorn 

sheep, elk (winter), raptors, 

neotropical birds, upland 

game birds, reptiles 

2,829 1,656 2,708 2,815 

PiñonJuniper Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, 

mountain lion, neotropical 

birds, upland game birds, 

reptiles 

2,801 1,639 2,682 2,788 

Sagebrush/ 

Perennial 

Grassland 

Mule deer, elk, Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep, 

mountain lion, neotropical 

birds, upland game birds, 

reptiles 

488 285 467 485 

Total Acres of Disturbance 5987 3,737 6,113 6,354 

Mule Deer and/or Elk: Under Alternative A, the BLM would not specifically manage habitat 

for elk. Out of a total of 79,361 acres of designated mule deer crucial habitat under Alternative 

A, 30,259 acres (38%) would be managed as either NSO or Closed (Table 4.151). These leasing 

categories would preclude new surface disturbance, resulting in beneficial protections in these 

areas to mule deer and other wildlife species that occur within designated mule deer crucial 

habitat. 

Pronghorn: Of a total of 25,367 acres of designated pronghorn crucial habitat under Alternative 

A, no land would be managed as either NSO or Closed (Table 4.151). The entire designated 

habitat would be managed under controlled surface and timing stipulations (CST), which would 

allow leasable mineral entry with special protections for wildlife relating to the timing of 

construction and operation. Pronghorn and other wildlife that use their habitat would benefit 

from the restriction on leasable minerals development in these areas, but not as much as if the 

lands were managed as NSO or Closed. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-464 

Table 4.151. Acres of Big Game Crucial Habitat Open and Closed to Surface 

Disturbance in the MPA by Alternative 

Big Game Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED PLAN Alternative D 

Species Open* Closed** Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed 

Mule Deer 

and/or Elk 

49,103 30,259 

(38%) 

241,518 393,477 

(62%) 

234,960 114,663 

(33%) 

264,831 84,844 

(24%) 

Pronghorn 25,367 0 

(0%) 

469,781 351,919 

(43%) 

291,902 1,822 

(<1%) 

291,915 1,822 

(<1%) 

Desert 

Bighorn 

Sheep 

314,346 

(95%) 

16,546 

(5%) 

200,636 

(59%) 

130,256 

(41%) 

230,640 

(70%) 

100,252 

(30%) 

320,498 

(96%) 

10,394 

(4%) 

Rocky 

Mountain 

Bighorn 

Sheep 

25,857 151,750 

(85%) 

65,837 364,064 

(85%) 

48,057 257,047 

(84%) 

33,358 161,201 

(83%) 

*"Open" includes Standard and CST lease categories. 

**"Closed" includes NSO and Closed leasing categories. The percent of the total designated habitat closed is listed in 

parentheses. 

Desert Bighorn: Of a total of approximately 330,892 acres of designated desert bighorn crucial 

habitat under Alternative A, 16,546 acres (30%) would be managed as either NSO or Closed 

(Table 4.151), resulting in beneficial protections in those areas to desert bighorn and other 

wildlife species that occur within designated desert bighorn crucial habitat. 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn: Of a total of 177,607 acres of designated Rocky Mountain bighorn 

crucial habitat under Alternative A, 151,750 acres (85%) would be managed as either NSO or 

Closed (Table 4.151) resulting in beneficial protections in those areas to Rocky Mountain 

bighorn and other wildlife species that occur within designated Rocky Mountain bighorn crucial 

habitat. 

4.3.19.6.1.2 Geophysical Activity 

Under Alternative A, approximately 2,261 acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily 

impacted by geophysical exploration over the life of the RMP (Table 4.152). Impacts to wildlife 

habitat associated with exploration would include short-term impacts such as noise and 

disturbance from people working in the area and long-term impacts such as the loss of vegetation 

and potential spread of invasive and weedy plant species within the areas directly disturbed by 

geophysical exploration. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-465 

Table 4.152. Estimated Surface Disturbance (in Acres) on BLM Lands Associated with 

Geophysical Exploration by Vegetation Type 

Habitat Types Associated Wildlife Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Conifer and 

Mountain 

Shrub 

Mule deer, elk, mountain 

lion, black bear (primarily 

in old growth stands), 

neotropical birds, upland 

game birds, reptiles 

95 55 82 92 

Desert Shrub Pronghorn, desert 

bighorn sheep, elk 

(winter), raptors, 

neotropical birds, upland 

game birds, reptiles 

1001 587 866 973 

Piñon- Juniper Mule deer, elk, 

pronghorn, mountain lion, 

neotropical birds, upland 

game birds, reptiles 

992 581 857 963 

Sagebrush/ 

Perennial 

Grasslands 

Mule deer, elk, Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep, 

mountain lion, neotropical 

birds, upland game birds, 

reptiles 

173 101 149 168 

Total Acres of Disturbance 2,261 1,324 1,954 2,196 

4.3.19.6.1.3 Salable Minerals 

The exploration and development of salable minerals would have similar impacts to wildlife as 

other development described above. Under Alternative A, 1,467,768 acres of land in the MPA 

would be available for disposal of mineral materials. That is approximately 57% of the 1,821,374 

acres in the MPA. However, the amount of expected salable development is low under all 

alternatives (up to 27 acres of disturbance per year), so Alternative A would not likely have 

much impact on wildlife.

4.3.19.6.1.4 Locatable Minerals 

Under Alternative A, all public lands within the MPA would remain open to mining except 

within existing withdrawals. About 1,389,531 acres would be open to locatable minerals. 

Impacts resulting from locatable mineral exploration and development include habitat 

disturbance and fragmentation as described under Leasable Minerals, including direct loss of 

habitat, loss of forage, and disruption of migration routes. In addition, indirect impacts on 

individual animals related to the presence of roads, traffic, and human presence would occur. See 

discussions of impacts of minerals development to wildlife at the beginning of this section for 

more detail. However, the amount of expected locatable mineral development is low under all 

alternatives (up to 25 acres of disturbance per year), so Alternative A would not likely have 

much impact on wildlife. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-466 

4.3.19.6.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of minerals decisions on wildlife resources would be of the 

same nature as those discussed under Alternative A, but would vary in the acreage over which 

those decisions would impact wildlife and wildlife habitat, as described below. 

4.3.19.6.2.1 Leasable Minerals 

Under Alternative B, approximately 3,737 acres of wildlife habitat disturbance due to oil and gas 

development would be expected, or approximately 2,809 acres (41%) fewer than under 

Alternative A (see Table 4.150). Because less surface disturbance would occur under Alternative 

B than under any other alternative (see Table 4.150), Alternative B would result in fewer oil- and 

gas-related impacts to wildlife than Alternative A. 

As under all alternatives, the greatest surface disturbance, and therefore the greatest impact to 

wildlife, is expected in the Greater Cisco and the Bookcliffs RFD areas. 

Impacts of oil and gas leasing on wildlife species and their habitats under Alternative B would be 

similar to those under Alternative A, with the following exceptions. Under Alternative B, 

approximately 535,373 acres of piñon-juniper habitat would be managed as either NSO or 

Closed, while approximately 337,807 acres of desert shrub would be managed under the same 

leasing category. The total number of acres (of all habitat types) to be managed as NSO or 

Closed approximate 996,175 under Alternative B. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B 

would manage approximately 2.5 times the total number of acres for management as NSO or 

Closed. Overall, wildlife species in desert shrub and piñon-juniper habitats would benefit more 

from the impacts of NSO or Closed leasing categories under Alternative B than Alternative A. 

Mule Deer and/or Elk: Of approximately 634,995 acres designated as mule deer crucial habitat 

under Alternative B, 393,477 acres (62%) would be managed as either NSO or Closed (see Table 

4.151). More habitat would be managed as Closed under Alternative B than Alternative A. 

Alternative B designates seven times more crucial habitat for mule deer and/or elk than 

Alternative A designates. An increase in the acreage of designated habitat along with an increase 

in the percent of acres managed as Closed or NSO for mule deer and/or elk would directly 

benefit these species and other wildlife in the MPA by decreasing impacts related to surface 

disturbance (as described above). Alternative B would have considerably more beneficial 

impacts to deer and/or elk than any other alternative. 

Pronghorn: Of approximately 821,700 acres designated as pronghorn crucial habitat under 

Alternative B, 351,919 acres (43%) would be managed as either NSO or Closed (see Table 

4.151). Approximately 41% more habitat would be managed as NSO or Closed under 

Alternative B than Alternative A. Alternative B would designate approximately 32 times more 

crucial habitat for mule deer and/or elk than Alternative A. Therefore, Alternative B would have 

far more beneficial impacts to pronghorn than any other alternative. 

Desert Bighorn: Of approximately 330,892 total acres of habitat, 130,256 acres would be 

managed as either NSO or Closed (see Table 4.151). More habitat would be managed as Closed 

under Alternative B than Alternative A. Alternative B designates 2.3 times more crucial habitat 

for desert bighorn than Alternative A designates. Therefore, Alternative B would have far more 

beneficial impacts to desert bighorn than Alternatives A and D, and similar impacts to the 

Proposed Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-467 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn: Of approximately 429,901 acres designated as Rocky Mountain 

bighorn crucial habitat under Alternative B, 364,064 acres (85%) would be managed as either 

NSO or Closed (see Table 4.151). This is the same percentage that Alternative A would manage 

as closed, but includes a much greater number of acres. Alternative B would designate 2.4 times 

more crucial habitat for pronghorn than Alternative A. Therefore, Alternative B would have 

more beneficial impacts to Rocky Mountain bighorn than any other alternative. 

4.3.19.6.2.2 Geophysical Activity 

Under Alternative B, there would be approximately 1,324 acres of surface disturbance to wildlife 

habitat associated with geophysical exploration. This is approximately 41% fewer acres of 

disturbance than would be expected under Alternative A; therefore, Alternative B would result in 

a smaller overall impact. 

4.3.19.6.2.3 Salable Minerals 

Under Alternative B, 808,097 acres would be open to disposal of salable minerals under standard 

or controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations. Thus, the alternative would allow 

disposal on 658,970 fewer acres than under Alternative A. No disposals would be allowed in 

NSO or closed areas on 1,014,643 acres. Overall, less land would be open to disposal of salable 

minerals under Alternative B than Alternative A; these limitations would benefit wildlife species 

by preventing surface-disturbing activities and associated human impacts over larger habitat 

areas. 

4.3.19.6.2.4 Locatable Minerals 

Alternative B would manage 268,873 acres as open to locatable mineral entry under standard 

stipulations, and restrict 1,120,658 acres to controlled surface and timing limitation stipulations. 

For comparison, Alternative A would manage all open lands (1,389,531 acres) under standard 

stipulations. Under Alternative B, 79% of open lands would be managed under special 

stipulations. Due to this increased acreage managed with timing and/or surface restrictions on 

development, Alternative B would be more beneficial for wildlife species and their habitats than 

Alternative A. 

4.3.19.6.3 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, the qualitative impacts of minerals decisions on wildlife resources 

would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A. However, the level of that impact 

would be different based on the acreages open to oil and gas leasing and mineral entry (more 

information is found in Appendix T, Vegetation). 

4.3.19.6.3.1 Leasable Minerals 

Under the Proposed Plan, approximately 6,113 acres of wildlife habitat disturbance due to oil 

and gas development would be expected, or approximately 272 acres (4%) fewer than expected 

under Alternative A (see Table 4.150). More acres would be disturbed under the Proposed Plan 

than Alternative B. 

Impacts of oil and gas leasing on wildlife species and their habitats under the Proposed Plan 

would be similar to those under Alternatives A and B, with the following exceptions. Under the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-468 

Proposed Plan, approximately 394,087 acres of piñon-juniper habitat would be managed as either 

NSO or Closed, while approximately 109,356 acres of desert shrub would be managed under the 

same designations. Approximately 586,437 acres (of all habitat types) would be managed as 

NSO or Closed under the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan would designate approximately 

196,804 more acres for management under NSO and Closed designations than Alternative A, but 

381,362 fewer acres than Alternative B. Wildlife species in all habitat types (especially in piñonjuniper and desert shrub) would experience more beneficial impacts related to oil and gas lease 

designations under the Proposed Plan than under Alternative A, but fewer than under Alternative 

B. 

Mule Deer and/or Elk: Of approximately 349,623 acres designated as mule deer and/or elk 

crucial habitat under the Proposed Plan, 114,663 (33%) acres would be managed as either NSO 

or Closed (see Table 4.151). The Proposed Plan would set aside a smaller percentage of 

designated crucial habitat as NSO or Closed than Alternative A (38%) or Alternative B (61%). 

However, the Proposed Plan would close more acres than Alternative A (30,259), but fewer than 

Alternative B (387,563). The Proposed Plan would designate 4.4 times more total crucial habitat 

for mule deer and/or elk than Alternative A would designate. 

Pronghorn: Of approximately 293,724 acres designated as pronghorn crucial habitat under the 

Proposed Plan, 1,822 (<1%) acres would be managed as either NSO or Closed (see Table 4.151). 

The Proposed Plan would set aside a slightly higher percentage of designated crucial habitat as 

NSO or Closed than Alternative A (0%), but a smaller percentage than Alternative B (41%). The 

Proposed Plan would designate 11.6 times more total crucial habitat for pronghorn than 

Alternative A. Overall, the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial for pronghorn than 

Alternative A, though not as beneficial as Alternative B. 

Desert Bighorn: Of 330,892 acres designated as desert bighorn crucial habitat under the 

Proposed Plan, 100,252 (98%) acres would be managed as either NSO or Closed. This would be 

a larger percentage closed than Alternative A (30%) but less than Alternative B (100%) (see 

Table 4.151). The Proposed Plan would designate 1.8 times more total crucial habitat for desert 

bighorn than Alternative A. Overall, the Proposed Plan would be far more beneficial for desert 

bighorn than Alternative A, though not as beneficial as Alternative B.

Rocky Mountain Bighorn: Of approximately 305,105 acres designated as Rocky Mountain 

bighorn crucial habitat under the Proposed Plan, 257,047 acres would be managed as either NSO 

or Closed (see Table 4.151). The Proposed Plan would close a slightly smaller percentage of 

designated Rocky Mountain bighorn habitat to oil and gas activities than Alternatives A or B. 

However, when total acreages are considered, the Proposed Plan would close more total acres 

than Alternative A but fewer than Alternative B. The Proposed Plan designates 1.7 times more 

total crucial habitat for Rocky Mountain bighorn than Alternative A designates. Overall, the 

Proposed Plan would be much more beneficial for Rocky Mountain bighorn than Alternative A, 

though not as beneficial as Alternative B. 

4.3.19.6.3.2 Geophysical Activity 

Under the Proposed Plan, there would be approximately 1,954 acres of surface disturbance to 

wildlife habitat associated with geophysical exploration, or approximately 14% fewer acres of 

disturbance than under Alternative A and 47% more than under Alternative B. Therefore, the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-469 

Proposed Plan would result in fewer adverse impacts from geophysical exploration to wildlife 

than Alternative A, but more adverse impacts than Alternative B. 

4.3.19.6.3.3 Salable Minerals 

Under the Proposed Plan, 1,234,267 acres would be open to disposal under standard, CSU, or TL 

stipulations. Thus, the alternative would allow disposal on 233,501 fewer acres than under 

Alternative A and 684,531 more acres than under Alternative B. No disposals would be allowed 

in NSO or closed areas on 587,730 acres. The beneficial impacts of these limitations on wildlife 

are discussed under Alternative B, above. 

4.3.19.6.3.4 Locatable Minerals 

The Proposed Plan would designate 427,466 acres as open to locatable mineral entry under 

standard stipulations, and restrict 946,203 acres to controlled surface and timing limitation 

stipulations. For comparison, Alternative A would manage all open lands (1,389,531 acres) 

under standard stipulations. Under the Proposed Plan, 68% of open lands would be managed 

under special stipulations. Due to this increased acreage managed with and/or surface restrictions 

on development, the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial for wildlife species and their 

habitats than Alternative A, though less beneficial than Alternative B, which would manage 79% 

of lands under special conditions. 

4.3.19.6.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

4.3.19.6.4.1 Leasable Minerals 

Under Alternative D, approximately 367 more acres (<1%) of oil- and gas-related surface 

disturbance (see Table 4.150) would occur, as compared to Alternative A. Overall, Alternative D 

would include slightly more oil- and gas-related adverse impacts to wildlife than would 

Alternative A, since more surface disturbance translates to less intact habitat, more roads, and a 

higher level of human presence. Alternative D would provide less protection from disturbance 

than either Alternative B or the Proposed Plan. 

Under Alternative D, approximately 226,524 acres of piñon-juniper habitat would be managed as 

either NSO or Closed, while approximately 57,892 acres of desert shrub would be managed 

under the same designations. Approximately 357,716 acres (of all habitat types) would be 

managed as NSO or Closed under Alternative D. Alternative D would designate approximately 

31,917 fewer acres for management under NSO and Closed designations than Alternative A, 

610,083 fewer acres than Alternative B, and 228,721 fewer acres than the Proposed Plan. 

Alternative D would be the least beneficial to wildlife because it would set aside the fewest 

number of acres as NSO or Closed to oil and gas leasing. 

Mule Deer and/or Elk: Of 349,675 acres designated as mule deer and/or elk crucial habitat 

under Alternative D, 84,844 (24%) acres would be managed as either NSO or Closed (see Table 

4.151). Alternative D would set aside the smallest percentage of designated crucial habitat as 

NSO or Closed (see Table 4.151) but would close more acres than Alternative A (though fewer 

than Alternative B or the Proposed Plan). Alternative D would designate 4.4 times more total 

crucial habitat for mule deer and/or elk than Alternative A, and less total habitat than Alternative 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-470 

B or the Proposed Plan. Overall, Alternative D would be more beneficial for wildlife than 

Alternative A, though not as beneficial as Alternative B or the Proposed Plan. 

Pronghorn: Of 293,737 acres designated as pronghorn crucial habitat under Alternative D, 

1,822 (<1%) acres would be managed as either NSO or Closed (see Table 4.151). This is more 

acres than Alternative A, fewer than Alternative B, and the same number as the Proposed Plan 

(Table 4.150). Overall, Alternative D would be more beneficial for pronghorn than Alternative 

A, though not as beneficial as Alternative B. 

Desert Bighorn: Of 330,832 acres designated as desert bighorn crucial habitat under Alternative 

D, 10,394 acres would be managed as either NSO or Closed. This represents slightly fewer 

closed acres than under Alternative A, and considerably fewer than under Alternative B or the 

Proposed Plan (see Table 4.151). Alternative D designates only 83% as much crucial habitat for 

desert bighorn than Alternative A designates. Overall, Alternative D would be less beneficial for 

desert bighorn than Alternatives A, B, or the Proposed Plan. 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn: Of 194,559 acres designated as Rocky Mountain bighorn crucial 

habitat under Alternative D, 161,201 acres (83%) would be managed as either NSO or Closed. 

This represents more acres of closed areas than would be managed under Alternative A, but 

fewer than Alternative B or the Proposed Plan (see Table 4.151). Alternative D designates 1.1 

times more total crucial habitat for Rocky Mountain bighorn than Alternative A designates. 

Overall, Alternative D would be more beneficial for Rocky Mountain bighorn than Alternative 

A, though not as beneficial as Alternative B or the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.19.6.4.2 Geophysical Activity 

Under Alternative D, there would be approximately 2,196 acres of surface disturbance to wildlife 

habitat associated with geophysical exploration, or approximately 3% fewer acres of disturbance 

than under Alternative A, 66% more than under Alternative B, and 12% more than under the 

Proposed Plan. Therefore, Alternative D would likely result in larger adverse impacts than 

Alternative B or the Proposed Plan, but slightly fewer adverse impacts than under Alternative A. 

4.3.19.6.4.3 Salable Minerals 

Under Alternative D, 1,387,473 acres would be open to disposal under standard, CSU, or TL 

stipulations. Thus, the alternative would allow disposal on 80,295 fewer acres than under 

Alternative A. No disposals would be allowed in NSO or closed areas on 434,991 acres. 

Therefore, Alternative D would have the greatest adverse impacts to wildlife due to the disposal 

of salable minerals. 

4.3.19.6.4.4 Locatable Minerals 

Alternative D would designate 797,031 acres of land in the MPA as open to locatable mineral 

entry under standard stipulations, and restrict 592,500 acres to controlled surface and timing 

regulations. For comparison, Alternative A would manage all open lands (1,389,531 acres) under 

standard stipulations. Though all alternatives would manage for the same number of open lands, 

Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan would manage varying percentages of that land under 

controlled surface and timing use stipulations. Under Alternative D, 43% of open lands would be 

managed under special stipulations. Therefore, Alternative D would be more beneficial for 

wildlife species and their habitats than Alternative A, though less beneficial than Alternative B 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-471 

or the Proposed Plan, which would manage 79% and 68% of lands under special conditions, 

respectively. 

4.3.19.7 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS ON 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Managing non-WSA land to maintain wilderness characteristics would generally benefit wildlife 

by reducing habitat degradation and fragmentation. The management of these areas would 

prohibit surface-disturbing activities in areas managed as NSO or closed. Management of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics includes limiting vehicles to designated roads, and 

excluding or avoiding new ROWs. 

4.3.19.7.1 ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would not implement any specific wilderness characteristics decisions that would 

affect wildlife. This would have an adverse impact on wildlife as habitat fragmentation due to 

surface-disturbing activities would be more likely to occur. 

4.3.19.7.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would manage 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands to maintain wilderness 

characteristics, and would have the greatest beneficial impacts on wildlife because habitat 

fragmentation would be less likely to occur on this acreage, since surface-disturbing activities 

would be precluded. 

However, protection of wilderness characteristics could preclude fencing and enclosures in 

Granite Creek, new water installations to benefit pronghorn habitat in Hatch Wash, Harts Point, 

Floy Canyon and Coal Canyon, new water facilities for bighorn sheep in Labyrinth Canyon, 

Shafer Canyon, Gooseneck, Goldbar, Horsethief Point, Dead Horse Cliffs, and Hatch/Lockhart, 

and could preclude mechanical vegetation treatments for elk forage within Big Triangle, 

Westwater Canyon, Hells Hole, Hideout Canyon, Mexico Point, Westwater Creek, Flume 

Canyon, Coal Canyon, Floy Canyon, and Desolation Canyon. Any of these new projects, if 

mitigated appropriately, could be permitted within these areas. 

4.3.19.7.3 PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan would manage 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands to maintain wilderness 

characteristics, and would have more beneficial impacts on wildlife than Alternatives A or D, but 

less beneficial impacts than Alternative B. Habitat fragmentation would be less likely to occur on 

this acreage, which is less than the acreage protected under the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.19.7.4 ALTERNATIVE D 

No non-WSA lands would be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics, so no beneficial 

impacts to wildlife would occur, and some adverse impacts may occur due to increased surface 

disturbance resulting in habitat fragmentation. 

4.3.19.8 IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

The primary impacts of recreation on wildlife would include surface disturbance of wildlife 

habitat by vehicles and non-motorized recreationists, habitat fragmentation by motorized vehicle 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-472 

use, the introduction and spread of noxious weeds, and direct mortality through wildlife 

collisions with motor vehicles and crushing of eggs or nests. In addition, many wildlife species 

(birds in particular) are sensitive to traffic and other human-caused noise. Traffic noise has been 

shown to directly interfere with bird vocal communication, which affects territorial behavior and 

mating success (Reijnen and Foppen 1994). Increased road traffic also increases the risk of direct 

mortality of wildlife species due to vehicle impacts; carrion-eating raptors and mule deer 

attempting to cross roads are especially vulnerable. Where designated, Special Recreation 

Management Areas (SRMAs) would reduce adverse impacts on wildlife by restricting recreation 

or reducing dispersed recreational activities, and would therefore have beneficial impacts on 

wildlife in the area. 

The adverse impacts of recreation decisions would be partially mitigated by the required 

reclamation of disturbed areas to meet the Utah Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines 

for Recreation Management and protective measures outlined for federally listed species under 

Impacts Common to All Alternatives. In addition, careful recreation management through 

actions such as group size permits and non-motorized focus areas (see below for more details) 

would help to mitigate some impacts. 

4.3.19.8.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, the BLM would consider and, where appropriate, implement management 

methods to protect riparian resources and wildlife habitat while enhancing recreation. 

Management methods may include: limitations of visitor numbers, camping and travel controls, 

implementation of fees, alteration of when use takes place, and other similar actions. 

Additionally, information would be provided to the public concerning the value of riparian 

wildlife habitat. These management and education efforts would reduce the adverse impacts of 

recreational uses on riparian-associated wildlife species and their habitats. 

4.3.19.8.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

All action alternatives would establish focus areas for motorized and multi-use recreation. 

Recreational OHV and mechanized travel would be consistent with area and route designations 

described in the travel management plan. The short- and long-term adverse impacts of OHV use 

are varied and complex. Short-term adverse impacts include human presence and noise 

disturbances (though some species can become habituated to certain noises). Long-term adverse 

impacts include habitat fragmentation from roads and cross-country riding, soil compaction, 

increased erosion, and reduced air quality. These impacts would reduce habitat quality and 

quantity for wildlife species in a variety of different habitats (Stokowski and LaPointe 2000). 

Special "non-motorized focus areas" proposed under some of the action alternatives would help 

to alleviate both short- and long-term impacts due to increased human traffic, noise, and habitat 

disturbance resulting from OHV use. Table 4.153 summarizes the acres set aside for nonmotorized use by alternative. However, because non-motorized recreation can also be disruptive 

of wildlife, these focus areas would also have slight adverse impacts on wildlife associated due 

to human presence in addition to their beneficial impacts described above. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-473 

Table 4.153. Acres of SRMAs and Designated "Non-Motorized Focus Areas" by 

Alternative* 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

SRMAs 135,094 1,020,313 658,642 277,495 

Non-Motorized Focus Areas 0 483,062 473,688 142,966 

* "Non-motorized focus areas" are managed for hiking, mountain biking, ecological study, equestrian use, climbing, and BASE 

jumping. 

Under all action alternatives, dispersed camping would be allowed where not specifically 

restricted. Dispersed camping could lead to an increase in human disturbance of wildlife. The 

creation of new, dispersed campsites would have both direct and indirect adverse impacts on 

wildlife by encouraging avoidance behavior in individual animals and reducing the quality of the 

habitat around the campsite (Buechner 1960). Dispersed camping may be closed seasonally or as 

impacts or environmental conditions warrant within SRMAs in order to decrease the adverse 

impacts of noise, vegetation trampling, and other human-caused wildlife disturbances. 

Under all action alternatives, the BLM would provide visitor information and promote outreach 

programs focused on low impact recreation techniques. The program would focus on the 

prevention of the spread of invasive and exotic weeds and the value of wildlife species and their 

habitats, especially riparian habitats. Educating the public in this way would likely increase 

awareness and ultimately decrease human impacts on wildlife species and their habitats. 

4.3.19.8.2.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, only 135,094 acres would be designated as SRMAs; therefore Alternative 

A has the least beneficial impacts on wildlife from SRMAs. While Alternative A would limit 

some OHV use to designated routes, it would not include any non-motorized focus areas. 

Therefore, OHVs would have the greatest adverse effect on wildlife under this alternative. Along 

with Alternative D, Alternative A would place the fewest limitations on dispersed camping and 

group size, and would therefore have the greatest potential for human disturbance of wildlife. 

4.3.19.8.2.2 Alternative B 

Alternative B would designate 1,020,313 acres as SRMAs, and would therefore have the greatest 

beneficial impacts to wildlife from the increased management and restrictions on recreation in 

these areas. In addition, 483,062 acres would be designated for non-motorized recreation (Table 

4.153), thereby further benefiting wildlife by protecting and improving the quality of wildlife 

habitats. 

In the Colorado Riverway SRMA, the north shore of the river would be managed for high quality 

bighorn sheep habitat. An additional emphasis would be placed on the protection of riparian 

values in the Kens Lake area (South Moab SRMA). Both of these actions would provide 

beneficial impacts for wildlife species living in these habitats by improving habitat quality and 

avoiding the adverse impacts of recreation in riparian areas as described above (see Impacts 

Common to All Alternatives). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-474 

Alternative B would be the most restrictive of dispersed camping and group size, and would 

therefore have the least adverse impacts on wildlife and their habitats due to human disturbance 

by campers and large groups. 

4.3.19.8.2.3 Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would designate 658,642 acres (388% more than Alternative A) as SRMAs. 

The Proposed Plan would therefore have greater beneficial impacts on wildlife and their habitats 

than Alternative A, but less than Alternative B. The Proposed Plan would propose fewer acres 

(473,688 acres) to be managed with a non-motorized focus than Alternative B, but far more than 

Alternatives A and D (Table 4.153). Similarly, the Proposed Plan would limit camping and 

group sizes more than Alternatives A and D, but less than Alternative B. 

4.3.19.8.2.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D would designate 277,495 acres (105% more than Alternative A) as SRMAs. 

Alternative D would therefore have greater beneficial impacts on wildlife and their habitats than 

Alternative A, but less than Alternative B or the Proposed Plan. Alternative D would designate 

142,966 acres as non-motorized focus areas, far more than Alternative A, and far less than 

Alternative B or the Proposed Plan. Therefore, Alternative D would result in fewer OHV impacts 

to wildlife than Alternative A, but more than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. Dispersed 

camping and group size would be less restricted than under Alternative B or the Proposed Plan, 

but more than under Alternative A. 

4.3.19.9 IMPACTS OF RIPARIAN DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Wildlife that utilizes riparian habitats would be affected by restrictions on livestock grazing in 

riparian areas under each alternative. Because these management actions are also proposed as 

livestock grazing decisions, they are discussed in Section 4.3.19.5 Impacts of Livestock Grazing 

Decisions on Wildlife and Fisheries. 

4.3.19.10 IMPACTS OF SOILS/WATERSHED DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

4.3.19.10.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, soil and water decisions would comply with Utah's Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing and Recreation. In addition, all floodplains and 

riparian/wetlands would be managed in accordance with Executive Order 11988, which would 

protect the quality of stream water and Federally listed species habitat. Uses in the MPA would 

be managed to minimize and mitigate damage to soils, and activities located in areas with 

sensitive soils would be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis. These restrictions would 

decrease the number of acres in the MPA subject to the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing 

activities on wildlife habitats, including surface water contamination and sedimentation by runoff 

from disturbed soils. 

4.3.19.10.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under all action alternatives, vegetation would be maintained based on desired future conditions 

(DFCs) to provide adequate ground cover to prevent accelerated erosion in wind erodible soils. 

This would have a positive indirect impact on wildlife by increasing possible forage. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-475 

All action alternatives would prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 100-year floodplains, 

public water reservoirs, and within 100 meters of riparian areas and springs. These actions would 

help to mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on wildlife that utilize 

riparian habitats. A combination of timing and controlled use stipulations would be applied for 

all slopes greater than 30% in the MPA, which would help to decrease erosion and therefore 

habitat degradation for wildlife species. Specifically, these action alternatives would also help to 

mitigate adverse impacts on fish and other aquatic species' habitat due to increased overland flow 

associated with upland soil disturbance. Seventy-five percent of protected areas (due to extreme 

slopes) occur in piñon-juniper habitat. Wildlife species such as mule deer, elk, pronghorn, 

mountain lion, and neotropical migrant birds in piñon-juniper habitat (Table 4.148) would 

benefit from these stipulations.

4.3.19.10.2.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, grazing would be manipulated on portions of ten allotments to lessen 

impacts on saline soils and reduce salinity in the Colorado River drainage. This action would 

protect fisheries and aquatic wildlife from salinity impacts, as well as help to lessen the adverse 

impacts of grazing on wildlife, which are described in Section 4.3.19.5. 

4.3.19.10.2.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the Castle Valley and Mill Creek municipal watersheds would be closed to 

oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities. This would benefit wildlife species 

and their habitats as described in Section 4.3.19.6. 

Watershed Management Plans would be developed and implemented for 17 areas under 

Alternative B. These plans are generally beneficial to wildlife species and habitats because of 

specified restrictions on human activities, grazing, and other surface disturbances. 

Grazing systems and the development of AMPs would be used to minimize impacts to saline 

soils in nine allotments. Both of these management strategies would have long-term beneficial 

impacts on wildlife and fisheries, as described above. 

4.3.19.10.2.3 Proposed Plan 

An NSO stipulation to oil and gas leasing and precluding other surface-disturbing activities 

would be applied in the Castle Valley and Mill Creek municipal watersheds. This stipulation 

would help to mitigate the adverse impacts of oil and gas development, but to a lesser degree 

than Alternative B, which would close this area to oil and gas development. 

Watershed Management Plans would be developed and implemented for eight areas under the 

Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan would provide fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B. 

Grazing systems would be used and AMPs developed to minimize impacts to saline soils in 16 

allotments. The Proposed Plan would require the development of AMPs in seven more areas than 

under Alternative B. 

4.3.19.10.2.4 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of soil and water resource management decisions on wildlife 

and fisheries would be the same as under Alternative A. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-476 

4.3.19.11 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATION DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Special Designation areas, such as Areas of Critical Concern (ACECs) and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers (WSRs) would generally have long-term positive impacts on the wildlife and fisheries 

that occur within their boundaries by limiting or preventing surface disturbance, human 

activities, and associated habitat degradation and fragmentation. Impacts to wildlife and fisheries 

vary between alternatives primarily according to the proposed acreage of these specifically 

designated areas. 

ACECs designated specifically to protect wildlife and vegetation would directly benefit wildlife 

species and their habitats. ACECs designated to preserve historic, cultural, and scenic values (as 

opposed to wildlife or vegetation) would indirectly benefit wildlife by limiting human and 

surface disturbance, preserving habitat, or preventing noise. Therefore, all ACECs are assumed 

to be beneficial to wildlife. Where established, ACECs would be avoidance areas for all ROWs, 

including wind, solar energy, and communication sites. Prohibiting these uses within ACECs 

would prevent adverse impacts to wildlife related to these developments. The designation of a 

river as suitable for WSR status would beneficially impact wildlife that utilize habitats directly 

associated with the river (e.g., riparian, wetlands, open water) by mandating the protection of the 

river's "free-flowing character" and restricting surface-disturbing activities within 1/4 mile of the 

river. 

4.3.19.11.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

While they are non-discretionary, WSAs prohibit surface disturbance, permanent new 

development, and ROWs. In addition, WSAs are closed to mineral leasing. Under all 

alternatives, where ACECs overlap WSAs, WSA management takes precedence. All alternatives 

would close WSAs to OHV use or limit such use to designated routes. Therefore, both WSA and 

ACEC designation would benefit wildlife by reducing surface disturbance in wildlife habitat and 

habitat fragmentation due to OHV use. 

4.3.19.11.2 ALTERNATIVE A 

Under Alternative A, none of the proposed ACEC sites would be established (with the exception 

of the existing 1,375 acre Negro Bill ONA). No rivers would be designated as suitable for WSR 

status, but eligible rivers would be managed to preserve their wild and scenic qualities. This 

alternative would generally be less beneficial than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, which 

would designate multiple segments as suitable, but more beneficial than Alternative D. 

4.3.19.11.3 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, all thirteen of the proposed ACEC sites would be established and managed 

with NSO or closed leasing stipulations. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would be 

much more beneficial to wildlife and their habitats by eliminating disturbances related to salable 

and leasable mineral development in these areas. Alternative B would designate the most river 

segments as suitable for WSR status, and would therefore have the greatest beneficial impacts on 

riparian and aquatic wildlife. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-477 

4.3.19.11.4 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, five of the thirteen proposed ACEC sites would be established. They 

would be managed with closed or NSO leasing stipulations. The Proposed Plan would be more 

beneficial to wildlife and their habitats than Alternative A, and less than Alternative B. The 

Proposed Plan would designate fewer river segments as suitable for WSR status than Alternative 

B, and would therefore have slightly less beneficial impacts on riparian and aquatic wildlife. 

4.3.19.11.5 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, none of the thirteen proposed ACEC sites would be established. All 

eligible river segments would be designated as not suitable for WSR status under Alternative D, 

which would therefore have no beneficial impacts on wildlife and fisheries. 

4.3.19.12 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

4.3.19.12.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, no management action would be permitted on public lands that would 

jeopardize the continued existence of plant or animal species that are listed, officially proposed, 

or candidates for listing as Threatened and Endangered (T&E). The BLM would commit to 

current and future conservation agreements, management plans, and recovery plans specific to 

T&E and BLM Sensitive Species, as described in the Special Status Species section of Table 2.1 

(in Chapter 2). Although meant to protect and conserve special status species, the actions would 

also benefit other wildlife species that share habitat with the targeted special-status species. 

4.3.19.12.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under all action alternatives, protective management of prairie dog and sage-grouse habitats 

would benefit big game species because of their overlapping ranges. Limitations on surfacedisturbing activities within greater sage-grouse habitat would indirectly benefit deer and/or elk 

that winter in the same region by preventing disturbances such as vegetation removal and noise 

related to traffic or other human activities. Although some protection is common to all action 

alternatives, they differ in the number of acres affected. Table 4.154 lists the quantitative impacts 

of sage-grouse and prairie dog habitat conservation on the habitat of mule deer and Rocky 

Mountain elk, pronghorn antelope, desert bighorn sheep, and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. 

Table 4.154. Number of Acres Within Big Game Habitats That are Protected for Special 

Status Species 

Big Game 

Wildlife 

Species 

Relevant Associated Habitat 

Types 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Mule Deer 

and/or Elk 

Sagebrush, Grassland, Conifer/ 

Mountain Shrub, Piñon-Juniper, 

Riparian/Wetland 

0 116,176 64,201 18,223

Pronghorn Grassland and Desert Shrub, 

Piñon-Juniper 0 250,572 135,449 34,942

Desert Bighorn 

Sheep 

Desert Shrub 

0 0 0 0
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-478 

Table 4.154. Number of Acres Within Big Game Habitats That are Protected for Special 

Status Species 

Big Game 

Wildlife 

Species 

Relevant Associated Habitat 

Types 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Rocky 

Mountain 

Bighorn Sheep 

Sagebrush, Grassland 

0 9,855 1,082 0

Total Acres 0 376,603 200,732 53,165

4.3.19.12.3 ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would not implement any special status species decisions that would affect 

wildlife other than those common to all alternatives. 

4.3.19.12.4 ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would place restrictions on development within 469,162 more acres of special 

status species habitat than Alternative A, thereby benefiting other wildlife species. Habitat 

protections for greater sage-grouse, Gunnison sage-grouse, white-tailed prairie dog, and 

Gunnison prairie dog habitats would generally benefit other wildlife that utilize desert shrub or 

sagebrush and perennial grassland habitats, including mule deer, elk, pronghorn, desert bighorn 

sheep, mountain lion, various raptors, and upland game species. 

Approximately 376,603 acres of special status species habitat that would be protected under 

Alternative B overlap with big game range, thereby conferring some level of protection to big 

game habitat as well (see Table 4.154). Pronghorn would benefit the most from special status 

species protections, followed by deer and/or elk. The habitat of desert bighorn within the MPA 

does not overlap with any special-status species protected lands under any of the alternatives; 

therefore, desert bighorn would not experience any benefits from special status species 

management. The benefits to big game under Alternative B would be far greater than under 

Alternative A. 

4.3.19.12.5 PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan would place restrictions on development within 306,976 more acres of 

special status species habitat than Alternative A. The Proposed Plan would therefore benefit 

wildlife species more than Alternative A, but less than Alternative B. 

Approximately 200,732 acres of protected special status species habitat would overlap with big 

game range under the Proposed Plan (see Table 4.154). As under Alternative B, pronghorn 

would benefit the most from special status species protections, followed by deer and/or elk, 

while desert bighorn would not receive any benefit. Although the Proposed Plan would benefit 

big game more than Alternative A, it would be less beneficial to big game than Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-479 

4.3.19.12.6 ALTERNATIVE D 

Alternative D would place restrictions on development within 74,792 more acres of special status 

species habitat than Alternative A, but considerably less than Alternative B and the Proposed 

Plan. 

Approximately 53,165 acres of protected special status species habitat would overlap with big 

game range under Alternative D, which is more than under Alternative A and less than under 

Alternative B and the Proposed Plan. The benefits to individual species would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B and the Proposed Plan, but to a lesser magnitude. 

4.3.19.13 IMPACTS OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

The impacts of travel decisions on wildlife would primarily depend on the number of acres open 

and closed to OHV use under each alternative. OHV use can cause damage to vegetation used as 

wildlife forage and cover, as well as cause noise disturbance. OHV use therefore generally has 

adverse impacts on wildlife species, especially birds, in the MPA (Reijnen and Foppen 1994; 

Gelbard and Belnap 2003). Areas closed to OHV use would include some WSAs. OHV use also 

contributes to habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation, including the spread of noxious 

weeds. The impacts of habitat fragmentation due to minerals and travel decisions under each 

alternative are discussed in Section 4.3.19.18. 

A recent United States Geologic Survey (USGS 2007) synopsis of relevant literature summarizes 

numerous studies of the impacts of OHV use on soil and water resources. The USGS concludes 

that the research reviewed found important effects of OHV activities on soil and water 

functioning including soil compaction, diminished water infiltration, diminished presence and 

impaired function of soil stabilizers (biotic and abiotic crusts, desert pavement), and accelerated 

erosion rates. Compacted soil inhibits infiltration of precipitation. In turn, soil moisture available 

to vegetation is diminished, volumes and velocities of precipitation runoff increase, and soil 

erosion accelerates, leading to the formation of gullies and other surface changes. Additionally, 

soil compaction may inhibit root growth among plants, in which case organic matter, litter, soil 

fertility, and vegetative cover are diminished, further exacerbating the soil's susceptibility to 

erosion. Where biotic and chemical crusts or other soil stabilizers are disturbed or destroyed, soil 

erosion from water and wind may increase beyond rates found in undisturbed sites with similar 

soils and conditions; nutrient-cycling processes also are likely to be disrupted, potentially leading 

to declines in soil fertility. The USGS study is summarized in Appendix G. 

4.3.19.13.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, any new route designations would consider wildlife habitat, thereby 

reducing surface and noise disturbances on wildlife species and their habitats. 

4.3.19.13.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under all action alternatives (B, D, and Proposed Plan), travel by motorized vehicles on all lands 

administered by the MFO would be limited to designated roads and designated OHV and 

motorcycle routes. OHV access for game retrieval, antler collection, and dispersed camping 

would only be allowed on designated routes. Restricting all vehicles to designated roadways 

would benefit wildlife by limiting adverse disturbance and noise impacts on wildlife (Fletcher 

1980, 1990). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-480 

4.3.19.13.3 ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would close only 5,060 acres to OHV use (Table 4.155). A total of 620,212 acres 

would be open to cross-country OHV use under Alternative A (Table 4.156), which is more than 

under any other alternative. Alternative A would adversely impact wildlife species and their 

habitats more than the other alternatives because it would continue to manage a large percentage 

of the MPA as open to OHV use. In addition, travel would be allowed on "existing routes" which 

also adversely affect wildlife. Existing routes often originate from the unauthorized creation of 

new trails. 

Table 4.155. Wildlife Habitat Closed to OHV Use Under Each Alternative 

Habitat Type Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Conifer/mountain shrub 0 46,945 46,945 188 

Desert shrub 1,360 20,579 17,934 8,977 

Invasive species and weeds 3 483 345 19 

Piñon-juniper 2,330 258,913 255,205 42,589 

Riparian/wetland 30 3,105 2,450 678 

Sagebrush/perennial grass 1,337 16,787 15,968 4,519 

Total 5,060 346,812 338,847 56,970 

Table 4.156. OHV Use Stipulations in Wildlife Habitat Under Each Alternative 

Stipulation Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Open to Cross-country 

Travel 

620,212 0 1,866 3,064 

Limited to Designated (or 

Existing in A only) Routes 

1,123,987 1,475,074 1,418,334 1,762,083 

Closed 5,060 346,812 338,847 56,970 

Under Alternative A, almost two times more piñon-juniper habitat would be affected than desert 

shrub or sagebrush/perennial grasses, which are the next most dominant habitats (see Table 

4.155) 

There are 367.4 miles of route identified as having possible wildlife habitat conflicts. 

4.3.19.13.4 ALTERNATIVE B 

No land would be open to cross-country OHV use under Alternative B. OHV use would be 

limited to designated trails on 1,475,074 acres. This is 622,721 acres (74%) more than under 

Alternative A. Restricting OHV use to designated rather than existing routes would benefit 

wildlife by resolving problems caused by the unauthorized creation of new routes, which then 

become "existing" routes. Specific benefits to wildlife species would include decreased damage 

to forage and cover vegetation by travel on unauthorized routes, and decreased disturbance of 

individual wildlife from human presence and noise associated with OHV use, as well as 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-481 

decreased wildlife habitat fragmentation. Therefore, Alternative B would protect and improve 

the condition and quality of wildlife habitats and provide more benefits to wildlife species and 

their habitats than Alternative A. Alternative B would close approximately 346,812 acres to 

OHV use, which is 341,752 acres more than under Alternative A (see Table 4.155). 

Within the areas designated as closed to OHV use, piñon-juniper habitat would be the most 

prevalent. Wildlife species that depend on piñon-juniper habitat for survival and reproduction 

(including mule deer, elk, pronghorn, mountain lion, and songbirds) would benefit more than 

other species from the decision to close areas to OHV use. The impacts to various habitat types 

would be proportionally similar to Alternative A, although fewer acres would be open to OHV 

impacts. 

There are 367.4 miles of designated routes with possible wildlife habitat conflicts. In Alternative 

B, 132.3 miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

4.3.19.13.5 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, 1,866 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, which is 

618,346 acres less than under Alternative A. OHV use would be limited to designated routes on 

1,481,334 acres, 357,347 acres more than under Alternative A. Finally, the Proposed Plan would 

close 338,847 acres to OHV use, 334,236 acres more than under Alternative A. 

The impacts of this alternative on wildlife are comparable to the impacts of Alternative B, 

although Alternative B would be slightly more beneficial. Fewer acres would be subject to 

adverse OHV impacts than under Alternative D. The impacts to various habitat types would be 

proportionally similar to Alternative A, although fewer acres would be open to OHV impacts 

(see Table 4.155). 

There are 367.4 miles of designated routes with possible wildlife habitat conflicts. In the 

Proposed Plan, 51.8 miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

4.3.19.13.6 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, 3,064 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use; 617,148 acres fewer 

than under Alternative A. OHV use would be limited to designated routes on 1,762,083 acres, or 

638,096 more acres than under Alternative A. Finally, 56,970 acres would be closed to OHV use, 

which is 52,289 more acres than under Alternative A. Travel decisions under Alternative D 

would be less detrimental to wildlife than under Alternative A, but more detrimental than under 

Alternative B or the Proposed Plan. The impacts to various habitat types would be proportionally 

similar to Alternative A (see Table 4.155). 

There are 367.4 miles of designated routes with possible wildlife habitat conflicts. In Alternative 

D, 11.1 miles of these routes are not identified for travel. 

4.3.19.14 IMPACTS OF VEGETATION DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

4.3.19.14.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, seed gathering and plant collection would be allowed in all areas meeting 

Utah's Rangeland Health Standards. This could have short-term, direct, adverse impacts on 

wildlife species and habitat due to trampling and human disturbance during collection activities, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-482 

and in some cases depletion of food sources for some species. The spread of noxious, invasive, 

and non-native weed species would be controlled through implementation of the BLM weed 

management policies and action plans. Actions taken to help slow/stop the spread of weeds in the 

MPA would help reduce the adverse impacts of surface disturbance associated with stock use, oil 

and gas development, and other activities that result in the adverse alteration of wildlife habitat. 

Tamarisk and Russian olive would be treated in a number of areas to restore riparian areas. This 

would have short-term, adverse impacts on wildlife species in the treatment areas, but would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts by removing undesirable, non-native plant species, thereby 

improving riparian habitat. 

Sagebrush habitat would be managed under the Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 

(BLM 2004c), which would have long-term beneficial impacts on wildlife species that utilize 

sagebrush habitat (Monsen et al. 2004). 

4.3.19.14.2 ALTERNATIVE A 

The impacts to wildlife and fisheries would be limited to those common to all alternatives. 

4.3.19.14.3 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, any loss of sagebrush steppe habitat deemed essential to wildlife would be 

reclaimed at a ratio of 2:1. This requirement would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

wildlife by preventing the net loss of essential sagebrush habitat. 

4.3.19.14.4 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, any loss of sagebrush steppe habitat deemed essential to wildlife 

would be reclaimed at a ratio of 1:1. This would have similar impacts as those under Alternative 

B, except that habitat would be replaced at only half the rate. 

4.3.19.14.5 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, the impacts of vegetation management decisions on wildlife and fisheries 

resources would to the same as those described under the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.19.15 IMPACTS OF VISUAL RESOURCES DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

4.3.19.15.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

The impacts to wildlife from visual resources decisions are primarily associated with limitations 

on surface disturbance intended to reduce impacts to areas with high visual resource values. 

VRM Class I and II designations are the most restrictive of oil and gas development and other 

surface-disturbing activities, and would therefore be the most beneficial to wildlife and their 

habitats (as described in Section 4.3.19.6). In areas designated as VRM Classes I or II, surfacedisturbing activities are generally prohibited or limited. 

4.3.19.15.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under all action alternatives, WSR segments would be managed as VRM Class I or II. 'Limited' 

and 'very limited' management activities would be allowed in areas designated as VRM Classes 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-483 

II or I, respectively. All VRM Class I areas would be classified as NSO for oil and gas leasing. A 

controlled surface use stipulation would be applied to all areas managed as VRM Class II. 

4.3.19.15.3 ALTERNATIVE A 

Alternative A would designate 750,125 acres (or 41% of MPA) as VRM Class I or II. 

4.3.19.15.4 ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, 827,093 acres would be designated as VRM Class I or II. Alternative B 

would manage the highest percentage of the MPA (45%) as VRM Class I or II; it would 

therefore be the most beneficial for wildlife. 

4.3.19.15.5 PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Propose Plan, 724,587 acres (or 40% of the MPA) would be designated as VRM Class 

I or II, less than under Alternatives A and B, and more than under Alternative D.

4.3.19.15.6 ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, 595,390 acres would be designated as VRM Class I or II. Alternative D 

would manage the smallest percentage of the MPA (33%) as VRM Class I or II; it would 

therefore be the least beneficial to wildlife. 

4.3.19.16 IMPACTS OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND 

FISHERIES 

4.3.19.16.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, the Hatch Point, Potash-Confluence, and Dolores Triangle Habitat 

Management Plans (HMPs) would continue to be modified and implemented to benefit wildlife. 

Each HMP would be managed to benefit target species; however all species within those habitat 

types would benefit. Beneficial protections that may be included in HMPs include: conservation 

measures, replacement and mitigation stipulations, monitoring protocols, and species-specific 

management stipulations. 

Livestock would be excluded from 48,220 acres on portions of seven allotments in order to 

benefit wildlife and recreation. The removal of grazing would lead to long-term beneficial 

impacts to wildlife utilizing those areas. The adverse impacts of grazing on wildlife are discussed 

in Section 4.3.19.5. 

4.3.19.16.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under all action alternatives (by utilizing Rangeland Health Standards) modification of grazing 

seasons and livestock classes to accommodate wildlife would enhance forage needs of wildlife in 

the MPA. The introduction, transplantation, augmentation, and re-establishment of wildlife 

species such as (but not limited to) pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, Rocky mountain bighorn 

sheep, wild turkey, bison, beaver, otter, and Colorado River cutthroat trout would be considered. 

Where implemented, these actions would increase the viability and genetic diversity of the 

affected species' populations. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-484 

4.3.19.16.2.1 Impacts to Pronghorn 

Under all action alternatives, 78,476 acres in the La Sal (Hatch Point herd) wildlife management 

unit would continue to be managed for pronghorn habitat, with an additional 743,524 acres of 

habitat managed in the Bookcliffs management unit (Cisco herd). Management actions 

benefiting pronghorn would include the following: installing and improving year-round water 

resources, supporting beneficial changes in livestock grazing classes (changing from sheep to 

cattle), installing water developments every 2 square miles on summer and fawning areas, 

constructing fences that allow for pronghorn passage, dismantling unnecessary fences, installing 

restrictive fences that stop pronghorn passage onto highways, and implementing vegetation 

treatments to increase forage on approximately 4,400 acres. 

4.3.19.16.2.2 Impacts to Bighorn Sheep 

Under all action alternatives, the recommendations for management actions in the BLM Bighorn 

Sheep Management Plan (1993b, as revised), the Utah BLM Statewide Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Management Plan (1986a, as revised), and the Revised Guidelines for the Management of 

Domestic Sheep and Goats in Native Wild Sheep Habitats (BLM 1998a) would be followed. The 

current population of desert bighorn sheep would be supported on 330,892 acres, and 

management would focus on increasing bighorn populations. A timing limitation stipulation for 

oil and gas and other surface-disturbing activities applied to 9,278 acres of habitat in the Hatch 

Point area would reduce noise and human activity during bighorn lambing and rutting seasons. 

Approximately 317,523 acres on 13 grazing allotments would be managed as desert bighorn 

sheep habitat; reduced livestock grazing could make additional forage available to desert bighorn 

sheep. Conversion of cattle allotments to sheep would be prohibited and the Hatch Point 

Allotment would be converted to cattle; these actions would help prevent the passage of diseases 

between domesticated sheep and desert bighorn sheep. Timing limitations for filming would be 

put in place on 123,490 acres to protect bighorn from the disturbance of film crews during 

bighorn lambing and rutting. Habitat management decisions benefiting bighorn sheep would 

include: installing water developments every 5 square miles in or within 2 miles of escape 

terrain; precluding exotic ungulates, wild horses, or burros within 10 miles of habitat; 

constructing fences that would allow for bighorn sheep passage; and dismantling unnecessary 

fences. In addition, water developments would be maintained to help bighorn sheep survive 

drought periods. 

4.3.19.16.2.3 Impacts to Deer and/or Elk 

Under all action alternatives, current mule deer and/or elk habitat (534,329 acres in the 

Bookcliffs, 313,551 acres on the La Sal Mountains) would be managed to improve vegetative 

and ecological conditions for both deer and/or elk. A timing limitation stipulation would be 

applied to all oil and gas and other surface-disturbing activities within 105,636 acres of BLMdesignated crucial and substantial deer and/or elk habitat, which would protect these species 

from human-caused disturbances during crucial times of year such as fawning and/or calving 

periods. Deer habitat would be enhanced by allocating all forage to deer in crucial winter range 

on acquired state lands in Upper Castle Valley. Elk habitat would be enhanced by increasing elk 

forage on approximately 40,000 acres of elk winter range through vegetation treatments. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-485 

4.3.19.16.2.4 Impacts to Raptors 

Raptor management would be guided by the use of Best Management Practices for Raptors and 

Their Associated Habitats in Utah (see Appendix O), utilizing seasonal and spatial buffers, as 

well as mitigation, to maintain and enhance raptor nesting and foraging habitat, while allowing 

other resource uses. BLM would also cooperate with utility companies, UDWR, and USFWS to 

prevent raptor electrocution. Seasonal closures or spatial restrictions would be used to eliminate 

disturbance near raptor nests from recreation, mineral development, and other activities that 

might result in nest abandonment. 

4.3.19.16.2.5 Impacts to Migratory Birds 

Adherence with the Migratory Treaty Bird Act and Executive Order 13186 (Responsibilities of 

Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds) under all action alternatives would have beneficial 

impacts on migratory birds, including priority species identified on the USFWS "Birds of 

Conservation Concern" list (2002f and as updated) and the "Partners-in-Flight" priority species 

list (as updated). The use of adaptive management strategies would more effectively conserve 

habitat and avoid impacts to these species. Avoidance of surface-disturbing activities and 

vegetation-altering projects during the nesting season (May 1 through July 30), including broadscale use of pesticides, would improve the habitat of migratory birds in the MPA and reduce 

adverse disturbance of birds and their habitats. These benefits would be most pronounced in the 

Cisco Desert Bird Habitat Conservation Area, the Colorado and Dolores River Bird Habitat 

Conservation Area, the Green River Bird Habitat Conservation Area, and the Cottonwood and 

Willow Creek Bird Habitat Conservation Area (see Appendix N).

Under all action alternatives, the prioritization of habitat types most commonly used by 

migratory birds (lowland riparian, wetlands, and low and high desert shrub) for maintenance and 

improvement would increase the availability of high-quality habitat and reduce the adverse 

impacts of invasive plants (e.g., cheatgrass, tamarisk, Russian olive). 

4.3.19.16.3 IMPACTS VARYING AMONG ALTERNATIVES

Impacts of wildlife and fisheries management decisions that would vary between alternatives 

would primarily result from temporal and spatial restrictions on development and other surfacedisturbing activities in BLM-designated wildlife habitats. These protections would benefit big 

game species by reducing surface disturbance and other human-related disturbances in crucial 

locations and during crucial times of the year and improve the quality and condition of wildlife 

habitats. They would also benefit other wildlife species such as birds, small mammals, and 

reptiles that use the same habitats. Additional impacts that may affect wildlife would come from 

the size of designated and managed wildlife habitats and the extent of other resource uses within 

those habitats, as well as how prescriptions would affect the biotic condition and quality of those 

wildlife habitats. 

Under all alternatives, protections for deer and/or elk habitat occur primarily in sage/shrublands, 

piñon-juniper woodlands, and grasslands, while those in pronghorn habitat occur primarily in 

desert shrubland and desert grasslands. Land protected for desert bighorn is dominated by desert 

shrub, while Rocky Mountain bighorn habitat consists mainly of mountain and desert shrublands 

and limited piñon-juniper woodlands. Therefore, wildlife species that occur mainly in shrubland 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-486 

and piñon juniper woodland habitats (see Table 4.148) would benefit most from the special 

protection of big game habitats. 

4.3.19.16.3.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, the management of 260,769 acres of deer and/or elk winter range would 

restrict exploration, drilling, and other development activity from November 1 through May 15. 

Development restrictions would protect pronghorn fawning habitat between May 15 and June 20. 

Approximately 42,500 acres of desert bighorn sheep habitat would be protected by preventing 

human disturbance during breeding and lambing seasons. Approximately 194,560 acres of land 

would be designated and managed as Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat. 

Alternative A would have the fewest acres of wildlife habitat subject to special wildlife 

conditions (497,829 acres), and would therefore benefit wildlife and fisheries resources the least. 

4.3.19.16.3.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the management of 635,774 acres of crucial and substantial deer and/or elk 

winter habitat would preclude surface-disturbing activities from November 1 through May 15. 

Alternative B would place restrictions on almost 2.5 times as much deer and/or elk habitat as 

Alternative A. 

Management of approximately 822,001 acres of crucial antelope habitat would preclude surfacedisturbing activities from May 1 through June 15 to protect fawning areas. In addition, spring 

livestock grazing would be modified on 188,975 acres of crucial pronghorn habitat by removing 

livestock by February 28 each year to encourage forb production and vegetative cover. Livestock 

would also be removed from fawning areas on Hatch Point between May 1 and June 30 to reduce 

competition for space and forage between livestock and pronghorn fawns. The elimination of 

spring grazing in Alternative B would improve habitat quality and condition compared to 

Alternative A, and would also lead to greater carrying capacity and herd recruitment. More 

acreage would be managed as pronghorn habitat (and for a longer time period) under Alternative 

B than Alternative A and 188,975 acres would be managed to improve the quality and condition 

of pronghorn habitat. 

A total of 130,419 acres of desert bighorn lambing, rutting, and migration habitat would be 

managed under No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations for oil and gas as well as precluding 

all other surface-disturbing activities. In addition, within 46,319 acres of desert bighorn sheep 

lambing habitat, camping would be limited to designated sites. Livestock grazing would be 

removed by March 31 on the North River and Taylor (Dry Mesa Pasture only) allotments. More 

habitats would be managed for desert bighorn sheep under Alternative B than under Alternative 

A. Limited grazing, camping restrictions and no surface occupancy in Alternative B would 

improve habitat quality and condition compared to Alternative A and would also lead to greater 

carrying capacity and herd recruitment. 

Under Alternative B, 458,242 acres of land would be designated and managed as Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep habitat. This is substantially more than the 194,560 acres designated as 

such under Alternative A. This increase in the habitat size improves carrying capacity, thus 

benefiting bighorn more than Alternative A.
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-487 

Under this alternative, there would be 1,548,607 more acres (or three times more area) subject to 

special wildlife conditions than under Alternative A. Therefore, Alternative B would protect and 

improve the condition and the quality of wildlife habitats, and be more beneficial to wildlife than 

Alternative A. 

4.3.19.16.3.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, management of 349,955 acres of crucial deer and/or elk habitat would 

preclude surface-disturbing activities from November 15 through April 15 each year. The 

Proposed Plan would restrict activities on more deer and/or elk habitat than Alternative A, but 

less than Alternative B. 

Management of approximately 293,741 acres of pronghorn antelope fawning habitat would 

preclude surface-disturbing activities from May 1 through June 15. In addition, spring livestock 

grazing would be adjusted on a case-by-case basis within 188,975 acres of crucial pronghorn 

habitat to encourage forb production. Rest/rotation management systems would also be 

considered for grazing areas within crucial pronghorn habitat. Limited grazing in the Proposed 

Plan would improve habitat quality and condition more than under Alternative A, but less than 

Alternative B and would also lead to greater herd recruitment. The Proposed Plan would restrict 

surface-disturbing activities and grazing on more acres of pronghorn habitat than Alternative A, 

but fewer than Alternative B. 

A total of 111,337 acres of desert bighorn lambing, rutting, and migration habitat would be 

managed with NSO stipulations for oil and gas as well as precluding all other surface-disturbing 

activities. However, within migration corridors, pipeline construction and geophysical 

exploration for oil and gas development would be allowed outside lambing and rutting periods 

from June 16 through September 30 and from January 1 to March 31. In addition, within 46,319 

acres of desert bighorn sheep lambing habitat, camping and livestock grazing would be limited. 

Limited grazing, camping and surface disturbance in the Proposed Plan would improve habitat 

quality and condition more than under Alternative A but less than Alternative B and would also 

lead to greater herd recruitment. More habitat would be conserved for desert bighorn sheep under 

the Proposed Plan than under Alternative A. However, the Proposed Plan would not be as 

beneficial to desert bighorn sheep or the other wildlife species that share its habitat as Alternative 

B, since the Proposed Plan would restrictively manage fewer acres. 

Under the Proposed Plan, 310,726 acres of land would be designated and managed as Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep habitat. This is substantially more acres and carrying capacity than 

would be designated under Alternative A, but less than under Alternative B. 

The Proposed Plan would manage 567,930 more acres (or twice as much area) under special 

wildlife conditions than Alternative A. Therefore, the Proposed Plan would be more beneficial to 

wildlife species in the MPA than Alternative A. The Proposed Plan would be less beneficial to 

wildlife species and their habitats than Alternative B, since the Proposed Plan would manage half 

as many acres under special wildlife conditions than Alternative B. 

4.3.19.16.3.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D would preclude surface-disturbing activities on 349,955 acres of crucial deer 

and/or elk habitat from December 1 through April 15 each year. This restriction is the same as 

the Proposed Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-488 

Approximately 78,477 acres of pronghorn antelope fawning habitat would preclude surfacedisturbing activities from May 1 through June 15. Alternative D would be more beneficial to 

wildlife than Alternative A, but less so than Alternative B or the Proposed Plan. Alternative D 

would not offer specific management opportunities to maintain or improve antelope habitats; 

therefore the condition and quality of 188,975 acres of crucial antelope habitat would be 

degraded or removed, reducing herd recruitment. Alternative D would be less beneficial to 

antelope habitat than Alternatives A, B, and the Proposed Plan. 

A total of 46,319 acres of desert bighorn lambing and rutting habitat would preclude surfacedisturbing activities from April 1 to June 15 and from October 15 to December 15. Livestock 

restrictions would be the same as under Proposed Plan. In addition, camping would be 

unrestricted within this area. Limited grazing in Alternative D would improve habitat quality and 

condition more than under Alternative A, the same as the Proposed Plan, but less than 

Alternative B and would also lead to herd recruitment. Alternative D would not be as beneficial 

to desert bighorn sheep as Alternative B, or the Proposed Plan 

Under Alternative D, 194,560 acres of land would be designated and managed as Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep habitat. This is equal to the amount of land designated under Alternative 

A, but less than under Alternative B or the Proposed Plan. Therefore, Alternative D would be 

less beneficial to bighorn sheep than Alternative B and the Proposed Plan and the same as A 

There would be 171,482 more acres subject to special wildlife conditions under Alternative D 

than under Alternative A. Therefore, Alternative D would be more beneficial to wildlife than 

Alternative A and less beneficial to wildlife than Alternative B or the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.19.17 IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Woodlands decisions' impacts on wildlife would depend primarily upon the number of acres of 

wildlife habitat open to woodland harvest under each alternative. Adverse impacts to wildlife 

from woodland harvest include direct habitat loss, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation. 

Indirect, adverse impacts of wood gathering on wildlife species and their habitats include 

trampling and removal of native vegetation, which result in habitat degradation that can include 

reduction of prey species, forage species, and cover. 

Although large areas of the MPA are open to woodland harvest under all alternatives, adverse 

impacts would be concentrated in areas with vegetation types that would support public and 

commercial harvesting activities. Piñon-juniper woodland and conifer/mountain shrub are 

generally the only habitat types considered for harvest. Therefore, the impacts under each 

alternative were assessed according to the area of those vegetation types open to woodland 

harvest (Table 4.157). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-489 

Table 4.157. Number of Acres in the MPA Open and Closed to Woodland Harvesting 

Zone Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Total Closed 601,146 863,227 646,694 601,146

Total Open 1,217,635 961,039 1,172,436 1,217,635

Open Areas with Woodland Vegetation 

(Piñon-juniper or Conifer / Mountain 

Shrub vegetation) 

455,134 300,950 420,967 455,134

4.3.19.17.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 would be implemented under all alternatives. This 

action would help mitigate the adverse impacts of woodland product use on wildlife species and 

their habitats in areas of the MPA open to wood harvesting. 

4.3.19.17.2 ALTERNATIVES A AND D 

Approximately 455,134 acres of woodlands with piñon-juniper or conifer vegetation would be 

open to harvest under Alternatives A and D. These alternatives would have the largest impact on 

wildlife.

4.3.19.17.3 ALTERNATIVE B 

Approximately 300,950 acres of woodlands with piñon-juniper or conifer vegetation would be 

open to woodland harvest under Alternative B, which would have the fewest adverse impacts on 

wildlife. 

4.3.19.17.4 PROPOSED PLAN

Approximately 420,967 acres of woodlands with piñon-juniper or conifer vegetation would be 

open to harvest under the Proposed Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Plan would be less detrimental 

to wildlife than Alternatives A and D, but more detrimental than Alternative B. 

4.3.19.18 IMPACTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ON WILDLIFE 

In addition to directly disturbing wildlife habitat, roads associated with minerals and travel 

decisions also fragment adjacent (undisturbed) habitat, thereby degrading its value to wildlife. 

Habitat fragmentation may be less obvious than direct impacts such as vehicle collisions with 

wildlife or vegetation removal, but often carries considerable consequences for long-term 

population and reproductive success. Large expanses of habitat may be required to meet the 

minimum habitat requirements of the largest, most widely roaming species, including top 

carnivores and large migrating herd animals. 

The impacts of habitat fragmentation from foreseeable oil and gas development and each 

alternative's travel management plan were analyzed for deer and/or elk, desert bighorn, Rocky 

Mountain bighorn, sage-grouse, and migratory birds (discussions of impacts to sage-grouse are 

provided in Section 4.3.15, Special-Status Species). These species were selected for analysis for 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-490 

three reasons: 1) they are species of high interest; 2) published studies were available that 

provided suitable fragmentation thresholds to assess impacts to the species; 3) GIS data were 

available to support the analyses. Other wildlife species (e.g., amphibians, reptiles, small game, 

and raptors) would likely also be impacted by habitat fragmentation, but did not meet the 

analysis criteria above. 

4.3.19.18.1 GENERAL METHODOLOGY 

GIS models were created to analyze the degree of habitat fragmentation under each alternative. 

The models were based on the BLM's best available GIS data for existing roads within the MPA 

(the Travel Plan from Alternative A). The model also utilized habitat acreages proposed under 

Alternative B for each species, which is the most inclusive of BLM-proposed habitat. Within 

areas of the MPA that would be open to oil or gas well development (under Standard, Controlled 

Surface Use, or Controlled Surface Use and Timing Stipulations), the number of wells expected 

under the RFD scenario were randomly distributed by RFD area. Only roads impacts were 

considered in the models; individual wells were assumed to have no area and no effect on 

fragmentation. 

Once the wells had been distributed within the network of existing roads, the model generated 

new roads that connected each well to the nearest existing road. Roads were generated as the 

shortest straight line from well to existing road, without consideration for topography or ease of 

travel. The habitat fragmentation analysis considered the impacts of all BLM-identified existing 

roads and new computer-generated roads on the habitat of each wildlife species examined. 

Several potential sources of error affect these analyses. First, not all existing roads were included 

in the GIS database utilized in the models due to unofficial and uninventoried roads. Therefore, 

these analyses may slightly underestimate some adverse impacts from habitat fragmentation. 

Second, many roads in the MPA are rarely traveled by vehicles (personal communication, Katie 

Stevens), and would therefore have little contribution to habitat fragmentation. Including roads 

with little travel would tend to overestimate the impacts of roads on wildlife habitat. Because the 

impacts of under- and over-estimation would be consistent across all alternatives, the results 

presented should be useful for comparative purposes. 

4.3.19.18.2 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE 

4.3.19.18.2.1 Mule Deer 

Methodology: Habitat fragmentation for mule deer was assessed by determining the proportion 

of habitat where road densities would exceed 0.16 km/km2. Habitat where this threshold would 

be exceeded was considered unfavorable, following Sawyer et al. (2006a, 2006b), who found in 

a case study over a year's time that mule deer preferentially use habitat where road densities are 

≤ 0.16 km/km2 in a natural gas field in western Wyoming. A large body of evidence finds that 

mule deer are impacted by the density of roads. Road density was calculated per km2 of BLMdesignated habitat in the MPA. 

Results: Table 4.158 presents the proportion of BLM-designated mule deer and/or elk habitat 

that would be considered unfavorable to mule deer due to fragmentation by roads under each 

alternative. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-491 

Table 4.158. Percent of Mule Deer and/or Elk Habitat Considered Unfavorable After 

Fragmentation by Roads (road density > 0.16 km/km2) 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Percent Mule Deer and/or Elk Habitat 

Unfavorable 50% 39% 42.5% 48% 

Under Alternative A, approximately half of the mule deer and/or elk habitat in the MPA would 

be unfavorable to mule deer due to existing roads and those expected due to reasonably 

foreseeable minerals development. Existing roads are by far the largest contributor to this 

fragmentation, with less than 100 miles of new roads expected due to minerals development. 

Alternative B would be the least detrimental to mule deer, adversely affecting 39% of the 

available habitat, 11% less (of the total) than under Alternative A. 

4.3.19.18.2.2 Elk 

Methodology: Habitat fragmentation for elk was assessed by determining the proportion of 

habitat where road densities would exceed 0.62 km/km2. Habitat where this threshold would be 

exceeded was considered unfavorable, following Lyon (1983), who found that elk preferentially 

use habitat where road densities are </= 0.62 km/km2. Road density was calculated per square 

km of BLM-designated habitat in the MPA. 

Results: Table 4.159 presents the proportion of BLM-designated mule deer and/or elk habitat 

that would be considered unfavorable to elk due to fragmentation by roads under each 

alternative. 

Table 4.159. Percent of Mule Deer and/or Elk Habitat Considered Unfavorable After 

Fragmentation by Roads (road density > 0.62 km/km2) 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Percent Mule Deer and/or Elk Habitat 

Unfavorable 39% 29% 32% 33% 

Under Alternative A, approximately 39% of the mule deer and/or elk habitat would be 

unfavorable to elk due to existing roads and those expected due to reasonably foreseeable 

minerals development within the MPA. Existing roads are by far the largest contributor to this 

fragmentation, with less than 100 miles of new roads expected due to minerals development. 

Alternative B would be the least detrimental to elk, adversely affecting 29% of the available 

habitat, 10% less (of the total) than under Alternative A. 

4.3.19.18.2.3 Bighorn Sheep 

Methodology: The impacts of habitat fragmentation on both Rocky Mountain and desert bighorn 

sheep were assessed using habitat patch size, rather than road density (as with mule deer and/or 

elk above). This assessment assumed that patch sizes smaller than 159 km2 were generally 

unsuitably fragmented, following Singer et al. (2001), who found that bighorn sheep released 

into habitat patches of at least 158.7 km2 ± 60.3 km2 colonized an average of one neighboring 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-492 

patch, while bighorn released in smaller patches did not colonize neighboring areas and 

eventually left the area. Patch colonization is a necessary precursor to reproduction and 

population maintenance. Desert and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are more sensitive to 

encroachment and habitat fragmentation than are other ungulates in the MPA (Singer et al. 

2001). 

Desert Bighorn Sheep Results: Table 4.160 presents the acres of BLM-designated desert 

bighorn sheep habitat (128,028 acres of the total habitat of 330,892 acres) that would be found in 

patches larger or smaller than 159 km2 under each alternative. 

Table 4.160. Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat Fragmentation 

Alternative Acres of Habitat in 

Patches <159 km2 

Acres of Habitat in 

Patches >=159 km2 

Alternative A 128,028 0 

Alternative B 128,832 0 

Proposed Plan 128,659 0 

Alternative D 128,619 0 

Under Alternatives A, B, D, and the Proposed Plan no unfragmented or favorable habitat exists 

within the MPA. Therefore, all desert bighorn habitat would effectively be unsuitable due to 

fragmentation. However, as stated above in the General Methodology section, many roads within 

desert bighorn habitat are not heavily traveled, and may not have as strong of an impact as the 

results suggest. Alternative B (with the fewest number of new roads planned) would provide the 

greatest amount of suitable bighorn habitat. 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Results: Table 4.161 presents the acres of BLM-designated 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat that would be found in (unfragmented) patches larger or 

smaller than 159 km2 under each alternative. 

Table 4.161. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat Fragmentation 

Analysis (acres) 

Alternative Acres of Habitat in 

Patches <159 km2 

Acres of Habitat in 

Patches >=159 km2 

Alternative A 117,518 310,814 

Alternative B 67,729 361,113 

Proposed Plan 70,202 358,551 

Alternative D 70,202 358,503 

Alternative B would be the most favorable alternative for Rocky Mountain bighorn within the 

MPA. Alternative A would fragment approximately 47,316 more acres into unsuitably small 

patches than the Proposed Plan or Alternative D, and 49,789 more acres than Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-493 

4.3.19.18.2.4 Migratory Birds 

Methodology: Fragmentation of migratory bird habitat was assessed by calculating the 

percentage of migratory bird habitat that would be impacted by vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 

The potential area of impact was assumed to be a 400-meter buffer along each side of all roads in 

designated migratory bird habitat. This buffer represents an average distance based on applicable 

literature (Clark and Karr 1979; Connelly et al. 2000; Crawford et al. 2004; UDWR 2002). 

Because numerous migratory bird species use various habitats in the MPA, impacts were 

analyzed based on habitat types, which could then be extrapolated to specific bird species. 

Results: Table 4.162 presents the percentage of each habitat type that falls within the 400-meter 

buffer surrounding roads in the in the MPA by alternative, as well as representative bird species 

that would be impacted. Although other birds utilize these habitats, these migratory birds were 

selected for analysis because many of them are found on lists of Sensitive species (Partners in 

Flight and Birds of Conservation Concern). The presence of roads can have many detrimental 

impacts on avian communities, including displacement, loss of habitat, and vehicular-related 

mortalities. Vehicles often hit and kill birds that are attracted to roadside vegetation, spilled 

grain, or dead animals (Forman and Alexander 1998). 

Table 4.162. Percentage of Vegetation Habitat Types Impacted by 400-meter Road 

Buffer for Migratory Birds 

Vegetation Type Associated Species Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

PROPOSED 

PLAN 

Alternative 

D 

Conifer and 

Mountain Shrub 

Clark's Nutcracker, 

Flammulated Owl, 

Grace's Warbler, 

Gray Vireo 

24.1 15.0 16.8 19.4 

Desert Shrub Ash-throated 

Flycatcher, Brewer's 

Sparrow, Golden 

Eagle 

74.6 50.9 56.2 58.0 

Piñon-Juniper Black-throated Gray 

Warbler, Gray Vireo, 

Juniper Titmouse, 

Piñon Jay 

48.2 37.7 41.1 42.7 

Riparian and 

Wetland 

Blue Grosbeak, 

Cooper's Hawk, 

Hermit Thrush, 

Peregrine Falcon, 

Northern Harrier 

65.3 45.9 54.3 56.7 

Sagebrush and 

Perennial 

Grassland 

Horned Lark, 

Brewer's Sparrow, 

Sage Thrasher, 

Western Meadowlark 

69.9 58.7 64.4 65.2 

Average 60.2 44.0 48.4 50.0 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives 

4.3.19 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

4-494 

Under each of the alternatives, birds that use desert shrub habitats would experience the most 

habitat fragmentation. Migratory birds that utilize piñon-juniper woodlands would be the next 

most heavily impacted by road effects and habitat fragmentation. 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative A would cause the most fragmentation by allowing 

approximately 294,700 more acres of disturbance compared to Alternative B, 216,099 more than 

the Proposed Plan, and 185,650 more than Alternative D. Alternative B would cause the least 

amount of road-related disturbance to migratory bird habitat (in total and within each habitat 

type). 

4.3.19.19 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

See Table 2.2 of Chapter 2 for a summary of impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources. 

4.3.20 WOODLANDS

This section discusses impacts to woodlands from management actions of other resources and 

resource uses discussed in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning woodlands are described in 

Chapter 3. 

For analysis purposes, the management of non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics, high 

use recreation areas, some ACECs and all WSAs prohibits the harvesting of woodland products. 

This restriction would result in adverse impacts to the harvesting of woodland products. The 

great majority of this harvesting is casual collection by individuals, such as for firewood, fence 

posts, Christmas trees, landscaping, greenwood cutting, and sundry use). Conversely, it was 

assumed that areas within the MPA that were open to woodlands harvesting would have 

beneficial impacts on the resource because 1) opportunities would be available to the public to 

harvest wood for a variety of uses, and 2) managed woodland harvesting (harvesting-related fuel 

load reductions).would reduce wildland fire risks in dense woodland stands. The criteria for 

impacts analysis were the number of acres available and unavailable for woodland harvesting 

within the MPA. 

There have been no timber sales in the MPA in the recent past. Therefore, for analysis, it is 

assumed that there would be no timber sales within the MPA during the life of the plan. Any 

future timber sale would only be allowed within open to woodland harvest areas, and would be 

analyzed on a site-specific basis. 

Utah Riparian Policy prohibits the harvest of riparian species such as cottonwood and willow 

(except for Native American uses). Harvest of these riparian species is therefore not analyzed 

further. 

4.3.20.1 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Under all alternatives, permits for woodland harvesting would continue to be sold, and wood 

gathering areas would continue to be designated. These management actions would reduce the 

need for fire treatments in dense woodlands, support the goals of the Fire Management Plan, and 

improve woodland ecosystem health by thinning woodlands stands and allowing the removal of 

dead and diseased trees. This management action would have long-term, beneficial impacts to 

woodland resources. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-495 

4.3.20.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (B, D, AND PROPOSED PLAN) 

Under Alternatives B, D, and the Proposed Plan implementing the Healthy Forest Initiative and 

the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act would have long-term, beneficial impacts on woodland 

resources, along with the MPA Fire Management Plan mentioned above, by maintaining and/or 

restoring woodland ecosystem health and ensuring the sustainability of woodland resource 

productivity for long-term harvesting. 

4.3.20.3 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS

Air quality, cultural resources, human health and safety, lands and realty, livestock grazing, 

paleontology, minerals, special status species, soil/watershed, travel management, vegetation, 

visual resources , and wildlife and fisheries management actions would have negligible to minor 

impacts on woodland resources and will not be analyzed further in this section. The impacts 

would be negligible because maintaining air quality within the MPA, protecting the public from 

AML site hazards and reducing the risks of hazardous materials spills and cleanup, establishing 

utilization levels and maintaining proper functioning condition on rangelands, allowing fossil 

study and recreational collection of fossils, leasing areas for minerals exploration and 

development, maintaining and improving native vegetation communities, protecting scenic 

quality under designated VRM Class objectives, and maintaining and improving wildlife habitat 

would neither reduce or enhance the opportunities for woodland harvesting nor inhibit the ability 

of the Moab FO to maintain a healthy, sustainable woodland ecosystem. 

Decisions concerning fire management, recreation, special designations, non-WSA lands with 

wilderness characteristics and woodlands will be discussed below. 

4.3.20.3.1 IMPACTS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ON WOODLANDS RESOURCES

Under all alternatives, woodland resources would be subject to fire management fuels treatments 

to reduce the risk of wildland fire through a fire management program. Estimated fuels reduction 

treatments of 5,000 to 10,000 acres/year would be conducted dependent on budgetary and time 

constraints. This could cause surface disturbance-related soil erosion and increase the likelihood 

of noxious weed invasion and establishment and long-term displacement of woodland species. 

These fire-related activities would increase the likelihood of short-term and long-term, adverse 

impacts on woodland resources productivity. Fire treatments would also have short-term adverse 

impacts on woodlands harvesting from restrictions placed on entry into fuels reduction-treated 

areas during vegetation re-growth. Fire management actions under this alternative would be 

beneficial in the long-term because they would reduce the risk of wildland fire in dense stands, 

improve fire condition classes, and protect woodland resources for sustainable yields of 

woodland products. 

4.3.20.3.2 IMPACTS OF NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS DECISIONS 

ON WOODLANDS RESOURCES

4.3.20.3.2.1 Alternative A 

Under this alternative, no non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics, 

which would result in no impacts to woodland harvesting from these decisions. Woodland 

resources may be impacted because woodlands would remain intact. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-496 

4.3.20.3.2.2 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 266,485 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness 

characteristics, with prohibitions on wood cutting. These areas have limited woodland resources, 

are remote and isolated, and have limited motorized access. For these reasons, non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics are not popular for woodcutting activities. Thus, there would be 

no long-term, adverse impacts on the harvesting of woodland products within the MPA. 

Woodland resources would be retained on those 266,485 acres. 

4.3.20.3.2.3 Proposed Plan 

Under the Proposed Plan, 47,561 acres of non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness 

characteristics, with prohibitions on harvesting in these areas. Three of these areas have limited 

woodland resources and have limited access. (Beaver Creek non-WSA lands are remote and 

isolated from populated areas). For these reasons, these areas are not popular for woodcutting 

activities. Thus, there would be no long-term, adverse impacts on the harvesting of woodland 

products within the MPA. Woodland resources would be retained on those 266,485 acres. 

4.3.20.3.2.4 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, no non-WSA lands would be managed for wilderness characteristics, 

resulting in no impacts to woodland harvesting from these types of decisions. Woodland 

resources may be impacted because woodlands would remain intact. 

Table 4.163 illustrates acres closed to Woodland Harvest within non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, by alternative. 

Table 4.163. Acres Closed to Woodland Harvesting within Non-WSA Areas Identified 

with Wilderness Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Non-WSA acres managed for 

wilderness characteristics 

(acres) 

0 266,485 47,561 0 

4.3.20.3.3 IMPACTS OF RECREATION DECISIONS ON WOODLANDS RESOURCES 

SRMAs and portions of SRMAs that are heavily used by recreationists are closed to woodland 

harvest to prevent unnecessary degradation to vegetation. SRMAs include Canyon Rims, 

Colorado Riverway, and portions of Labyrinth Rims/Gemini and South Moab. A comparison of 

acres closed to woodland harvesting within SRMAs is shown below in Table 4.164. 

Table 4.164. Acres Closed to Woodland Harvesting within SRMAs 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

SRMA acres closed to 

woodland harvesting 

180,657 234,590 255,555 180,657 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-497 

For the Proposed Plan and Alternative D, the impacts of recreation management actions on 

woodland resources would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B. 

4.3.20.3.4 IMPACTS OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS DECISIONS ON WOODLANDS RESOURCES

4.3.20.3.4.1 All Alternatives (Including the Proposed Plan) 

Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas (non-discretionary decision). For all of the 

alternatives, the preservation of wilderness values within WSAs and Wilderness areas on 

approximately 354,015 acres preclude any activities that could degrade or cause the loss of 

wilderness values. No woodland harvest is allowed within Wilderness Study Areas or 

Wilderness Areas. 

4.3.20.3.4.2 Alternative A 

ACECs. Under the No Action Alternative, there are no ACECs designated, resulting in no 

impacts to woodland products harvesting from decisions associated with ACECs. 

Wild and Scenic River Segments. Under this alternative, 24 miles of river segments along the 

Colorado River (segments 1, 2, and 3) and 22 miles along the three segments of the Dolores 

River would be recommended as eligible. Until suitability determinations were made, the 

segments would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). Protection 

of these river segments would prohibit harvesting, which would have long-term, adverse impacts 

on woodland resources because harvesting would not be permitted in woodland areas along the 

46 miles of river corridor. 

4.3.20.3.4.3 Alternative B 

ACECs. Under Alternative B, approximately 55,050 acres would be managed to preserve the 

relevant and important values within the proposed ACECs (Behind the Rocks, Bookcliffs, 

Colorado River, Labyrinth Canyon, Mill Creek, Upper Courthouse, Westwater Canyon, White 

Wash, Wilson Arch), including prohibitions on woodland products harvesting. Compared to 

Alternative A, this alternative would prohibit woodland harvesting within a larger area of the 

MPA and would have more long-term, adverse impacts to availability of woodland resources. 

4.3.20.3.4.4 Proposed Plan 

ACECs. The Proposed Plan would prohibit woodland resource harvesting on approximately 

15,498 acres within the ACECs designated in the Proposed Plan. This area represents less than 

2% of the MPA, and the impacts on woodland harvesting would be adverse in the long-term, but 

minor because the area of impact would be relatively small in comparison to the total MPA. 

4.3.20.3.4.5 Alternative D 

ACECs. No ACECs would be designated under this alternative. Table 4.165 illustrates acres 

closed to Woodland Harvesting within Potential ACECs, by alternative. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-498 

Table 4.165. Acres Closed to Woodland Harvesting within Potential ACECs 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

ACEC acres closed to 

woodland harvesting (within 

ACECs designated in that 

alternative or Plan) 

01 55,050 15,478 0 

1 Represent total acres of proposed ACECs by alternative. 

4.3.20.3.5 IMPACTS OF WOODLANDS DECISIONS ON WOODLANDS RESOURCES

4.3.20.3.5.1 Alternative A 

Woodland harvesting would be used to support fire management goals of fuels reductions, and 

harvesting and salvage would be allowed in beetle-kill areas. The management actions for 

woodland resources under this alternative would have long-term, direct, beneficial impacts on 

the resource by: 1) permitting selective harvesting and salvage that would reduce the risks of 

stand-destroying wildland fire (and reduce the potential for long-term loss of the resource and 

woodland productivity) in the MPA; and 2) improving woodland resource conditions through 

selective removal of dead and diseased trees, and selective thinning of dense stands of 

woodlands. 

4.3.20.3.5.2 Alternative B 

This alternative would have similar beneficial impacts as discussed under Alternative A, but to a 

lesser degree, because fewer acres would be managed for harvesting and salvage (Table 4.166). 

Table 4.166. Woodland Acres in the MPA 

Alternative A Alternative B PROPOSED 

PLAN Alternative D 

Open to Woodland Harvesting 1,243,734 958,124 1,168,988 1,243,734 

Actual Woodland Coverage 

in Open Areas 

437,216 

(35% of Open 

Area) 

329,895 

(31% of Open 

Area) 

411,905 

(34% of Open 

Area) 

437,216 

(35% of Open 

Area) 

Closed to Harvesting 609,385 863,250 652,386 609,385 

4.3.20.3.5.3 Proposed Plan 

The Proposed Plan would have similar beneficial impacts as discussed under Alternative A, but 

to a slightly lesser degree, because relatively fewer acres would be available for harvesting and 

salvage (see Table 166). The adverse restriction-related impacts to harvesting discussed under 

Alternative B would be the same for the Proposed Plan. The comparison of this alternative to 

Alternative A would be the same as discussed for Alternative B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.20 Woodlands 

4-499 

4.3.20.3.5.4 Alternative D 

The impacts on woodland resources under this alternative would be the same as those discussed 

under the Alternative A as both alternatives would manage the same number of acres for 

woodland harvesting, salvage, and wood gathering and the same number of acres for exclusion 

from these activities. 

4.3.20.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2.2 (of Chapter 2) summarizes the impacts of the various alternatives and their program 

actions on woodland resources. 

4.3.21 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that remain following the implementation of mitigation 

measures or impacts for which there are no mitigation measures. Mitigation measures include 

stipulations and the BMPs specified for the RMP alternatives. They also include compliance with 

the applicable laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines. Furthermore, implementation decisions 

require project-specific planning and NEPA analysis where additional mitigation measures are 

imposed as conditions of approval. 

Some unavoidable adverse impacts would occur as a result of implementing the decisions in the 

RMP. Implementation decisions require appropriate project-specific planning and NEPA 

analysis and constitute BLM's final approval authorizing on-the-ground activities to proceed. 

Surface-disturbing activities (e.g., construction of well pads and roads, pits and reservoirs, 

pipelines and power lines, mining, and vegetation treatments), OHV use, fire management and 

ecology, some recreational activities, and operation and maintenance of existing facilities and 

infrastructure in the MPA will cause fugitive dust, exhaust emissions, and smoke, thereby 

adversely impacting air quality. 

Surface-disturbing activities, OHV use, fire management and ecology, some recreational 

activities, uncontrolled animal concentrations, and operation and maintenance of existing 

facilities and infrastructure in the MPA may cause soil erosion and soil compaction. These same 

activities, in combination with precipitation events, also may result in runoff and sedimentation 

to existing surface waters. Additional unavoidable adverse impacts from these activities include 

transport and spread of noxious weeds in the MPA. Noxious weeds will continue to spread via 

the wind, in water courses, and by attaching to livestock, wildlife, humans, and vehicles. The 

presence of noxious weeds in the MPA is considered an unavoidable impact. 

Surface-disturbing activities and the development of mineral, energy, and other facilities in the 

MPA are expected to cause the unavoidable degradation, loss, and fragmentation of habitats. 

OHV use, fire management and ecology, some recreational activities, concentrated livestock 

grazing, and operation and maintenance of existing facilities and infrastructure in the MPA may 

contribute to the unavoidable degradation, loss, and fragmentation of wildlife habitats. 

Protection of some resource values (e.g., wildlife, special status species, cultural, and 

paleontological resources) will adversely impact the use of other resources, such as minerals and 

renewable energy. Conversely, use of minerals and renewable energy are expected to adversely 

impact the distribution of some wildlife, special status species, and vegetative communities. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.21 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

4-500 

Minerals exploration and development, rights-of-way development, road and trail construction, 

fence and water developments, and mechanical vegetation manipulation would cause 

unavoidable adverse impacts on the natural character of the planning area as well as on 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation that would not be mitigated through project 

location and design. 

Surface-disturbing activities and development from BLM actions unavoidably will change the 

landscape, scenic quality and setting in the MPA. Non-BLM actions on lands adjacent to BLM 

administered lands also will change the landscape and setting. Fire, insect and disease damage, 

and development also are expected to temporarily impact the scenic quality of the MPA. 

Surface-disturbing activities, OHV use, vandalism, and natural processes (e.g., fire and erosion) 

may adversely impact cultural and paleontological resources in the MPA. 

There would continue to be impacts to cultural and paleontological resources associated with 

dispersed recreation activities, OHV use, vandalism, and other types of activities not authorized 

by the BLM. Unavoidable damage to cultural resources from permitted activities could occur if 

resources undetected during surveys were identified during ground disturbing activities. In these 

instances, further impacts would be ceased upon discovery and the resource would be mitigated 

to minimize data loss. 

4.3.22 SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short term use is defined as activities that occur within a time frame of 1 to 5 years. Long term 

productivity is defined as a time frame of over 5 years and within the life of the plan (15 to 20 

years). 

4.3.22.1 AIR QUALITY

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. Such 

degradation is not projected to be substantial if 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. 

4.3.22.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Following the Section 106 process and standard BLM policy would generally maintain the longterm productivity (i.e., the availability or presence) of cultural sites in the project area. 

4.3.22.3 FIRE MANAGEMENT

The unavoidable impacts described above would potentially impact the long-term efficiency of 

fire management in the MPA. However, if non-surface-disturbing vegetation treatments and fire 

suppression were effectively implemented, they would not result in a long-term loss of key 

ecosystem components or the long-term productivity of natural resources in the MPA. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.22 Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity 

4-501 

4.3.22.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY

There would be no loss in either short-term or long-term productivity as they relate to hazardous 

materials. 

4.3.22.5 LANDS AND REALTY

There would be no loss of long-term productivity from short-term uses. 

4.3.22.6 LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Management of some resources would cause short-term detriment to livestock grazing but would 

eventually be a benefit to the resource and contribute to long-term productivity of rangeland 

resources. Vegetation treatments would cause short-term loss of acres and AUMs available to 

livestock but could contribute to a greater area and amount of forage in the future. The exclusion 

of livestock grazing in areas to benefit wildlife or watersheds would result in a long term loss of 

forage for grazing. 

Some management actions could possibly decrease the long-term productivity of livestock 

grazing, such as construction, minerals extraction, and other surface-disturbing activities that are 

planned to continue long-term. However, these are unlikely to eliminate the long-term 

productivity of livestock forage in the MPA for the foreseeable future. 

4.3.22.7 MINERALS

Once fossil fuel and mineral resources are extracted and the short-term, beneficial uses (e.g., 

increased supply of minerals to meet demand, increased royalties) are realized, the resources 

would no longer be available for long-term or future production. 

4.3.22.8 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

The construction of oil and gas exploration or coal-bed methane access roads and well pads 

would produce a long-term loss of naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation in producing areas and other locations where reclamation is problematic or 

unsuccessful. The effects of prescribed fire for vegetation treatments would, in the long-term, 

enhance vegetation condition and the natural character of non-WSA lands. A more natural 

landscape would improve opportunities for both solitude and primitive forms of recreation. 

Further, construction of riparian fences or new water developments, would degrade the natural 

character of non-WSA lands in the short term, but enhance the riparian vegetation community in 

the long term, providing for a more natural landscape and settings for primitive recreational 

activities. 

Other long-term activities that would degrade wilderness characteristics include above-ground 

rights-of-ways and power line corridors, construction of roads and trails, and allocation of areas 

and routes to motorized vehicle use. Further, implementation of these structures, land treatments, 

and uses would change the natural 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 does not support an experience of solitude and conflicts with 

primitive recreational activities 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.22 Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity 

4-502 

4.3.22.9 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Short-term uses of BLM lands for activities involving surface-disturbance or increased public 

access would have long-term impacts on non-renewable paleontological resources. In 

paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units, surface-disturbing activities affecting 

paleontological resources would include mineral development including oil and gas, trampling 

by livestock, and the construction of infrastructure such as roads, trails, reservoirs, buildings, and 

fire lines. Travel decisions involving OHV use would also have long-term adverse impacts on 

paleontological resources in sensitive areas/geologic units. Enhancing or restricting public access 

due to resource conflicts would create the potential for long-term impacts, either adverse or 

beneficial. In most cases, implementation of paleontological mitigation measures would reduce 

adverse impacts to below the level of significance, and result in beneficial impacts by salvaging 

and preserving fossils that otherwise may have never been discovered in a public museum where 

they would be permanently available for scientific research, education, and public display. 

Accordingly, these long-term impacts would not result in a loss of the long-term productivity of 

this resource. 

4.3.22.10 RECREATION

Recreation users can be displaced or their experiences or desired outcomes can be substantially 

interfered with by other land uses. Short term uses such as mineral exploration could disrupt 

recreation users for a short term. However, long-term disturbance of areas for mineral 

development could affect the long-term use of some lands for certain recreation users. 

4.3.22.11 RIPARIAN RESOURCES

The short-term use of riparian areas for recreation and livestock grazing would not impact the 

long-term productivity as long as Utah BLM Standards for Rangeland Health are met, thereby 

reducing or eliminating effects of those actions known to cause degradation of riparian habitat or 

loss of PFC. Short-term use of riparian areas for utility corridors would impact the long-term 

productivity of riparian resources where infrastructure replaces riparian resources or alters its 

physical or biological processes. 

4.3.22.12 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

Short-term use of resources in the MPA would have negligible impacts on the long-term social 

and economic health and stability in Grand and San Juan Counties. 

4.3.22.13 SOIL AND WATER 

Short-term uses that cause surface disturbance of sensitive soils—including improper livestock 

grazing, recreation and travel, fire management, and minerals development—would result in 

reduction of long-term soil productivity due to the reclamation limitations of these soils and in a 

propensity for erosion. 

4.3.22.14 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

Any loss of relevant and important values within potential ACECs, or outstanding remarkable 

values in WSRs, would persist throughout the life of the RMP, and would constitute a long-term 

loss of these values as a result of short-term uses. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.22 Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity 

4-503 

4.3.22.15 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

As discussed throughout this section, some of the short term, multiple uses of the MPA are likely 

to impact or reduce SS species populations and/or their habitat. These uses include oil and gas 

development, improper livestock grazing, camping, off-road vehicle travel and woodland 

harvest. Most of these impacts would be partially mitigated by the actions discussed in the 

Management Common to All sections for each management decision. Implementation of these 

conservation measures, as well as adherence to BLM requirements and the Endangered Species 

Act would prevent these short-term resource uses from substantially impacting the long term 

productivity of SS species habitat in the MPA. 

4.3.22.16 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Future actions to control fuel loading and to manipulate vegetation could have short-term 

impacts by restricting travel in treatment areas. Limiting use to designated routes would result in 

perceived short term loss of access, but long term access on designated routes would be 

maintained due to decreases in impacts to other resource values. Otherwise, short-term use of 

resources in the MPA would have no impact on the long-term productivity of travel. 

4.3.22.17 VEGETATION

As discussed throughout this section, some of the short-term, multiple uses of the MPA would 

negatively impact the short-term productivity of native vegetation. These uses include oil and gas 

development, improper livestock grazing, camping, off-road vehicle travel, and woodland 

harvest. These impacts, however, provide economic benefits, and would be partially mitigated by 

the protective measures discussed in the Management Common to All sections for each 

management decision. Effective implementation of these protective measures would prevent 

these uses from substantially impacting the long-term productivity of these resources. 

4.3.22.18 VISUAL RESOURCES

Disturbance due to vegetation treatments for fire management, facility/campground construction, 

minerals exploration and development, and exotic species control would have short-term adverse 

impacts on visual resources. However, some of these activities would also have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on visual resources and scenic quality by reducing the potential for visual 

quality degradation from wildland fire, or by producing variations in the vegetation mosaic that 

would create a more diverse (and a potentially more visually interesting) landscape. Reclamation 

of minerals-related surface disturbances would reduce the impacts to the short-term. However, 

long term mineral development would impact the long-term productivity of visual resources in 

visually sensitive areas. 

4.3.22.19 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES RESOURCES

Short-term, multiple uses of the MPA would negatively impact wildlife habitats. These uses 

include oil and gas development, improper livestock grazing, dispersed and developed camping, 

off-road vehicle travel, and woodland harvest. Permanent alteration of wildlife habitat due to 

clearing activities such as oil well pad installation and woodland harvest would constitute longterm adverse impacts on wildlife. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.23 Irreversible and Irretrievable commitment of Resources 

4-504 

Most of these impacts would be partially mitigated by the protective measures discussed in the 

Management Common to All Alternatives sections for each management decision. Effective 

implementation of these protective measures would prevent these uses from substantially 

impacting the long-term productivity of wildlife and fisheries resources. 

Short-term uses of BLM lands for some permitted activities could affect the long-term 

sustainability of some special status species habitat. Uses could affect species by displacing 

animals or removing plants from primary habitats and removing components of these habitats 

which may not be restored for greater than 20 years. For example, since translocation of sagegrouse between populations has not proven successful, long-term loss of sage-grouse habitat due 

to the oil and gas development and other mineral activity could result in the displacement and/or 

loss of localized sage-grouse populations. 

4.3.22.20 WOODLANDS

Short-term uses that could affect the long-term productivity of woodland resources would 

include those activities that inhibit the re-establishment and renewal of woodland resources. 

Short-term uses that could adversely impact the long-term productivity of woodland resources 

include 1) fuels reduction treatments that could limit woodland resources productivity and could 

have short-term adverse impacts on woodlands harvesting from restrictions placed on entry into 

fuels reduction-treated areas, and 2) failure to prevent noxious weed invasion and establishment 

after woodland treatment or other surface disturbances, which could adversely alter successional 

patterns and fire regimes that favor non-woodland vegetation. 

4.3.23 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Section 1502.16 of CEQ regulations requires that the discussion of environmental consequences 

include a description of "any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources which would 

be involved in the proposal should it be implemented." An irreversible commitment of a resource 

refers to decisions impacting the use of nonrenewable resources, and results in the resource being 

permanently lost. For example, the production of oil and gas is an irreversible commitment of 

these resources. An irretrievable commitment of a resource refers to decisions resulting in the 

loss of production or use of a resource. For example, in the construction of a road, the forage is 

lost for as long as the road remains. 

No irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources are anticipated for air quality, health 

and safety, livestock grazing, recreation, socioeconomics, travel management, vegetation, visual 

resources, and wildlife. 

4.3.23.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Because the location and nature of all cultural resources in the area under consideration are 

unknown, it is not possible to determine the amount or level of irreversible and/or irretrievable 

impacts to cultural resources in the MPA. However, it is likely that, in spite of Section 106 of the 

NHPA and BLM policy and guidelines, some non-mitigatable impacts would occur and would 

likely be irreversible since restoration of an archaeological site is typically very difficult. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-505 

4.3.23.2 FIRE MANAGEMENT

The prohibition of fuels reduction and vegetation treatments could result in irretrievable losses in 

habitat value as vegetation types move away from DWFC. However, non surface-disturbing 

vegetation treatments and/or effective suppression followed by effective 

rehabilitation/restoration could prevent these impacts from being irreversible. 

4.3.23.3 LANDS AND REALTY

All alternatives permit Land Tenure Adjustments (sales, exchanges) that may result in the 

irretrievable loss of lands from public ownership when they are transferred to state or private 

ownership. 

4.3.23.4 MINERALS

The extraction and development of mineral resources from the MPA would result in both an 

irreversible and irretrievable loss of those mineral resources due to the finite nature of the 

resource. The impacts would be irretrievable and irreversible because once extracted, the mineral 

resource cannot be used again, nor can it be replaced in the foreseeable future. 

4.3.23.5 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Within non-WSA lands not managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness 

characteristics, the loss of naturalness and/or solitude due to surface-disturbing activities (such as 

mineral development, wood harvest or cross country OHV use) could be irretrievable. 

4.3.23.6 RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Irretrievable loss of riparian habitat could occur due to grazing, visitor trampling, and 

construction-related removal of riparian habitat. It is possible that noxious weed infestation of 

disturbed riparian areas could become an irreversible impact based on past difficulties in 

controlling invasive species, such as tamarisk and Russian olive, in riparian habitat. An 

irretrievable loss of riparian habitat could also occur if riparian habitat is converted to upland 

habitat (by filling, draining, or other landscape alterations) in association with the placement of 

utility corridor infrastructure. 

4.3.23.7 SOIL AND WATER 

Surface-disturbing activities may result in soil erosion. Soil formation requires thousands of 

years to replenish. Eroded soil and lost productivity cannot be recovered. The loss of topsoil 

from soil erosion results in an irretrievable loss of soil productivity. 

Depletion of water from BLM actions may result in an irretrievable commitment of water. The 

production of water from oil and gas wells in the planning area may be an irretrievable 

commitment of groundwater once it reaches the surface. 

4.3.23.8 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

In ACECs or WSRs not designated in an alternative, surface-disturbing activities (such as 

mineral development and cross country OHV use) could result in adverse impacts to relevant and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-506 

important values and outstandingly remarkable values, respectively. However, these impacts are 

not expected to result in an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of these resource values. 

4.3.23.9 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Irretrievable impacts associated with surface-disturbing activities proposed throughout the MPA 

include the loss of Special Status species habitat from mineral development, fire treatments, or 

OHV use. 

4.3.24 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts occur when there are multiple impacts on the same resources. These are 

incremental impacts of proposed activities or projects when combined with past, present, and 

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. 

Resource decisions from this RMP could combine with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions to produce cumulative impacts to resources within the MPA. These 

resources could include air quality, livestock grazing, mineral development, wildlife habitat, and 

recreation use. Co-occurring planning projects in the region that could contribute to cumulative 

impacts include the Manti-La Sal National Forest and the BLM Monticello, Price, and Vernal 

RMPs. Also, similar management direction and resource uses would occur in the adjacent BLM 

Field Offices in Colorado. Activities on Utah School and Institutional Trust Land Administration 

lands (SITLA), private lands, and City and County use plans for surrounding communities could 

have cumulative impacts where land is developed adjacent to BLM lands. 

Past actions that have affected the resources in the Moab planning area are reflected in the 

"Affected Environment" section in Chapter 3 of the Proposed RMP/FEIS. Present, ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable actions are included in the "Reasonably Foreseeable Actions" described 

below. 

The following reasonably foreseeable actions were identified that may contribute cumulative 

impacts to the project. Reasonably foreseeable actions are planned or proposed, not speculative 

or in the distant future. They also include continuation of recent trends in use. The following 

actions are identified as reasonably foreseeable: 

• Land and Resource Management planning in the planning area and surrounding adjacent 

areas. 

• Residential growth and business development throughout the planning area. 

• Continued expansion of mineral extraction activities including oil and gas on BLM lands 

within the planning area and surrounding adjacent areas along with State and private lands. 

• Utility corridor development. 

• Increase in motorized and non-motorized recreational use of BLM lands. 

• National Fire Plan activities for federal and state land management agencies. 

• Continuing implementation of Utah BLM's Rangeland Health Standards and Guides. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-507 

• Expansion of U.S. Highway 191, including development of a network of bike paths. 

• BLM's 13 Western States Vegetation Environmental Impact Statement. 

• Planning for streams not meeting State water quality standards. 

• Continued noxious weeds infestation. 

• Continued human-caused, including prescribed burning, and natural ignitions. 

• Vegetation treatments and sagebrush restoration. 

• New coal-fired power plants. 

4.3.24.1 AIR QUALITY

Activities contributing to cumulative impacts to air quality include prescribed burning; 

construction, equipment operation, and surface-disturbing activities related to oil and gas 

development; and OHV activity throughout most of the MPA. The emissions analysis conducted 

for this analysis does not quantify potential impacts to air quality but provides a basis for 

comparing alternatives and estimating future emissions as related to current emissions. Modeling 

of cumulative air impacts requires specific information not available at the programmatic 

analysis stage. Cumulative impacts from projects will be addressed at the project planning level, 

as appropriate. 

Direct and indirect short-term impacts include increases in airborne particulate and gaseous 

emissions from prescribed burning, construction sites, and/or OHV trails/use areas. OHV related 

air-quality emissions are generally very short-term and site-specific in nature and are not 

projected to affect the wider planning area. Assuming appropriate application of control 

measures and strict adherence to existing regulatory and permitting processes, no appreciable 

cumulative, short-term, adverse air-quality effects can be projected specific to oil and gas 

development. Ozone concentrations in Canyonlands National Park, a Class 1 area, are already 

very close to the NAAQS criteria. The 4th highest daily maximum 8-hr three-year average ozone 

concentration in Canyonlands National Park in 2007 was 0.070 μg/m3. The NAAQS for the same 

averaging period is 0.075 μg/m3. Emissions of VOCs and NOx, both precursors to ozone 

formation, are projected to increase by 4% and 7% respectively due to projected oil and gas 

development under the Proposed Plan. These slight increases could further impact air quality at 

the Canyonlands National Park site and threaten to push the area into non-compliance with 

NAAQS. More definitive and quantitative predictions of concentrations related to oil and gas 

development requires air dispersion modeling, which has not been employed in this analysis 

because the locations of oil and gas wells cannot be determined at the programmatic planning 

level. However, air dispersion modeling is recommended for project specific NEPA in the MPA 

for which specific well locations would be known. Appropriate application of control measures 

and strict adherence to existing regulatory and permitting processes, will also aid in minimizing 

any potential cumulative adverse air quality impacts. 

Long-term cumulative impacts from the activities proposed for all resource decisions on air 

quality include increases in particulate and gaseous emissions from equipment specific to oil and 

gas development, and associated use of service roads. 

Implementing the National Fire Plan across Utah would cause additional short-term localized 

increased in particulate emissions from planned ignitions. However, a long-term reduction in the 

risk of violations of air quality standards from large, uncontrolled smoke emissions would occur. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-508 

Increased motorized recreational use, ongoing growth and development, and new coal-fired 

power plants would contribute particulate matter emissions and fugitive dust emissions. The 

contribution of emissions from activities occurring under the Proposed Plan and the alternatives 

to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are incremental. 

4.3.24.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impacts associated with resource decisions from this RMP, combined with other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions, could produce cumulative impacts on cultural resources and 

resources of religious or traditional importance to Native American tribes associated with the 

decision area. The potential for cumulative impacts includes neighboring lands with connected 

cultural resources including adjoining BLM Field Offices, state and private lands within the 

planning area, the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, and the Manti-LaSal National Forest. 

The same general management direction and resource uses occur on all BLM managed lands and 

the Forest Service. Surface-disturbing activities such as mineral development taking place across 

the region can contribute to cumulative impacts of cultural resources. However, these activities 

would require adherence to cultural resource laws and regulations, resulting in the inventory and 

identification of cultural sites, avoidance, and in some cases data recovery. 

Oil and gas development and mineral exploration and development has occurred across this 

region in the past and would continue into the future, both on BLM lands under the RMP and on 

state and private inholdings. Minerals development of inholdings and lands adjacent to the MPA 

will continue to increase the human presence in the general area, thereby increasing the risk to 

cultural resources from looting, vandalism, and inadvertent impacts. However, the cumulative 

impacts of these activities on cultural resources in the general vicinity of the planning area would 

likely be less than the potential impacts from the continually increasing recreational visitation 

that cultural sites in the region are subject to; recreational activity in and around the MPA would 

continue to increase regardless of which alternative the BLM selects for its RMP. The advent of 

the internet has resulted in the wide publicizing of the locations and types of cultural resources in 

and around the planning area. This, combined with handheld GPS technology and the easy and 

rapid access afforded by the substantial increase in OHV ownership and recreational use, will 

continue to subject cultural resources in the region to heightened risk of damage, vandalism, 

and/or looting. 

Many decisions related to visual resource management, special designations, and restrictions on 

surface disturbance have the potential to provide a net positive benefit to cultural resources 

within the MPA. These decisions would reduce or control the frequency and extent of grounddisturbing activities that present the greatest threat to maintaining the use values of cultural 

resources. In general, all minerals and recreation decisions under all alternatives have the 

potential to increase or at least maintain current levels of adverse impacts to cultural resources. 

Decisions for minerals and recreation generally increase or maintain current levels of surface and 

subsurface disturbance and have as an indirect 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, even if these impacts are inadvertent. 

In general, implementation of the array of resource decisions under Alternative B would have the 

lowest degree of potential negative impact on cultural resources within the MPA, and in many 

cases Alternative B has the highest overall benefit for cultural resources. Overall, fewer acres of 

land would be open for ground-disturbing activities under this alternative than under any other 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-509 

alternative. Although no direct correlation exists between acres of surface and subsurface 

disturbance and numbers of cultural resources impacted, this general trend holds true. By 

comparison, Alternative D and Alternative A have the potential for roughly comparable levels of 

potential adverse impact to cultural resources. Decisions under the Proposed Plan would have a 

potential for adverse impacts between those in Alternative B and those in Alternative D. Under 

all alternatives, specific undertakings that could result in surface and subsurface disturbance and 

have the potential to impact cultural resources are subject to the Section 106 process of the 

NHPA which calls for the identification of historic properties (i.e., 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. 

The incremental contribution of the Proposed Plan and the alternatives on the cumulative 

impacts to cultural resources is anticipated to be minimal since cultural resources are managed in 

compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and policies. 

4.3.24.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY

Cumulative impacts would be the same under all of the alternatives. The potential impacts would 

be due to management actions and planning within those lands surrounding the MPA, including 

the Vernal, Price, Monticello, Grand Junction, Montrose and Durango BLM offices, Arches and 

Canyonlands National Parks and the Manti-LaSal National Forest. 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, including SITLA, that are 

surrounded by BLM land could have impacts from inholding development. 

Hazardous materials are regulated by the EPA and administered by state agencies regardless of 

land status. The incremental contribution of the Proposed Plan and the alternatives on the 

cumulative impacts to health and safety is anticipated to be minimal if all applicable laws, 

regulations, safeguards, and procedures are followed. 

4.3.24.4 LANDS AND REALTY

The number of land-use authorizations, particularly rights-of-way and permits, is a function of 

demand for these uses. Future development of adjacent Federal, state, and private lands would 

likely result in additional requests for and approval of land-use authorizations for facilities such 

as roads, utilities, and communication sites. 

City and County use plans could have cumulative impacts where land is developed adjacent to 

BLM lands. Both the Grand and San Juan County Use Plans have a no net loss of private land as 

a result of government agency land ownership adjustments. This position could affect land 

ownership and the cumulative impacts of future development by favoring disposals of public 

land over purchases of private land. 

The designation of right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas on BLM lands, along with similar 

restrictions on right-of-way development on adjacent lands, particularly National Forest lands, 

would contribute to the cumulative impact of reducing routing options for right-of-way facilities 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-510 

such as utilities and roads. Alternative B has the most avoidance and exclusion areas followed 

next by the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.24.5 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Cumulative impacts to livestock grazing can result from activities and actions within the MPA 

that affect available forage. This includes BLM lands, private lands, State lands, and lands on the 

Manti-La Sal 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 time. 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. 

Due to resource conflicts resulting primarily with wildlife habitat and recreation use, the 

Proposed Plan and the alternatives recommend areas as not available for livestock grazing. The 

acreage not available to grazing under the Proposed Plan and the alternatives is as follows: 

Proposed Plan – 114,234 acres; Alternative A – 126,907 acres; Alternative B – 153,797 acres; 

and Alternative D – 52,214 acres. In all cases, this amounts to only a small percentage of the 1.8 

million acres of public lands within the MPA. 

Therefore, the incremental contribution of the Proposed Plan and the alternatives on the 

cumulative impacts to livestock grazing is minimal. 

4.3.24.6 MINERALS

The restrictions imposed by resource programs under the Proposed Plan and alternatives result in 

impacts to mineral development. These restrictions are depicted on maps 2-5 A-D. For oil and 

gas, the restrictions include closed to leasing along with no surface occupancy, controlled surface 

use, and timing limitation stipulations. These restrictions reduce the unrestricted number of wells 

that were projected in the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario for oil and gas. In 

general, the restrictions also increase development costs and reduce production. An average of 

600 wells is projected on all lands (State, Forest Service, private) within the MPA over the next 

15 years when no restrictions are applied. 

The restrictions identified above are not applied to non-Federal (state and private) wells. While 

other restrictions may be applied to non-Federal wells, the impact of such restrictions cannot be 

quantified for this analysis. Similar restrictions could be applied on the Manti La Sal National 

Forest but the potential for oil and gas development is low. The projections of well numbers 

under each alternative as compared to the baseline are as follows: 

Baseline - 600; Alt A - 452; Alt B - 255; Proposed Plan - 432; Alt D - 448 

As shown above, the incremental contribution to the overall cumulative impacts on minerals, 

resulting in a reduction of the projected oil and gas wells from the baseline, is highest under 

Alternative B followed by the Proposed Plan. The impacts to locatable and salable minerals are 

projected to be minimal for the Proposed Plan and all the alternatives. 

4.3.24.7 NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Within the MPA, a total of 553,956 acres of non-WSA lands were evaluated for wilderness 

characteristics. Out of these acres, a total of 266,485 acres (32 areas) was found to have 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-511 

wilderness characteristics and are proposed for management in Alternative B. Under the 

Proposed Plan, wilderness characteristics would be managed on 47,761 acres (3 areas). No lands 

would be managed for wilderness characteristics under Alternatives A and D. Therefore, the 

potential for adverse cumulative impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics would be the 

greatest under alternatives A and D (266,485 acres). Alternative B would have no cumulative 

impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics and the Proposed Plan would result in 

cumulative impacts to about 218,724 acres (266,485 acres – 47,761 acres = 218,724 acres) of 

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 B, wilderness 

characteristics would be maintained on 266,485 acres. This would make the statewide total of 

Federal lands where wilderness characteristics are protected by law or administrative decision to 

5,932,521 acres or about 4.5% of the statewide total. Under the Proposed Plan, wilderness 

characteristics would be maintained on 47,761 acres. This would make the statewide total of 

Federal lands where wilderness characteristics are protected by law or administrative decision to 

5,713,797 or about 0.8% of the statewide total. Alternatives A and D would contribute to the loss 

of areas with wilderness characteristics in the region. 

4.3.24.8 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Unauthorized activities such as OHV use, dispersed recreation, and vandalism would continue to 

have adverse impacts to paleontological resources under all alternatives. These impacts would be 

reduced under Alternative B and to a lesser extent under the Proposed Plan because they provide 

more constraints on OHV use and dispersed recreation activities. There would also be impacts as 

a result of permitted surface-disturbing activities such as mineral development in areas 

containing significant paleontological resources. The potential for inadvertent adverse impacts to 

paleontological resources from surface-disturbing activities would be greater under Alternatives 

A and D. However, existing laws, regulations, and policies provide for mitigation through 

avoidance or data recovery efforts. Although it is expected that some fossils would be destroyed 

in the course of legitimate uses of public lands, mitigation measures would likely bring 

paleontologist to areas where fossils had not been previously studied. Thus, fossils that would 

otherwise have disintegrated over time due to weathering and erosion would be collected, placed 

in repositories, and protected in perpetuity. Cumulative impacts on paleontological resources 

could occur through incremental degradation of the resource base by a variety of sources, 

reducing the information and interpretive potential of the paleontological resources in the region. 

Activities on lands that are not protected by Federal laws or policies protecting paleontological 

resources could decrease the regional resource base, increasing the scientific value of the 

paleontological resources within the decision area. 

The incremental contribution to the overall cumulative impacts on paleontological resources 

would be greatest under Alternatives A and D. Alternative B would have the least potential for 

adverse cumulative impacts followed to a lesser extent by the Proposed Plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-512 

4.3.24.9 RECREATION

Past and present actions that have had and are having impacts on recreation include mineral 

development, wildland fire suppression and fuels treatments, OHV travel, utility corridor 

development, grazing and recreational activities in riparian areas, and management within 

existing SRMAs and the ERMA. Reasonably foreseeable future or potential prescriptions and 

impacts on recreation are included in each of the resources discussed in this section. Other 

administrative agencies, including the Forest Service and adjacent BLM FOs, and state and local 

agencies contribute to the cumulative impacts. 

The potential cumulative impacts on recreation from actions within the MPA and adjacent and 

local administrative agencies are: 

• Oil, gas, locatable, and salable minerals exploration and development could have a longterm, cumulative effect on the recreational viewshed from surface disturbances and facilities. 

VRM mitigation would reduce these effects, but it is likely that the activities would remain 

visible from points of view within the MPA and from viewpoints within the adjacent 

National Parks. 

• Wildland fire suppression would temporarily affect recreation use in or adjacent to areas 

where prescribed fire or other vegetation treatments are being conducted. The long-term 

cumulative effects would reduce fire risks to recreation area and facilities within the MPA 

and on lands under other administrative agencies. Prescribed burning would temporarily 

degrade air quality (and scenic quality), but with the reduced risks of wildland fire, there 

would be a cumulative decrease in smoke emissions. 

• OHV travel management would have beneficial cumulative effects on recreational 

experiences and resources by reducing surface impacts to soils, cultural resources, riparian 

areas, and wildlife habitat by generally confining travel to designated routes within the MPA. 

The reduction in OHV-related surface disturbances would also cumulatively reduce the 

spread and establishment of exotic, invasive plant species. 

• Riparian areas would be beneficially affected by cumulative actions to improve ecological 

conditions within these sensitive areas, which would improve recreation experiences for 

wildlife viewing, camping, and hiking. 

• The cumulative effect on recreation resources would be enhanced in the long-term by 

managing existing and proposed SRMAs and the ERMA in the MPA and in adjacent BLM 

FOs (Price, Monticello). The designation of SRMAs would help to reduce the conflicts 

between the different recreation uses. The cumulative effect of managing the MPA to 

respond to the expected increase in visitation, changes in recreational demand, and the wide 

range of recreational activities would have beneficial effects on recreation. 

The incremental contribution to the overall cumulative impacts on recreation opportunities, 

setting, and experience would be greatest under Alternatives A and D, as restrictions on surface 

development and protections afforded to natural resources within the planning area would be less 

intensive under these alternatives. Alternative B would contribute the least amount to the 

cumulative impacts because it would provide the greatest protection to natural resources and the 

highest level of non-motorized recreation opportunities. The Proposed Plan would contribute an 

amount in between Alternative B and Alternative D to the cumulative impacts on recreation. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-513 

4.3.24.10 RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Past and present actions within the MPA and on adjacent USFS-administered lands, state lands, 

and private lands that affect and have affected riparian areas include livestock grazing, 

recreational uses (including OHVs, non-motorized recreation, etc), mineral exploration and 

development, and upstream water withdrawals and impoundments. In general, these actions have 

all had cumulatively adverse impacts on riparian health. Livestock grazing, recreation, and 

mineral-related activities have led to surface disturbance, soil compaction, removal of riparian 

vegetation, bank trampling, and alteration of riparian areas' physical structure. They have also 

resulting in the widespread introduction of invasive weeds. Water withdrawals and 

impoundments have limited the health and extent of riparian zones by decreasing water 

availability, and encouraged the introduction of invasive plants through the stabilization of 

formerly dynamic sediment deposits, such as bars and banks. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect riparian areas include an expansion of 

recreational use and ongoing mineral exploration, development, and extraction. All of these 

actions could have a potential adverse effect on riparian areas. Beneficial impacts would result 

from Forest Service planning efforts, which will reduce negative impacts to riparian resources on 

National Forest lands. Future impacts on private lands may include both positive and negative 

impacts as described above. 

Under the Proposed Plan and the alternatives, riparian resources would benefit from management 

for Properly Functioning Condition, in accordance with the Utah Standards for Public Rangeland 

Health for BLM Lands in Utah and with the Grazing Guidelines for Grazing Management. This 

would mitigate many of the adverse impacts from past, present, and future actions. In addition, 

continuing closure of several allotments to grazing with perennial streams and riparian 

vegetation would continue the restoration and enhancement of riparian resources in these areas. 

The Proposed Plan and the alternatives would also preclude surface-disturbing activities within 

100-year floodplains and 100 meters of riparian areas which should benefit riparian resources. 

Therefore, the incremental contribution of the Proposed Plan and the alternatives to the 

cumulative impacts on riparian resources is expected to be minimal. 

4.3.24.11 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

Resource decisions from the Proposed Plan and the alternatives would combine with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions to produce cumulative impacts to the social and 

economic conditions of Grand and San Juan Counties. Resource decisions for the Monticello 

Field Office, Arches and Canyonlands National Parks and the Manti La Sal National Forest, 

which are adjacent to the MPA, could potentially result in socioeconomic impacts to local 

communities. Changes in management actions that increase or decrease visitation to these areas 

could have beneficial or adverse impacts on the local economy, with regard to tourism-based 

revenue. 

Mineral development outside the MFO's jurisdiction, but within or near the MPA could also 

impact social and economic conditions. According to the BLM's RFD, the total maximum 

amount of wells predicted to be drilled on all lands within the planning area over the life of the 

RMP is 600 wells. According to the Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, the maximum 

amount of wells projected for BLM lands is 451. Additional development of producing oil and 

gas wells could bring additional tax and royalty revenue to the counties, beyond the amount 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-514 

estimated in the analysis above. Additional jobs may be created with the production of 151 more 

wells, but as stated above, the amount of full-time, local residents employed by oil and gas 

developers is a relatively small portion of the employed population. 

Additional mineral development, including the potential increase in uranium mining on nonBLM lands and the establishment of the Lisbon Valley Copper Mine, could have short and longterm beneficial impacts on local economic conditions with regard to employment and tax 

revenue. The Lisbon Valley Copper Mine is expected to employ approximately 145 people and 

produce more than 12,500 tons of ore per day (BLM 2004e). A potential increase in uranium 

extraction throughout the MPA could have some short-term beneficial economic impact on local 

communities; however, uranium development is not projected to be extensive, and therefore 

should not adversely impact visitor experience and recreation-related revenues. 

In addition to BLM management decisions, the remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings 

by the Department of Energy (DOE) could potentially impact socioeconomics. Beneficial 

economic impacts would likely come from short and long-term increases to the regional tax base. 

An increased demand for temporary housing by a workforce coming in from outside the region 

and support services (hotels and restaurants) would bring a temporary increase in tax revenues. 

Direct and indirect employment related to the transport of the tailings would result in over 300 

jobs and over $13,400,000 in labor earnings. Employment related to the site monitoring and 

ground water remediation is not anticipated to have long-term substantial impacts on local 

employment levels, earnings, and revenues from goods and services (DOE 2005). 

Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is currently developing a network of bike paths and 

transit facilities that would provide alternative access to Moab's popular recreation sites. The 

project, entitled the North Moab Recreation Areas Alternative Transportation Project, is 

anticipated to increase safety of visitors by separating non-motorized from motorized users, 

enhance visitor experience by allowing them to see the area via bicycle or walking, and benefit 

the environment by reducing air and noise pollution and reducing the footprint of motorized 

vehicles on the desert ecosystem. UDOT has estimated that the completed project would 

alleviate an estimated 20% of traffic congestion in the area and approximately 500,000 people 

would use the transit hub and non-motorized infrastructure annually. This project would likely 

have long-term beneficial impacts on local social and economic conditions, as the trail system 

would provide increased opportunities for recreation in the Moab area. 

4.3.24.12 SOIL AND WATER 

Past and present actions that affect and have affected soil and water resources include livestock 

grazing, recreational uses (including OHVs, non-motorized recreation, etc), mineral exploration 

and development, woodland harvest, and vegetation treatments (including those for fire 

management). In general, these actions have all had cumulatively adverse impacts on soil 

resources by causing surface disturbance contributing to reduced soil productivity, soil 

compaction, erosion, and subsequent sedimentation. They have also resulted in the widespread 

introduction of invasive weeds, which can affect water resources through increased 

evapotranspiration rates, and soil resources through alterations to soil chemistry and 

productivity. Water withdrawals and impoundments have limited water availability and quality. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the MPA and on Federal, state, private, and other lands 

within and adjacent to the MPA that would affect soil and water resources include an expansion 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-515 

of recreational use and ongoing mineral exploration, development, and production. All of these 

actions will have an adverse effect on soil and water resources in the MPA. Beneficial impacts 

would result from Forest Service planning efforts, which would reduce negative impacts to soil 

and water resources on adjacent Forest Service lands and on MPA lands adjacent to and 

downslope and downstream from Forest Service lands. Future impacts from private land uses 

may be positive or negative, as described above. 

Under all alternatives, soil and water resources would benefit from management, in accordance 

with the Utah Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health. Adherence with these standards 

would reduce many of the adverse impacts from future actions. In general, Alternatives A and D 

would be the least protective of soil and water resources, result in the least beneficial impacts to 

soil and water resources, and have the least mitigating effect on past impacts to soil and water 

resources in the MPA. Alternative B would be the most protective and would provide the 

greatest reductions of cumulative impacts by excluding the most areas from grazing and other 

forms of surface disturbance, and prioritizing the most WMPs. The Proposed Plan would provide 

a level of protection and mitigation of cumulative impacts between that in Alternative B and D; 

however, Alternative A excludes more acreage from grazing. 

4.3.24.13 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

ACECs and WSRs

There would be negligible cumulative impacts to those areas managed in the Proposed Plan as 

Special Designations for ACECs or WSRs. Cumulative impacts to areas proposed for Special 

Designation in Alternative B can result from decisions on BLM lands and State lands. Adverse 

impacts would occur mainly from surface-disturbing activities such as mineral development. 

Impacts could include the loss of vegetation resulting in impacts to soils, wildlife habitat, and 

visual resources. These cumulative impacts could lead to the loss of relevant and important 

values for ACECs and outstanding remarkable values for Wild and Scenic Rivers not designated 

in the Proposed Plan. 

Those rivers not found suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation in the Proposed Plan 

could be subject to the alteration of their free-flowing character resulting from potential future 

water developments. 

Therefore, the incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts on Special Designations is 

greatest for Alternatives A and D, least for Alternative B, and in between Alternative B and 

Alternatives A and D for the Proposed Plan. 

Wilderness and WSAs

The Proposed Plan and the alternatives would contribute no adverse cumulative impacts to 

Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas because they are protected by law, regulation and policy. 

4.3.24.14 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, VEGETATION, AND WILDLIFE

Surface disturbance associated with consumptive uses such as oil, gas and other minerals 

development, and forage use by livestock and wildlife species would result in cumulative effects 

over a larger landscape scale than the planning area for the Moab RMP. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-516 

Oil and gas development has occurred across this region on both BLM and non-BLM lands in 

the past and will continue into the future. The combined amount of surface disturbance of these 

past, present, and future actions could be detrimental to sensitive plants and animals. The spatial 

layout of oil and gas facilities disturbs a large proportion of vegetation and wildlife habitat when 

considered across the region. Each disturbed area for a well pad increases the opportunity for 

weed invasions and disrupts the spatial continuity of vegetation communities, and hence, habitat 

for sensitive plant and animal species. Other activities such as road building and increased OHV 

use could increase human access to sensitive areas that SS species, vegetation, and wildlife are 

dependent upon for survival. For example, increased human access into prairie dog sites could 

increase mortality by shooters and indirectly impact all the species associated with them. 

The overall cumulative impact of activities proposed on these resources could be detrimental at 

localized areas within the short term, with long-term improvements for (non-special-status) 

vegetation and wildlife habitat. Major contributors on both BLM and non-BLM lands include 

OHV activities; habitat destruction from mineral development related activities; some vegetation 

treatments such as sagebrush removal; and possible 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 sensitive plants or animals from mineral, oil, and gas 

related development. Indirect impacts on both BLM and non-BLM lands would also occur with 

habitat fragmentation due to development, changes in OHV use due to increased roads, and 

rock/fossil collection. These activities would concentrate grazing pressures and recreation use on 

habitat sites for some plant and wildlife species. The conversion of land use from agricultural 

lands to residential and commercial uses would increase the habitat values of undeveloped land. 

The change in land use could result in the loss of habitat for some wildlife species. 

The cumulative impacts of all the uses discussed above on both BLM and non-BLM lands could 

lead to lower populations of sensitive (and non-sensitive) plants and animals in the future. 

However, protections provided by the Endangered Species Act would minimize the potential 

adverse cumulative impacts to listed species. Conversely, beneficial impacts would be obtained 

with BLM designation of proposed ACECs, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and management of nonWSA lands for wilderness characteristics, because numerous plant populations and wildlife 

habitats would be given special management protection within the boundaries of those areas. As 

a result of these proposed designations, the incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts 

on plant and animal habitats would be the greatest under Alternatives A and D, the least amount 

under Alternative B, and in between Alternative B and Alternatives A and D under the Proposed 

Plan. 

4.3.24.15 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Past, present, and future actions impacting travel management include the addition of routes for 

fire and fuels management to reduce the risks of wildland fire, vegetation treatments to control 

invasive species, new minerals exploration and development routes, managing for increasing 

recreational demand and visitation by adding new routes, and other changes in travel 

management; however, these actions would likely be minor. 

Transportation and road networks adjacent to BLM lands include routes shared with other 

Federal agencies, SITLA, and private landowners. Cumulative impacts to transportation and 

access would occur primarily from actions that facilitate, restrict or preclude motorized access, 

including the designation of routes on BLM land. Management actions that restrict OHV use 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-517 

would limit the degree of travel opportunities and the ability to access certain portions of the 

planning area. The continued maintenance of Federal and state highways would provide arterial 

connections to BLM roads. County maintained routes that connect Federal and state highways to 

BLM-system routes would maintain and improve access to the MPA's resources. 

Therefore, the incremental contribution of the Proposed Plan and the alternatives to the 

cumulative impacts on Travel Management is expected to be minimal because the designated 

routes under the Proposed Plan and the alternatives provide sufficient travel opportunities 

throughout the MPA. 

4.3.24.16 VISUAL RESOURCES

4.3.24.16.1 ALTERNATIVE A-NO ACTION

Under Alternative A, only 100,273 acres on BLM-administered lands within the MPA are 

managed for visual resources. Past and present actions on BLM and non-BLM lands causing 

cumulative impacts to visual resources include fire suppression, minimal fuels treatments, and 

minimal prescribed fire treatments, resulting in a buildup of hazardous fuels materials. Minerals 

exploration, development, and extraction have been and are being conducted within the MPA, 

producing surface disturbances within the MPA. The demand for recreational opportunities has 

been and is presently intensifying resulting in impacts to backcountry and frontcountry recreation 

areas as visitors expand into previously undisturbed areas of the MPA. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include vegetation treatments to reduce fuel loading and to 

improve vegetation community and enhance wildlife habitat. Recreational activity and use within 

the MPA is expected to increase, including OHV use, backcountry camping, mountain biking, 

rock climbing, and on-road sightseeing, with expected increased visitation to the adjacent 

national parks and national forests, and foreseeable increases in demand for recreational facilities 

and recreational opportunities. Mineral exploration, development and extraction, including oil 

and natural gas well drilling, are expected to increase over the next 15 to 20 years. 

Therefore, the incremental contribution of Alternative A to the cumulative impacts on Visual 

Resources is expected to be extensive because this alternative provides minimal protection for 

Visual Resources. 

4.3.24.16.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES-ALTERNATIVES B, D, AND THE PROPOSED PLAN

Under the Proposed Plan, as well as under Alternatives B and D, BLM lands are managed to 

protect Visual Resources. The protection provided is greatest under Alternative B, least under 

Alternative D and in between Alternative B and Alternative D under the Proposed Plan. Past and 

present management, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the proposed 

action alternatives (Alternative B, D, and Proposed Plan) would have cumulative impacts on 

visual resources that preserve scenic quality within the MPA. The risks of wildland fire would be 

reduced within the MPA and on adjacent national forests through increased vegetation treatments 

to reduce fuel loads; recreation activities and off-road travel would be managed to limit surface 

disturbances by greatly reducing areas open to OHV use so that areas inventoried as having high 

scenic quality would be preserved. Mineral exploration, development and extraction, including 

oil and natural gas well drilling, are expected to increase over the next 15 years to 20 years, but 

visual resource management and associated mitigation would likely limit the impacts in 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4.3.24 Cumulative Impacts 

4-518 

viewsheds with high scenic quality in the MPA and in the adjacent national parks and national 

forests. Visual resource management would include conformance of minerals exploration and 

development activities with VRM Class objectives, which would preserve scenic quality in the 

long-term in areas that the MPA has designated for scenic quality protection. 

Therefore, the incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts on Visual Resources is 

expected the greatest under Alternative D, the least under Alternative B, and in between 

Alternative B and Alternative D under the Proposed Plan. 

4.3.24.17 WOODLANDS

The cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have 

long-term, beneficial and adverse impacts on woodland resources. Under the guidance of the 

Moab Fire Plan, and fire plans in adjacent BLM and USDA Forest Service Districts, fuel load 

reductions, vegetation treatments, and woodland salvaging would reduce the risks of wildland 

fire and long-term loss of woodland resources and productivity within the MPA. These activities 

(including stand thinning and salvage of dead, diseased, and infested trees) would also improve 

woodland resource productivity by indirectly improving woodland ecological conditions. 

Woodland productivity would be lost as woodlands were converted into rangeland for increased 

livestock forage. Cumulative travel management impacts would be beneficial to woodland 

resources because surface disturbance and soil loss would be lessened. Other resource use 

management actions would have adverse impacts on woodland resources by restricted resource 

harvesting (WSAs and Wilderness Areas, ACECs, SRMAs, and wilderness characteristics areas), 

and would continue to restrict resource harvesting in the future; however, the area of harvesting 

restrictions would be relatively small compared to the area managed as open to opportunities for 

resource harvesting. 
5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

During the planning and decision-making process for this Moab 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 plan, and prepare environmental documents that disclose the potential 

impacts of the preferred alternative/proposed plan the reasonable alternatives. 

Such public involvement, consultation, and coordination have been at the heart of the planning 

process leading to the Moab 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 June 4, 2003 by publishing in the Federal Register a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to conduct land-use planning for the Moab 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. Scoping remained open until January 2004. As 

part of the resource inventory, members of the interdisciplinary (ID) team formally and 

informally contacted various relevant agencies to request data to supplement BLM's existing 

resource database. 

On August 27, 2007, the BLM published in the Federal Register a Notice of Availability of the 

Draft RMP/EIS to announce and solicit public comments on the alternatives and impacts and 

effects of those alternatives on the human environment. The BLM distributed to relevant 

agencies and the interested public the Draft RMP/EIS for review and comment. The comment 

period ended November 30, 2007. The comments and the BLM's responses thereto are addressed 

in this Proposed RMP/Final EIS (PRMP/FEIS or Proposed Plan). 

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 Moab Field Office (Moab FO). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-2 

5.2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH TRIBES, STATE AND LOCAL 

GOVERNMENTS, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES

In the development of this PRMP/FEIS, the BLM is required to consult and coordinate with 

other Federal agencies, State and local government agencies and officials, both elected and 

appointed, and federally recognized 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 laws, regulations, policies, 

and executive orders, direct BLM to coordinate and consult with Native Americans, the State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the planning/NEPA decision-making process. 

This section documents the specific consultation and coordination efforts undertaken by 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 BLM throughout 

the planning process in the development of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Cooperating agency status has been extended to state and local agencies with regard to the Moab 

RMP/EIS planning effort. Both San Juan and Grand Counties signed Memorandums of 

Agreement in 2003 to be cooperating agencies. The State of Utah signed a cooperating agency 

agreement in 2003. More than 60 meetings have been held with the cooperating agencies 

throughout the planning process, occurring between March 2003 and March 2007. RMP/EISrelated topics discussed in these meetings include socioeconomics, Wild and Scenic River 

suitability, ACEC relevance and determination, travel plans, and the development of alternatives 

for all resources. 

In addition to the cooperating agencies, the Moab FO has held meetings with and sought the 

input of other agencies that have land management jurisdiction within or adjacent to the planning 

area. Agencies include the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. National Park Service, the 

U.S. Forest Service, and adjoining BLM field offices, including Grand Junction, Durango, 

Montrose, Price, Monticello, and Vernal. 

5.2.1 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION

Protective measures for culturally sensitive Native American resources are established through 

consultation and coordination with the appropriate Native American tribes or entities. Pursuant 

to NEPA, 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, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-3 

2003:15). Native American consultation is an ongoing process that will continue after the 

PRMP/FEIS 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 Monticello and Moab Field Offices jointly invited tribes to consult regarding the entire range 

of cultural and natural resource issues. 

As part of the RMP/EIS scoping process, by letter dated August 1, 2003, Utah State Director 

Sally Wisely initiated consultation for land-use planning with 34 tribal organizations (Table 5.1). 

In the letter, the BLM requested information regarding any concerns the organizations might 

have within the planning areas, specifically requested input concerning the identification and 

protection of culturally significant areas and resources located on lands managed by the Moab 

and Monticello Field Offices, and offered the opportunity for meetings. Between November 

2003 and May 2004, all 34 tribal organizations were contacted by SWCA ethnographer Molly 

Molenaar, under contract with and on behalf of the BLM, to 1) ensure that the appropriate tribal 

contact had received the consultation letter and 2) determine the need for additional or future 

consultation for the study areas identified in the consultation letter. Meetings were arranged 

when requested. 

In consulting with tribes or tribal entities under the NHPA, the BLM emphasized the importance 

of identifying historic properties having cultural significance to tribes (commonly referred to as 

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). The BLM held meetings with 12 tribal organizations 

between December 2003 and May 2004, but no TCPs were identified (Table 5.2). The BLM was 

represented at most of these meetings by the Field Office manager and archaeologist from both 

the Moab and Monticello Field Offices along with the representative from SWCA. During these 

meetings, tribal organizations were invited to be a cooperating agency in the development of the 

land-use plan; however, none of the tribal organizations the BLM came into contact with 

requested to be a cooperating agency. 

Several tribal organizations requested that an additional meeting be held after the DRMP/EIS 

alternatives were prepared. The Moab FO mailed a draft copy of the range of alternatives to 12 

tribal organizations in December 2005. In 2006 and 2007, the Moab FO manager and 

archaeologist, assisted by the SWCA ethnographer, participated in a second round of meetings 

with 5 tribes (Table 5.3). At these meetings, the draft RMP/EIS alternatives were discussed with 

special emphasis on cultural resource issues. A copy of the Moab Draft RMP/EIS was mailed in 

August 2007 to the tribal organizations listed in Table 5.2. Consultation with interested tribes is 

ongoing. In April 2008, the BLM extended an invitation to meet with tribal organizations 

regarding the PRMP/FEIS. 

Table 5.1. Tribal Organizations Contacted by the BLM, Utah State Director 

Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe 

Navajo Utah Commission Navajo Nation, Aneth Chapter 

Navajo Nation, Dennehotso Chapter Navajo Nation, Mexican Water Chapter 

Navajo Nation, Navajo Mountain Chapter Navajo Nation, Oljato Chapter 

Navajo Nation, Red Mesa Chapter Navajo Nation, Teec Nos Pos Chapter 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe White Mesa Ute Council 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-4 

Table 5.1. Tribal Organizations Contacted by the BLM, Utah State Director 

Southern Ute Tribe Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 

Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

San Juan Southern Paiute Council Kaibab Paiute Tribe 

Pueblo of Cochiti Pueblo of Acoma 

Pueblo of Jemez Pueblo of Isleta 

Pueblo of Nambe Pueblo of Laguna 

Pueblo of Pojoaque Pueblo of Picuris 

Pueblo of Santa Ana Pueblo of Sandia 

Pueblo of Santo Domingo Pueblo of Santa Clara 

Pueblo of Tesuque Pueblo of Taos 

Pueblo of Zuni Pueblo of Zia 

 Table 5.2. Meetings with Tribal Organizations as part of Scoping for the Land-use 

Plan 

Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe 

Navajo Utah Commission Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 

Navajo Nation, Dennehotso Chapter Pueblo of Santa Clara 

Pueblo of Zia Pueblo of Zuni 

Pueblo of Laguna Southern Ute Tribe 

Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Table 5.3. Meetings with Tribal Organizations to Discuss Draft Alternatives 

Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Southern Ute Tribe 

5.2.2 COOPERATING AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

The Moab Field Office extended cooperating agency status to state and local agencies with 

regard to the Moab land-use planning effort. The State of Utah signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) to be a cooperating agency in January 2003. San Juan County signed a 

MOU in April 2003 to be a cooperating agency. Grand County signed a similar MOU in May 

2003 to be a cooperating agency. Cooperating agencies that have participated in the development 

of the Moab land-use planning process include: State of Utah, San Juan County, and Grand 

County. 

NEPA requires that the BLM work closely with cooperating and other responsible trustee state 

agencies in preparing an EIS. The cooperating agencies participated in more than 60 meetings to 

assist the Moab Field Office with travel plans and Off Highway Vehicle route designations, Wild 

and Scenic River eligibility and suitability determinations, ACEC relevance and importance 

determinations, mineral development, recreation, socioeconomic considerations, and 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-5 

development of alternatives (Chapter 2) for the RMP. These meetings occurred between March 

2003 and March 2006. A draft of the alternatives was sent to the cooperating agencies in March 

2007 for review and comment before the release of the Draft RMP/EIS in August 2007. 

The BLM has continued to involve the cooperating agencies in addressing comments raised 

during the public comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS and in developing the proposed 

alternative for the PRMP/FEIS. 

5.2.3 STATE AGENCY COORDINATION

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). A copy of the DRMP/EIS was sent to the SHPO for 

review and comment. The comments submitted by SHPO have been addressed in the comment 

and response section of this chapter. In May 2008, formal consultation was initiated with SHPO 

regarding the potential affects to cultural resources regarding the Proposed Alternative in the 

PRMP/FEIS. The BLM will finalize SHPO consultation before the Record of Decision is signed. 

The BLM consulted with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources regarding management of 

wildlife habitat and in developing the alternatives for the DRMP/EIS. 

The Mineral Potential Report and the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario for oil and 

gas regarding the Moab planning area were prepared in cooperation with the Utah Geological 

Survey. 

5.2.4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

In developing the Proposed RMP/FEIS, the BLM coordinated with numerous other federal 

agencies. There are legal requirements for consultation with some federal agencies. The 

consultation and coordination efforts are described below. 

5.2.4.1 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The BLM consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 Endangered Species Act and with the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 USC Sec 661 et seq. 

In July 2004, the BLM requested assistance from the USFWS in identifying threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and candidate plant and animal species that may be located in the Moab 

planning area. A letter was sent by the BLM Utah State Office to the USFWS initiating informal 

consultation for the Moab planning effort. The USFWS responded with lists of species that may 

be present in or may be affected by projects in the project area. Table 3.45 of the PRMP/FEIS 

presents a comprehensive list of sensitive species that may be present in the planning area and 

indicates whether they could be affected by any of the land-use plan alternatives. 

The Moab land-use plan is considered a major Federal project and the BLM initiated informal 

consultation with the USFWS in February 2008 by submitting the Biological Assessment (BA) 

for the Proposed Action in the PRMP/FEIS. In the BA, the BLM determined that the 

implementation of the Proposed Action in the PRMP/FEIS "may affect" or is "not likely to 

adversely affect" the species on which consultation occurred. The USFWS may concur with the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-6 

BLM's determination in the BA 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 will finalize Section 7 consultation before the Record of Decision is signed. 

5.2.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The BLM provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a copy of the DRMP/EIS 

and the EPA has submitted comments on this document. The EPA rated the document 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 within the Moab 

planning area. Additional analysis and information regarding air quality has been included in 

Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS based on EPA comments. 

5.2.4.3 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The Moab planning area includes Arches National Park and shares a boundary with Canyonlands 

National Park. Coordination with Park Service representatives was held early in the land-use 

planning process and during the development of alternatives to the RMP in order to identify 

issues of concern. The Park Service was provided copies of the DRMP/EIS and it submitted 

comments. 

5.2.4.4 U.S. FOREST SERVICE

The Moab planning area includes the Manti La Sal National Forest. The Forest Service is also 

engaged in revising its land-use plan. Coordination with representatives of the Forest Service 

was held to identify common issues. The major common issue is Wild and Scenic River 

eligibility and suitability. The Manti La Sal National Forest was provided a copy of the 

DRMP/FEIS. 

5.3 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS

The BLM's planning regulations require that resource management plans be consistent with 

officially approved or adopted resource-related plans of other federal agencies, state and local 

governments, and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and resource management plans are also 

consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of federal law and regulations applicable to 

public lands. 

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 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-7 

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. 

Thus, while County and Federal planning processes, under FLPMA, are required to be as 

integrated and consistent as practical, the Federal agency planning process is not bound by or 

subject to County plans, planning processes, or planning stipulations. The BLM will identify 

these conflicts in the FEIS/PRMP, so that the State and local governments have a complete 

understanding of the impacts of the PRMP on State and local management options. A 

consistency review of the PRMP with the State and County Master Plans is included in Chapter 

5. In addition, the relevant goals, objectives or policies of a County are often equivalent to an 

activity or implementation level decision and not a land-use plan decision. The very specific 

County goals would be addressed in any subsequent BLM activity or implementation level 

decision. 

Table 5.4 outlines the planning consistency of the Proposed Plan with the approved management 

plans, land-use plans, and controls of other agencies with jurisdiction in or adjacent to the 

planning area. With a few exceptions, the Proposed RMP/FEIS is consistent with the Grand and 

San Juan County Plans. 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. 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Category Grand County General Plan 

Update (2003) Consistent Partially Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Strong Economy Supports multiple use of public lands 

including continued recreation uses 

and oil and gas exploration and 

development.

X

   

Watersheds Supports multiple use of public lands 

including continued recreation uses 

and oil and gas exploration and 

development. 

X

   

Land Tenure 

Adjustments 

County will work to protect 

watersheds from activities and uses 

that are injurious to them and adopt 

policies that enhance and restore 

them. 

X

   
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-8 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Travel 

Management 

 Recognizes that allowing open, 

cross-country travel by mechanized 

vehicles is no longer an appropriate 

management practice. Supports 

more restrictive travel designations 

limiting mechanized travel to 

designated roads and trails and a 

"no new tracks" policy. 

X

   

ACECs Encourages identification and 

conservation of areas with unaltered 

plant communities and soils through 

ACEC designations. 

X    

Wilderness Supports recommendation for 

Beaver Creek designation adopted 

by the Grand County Council in 

1995. The plan is partially 

inconsistent in the addition of the 

Mary Jane Canyon and Fisher 

Towers areas. Will follow State of 

Utah's recommendation concerning 

wilderness designation where 

consistent with the interests of the 

people of Grand County. 

X   

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

Will participate and promote 

cooperation in planning and 

administration of Wild & Scenic 

River designations. 

X    

Reintroduction of 

Animal Species 

Grand County would participate in 

evaluation of feasibility and 

advisability of reintroductions. 

X    

Category Grand County River Road (SR128) Corridor Plan (12/1998) Consistent Partially 

Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Land-use Promotes protection of agriculture 

and ranching activities along with 

aesthetics of agricultural fields and 

open spaces. 

X    

Canyon Character States that preservation of the area's 

canyon character and spaciousness 

is the most important purpose of the 

plan. 

X    

Economic 

Development 

Supports creating economic assets 

and diversity for the county without 

creating adverse fiscal impacts. 

X    
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-9 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Recreation Supports limitation of recreation in 

the river corridor to rafting, climbing, 

hiking, horseback riding, camping, 

and similar activities. Opposes use 

of vehicles off established roads and 

trails. 

X

   

Transportation Supports multi-purpose pathway or 

trail connection from US-191 to 

improve safety as long as canyon 

character is not adversely affected. 

X

   

Sensitive Areas Supports protection of sensitive 

areas and resources, including 

steep slopes, roadless areas, wildlife 

habitats and water quality. 

X

   

Category 

Crescent Junction to Thompson 

Springs Future Land-use Plan 

Amendment to the Grand County 

General Plan (3/2003) 

Consistent Partially 

Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

This area is intended to 

accommodate a wide variety of 

commercial activities meeting the 

needs of local business and 

residents, to make Thompson 

Springs a more attractive and 

energetic place to live, work and 

shop and to enhance the economic 

development. 

X    

General Uses 

All development in the designated 

Industrial category area will protect 

the environment, minimize visibility 

and excessive site disruption, and 

take into consideration the health 

and welfare of area residents. 

Development in the area should be 

asked to demonstrate reasonable 

mitigation of environmental impacts; 

and, demonstrate best efforts with 

respect to the utilization of color, 

shape, contrast, land-sculpting and 

site design to avoid drawing undue 

attention to its presence on the 

landscape. BLM response: The 

restrictions would require a VRM II 

designation which is not proposed 

for this area. 

X   
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-10 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Category Grand County Master Plan for 

Non-Motorized Trails (3/2005) Consistent Partially Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Guiding Principles Trails are vital to the responsible use 

of natural resources; important to 

livable neighborhoods and a vibrant 

business community; must be 

viewed as part of a total, integrated 

trail system; must be properly 

designed to achieve a successful 

trail system and the entire system 

must be properly maintained to keep 

it viable. 

X    

Recommendations The County recommends involving 

local government; growing and 

maintaining partnerships; active 

coordination; seeking easements, 

and updating plans. 

X    

Category 

Moab/Grand County North 

Corridor Gateway A General Plan 

Amendment (4/2001) 

Consistent Partially 

Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Visual Resources The plan focuses on the areas north 

and south of the Colorado River 

Bridge with particular emphasis on 

the visual impression it gives to 

visitors. 

X    

County Goals Create a positive first impression 

and economic opportunity. Make the 

north corridor gateway a people 

place – welcoming and 

accommodating. Provide adequate 

and affordable public facilities and 

services that are compatible with city 

infrastructure. Achieve the goals and 

objectives of this Plan through 

communication, coordination and 

cooperation. 

X    

Category 

The Wilderness Plan an 

Amendment to the Grand County 

General Plan (9/1999) 

Consistent Partially 

Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Recommended 

Wilderness 7 

Designation 

Beaver Creek Unit (UWC proposal) 

(5-2). The entire 28,200-acre UWC 

unit excluding the roaded top of 

Seven Mile Mesa and that portion 

traversed by the annual Jeep Safari 

Trail (See attached map entitled 

"Grand County Wilderness 

Proposal"). 

X    
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-11 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Labyrinth Canyon Unit (UWC 

proposal) (4-3). Wilderness 

designation is recommended for the 

lower reaches of Ten Mile Canyon 

and the east side of the Green River 

Canyon downstream to Hey Joe 

Canyon. Wilderness is also 

recommended for the east side of 

the Green River Canyon 

downstream from Spring Canyon to 

the mouth of Hell Roaring Canyon 

(See attached map entitled "Grand 

County Wilderness Proposal"). This 

latter area could continue on the 

west side of the Green River all the 

way to the Canyonlands National 

Park boundary. These areas are 

considered contiguous with the 

Upper Horseshoe Canyon Unit in 

Emery County. 

BLM response: The unit was not 

recommended for management as 

non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics due to other 

proposed management that protects 

wilderness values. These include a 

recommendation for Wild & Scenic 

River designation along the Green 

River, an ACEC in Ten Mile Canyon, 

and surface use restrictions along 

the entire Green River corridor. 

    X

Category 

The Wilderness Plan an 

Amendment to the Grand County 

General Plan (9/1999) 

Consistent Partially 

Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Fisher Towers Unit (UWC proposal) 

(consensus). It was recommended 

that the three State Trust Land 

sections in the unit be prioritized for 

exchange in order to protect the 

integrity of the area for filming and 

recreation. 

BLM response: The proposal to 

manage areas for non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics 

protects the visual resources of 

concern to Grand County. 

X   

Areas Not 

Recommended 

Mary Jane Canyon Unit (UWC 

proposal) (consensus). Again, the 

Trust Land Sections should be 

prioritized for exchange to protect 

X   
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-12 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

filming and recreation in the area. 

BLM response: The proposal to 

manage areas for non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics 

protects the visual resources of 

concern to Grand County. 

Granite Creek Unit (UWC proposal) 

(consensus). It is recommended that 

the entire unit be studied by BLM for 

designation as an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern because of 

the unique riparian habitat and high 

wildlife values there. 

BLM response: Granite Creek was 

studied for ACEC designation but 

was found to not contain the 

relevant and important values. 

X    

Areas Not 

Recommended 

For Wilderness, 

But 

Recommended 

For Alternative 

Protective 

Management 

Goldbar Canyon Unit (UWC 

proposal) (consensus). It is 

recommended that the unit be 

designated a Recreation Special 

Management Area to enhance 

opportunities for managing heavy 

recreational use 

X    

Category Town of Castle Valley General 

Plan (9/2007) Consistent Partially Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Land-use The County's goal is to remain a 

peaceful, quiet rural residential/ 

agricultural community characterized 

by a sense of open space and the 

ability to enjoy landscape and sky. 

X    

Transportation The County's goal is to improve and 

actively maintain our road and storm 

drainage infrastructure. 

X    

Water Quality and 

Quantity

The County's goal is to maintain or 

enhance water quality and quantity 

in the Castle Valley watershed by 

improving our knowledge, 

developing policies, and taking 

action as needed. 

X    

Fire Protection The County's goal is to improve fire 

prevention and to take steps that will 

help assure that fire-fighting can be 

effective. 

X    
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-13 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Fire Protection The County's goal is to protect and 

enhance the local environment and, 

where possible, respond to national 

and global environmental issues 

including, watershed, 

hazardous/solid wastes, weed 

control, dust, wildlife, energy, and 

the viewshed. 

X    

Category San Juan County Master Plan 

(1996) Consistent Partially Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Public Access San Juan County has strong 

opinions regarding public access 

and its impact on economic stability 

in the county. The county claims all 

roads and trails over public land 

constructed prior to Oct. 21, 1976. 

Supports working with BLM to 

develop off-road trails for ATV use 

and bikes. 

X    

Recreation and 

Tourism 

Support for increased recreational 

activity on public lands, however, 

agency needs to acknowledge and 

aggressively address the impact that 

recreation has on the county's 

essential services (i.e. law 

enforcement, emergency services, 

water and waste management, and 

search & rescue. 

X    

Wilderness County does not support designation 

of large wilderness areas but will 

accept areas that meet the criteria of 

wilderness in the 1964 Wilderness 

Act. The County plan (Appendix E) 

includes the County's preferred 

alternative for wilderness 

designation. 

X    

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers

Statement that any special land-use 

classifications or designations 

should include analysis of adverse 

economic impact on local economy 

and stability of communities and 

commitment to adequate mitigation. 

X    

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

Statement that any special land-use 

classifications or designations 

should include analysis of adverse 

economic impact on local economy 

and stability of communities and 

commitment to adequate mitigation. 

X    
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-14 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Areas of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern

Statement that any special land-use 

classifications or designations 

should include analysis of adverse 

economic impact on local economy 

and stability of communities and 

commitment to adequate mitigation. 

X    

Socioeconomics States that social and economic 

environment (of the communities 

most impacted by public land-use 

decisions) needs to be included in 

environmental review. 

X    

Category San Juan County Master Plan 

(1996) Consistent Partially Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

Wildlife States that forage allocations 

between livestock and wildlife 

should be balanced and based upon 

fair and equitable assumptions. 

San Juan County is not in favor of 

and will generally oppose 

introduction of exotics or species not 

native to the area. 

X    

Land Tenure 

Adjustments 

States that public land acreage 

currently owned and managed by 

Federal and State agencies is 

sufficient for the public interest. 

Supports a "no net loss of private" 

and no expansion of National parks 

position relative to federal-state 

property exchanges and transfers. 

(No net loss refers to both acreage 

and value.) Also, no net increase of 

public lands within San Juan 

County. 

X    

Water Resources 

Supports protection of limited water 

resources by promoting efficient use 

and management. 

X    

Category San Juan County Amendment to 

Master Plan (8/2002) Consistent Partially Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

All-terrain Vehicle 

Plan 

Establishes an all-terrain 

transportation plan, on developed 

trails within the county, as an 

opportunity for increased 

recreational use and economic 

benefit to the county. 

X    
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-15 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Category 

Dead Horse Point State Park 

Resource Management Plan April 

2007 

Consistent Partially 

Consistent 

Not 

Consistent 

The State Park planning team 

included the Moab BLM Recreation 

Branch Chief. The MFO Proposed 

Plan incorporates the Park's goal to 

protect the Park's viewshed. 

X    

Water Resources Utah Division of Water Resources 

Utah State Water Plan (May 2001) X    

Water Resources 

Utah Division of Water Resources 

Southeast Colorado River Basin 

(October 2000) 

Utah State Water Plan 

X    

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 

Northern River Otter Management 

Plan January (January 2005) 

X    

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 

Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy for Colorado River 

cutthroat Trout (March 1997) 

X    

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 

Range-Wide Conservation 

Agreement for Roundtail Chub, 

Bluehead Sucker and 

Flannelmouth Sucker (January 

2004) 

X    

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 

Statewide Management Plan for 

Mule Deer (November 2003) 

X    

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 

Statewide Management Plan for 

Elk (March 2005) 

X    

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 

Statewide Management Plan for 

Bighorn Sheep (September 1999) 

X    
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-16 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 

Utah Black Bear Management 

Plan (June 2000) 

X    

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 

Utah Cougar Management Plan 

(January 1999) 

X    

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 

Utah Gunnison's Prairie Dog and 

White-tailed Prairie Dog 

Conservation Plan (November 

2007) 

X    

Wildlife and 

Fisheries 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 

Strategic management Plan for 

Sage-grouse (June 2002) 

X    

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 brought forward 

for designation into the Proposed Plan 

have gone through a rigorous and 

stringent process in accordance with 

FLPMA, the planning regulations at 43 

CFR 1600, Land-use Planning 

Handbook (H- 1601-1), and in 

accordance with BLM Manual 1613 

and ACEC Policy and Procedures 

Guidelines (45 FR 57318). Appendix I 

outlines the process the 

interdisciplinary team underwent to 

determine whether a nominated ACEC 

had relevance and/or importance 

values. The size of the proposed 

ACECs is limited only to the area(s) of 

geography where the relevance and 

importance values are manageable to 

protect and prevent irreparable 

damage. In the Proposed Plan, the 

potential ACECs generally do not have 

redundant special designations and/or 

other existing protections applied. 

The potential ACECs carried forward 

into the Proposed Plan necessitate an 

ACEC designation because special 

management protection is necessary 

(outside of normal multiple-use 

management) to specifically protect 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-17 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

the relevance and importance values 

within the areas identified. The special 

management prescriptions that have 

been proposed are narrowly tailored to 

protect the identified relevant and 

important values; none of which are 

recognized as wilderness resources. 

For these reasons, the potential ACEC 

decisions carried forward into the 

Proposed Plan are considered by BLM 

to be consistent with Utah Code 63j-4-

401. 

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 worked as a 

Cooperating Agency throughout this 

planning process and has been 

intimately involved with the BLM's wild 

and scenic river planning process. The 

State has assisted Field Office 

specialists to help determine eligibility 

findings for each of the river segments, 

and has provided social and economic 

expertise and advice as the BLM 

determined which eligible segments to 

carry forward as suitable into the 

Proposed Plan. BLM has committed to 

working cooperatively among Federal, 

State, and local governments and 

communities during the post-planning 

wild and scenic river study phase 

when statewide recommendations for 

inclusion of river segments into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System would go forward to Congress. 

Prior to this post-planning phase, BLM 

would work with affected partners to 

help identify in-stream flows necessary 

to protect the outstandingly remarkable 

values for which the subject river 

segments were found suitable via this 

planning process. Thus, because there 

are no effects of this planning decision 

on valid existing rights, and because 

suitability findings in this planning 

process do not create new water rights 

for the BLM, the land-use planning wild 

and scenic river suitability 

determinations are found by BLM to be 

consistent with the Utah Code 63j-4-

401. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-18 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Livestock 

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 sustainedyield principles in public land-use 

planning and management. Public lands 

should continue to produce food and 

fiber, and the rural character and 

landscape should be preserved through 

a healthy and active agricultural and 

grazing industry. Land management 

plans should maximize forage 

availability for domestic livestock and 

wildlife use. The State favors active 

management to restore and maintain 

rangeland health, increase forage, and 

improve watershed for the mutual 

benefit of local communities, domestic 

livestock, and wildlife.

Adjustments in AUM levels may occur as 

required by range and watershed 

conditions, based on scientific, on-theground analysis. Grazing AUMs should 

be placed in suspension where range 

conditions will not sustain the current 

level of AUMs or where necessary to 

protect range and watershed health. Any 

suspended AUMs should be returned to 

active use when range conditions 

improve. The State generally opposes 

forced relinquishment or forced 

retirement of grazing AUMs but will 

continue to recognize voluntary 

relinquishments and retirements agreed 

to prior to RMP revisions. 

BLM: 

Grazing decisions carried forward into 

the Proposed Plan are considered by 

BLM to be consistent with Utah Code 

63j-4-401. Proposed Plan decisions 

on public lands would continue to 

promote a healthy active grazing 

industry. Forage allocations for 

livestock and wildlife are fully 

allocated on public lands. Numerous 

RMP decisions under other identified 

resources allow for the restoration 

and maintenance of rangeland and 

watershed health. For example, the 

Proposed Plan 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 Plan. Prior voluntary 

relinquishments and/or retirements 

have been recognized. 

Non-WSA Lands 

with 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 nonrenewable resources, including, but not 

limited to, recreation, range, timber, 

minerals, watershed, wildlife, and fish. 

BLM: 

The Proposed Plan identifies certain 

"non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics" in order to protect, 

preserve, and maintain their 

wilderness characteristics. BLM 

recognizes that it cannot, through the 

planning process, designate these 

lands as WSAs nor is it possible to 

manage them in accordance with 

IMP. For example, there is no 

provision to meet the "non-impairment 

criteria" mandated in IMP for WSA 

management. However, in following 

Section 201 of FLPMA, BLM has 

maintained its wilderness inventory 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-19 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

Designation as VRM Class I, closure to 

oil and gas leasing, withdrawal from 

mineral entry, and closure to motorized 

and mechanized use affords protections 

comparable to those associated with 

formal wilderness designation and 

should be avoided for non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics. NonWSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics should be managed in a 

manner consistent with the multiple-use, 

sustained yield standard that applies to 

BLM lands other than congressionally 

designated wilderness or WSAs. 

and has determined that lands 

previously found not to possess 

wilderness characteristics during the 

FLPMA Section 603 inventory 

process in the late 1970's and early 

1980's, now have been determined to 

possess them. The focus of 

management in the areas carried 

forward in the Proposed Plan is to 

primarily provide for an experience of 

solitude and primitive recreation. This 

is enhanced by maintaining the 

naturalness of the geographic areas. 

However, management prescriptions 

do not mirror those for WSAs or 

designated wilderness since these 

two management objectives are 

sufficiently dissimilar that imposing 

similar prescriptions would not allow 

BLM to meet the planning objectives 

outlined in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. 

WSAs and designated wilderness are 

rights-of-way exclusion areas, closed 

to fluid mineral leasing by law, and do 

not allow for surface-disturbing 

activities. In comparison, lands with 

wilderness characteristics have no set 

management by either law, rule, 

regulation, or policy. The Proposed 

Plan would allow for surfacedisturbing activities where and when 

they are compatible with enhancing 

management objectives identified in 

the Proposed Plan. 

In order to ensure that BLM's 

planning decisions regarding the 

management of wilderness 

characteristics are consistent with 

Utah law, potential adjustments may 

be made in the Record of Decision to 

nomenclature. This editorial change 

would not affect management or 

goals and objectives. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-20 

Table 5.4. Plan Consistency Review 

Moab RMP 

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 selfeffectuating grant process set forth in 

Revised Statute 2477 (repealed by the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976) and SUWA v. BLM, 425 

F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2005). The State of 

Utah expects and requests the BLM to 

fully consider all information concerning 

individual rights-of-way submitted to 

BLM. Further, the State of Utah expects 

and requests BLM's consideration of this 

information as part of the preparation 

and implementation of Resource 

Management or Management 

Framework Plans, and preparation or 

implementation of Transportation Plans 

as part of the ongoing inventory of 

resources on the public lands. 

BLM: 

The Proposed Plan makes no 

commitments with respect to any valid 

existing rights, particularly those 

concerning RS-2477. Chapter 1 of 

this land-use plan states that 

resolution of this issue is outside the 

purview and scope of public lands 

planning efforts and must be 

adjudicated by a court of law or other 

legal means. Therefore, nothing in 

this plan extinguishes any valid rightsof-way or alters, in any way, the legal 

rights of the State of Utah to assert 

RS-2477 rights or to challenge any 

use restrictions imposed by the RMP 

that they believe are inconsistent with 

their rights. 

In addition, the Moab Field Office RMP is consistent with the following agency plans: MantiLaSal National Forest Management Plan, Arches National Park Management Plan, Canyonlands 

National Park Management Plan, Uintah-Ouray Indian Reservation Plan, and Management Plans 

being prepared for State of Utah and SITLA lands. No comments were received to indicate 

inconsistency of these plans with the Proposed RMP. 

5.4 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION

Public outreach and participation in the land-use planning process began with the publication of 

the Notice of Intent (NOI) to plan in the Federal Register and will be ongoing up until the Record 

of Decision for the Moab RMP. Public outreach and participation has included public meetings, 

development of a mailing list, planning bulletins, newspaper articles, a RMP website, and 

workshops. It has also included informal meetings with individuals, groups, and organizations. 

5.4.1 NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) TO PLAN AND SCOPING 

This planning process began on June 4, 2003 with the publication in the Federal Register of a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to plan. The NOI announced the BLM's intent to conduct land-use 

planning for the public lands administered by the Moab 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. In addition to the 

NOI, the BLM provided the public with planning bulletins, and newspaper articles. Through all 

this outreach, the public was notified of public meetings and the BLM requested information 

regarding planning criteria, resources, nominations for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-21 

nominations for Wild and Scenic Rivers, and proposals for route designations. Public service 

announcements on the radio were also utilized to inform the public about open house public 

meetings. The BLM distributed planning bulletins to all interested agencies, organizations, and 

individuals along with any other entity that requested to be included on the mailing list. 

The scoping period began June 4, 2003 and ended January 31, 2004. The BLM relied on various 

public outreach methods for the scoping process, including 6 open houses in different 

communities (see Table 5.5), a mobile "comment cruiser" that visited 12 locations, a website 

with provision for e-mailing comments, and an invitation for the public to provide written 

comments via letters. In its Scoping Report, completed in July 2004, the Moab FO provided an 

analysis of the information received. The Scoping Report is available at the Moab FO, or online 

at the Moab RMP website. The BLM received 6,138 comment letters with 19,437 comments 

identified in these letters and emails. Comments from the 6 open houses totaled 1,250, and the 

"comment cruiser" gathered 200 comments, resulting in a grand total of 20,887 comments. It 

should be noted that the Scoping Report covers both the Moab and Monticello Field Offices. The 

information received during the scoping period was utilized to establish the scope of the 

RMP/EIS. 

Table 5.5. Open House Locations and Attendance 

Location Date Attendance 

Green River, UT October 14, 2003 15 

Grand Junction, CO October 15, 2003 14 

Moab, UT October 16, 2003 53 

Monticello, UT October 21, 2003 54 

Blanding, UT October 22, 2003 87 

Salt Lake City, UT November 13, 2003 96 

Total 321 

 

5.4.2. MAILING LIST

As directed by 43 CFR 1610.2(d), the BLM has established and maintained a list of "individuals 

and groups known to be interested in or affected by a resource management plan." This list was 

initially developed from the Moab 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 planning bulletins and postcards throughout 

the planning process. Postcards were mailed to the entire list, announcing the availability of the 

Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. There are currently over 1500 individuals, 

organizations, and agencies included on the mailing list. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-22 

5.4.3 PLANNING BULLETINS

Planning bulletins were developed to keep the public informed about the Moab land-use 

planning process. They were provided to the public included on the mailing list for the Moab 

RMP. The planning bulletins were also posted on the website for the Moab RMP. 

The first planning bulletin (6/30/03) announced the intention of the BLM Moab Field Office to 

prepare a Resource Management Plan. It also included preliminary planning issues, a request for 

nominations of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

an announcement of public scoping meeting, and information on how to participate in the landuse plan process. 

The second planning bulletin (11/1/03) provided information regarding the preliminary review 

of river segments found eligible for consideration as Wild and Scenic Rivers. The public was 

invited to provide comments on the findings. 

The third planning bulletin (11/17/03) requested route data from the public to be considered in 

the alternatives for route designation in the Travel Plan. 

The fourth planning bulletin (5/7/04) provided the preliminary planning criteria for public 

comment and review. 

The fifth planning bulletin (7/9/04) provided the results of the public scoping process and 

included the issues to be addressed in the plan. 

The sixth planning bulletin (2/21/06) provided the results of the ACEC review process. 

5.4.4 WEBSITE

Information regarding the Moab land-use plan was made available to the public on the Moab 

RMP website. This website is currently found at 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/planning.html. The website serves as a virtual repository 

for documents related to development of the Moab 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. 

5.4.5 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NOA) OF THE DRAFT RMP/EIS 

On August 24, 2007, the BLM and EPA published a Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register which marked the beginning of the formal 90-day public 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 DRMP/EIS was designed to 

provide a comprehensive look at the impacts to natural and cultural resources from various 

planning alternatives. The formal 90-day public comment period ended on November 30, 2007. 

The BLM provided hard copies of the DRMP/EIS directly to cooperating agencies, other federal, 

state, and local agencies, tribal representatives, the Utah BLM Resource Advisory Committee 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-23 

members, public libraries, and elected officials. Also, hard copies and CDs were made available 

to the public upon request, and the DRMP/EIS was placed on the Moab RMP website and in its 

public room at the BLM Utah State Office. Additionally, the BLM widely distributed newspaper 

and radio press releases regarding the availability of the DRMP/EIS. 

5.4.6 PUBLIC MEETINGS

Five open houses were held during the 90-day comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS. The open 

house locations, dates, and attendance are provided in Table 5.6. The locations, dates, and times 

of the open houses were announced to over 1,500 people included on the mailing list via a 

postcard. Press releases in local and regional newspapers and radio spots supplemented the 

mailing. In addition, the locations, dates, and times of the open houses were posted on the Moab 

RMP website. 

Table 5.6 Open House Locations, Dates, and Attendance 

Location Date Attendance 

Moab, Utah September 25,2007 10 

Monticello, Utah September 26, 2007 88 

Grand Junction, Colorado September 27, 2007 109 

Salt Lake City, Utah October 3, 2007 158 

Total 365 

The open houses were geared to provide information to the public on the content of the Draft 

RMP/EIS as well as to provide guidance on commenting on the document and answer questions. 

Each open house included a PowerPoint presentation which provided an overview of the 

planning process and a comparison of major elements contained in the alternatives. Attendees 

were then encouraged to visit with BLM representatives and managers regarding questions or 

concerns about the Draft RMP/EIS. The public was provided with the opportunity to submit 

written comments at the open houses. 

5.5 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE MOAB DRMP/EIS 

5.5.1 PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

According to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the BLM is required to identify and 

formally respond to all substantive public comments received during the comment period for the 

DRMP/EIS. The BLM developed a systematic process for responding to comments to ensure all 

substantive comments were tracked and the content seriously considered. A description of this 

process follows. 

First, the BLM developed a coding structure to help sort comments into logical groups by 

topics and issues. Codes were derived from resources covered in the 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. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-24 

Second, the BLM created a Comment Database. For each comment in a unique submission, the 

BLM captured the name and address of the Commenter, assigned a code to the comment, and 

captured the text of all 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 

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, the BLM used the comment database to prepare a narrative summary of the substantive 

comments. Opinions, feelings, and preferences for one element or one alternative over another, 

and comments of a personal and/or philosophical nature were all read, analyzed, and considered, 

but because such comments are not substantive in nature, the BLM did not respond to them. 

5.5.2 COMMENT ANALYSIS

During the 90-day public comment period for the Moab DRMP/EIS, the Moab Field Office 

received written comments by mail (1,248), fax, e-mail (31,853), website (483), and submitted 

directly at the public meetings or to the Moab Field Office. All comments submitted by fax were 

also e-mailed. This amounted to over 33,000 comment submissions. Many of the submissions 

were form letters (letters containing identical or nearly identical text submitted by a number of 

individuals) in which there were 13 different types. Outside the form letters, there were 1,027 

unique submissions of which 391 submissions contained substantive comments. These 

submissions amounted to about 2,600 comments. Additional submissions were received after the 

close of the comment period on November 30, 2007. However, none of the late submissions 

raised substantially new issues or concerns not already addressed by comments received before 

the deadline. 

Where warranted, the BLM responded to substantive comments by making revisions to the 

PRMP/FEIS (text changes). If no change was warranted, the BLM responded to the substantive 

comment in writing. The BLM responded to all substantive comments. In many cases the BLM 

chose to respond to non-substantive comments in order to clarify a point or position. 

The comments received from cooperating agencies and the BLM responses are provided in 

Tables 5.9a, 5.9b, and 5.9c. Tables 5.10a through 5.10t provide the comments and responses by 

resource category that resulted in a change to the PRMP/FEIS. All comments and the BLM 

responses are provided in the compact disc (CD) attached to the PRMP/FEIS. 

The BLM considered every comment in the analysis process, whether it came repeatedly from 

many people with the same message(s) or from a single person raising a technical or personal 

point. In analyzing comments, the BLM emphasized the content of the comment rather than the 

number of times a comment was received. 

Respondents invested considerable time and effort to submit comments on the DRMP/EIS. 

Comments covered a wide spectrum of thoughts, opinions, ideas, and concerns. The commonly 

addressed themes include: travel, recreation, special designations (ACECs, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers), wilderness values, wildlife, and minerals/energy development. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-25 

While each person's viewpoint was diligently considered, the comment analysis involved 

determining whether a comment was substantive or non-substantive in nature. According to 

NEPA, the BLM is required to identify and formally respond to all substantive public comments. 

On the basis of the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations, a substantive 

comment does one or more of the following: 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information and/or analysis in the 

EIS. 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the information and/or analysis in 

the EIS. 

• Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the 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 substantive comments: 

• Comments on the Adequacy of the Analysis: Comments that express a professional 

disagreement with the conclusions of the analysis or assert that the analysis is inadequate 

are substantive in nature but may or may not lead to changes in the PRMP/FEIS. 

Interpretations of analyses should be based on professional expertise. Where there is 

disagreement within a professional discipline, a careful review of the various 

interpretations is warranted. In some cases, public comments may necessitate a 

reevaluation of analytical conclusions. If, after reevaluation, the BLM does not think that 

a change is warranted, the response should provide the rationale for that conclusion. 

• Comments Which Identify New Impacts, Alternatives, or Mitigation Measures:

Public comments on a draft EIS that identify impacts, alternatives, or mitigation 

measures that were not addressed in the draft are substantive. This type of comment 

requires the BLM to determine if it warrants further consideration. If it does, the BLM 

must determine whether the new impacts, new alternatives, or new mitigation measures 

should be analyzed in either the FEIS; a supplement to the draft EIS; or a completely 

revised and recirculated draft EIS. 

• Significance Determinations: Comments that directly or indirectly question, with a 

reasonable basis, determinations regarding the significance or severity of impacts are 

substantive. A reevaluation of these determinations may be warranted and may lead to 

changes in the FEIS. If, after reevaluation, the BLM does not think that a change is 

warranted, the response should provide the rational for that conclusion. 

Non-substantive comments simply state a position in favor of, or against, an alternative or a 

management action proposed in an alternative; merely agree or disagree with BLM policy; 

provide information not directly related to issues or impact analyses, or otherwise express an 

unsupported personal preference or opinion. For additional clarification, types of non-substantive 

comments are as follows: 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-26 

• 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 BLM. 

The BLM has reviewed and considered all non-substantive comments, but has not provided 

formal responses to such comments. Although non-substantive comments, including personal 

preferences and opinions, may be may be considered by the decision maker as he or she chooses 

the final agency's preferred action, they generally will not affect the analysis. 

The results of the comment analysis were important to the development of the PRMP/FEIS. 

From the nearly 33,000 total comment submissions that BLM received on the DRMP/EIS, it 

extracted about 2,600 individual substantive comments. The BLM has presented these comments 

and the BLM responses in the CD attached to the PRMP/FEIS. A list of the organizations and 

individuals that submitted substantive comments are provided below in Table 5.7. and Table 5.8. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-27 

Table 5.7. List of Organizations and Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individual(s) 

B Bill Barrett 

Corporation 

 -- 

B Cabot Oil and Gas 

Corporation 

 -- 

B Delta Petroleum 

Corporation 

 -- 

B Delta Petroleum 

Corporation 

Harris, C.E. 

B Dolar Energy Dolar, Mark B EnCana Oil and Gas 

(USA) Inc. 

 -- 

B Fidelity Exploration 

and Production Co. 

Green, Rachel 

B Green River Ranches Stark, Nancy B Holiday Expeditions Holladay, Dee B International 

Adventure Tours 

Key, Kathy 

B Intrepid Potash York, Eric B Lisbon Valley Mining 

Co 

Indergard, Lantz M. 

B PacficCorp -- B Questar Exploration 

and Production Company 

 -- 

B Red River Canoe 

Company 

Butler, Theresa M. 

Table 5.7. List of Organizations and 

Submitted Substantive Comm

Commenter 

Type Organization 

B Ruby Ranch R

K

B Samson -- B Slate River 

Resources 

Jo

B Tag a Long -- B Union Telephone 

Company 

F

G Arches National Park -- G BLM - Grand 

Junction Field Office 

 -- 

G Colorado Division of 

Wildlife 

 -- 

G Environmental 

Protection Agency 

 -- 

G Grand County 

Council 

Le

G Green River City HG San Juan County -- G State of Utah - Public 

Lands Policy Coordination 

 -- 

G The Hopi Tribe K

M

G Town of Castle Valley BG U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

R
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-28 

Table 5.7. List of Organizations and Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individual(s) 

G US Geological 

Survey 

Devine, James 

G Utah State Office of 

Education 

Shumway, Larry 

G Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe 

House Sr, Ernest 

I Great Old Broads for 

Wilderness 

Egan, Veronica 

I Van Loan Ranches Van Loan, Jay 

O -- Boucher, Carla O American 

Motorcyclist Association 

Harris, Nicholas 

O American Rivers McKew, Quinn 

(Director, River Heritage) 

O Back Country 

Horsemen of Utah 

Allen, Craig 

O Blueribbon Coalition, 

Inc. 

 -- 

O Bookcliff Rattlers 

Motorcycle Club 

 -- 

O Businesses/Organiza

tions in Support of the Green River 

 -- 

O Californians For 

Western Wilderness 

Painter, Michael 

Table 5.7. List of Organizations and 

Submitted Substantive Comm

Commenter 

Type Organization 

O Canyonlands Field 

Institute 

 -- 

O Capital Trail Vehicle 

Association 

 -- 

O Center for Native 

Ecosystems 

R(S

O Center for Water 

Advocacy 

S(S

O Coconino Trail Riders G

H

O Colorado 500 RO Colorado OffHighway Vehicle 

Coalition (COHVCO) 

 -- 

O Colorado Plateau 

Archaeological Alliance 

 -- 

O ECOS Consulting -- O Environment 

Preservation Foundation 

 -- 

O Florida 4x4 MO Foundation for North 

American Wild Sheep 

 -- 

O Glen Canyon Group BO Grand County 

Backcountry Council 

B
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-29 

Table 5.7. List of Organizations and Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individual(s) 

O Howard County Bird 

Club 

Schwarz, Kurt 

O Independent 

Petroleum Assoc. of Mountain States 

Sgamma, Kathleen 

O International 

Mountain Bicycling Association 

 -- 

O Moab Area Climbers 

Association 

Lightner Jr, Sam 

O Moab Friends-for 

Wheelin' 

Stevens, Jeff Jensen, Holly 

O Moab Solutions Melnicoff, Sara O Moab Trails Alliance -- O Moab Trails Alliance Schappert, Kimberly O National Parks 

Conservation Association 

Nimkin, David 

O National Trust for 

Historic Preservation 

Hays, Ti 

O New Mexico OHV 

Alliance 

Spivack, Joanne 

O NOLS/ Outdoor 

Industry Association 

Cukjati, Gary Kleiner-Roberts, Amy 

O Outward Bound 

Wilderness 

 -- 

O Outward Bound 

Wilderness 

DeHoff, Mike 

Table 5.7. List of Organizations and 

Submitted Substantive Comm

Commenter 

Type Organization 

O Pack Creek Water 

Company 

S

O Public Lands 

Advocacy 

M(E

O Public Lands Equal 

Access Alliance 

 -- 

O Red Rock 4-

Wheelers, Inc. 

B

O Ride with Respect -- O Rising Sun 4x4 Club M

H

O Sage Riders 

Motorcycle Club 

 -- 

O San Juan Public 

Entry and Access Rights 

Q

O San Juan Trail Riders -- O Sierra Club Utah 

Chapter 

H

O Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) 

 -- 

O Sportsmen for Fish 

and Wildlife 

 -- 

O The Nature 

Conservancy 

T
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-30 

Table 5.7. List of Organizations and Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Commenter 

Type Organization Individual(s) 

O Theodore Roosevelt 

Conservation Partnership 

Webster, Joel A. 

O Utah 4 Wheel Drive 

Association 

Edmunds, Steve 

O Utah Farm Bureau 

Federation 

 -- 

O Utah Four Wheel 

Drive Association 

Jackson, Steve 

O Utah Rivers Council Danenhauer, Mark O Utah Rock Art 

Research Association 

Scotter, Troy 

O Western Watersheds 

Project 

Carter, John 

O Western Wildlife 

Conservancy 

Robinson, Kirk C. 

Notes: B=Business, G=Government, I-Individual, and O-Organization 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-31 

Table 5.8. List of Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Last Name First Name 

Abernathy Leroy P. 

Ahearn John J. 

Alderson George and Frances 

Allender William 

Allender Jen 

Amrase Gwenn 

Andersen Brandon 

Anderson Lisa 

Anderson Rachel 

Anderson Justin 

Apicella Peter 

Armitage Kevin 

Artley Dick 

Askew Ed 

Avalos Marty 

Bailey Bryan 

Baird Janelle 

Baker Shawn 

Bassett Mike 

Bates Harley 

Bauer Kincade 

Benson Chris 

Berger Bruce 

Berhrmann Rick 

Biaswell Kelly 

Bigelow Kerry 

Bodner David W 

Bowers Seth 

Brown Josh 

Browning Gay 

Brunner Christian 

Bruno Pete 

Brunvand Amy 

Bulkeley Jim 

Bullard and Family Larry 

Table 5.8. List of Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Last Name First Name 

Burch David Paul Xavier 

Burns Alton 

Burns Allen 

Burton Jan Ellen 

Butter Jane 

Butts Raymond 

Cameron Laura (with Michael Peck) 

Carlson Ginny 

Chalmers D'ahna 

Christie Richard Lance 

Ciscell Michael 

Clark Robert L. 

Clark Robert 

Clinard Gary and Sallie 

Connely Arlene 

Coronella Mike 

Crandall Dell 

Creighton Katie 

Croates Jason 

Crockett Geoff 

Crockett Roger 

D Mike 

Dallolio Nate 

Davidson Jr. John 

Davis Keith and Rachael 

Davis Dan 

Davis Steven 

De Sonne Marcia 

Deschamps Justin 

Deschamps Michael 

Dinkins Dawna 

Dozier Steven 

Edwards Scott 

Edwards Lori 

Edwards Michael 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-32 

Table 5.8. List of Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Last Name First Name 

Elson Eric S. 

Engholm Greta 

Evans Bud and Patty 

Faleck Adam 

Farley Bill 

Farnsworth David 

Farnsworth Tracey 

Feantz Nona Kay 

Fitzgerald Kathryn 

Flasro Robby 

Foisy Roger 

Foster Scott 

Foster Tom and Jane 

Freethey Sandra 

Frisbie Steve 

Fryer Colin 

Gartlan Naill 

Gartlan Alison 

Gilliam Charles E. 

Glatz Kathy 

Gouer Will 

Gough Joan 

Grange Dale 

Granquist Cindy 

Greenberg Bob 

Greenberg Bob 

Griffin Richard 

Hackley Pam 

Halterman George 

Hansen Bruce 

Harris Tracy 

Harris Dan 

Hauer John and Sena 

Hawkins Edwin D. 

Himes Alex 

Table 5.8. List of Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Last Name First Name 

Hoff Wendy 

Hogan Sharon 

Hopkins Larry 

Huber Zachary 

Hughes William 

Iannelli Gina 

Illingworth Garth 

Israels Monica 

Jarrett Brad 

Jenkins Nick 

Jenkins Jolene 

Johnson Steve 

Johnson Tom 

Johnson Tom 

Johnstun Burke 

Judd Michael 

Judge Glen 

Karnopp Jerry 

Kauffman Christopher 

Kemp Kevin and Nan 

Kennedy John 

Kilthau Olaf 

Kis Jon 

Klaus Marion 

Knight Ber 

Kobak Steve 

Koedoot Joel 

Kokjohn Tyler 

Kokjohn Tyler 

Krefting Adam 

Kyle Tom L. 

LaRoque Fred and Susan 

Lee David 

Leman Doug 

Lindley Laura 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-33 

Table 5.8. List of Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Last Name First Name 

Linton Ronald 

Lippman Robert 

Lish Christopher 

Lively Sean 

Lowe Zachary 

Lund Adrea 

Lynch James P. 

Mair Amanda 

Malapanes James 

Malonado Claire 

Mandera Tom 

Manley Michael and Judith 

Marshall Greg 

Martin Dirk 

Martin Steve 

Maxey Jim 

McCollum Ferris 

McCracken Nick and Bronwyen 

McElhaney Carma 

McElhaney Doug 

McGill J 

McPhail Michael 

McVey Stan 

Messenger Thomas J 

Messenger Tom 

Mock Family Bobby 

Mohler Wayne 

Moore Chad 

Morgan Meade 

Muller Joseph P. 

Murrell Mark 

Narris Shuanee 

Neff John 

Nemitz Robert W. (with Christine 

M. Warren) 

Table 5.8. List of Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Last Name First Name 

Newcomb Richard 

Newman Stacy 

Newren Josh and Tamara 

Nichols Jason T. 

Niederhauser Mark G 

Noble Ruxton 

Norton Joey 

Norton Robert L. 

Nosack Kurt and Carissa 

Nuckas V. 

Obert Paul 

Okubo Byron 

Orr Diane 

Panos Nick 

Parish Ian 

Parmelee Steve 

Parsons Randall 

Peavler Terry J 

Peay Don 

Pederson Dusty 

Pendergast Jim 

Peters Wayne 

Petti Caroline 

Phillips Sue 

Phillips Sara Ann 

Phillips Ann 

Phillips Greg 

Pincock Kara 

Pistorius Shelley 

Powell Barry 

Price Jeff 

Reddy Shilpa 

Reece Justin 

Reingold Benjamin L. 

Renwick Kiel 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-34 

Table 5.8. List of Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Last Name First Name 

Ress Frank 

Reynolds Marc 

Riches Randy 

Robertson Cris 

Robinson W.W. 

Rodgers David 

Rogers David 

Rohde David 

Rose Meredith 

Rossiter Paul 

Royse Cindy 

Rue Judy 

Ruffin Larry and Kris 

Rust Terry 

Rzeczycki John 

Salbaum J. Michael 

Salmana Stacy 

Sanchez Carlo 

Schiller Penny 

Schmidt Jason 

Schoen Erika 

Schwartz Alex 

Sennett Michael 

Sevenhoff Mark 

Sharp Marlin and Julia 

Sheets Lee 

Silliman Rodney 

Silver Duncan Wanda 

Smith Cynthia 

Sorensen LaDawn and Darwin 

Speidel Steve 

Spengler Diane 

Stembridge Charles 

Stoy Daniel 

Stroud David 

Table 5.8. List of Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Last Name First Name 

Stroud David 

Sudar Jonathon 

Swank Gary 

Swanke Denice 

Swanson Fred and Bessann 

Sweeten Shannon 

Tangren Shane 

Taylor Molly 

Taylor Alan 

Taylor Tammy 

Taylor Gary C. 

Taylor Zane 

Teisl Philip 

Telepak Robert J 

Tennyson Raven 

Thurston Mike 

Tipps B 

Tisovec Phil 

Tocher Ross 

Tolman Roland 

Tomka Peter 

Triolo Phil 

Trow Jr. Richard 

Turner Jeff 

Underwood Teri 

VanDuyn David 

Veranth John M. 

Vetere Jr. John and John Cory Jr. 

Vidiella Patricia 

Wade R. Lance 

Wade Doug 

Wakeman TeriAnn 

Washburn Mary 

Weaver Mark 

Weilmuenster Mike, Becky, and Mason 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-35 

Table 5.8. List of Individuals that 

Submitted Substantive Comments 

Last Name First Name 

Werkmeister Mark R. 

West Jaclyn 

Westwood Ryan 

Whitaker John M 

Whiteman David 

Widdison James 

Williams Candace 

Williams Gabriel 

Wilson Maggie 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-36 

5.5.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

During the public comment period for the DRMP/EIS, comments were received from 

government agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals. The greatest number of 

comments concerned travel management, recreation, non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, and minerals, in this order. Commenters focused on their own definitions of 

"multiple use" and "balance among resource uses and natural resource values". Comments 

ranged from those urging the BLM to impose maximum restrictions on resource uses to those 

expressing dissatisfaction with the restrictions imposed in the Preferred Alternative of the 

DRMP/EIS. 

Travel management comments ranged from those expressing a desire for more open to cross 

country travel areas and for the maximum number of routes being designated, to those 

expressing a desire for no open to cross country travel areas and to a minimum number of routes 

being designated. Recreation comments ranged from those favoring larger Special Recreation 

Management Areas with an emphasis on motorized recreation to those who wanted a deemphasis on motorized recreation throughout the planning area. Comments involving non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics showed both support for and opposition to this resource 

value. Minerals comments included those favoring fewer restrictions to those who wanted 

stricter stipulations on the recovery of mineral resources. 

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. For example, those who favored fewer 

designated routes and more lands to be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics often 

compared the Preferred Alternative with a landscape devoid of all existing routes; those who 

favored more routes compared the Preferred Alternative to their entire "wish list" of future 

motorized recreation opportunities. 

The interest of the public in the management of BLM lands in the Moab planning area was 

manifest in the number and complexity of the submissions received. 

5.5.4 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

The following tables present a subset of the comments received by the Moab BLM during the 

comment period. The first set of tables (Tables 5.9a, 5.9b, and 5.9c) provides all the comments 

submitted by the three Cooperating Agencies – the State of Utah, Grand County, and San Juan 

County. These tables are organized by the commenter, comment number, whether the comment 

resulted in a change to the document, the resource category being addressed, the comment, and 

the BLM's response. The second set of tables (Tables 5.10a through 5.10t) 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. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-37 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Requires 

Record Change 

ID Commenter Comment Number 

Resource 

Comment Text Response to C

120 State of No 

Utah 

1 

Minerals: Oil and Gas 

The BLM should consider the potentially large economic effects the oil and gas industry might have on Grand and San Juan Counties as shown in the Economic and Business Research Study (Phase I) for oil and gas in the Uintah Basin. 

The BLM acknowledges the oil referenced for the Uintah Basinapplicability to Moab is limited. prepared a Reasonably Forese(RFD) scenario for oil and gas next 15 years. The developmenwas utilized to generate the ecoDraft RMP/EIS as detailed on p264. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

2 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Utah State law indicates that river segments proposed for Wild and Scenic designation should contain water at all times. 

According to the "Wild and SceState of Utah Process and CriteUse" (July 1996), "there are no concerning minimum flow for aThe BLM is aware that there arrelevant to aspects of public lanare discrete from, and independHowever, BLM is bound by Fedconsequence, there may be inccannot be reconciled. The FLPland-use plans be consistent wplans "to the extent practical" wplans conflict with Federal law tinconsistency that cannot be reidentify these conflicts in the FEState and local governments haunderstanding of the impacts oand local management options
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-38 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

3 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The state is concerned about suitability findings for those streams where there are significant water diversions upstream. 

According the "Wild and Scenic State of Utah Process and CriteUse" (July 1996), Congress haexistence of some human modthe presence of impoundments or below a segment under reviemay regulate the flow regime thThe existence of minor dams, dand riprap within the segment srender a reach ineligible. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

4 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The state contends that while federal reserve water rights are not asserted prior to designation, those stream reaches found suitable are managed as if they were designated . 

Barring congressional action, thwater rights or instream flows rfindings made in a land-use plaCongress were to designate rivWild and Scenic Rivers Systemwould have no effect on existin13(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rjurisdiction over waters is deterprinciples of law. In Utah, the Sover water. Although the Wild aimplies a federal reserved waterivers, it does not require or speas noted above, confirms that Uover water rights. The BLM woadjudicate the water right, in thother entity, by application throThus, for congressionally desigassert a federal reserved water and unappropriated water with date of designation (junior to alonly in the minimum amount neprimary purpose of the reservaRMP/EIS states (pg. 2-39) that seek water rights as part of a smade in the Record of Decision 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-39 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

5 

Livestock Grazing 

State policy discourages permanent closure of grazing allotments for improving watershed health, wildlife habitat, and the economic benefits of livestock production. The state strongly suggests that BLM support flexibility within the management provisions for livestock grazing time (duration) and timing (season of use) in the final plan. 

Allotments proposed for closure permanent and the decision to or areas may be revisited in the subsequent RMPs or the revisiHowever, certain allotments magrazing over the life of the planconsidered, as not available are Subsequent revisions of the lanconsider opening these areas tThe vast majority (over 95%) oArea is available for livestock glimited number of allotments shthe DRMP/EIS, the BLM is propof the BLM land are the highesareas. Both FLPMA and BLM's Handbook authorizes BLM to clivestock grazing to place an emfor other purposes or values, suwatershed protection, and recrethe variable uses of the BLM laproposed action, it is BLM's inte"multiple use" of the public landarea. s stated in the DRMP/EIS (pg. open to livestock grazing, grazion an allotment basis according Livestock Grazing Managemenfor Rangeland Health (see Appduration and adjustment in seaprovide the manager flexibility tnumbers of livestock, and the suse on specific allotments after of monitoring and inventory datwith appropriate rules and regu
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-40 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of Yes 

Utah 

6 

Livestock Grazing 

The State supports the conversion of livestock AUMs to wildlife AUMs for the Diamond, Cottonwood, Bogart, and Pear Park allotments. 

The BLM has recognized (Alts value of the Cottonwood, Diamallotments as acknowledged in Memorandum of Agreement amand the Nature Conservancy. Tallotment, which is unavailable made part of the PRMP/FEIS. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

7 

Wildlife 

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 UDWR. 

The term critical has been reseEndangered (T &E) species. Cohave been made in the PRMP/species the BLM relied on the Udesignations. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

8 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The State asks BLM to provide a detailed explanation of the rationale and authority for management of lands solely because of wilderness characteristics, and why such management does not circumvent the provisions of the statutorily required wilderness review process. 

The BLM's authority for managenhance wilderness characterisfrom FLPMA Section 202 (43 Usection of BLM's organic statutthe Interior authority to manage multiple use and sustained yielsection constrains the Secretarlands as necessary to "achieve consideration of physical, bioloother sciences." (FLPMA, Sect§1712(c)(2)).) Further, FLPMA term "multiple use" means that appropriate for every acre of puSecretary can "make the most land for some or all of these resservices over areas large enoulatitude for periodic adjustmentsection 103(c) (43 U.S.C. §170
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-41 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

The FLPMA intended for the Seto use land-use planning as a mallocating resource use, includicharacter management, amongresources in a way that providefuture generations. In addition, the BLM's Land-use (H-1601-1) directs BLM to "idenor preserve wilderness charactoutstanding opportunities for soopportunities for primitive and uInclude goals and objectives to and management actions necegoals and objectives. For authoconditions of use that would avto wilderness characteristics." 

120 State of No 

Utah 

9 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The BLM should give strong consideration to recommendations submitted by local government and not manage lands to protect wilderness character where such management would, in the opinion of local governments, be contrary to the interests of local residents. 

Sections 103, 201, and 202 of to take into account the nationathe local interest. In accordance rules, regulations, and policies, for the balanced management resource uses on public lands. The BLM gave strong considerlocal governments throughout tparticular, Grand and San Juan cooperating agencies and have cooperators, including during thalternatives where Non-WSA acharacteristics were consideredSee also response to comment 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-42 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 10 Yes 

Adequacy of Analysis 

The State strongly disagrees with the BLM's analytical assumption at page 4-3 of the Draft RMP/EIS that nonBLM lands would suffer minimally direct impacts from RMP decisions. SITLA lands may have reduced revenue potential or management objectives that differ from the BLM. The BLM planning decisions on rights-of-way, withdrawals from mineral leasing, special designations, and other determinations impact state trust lands. 

Non-BLM lands could be indiredecisions both positively and nein Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS accordingly. For specifics regarmineral revenue see comment The BLM does provide for reasSITLA lands under all alternativsentence will be added to ChapRealty. Non-BLM lands could be indiredecisions both positively and nein Chapter 4 of the PRMP/FEIS accordingly. For specifics regarding the imprevenue see comment 120-101The BLM does provide for reasSITLA lands under all alternativInformation will be added to ChRealty, Management Common alternatives, that states that reaState land would be provided inlands within avoidance and excof-way as specified by the CottAndrus, 10/1/79). In addition, thtravel management plan recognto provide access to SITLA landdecision. Also, please see the rSocioeconomics in Chapter 4 o

120 State of No 

Utah 

11 

Lands and Realty 

The need for BLM to give priority to state-federal land exchanges has been recognized. The disposal land list is inadequate and lands should be added to this list including the following: 

The Federal Land Policy and M(FLPMA) Section 203 requires land-use planning process to iddisposal through sales. Indentif203 sale requires the BLM to mout specifically in the Statute. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-43 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

1) all lands proposed for BLM disposal in the pending Utah Recreation Land Exchange Act; 2) the block of BLM lands west of the Canyonlands airport that are currently subject to Potash preference right leases, and 3) all lands in Lisbon Valley. 

FLPMA allows the BLM to idenavailable for exchange (both dimore generally. The DRMP/EIS generally available for exchangState lands that are currently aThe DRMP/EIS does not contaprioritize these lands, but the BState in-lieu and other exchangfor the State and for the BLM. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

12 

Process and Procedures 

The BLM should commit to utilizing the State's expedited energy permitting process. 

Federal laws, rules, regulationsthe procedures for processing a

120 State of No 

Utah 

13 

Air Quality 

The State encourages the BLM to impose air emission standards as lease conditions and conditions of approval for Applications for Permit to Drill. 

The BLM does not have the resemission standards. That respoand the State of Utah. The BLM actions that meet the National AStandards as set by EPA or the mitigation or conditions of apprthe APD or implementation phause planning and leasing. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

14 

Air Quality 

Future air quality analysis should include modeling with the following factors: 1) oil and gas proponents should assume that leasing and exploration will result in full field development, 2) air quality analyses should be cumulative and include not only planned development but existing omission sources, 3) air quality analyses should be based on 

The BLM may consider the Comrecommendation for future air qanalyses. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-44 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

anticipated worst-case meteorological conditions for each dispersion scenario, 4) air quality analyses should address compliance/attainment with all applicable air quality-related requirements and standards, and 5) air quality analysis should specifically address impacts to sensitive visual resources and other air quality-related values. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

15 

Travel Management 

Under the preferred alternative (Alt C), certain existing routes that provide the only physical access to trust lands would be terminated. The Draft RMP does not address the impact of these closures on the economic value of the affected trust lands in either this section or its section on socioeconomic impacts. 

The travel plan provides restricrecreational purposes, but does permitted or authorized by the may or may not currently have upon whether or not existing vethem. Under different alternativroutes may be proposed to closrequired by the Cotter decision Andrus, 10/1/79), is that "the staccess to the state school trust lands can be developed in a mafunds for the common school...confined the issue of access to involving economic revenues gtrust. The recreation restrictions State from reasonable access teconomic purposes through seauthorization as specified by thRoutes to State sections may nfor recreation purposes due to actual route conditions. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-45 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

16 

Travel Management 

The State asks the BLM to explain its intention to designate D roads, and explain why different D roads may be designated across alternatives. Please clarify the authority under which BLM would designate county roads, and what happens to a D road if BLM chooses not to designate it... pursuant to RS 2477. 

 A "D" route does not equate to assertion. The routes identified land-use plan are routes locatemanaged by the BLM until propDRMP/EIS proposes four differwhich to manage these routes As specified in the Draft RMP/Eaddressing RS 2477 assertions this planning effort. However, nany right-of-way or alters in any the State and counties have to 2477 rights. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS w2477 assertions. Such assertioadministratively on a case-by-cconfirmed through other legal m

120 State of No 

Utah 

17 

Travel Management 

The use of vehicles along the course of the Green River impacts natural resources and other recreational users of the corridor far beyond the traveled path due to noise. 

The BLM assessed the impacts and recreation conflict between river based recreation. The BLM purpose and need associated woutweighed the specified confli

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

18 

Water Resources 

No mention is made of water rights. The State Engineer recommends that the BLM consider the impact its actions may have on water rights in general and non-BLM water rights in particular. 

On pg. 1–13 of the Moab DRMCriteria, it is noted 1) the plannthe existence of valid existing rwould adhere to all applicable lwater laws). The text was clarifwater rights are recognized as page 1–13 of the DRMP/EIS unthe BLM states 1) the planning recognize the existence of valid the BLM would adhere to all apstate and local laws). The text hensure that water rights are recexisting rights. See also respon
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-46 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of Yes 

Utah 

19 

Wildlife 

The proper description of deer and elk crucial winter habitats and Rocky Mountain bighorn habitat should occur regardless of the alternative. 

As required by NEPA, the BLM alternatives. For non-special stalternatives varied by the size otiming restrictions. The manageconsistent with the goals and oalternative. In the Draft RMP/EIS, Alt B has what is referred to as "winter haactually includes both crucial ahabitats (635,774 acres). Thesseparated in the draft, have bein the PRMP/FEIS. Alts C and D provide timing limwinter habitat only (349,955 acand high value habitats. The tecorrect the error of confusing cwinter habitats. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

20 

Wildlife 

None of the alternatives address the fact that desert bighorn sheep wander between Crystal Geyser, Duma Point, and the Blue Hills. This migration corridor should be recognized in the final RMP. 

Duma Point and Blue Hills habcorridors are recognized in the Geyser is a small satellite popuhabitat located more than 10 mfrom Duma Point. Defining a mthis flat terrain is unknown at thhabitat exists between Duma PGeyser. Current studies are unidentify a migration corridor. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-47 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of Yes 

Utah 

21 

Special Status Species 

The estimate of disturbed acreage to white-tailed prairie dogs as identified on page 4-315 is under estimated. Increased volume and speed of traffic, frequent road upgrades, and construction of utility poles and storage tanks, noise from wells and compressors, and increased recreational use will negatively impact prairie dogs. 

Table 4.91 (pg. 4-315) has beethat the acreage of disturbance development includes ancillary roads, pipelines, and power lineacknowledges in the impact anbe additional loss of individuals volume and speed of traffic. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

22 

Lands and Realty 

It is unclear how State comments will be sought for new rights-of-way for pipelines or service-access roads. 

Where applicable, coordination State, and local entities will be under FLPMA, NEPA, and indivrequirements. All current NEPA by the Utah BLM are posted on Notification Bulletin Board via tAccess to this database is avaithe public. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

23 

Wildlife 

Surveys for wildlife are not considered to be a valid form of compensatory mitigation. 

The language on pg. 4-315 has "The results of these surveys wavoidance and other mitigating 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

24 

Special Status Species 

The BLM should recognize that prairie dogs create important habitat for many other wildlife species. There is room to enhance the discussion in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS (discussion about the benefits phabitat to other important habita

120 State of No 

Utah 

25 

Wildlife 

The BLM should only allow the use of utility poles in areas where underground conduits are not practical. Raptor excluders should be placed on utility poles where needed. 

Upon receipt for proposed deveanalyze the impacts to prairie das part of the NEPA process anappropriate mitigation measuremay include underground condexcluders. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-48 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

26 

Wildlife 

The BLM should work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services to reduce nesting by ravens on storage tanks and other oil and gas infrastructure (i.e. design structures to be less suitable for nests). 

Refer to comment 120-25. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

27 

Wildlife 

Enforce a 45 mile-per-hour speed limit on secondary roads in oil and gas development areas from July through September to prevent deaths of young hawks and owls due to vehicle impact. 

The speed limit on secondary rotherwise posted. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

28 

Wildlife 

When existing roads in raptor areas where they are likely to experience greatly increased traffic due to oil and gas well development, roads should be relocated as far as practical from the raptor nests regardless of whether or not the wells themselves are within a nest buffer. 

Refer to comment 120-25. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

29 

Special Status Species 

On pg. 3-143, the RMP states "the planning area is not considered a suitable reintroduction area for blackfooted ferrets due to dramatic declines in prairie dog populations". DWR considers the Cisco Desert the number 2 priority for black-footed ferret reintroduction in Utah and request that this language be removed from the RMP/EIS 

The language in the text (pg. 3RMP/Final EIS that states "the considered a suitable reintrodufooted ferrets" has been delete
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-49 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

30 

Special Status Species 

The BLM should consider including the parcel surrounding the Gunnison's prairie dog habitat northwest of Bridger Jack Mesa as part of the Behind the Rocks ACEC. 

When the BLM developed alterCommenter did not identify this prairie dog habitat. Furthermorereferred to is State land. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

31 

Special Status Species 

Parcel R-11 which is identified for disposal under all alternatives contains Gunnison's prairie dog habitat. The State urges caution regarding the disposal of this land because the Gunnison's prairie dog may become petitioned for listing under ESA. 

Parcel R-11 has been dropped (Appendix D, pg. D-3). 

120 State of No 

Utah 

32 

Wildlife 

Map 2-25 does not delineate pronghorn fawning habitat south of I70 in the Cisco Desert. 

Although pronghorn habitat is idthe BLM and UDWR agreed thafawning occurs north of I-70 dudensities. UDWR habitat data fidentify any pronghorn habitat sPronghorn habitat south of I-70 due to known and potential occ

120 State of No 

Utah 

33 

Wildlife 

Fragmentation of crucial big game winter habitat due to oil and gas development should be mitigated through restoration at 4 acres for every 1 acre disturbed. 

According to Washington Office Memorandum 2005-069, the Bmitigation opportunities to addrproject proposal, but is not to cdetailed analysis unless volunte

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

34 

Wildlife 

Reference the Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy as the Utah Wildlife Action Plan. 

This reference has been chang
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-50 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

35 

Special Status Species 

The State recommends listing the following nine species of concern: Allen's big-eared bat, American threetoed woodpecker, big free-tailed bat, cornsnake, ferruginous hawk, spotted bat, and Townsend's big-eared bat. 

These species are listed on pg

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

36 

Special Status Species 

The State recommends a 2 mile buffer within active sage-grouse leks. The habitat reclamation ratio should be 4:1. There are currently no alternatives or reparations known to suitably replace a sage-grouse lek. 

There are currently no active Gsage-grouse leks in the Moab FIn 2005, the BLM and UDWR sSage-grouse Rangewide Convthe conservation measures ideminimize impacts from mineral "apply a lease stipulation of No within 0.5 miles of occupied lek Since the Moab Field Office culeks a Controlled Surface Use/Tstipulation of 2.0 miles was appdiscovered in the future could bstipulation also precludes permoccupancy within 2.0 mile of an surface-disturbing activities alloyear round. To be consistent with the Utah strategy, the controlled surface lek buffer for greater sage-groufrom 0.5 mile to 2.0 mile in the (Alt C). The BLM agrees that sirreplaceable, and Alts B and C degree of protection for them (2 if selected in the final decision dprovide the greatest level of proidentified, while Alt D would proof protection. See the response to comment 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-51 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of Yes 

Utah 

37 

Wildlife 

It is stated on pg. 4-453 that interim and final reclamation will use native seeds. The State believes there are situations and circumstances where non-native plants may be the only tool to mange non-native weeds. 

On pg. 2-50 it is stated that "Rerehabilitation would use native possible. Non-native species mnecessary for stabilization or to noxious or invasive weed specpg. 4-453 has been changed to 

120 State of No 

Utah 

38 

Wildlife 

Seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers should be required of energy development. Use the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Raptor Protection Guidelines. 

On pg. 2-53 it is specified that rain accordance with the Best Man(BMPs) included in Appendix O. the Utah Field Office Guidelines From Human and Land-use Distand provide for modifications of snest buffers, if an established seThe document specifies that the elements of the BMPs, which peshould be attached as Conditionuse authorizations that have the affect nesting raptors, or would csites to become unsuitable for neyears. Therefore, the raptor BMPsurface-disturbing action, includiactivities, where raptor nesting mAs specified in the U.S. Fish and "Guidelines" document, modificaseasonal buffers for BLM-authorpermitted, so long as protection ensured. State and/or federally licandidate raptor species, as welraptor species, should be affordeprotection through this BMP procspecies would continue to receivMigratory Bird Treaty Act. Modifithreatened or endangered specipending results of Section 7 Con
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-52 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of Yes 

Utah 

39 

Socioeconomics

The economic impacts summary Table 2.2 (pg. 2-78) for minerals is incomplete. It only mentions lease rental royalty payments for oil and gas. Severance tax and property tax should be addressed as economic benefits. The same table discusses the economic impacts of recreation through sales tax and employment (2,000 jobs), but fails to indicate whether or not those are low or high paying, seasonal or permanent jobs. 

The economic benefits of seveof Utah as a whole are referencInformation on the economic behas been added to Table 2.2. Pnatural resources can be brokecounty and this has been adde79). The economic benefits of pvalorem) are also discussed on on wage distribution for recreatadded to Chapter 3 (pg. 3-104)

120 State of No 

Utah 

40 

Minerals: Oil and Gas 

The summary of impacts section should be expanded to discuss constraints upon mineral development when all requirements proposed under each alternative are considered concurrently. This should include the acreage available under each alternative, but the viability of development in light of restrictive but not prohibitive requirements such as Class II Visual Quality. 

The summary of impacts sectiodoes not provide a detailed discprovided under each alternative summary. A discussion of the ifrom visual resource restriction107. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

41 

Locatable Minerals 

The discussion of locatable minerals notes that the anticipated effect of uranium development would be the same under all alternatives because the acres open to extraction would be the same across all alternatives (see pg. 4-259). 

On pg. 4-106 to 4-108, it is ackstipulations (timing and visual radditional constraints and costs operations. The actual costs deand cannot be quantified on a ldocument. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-53 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

42 

Socioeconomics

None of the alternatives adequately analyze the loss of revenue from formally or effectively from eliminating mineral development in many of the lands subject to Special Designations and restrictive viewshed. 

On pg. 4-264 the royalty revenueach alternative are provided foMoab Field Office has only one mineral mine (Lisbon copper m(severance and property taxes) across alternatives. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

43 

Air Quality 

The air quality analysis assumed all new compressors would operate at a NOx emission rate of 0.7 g/hp-hr (pg. 4–17). How will the BLM ensure this projection for newly permitted compressors. 

This figure (0.7 g/hp-hr) was usassumption and is based on the technology. Air quality impacts specific proposed oil and gas dby case basis during the NEPA emission restrictions can be im

120 State of No 

Utah 

44 

Air Quality 

The air quality analysis assumed well spacing of 40 acres and 40 kilometers. Please confirm this analysis spacing. 

The analysis assumption was bspacing as stated on pg. 4–20. utilized because it represents a for the oil and gas operations cMoab Field Office. The spacing 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

45 

Air Quality 

Assumptions regarding the number of compressors and dehydrators listed on page 4–20 are inconsistent with those shown in Table 4.7. If the numbers in Table 4.7 are correct and the analysis was based on the numbers discussed in the text, the analysis could significantly understate air quality impacts. 

The BLM recognizes this discreappropriate changes to both th4–20) in the Proposed RMP/Fin
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-54 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

46 

Cultural Resources 

The State recommends the BLM undertake a final check to ensure that other potential areas of high cultural resource densities or values are examined for potential conflicts. The MFO should use techniques such as GIS, existing site databases. 

In accordance with the BLM LaHandbook (1601.1), a Class I cconducted. For site specific acta Class III cultural survey as apOn pg. 4-30 a model of cultural described that was used to precultural resources. This model and low site densities and this quantify the impacts. The modeintersecting 4,259 known culturprobability coverage in GIS. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

47 

Cultural Resources 

The State suggests that the BLM develop a specific ongoing program to identify and target identification efforts under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

These type of actions are admirequire land-use planning decisHowever, on pg. 2-8, cultural reunder Section 110 are prioritize

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

48 

Cultural Resources 

The State suggests enhancing and strengthening the density analyses utilized in the Draft RMP/EIS. These techniques could be significantly enhanced and strengthened in implementation of the Final Plan for high cultural resource value areas which include Sego Rock Art, Wall Street/Colorado River Rock Art, Behind the Rocks, Ten mile Wash, Mill Creek Canyon/South and North Forks of Mill Creek, the Wall Street portion of the Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon proposed ACEC, Westwater Canyon, Kane Springs Canyon, Seven mile Canyon, Bartlett/Hidden Canyon, Hell Roaring Uplands, and the Dolores River Canyon. 

The BLM will continue to enhandensity techniques for high cultidentified in the final plan. Each value areas mentioned by the Cincluded in the Proposed Plan fFinal EIS including Seven mile 8). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-55 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of Yes 

Utah 

49 

Cultural Resources 

The State requests that a cultural resource management plan be developed for Special Recreation Management Areas. 

In Management Common to AlCultural Resources (pg. 2-7), sare mentioned for cultural resopriority; Ten Mile Wash, Mill Crthe Rocks, and Wall Street. Thwith high visitation areas manatext has been changed to state Management Plans will be a coimplementation plans for the Scultural areas. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

50 

Cultural Resources 

The State suggests that BLM specify in the RMP the subsequent development of specific cultural resource management plans, especially in areas with potential resource conflicts between cultural and recreation/travel. These plans could provide for potential heritage tourism development where warranted. 

See response to comment 120potential heritage tourism devecomponent of the aforementionManagement Plans (pg. 2-7). 

120 State of No 

Utah 

51 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The BLM should clarify the criteria utilized to determine which areas with wilderness characteristics (WC) were included in the preferred alternative. 

Four alternatives for managing plands with wilderness characterisDraft RMP/EIS. The range of alteissues and concerns raised durinplanning criteria, and the guidanuses. The alternatives constitute actions that set forth different prioemphasize certain uses or resouuses or resource values under thsustained yield mandate of FLPMgoals and objectives. The preferAlternative C was crafted by an iand cooperating agencies to procommodity production and resouprotection to a wide spectrum of 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-56 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

These resource values include thwilderness characteristics, ACECRivers, sensitive soils, watershedwildlife values, and floodplain/rip

120 State of No 

Utah 

52 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The BLM needs to consider the new information on roads (2007) to reevaluate the findings of the 1999/2003 wilderness inventory. 

The 2003 Revision Document fOffice made adjustments to WiAreas based on county road dadiffers from the current county by its 1999/2003 data. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

53 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The BLM inconsistently applied road data between the 1999 inventory and the 2007 WC review. 

The BLM did not inconsistently aused the policies and procedures of review. The Wilderness Study Management Policy (IMP, H-855"IMP" or "WSA Handbook" was uinventory process conducted prioIMP emphasized the difference b"ways". Under that policy, the preconsidered to negatively affect thcharacteristics of an inventory unand affected area needed to be eof a "way" however, was not conto have a sufficient negative affearea to disqualify all or part of an In 2004, the BLM settled the ongState of Utah (Utah v. Norton Sewas acknowledged that the BLM inventory public lands for resourcincluding wilderness characteristmanaging the public lands and laInventories conducted post-2004 which is based on Washington OMemorandum 2003-275, Changnaturalness and does not disting"ways". 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-57 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

The BLM has evaluated wilderne2004 on the basis of affects to tharea, which could either be from 

120 State of No 

Utah 

54 

Wilderness Characteristics 

On page 4-157, the DEIS states that under Alt B, all 266,485 acres of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed as VRM class II. Table 4.55 indicates some WC lands that would be managed as VRM class I; please clarify. 

The VRM I acreage within WC from other decisions made undBeaver Creek, Fisher Towers, Mill Creek Canyon contain rive"wild" for Wild and Scenic Riveare managed as VRM I. Portionare managed as scenic ACECs in VRM I management in that amanagement alone does not remanagement under any alterna

120 State of No 

Utah 

55 

Wilderness Characteristics 

On pages 4-158 and 159, the DEIS states that under Alternative B, new water development facilities for wildlife would likely be precluded within non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Please discuss the extent to which Alt C would preclude development of water facilities. 

New water developments woulAlt B since non-WSA lands with characteristics (WC) are closed activities. However, in Alt C WC as No Surface Occupancy whicexception if the use is consisteprotection or enhancement of t(see Appendix C). Under Alt C, development could potentially benhancement of the natural valNEPA analysis for such a propo

120 State of No 

Utah 

56 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Many of the WC areas were divided into sub-units based on "substantially noticeable routes". Is this division appropriate? 

In Appendix P (pg. P-2), the BLcriteria for areas with WC. The acres was applied only to stand contiguous with other federal laevaluated for naturalness alone
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-58 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of Yes 

Utah 

57 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Portions of Arches Adjacent WC subunits 4-6 are not identified on the map. The text discussing unit five identifies wilderness characteristics for 625 acres, but the map does not show contiguity with the Park. 

Placement of the labels on the maps have been refined for cla

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

58 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The text for the Diamond Canyon WC indicates that unit six does not meet wilderness characteristic requirements but the map appears to indicate otherwise. 

The WC supplemental map for WC shows a small portion of unWC. This is a mapping error whcorrected; the text is correct. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

59 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The map for the Goldbar WC show two exclusions from the analysis area (blue circles) that are not discussed in the text. What are these areas? Area six is discussed in the text but not identified on the map. 

These exclusions are "doughnuby the proponent and are meanto impacts on naturalness. Unit map but the label has been imp

120 State of No 

Utah 

60 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Portions of the Labyrinth Canyon and Lost Spring WC area determined to possess wilderness characteristics in the 1999–2003 review appear to have high route density. Please explain why these routes do not compromise either naturalness or the outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

Refer to response to comments explanation of roads vs. ways athe Wilderness Handbook. The Document removed from the orInventory Area those portions whigh as to preclude such opporthe remaining Wilderness Invensufficiently unnoticeable and uninclusion does not substantially wilderness characteristics. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

61 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Area four of the Labyrinth Canyon WC is mapped as having WC but the text is contradictory. 

The label for Area 4 has been rclear. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-59 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

62 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The Mary Jane Canyon WC area appears to have high route density. Please explain why these routes do not compromise either naturalness of the outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

See response to comments G-route density. Most of the routeJane Canyon area are substanand gas seismic lines which are for travel under any of the ActioD). Alt C removes from WC maof the lands in the Mary Jane Cwhich these routes are located

120 State of No 

Utah 

63 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The text and map for the Mill Creek WC area conclude that the analysis area lacks wilderness characteristics, but the wilderness characteristics review form shows that "some or all of the area has wilderness characteristics as shown on the attached map". 

The 1999/2003 review found 3,Creek WC area to possess wildSubsequent review in 2007 fouto possess WC. The supplemeBLM website state this in the te

120 State of No 

Utah 

64 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

The State is opposed to the establishment of ACECs overlapping Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The State also does not favor creation of ACECs that exceed the scope of the resources they are designed to protect. 

The BLM has separate policiewell as criteria, for establishinThese differing criteria make isame lands will qualify as both WSA but for different reasonsto consider these different polThe values protected by WSA prescriptions do not necessarvalues found relevant and impevaluation, and vice versa. Thimportant values of ACECs wiWSAs were noted in the ACE(Appendix I). The ACECs are based on the presence or absrelevant and important valuesincludes wilderness character
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-60 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Additionally, the management pACECs is limited in scope to proimportant values, and the BLM mof the ACEC areas is appropriatrelevant and important values id

120 State of No 

Utah 

65 

Lands and Realty 

State Parks currently has an R&PP lease for land along the east side of Dead Horse Point State Park that is within both the Colorado River SRMA and the Highway 279 Corridor/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon ACEC. The State would like to request an exception for the land currently under R&PP lease that would eventually allow this land to be patented to the Division. 

The R&PP lease is a valid existhe State of Utah has the right tcompletion of its plan of develo

120 State of No 

Utah 

66 

Recreation 

The State seeks information on developing and approving Recreation Area Management Plans (RAMP) and River Management Plans. 

After completion of the RMP, thcurrently have RAMPs will be sdevelopment of a site specific RNEPA. The process is identical Plans. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

67 

Recreation 

The Draft RMP/EIS states that where a specific focus area is not identified with a Special Recreation Management Area, the focus of that area is motorized, backcountry touring on designated roads. This statement appears to indicate that those portions of SRMAs that are not subject to a more specific focus area will be managed to emphasize motorized recreation. 

The BLM acknowledges that ththat are focused on a particular decision on pg. 2-18 has been "where a specific type of SRMA identified, the focus of that area backcountry touring on designaareas particularly for backcounwould be managed more intensmanagement. For example, focbackcountry touring could be ccreation. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-61 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

This appears inconsistent with designating SRMAs to emphasize non-motorized recreation and mountain bike backcountry touring. Please also explain haw management of focus areas specifically designated for "motorized backcountry touring" would differ from the default management of SRMA for motorized backcountry touring. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

68 

Recreation 

The Draft RMP/EIS makes repeated reference to "destination SRMAs" (pg. 2-19). Please explain what a "destination SRMA" is and how such areas would be managed. 

Destination SRMAs are those wvisitation is from without the locSRMA definition has been adde

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

69 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

The Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Potential ACEC notes that the proposed designation would remain in force, "until the watershed is restored to a healthy and functioning condition". Please clarify what management conditions would apply once the desired future condition is attained and the mechanism used to change prescriptions. 

The Draft RMP/EIS states on pwould be designated until "the wto a healthy functioning conditiochanged to state that the ACEC until a determination is made bteam that the Cottonwood and are in properly functioning cond

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

70 

Recreation 

Clarify launch limits in Westwater Canyon. 

Table 4.69 (on pg. 4-207) statelimit for Westwater Canyon is 7been changed to state "75 peosector and 75 people for the prequals the 150 person launch lwebsite. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-62 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

71 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The State is concerned that Wild and Scenic River designations may limit water development by communities for future growth, limit industrial and agricultural growth, and reduce funding for the Colorado River Salinity Control program. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Acreserved water right; however, amount necessary for purposes adjudicated through State procjunior to existing water rights. Twater right will vary from river to the river's flows, the un-appropriver, and the values for which tprotected. There is no effect whrights on in-stream flows relatemade in a land-use plan decisioCongressional action. Even if Cdesignate rivers in the National Rivers System, any such desigaffect on existing, valid water rithe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act over waters is determined by elaw. In Utah, the State has jurisAlthough the Wild and Scenic Rfederal reserved water right for does not require or specify any establishes that only the minimof the Act can be acquired. Bechas jurisdiction over water, BLM adjudicate the right as would anapplication through State proceCongressionally designated rivfederal reserved water right to aunappropriated water with a priof designation (junior to all existhe minimum amount necessarpurpose of the reservation. During the suitability phase of thRiver process, both Grand and well as the State of Utah and SIsupply information on uses, "incforeseeable potential uses of th
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-63 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

waters, which would be enhanccurtailed if the area were includesystem of rivers, and the values foreclosed or diminished if the apart of the national system." (ApAttachment 4 of Appendix J sumby the public as well as local codecisions were made considerininput. For example, the agricultucommercial and municipal devethe town of Green River was citsegments 3 and 4 of the Green for consideration. In 1994, Public Law 98-569 amRiver Basin Salinity Control Act Secretary to develop a compreminimizing salt contributions froby BLM and to provide a report Congress and the Advisory CoColorado River Basin Salinity Cdesigned to provide the best m(BMP) of the basic resource baresource base will translate to icover, better use of onsite precplant root systems. In turn, a mregime and reduced soil loss shbenefiting water quality of the sRiver Basin including the Green River. In Section 1(b) of the WiAct, Congress states that one oAct is to protect the water qualiCongress further specified that agencies cooperate with the EPpollution control agencies to eliwater pollution (Section 2(c)). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-64 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Comparing the two, it is clear thRivers Act and the Colorado RiControl Act are not only compleanother, but share the same obwater quality. The Wild and Scethe Secretary of the Interior or aagency to prohibit any loan, graotherwise construction of any wthat would have a direct effect osuch river designation was estastates that it cannot preclude licassistance to, developments bescenic, or recreational river aretributary thereto that will not invunreasonably diminish the scenfish and wildlife values present of designation of a river as a coNational Wild and Scenic Riverprojects intended to comply witSalinity Control Act are those thbenefit stream segments insteaunreasonably diminishing its vaquality. 

120 State of 

Utah 

72 No The State believes that the BLM 

should disclose the reasons and rationale for determinations of eligibility and suitability for proposed additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System, and to fully meet the requirements of state and federal law in doing so. 

Appendix J of the DRMP/DEIS undertaken in the eligibility revthe identification of outstandinas well as the Suitability Consriver segments. The BLM comapplicable Federal laws, reguthe Wild and Scenic Rivers StThe BLM is aware that there arelevant to aspects of public la
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-65 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

Wild and Scenic Rivers are discrete from, and indepe

However, BLM is bound by FeAs a consequence, there may bcannot be reconciled. The FLPland-use plans be consistent wplans "to the extent practical" wplans conflict with Federal law tinconsistency that cannot be reidentify these conflicts in the FEState and local governments haunderstanding of the impacts oand local management options

120 State of No 

Utah 

73 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The State is concerned that the Draft RMP/EIS does not state the authority for protection of river segments while studies are underway. 

Section 5(d) of the Wild and Srequires that federal land manmake wild and scenic river conland-use planning. Two stages involved. Eligibility is an inventriver values. Suitability involvemanageability and resource coAs per BLM Manual 8351-Wild Policy and Program, Section .3are considered in the EIS for ttheir suitability for congressionNational Wild and Scenic Rivesuitability determination made PRMP/FEIS, the free-flowing, remarkable values, and tentatirivers would continue to be promakes a decision on designatiAppendix J describes the procthe Wild and Scenic Rivers StuThe FLPMA gives the BLM bromanage the public lands, inclueligible and suitable river segm
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-66 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

For eligible rivers, it is BLM's pvalues identified in the eligibilitprocess to ensure that a decisbe made. To accomplish this omanagement prescriptions muflowing character, tentative claidentify outstandingly remarkarivers according to the prescripthe current, applicable land-usManual Section 8351.32C. The states that should a determinabe made during the planning pmust prescribe protective manensure protection shall be affoadjacent public land area penddetermination" (Section 8351.3The NEPA specifies that while progress, BLM cannot undertaactions in the interim that woudecision or, in this case, the su(40 CFR 1505.1 (c)(3)). A casepotential impacts resulting from must be made to ensure that alimited from being considered the range of RMP alternativesopportunity to prejudice the deof the interim management to therefore, is applied through sanalysis of environmental impabasis. The NEPA compliance, actions that could significantly environment, ensures that BLM to the proposed action and proopportunity to apply mitigation reduce impacts on a given reseligible stream. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-67 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

This mechanism of applying maconformance with the current laprescriptions would be applied suitable in the ROD for the FielResource allocations (such as resources, OHV use, and minewith protecting river values wousuitable river corridors as part oaddition, no special managemeapplied to eligible rivers determin the ROD. Instead, they would additional consideration accordthe plan. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

74 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The BLM has not sufficiently divulged the proposed management prescriptions for river segments identified in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Table 4.102, Management PropSegments Considered for WSR Alternative, details these manaThe Oil and Gas Leasing Stipu4.102 by river segment are appdisturbing activities authorized in Appendix C. These prescriptto the Wild and Scenic River se

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

75 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Reference is made to 29 eligible segments that will be further reviewed for suitability; however, at several places, including pages 2-4, ES-5 and ES-6, 28 eligible segments are indicated. The Draft RMP/EIS identifies the number of eligible rivers as 13 at several places and 12 at many other locations. 

There are 29 eligible river segmwhich adjoins Arches National determination has been delayeaction. Therefore, 28 river segmsuitable in one or more of the aresulted in some inconsistenciehave been corrected. The samthe number of rivers which has 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-68 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of Yes 

Utah 

76 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The term "designation" in place of "classification" on pgs 2-4 and 2-91, is inappropriate. 

The term "designation" has bee"determine" in accordance with Planning Handbook (H 1601-1)

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

77 

Adequacy and Analysis 

The cumulative effects analysis would be enhanced by developing a map depicting the cumulative effect of all use restrictions imposed under each alternative. Such a map could resemble maps 4-1 through 44 in the Kanab Field Office Draft RMP/EIS. 

The maps referred to for the Kadepict oil and gas restrictions bmaps are contained in the Moaare referred as Maps 2-5A-D. Trestrictions shown on these madisturbing activities (see Appenhave been referred to in the cufor minerals (pg. 4-504) and othresources. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

78 

Adequacy and Analysis 

The BLM should clearly identify all reasonably foreseeable non-BLM actions within the planning area. As written, it is unclear what -- if any -- non-BLM actions were considered. 

The BLM has added the followiforeseeable non-BLM actions tanalysis: minerals extraction on lands; on-going residential growdevelopment throughout the plaexpansion of U.S. Highway 191

120 State of No 

Utah 

79 

Adequacy and Analysis 

Please clarify the identification of alternatives. For example, pgs 2-2 through 2-5 identify Alternative A as the No Action Alternative, Alternative B as the Preferred Alternative, Alternative C as the Alternative emphasizing Resource Protection and Alternative D as the Alternative emphasizing Development. Page 4-1 identifies Alternative B as the Alternative emphasizing Resource Protection, Alternative C as the Preferred Alternative, and Alternative D as the Alternative emphasizing Development. 

Our review of these sections shterminology for the alternatives summarized as follows: Alternative A is No Action. Alteprotection/preservation of naturAlternative C is the Preferred Aprovides for a balanced approaprotection/preservation of naturproviding for commodity producemphasizes commodity produc
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-69 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

80 

Adequacy and Analysis 

Pages 2-2 through 2-5 indicates that under Alternative C, 31 percent of the MPA would be closed to oil and gas development and only five percent of the MPA would be open under standard lease terms and conditions. In comparison, Alternative B would close only 14 percent of the MPA and leave 48 percent of the planning area open under standard terms and conditions. However, Table 4.3 indicates that despite the less stringent stipulations applied under Alternative B, 2,652 fewer oil and gas wells are anticipated compared to the more restrictive Alternative C. Please clarify this discrepancy. 

The only reference to oil and gaSummary Table C which shows to oil and gas development in A20 percent of the BLM lands wiIt should be noted that 19% of tthe planning area are closed to BLM policy. Also, as shown on acres are open with standard leconditions for Alt C. This amoulands within the planning area. B closes 36% of the BLM lands BLM lands open with standard Table 4.3 shows the total predidisturbance for mineral developalternative. The more restrictive fewer acres (not wells) of surfaC for oil and gas development. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

81 

Travel Management 

The BLM should designate OHV "training trails" near dispersed camp sites to reduce OHV damage in those areas. 

As stated in the Draft RMP/EIS be modified through subsequenplanning on a case by case bassuggestions for "training trails" the scoping period. After the RMon a site specific basis, the BLM training trails near dispersed cadesignated in the limited or ope

120 State of No 

Utah 

82 

Travel Management 

To avoid having routes closed in the future which cross properties owned by SITLA, rights-of-ways should be placed in public ownership for OHV access. 

The BLM recognizes that undeState is entitled to reasonable alands to school trust lands, inclwithin WSAs and other areas wprescriptions would restrict genrestrictions such as route closumanagement areas pertain to gPublic access to OHV routes oaccomplished through travel m
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-70 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

We make a distinction between and State access entitlements others that can be addressed aLand tenure adjustment efforts anticipated land exchanges betState should properly focus on within WSAs and other special identified in RMPs. Therefore, tbelieve it is necessary or pruderights-of-way or designated roulands for public use. The BLM ithe State to process any FLPMapplication the State feels is neingress and egress to State proThe concern about DRMP/EIS other than those for general puthe designation of right-of-way areas, can be clarified with spePRMP/FEIS that these designaState access entitlements undedescribed above. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

83 

Travel Management 

The White Wash sand dunes OHV open area should be larger than proposed under Alternative C. There should be a larger mix of sand and slick rock with a logical boundary. 

A larger OHV open area for the proposed in Alt D. A portion of has been added to the PRMP/Fof the popular camping area to dunes and just east of the Ruby 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-71 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

84 

Travel Management 

The State asks the BLM to explain its intention to designate D roads, and explain why different D roads may be designated across alternatives. Please clarify the authority under which BLM would designate county roads, and what happens to a D road if BLM chooses not to designate it pursuant to RS 2477. 

See response to comment 120

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

85 

Travel Management 

Table 4.54 on page 4-147 indicates that, under Alternative C and D, no portion of Lost Canyon would be either "open" or subject to "limited" OHV use. 

The limited acreage is identical D. Table 4.54 has been correct

120 State of No 

Utah 

86 

Travel Management 

Driving off designated routes to access dispersed camp sites would be in violation of the proposed travel plan. This plan should address this issue so that legitimate camp spots can be accessed from a legal route. 

Driving off designated routes to campsites would be a violationcampsites is addressed on pg. DRMP/DEIS; "designated routeidentified specifically for dispersaction alternatives. Many of the lead to or access dispersed camDispersed camping was considroutes in all of the action alternpublic is aware of these sites, twould be signed. Additional roucampsites can be considered acompleted on a case-by-case bdesignated as limited or open t
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-72 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

87 

Travel Management 

Duplicate routes may provide beneficial recreation experiences to OHV users of varying skills and interests. 

No information was provided duidentifying specific duplicate rothis planning effort. During the travel plan with Grand and San consideration of these types of However, most duplicate routes routes receiving little or no use not providing the experience sucomment. After the RMP proceadditional routes can be considcase basis in areas designated OHV use. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

88 

Travel Management 

The BLM is encouraged to coordinate route alignments with other jurisdictions including the border with Colorado in the Rabbit Valley/Bitter Creek area. 

During development of the travcoordinated with Grand and SaNational Park Service, the Foreall adjoining BLM offices, includOffice concerning the Rabbit Va

120 State of No 

Utah 

89 

Travel Management 

There are a few additional connecting routes needed in the travel plan for Alt C to create loops for ATVs and full-sized vehicles 

All route data received during sin the alternatives for the travel information is provided about thconnecting routes". Any new rofor addition to the travel plan afcompleted on a case by case bdesignated as limited to OHV u

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

90 

Travel Management 

There are no ATV/motorcycle only routes proposed in the preferred alternative. This is a useful designation to complete the array of OHV alternatives. The initial inventory and subsequent designation of motorcycle routes was incomplete. 

During the scoping period, the on routes proposed for motorcof these routes are included in Alt C or Alt D. During the comDRMP/EIS, some of the motowere modified by their proponfew of these motorcycle routefor ATVs. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-73 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

The map has been corrected delineate these ATV/motorcycare identified in the Travel PlaThe BLM incorporated all routscoping into formulation of tra

120 State of No 

Utah 

91 

Travel Management 

There are no designated routes in the Duma Point area under any of the alternatives and there is no explanation as to why these routes were omitted. 

The BLM received several routDuma Point area during the scothese routes were not identified alternatives due to resource cobig horn sheep and sensitive soa comment from UDWR regardherd in this area with respect to The BLM Manual 8342.1 requirdesignations must "minimize haand/or significant disruption of w

120 State of No 

Utah 

92 

Travel Management 

The State requests that the OHV riding area just north of the Airport on the Blue Hills Road remain open. The area is well-suited to the existing use (shale soils with no vegetation) and provides an authorized area for hill climbing. 

The area described is actually warea was limited to existing roa1985 RMP due to concerns witare no identified routes within afor the travel plan. However, in made for the Airport Hills Motocacres) to be established upon agovernment under the RecreatPurposes Act. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

93 

Travel Management 

Please clarify whether page G-11's reference to wildlife habitat includes habitat for all species or is it intended to apply to habitat for more significant species or groups of species. 

Page G-11 refers to the guidanManual 8342.1 which states tha"must minimize harassment of significant disruption of wildlife BLM lists the relevant species cformulation of the alternatives f
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-74 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

94 

Travel Management 

Page G-11, uses the term "extreme". Explain what constitutes an "extreme" hazard which can be considered an element of subjectivity. 

This language is verbatim from which states "designations musOHV use in areas of extreme nhazards". 

120 State of No 

Utah 

95 

Travel Management 

Page G-15, Emergency Limitation or Closure: Perhaps "immediately closed" should read, "immediately mitigated or closed" or some similar wording. 

The federal regulations at 8341authorized officer shall immediaaffected to the types of vehicle affect". The wording on page Gfrom the referenced regulations

120 State of No 

Utah 

96 

Travel Management 

The implementation process section on page G-29 should stress the need for maps and signing as both are needed. 

On pg. G-30, the Draft RMP/EIRMP decisions, designated OHportrayed by a map. This map wsigning and enforcement. The iinclude completing signage, makiosks, and working with partne

120 State of No 

Utah 

97 

Lands and Realty 

SITLA requests a detailed reference under Issue 8 of the Issues Identified for Consideration in the Moab RMP concerning inheld state lands within special areas such as WSAs, ACECs, and lands managed for wilderness characteristics. 

See response to comments 120is not necessary to have this spin the description of the issue. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

98 

Minerals Oil and Gas 

Section 1.3.3-Development of Planning Criteria (pg. 1-13). The BLM states that the RMP will "apply only to public lands and, where appropriate, split estate lands where the subsurface mineral estate is managed by the BLM". 

Information regarding leasing asplit estate lands is found at thWashington Office website: www.blm.gov/bmp/Split_EstateInstruction Memorandum No. 2policy, procedures and conditioand gas operations on split-es
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-75 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

The BLM should reconsider whether it can impose its standard on split estate lands where it does not own the surface as mentioned in the Planning Criteria on pg. 1-13. 

In particular, the BLM will not cfor Permit to Drill or a Sundry Nor technically complete until the operator certifies that an agreeowner exists, or until the lessee complies with Onshore Oil and Compliance with Onshore Oil arequires the federal mineral lesenter into good-faith negotiationsurface owner to reach an agreprotection of surface resources disturbed areas, or payment in compensate the surface owner damages to tangible improvemthe BLM will invite the surface othe onsite inspection and will tathe needs of the surface owner Application for Permit to Drill. Tsurface owner the same level oBLM provides on federal surfacMemorandum No. 89-201). 

120 State of No 

Utah 

99 

Lands and Realty 

Paragraph 3.6.2.1 - Land Tenure Adjustments (Pg. 3-28). This paragraph should specifically reference the need for federal acquisition of State school trust lands that are captured by federal reservations and withdrawals such as wilderness study areas will be a priority, in accordance with applicable BLM policy guidance. In addition State selection should be mentioned as an equally preferred method of land disposition as land exchanges. 

See response to comments 12The FLPMA Section 203 requiland-use planning process to idisposal through sales. Identify203 sale requires BLM to meespecifically in the statute. The FLPMA authorizes BLM to would be available for exchangacquisition) more generally. Thhas identified lands generally aincluding identifying State landavailable for acquisition. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-76 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

The DRMP/DEIS does not contprioritize these lands, but BLM in-lieu and other exchanges are State and for BLM. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

100 

Lands and Realty 

 Section 3.6.2.1.2-Exchanges and Acquisitions (pg. 3-29). The State encourages the BLM to add a new paragraph after the first paragraph, as follows: Facilitating acquisition of state trust lands inholdings in wilderness study areas and other sensitive areas through land exchange is considered an important public objective, and will be given priority. 

See response to comments 12

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

101 

Minerals Oil and Gas 

Paragraph 4.1.2 - Analytical Assumptions (pg. 4-2/3). The BLM's second to last analytical assumption, that non-BLM lands would be minimally directly impacted by RMP decisions, since BLM does not make land decisions on non-BLM lands, is incorrect with respect to state trust lands. The largest source of revenue for the Utah school trust is from oil and gas bonuses and royalties. In much of Utah, in order to establish an economic oil and gas resource play, the exploration company needs a large areal footprint. It is likely that multiple sections would have to be leased and developed in order to develop the necessary reserves to make the play economic. 

The BLM acknowledges that thpublic lands to oil and gas leaspotentially negative impact on Srevenue. The assumption on pgchanged to reflect this fact. In Aclosure of the 354,015 acres mWilderness Areas is nondiscretscope of this plan. In Alternatives A, C, and D theraffected by discretionary closurPRMP/FEIS has been revised tAlternative B on SITLA inholdinclosures of 266,485 acres of punoted that under any Alternativare not managed as closed to mwith wilderness characteristics closed under Alternative B and in Alternative C. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-77 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

 BLM decisions from mineral lands from leasing in WSAs, areas with wilderness characteristics, ACECs, and other areas directly affect the economic viability of state trust lands inholdings. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

102 

Lands and Realty 

BLM's last analytical assumption, that reasonable access to state lands , across BLM lands, would be provided under all alternatives, needs to be specifically repeated in Table 2.1 under the heading "Management Common to All Alternatives" with a notation that access to state trust lands will be granted even if an area is otherwise an avoidance or exclusion area for ROWs. 

See response to comment 120

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

103 

Minerals Oil and Gas 

Section 4.1.3.1/Table 4.2-Oil and Gas. The BLM withdrawals and special designations directly affect development of oil and gas on SITLA lands. The BLM should assume that, in addition to the loss of oil and gas wells on BLM lands, there would be an additional loss of wells on SITLA lands in proportion to the amount of SITLA land within the proposed special designations under each alternative. 

As explained in comment 120-1discretionary oil and gas closurthat negatively impact SITLA inwhere 266,485 acres are closecharacteristics. An estimate of foregone on SITLA lands as a rclosure has been added to the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-78 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of Yes 

Utah 

104 

Lands and Realty 

Section 4.3.5-Lands and Realty (pgs. 4-63/69). The second paragraph of section 4.3.5.1 (Impacts Common to All Alternatives) incorrectly states that 354,015 acres within WSAs and the Black Ridge Wilderness Area are closed to surface-disturbing activities and thus excluded to new ROWs. 

Narrative has been added to thto clarify that the BLM has an oreasonable access to inheld Stsubject to Utah v. Andrus and tManagement Policy. There are the Black Ridge Wilderness Are

120 State of No 

Utah 

105 

Socioeconomics

Section 4.3.12-Socioeconomic Resource (pgs 4-252/277). BLM decisions to withdraw mineral lands from leasing (WSAs, etc.) directly affect the economic viability of state trust lands inholdings. This should be acknowledged appropriately in the discussion of socioeconomic impacts. In particular, the BLM should assume that in addition to the decline in the number of wells drilled on BLM lands, there will be a proportionate decrease in the number of wells drilled on trust lands if Alternative B is adopted. 

See comments 120-101 & 120-of closed acreage by alternativrevenue from SITLA wells foregcalculated and added to the an

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

106 

Lands and Realty 

Appendix A.1.1. Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria. Add a new numbered paragraph stating that facilitating acquisition of state trust lands inholdings in wilderness study areas and other sensitive areas through land exchange is considered an important public objective, and will be given priority in accordance with existing BLM policy direction. 

Current BLM Utah State Policy State of Utah exchanges and srequire a land-use planning dec
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-79 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

107 

Lands and Realty 

Delete numbered paragraph 9 in A.1.1. It is inconsistent with county plans and may hinder necessary exchanges to acquire state inholdings. 

This paragraph refers to retainipublic ownership including all laSRMAs, and other designated has been restated as follows: "within WSAs, ACECs, SRMAs, areas". 

120 State of No 

Utah 

108 

Lands and Realty 

Please consider adding a new section, A.1.5, State Selections, which should read as follows: "State selections under the Utah Enabling Act and other applicable law will also be given priority pursuant to BLM Manual 2621.06A-C. All lands not encumbered by a withdrawal or other special designation will be available for state selection." 

See the response to comment 

120 State of No 

Utah 

109 

Water Resources 

Under the Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC, Alternatives B and C propose to "maintain 3 cfs in the South Fork of Mill Creek below the Shelly diversion" (pg. 2-37). Please explain whether BLM possess a water right applicable to this area, how BLM would maintain this level of flow at the Shelly diversion, how it would prevent appropriation of instream flows below this point, and who would hold instream flow rights. 

The BLM does not have instreaCreek. The BLM would maintaistipulation in the right-of-way gCounty Water Conservancy Disnot control appropriation of watare appropriated by the State oonly agencies that can hold insthe UDWR and the Utah State 

120 State of No 

Utah 

110 

Water Resources 

The enhancement of riparian and wetland areas will increase the depletion of water within the Moab FO. 

Restoration of riparian vegetation depletion. In fact, this activity shoof available water. Enhancing ripin a decrease in stream temperaevaporation, and the storage of wflow seasons (summer). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-80 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 

The State requests the BLM modify its goal to require mitigation of any increased water depletion that may result from its activities. Such mitigation may require the acquisition and change of a valid existing water right. 

As part of a mitigation effort, it is 

suggested the BLM consider the institution of a program to eradicate tamarisk and other highly water consumptive, non-native species and their replacement with native species. Water required for any enhancement effort will need to be obtained in accordance with State law. 

In addition, the replacement of olive by native vegetation resuland higher stream flow. If any abecome necessary, the BLM waccordance with Utah State lawOn pg. 2-50 under ManagemenVegetation, it states "Reduce taolive where appropriate using atreatments. Restore riparian haand cottonwood communities". 

120 State of No 

Utah 

111 

Water Resources 

The UDWQ suggests the following practices identified in the TMDL that would reduce Mill Creek water temperatures to bring conditions into compliance with standard for Class 3A waters. These practices include: 1) provide higher stream flows during summer by maintaining 3 cfs flow below the Ken's Lake diversion, 2) increase water depth by narrowing the stream channel with restoration techniques involving use of heavy equipment, and 3) plant and protect riparian vegetation to increase shading a minimum of 11 percent to attain water quality standard. 

The Draft RMP/EIS on pg. 2-31 Management Common to All AWater "Coordinate with Grand Service Agency to ensure requflow of 3.0 cfs in Mill Creek belodiversion". Through ongoing remanagement actions stream chimproving without the use of heuse of heavy equipment is not ainaccessibility, the size of the sother sensitive resources. On pManagement Common to All foRMP/EIS states "Reduce tamawhere appropriate using allowatreatments. Restore riparian haand cottonwood communities". and will continue to be a high prestoration efforts due to its TM
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-81 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of No 

Utah 

112 

Water Resources 

Onion Creek is impaired for temperature. To attain a temperature reduction in Onion Creek, the TMDL recommends restricted access to the stream channel by off road vehicles and riparian restoration to facilitate canopy cover. To restore the beneficial use in the creek, a more protective alternative than those described by the BLM/Moab RMP may be required. 

Under all alternatives, travel wistream corridor is restricted to trestoration in this area has beeOnion Creek is a priority for resaddition, the BLM has worked wRoad Department to improve throad, thus improving riparian anconditions in Onion Creek. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

113 

Water Resources 

Ken's Lake should be protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life. It is impaired for temperature. The protection of riparian vegetation may improve conditions around the lake. 

The Ken's Lake TMDL concludtemperatures are appropriate foThe impairments are due to namanagement actions. Ongoing management efforts for Ken's Lpromoting native vegetation. 

120 State of No 

Utah 

114 

Water Resources 

Best Management Practices should be included in the plan for impaired water bodies. 

The BLM is adopting the State'recommendations for impaired constitute the best managemenstreams. 

120 State of Yes 

Utah 

115 

Water Resources 

Monitoring should be defined for the plan, including water quality and biological parameters. Monitoring of recreation events should also be conducted to help provide data of the impacts. 

The federal regulations at 43 Cthat land-use plans establish inand evaluations based on the sresource decisions involved. Th(ROD) for the RMP will commit the specifics of which will be dethe signing of the ROD. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-82 

Table 5.9.a. Public Comments and Responses: State of Utah 120 State of Yes 

Utah 

116 

Socioeconomics

A statewide social survey was conducted by Utah State University in 2007. The State provides the key survey results for Grand County (146 responses) and for San Juan County (124 responses). 

The Commenter provides an adnot considered in the Draft RMunavailability at the date of pubCommenter has identified this dno conclusions are provided. TUtah State University for the StUSU study surveyed residents an equal (equal sample size peCommenter has not provided Bbut has compiled summary statsurvey is described as a social "attempts to assess the ways in use and value public land resouabout public land managementsurvey of a sample of the popunot directly comparable to mosgovernment agency-generated RMP/EIS. Portions of the study among types of public lands; in includes all state and federal lalands. This makes some of the use in BLM planning and analyin the MPA contain significant aand USFS lands. Nonetheless, interesting results not available summaries for Grand and San incorporated in Attachment B mimplementation actions. None oaffect either the formulation of a2, nor the analysis of impacts in appropriate, pertinent results aChapter 3 of the PRMP/FEIS. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-83 

Table 5.9.b. Public Comments and Responses: Grand County

Requires 

Record Change 

ID Commenter Comment Number 

Resource 

Comment Text 

982 Grand 

County 

1 No We would like to thank you for including the Grand County Council in the R

process. It has been a pleasure working with you over the years. Although challenges were presented, the final product came out extremely well. Thayour cooperation and time devoted to this project. We look forward to workwith you on the future phases of the RMP process. 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Requires 

Record Change 

ID Commenter Comment Number 

Resource 

Comment Text Response t

121 San Juan No 

County 

1 

Process and Procedures 

The BLM's interpretation of the Multiple Use mandate where all uses occur someplace but not together is flawed. Landscapes can be managed so that a broad spectrum of resource uses can create social, economic and ecological wealth simultaneously. Multiple use management results in benefits to various resources. For example, grazing can be a tool to benefit wildlife and their habitats. 

In developing land-use mandated by FLPMA tof multiple use and susdefines multiple use as the public lands and thvalues so that they are combination that will beand future needs of the use of some land for leresources, a combinatiodiverse resource uses thlong term needs of future renewable and nonrenewconsideration given to thresources and not necesof uses that will give the or the greatest unit outpuThe final land-use plan Office will define multip
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-84 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

2 

Process and Procedures 

More emphasis should be placed on monitoring the plan decisions both to measure the results of the plan and to insure that actions are taken to incorporate any changes needed. Watershed function, livestock use, recreation, OHV use and wildlife populations are uses that should be monitored more closely. The plan should have greater flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. 

The federal regulations arequire that land-use plaand standards and evalusensitivity of the resourcRecord of Decision (ROcommit to a monitoring pwhich will be developed signing of the ROD. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

3 

Process and Procedures 

San Juan County asks for more cooperation and collaboration with local, state, and federal agencies (as well as interest groups) in actions and decisions within the Field Office. Misunderstandings could then be worked out in advance -- in the field rather than the courtroom. Within the framework of this RMP, the BLM should provide more opportunities to facilitate cooperative relationships and foster better collaboration efforts. 

The State of Utah, GranCounty are cooperating preparation of the RMP. The BLM has involved thin all aspects of the landincluding participation in team meetings. Cooperation and collabosite specific projects afteand this does not require accomplish. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

4 

Water Resources

San Juan County feels more emphasis should be placed on sustaining and developing healthy watersheds. The functionality of watersheds underlies all resources values. The best way to improve the functionality of watersheds is by Increasing the ground cover. Well managed grazing is one of the best, most economical, large scale tools for increasing ground cover. 

The BLM actively suppowatersheds and is a parInitiative for Utah. The Ralternatives, specifies thundertaken in cooperatiofor Conservation and DeThe RMP, under all alterthat grazing would be mGuidelines for Livestock meet the Standards for RImplementation of these improve watershed heal
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-85 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

5 

Livestock Grazing

San Juan County supports livestock grazing in a prescriptive manner to accelerate progress toward improved rangeland health and reduction of catastrophic fire. The BLM should reassess timing and season of use for grazing. 

The BLM Land-use Pla1601-1) requires the BLavailable or not availabThis is the only planninRMP. Decisions concerof use are made on an the Standards for RangGuidelines for Grazing 

121 San Juan No 

County 

6 

Livestock Grazing

San Juan County feels that social/economic analysis for livestock grazing is inadequate, as many allotments have been reduced or closed. The county urges BLM to look at grazing on a watershed basis vs. an allotment basis so that livestock operations would have opportunities to be more profitable but also to benefit wildlife and other resources. 

Only one livestock allotany alternative for non-County (Mill Creek: 3,9proposed for non-availaGrand County) under Aavailable for grazing noallotments have been usince 1994, and some sRMP. The socioeconomgrazing opportunities is Decisions concerning nseasons of use are mausing Standards for RaGuidelines for Grazing permit renewal process

121 San Juan No 

County 

7 

Travel Management 

San Juan County supports Alt C for travel management. The county wants the BLM to highlight specific prescriptions to promote responsible use, such as areas that would be highlighted for OHV use, maps, signing, kiosks etc. In addition, BLM does not mention impacts from hikers or mountain bikers. 

The RMP proposes maareas or SRMAs emphmotorized use. These SRMA, Gemini BridgesMotorized Touring AreaDee Pass Motorized TAirport Hills Moto Crosare proposed for speciemphasizing that activ
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-86 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

The RMP would designRecreation Area Manathe RMP, where specifsuggested by the counThe Travel Plan (Appemapping, signing, and as actions that would bimplementation of this Mountain bikes are restroute system under all aImpacts of mountain bikwere not separated out impacts of off-route travall types of wheeled vehikers were not considedecision in this plan reqtrail. 

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

8 

Wildlife 

BLM erroneously uses the term critical habitat (defined as applicable only to threatened and endangered species). This error occurs on Maps 2-27 B and C/D, on pages 3-169 and 3-171 and on page N-6. The term crucial habitat is used too loosely; UDWR uses crucial habitat as descriptive designations. They are not intended to mislabel resource concerns and result in a limitation of compatible uses. San Juan County disputes the acreage identified for crucial elk and deer winter range in San Juan County and submits information from Dr. Charles Kay in that regard. 

Maps 2-27B and C/D rewinter range and the teThe term critical is used 32, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-171, 3-174, 3-177, and changed to crucial in thThe UDWR is the jurisdwildlife management wrelied on the expertise delineating wildlife habipopulation numbers, anwildlife restrictions. Also, refer to comment 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-87 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

9 

Process and Procedures 

San Juan County is opposed to "layering" or the establishment of ACECs or SRMAs over WSAs or Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

"Layering" is planning. use mandate, BLM manresource values and usThrough land-use plannand objectives for each uses, and prescribes acthose objectives. Undeconcept, the BLM doesevery value and use on routinely manages manuses on the same areaprocess of applying magoals, objectives, and aof public lands may be The BLM strives to ensobjectives of each progresource values and uscompatible for a particuInconsistent goals and resource conflicts, failudesired outcomes of a litigation. Whether or nomanagement is restrictpersonal interest or deslands are managed in a uses and values cannoevery acre. That is why developed through a puinterdisciplinary procesprocess helps ensure thand uses can be considdetermine what mix of vresponsive to the issueresolution in the land-us
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-88 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Layering of program decBLM, but is required by tBLM planning and progrFLPMA directs BLM to mmultiple use and sustain102(a)(7)). As a multiplerequired to implement lapolicies for many differenland-uses and to resolve land-uses through its lanLand-use Planning Handspecific decisions be maand use (See, Appendix "H-1601-1"). Specific dein each of the alternativedevelopment of the landalternative is formulatedis overlaid with other proinconsistent decisions aso that ultimately a compmanagement prescriptioFor example, the BLM hguidelines as well as critAreas of Critcal Environmas when the Wilderness were established. These possible that the same laan ACEC and a WSA buThe BLM is required to cpolicies. The values protected by prescription do not necevalues found relevant anevaluation, and vice vers
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-89 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

The relevant and imporwithin or adjacent to WACEC evaluation (Appeevaluated and ranked bor absence of the stateimportant values. None wilderness characteristmanagement prescriptilimited in scope to proteimportant values and ththe size of the ACEC athe relevant and importSRMAs are not restrictirather are utilized to coThe South Moab SRMA Creek and the Behind tthe management propodiffering purposes. Please see Response 1

121 San Juan 

County 

10 No Managing Non-WSA Lands for so-called 

wilderness characteristics violates FLPMA, Utah Code 63-38d-401(6)(b), the San Juan County master plan, the Norton-Leavitt Agreement and other agreements. 

The BLM's authority for protect or enhance wildis derived directly from U.S.C. §1712). This section of BLM's oSecretary of the Interiopublic lands for multiple yield. Nothing in this section coauthority to manage land"achieve integrated consbiological, economic, an(FLPMA, Section 202(c)§1712(c)(2))) Further, FLPMA makes 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-90 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Non-WSA lands and Wilderness Characteristics 

"multiple use" means thaappropriate for every acthe Secretary can "make of the land for some or arelated services over areprovide sufficient latitude in use. . . ." (FLPMA, Se§1702(c))) The FLPMA iSecretary of the Interior as a mechanism for allocincluding wilderness chaamongst the various resprovides uses for currenThe BLM has long acknoSection 603 (43 U.S.C. §time wilderness review hinventory of public lands Section 201 (43 U.S.C. §2006, the Utah District CBLM retained authority tdetermined to have wildea manner substantially swhich such lands are proThe BLM is aware that tlaws relevant to aspects management that are disindependent of, FederaHowever, BLM is bound consequence, there mathat cannot be reconcilerequires that BLM's lanconsistent with State anextent practical" where conflict with Federal law inconsistency that cann
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-91 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

BLM will identify these FEIS/PRMP so that the governments have a coof the impacts of the PRmanagement options. Finally, the Utah v. NorAgreement does not affmanage public lands. Tremedied confusion by wilderness study areas FLPMA §603 and those managed under §603's standard, and other landiscretionary FLMPA §2process. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

11 

Adequacy and Analysis 

In the analysis of the impacts for the Draft RMP/EIS, almost all the impacts are attributable to OHV use, oil and gas use, and, to some extent, grazing. The underlying theme is that these 3 things are the cause of all negative impacts and if they are eliminated or controlled then everything else is take care of. The BLM should consider cheat grass and juniper encroachment, invasive weed problems, and catastrophic fires. The BLM should utilize livestock to control invasive plants. 

In the Draft RMP/EIS suare considered potential natural and cultural resosurface-disturbing activitdisturbing activities incluthings, oil and gas develcountry OHV use. Neithetravel on vehicular routedisturbing activities. On pg. 2-50 in decisions alternatives, the BLM spreducing invasive and noVegetation treatments aarea are identified on pgOn an allotment basis, SHealth and Guidelines focould be utilized to contr

121 San Juan 12 Yes San Juan County commends the BLM for the The BLM has reviewed 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-92 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

County Socioeconomics effort that has been expended to better understand and portray socioeconomic 

impacts in this DRMP. This has been a weakness in previous plans. San Juan County encourages BLM to use studies done by Utah's universities to enhance this information such as the social survey undertaken by USU and the economic studies done by the U of U. Every NEPA action in the RMP should include a discussion on socioeconomic conditions and fully disclose all impacts. 

University survey of rurathe State of Utah. The Bpreliminary data from thcompletion of the Draft has incorporated findingappropriate. The BLM has incorporaresearch completed by Bureau of Economic aninto the PRMP/FEIS. On a broad land-use plahas disclosed the socioevarious resource actions Chapter 4 of the DRMPseparate out the socioemany resource decision

121 San Juan No 

County 

13 

Livestock Grazing

San Juan County is opposed to relinquishment of preference or retirement of grazing rights in favor of conservation (p. 2-12). BLM should clarify goals in encouraging relinquishment and what would happen to voluntarily relinquished AUMs if BLM proposes to retire AUMs. What mechanism would be used to retire grazing rights? 

The BLM does not encorelinquishment of grazinpolicy concerning the vof grazing preference is the DRMP/EIS. As staterelinquished permits anpreference would remaapplication by qualified after the BLM considers meet rangeland health compatible with achieviand objectives. Upon vothe BLM may determine evaluation and associathe public lands involveare better used for othedecision issued concer
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-93 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

livestock grazing is not reconsidered and chanuse plan amendments. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

14 

Livestock Grazing

Alternatives B and C should not favor a single use regarding vegetation treatments, but should benefit multiple use objectives (p. 2-14). 

In the Draft RMP/EIS (pspecifically favors livestconducting vegetation tspecifies vegetation trebenefit multiple use objlivestock grazing and wwatershed health. Alt B treatments to benefit wand riparian health. MuFLPMA as 1) the use othan all of the resourceof balanced and diverse takes into account the lfuture generations for rnonrenewable resource

121 San Juan No 

County 

15 

Minerals Oil and Gas 

BLM should give due consideration to the most efficient program for the development of oil and gas resources in favor of exclusionary management for other uses. BLM is using exclusionary management for non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, ACECs and wildlife areas. 

Alt B of the Draft RMP/protection of resources mineral development. Adevelopment over proteC is designed to be a bdevelopment and proteThere are no "exclusionthe Draft RMP/EIS for ACounty for oil and gas. non-WSA lands with wiproposed for Alt C withOnly timing restrictions proposed in Alt C within 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-94 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan Yes 

County 

16 

Socioeconomics 

The socioeconomic analysis for oil and gas is inadequate. A study in Uintah County found that oil and gas account for 60% of total wages, with the average wage of an oil worker at $84,795. 

On pg. 4-264 of the Drathat employment relatedevelopment would be effects on employment added to Chapter 4 of t

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

17 

Socioeconomics 

Please explain how the extremely restrictive Alt. B would have only slightly lower economic benefits. Many of the new restrictions on oil and gas proposed in this RMP are not warranted. BLM should make reasonable adjustments in the preferred alternative. 

The fiscal impacts have Table 2.2 on pg. 2-78 (royalty revenue. This tarevenues will be reduceaddition property tax retax data have been addPRMP/FEIS and likewisreduction in revenues in Alt C. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

18 

Wilderness Characteristics 

BLM should not manage lands for wilderness characteristics, taking into account the Utah v. Norton settlement, the opinions of local governments and residents, the existence of inholdings and valid existing rights, and the existence of SITLA lands. BLM has ignored county travel route and intrusion information in the 1999 wilderness inventory. BLM should clarify the difference between "natural", "largely natural", and "generally natural", and define "allotment files" and "master title plat data". 

Refer to response to conon-WSA lands with wiare proposed for manaJuan County. County trwas utilized in the Travselection of non-WSA lalternative. For impacts response to comments The terms specified for from the 1999 Wildernecannot be changed at t

121 San Juan No 

County 

19 

Recreation 

Will future "recreation area management plans" and "river management plans" be subject to NEPA. What is the process for developing and approving these plans? 

After completion of the SRMAs that do not currneed to develop a site sto full compliance with tis identical for River Ma
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-95 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan Yes 

County 

20 

Recreation 

The Draft RMP/EIS states that where a specific focus area is not identified with a Special Recreation Management Area, the focus of that area is motorized, backcountry touring on designated roads. This statement appears to indicate that those portions of SRMAs that are not subject to a more specific focus area will be managed to emphasize motorize recreation. This appears inconsistent with designating SRMAs to emphasize non-motorized recreation and mountain bike backcountry touring. Please also explain haw management of focus areas specifically designated for "motorized backcountry touring" would differ from the default management of SRMA for motorized backcountry touring. 

See response to the St120-67. 

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

21 

Recreation 

The Draft RMP/EIS makes repeated reference to "destination SRMAs" (pg. 2-19). Please explain what a "destination SRMA" is and how such areas would be managed. 

See response to the St120-68. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

22 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

The Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC. San Juan County is opposed to protecting wilderness characteristics and layering. Alt. D best describes this unit. 

Alt C proposes no manwilderness or wildernesthe Mill Creek Potential acres in this ACEC in Awithin San Juan CountyAlt. B contains 295 acrewith wilderness charactCounty. Of these acresCreek Potential ACEC 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-96 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

23 

Water Resources

Alternatives B and C propose to "maintain 3cfs in the South Fork of Mill Creek below the Shelly diversion" (pg. 2-37). Please explain whether BLM possess a water right applicable to this area, how BLM would maintain this level of flow at the Shelly diversion, how it would prevent appropriation of instream flows below this point, and who would hold instream flow rights. 

See response to comm

121 San Juan No 

County 

24 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Wilson Arch Potential ACEC. This should be dropped in all alternatives because of surrounding private land. The area should be VRM Class III in all alternatives. The arch should be protected with a hiking trail up to it. 

The Wilson Arch Potenonly in Alt. B. The potenrelevance criteria and malternative. The area is Alt C, providing protectmanaged as VRM III in virtually no protection to 

121 San Juan No 

County 

25 

Special Status Species 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. What is their habitat? There is no map provided. 

The Southwestern Willoendangered species; thWildlife Service has not habitat within the Moab boundaries. The USFWbreeding habitat as denshrub communities assswamps, and other wetRecovery Plan, SouthwFlycatcher). 

121 San Juan No 

County 

26 

Special Status Species 

Are there any Gunnison sage-grouse leks within the MPA? Will the restrictions be imposed whether or not the grouse are present? 

There are currently no leks or occupancy withi47, the Draft RMP/EIS occupancy is identifiedbe imposed as follows:would only be imposed present. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-97 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

27 

Visual Resource Management 

VRM Management appears to be the same for Alts C and D within San Juan County. San Juan County would like Shafer Basin managed as VRM I, Mill Creek managed as VRM II and the rest of San Juan County managed the same as Alt. A. BLM should adjust Alt. C. 

Alts C and D are not ideCounty, with 15,326 acre65,273 acres of VRM II, III, and 96,471 acres of Vin Alt C and 6,316 acres of VRM II, 147,496 acres acres of VRM IV within tC, Shafer Basin is manaareas around Mill Creek The 1985 Grand RMP dHowever, in 2002, a plan completed for the Canyowhich is managed as VRincluding Behind the RocJuan County, are managin Alt A, the remainder ono VRM management. Tthe revised RMP. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

28 

Wildlife 

San Juan County disputes the acreage identified for crucial elk and deer winter range in San Juan County. San Juan County asks that Alt. A coverage be used for deer and elk winter range. Prescriptions should be added to the alternatives to allow for collaborative monitoring and studies conducted that will allow for habitat designations to be biologically and scientifically based. 

The BLM relied on UDWjurisdictional expertise In the 1985 Grand RMPimpose restrictions on telk habitat (approximatdelineated by UDWR wRestrictions were only iacres of this habitat. A alternatives is not necefor collaborative monito

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

29 

Wildlife 

The term "critical" is used inappropriately for wildlife habitats on the following pages: p. 3-38, 3-39, 3-169 (in Table 3.52), 3-171. Critical is used only for 'sensitive species' habitat. 

These terms have been of the PRMP/FEIS. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-98 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

30 

Wildlife 

"Competition between deer and livestock" (pg. 3-38) is used inappropriately because both livestock and deer should be managed under an allocation system for both. 

This statement is only iuses occurring on the Ballotment. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

31 

Livestock Grazing

With over 300,000 vehicles per year, are there conflicts between people and habitat for desert bighorn, bald eagle, SWWF, T and E fish, peregrine falcon and other sensitive raptors; since the RMP states that there are conflicts between people and livestock on the Professor Valley, River and Ida Gulch allotments (pg-3-39). 

The conflicts between tlivestock are in the form with cattle. Utah State Hcross desert bighorn habeen no collisions betwother species listed. 

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

32 

Wildlife 

There is a discrepancy between Tables 3.56 and 3.57 on DWR population objectives for elk. BLM should clarify or correct this. San Juan County questions the accuracy of DWR's elk counts. 

Tables 3.56 and 3.57 hcorrect the discrepancie

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

33 

Wildlife 

BLM should remove the crucial winter range for elk in San Juan County, including all prescriptions, impacts, environmental consequences, etc. from the DRMP (pg. 3-173). 

Throughout the DRMP/"deer and elk habitat" h"deer and/or elk" habitaprescriptions and envirofor the two animals are habitats were considere

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

34 

Wildlife 

Pronghorn do not use piñon-juniper habitat. Correct this inconsistency in Table 4.138 on page 4-442. 

Pronghorn do utilize piñoccasionally but their psagebrush/perennial grcorrected in Table 4.13
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-99 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

35 

Wildlife 

BLM has presented no data that would justify range extensions for mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep or antelope. BLM assumes that habitat is the most important factor limiting ungulate populations, but data from studies indicate that numbers are limited by predation. 

UDWR is the agency wauthority for mule deer, and antelope. The BLM for their expertise regardoes not have any authpredation. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

36 

Wildlife 

Much of the area listed as antelope/kidding habitat on Map 2-25 is seldom actually used by antelope. The failure of antelope to increase in numbers are due to factors other than habitat, such as low fences in the southern end of the area and predation. Unless BLM can produce data showing that the area is heavily used by antelope, multiple use activities should not be restricted. 

The BLM has not restriactivities due to the exishabitat in San Juan Corestriction (45 days) for activities is imposed on kidding periods. This timthe standard operating gas activities. UDWR is jurisdictional authority fThe DRMP/EIS states ofences that allow for prodismantle unneeded fehabitat. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

37 

Wildlife 

BLM proposes an increase in bighorn sheep habitat over that proposed in the 1985 RMP. Much of the area proposed is seldom visited by bighorns, as they are never far from escape terrain. Studies have shown that hikers have a greater negative impact on desert bighorns than do motorized users. Predation is the key limiting factor on bighorn, an issue not addressed in the DEIS. 

Only the Shafer Basin (wwas proposed as bighoraddition of bighorn habiwithin San Juan County Canyon Rims, and in thmajority of the bighorn hmile from escape terrainthe studies that documeon bighorn sheep. Permon a case by case basis under the issuance of SPermits as stated on pgUDWR is the agency wifor predator control. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-100 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan Yes 

County 

38 

Wildlife 

BLM has combined deer and elk habitat throughout the analysis. This should be corrected for the following reasons: habitat manipulations that favor elk do not benefit mule deer; elk are above herd objective and need to be reduced; combining habitats is a way to increase elk numbers; BLM ignores the fact that elk will displace mule deer; elk and deer respond differently to development and human use, with elk being more easily displaced than deer; Monticello BLM maps deer and elk habitat separately; there is no elk use on BLM land that BLM wants to classify as "crucial habitat" in San Juan County 

The BLM combined deepurposes of analysis. ODRMP/EIS states "Mule have been combined in the management of theiranges...Further discusconsider the two speciechose to map deer and/same map to simplify rePRMP/FEIS the habitats separately on a map. However, throughout thwording has been chanto "deer and/or elk". The that elk are not found on habitat. The land-use pllandscape level planninhabitats will be separatespecific project level. UDjurisdictional authority foof big game species. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

39 

Wildlife 

The 1985 Grand RMP designated only a small area near the LaSal Mountains as habitat for mule deer. The BLM wants to propose an increase with no justification. San Juan County's study (undertaken in the Spring of 2006) found little mule deer use south of East Coyote Wash. BLM ignored these data. Additionally, there is virtually no elk use, except at Lackey Fan and on Three Step Hill. Calling the area deer and elk winter range is without merit. BLM should produce data south of East Coyote Wash to show that this is crucial deer or elk winter range. 

UDWR has the jurisdictidentification of deer anrelied on this expertise. to comment 121-38, the wording of the habitats habitats". 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-101 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

40 

Wildlife 

BLM should not use the phrase "a thriving natural ecological balance" because it does not know what "natural" is (p. 2-5). On Map 2-20, "historic habitat" for sage-grouse is identified as "pre-settlement" habitat. San Juan county has been settled for 10,000 years. 

The statement on pg. 2directed to the general attempts to develop maon a landscape level wprotect wildlife habitats multiple use. Pre-settlement habitat odefined on pg. 34 of the grouse Range Wide Coterm pre-settlement in tthe early 19th century. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

41 

Wildlife 

Page 2-50: BLM says it will "work in coordination with UDWR to reduce wildlife numbers as necessary to restore sagebrush habitat." BLM does not do this. The factor most responsible for the decline of sagebrush is browsing by mule deer, not drought. 

UDWR is the agency wauthority for wildlife popDRMP/EIS states that BUDWR to achieve the U

121 San Juan No 

County 

42 

Wildlife 

Page 3-168. The species name for elk is Cervus elaphus, not Cervus canadensis. 

UDWR lists elk as Cervnomenclature was adopDRMP/EIS. 

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

43 

Wildlife 

Page 3-169 - 171. Mule deer do not eat dry and dead grass during the winter. Predation, not drought, is the reason for reduced mule deer numbers. ATV's, oil and gas development, mining, livestock grazing do not have the impact that predators have had on mule deer populations. Predation must be discussed in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

The BLM stands by the that mule deer will eat dwinter. Predation, although not jurisdiction, can also copopulation declines. ThChapter 3 of the PRMP
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-102 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

44 

Wildlife 

Page 3-171. BLM states that 90% of the local deer and elk population is located on BLM during an average of five winters out of ten. These data must be produced. On p. 3-172, DWR herd objectives and population estimates for elk are listed. These are imaginary numbers. DWR's elk population estimates are consistently 30-40% low because the agency ignores scientific studies. BLM should acknowledge the error of DWR's estimates. 

The BLM has relied on the UDWR for elk and dhabitat in the DRMP/EIwith jurisdictional autho

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

45 

Wildlife 

Page 3-173. BLM states that "livestock competition for forage is increasing as the elk herd numbers continue to grow." Forage was allocated to livestock when the allotments were adjudicated; thus, the problem is the increasing elk herd. 

The BLM has reworded 173 to state that forage livestock, other wildlife, the Cisco desert. 

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

46 

Wildlife 

Page 3-173. Elk use in Hatch Point is zero, in Lisbon Valley and on most of Black Ridge it is near zero. The agency has no data to support its assertions. 

Deer and elk habitats wmapping purposes. As comment 121-38, these delineated separately o

121 San Juan No 

County 

47 

Wildlife 

Table 3.58. BLM's age objectives for antelope make no sense. Antelope do not normally live to 14, and an age objective of 2 means the herd is under extreme harvest pressure, which is not the case. 

This information was prwhich is the agency witauthority. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

48 

Wildlife 

What evidence is there that desert bighorns actually use the Redd Sheep Trail? 

Pellets from bighorn hathe Redd Sheep Trail; tseen on it, as well as exrims accessed by this t
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-103 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

49 

Wildlife 

Mule deer, elk and pronghorn do not utilize piñon-juniper habitat, as is asserted in the DEIS. There is no need to protect piñon or juniper; there is the need to clear them to restore natural conditions. Maintenance of chainings must specifically be addressed in the RMP. 

See response to commuse has been noted in juniper interfaces with ssteppe/grasslands. Theare utilized for thermal The DRMP/EIS (pg. 2-1for maintaining vegetatincrease the availability these treatments involvpiñon-juniper. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

50 

Wildlife 

Page 4-449. Cattle do not eat sagebrush; cattle grazing at the proper time of year can improve sagebrush habitat for mule deer. Livestock do not compete for escape terrain or thermal cover with deer and elk. 

Although cattle prefer gsagebrush when necesduring severe winters caccess grass and as a eat sage brush. During summer months shade along the edge ointerfaces with sagebruare areas that deer typiprotection and escape t
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-104 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

51 

Wildlife 

Page 4-452. BLM mentions that elk are intolerant of cattle, which is true, but the BLM fails to mention that mule deer are intolerant of elk. The DEIS needs to discuss elk-deer competition. BLM needs to discuss the negative impact deer browsing has on sagebrush. 

UDWR is the agency wauthority for big game pdeer competition must population objectives. Sagebrush communitiebeen in decline from a BLM Sagebrush Conseprescribed as managemaction alternatives on pDRMP/EIS. UDWR has overpopulation issues autilizing sagebrush com

121 San Juan No 

County 

52 

Wildlife 

Pages 4-483 and 4-484. Sections 4.3.19.18.2.1 and 4.3.19.18.2.2 erroneously assess the impact of habitat fragmentation on mule deer and elk. BLM's analyses are flawed and should be corrected or removed. Sawyer's 2006 study is not applicable to San Juan County. DWR's study plots are near roads and DWR would not locate its plots close to roads if mule deer and elk use was reduced near roads as claimed by BLM. 

The fragmentation analsections are not an atteimpacts from site specipresented to analyze thfragmentation under eamodels were based on available data. These mfragmentation differencon a landscape level. Hone of many factors thain land management de

121 San Juan No 

County 

53 

Wildlife 

Pages 4-484 to 4-485. BLM's analysis of bighorn sheep fragmentation is flawed (p. 4-484- 4-485). BLM fails to mention that hikers disturb sheep more than do vehicles. Predation should also be mentioned, as should the dense growth of non-native woody riparian vegetation found along the Colorado River. 

As stated in response tanalysis of habitat fragmsheep is a tool to underfragmentation among aSee response to commdiscussion of hikers on Predation is under the jTamarisk encroachmenRiver was not raised as RMP/EIS. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-105 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

However, the BLM recobighorn watering catchmactive program of wildli

121 San Juan No 

County 

54 

Wildlife 

Page G-25 (last paragraph). What reduces the survival rate of fawns and calves is predation. 

BLM does not manage UDWR is the agency wauthority over predation

121 San Juan No 

County 

55 

Wildlife 

Page N-5. BLM's 1989 RMP amendment gave 1,440 as the "prior stable number" of desert bighorn sheep. On p. 3-176, it states that the DWR's population objective for the Moab area is 450 desert bighorn sheep. Why are these numbers different? 

The number of 1,440 wRMP amendment. The updated number utilized (2007). The difference number of years betwe(18 years). 

121 San Juan Yes 

County 

56 

Special Status Species 

Bald Eagles are not on the Federal Endangered Species List. The animal was removed last June. 

The delisting of the Baloccurred prior to the prThis change has been PRMP/FEIS. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

57 

Process and Procedures 

BLM has not coordinated with local Native American governments regarding wilderness planning, as is required in Section 202 of FLPMA. Anything less than the opportunity for full participation will be considered a violation of law subject to legal action. 

During the developmeninvited the affected tribaparticipate in the RMP any aspect of the RMPprescriptions or actionscomments or issues of outlined in Chapter 5 of the BLM held several mgovernments concerninthe RMP, including holdafter the DRMP/EIS altprepared, as requested governments. All consuprovided copies of the adocuments. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-106 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

For example, the BLM with the Navajo Nation. Navajo Utah Commissi2004, and with the NavPreservation Office on on November 13, 2006the Southern Ute Tribe and on October 11, 200Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 26, 2004, and on FebruA summary of tribal conmeetings with tribal govraised is contained in CDRMP/EIS. A complete consultations is availabRecord for the DRMP/E

121 San Juan No 

County 

58 

Wilderness Characteristics 

For lands in question in the wilderness reinventory, BLM has not adequately considered historical uses of the land, present and potential future uses of the land. Several court cases show that the wilderness planning process fails to adequately address several issues. Wilderness is a land classification and not a management modality. Wilderness is not within the scope of multiple use management. BLM is a rogue agency because it has a single-minded, headlong thrust to declare additional wilderness study areas within San Juan County. BLM has openly and brazenly defied the will of congress and the will of the people. BLM must coordinate with local plans, such as that of San Juan County 

No lands are proposed tWilderness or WSA in aDRMP/EIS. However, thNon-WSA lands with wilfully disclosed in ChapteThe FLPMA makes it cleuse" means that not eveevery acre of public land can "make the most judisome or all of these resoover areas large enough latitude for periodic adjus(FLPMA, Section 103© The FLPMA intended foInterior to use land-use pfor allocating resource ucharacter management, resources in a way that pand future generations. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-107 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County121 San Juan No 

County 

59 

Wilderness Characteristics 

BLM has refused to issue oil and gas leases because of the introduction of H.R. 1500, "America' Red Rock Wilderness" 

Certain oil and gas parcleasing pending complebecause of dated NEPA does not manage publipending draft or propos

121 San Juan No 

County 

60 

Process and Procedures 

BLM must have public hearings, adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon, and participate in the formulation of plans and programs. There have only been two meetings to give the public an opportunity for clarification, and it was unclear whether the meetings held were "open houses" or "public hearings". 

Public participation oppin Chapter 5 of the DRMpublic participation requthe BLM initiated the puJune 4, 2003 and the suntil January 31, 2004. comment cruiser were input as well as a websemailing comments and written comments via lebeen established of inteplanning website has bthroughout the processto review and comment August 27, 2007 to Novopen houses were held from the public on the Dwas notified about the onewspaper advertisemeannouncements, the RMpostcards mailed to evelist. The open house fobecause it is more condparticipation. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

61 

Wilderness Characteristics 

BLM must make a clear statement of whether it intends to designate WSAs for those areas that have wilderness character. 

The BLM is not authorizWSA Lands with Wildeas WSAs or manage thWSA Interim Managem8550-1; BLM 1995). 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-108 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

The BLM authority to espursuant to Section 603 later than October 21, 1stated on pg. 1-12 of thdesignation of new wildproposals are decisions the DRMP/EIS. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

62 

Wilderness Characteristics 

BLM should have a more generous road setback. The BLM "standard" is indefensible. It provides no reasonable or rational opportunity for maintenance of roads. The BLM's boundaries are at man made barriers, which has resulted in capturing large chunks of State Trust land as well as some parcels of private land. This violates the County Comprehensive Plan which calls for no net loss of private land within the county. 

The road set-back descCounty only applies to to WSAs. The WSA setNational BLM policy anof the plan. Routes adjacent to or wwith wilderness charactaccorded setbacks varyclassification of the roarange from 3 to 91 metNon-WSA areas with wcharacteristics has beethese setbacks. InformaChapter 3 of the PRMPsetbacks. The BLM is aware that County and State plan aspects of public land mdiscrete from, and indeHowever, the BLM is boa consequence, where conflict with Federal law inconsistency that cannreconciled. The FLPMA land-use plans be conslocal plans "to the extenand local plans conflict 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-109 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

will be an inconsistency resolved. The BLM will in the FEIS/PRMP so thgovernments have a coof the impacts of the PRmanagement options. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

63 

Wilderness Characteristics 

San Juan County objects to the 1996-99 Wilderness Character Re-inventory process. FLPMA does not provide for wilderness as a multiple use. 

The BLM is required by inventories of all resourinventory information d(FLPMA Section 201 an§1711-1712)). The FLPthe term "multiple use" use is appropriate for eand that the Secretary judicious use of the lanthese resources or relalarge enough to provide periodic adjustments in Section 103(c) (43 U.SFLPMA intended for the Interior to use land-use mechanism for allocatinincluding wilderness chamongst the various reprovides uses for curregenerations. See also responses to 121-10. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

64 

Wilderness Characteristics 

BLM did not make information public regarding the impact of additional WSA designations. 

The DRMP/EIS proposadditional WSA designaThe document identifies are proposed to be manwilderness characterist
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-110 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

There are 26,162 acres San Juan County in Alt Preferred Alternative, Ainformation that was utideterminations is publicinformation which is nowebsite will be provided party. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

65 

Wilderness Characteristics 

BLM must consider all grazing files, mineral files, lands cases, recreation use permits etc. in terms of the suitability of the land to be managed for wilderness designation. 

Considering lands for Wdesignation is beyond tuse planning effort, as the DRMP/DEIS. Chapter 4 of the DRMPimpacts from managemprotect Non-WSA lands characteristics, and the resources and uses becIn addition, during the imajority of the existing identified and taken into determining areas with characteristics. The souwas documented unit-bwilderness review. An Iresource specialist, with knowledge of the units, process. This inventory Moab RMP website, anAdministrative Record. available upon request. Those non-WSA lands management of wildernAlternative B were analfor other uses. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-111 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

These uses were the renon-WSA lands within tmanaged for wilderness Preferred Alternative. Those Non-WSA lands be managed to maintaicharacteristics in Alternanalyzed for their suitabSee also response to c

121 San Juan No 

County 

66 

Wilderness Characteristics 

BLM must consider access, economic analyses, Native American issues and alternatives for management in terms of manageability for wilderness. 

No lands are consideredesignation. Those non-WSA lands management for wilderAlternative B were analeconomic uses, alternaand Native American coamong the reasons why lands within the San Jumanaged for wilderness Preferred Alternative (A

121 San Juan No 

County 

67 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The mineral evaluations associated with the wilderness re-inventory are inadequate. The values of the foregone minerals must be calculated in areas under study for possible WSA designation. BLM violates its national minerals policy. BLM has failed to issue oil and gas leases because of planning. USGS is not involved in the wilderness process. 

Considering lands for Wdesignation is beyond tuse planning effort, as the DRMP/EIS. A comprehensive Minefor the entire Moab planwas prepared by the Utin cooperation with the includes a comprehensmineral potential of all marea. It also included an development potential oin the area. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-112 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

In addition, a ReasonabDevelopment scenario resources was preparethe Utah Geological Suprovides projections of development in the ent15 years. The mineral evaluations WSA lands found to hacharacteristics and werconformance with the Bpolicy. The EPCA invenresources prepared by drafting the Mineral Reaffected mineral resourdisclosed in Chapter 4 

121 San Juan No 

County 

68 

Wilderness Characteristics 

The BLM should examine and discuss the potential economic losses to those areas associated with potential wilderness or WSA designation. It should also put forth alternatives where these adverse economic affects can be mitigated, such as larger PILT payments. 

Considering lands for Wdesignation is beyond tuse planning effort, as the DRMP/DEIS. Those Non-WSA lands management of wildernwere analyzed for the eaction. For example, on DRMP/DEIS, the numbforegone in Alternative The PILT payments are the land-use planning p

121 San Juan No 

County 

69 

Wilderness Characteristics 

San Juan County objects to using "cherry stemming" to create wilderness where none exists under the law. If BLM recognizes a road as a boundary, what is the setback? 

Considering lands for Wdesignation is beyond tuse planning effort, as the DRMP/DEIS. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-113 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

"Cherry stemming" is a technique that facilitatemanagement by allowinwithout compromising a This technique is often However, the BLM is nounder any alternative in DRMP/DEIS. Furthermproposed for managemcharacteristics in San JAlternative C of the DRRoad setbacks are addcomment 121-62. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

70 

Wilderness Characteristics 

FLPMA requires a consistency review with local plans. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan must be considered. Any diversions from the objectives of this plan by BLM must be accompanied by an explanation of why the BLM could not lawfully conform to the county plan. 

The BLM is aware that County and State plan aspects of public land mdiscrete from, and indeHowever, the BLM is boThe FLPMA requires than RMP for public lands and consistent with Coumaximum extent possibinconsistencies betweefederal government plaextent practical (FLPMA(c)(9)). As a consequenlocal plans conflict with be an inconsistency thareconciled. Thus, while County and processes, under FLPMas integrated and consFederal agency planninby or subject to County processes, or planning 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-114 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

The BLM will identify thPRMP/FEIS, so that the governments have a coof the impacts of the PRmanagement options. A the PRMP with the StatPlans is included in ChaNo lands are consideredesignation in the DRMWSA areas with wildernproposed for managem

121 San Juan No 

County 

71 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Solitude is a subjective concept. Area ranchers would express the view that recreationists have a negative influence on solitude. What do "outstanding" opportunities for solitude mean? What constitutes primitive or unconfined recreation. What is more important -- the economic viability of a county or solitude for an elite few? 

Congress crafted the teopportunities for solitudunconfined recreation" Wilderness Act of 1964Office Instruction MemoChange 1 defines these of land-use planning. In sights, sounds, and eviare rare or infrequent, wisolated, alone or secluthe use of the area is thnon-mechanical meansminimal developed recrencountered can providopportunity for solitude unconfined recreation. The economic impacts lands with wilderness canalyzed in Chapter 4 o

121 San Juan No 

County 

72 Comment Analysis on the 1999 Wilderness 

Inventory found that those supporting wilderness were from out of state. 

Considering lands for Wdesignation is beyond tuse planning effort, as the DRMP/DEIS. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-115 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Wilderness Characteristics 

Those supporting wilderness that were from Utah were from Salt Lake, Ogden and Logan. San Juan County residents were clearly opposed to any action by BLM to designate more land for WSAs. Native American comment letters were opposed to wilderness designation. Local comments are more impassioned, knowledgeable and we believe warrant more weight being placed on them. Unit specific comments follow. The 1999 inventory was not really field-truthed and there is a lack of consistency between field personnel. In this (1999) inventory, the BLM has developed their own set of rules and definitions as to what constitutes wilderness. BLM has not followed the direction of Congress in defining wilderness.

Under FLMPA, multiple management of public resource values so they combination that will befuture needs of all the AAs part of BLM's wilderinventory maintenance, combination of data anincluded specific field inreview of data such as BLM GIS data, and higphotographs. The BLMin the 1999-2003 wilderdocumentation, as well characteristics review pthis review are availablOffice website, and in tRecord). The BLM is costandard approach uselands and stands by its the findings which involcharacteristics inventor

121 San Juan No 

County 

73 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Comment from 1999 Wilderness Inventory: Behind the Rocks: this area should not be considered for further wilderness activities. It is within the Paradox Fold and Fault Belt and has high potential for oil and gas. It has the potential for uranium and vanadium, as well as potash and copper. It does not qualify for wilderness because of past impacts. There are 13 roads within the unit, each of which is discussed specifically, with photos provided.

No lands are consideredesignation in the DRMNo non-WSA lands with characteristics are propin Alternative C (Preferthe Behind the Rocks a

121 San Juan No 

County 

74 

Wilderness 

Comment from 1999 Wilderness Inventory: Gooseneck: San Juan County has no information that would refute BLM's finding 

No lands are consideredesignation in the DRM
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-116 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

Characteristics in this area. It contains about 5,000 acres of 

public land, and to our knowledge has few intrusions. It should be pointed out, however, that this area does have the potential for minerals including potash, uranium and oil and gas. The economic potential of these minerals should be done if the area is designated wilderness. The minerals values outweigh the wilderness values. The BLM did miss four roads within or adjacent to the unit (photos and write-ups provided). 

No non-WSA lands with characteristics are propin Alternative C (Preferthe Gooseneck area. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

75 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Comment from 1999 Wilderness Inventory: Hatch Wash: this unit is particularly disturbing to San Jan County. BLM is creating wilderness where wilderness does not exist. There are roads, seismograph lines, fences and other intrusions covering the landscape. The Hatch Wash area has high potential for oil and gas, uranium, vanadium, copper and potash. San Juan County requests that the area be dropped from further wilderness consideration. Specific roads in the area are identified by San Juan County. 

No lands are consideredesignation in the DRMNo non-WSA lands with characteristics are propin Alternative C (Preferthe Hatch Wash area. 

121 San Juan No 

County 

76 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Comment from 1999 Wilderness Inventory: Hunter Canyon: Mineral values will be foregone if wilderness is designated for this area. It has oil and gas, uranium, vanadium, copper, barite and potash. Specific roads are discussed within the comment. 

No lands are consideredesignation in the DRMNo non-WSA lands with characteristics are propin Alternative C (Preferthe Hunter Canyon are

121 San Juan No 

County 

77 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Comment from 1999 Wilderness Inventory: Shafer Canyon: This unit is not suitable or manageable as wilderness, and it violates the 5,000 acre requirement. It has oil and 

No lands are consideredesignation in the DRMNo non-WSA lands with characteristics are prop
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-117 

Table 5.9.c. Public Comments and Responses: San Juan County

gas, uranium, vanadium, copper and potash resources. Individual roads are also discussed. San Juan County suggests that it could easily be managed as an area of critical environmental concern to protect the scenic qualities and vistas from Dead Horse Point. 

in Alternative C (Preferthe Shafer Canyon areaThe area does constituHighway 279/Long CanACEC that is proposed protect scenic resourcefrom Dead Horse Point 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-118 

Table 5.10.a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Respon

8 Arches 

National Park 

1 Yes In Section 3.2, Table 3.2 of the draft RMP/EIS, there are 

only ozone concentrations for La Plata County and Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado included, though ozone has been monitored at Canyonlands National Park for a number of years and is considerably nearer the area of interest. Those data should be included in the EIS, as well. NPS data shows a deteriorating trend for ozone, which may reflect more current data than that used for the RMP. Data for 2005 are available at www2.nature.nps.gov/air/monitoring/ads/ADSReport.cfm. 

This data has betable in Chapter 

124 SUWA 115 Yes The Draft RMP fails to analyze the impacts of climate 

change to MFO resources. Soil disturbing activities such as recreation, grazing, and energy exploitation reduce or remove the natural components that stabilize desert soil, increasing soil loss through wind and water erosion. The BLM should design alternatives that minimize soil disturbance. BLM should designate an alternative with far fewer than the 2600 miles of back country ORV routes that Alternative C contains. The cumulative effects of various uses like ORV recreation and grazing should be considered in the context of climate change. The BLM is urged to develop and adopt an alternative that minimizes the extent of soil disturbance and reduces the Field Office's vulnerability to the effects of climate change. 

The assessmen"greenhouse gaclimate change phase; thereforeto know with coto climate. HoweintergovernmenChange (IPCC 2concluded that "system is unequthe observed incaverage temper20th century is vobserved increa(man-made) greconcentrations." The last of scienpredict climate clocal scales limipotential future potential impact
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-119 

Table 5.10.a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality

climate change For example, if results in a warmincreased particcould occur due blown dust from soils. Cool seasspatial ranges anorth and to higextinction of endthreatened/endaaccelerated. Dudue to competitwhose ranges mpopulation of somay be reducedelevations would timing and quanin turn, could imInformation regachange has beeand 4 of the PRThe BLM will nofuture, have tooof oil and gas dechange. This typbe done at the ronly on large (nareas) of wide sbe a long time banything about sclimate change change on our r
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-120 

Table 5.10.a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality215 EnCana Oil 15 Yes The assumption on page 4-18 that a control efficiency of 

37% would be obtained by watering of all exposed disturbance areas is inconsistent with the assumption on page 4-16 that 50% control of particulate emissions would be obtained by watering. The DRM should be corrected to consistently reflect the assumptions actually used in the quantification of impacts 

The PRMP/FEIS Chapter 4 on aiconsistent assu

479 Environmental 

Protection Agency 

1 Yes The BLM (in Table 4-8 of the DRMP/EIS) indicates that 

projected concentrations (of air pollutants) would be below National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants and hydrogen sulfide, but does not show the concentrations. The DRMP/EIS does not describe the methods used to calculate the projected concentrations. EPA recommends that the BLM disclose this information in the Final RMP/EIS. 

The methods usprojected conceand hydrogen sthe PRMP/FEISAnalyses of impvisibility, and deChapter 4 of the No comparisons in the PRMP/FE

479 Environmental 

Protection Agency 

2 Yes The air quality analysis omits potential impacts to ozone, 

visibility or deposition. The planning area encompasses class I National Park Service airsheds. Ozone is of particular concern because of the potential emissions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen from oil and gas development. 

Analysis of impaand deposition rmodeling. 

479 Environmental 

Protection Agency 

3 Yes The Final RMP/EIS should include information on the 

effects of oil and gas development on climate change (from CO2 emission). EPA recommends that the BLM encourage oil and gas lessees to participate in EPA's Natural Gas STAR program. 

See response to 

479 Environmental 

Protection Agency 

4 Yes Because a semi-quantitative approach to air quality 

analysis was taken in the Moab RMP, it is not possible to determine potential impacts to air quality from specific oil and gas development (see Section 4.3.1.3 of the DRMP/EIS). Nevertheless, it is important to assign 

A statement has Chapter 2 of the Management Costates the followquantitative ana
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-121 

Table 5.10.a. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Air Quality

responsibility for project-specific air quality analyses for the future. EPA recommends that the Final RMP/EIS contain this wording from the Rawlins BLM DRMP/EIS, which also used a comparative, emissions-based approach: "As project-specific developments are proposed, quantitative air quality analysis would be conducted for project-specific assessments performed pursuant to NEPA." 

quality impacts project specific 

479 Environmental 

Protection Agency 

19 Yes On pg. 4-17 of the DRMP/EIS, the BLM discusses rates of 

emissions from compressor engines in grams per horsepower-hour. Table 4.6 shows emission rates in grams per second, but the text does not explain whether BLM made this calculation in order to estimate impacts using the semi-quantitative method or for some other reason. An explanation is needed in the Final RMP/EIS as to why different units appear in this section, or convert emission rates to the same units. 

The text and tabPRMP/EIS have provide an explaunits of analyseConversions weemission factors typical for compin Utah. 

826 James Lynch 1 Yes I did not find a discussion of air or water pollution in the 

alternative discussion. 

A statement has Chapter 2 undeCommon to All,appropriate, quapotential air quaconducted for pdevelopments. 

Table 5.10.b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas Of Critical Environmental Concern

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

124 SUWA 86 Yes Upper Labyrinth ACEC nomination - SUWA 

nominates the area south of the town of Green River and north of the Ruby Ranch. The nominated ACEC that the Price BLM has on the west side of the 

The BLM considered thwhich was submitted duperiod for the DRMP/Ementioned by the Comm
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-122 

Table 5.10.b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas Of Critical Environmental Concern

Green River. This ACEC meets that relevant criteria due for scenic, historical, fish, and natural processes associated with the river and its surrounding landscape; historic values ranging from Crystal Geyser to the Powell expedition; and fish and wildlife habitat. The scenery and landscape of this are is outstanding and offers visitors and outstanding experience either by hiking or by canoeing. The nomination meets the importance criteria for scenery and for historical values. In addition, the Green River is habitat to Threatened and Endangered fish and Labyrinth Canyon is an internationally acclaimed canoe trip through BLM lands. This area faces heightened threats from oil and gas development or with the state of Utah leasing portions of the riverbed. 

Labyrinth area are scennatural processes. The interdisciplinary team to nomination. The team fand natural processes twas not found to be reltrip along the Green Rivhighly sought after recrthis portion of the Greeto the scenery in the lowbelow Ruby Ranch. The relevant values of natural processes were important. While John Wthis portion of the river, significant events occura historical perspectiveendangered fish that mof the river are found thand Green River systemof the river provides no these fish. The natural processes Green River are neitheirreplaceable, exemplarBecause the nominatioimportance criteria, it wforward as a potential APRMP/FEIS. The analysis supporting been incorporated into PRMP/FEIS. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-123 

Table 5.10.b. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Areas Of Critical Environmental Concern203 Independent 

Petroleum Assn. of Mountain States 

13 Yes The DRMP/EIS fails to demonstrate that the 

proposed ACEC decisions meet the regulatory criteria of importance and relevance. 43 CFR § 1610-7-2. Secondly, many of the identified resource values already receive adequate protection through other management prescriptions. 43 USC § 1702 (a) (ACECs may be designated "where special management attention is required...to prevent irreparable damage"); BLM Manual 1613.51-53 (ACECs unnecessary when other designations are adequate to protect a resource or value.) 

A rationale for designatACECs in the Preferred DRMP/EIS is found in tRecord referred to as thThe List of Threats and Designating or Not DesProposed Alternative is upon request. Relevant to Appendix I of the PR

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Cultural Resources/Native American Cons

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response 

1 Colorado 

Plateau Archaeological Alliance 

26 Yes The tiered approach reflected in the three action 

alternatives (more under Alternative B, less under Alternative C and even less under Alternative D) is problematic and would appear to reflect a common misperception that National Register designations are accompanied by greater levels of protection for listed resources. 

All cultural resources aregardless if they are Register or not. The priority for nominathe National Register 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-124 

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Cultural Resources/Native American Cons123 COHVCO/Blue 

Ribbon 

48 Yes "Inadvertent impacts" is undefined and is not 

discussed in the EIS. Inadvertent impacts are therefore an unfounded assumption which cannot be attributable to OHV or mechanized use. BRC believes a plan of mitigation, rather than prohibition, is possible and beneficial. This particularly so because numerous recreators use OHVs to access important historical sites. 

Information has been the PRMP/FEIS that cbeing, or have been, nthe presence of humaor vandalism. Basicallresults in increased inlooting, and vandalismcited. 

430 Ute Mountain 

Ute Tribe 

1 Yes Upon review of your draft it seems some of the 

Utah Mountain Ute Tribe's important cultural issues have not been addressed. The women of White Mesa Ute Community, located south of Blanding, Utah, have traditionally made baskets from squawbush. One of the most critical areas where they gather this plant is off Highway 128, adjacent to the Arches National Park boundary and the river. These baskets play an important role in the culture and traditions of the White Mesa Community. The Tribe would therefore formally request that gathering of squawbush be allowed to continue in this area, and that it be made clear that the proposed restrictions in this area do not apply to gathering of plans for both medicinal and traditional practices such as basket making. Allowing these traditional gathering practices to continue would result in minor environmental impacts, while simultaneously allowing the White Mesa community to practice and preserve their cultural heritage. 

On page 2-56 of the Dmanagement common states: "Permit sustaincutting of green willowNative American traditSquawbush has been plants to specifically aMountain Ute Tribe's r

489 National Trust 

for Historic Preservation 

2 Yes The Draft RMP may exempt hundreds, if not 

thousands, of route miles from the requirements of Section 106 by labeling them "existing" routes. 

A sentence has been DRMP/EIS defining "nare defined as those nTravel Plan accompan
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-125 

Table 5.10.c. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Cultural Resources/Native American Cons

Under the preferred alternative, BLM would not perform Class III inventories prior to designating an "existing" OHV route for continued use. Draft RMP at 2-7. This management prescription comes from a BLM Instruction Memorandum (1M) issued in December 2006, which generally requires Class III inventories for the designation of "new" routes but not for the designation of continued use on "existing" routes. IM No. 2007-030. However, neither the DRMP nor the IM define the term "existing route." BLM must define the term "existing" route to mean only those routes previously designated through the land-use planning process and for which BLM completed the Section 106 process. 

868 The Hopi Tribe 1 Yes Regarding B, C, and D, we do not support the 2/3 

of sites allocated for scientific use, and less than 1/3 for conservation for further use. Avoidance of Hopi sacred sites and traditional use areas is the only real means of preventing impairment of these resources. 

The BLM concurs with archaeological resourcto various uses prior to resources. The decisioarchaeological resourcfrom the PRMP/FEIS. 

492 Diane Orr 1 Yes The National Historic Preservation Act directs the 

BLM to do inventories, actively manage and nominate sites for historic registration. 

National Register nomsite-specific basis and land-use plan decisionNational Register nomremoved from the PRM

492 Diane Orr 2 Yes There are two different totals given as to the 

number of cultural sites on BLM lands within the Moab Field Office. 

The number of identifibeen corrected on p. 4
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-126 

Table 5.10.d. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Cumulative Impacts

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

658 Richard 

Griffin 

1 Yes The cumulative impact analysis for the RMP is 

inadequate. It does not support the conclusions reached and does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the impact. 

The BLM has added renon-BLM actions to the analysis. 

Table 5.10.e. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Hazardous Materials

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

9 ECOS 

Consulting 

21 Yes Page 4-241,3rd Paragraph, 4.3.11: "AML" is not 

defined and is not listed in the "Acronyms and Glossary" section. It is highly probable that the protection of sites from "hazardous materials spills and spill site cleanup" will involve some amount of soil disturbance and drainage re-direction and/or storage. 

The acronym AML is dethe DRMP/EIS as AbanThis acronym will be adAML projects are implewhich the potential envwould be analyzed on a specific basis following use plan. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-127 

Table 5.10.f. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Lands and Realty

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

12 Pacificorp 12 Yes PacifiCorp does not support the BLM's proposal in 

the RMP to eliminate the existing utility corridor from Cisco to US Highway 191. 

Under Alternatives C aHighway 70 utility corrito include all major exiscorridor merges two cothe 1985 Grand RMP. rights-of-way for electricorridor south of I-70. This language has beethat "the existing utility Highway 191 north of Awould be merged with all action alternatives" DRMP/EIS). In additionpage 2-11 of the DRMPcorridor from Cisco to HArches has been elimindeleted from the text of 

215 EnCana Oil 

and Gas 

19 Yes There is a typographical error on page 4-68 in the 

last line of the second full paragraph. The line should read, "Alternative D, and would have corresponding impacts on the construction of future ROWs" 

This is a typographical fixed. 

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

5 Yes page 2-11, table 2.1 We recommend that BLM 

identify and incorporate the FWS Interim Guidelines for Wind Power (2003) in the "Management Common to All Action Alternatives" for the Lands and Realty section. Implementation of these recommendations will help to minimize impacts from wind power development projects to wildlife, particularly birds and bats, and their habitat. 

The text on pg. 2-11 of been changed to read ROW for wind or solar would incorporate best (including the United SService's "Guidelines fo
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-128 

Table 5.10.g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Livestock Grazing

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

9 ECOS 

Consulting 

26 Yes Page 4-242, Table 4.71: Percentages are wrong. 

Actually they are: 32.9% (Alternative B), 8.7% (Alternative C), or 7.4% (Alternative A), or 3.7% (Alternative D). 

The BLM agrees that thTable 4.71 and in the tethe percentages providare correct. The correcttext have been made in 

204 The Nature 

Conservancy 

21 Yes We notice that the next-to-last item under 

Management Common to All Action Alternatives refers to grazing not being authorized on portions of Beaver Creek – which we support, but which appears to be inconsistent with the treatment of Beaver Creek in Alternatives C and D on Page 2-13. Further, this list contains reference to "Bogart," and in this context it is not clear if it refers to grazing not being authorized on the entire Bogart Allotment (which we support), or just along portions of streams within that allotment. 

The reference to Beavebeing unavailable for grManagement Common Alternatives is incorrect been corrected.) 

416 John and 

Sena Hauer 

2 Yes Suggestions regarding Alternative C: Build a 

livestock fence only on the southeast side of the highway, and do not permit grazing between the highway and the river. Build the fence only 1,900 feet from the highway on the southeast side instead of 2,000 feet, in order to compensate the permitee for lost grazing between the highway and the river. Advantages: Only one fence would have to be constructed. Livestock would not be permitted in the campground areas and raft put-ins at Onion Creek. The campground and put-ins at Hittle Bottom are already fenced. 

The text in Chapter 2 oC has been changed to be constructed along thHighway 128 (set back resources of the Nation
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-129 

Table 5.10.g. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Livestock Grazing

Since the grazing between the river and the highway would be fragmented into such small areas, it would appear to be more convenient for the permitee to have an equal amount of grazing added to the northeast side than to attempt to utilize the small parcels of the northwest side of the highway. 

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

6 Yes page 2-12, table 2-1 It is unclear why Alternative C 

(Preferred) would make available for grazing 12,673 more acres than Alternative A (No Action). We recognize that this may be to allow for greater flexibility in grazing management, such as rest rotation techniques, which can benefit range and habitat. This is unclear, however, and we recommend that the purpose of increasing grazing acreage NOT be to increase AUMs within the MPA. 

Pear Park and Ida Gulcthe list of allotments thagrazing in the preferred was unavailable for graRMP (for wildlife foragehabitat for Jones cycladthat are unavailable in AC would be subject to rdetermining suitable grathere were suitable perapplying for these permAssessment would be cconsideration that may involve nearby permitteavailable allotments wittotal AUMs. Additionallyallotments would requirconsultation which will concerns and recommeUSFWS are considered

195 Van Loan 

Ranches 

2 Yes There are two different Utah grazing allotments 

named Spring Creek in the Dolores Triangle. One is the spring Creek-Colorado allotment, managed by Colorado BLM as part of our Colorado allotment. The other allotment is Spring Creek-Utah, which has been unavailable for livestock grazing for a number of years. These are two separate, non-contiguous allotments. 

The confusion regardinallotments has been coPRMP/FEIS. The map has also been corrected
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-130 

Table 5.10.h. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals–Oil and Gas 

Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

124 SUWA 98 Yes The BLM must consider a no leasing alternative. The 

current draft of the RMP fails to consider such an alternative. Federal courts have made clear that a no leasing alternative should be a vital component in ensuring that agencies have all possible approaches before them (See, e.g., Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1228 [9th Cir. 1988]. 

The BLM's consideratioalternative has been adPRMP/FEIS under the Considered but Elimina

201 Samson 

Resources 

6 Yes 

202 Cabot Oil & 

Gas 

7 Yes 

Section 1.4.7 -Memorandum of Understanding with Forest Service: The BLM improperly references a 1991 Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) establishing joint BLM and Forest Service procedures for managing oil and gas leasing and operational activities in the Moab DRMP/EIS. The BLM and the Forest Service issued the Memorandum of Understanding required by Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act in April of 2006. 

The reference to the MUnderstanding between Forest Service regardinhas been changed in th1991 to 2006. 

214 Bill Barrett 

Corp. 

27 Yes On page 3-113 of the Moab DRMP/EIS, the analysis 

of the contribution of mineral resources, which as mentioned above does not provide an overall economic contribution of oil and gas, notes that production peaked in 1994 and has declined since. However, the data stops at 2000, just about the time that oil and gas commodity prices started to rise and, coupled with advances in the technology to recover unconventional resources, production throughout Utah and the Intermountain West started to soar. 

Chapter 3 of the PRMPupdated to reflect the cgas production. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-131 

Table 5.10.h. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Minerals–Oil and Gas 215 EnCana Oil 14 Yes The reference to the release of saline groundwater 

during drilling has been deleted from the text of the PRMP/FEIS. 

The number of wells by the air quality analysis DRMP/EIS. In the PRMhas been changed from projected wells. 

306 Delta 

Petroleum 

6 Yes The economic analysis presented in the DEIS is 

based on old and outdated information with respect to oil and gas development. It relies on data from 2003 and older. The economic picture, development activities and approaches to resource extraction have undergone a major shift . . . That information is readily available from both state and federal sources, including some information in 2007, yet none of this recent information has been included in the DEIS. This is a major flaw under NEPA, since readily available information should be used for decisionmaking. This affects economic impacts and projections within all of the alternatives. Since this information is readily available, the BLM should amend the DEIS to reflect that information 

Additional recent data hChapter 4 of the PRMPand gas employment, pState revenues from oiinformation on property on severance taxes. 

491 Public 

Lands Advocacy 

5 Yes Offsite Mitigation – Under management Common to 

All Alternatives in Chapter 2, BLM indicates it will seek to "Fully mitigate all unavoidable habitat losses for special status species at a minimum 1:1 ratio." While we recognize that many companies have offered to perform off-site mitigation, several concerns must be raised. According to IM 2005-69, compensation or off-site mitigation must be entirely voluntary. While BLM may identify offsite mitigation opportunities, it stated they will not be carried forward unless volunteered by the applicant. We oppose any program that would impose off-site or compensation mitigation as a BLM requirement. 

Chapter 2 of the PRMPchanged. The statemen"Mitigate all unavoidabspecial status species awhere required by polic
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-132 

Table 5.10.i. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Non-WSA Lands With Wilderness Charac

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

124 SUWA 233 Yes The BLM arbitrarily excludes an area in Coal 

Canyon possessing wilderness characteristics by using legal lines as boundaries. 

This appears to be a mbeen corrected. About added to the non-WSA characteristics in Alt B. 

124 SUWA 234 Yes The BLM arbitrarily excludes an area in Coal 

Canyon possessing wilderness and fails to provide justification. 

This appears to be a mbeen corrected. About added to the non-WSA characteristics in Alt B. 

124 SUWA 250 Yes A small area of Horsethief Point adjoins the Park 

(Canyonlands National Park), with no physical impact or separation and has wilderness character. 

This appears to be a mbeen corrected. About added to the non-WSA characteristics in Alt B. 

209 Sierra Club 

Glen Canyon Group 

46 Yes There appear to be errors and/or muddied 

discussion in the first paragraph, sentences 3 and 4, of page 4-143 attributing to Alternative C comments which apparently refer to another alternative.) 

The fourth sentence in 143 has been changed Alternative B." 

209 Sierra Club 

Glen Canyon Group 

47 Yes Summary Pages 4-162 thru 4-168 

The VRM table (Table 4.58) is incorrect in showing 0% Class I in Alternative B, while Table 4.55 designates some Class I in Beaver Creek, Behind the Rocks, Dead Horse Cliffs, Dome Plateau, Goldbar, Gooseneck, Horsethief Point, Hunter Canyon, Labyrinth Canyon, Mary Jane Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, Negro Bill Canyon, and Westwater. 

The Commenter is corracres of non-WSA landcharacteristics that are Class I in Alt B. The dereasons, usually the esACEC. Table 4.58 has that 45,048 acres are VAlt. B, while 221,437 ac(83%) in Class B. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-133 

Table 5.10.i. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Non-WSA Lands With Wilderness Charac215 EnCana Oil 

and Gas 

20 Yes The first sentence of this Section (p. 4-93) should be 

modified to say that no additional BLM lands would be closed to salable and leasable mineral resource development. Table 4.38 on page 4-85, shows that there are already 392,205 acres (2.1%) of closed BLM lands. This is an inaccurate sentence and needs to be modified to correctly identify that there are closed areas under Alternative A 

The wording in this secto "Under Alternative Awilderness characteristto protect these characadditional closures of Band leasable mineral re

Table 5.10.j. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Paleontology 

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response 

123 COHVCCO/Blue 

Ribbon 

49 Yes The DEIS, however, lacks the nexus between OHV 

use and an increase in vandalism or unauthorized collection of paleontological resources. Additionally, although it is difficult to determine the extent to which existing routes in paleontologically sensitive areas will be eliminated, again, existing routes will have not been shown with any data in the DEIS to pose an unreasonable risk to those resources. 

Information has been the PRMP/FEIS that resources are being, negatively impacted bhumans engaging in Basically that increasincreased inadvertenvandalism. Reference
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-134 

Table 5.10.k. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Recreation 

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

124 SUWA 102 Yes The total acreage of SRMAs in the planning area, by 

alternative differs in two Tables. Table 2.1 does not match the acreage in Table 4.69. Table 4.21 does not match the acreage in Table 2.1. 

The acreage in the tabin the PRMP/FEIS. 

199 Canyonlands 

Field Institute 

1 Yes Dolores River Canyons SRMA - Support Alternative 

C with exceptions: In the boating management section, we request a CHANGE in party number to match the other sections of river managed by BLM in SE Utah i.e. change the party size to be 25 PLUS guides. In order to serve school groups, the 25 maximum passengers is necessary in most cases. In addition, make this number consistent with other stretches will make it easier on the public and our office staff in comparing trip options. 

The BLM agrees with timportant to have consBLM also agrees that sspecial needs because ratio must often be incrbeen changed to read guides." 

204 The Nature 

Conservancy 

18 Yes Reference is made on Page 2-21 to allowing 

motorized travel use on (among other routes) "the motorized access route to the viewpoint of Ida Gulch (the saddle between Adobe Mesa and Castle Rock)." This appears to be confusing, because (to our knowledge) the saddle between Adobe Mesa and Castle Rock does not look down northward into Ida Gulch, but into an unnamed side drainage of Professor Creek. Motorized access into this saddle from the south (Castle Valley side) via a single designated route is fine. The view down into Ida Gulch is obtained from the saddle between Castle Rock and Parriott Mesa – a saddle to which motorized travel must NOT be allowed from either direction, i.e. the foot path up from the Castle Valley side, or the road into Ida Gulch from Highway 128. 

The Commenter is corrdownward into ProfessIda Gulch. The wording The route that ascends down into Ida Gulch is motorized only. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-135 

Table 5.10.k. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Recreation 209 Sierra Club 

Glen Canyon Group 

27 Yes Re: The Bookcliffs SRMA, 

There's an inconsistency in the RMP/EIS making the Bookcliffs SRMA a non-mechanized focus on page 2-18 (Alternative B) and non-motorized per page 4-135? 

This is an error in Chapchanged to read "non-mchapters. 

209 Sierra Club 

Glen Canyon Group 

30 Yes Colorado Rivers SRMA: 

For boating management in the Colorado River, Two Rivers and Dolores River SRMAs, Alternative C should be the same as Alternative B in stating that no restrictions on private use would be established unless unacceptable resource impacts occur. 

A sentence has been aand D for these SRMArestrictions on private uestablished unless unaimpacts occur. 

Table 5.10.l. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Riparian 

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

1025 Western 

Watersheds Project 

39 Yes Significant discrepancies exist within the riparian 

sections and other sections referencing riparian resources within the DRMP/EIS. 

The discrepancy in ripathe Commenter has bePRMP/FEIS. The ripari4 of the PRMP/EIS has accordingly. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-136 

Table 5.10.m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

221 Fidelity 

Exploration 

2 Yes BLM has a responsibility to include a comprehensive 

socioeconomic analysis that is lacking in this DRMP. The following should be giving more consideration: -Oil and gas are vital sources of energy for the nation. BLM should discuss increasing energy demands, decreasing strategic necessity for development of mineral resources. Utah oil and natural gas resources need to be identified as crucial to help offset the deficit between supply and demand. -Federal lands contribute nearly one-third of the nation's natural gas supply; therefore, accounting for every resource rich area is crucial to producers and consumers. The DRMP should discuss the role of the planning area in the nation's natural gas supply. -The full, positive economic impact of mineral development in the planning area was not adequately analyzed, nor did the document analyze the negative impact associated with the severe restrictions called for in the Preferred Alternative C. Furthermore, the DRMP states that under Alternative b, the long-term economic benefits from oil and gas development would be slightly less than current circumstances or if Alternatives C or D were adopted (Table 2.2, p.2-78-2-79). This conclusion is counterintuitive; it defies logic how the extremely restrictive Alternative B would have only slightly lower economic benefits from oil and gas when it would place so many more restrictions on development. Clearly, that analysis is flawed. 

In 2007, Grand County Utah's total oil productiototal gas production (DOranks 12th nationally in nationally in gas producThese figures do not suassertion that this is cruenergy supply. The impacts of mineraleconomic conditions arthrough pg. 4-264. This reasonable assessmenimpacts. The restrictions imposeleasing in Alt B would rdeveloped than in Alts, numbers are 264, 432, Therefore, Alt B would wells over the life of the numbers were based oForeseeable Developmgas and spread by alterestrictions imposed unImpacts of minerals on based on these wells ninformation on royaltiesseverance taxes, and imrevenues has been augthe PRMP/FEIS. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-137 

Table 5.10.m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 

BLM would greatly benefit from a comprehensive economic analysis of the impact of oil and gas to the region such as is currently underway by the University of Utah's Bureau of Economic and business Research for the Utah Governor's Office of Public Land Policy Coordination Office (The Structure and Economic Impact of Utah's Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry Phase IThe Uinta Basin) (Draft, November 2007) -Each alternative contained in the DRMP includes some lands closed to energy resource development. Such closures are based on BLM's assessment of resource values on those lands. Closure also implications, however, in terms of national energy consumption and commodity prices, foregone employment opportunities, tax revenues, and support for state and local economies. 

Although BLM 

must necessarily base land-use decisions on consideration of all resources values, social and economic impacts of closure decisions should be estimated to fulfill the agency's mandate under FLPMA, and to comply with guidelines contained in BLM's Land-use Planning Handbook (H-1601-H) and Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2002-167 

Information has been aPRMP/FEIS using the nby the University of Utaand Business Research Structure and Economiand Gas Production anGrand County". TherefoUintah County suggestnot appropriate. 

299 Dan Harris 2 Yes The analysis states that Alternative B will have only 

slightly lower economic benefits than Alts C and D. This is not true, especially for Green River 

Economic information on severance taxes, and imhas been augmented in PRMP/FEIS. Information PRMP/FEIS using the nthe University of Utah BuBusiness Research (JanStructure and Economic Gas Production and IndCounty". 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-138 

Table 5.10.m. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Socioeconomics 318 Mike D. 1 Yes 319 Bruce 

Hansen 

1 Yes 

The town of Green River should be covered in the Moab RMP. By placing too many restrictions on this development, oil and gas companies may go elsewhere, including outside the country, for their operations. This will have severe negative economic impact on our local economy. 

The text in Chapter 3 csocioeconomics has bethe fact that economic ethe neighboring commuand Grand Junction. 

Table 5.10.n. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Soils 

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

309 Pam 

Hackley 

3 Yes The analysis should reevaluate the amount of 

potential disturbance to soils, especially from OHV use. 

Numbers have been adto Appendix G that shodesignated and not dessoils types. There are 1are closed in the preferof soils conflicts. 

Table 5.10.o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

204 The Nature 

Conservancy 

1 Yes In addition to the species in the MPA with formal 

status as listed above, we urge that special attention be given to one additional plant: Astragalus iselyi(Isely's milkvetch). At present this plant has no special status. We had recommended that it be added to the Utah BLM list of Sensitive Plants when that list was being reviewed for revision in March 2007... the need for special status is heightened by a particular proposal for public-land disposal that 

The Moab RMP does npotential special status BLM list of Sensitive PParcel R-11, which conAstragalus iselyi, has blist of lands identified fo
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-139 

Table 5.10.o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species

appears within the three Action Alternatives of the DRMP. This action would, if implemented, remove from BLM control a major population center for this plant, probably increasing the need for BLM Sensitive designation of the remaining occurrences, and possibly creating a rationale for federal listing of the whole species. 

214 Bill Barrett 

Corp. 

24 Yes It would be inappropriate to require oil and gas 

leasees to "fully mitigate" impacts from oil and gas operations when oil and gas development is mandated and appropriate use of public lands. 

The statement on pg. 2which states "Fully mitihabitat losses for specminimum of 1:1 ratio" h"fully mitigate" to "mitig

485 Center for 

Native Ecosystems 

3 Yes Alternative B applies a 1300' buffer for white-tailed 

and Gunnison's prairie dog habitat (C-22, 4-57). Alternative C applies a 660' buffer within white-tailed and Gunnison's prairie dog habitat (2-34, 2-47, 2-48, 4-57, 4-394). However, pages 2-84 and 4-316 refer to a 600' buffer for Alternative C. Page 4-395 seems to indicate that under Alternative D, white-tailed prairie dog habitat will be granted a 660' buffer while Gunnison's prairie dog habitat will not be conserved.This is confusing, and could easily be considered arbitrary and capricious. 

The buffer was listed w316 of the DRMP/EIS. no 600; these errors ha

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

2 Yes The bald eagle was removed from the Endangered 

Species list. It is, however, still protected under the MBTA and the BGEPA. 

The wording in the plan correspond to this actioprotecting bald eagles text on pg. 3-143 of the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-140 

Table 5.10.o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

3 Yes Page 2-5, Section 2.1.1.5: 1st paragraph: The MFO 

has 3 listed bird species (and 1 candidate species), 1 listed mammal species, 1 listed plant species, and 4 listed fish species (see also Section 3.16). According to page 3-140, there are additionally 43 "Sensitive Species", not 4 as stated here. 

The number of sensitivcorrected to 43. In addof listed species has beUSFWS's wording. 

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

4 Yes Page 2-5, Section 2.1.1.5 1st paragraph: The 

standard stipulations that have been developed in coordination between BLM and FWS (i.e., the Species Conservation Measures in the BO for Existing Utah BLM RMPs (2007)), should be included in the document. Appendix K is a close approximation in many respects, but there are inconsistencies and rearranged organization, and it is difficult to determine if items have been left out. The 2007 BO conservation measures were mutually developed and agreed to by FWS and BLM, and should be included in their entirety in the new RMP to ensure long-term species conservation as well as streamlined section 7 consultation. 

This last sentence in th2-5 of the DRMP/EIS h"Species conservation Appendix K) have been coordination with the UWildlife Service. They wunder all alternatives." Appendix K has been u"Species Conservation BLM RMPs". 

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

7 Yes page 2-95, table 2.2, Special Status Species - 

Impacts from Riparian management: There must be typos in these descriptions (at the bottom of page 2-95), because they do not make sense. Alt. C cannot be the same as Alt. B, except with less riparian acres excluded than under Alt. C. 

The wording has been 

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

9 Yes page 3-38, section 3.73. A number of the allotments 

identified in this section contain special status species and should be further discussed in Section 4.3.15.6 (page 4-367). 

The following sentence Chapter 4: "Those allotunavailable for grazing these impacts to specia
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-141 

Table 5.10.o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

10 Yes page 3-125, section 3.15.1.1.2.2 (Bookcliffs wildlife 

area ) Is the clay reed mustard within the Moab Planning Area? 

The USFWS is correctclay reed mustard is noarea; it is only within U

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

11 Yes page 3-125, section 3.15.1.1.2.2. (Bookcliffs wildlife 

area ) typo-Jones cycladenia, with a small c. 

The Jones cycladenia Bookcliffs area. The tex

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

12 Yes page 3-127, section 3.15.1.2.5 (Colorado River 

Corridor ACEC) 4th paragraph mentions "two state sensitive rare plants" but the State of Utah has no sensitive plant list. Are these listed on the UNPS rare plant guide or NatureServe? 

The sentence has been sensitive plants, alcove specuicola)and alcove zothecina) occur in Ne

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

14 Yes page 3-128, section 3.15.1.2.5 The Colorado River 

Corridor ACEC "...contains about one quarter of all threatened Jones cycladenia plants." Does this mean within the MPA or across the range of the species? What is the source of this information (citation)? 

The sentence has been "The potential ACEC aJones cycladenia plant

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

15 Yes 3-143, section 3.16.1.3 This bald eagle section 

should be moved to Section 3.16.2 (Sensitive Species). 

This correction has bee

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

16 Yes 3-143, section 3.16.1.4 The first sentence ("MSO 

habitat includes high canopy closure...") should be eliminated. The second sentence should read: "Steep slopes and canyons with rocky cliffs characterize much of the MSO habitat in Utah." 

The sentence has been second sentence has baccordance with the Co

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

18 Yes page 4-355, table 4.106 Place Latin names after 

common names for plant species. 

The Latin names have 4.106 for all plants. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-142 

Table 5.10.o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

20 Yes 4-363 section 4.3.15.3.5 What habitat types is this 

section referring to, and what special status species might be affected? 

The title of the section 

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

21 Yes 4-365, section 4.3.15.5.3 Utility and communication 

infrastructure ROWs are also likely to fragment habitat, increase human access, and increase nonnative invasive plants. These effects would have resulting impacts on various special status species, including prairie dogs and sage-grouse. 

This sentence has bee4.3.15.5.3 of the DRMP

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

22 Yes page 4-370 section 4.3.15.7.1 Mineral exploration 

activities would also lead to greater road density, creating greater opportunity for OHV and other human disturbance. 

This sentence has bee4.3.15.7.1 of the DRMP

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

23 Yes page 4-371, section 4.3.15.7.2.1 Potential direct 

adverse effects from oil and gas development would include: potential for spills, mortality from reserve pits, increased human access, OHV access, road mortality. 

This sentence has bee4.3.15.7.2.1. 

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

24 Yes page 4-372, section 4.3.15.7.2.2 Explanation for 

greater detailed analysis on sage-grouse is reasonable, but you should still describe the impacts to other species as well. 

Wording has been addhabitat fragmentation afor sage-grouse as an action. 

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

25 Yes 4-372, section 4.3.15.7.2.2. 5th paragraph: It's also 

possible that the analysis could be an underestimate of habitat degradation because more frequently used roads could cause disturbance greater than 400m. 

The following sentence 4-372 of the DRMP/EISthat the analysis could degradation because mroads could cause dist400 meters from the ro
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-143 

Table 5.10.o. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Special Status Species586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

26 Yes page 4-375, section 4.3.15.7.4 MSO do occupy 

rocky slope/canyon habitat in the MPA (not just the "potential" to occupy this habitat type). 

The sentence now readoccupy the rocky slopeMPA. 

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

27 Yes page 4-376, table 4.116. Why is there a difference of 

37 acres between Alternative B and C for Jones cycladenia? Are these 37 acres in Jones cycladenia habitat? If so, we suggest these acres also be made NSO/Closed. 

The 37 acres has been cycladenia habitat that leasing in Alt C. 

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

29 Yes 4-390, table 4.119. The document states there are 

24,370 acres of habitat for Jones cycladenia. Please clarify, is this the size of the amount of suitable habitat or habitat potential for the plant? 

The habitat is suitable The word has been ad

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

34 Yes page C-35, table C-4. Golden eagles are not listed 

under ESA. They are protected under the MBTA and BGEPA. 

The title has been chanread "federally protecte

586 U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

37 Yes Appendix K. The BLM Committed Conservation 

Measures identified in this appendix should be consistent with the Species Conservation Measures developed for the Biological Opinion for Existing Utah BLM RMPs (2007) (see attached document). 

Appendix K will be repland updated document

586 Moab Trails 

Alliance 

11 Yes p. I-8 Under Relevance Criteria, seventh line, 

"......threatened plants do not occur....." Shouldn't "do not" be deleted or else the whole sentence be deleted? 

The sentence has been 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-144 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response 

6 Colorado 500 12 Yes the MFO staff's choice to separate the citations 

from the body of the text makes it extremely cumbersome to review the use of the literature in this analysis. We have selected a citation that is pretty obviously aimed at roads, and because our comment is about roads, it seemed the most likely match. Please bear with us. From the Chapter in the DEIS called "References:" Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics '29:207-231. This does not have anything to do with undeveloped dirt roads and narrow trails, lightly trafficked, in a desert ecosystem. Just so you do not have to take our word for it, we have located and read the article, plus we have followed the citations in the article. None of the material we found is related to what this DEIS is analyzing. (multiple reference examples followed, text not included here) 

Placing all references document is standard when assembling EnvStatements. The reference to the aAlexander is found on DRMP/EIS in the sectfragmentation. The refconcerns vehicles killiattracted to road kills. The BLM has added ato Appendix G of the ethe impacts of OHV usnatural resources, incvegetation, wildlife anand water quality . Than expanded discussiOHV use on socioecoconflict, to Appendix Greferences to this sectbe added to the relevaChapter 4. 

6 Colorado 500 20 Yes The placement of a "Mountain Bike Focus Area" 

(Map 2-9-C) exactly where the popular Copper Ridge motorcycle trail already is. This is an existing single-track loop, plus single-back connectors to the Sovereign Trails system (state land) and an existing single-track connector to Thompson Springs. 

1. As stated explicitly Focus areas are not dother uses, such as thmotorcycle trail cited bKlondike Bluffs is a mbecause the predominBluffs is mountain bike Ridge motorcycle trail BLM during scoping; t
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-145 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management

Requests that will resolve this comment: 1. We want BLM to provide the analysis that supports the statement "There are no routes solely dedicated to OHV use." Reprinting the same sentence from the AMS will not satisfy this request, as there is no analysis in the AMS that supports BLM's claim in 3.11.1.2.16. This additional analysis will obviously include maps of every existing road and trail. This analysis must detail who made each route, for what purpose, and when it was made. To accomplish this, interviews with residents of the Moab area, as well as residents of western Colorado and western Utah will be necessary, and interviews with motorcycle clubs and businesses, to gather the factual evidence that supports (or refutes) the claim that off-road motorcycles do not have their own dedicated system of routes in the MPA and in the MFO jurisdiction. 2. We want a third-party, non partisan review of this analysis. The reason that is necessary is that many private citizens donated hundreds of hours to help BLM map the single-track OHV routes in the run-up to this DEIS. Hundreds of miles of motorcycle trails were mapped. Since BLM has no compunctions about discarding that work, we have no reason to trust BLM in the conduct of any new route inventory or route development history. 3. Reprinting the same sentence from the AMS will not satisfy this request, because there is no analysis in that document that supports BLM's claim in 3.11.1.2.16. 4. If there is no such analysis, we want BLM to add this statement to 3.11.1.2.16: "MFO staff has 

verified on the groundnot popular enough to ground. See also resp36. 2. The BLM acknowlecited by the Commentrelevance to the issue 3. The sentence referrCommenter from the 1simply a statement by no trails managed soleis the case in the No Aamount of research or party analysis will cha1985 Grand RMP. The no evidence to suggesthat user groups may systems does not meamanages these for thaAdditionally, no user gappointed authority to lands for their exclusiv4. The BLM, as part oland-use planning proinformation from the prequest, the BLM recemiles of routes from thnumerous motorcycle all, of these routes weground by the BLM anor more action alternaprocess is described iof the DRMP/EIS. The(perhaps most, but the 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-146 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management

elected to omit at least 200 miles of existing motorcycle single-track trails from the inventory and to eliminate from consideration the designation of a "system" of existing single-track OHV trails in Alternative C. Staff has chosen to remove this data in advance of the Deciding Offer's review and Decision. Staff realizes that this will prevent the Deciding Officer any opportunity to evaluate and designate single-track OHV systems. Based on the record supporting this DEIS and Plan, it will likely be perceived as a pre-emptive Decision by the ID Team. There is no analysis that supports this action. There is ample evidence that these routes do exists, as many members of the public assisted in located and mapping them. However, MFO staff has elected to discard that data. Please refer to 3.11.1.2.16." Alternatively, and less contentious and less time consuming, and more likely to get this project to a Decision in a more timely way, we want the Moab BLM to restore the trails in the MFO database that were collected under the public perception that the trails would be called "motorcycle single-track" and included in the travel plan for consideration. We will not try to guess at the name BLM has assigned these trails. Restoring these trails to the database will simplify completion of the RMP, and it would fill several glaring voids in the "Travel Plan." Then, in the post-ROD implementation, site-specific monitoring would support the eventual site specific analysis of the impacts of these trails. We also request that BLM add the following section to Chapter 3: 1. Beginning on page 3-79, part 3.11.1.2.16 must be changed to "Popular Motorcycle Routes." These will be the same as the "popular bicycle" trails, plus 

with each group's routthe routes presented bSome of the routes mCommenter were not during scoping, and wincluded in the travel pis not in a position to findefinitely to accommproposals. 

As the DRM

new routes can be conthe travel plan on a sitfuture. See also respo15 and 122-30. It is worth noting that sproposed by the Coman area limited to exisThe Commenter needpg. 2-32 of the DRMPadditional OHV routes saline soils other than designated in the TravThe Slickrock Bike Trathe motorcycle trail rofollowing routes mentiCommenter are open vehicles, including moBridges, Amasa BackBluffs, Kokopelli's TraBartlett Wash, Moab RCanyon Rim, Hurrah PThe Commenter shoumotorcycle trail map (routes he names are amotorcycles. The BLM some of the names us
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-147 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management

many more miles. The reason they are the same is, BLM changed the usage for this DEIS even though (because it is in the record) BLM cannot dispute the fact that motorcycles were suing those trails when the 1985 RMP was written. 2. We want BLM to include ... (many named trails).

The Mel's Loop route proposed alternative f

8 Arches 

National Park 

5 Yes 

970 National Parks 

and Conservation Association 

7 Yes 

Several roads are shown within Arches NP that are not park roads. These are circled on the attached map; please delete them. Alternately, since the RMP does not apply to Arches, we would prefer that the park simply be shown as a "blank spot" on the map, with all roads removed. 

All routes within Archebeen deleted from the accompanying the PR

122 Ride with 

Respect 

5 Yes Section 3.11.2.6 (page 3-85&6&7) addresses use 

conflict and displacement, but not adequately so. It crudely lists a few circumstances the agency believes to exist. The lists are arbitrary, and should be removed. 

The list of recreation c3.11.2.6 of the DRMPprofessional judgment BLM staff. The areas have come to the atteto reports of conflicts bThe sentence on pg. 3has been changed to which BLM staff have conflict and displacem

122 Ride with 

Respect 

15 No By any of these definitions, many OHV trails exist 

in the Moab field office beyond the data from BLM, RWR, or any other known source. RWR'S data is the best available information. All of the routes we submit currently exist, and new data of existing routes includes photographs to aid your staff in verification. RWR expects that you to contact us before determining that any of these routes are not legal, existing travel ways. 

The routes considered the Travel Plan accomDRMP/EIS were those public during the scopthose submitted by Riverified on the ground G-15 through G-21). ODRMP/EIS there is a pnew routes. The provi"identification of speciwould be initially estab
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-148 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management

chosen travel plan accand may be modified timplementation plannion a case by case basproposed by the Comconsidered after compDecision for the Moab routes are in a closed However, at the comptravel will be restricted designated in the plan

122 Ride with 

Respect 

21 Yes Table 2.1 Wilderness & Travel Management (page 

2-43 & 2-48) refer to WSA ways when stating that "If Congress designates the area as Wilderness, the routes will be closed." This sentence should be removed. 

The sentence has beeCongress designates the routes could be clomeans that the will of override any route desDRMP/EIS. Congress authority, and close an

122 Ride with 

Respect 

22 Yes Alternative C would require Special Recreation 

Permits for groups with "25 vehicles." The document ought to explicitly exclude counting more than one vehicle per person, since he/she can only use one vehicle at a time. 

The 25 vehicle rule is primary vehicle driven phrase "one driver/vehto the Special Recreathe PRMP/FEIS for cla

122 Ride with 

Respect 

23 Yes Table 2.1 Travel Management (2-48) also states 

"Only designated roads are available for motorized commercial and organized group use." 

The words "and manabeen added to the appPRMP/EIS to clarify thallowed in these areas

122 Ride with 

Respect 

24 Yes Section 4.3.10.2.10.6 (page 4-220) should 

acknowledge that Labyrinth Rims in Alternative C would negatively impact motorcycling to the extent that it prohibits future use of Bartlett Slickrock by motorcycle. 

The impacts of this remotorcycling opportunto the text of the PRM
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-149 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management122 Ride with 

Respect 

26 Yes Likewise Section 4.3.10.2.12 (page 4-229) should 

state that soil decisions substantially reduce vehicular access to certain environments, including high-saline soils, and both riparian and non-riparian washes. 

Text has been added PRMP/EIS acknowledriparian decisions limit decision in soils has bsoils are a limiting factthat absolutely forbids soils. 

122 Ride with 

Respect 

42 Yes For consistency, Slickrock Trail should appear on 

the map of designated motorcycle routes. 

The Slickrock Trail hamap of motorcycle roufor alternatives C and 

123 COHVCO/Blue 

Ribbon 

4 Yes The BLM must disclose how the Recreational 

Settings may or may not affect future management decisions, allowable uses, including and especially travel management. 

A sentence has been PRMP/FEIS under Tra(Management CommoAlternatives) for clarity identified in the Traveavailable regardless omanagement actions'. 

123 COHVCO/Blue 

Ribbon 

5 Yes The DEIS is far from a model of clarity in 

distinguishing between program-level and projectlevel decision-making and management prescriptions. We urge BLM to clarify this distinction, and to specifically identify program-level management guidance from project-level management prescriptions for all management decisions, especially travel management. 

The BLM followed the Handbook (H-1601-1) level management guWashington Office (Wguidance in the handbInstruction Memorandstates specifically, "Seroads and trails should limited areas in each Restablishment of a proselecting specific roadlimited area or subarelimitations placed on uThe management decthe PRMP/FEIS will cl
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-150 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management

decisions are planning decisions are implemedecisions. 

123 COHVCO/Blue 

Ribbon 

8 Yes A map is provided of the White Wash area which 

displays an area where access to dispersed camping sites has been eliminated. 

The open area to the wWash Sand Dunes haaccommodate the camsouth of the oil well. Scomment 120-83. 

123 COHVCO/Blue 

Ribbon 

10 Yes BRC strongly opposes the fee system proposed for 

White Wash Sand Dunes in Alts C and D. A fee system at White Wash will be difficult to implement because of the distance from the Moab Field Office and ease of access to the Dunes and nearby trails. A fee system with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. The BLM should remove the section requiring the Special Recreation Permit idea, and instead, insert guidance to pursue funding sources. 

The possibility of a fee open area in White Wproposed in the DRMPfunding the cost of the that this area would recross country travel anvisitors. Actual implemfee would follow the gLands Recreation Enhconsidered by the UtaAdvisory Council. This preclude pursuing othhelp manage the WhitFor clarity the statemeDRMP/EIS has been c"Implement a fee systguidelines of the FedeEnhancement Act. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-151 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management124 SUWA 32 Yes The plan says that all alternatives would ensure 

PFC, and that "the loss or degradation of riparian areas, wetlands and associated floodplains would be avoided or minimized; natural and beneficial values would be preserved and enhanced; and fish and wildlife and special status species would be provided for," 4-182, there is no explanation of how ORV use in these same streams affects that conclusion. 

On page 4-245 of the impacts of travel on ripanalyzed. The acres oOHV designation are county travel is alloweunder any of the actioprovide further analysadded to Appendix G detailing the number odesignated due to resincluding riparian areaincorporated into the asections of Chapter 4. DRMP/EIS it is acknowin riparian areas can rvegetation, degraded erosion. 

196 Moab Trails 

Alliance 

2 Yes The amount of new trail ("C"= 150 miles, "B"= 75, 

etc) should be specifically stated as, "In addition to trails developed on existing roads as mapped on the Grand County Transportation Inventory map". The allotted new mileage will include only those routes mapped across previously undisturbed terrain. 

Wording has been addon pg. 2-49 to clarify tnew trails; converted eaddition to the specific alternative. 

196 Moab Trails 

Alliance 

5 Yes Typos: p. 4-464 second paragraph line 4 "carefully"

should be careful. 

The grammatical correin the PRMP/FEIS. 

196 Moab Trails 

Alliance 

6 Yes Typos: p. I-8 Under Relevance Criteria, seventh 

line, "...threatened plants do not occur..." Shouldn't "do not" be deleted or else the whole sentence be deleted? 

The sentence has bee
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-152 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management204 The Nature 

Conservancy 

11 Yes See DRMP 2-48* Finally, within this area we would 

like to see the designation of motorized travel on the road up Ida Gulch from Hwy 128 proceed no farther up-valley than the northern boundary of our section of private land (Sec 32, T24S R23E, SLM) in Ida Gulch. In the DRMP under all Action Alternatives this route is shown as designated for motorized travel through our property and onto BLM-administered lands to the east. 

The BLM does not deprivate land. The Naturestrict travel on this rremoved from the desAlts C and D. This wotravel past the Nature land. 

206 Red Rock 4-

Wheelers 

11 Yes There are a number of permitted Jeep Safari 

routes not included in Alternative C, and these should be added to this Alternative. These include segments of the Copper Ridge, Strike Ravine, 3D, Dolores Triangle, and Flat Iron Mesa routes. 

The short segments oerrors which have beenumbers 13637, 153315336). Strike Ravine routes will need to be they are not part of cudatabase. Several of texclusively on State lascope of the Travel Pl

208 Bookcliff 

Rattlers Motorcycle Club 

9 Yes BLM should identify routes suitable for ATVs in its 

travel plan, rather than passively assuming that many of the OHV routes submitted in scoping are motorcycle-only. 

The BLM has incorposuggestion for a chaninvolving ATVs in the response to State of U

209 Sierra Club 

Glen Canyon Group 

10 Yes . . .confusing Table 4.126 OHV Designations by 

Alternative on page 4-409. The table which contains both acres and miles has four footnotes, of which the second is not referenced in the table itself. "These are the miles of designated routes at time of EIS publication. After the issuing of the ROD, minor adjustments may be made by the MFO to more accurately define the designated 

Footnote 2 refers to thTable 4.126; this has adjustments" that the defined relate to GIS dwhich the BLM would predict with certainty bsmoothing is completeless than one per cent 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-153 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management

routes." BLM should let us know where the superscript belongs in the table, what the definition of "minor" is, and how the public will be involved. 

The manner of public implementation activitdescribed on page 2-4

209 Sierra Club 

Glen Canyon Group 

44 Yes Re: 4.3.8.2.13.1 OHV Travel Management Pages 

4-146 thru 4-152, Table 4.5, Page ES-6 The paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 4-149 also apparently contains an error. Clearly, it means that OHV use will be limited to designated, not existing, routes. The same error is found in the last paragraph on page 4-150. Under all of the action alternatives, vehicles must stay on designated routes. 

The Commenter is cohas been changed to 

209 Sierra Club 

Glen Canyon Group 

55 Yes The Glossary is not comprehensive. For example, 

"way" is defined, but "route" are not. "Mechanized" and "non-mechanized travel" are not defined at all. Attachment A of Appendix G includes additional terms which should be justified with Glossary definitions and/or referenced in the Glossary. It is possible that there are definitions in other appendices or the text of the document itself which, if added to the Glossary, would make it more user friendly. 

The BLM has added t(route, mechanized anthe glossary. The BLM specifics to address thchanges which the Co

218 Colorado b 

Division of Wildlife 

1 Yes 

195 Van Loan 

Ranches 

1 Yes 

Closing many of the spur roads that have no destination will also be of great benefit to wildlife. There is one road that is identified to be closed under preferred Alternative C in the travel management plan that concerns us, as we would like to have this road remain open. In the Dolores River Triangle there is a road starting in Township 21S Range 26E Section 32 SW 1/4 (state school section) that heads south for approximately one mile before it braches; both 

As this route provides to public lands in Coloadded to the preferred has been designated Two routes that start i21 S., R. 26 E., Sec. 3state line, cross Utah the state of Colorado Preferred Alternative 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-154 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management

branches head southeast up different forks of spring Canyon along Spring Creek before entering into Colorado. This road provides the only public access into BLM land on the Colorado side of the border. The proposed road closures will eliminate our historic access. 

264 Curtis Rozman 

Ruby Ranch 

2 Yes It is very clear that BLM intends to make a large 

area in White Wash "open" to motorized use. We request that any "open" areas do not directly border our private property and that there is an adequate buffer between our private property and any designated open area. Please include a .25 - .5 mile buffer to minimize the vandalism and destruction of property that has been occurring ( fence vandalism-- wires cut, posts used for firewood, gates destroyed-- also property shot at, livestock harassment, etc). See attached map. 

The BLM proposes an than 2,000 acres in Warea is primarily the saEverywhere else, all trto designated routes. area in the PRMP/FEIreduced from the acreNo Action (current) altsouthwest boundary obeen adjusted to provthe open area and the accommodate the Com

964 Moab Trails 

Alliance 

7 Yes Whenever different user groups are listed in the 

RMP, road cycling should be included as a category just the same as "driving for pleasure". This is fast becoming a popular use on the spectacular scenic byways of Grand County. 

Road cycling has beerecreation activities in on pg. 3-80 of the DR

310 Benjamin 

Reingold 

2 Yes The difference between an RMP and the Travel 

Plan is not clearly described in the DEIS. 

A sentence has been PRMP/FEIS under Traclarifies this distinction
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-155 

Table 5.10.p. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Travel Management941 Great Old 

Broads for Wilderness 

4 Yes 

995 Fred and 

Bessann Swanson 

7 Yes 

Not enough has been done to determine the impact of the designated routes on cultural, riparian or wildlife resources. 

Additional information travel on resources haChapter 4 of the PRMAppendix G (Travel). 

Table 5.10.q. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Water Resources

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

215 EnCana Oil 7 Yes Section 3.14.3.2.2 Salinity (p. 3-112) 

The second paragraph of this section states that the release of saline groundwater during drilling activities is a point source for salinity. This statement is inaccurate because groundwater is not released during drilling activities in natural gas drilling operations. 

The reference to the regroundwater during drilfrom the text of the PRM
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-156 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

124 SUWA 89 Yes Segment 5 of the Colorado river should be scenic or 

wild. 

The classification of Sefrom scenic in Alt B to rUpon closer review, it wclassification in Alt C shscenic in order to match scenic on the other side Monticello Field Office. made in the PRMP/FEI

213 Utah Rivers 

Council 

2 Yes The preferred alternative in the Draft on page 2-41 

changes the classification of one segment of the Green River, from Coal Creek to Nefertiti from its original classification of 'Wild' in the eligibility study to 'Scenic' under the preferred alternative. There is no basis for such a change due to a manageability issue. The Council urges the Moab F.O. to find the Coal Creek to Nefertiti segment of the Green River as a 'Wild' river in the preferred alternative, as it was in the eligibility study and in Alternative B. 

The BLM has reevaluatthe classification of the Creek to Nefertiti. The csegment in the proposeriver segment has been 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-157 

Table 5.10.r. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wild and Scenic Rivers213 Utah Rivers 

Council 

9 Yes The list of eligible segments of the Green River and 

the segments that are analyzed for suitability are inconsistent. In Appendix J, seven suitability factors were considered for each of the different rivers, including the Green River. Attachment 2 in Appendix J, pages J-61 to J-64, shows that 6 segments of the Green River are eligible to become a Wild and Scenic River. However, attachment 4, pages J-81 and J-82, lists the suitability considerations for the, "Green River – Segments 1 through 5". Thus, the suitability analysis fails to even include all 6 eligible segments in the analysis. It is impossible to determine which of the 6 eligible river segments were not included in the analysis because they are not listed nor mentioned. 

There are 6 river segmRiver and this error has PRMP/FEIS. The headDRMP/EIS has been chsegments 1 through 6". 

213 Utah Rivers 

Council 

10 Yes The suitability analysis of the Green River includes 

segments 1 through 5 together. The response to each of the seven suitability factors does not make it clear which of the segments the response applies to. This completely muddles the entire suitability analysis as it is impossible to determine why some segments were found suitable and others were found not suitable. 

There are 6 river segmRiver and this error has PRMP/FEIS. AttachmeConsiderations by Eligibeen augmented for the augmentation makes thdeterminations more cl
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Con

5-158 

Table 5.10.s. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Wildlife 

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

9 ECOS 

Consulting 

58 Yes Page 4-442, Table 4.138, 4.3.19: This table is 

missing a number of very important wildlife associations that must be considered by the BLM in its analyses of impacts in this Moab RMP/EIS. Add the wildlife association "aquatic macro-invertebrates" with the Aquatic habitat type. 

The tables referred to hsuggested by the CommPRMP/FEIS. 

Table 5.10.t. Comments Requiring a Change in the Document: Woodlands (Forestry)

Record 

ID Commenter Comment Number Requires Change Comment Text Response t

204 The Nature 

Conservancy 

29 Yes Woodlands (Pg 2-55—2-56) As a more technical 

note, the language used in each of the four Alternatives on DRMP Page 2-56 appears to be confusing. Each one is a single run-on sentence that seems to combine the concepts of provide and prohibit. Although one can figure out which acreage value applies to which concept, it would be best for the Final RMP to use language such as separate sentences so that the distinction between "provide" and "prohibit" is clear and unambiguous. 

The language on page corrected to be more d
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-159 

5.6 RECORD OF DECISION

Following publication by the EPA and BLM of a Notice of Availability of the PRMP/FEIS in the 

Federal Register, there is a 30-day protest period. In addition, a 60-day Governor's Consistency 

Review period runs concurrently with the first half of 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 

action has been completed on such protest. Before such approval is given, there shall be public 

notice and opportunity for public comment on any significant change made to the proposed plan. 

Management actions specified for the Proposed Alternative in Chapter 2 of the PRMP/FEIS are 

labeled as follows: 

Land-use Plan Decisions (P): These broad-scale decisions guide future land management actions 

and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. Land-use plan decisions fall into two 

categories: desired outcomes (goals; standards, including land health standards; and objectives) 

and allowable uses and actions to achieve outcomes. Proposed land-use plan decisions are 

protestable to the BLM Director. 

Implementation Decisions (I): These decisions take action to implement land-use plan decisions 

on a site-specific basis. They may be incorporated into implementation plans or may exist as 

stand-alone decisions. When issued, implementation decisions are generally appealable to the 

Interior Board of Land Appeals as outlined in 43 CFR Part 4. 

Administrative and Policy Decisions (A): These decisions are based on law, regulation, and/or 

policy and do not require a land-use plan decision or implementation decision. They are not 

protestable or appealable. 

5.7 DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS 

A copy of the PRMP/FEIS has been sent to all the entities identified in the distribution list below 

(Table 5.11). The individuals, groups, organizations, and agencies included in the mailing list for 

the Moab 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 Moab RMP website at 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/planning.html, the Moab Field Office, the public room in 

the BLM Utah State Office, and the public libraries listed on the distribution list. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-160 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Federal Agencies (Required) Local Federal Agencies

Bureau of Reclamation 

Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 

Arches National Park 

Moab, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Environmental Quality 

Arlington, VA 

Canyonlands National Park 

Moab, UT 

Office of Environmental Compliance 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 

U.S. Geological Survey

Moab, UT 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

Washington, DC 

Manti-LaSal National Forest 

Price, UT 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Environmental Affairs Program 

Reston, VA 

Manti-LaSal National Forest 

Moab, UT 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8 

Denver, CO 

Colorado Canyons NCA 

Grand Junction, CO 

Minerals Management Service 

Environmental Division 

Herndon, VA 

BLM Monticello Field Office 

Monticello, UT 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Reston, VA 

BLM Grand Junction Field Office 

Grand Junction, CO 

National Park Service 

Washington, DC 

BLM Price Field Office 

Price, UT 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Reston, VA 

BLM Montrose Field Office 

Montrose, CO 

Office of Surface Mining 

Washington, DC 

BLM Durango Field Office 

Durango, CO 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Washington, DC 

BLM Vernal Field Office 

Vernal, UT 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resources Library 

Washington, DC 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-161 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Other Federal Agencies Utah BLM Resource Advisory 

Council

Mineral Management Service 

Denver, CO 

Mr. Carl Albrecht 

Richfield, UT 

Federal Highway Administration 

Utah Division 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Mr. Norman Carroll 

Orderville, UT 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Grand Junction Office 

Grand Junction, CO 

Mr. Michael Jenkins 

Salt Lake City, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

West Valley City, UT 

 Mr. Lowell Braxton 

Salt Lake City, UT

Bureau of Reclamation 

Provo, UT 

Mr. Ray Bloxham 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Provo Service Center 

Provo, UT 

Ms. Ashley Korenblat 

Moab, UT

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Chief, Planning Division 

Sacramento, CA 

Mr. Clair "Riley" Cutler 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health 

Washington, DC 

Mr. Jerry Spangler 

Ogden, UT 

Federal Depository Library System 

Government Printing Office 

Washington, DC 

Mr. Gordon Topham 

Monroe, UT 

Mr. Drew Sitterud 

Castle Dale, UT 

Mr. F.E. "Fee" Busby 

Logan, UT 

Mr. Tom Clawson 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Mr. Lynn Stevens 

Blanding, UT 

Mr. Manuel Morgan 

Aneth, UT 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-162 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

State Agencies County Governments

Public Lands Policy Coordination Office 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Grand County Council 

Moab, UT

Utah State Historic Preservation Office 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Grand County Council 

Administrator 

Moab, UT

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration 

Moab, UT 

Grand County Road Department 

Moab, UT

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration 

Salt Lake City, UT 

San Juan County Commission 

Monticello, UT

Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget 

Salt Lake City, UT 

San Juan County Planner 

Monticello, UT 

Utah Department of Transportation 

Price, UT 

Utah State Parks 

Moab, UT 

Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget 

Salt Lake City, UT 

City Governments Elected Officials

City of Moab 

Moab, UT 

Senator Orrin Hatch 

Washington, DC 

Town of Castle Valley 

Moab, UT 

Senator Bob Bennett 

Washington, DC 

City of Monticello 

Monticello, UT 

Representative Jim Matheson 

Washington, DC 

Town of Green River 

Green River, UT 

Mike Dmitrich 

State Senator 

Price, UT 

Brad King 

State Representative 

Price, UT 84501

John Mathis 

State Representative 

Vernal, UT 

Tribal Governments

Hopi Tribal Council 

Kykotsmovi, AZ 

Governor 

Pueblo of Laguna 

Laguna, N.M. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-163 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office 

Hopi Tribal Council 

Kykotsmovi, AZ 

NAGPRA Coordinator 

Pueblo of Laguna 

Laguna, NM 

President 

Navajo Nation 

Window Rock, AZ 

Governor 

Pueblo of Santa Clara 

Espanola, NM 

Cultural Specialist 

Navajo Nation 

Window Rock, AZ 

Land Claims and Rights Protection 

Officer

Pueblo of Santa Clara

Espanola, NM 

Director 

Navajo Utah Commission 

Montezuma Creek, UT 

Governor 

Pueblo of Zia 

Zia Pueblo, NM 

Chairman 

Southern Ute Tribe 

Ignacio, CO 

Cultural Preservation Officer 

Pueblo of Zia 

Zia Pueblo, NM 

NAGPRA Coordinator 

Southern Ute Tribe 

Ignacio, CO 

Governor 

Pueblo of Zuni 

Zuni, NM 

Chairman 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Towaoc, CO 

Manager 

Zuni Cultural Resources 

Enterprise 

Zuni, NM 

Tribal Cultural Representative 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Towaoc, CO 

Manager 

Uintah & Ouray Agency 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Fort Duchesne, UT 

Chairwoman 

Uintah and Ouray Tribal Business Committee 

Fort Duchesne, UT 

Chairwoman 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 

Cedar City, UT 

Director 

Cultural Rights and Protection 

Fort Duchesne, UT 

Cultural Resources Director 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 

Cedar City, UT 

Public Libraries Adjoining State Agencies

Public Reading Room 

Salt Lake City Public Library 

210 East 400 South 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

Grand Junction, CO 

Grand County Public Library 

257 East Center 

Moab, UT 84532
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-164 

Table 5.11. Distribution List Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

San Juan County Public Library 

P.O. Box 66 

Monticello, UT 84535

Public Reading Room 

Marriott Library 

University of Utah 

295 S. 1500 East 

Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0860 

Mesa County Public Library 

Public Reading Room 

530 Grand Avenue 

Grand Junction, CO 81502-5019 

Library of Congress 

101 Independence Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20540 

5.8 LIST OF PREPARERS

The BLM Moab FO PRMP/FEIS was written and produced by a team composed of Moab 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 

affects of the alternatives, and prepared all the necessary elements of an RMP/EIS with 

additional participation, comments, and critique from the cooperating agencies and resource 

specialists with the BLM Utah State Office. Table 5.8 lists the name, position, and planning role 

of the team members associated with preparation of the PRMP/FEIS. 

Table 5.12. List of Preparers 

Name Position Education Planning Role 

BLM 

Ann Marie Aubry Hydrologist B.S. Air Quality, Soils/Watershed 

Dusty Carpenter Ecology SCEP B.S. Livestock Grazing 

Jean Carson GIS Specialist GIS Mapping 

Kate Juenger Planning 

Coordinator, Fire 

Brent Northrup Resource Advisor B.S. RMP Project Manager, Minerals, Health and 

Safety 

Marilyn Peterson 

Outdoor 

Recreation 

Planner 

 B.S. Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-165 

Table 5.12. List of Preparers 

Name Position Education Planning Role 

Pam Riddle Wildlife Biologist B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries, Special Status Animal 

Species 

Bill Stevens Planning Specialist Ph D. Wilderness, Socioeconomics, Travel 

Katie Stevens 

Outdoor 

Recreation 

Planner 

Ph D. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, 

Recreation 

Rob Sweeten Landscape 

Architect B.S. Visual Resource Management 

Daryl Trotter 

Environmental 

Protection 

Specialist 

B.S. NEPA Specialist, Riparian, Special Status 

Plant Species, Vegetation, Woodlands 

Donna 

Turnipseed Archaeologist B.S. Cultural, Paleontology, National Historic Trails 

Mary von Koch Realty Specialist M.S. Lands and Realty 

Doug Wight GIS Coordinator M.S. GIS Mapping 

Dave Williams Range 

Conservationist B.S. Livestock Grazing 

Maggie Wyatt Moab Field Office 

Manager M.A. Management 

SWCA Inc. 

Laura Burch Environmental 

Planner M.P.A. Socioeconomics, Hazardous Materials 

Linda Burfitt Technical Editor B.A. General 

Karl Chalker Technical Editor M.A. General 

Tonya 

Dombrowski 

Environmental 

Chemist Ph D. Air Quality 

Sherri Ellis Cultural Resources 

Lead M.S. Cultural Resources, Lands and Realty 

Janet Guinn Project 

Coordinator B.A. Project Coordination, Formatting 

David Harris NEPA Specialist M.S. Recreation, Travel, Visual Resource 

Management, Woodlands 

Kristen 

Knippenberg 

Resource 

Specialist, 

Technical Editor 

M.F.A. Minerals, editing 

Greg Larson Resource 

Specialist M.S. Fire, Lands, Soils 

Cynthia Manseau Technical Editor B.A. General 

Susan Martin Ecologist M.S. Special Status Plant Species, Vegetation 

Eric McCulley Geologist B.S. Riparian, Soils/Watershed 

Molly Mollenaar Cultural 

Anthropologist M.A. Native American Consultation 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

5-166 

Table 5.12. List of Preparers 

Name Position Education Planning Role 

Paul Murphey 

Principal 

Investigator, 

Paleontology 

Ph D. Paleontology 

Matt Peterson Principal Ecologist M.S. NEPA Specialist/QA/QC 

Deb Reber Natural Resource 

Planner B.S. Project Manager/QA/QC 

Jan Reed Ecologist B.A. Livestock Grazing 

Dave Reinhart GIS Coordinator B.A. GIS Mapping 

Tyson Schreiner GIS Coordinator B.S. GIS Mapping 

Thomas Sharp Ecologist M.S. Special Status Animal Species, Wildlife 

Sherri Wysong Resource 

Specialist B.S. Special Designations, Wilderness Characteristics 
ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY

ACRONYMS

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

AML Abandoned mine lands 

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation 

APD Application for Permit to Drill (an oil or gas well) 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) 

ARPA Archeological Resource Protection Act (of 1979) 

AUM Animal unit month 

BA Biological Assessment 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BCF Billion cubic feet (a measure of quantity of natural gas) 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BO Biological Opinion 

CAA Clean Air Act (of 1970) 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (of 

1980) 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CFS Cubic Feet Per Second (a unit of water flow) 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

COA Conditions of Approval 

CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DFC Desired Future Condition 

DOGM (Utah) Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

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 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act (of 1976) 

FMP Fire Management Plan 

FMZ Fire Management Zone 

FO Field Office 

FR Federal Register 

GAP Geographical Analysis Program 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act (of 2003) 

HMA Herd Management Area 

HMAP Herd Management Area Plan 

HMP Habitat Management Plan 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IMP Interim Management Policy 

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 

X-26 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

MMCF Million cubic feet 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MFO Moab Field Office 

MPA Moab Planning Area 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (of 1990) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969) 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOA Notice of Availability (published in the Federal Register) 

NOI Notice of Intent (published in the Federal Register) 

NPS National Park Service 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSO No Surface Occupancy (a stipulation on an oil and gas lease) 

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River System 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

ORV Off Road Vehicle (an older acronym, replaced by OHV) 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition (of riparian/wetland areas) 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter) 

PM10 Particulate Matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) 

R&I Relevance and Importance 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes (Act of 1926) 

RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan 

RDCC (Utah) Resource Development and Coordinating Committee 

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

RHS Rangeland Health Standards 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

RMP Resource Management Plan (BLM land use plan under FLPMA) 

X-27 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW Right of Way 

S&G Standards & Guidelines 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SITLA (Utah) School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

SOx Sulfur Oxides 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SRP Special Recreation Permit 

SWREGAP Southwest Regional Geographical Analysis Program 

T&E Threatened and/or Endangered (species as per ESA of 1973) 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TPY Tons Per Year 

UAAQS Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards 

UAC Utah Administrative Code 

UDA Utah Division of Aeronautics 

UDAQ Utah Department of Air Quality 

UDEQ Utah Division of Environmental Quality 

UDOGM Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation 

UDWaR Utah Division of Water Resources 

UDWQ Utah Division of Water Quality 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

UGS Utah Geological Survey 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

X-28 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

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) 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 

X-29 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

X-30 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

GLOSSARY

Activity Plan: Site-specific plan which precedes actual development. This is the most detailed 

level of BLM planning. 

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV): A wheeled or tracked vehicle, other than a snowmobile or work 

vehicle, designed primarily for recreational use or for the transportation of property or equipment 

exclusively on undeveloped road rights of way, open country or other unprepared surfaces. 

Allotment: An area of land where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. 

Allotments generally consist of BLM lands but may also include other federally managed, state 

owned, and private lands. An allotment may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock 

numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment. 

Allotment Categorization: Grazing allotments and rangeland areas used for livestock grazing 

are assigned to an allotment category during resource management planning. Allotment 

categorization is used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel during 

plan implementation to achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland resources. 

Categorization is also used to organize allotments into similar groups for purposes of developing 

multiple use prescriptions, analyzing site-specific and cumulative impacts, and determining 

trade-offs. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM): A standardized measurement of the amount of forage necessary 

for the sustenance of one cow unit or its equivalent for 1 month. Approximately 800 pounds of 

forage. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): Areas within the public lands where 

special management attention is required to: (1) protect and prevent irreparable damage to 

important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems 

or processes, or (2) protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

Authorized Officer: The Federal employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific 

decision. 

Avoidance Areas: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way leases, and 

easements would be strongly discouraged. Authorization made in avoidance areas would have to 

be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated and not is otherwise feasible 

on lands outside the avoidance area. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. Best management practices are often 

developed in conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan 

decision unless the land use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be updated or 

modified without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory. 

Big Game: Large species of wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and 

pronghorn antelope. 

Browse: To browse (verb) is to graze; also, browse (noun) is the tender shoots, twigs, and leaves 

and shrubs often used as food by livestock and wildlife. 

X-31 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Candidate Species: Any species included in the Federal Register notice of review that are being 

considered for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Casual Use: Mining activities that only negligibly disturb federal lands and resources. Casual 

use generally includes the collecting of geochemical, rock, soil, or mineral specimens using hand 

tools, hand panning, and nonmotorized sluicing. It also generally includes use of metal detectors, 

gold spears, and other battery-operated devices for sensing the presence of minerals, and hand 

battery-operated dry washers. Casual use does not include use of mechanized earth-moving 

equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, suction dredges, motorized vehicles in areas 

designated as closed to off-road vehicles, chemicals, or explosives. It also does not include 

occupancy or operations where the cumulative effects of the activities result in more than 

negligible disturbance. 

Closed: Generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or uses; refer to 

specific definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The official, legal tabulation or regulations directing 

federal government activities. 

Collaboration: A cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied 

interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other 

lands. This may or may not involve an agency as a cooperating agency. 

Competitive Forage: Those forage species utilized by two or more animal species. 

Conditions of Approval: Conditions or provisions (requirements) under which an Application 

for a Permit to Drill or a Sundry Notice is approved. 

Conformance: That a proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, 

if not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards 

of the approved land use plan. 

Conservation Agreement: A formal signed agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or National Marine Fisheries Service and other parties that implements specific actions, 

activities, or programs designed to eliminate or reduce threats or otherwise improve the status of 

a species. CA's can be developed at a State, regional, or national level and generally include 

multiple agencies at both the State and Federal level, as well as tribes. Depending on the types of 

commitments the BLM makes in a CA and the level of signatory authority, plan revisions or 

amendments may be required prior to signing the CA, or subsequently in order to implement the 

CA. 

Conservation Strategy: A Strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to 

the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a 

decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and 

animals that are designated as BLM Sensitive species or that have been determined by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service to be Federal candidates under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Contiguous: Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary; lands having only a 

common corner are not contiguous. 

X-32 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Cooperating Agency: Assists the lead Federal agency in developing an Environmental Analysis 

or Environmental Impact Statement. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

implementing NEPA defines a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA. Any tribe of Federal, State, or local 

government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by 

agreement with the lead agency. 

Corridor: A wide strip of land within which a proposed linear facility could be located. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President of the United 

States established by the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews Federal 

programs for their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the 

president on environmental matters. 

Critical Habitat. For listed species: Consists of 1) the specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 

of the Endangered Species Act, on which are found those physical or biological features 

(constituent elements) a) essential to the conservation of the species and b) which may require 

special management considerations or protection; and 2) specific areas outside the geographical 

are occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 

of the Endangered Species Act upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the species. Designated critical habitats are described in 50 

CFR§ 17 and 226. 

Crucial Habitat. Habitat on which a species depends for survival because there are no 

alternative ranges or habitats available. 

Crucial Winter Habitat (Range): Parts of the habitat necessary to sustain a wildlife population 

at critical periods of its life cycle. This is often a limiting factor on the populations, such as 

breeding habitat, winter habitat, etc. 

Cryptobiotic (Cryptogrammic) Soils: Biological communities that form a surface layer or crust 

on some soils. These communities consist of cyanobacteria (blue-green bacteria), micro fungi, 

mosses, lichens, and green algae and perform many important functions, including fixing 

nitrogen and carbon, maintaining soil surface stability, and preventing erosion. Crypto biotic 

crusts also influence the nutrient levels of soils and the status and germination of plants in the 

desert. These crusts are slow to recover after severe disturbance, requiring 40 years of more to 

recolonize even small areas. 

Cultural Resources: Nonrenewable elements of the physical and human environment including 

archeological remains (evidence of prehistoric or historic human activities) and sociocultural 

values traditionally held by ethnic groups (sacred places, traditionally utilized raw materials, 

etc.). 

Cultural Site: Any location that includes prehistoric and/or historic evidence of human use or 

that has important sociocultural value. 

Cumulative Impact: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

X-33 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

Current Habitat: habitat currently occupied by a species during the development of the plan. 

Desired Condition: Description of those factors, which should exist within ecosystems both to 

maintain their survival and to meet social and economic needs. 

Development Well: A well drilled within the known or proven productive area of an oil field 

with expectation of producing oil or gas from the producing reservoir. 

Discretionary Closure: Those lands where the BLM has determined that fluid minerals leasing, 

even with the most restrictive stipulations, would not adequately protect other resources, values, 

or land uses. 

Dispersed/Extensive Recreation: Recreation activities of an unstructured type, which are not 

confined to specific locations such as recreation sites. Example of these activities may be 

hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, hiking, and sightseeing. 

Disturbance Area: Area of influence around a disturbance causing a change in animal behavior 

such as: leaving the area, increased stress, abandoning young, not breeding, and aberrant 

behavior. 

Drought: Drought is a protracted period of deficient precipitation resulting in extensive damage 

to crops, resulting in loss of yield. 

Easement: A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another's real property for 

access or other purposes. 

Endangered Species: A plant or animal species whose prospects for survival and reproduction 

are in immediate jeopardy, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior, and as is further 

defined by the Endangered Species Act. 

Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public document that analyzes the environmental 

impacts of a proposed federal action and provides sufficient evidence to determine the level of 

significance of the impacts. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act when an agency proposes a major federal action significantly affecting 

the quality of the human environment. 

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological 

agents. 

Exclusion Area: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way , leases, and 

easements would not be authorized. 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA): An area where significant recreation 

opportunities and problems are limited and explicit recreation management is not required. 

Minimal management actions related to the BLM's stewardship responsibilities are adequate in 

these areas. 

Fawning Habitat: an area where big game animals usually give birth during a specific time of 

year. 

X-34 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA): Public Law 94-579. October 

21, 1976, often referred to as the BLM's "Organic Act," which provides the majority of the 

BLM's legislated authority, direction, policy, and basic management guidance. 

Federal Register: A daily publication, which reports Presidential and Federal Agency 

documents. 

Fire Management Plan: A strategic plan that defines a program to manage wild land and 

prescribed fires and documents the fire management program in the approved land use plan; the 

plan is supplemented by operational procedures such as preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch 

plans, prescribed fire plans, and prevention plans. 

Floodplain: The relatively flat area or lowlands adjoining a body of standing or flowing water, 

which has been or might be covered by floodwater. 

Fluid Minerals: Oil and gas resources. 

Focus Area: A recreation management zone that emphasizes particular types of recreation 

activities. 

Fossil: Mineralized or petrified form from a past geologic age, especially from previously living 

things. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer system capable of storing, analyzing, and 

displaying data and describing places on the earth's surface. 

Goal: A broad statement of a desired outcome. Goals are usually not quantifiable and may not 

have established time frames for achievement. 

Grandfather (to): To exempt groups or individuals from provisions of laws or regulations 

because of preexisting conditions, such as exempting mining operations existing before new 

mining regulations are implemented from provisions of those new regulations. 

Grazing System: The manipulation of livestock grazing to accomplish a desired result. 

Guidelines: Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, 

sometimes expressed as best management practices. Guidelines may be identified during the land 

use planning process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan 

specifies that they are mandatory. 

Habitat: A specific set of physical conditions that surround a species, group of species, or a 

large community. In wildlife management, the major constituents of habitat are considered to be 

food, water, cover, and living space. 

Habitat Fragmentation: The disruption (by division) of extensive habitats into smaller habitat 

patches. The effects of habitat fragmentation include loss of habitat area and the creation of 

smaller, more isolated patches of remaining habitat. 

Historic Habitat: habitat occupied by a species prior to the development of this plan. 

Impact: A modification of the existing environment caused by an action. These environmental 

consequences are the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives. Effects may 

be either direct, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, or indirect, 

X-35 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable, or cumulative. 

Implementation Decisions: Decisions that take action to implement land use plan decisions. They 

are generally appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Implementation Plan: A site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use 

plan. An implementation plan usually selects and applies best management practices to meet land 

use plan objectives. Implementation plans are synonymous with "activity" plans. Examples of 

implementation plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat management plans, 

and allotment management plans. 

Indian Tribe: Any Indian group in the conterminous United States that the Secretary of the 

Interior recognizes as possessing tribal status. 

Interdisciplinary Team: A group of individuals with different training, representing the 

physical sciences, social sciences, and environmental design arts, assembles to solve a problem 

or perform a task. The members of the team proceed to a solution with frequent interaction so 

that each discipline may provide insights to any stage of the problem and disciplines may 

combine to provide new solutions. The number and disciplines of the members preparing the 

plan vary with circumstances. A member may represent one or more disciplines or BLM 

program interests. 

Lambing Habitat: An area where bighorn sheep deliver and nurse young during a specific time 

of year. 

Land Use Allocation: The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable 

development that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based 

on desired future conditions. 

Land Use Plan: A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an 

administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of 

land-use-plan-level decisions developed through the planning process, regardless of the scale at 

which the decisions were developed. 

Land Use Plan Decision: Establishes desired outcomes and the actions needed to achieve them. 

Decisions are reached using the BLM planning process. When they are presented to the public as 

proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not appealable to 

Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Leasable Minerals: Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920. They include coal, phosphate, sulphur, potassium, and sodium minerals, 

and oil, gas, and geothermal. 

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. 

X-36 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

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 Roads and Trails Designation: Designated areas where the use of off-road vehicles is 

subject to restrictions, such as limiting the number or types or vehicles allowed, dates and times 

of use (seasonal restrictions), and limiting all use to designated roads and trails. Under the 

designated roads and trails designation, use would be allowed only on roads and trails that are 

signed for use. Combinations of restrictions are possible, such as limiting use to certain types of 

vehicles during certain times of the year. 

Locatable Minerals: Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking 

mining claims as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of 

gold, silver, and other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale. 

Management Decision: A decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management 

decisions are made on both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions. 

Management Opportunities: A component of the analysis of the management situation; actions 

or management directions that could be taken to resolve issues or management concerns. 

Mechanized Travel: Travel by use of a machine, either motorized or non-motorized. 

Mineral Entry: The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any minerals it may 

contain. 

Mineral Estate: The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations. 

Mineral Materials: Materials such as common varieties of sand, stone, building stone, gravel, 

and clay that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be acquired under 

the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended. These are also called salable minerals. 

Mineral Reserves: Known mineral deposits that are recoverable under present conditions but are 

as yet undeveloped. 

Mineral Withdrawal: A formal order that withholds federal lands and minerals from entry 

under the Mining Law of 1872 and closes the area to mineral location (staking mining claims) 

and development. 

Minimize: To reduce the adverse impact of an operation to the lowest practical level. 

Mining Claim: A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having 

acquired the right of possession by complying with the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, and 

local laws and rules. A single mining claim may contain as many adjoining locations as the 

locator may make or buy. 

Mitigation Measures: Methods or procedures that reduce or lessen the impacts of an action. 

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 

X-37 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

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, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific 

and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources 

without permanent impairment of the productivity of the lands and the quality of the 

environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not 

necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or greatest unit 

output. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): An act that encourages productive and 

enjoyable harmony between man and his environment and promotes efforts to prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; 

enriches the understanding or the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 

Nation, and establishes the Council on Environmental Quality. 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: A system of nationally designated rivers and their 

immediate environments that have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, 

historic, cultural, and other similar values and are preserved in a free-flowing condition. The 

system consists of three river classifications: (1) recreation-rivers or sections of rivers that are 

readily accessible by road or railroad and that may have some development along their shorelines 

and may have undergone some impoundments or diversion in the past, (2) scenic-rivers or 

sections of rivers free of impoundments with shorelines or watersheds still largely undeveloped 

but accessible in places by roads, and (3) wild-rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments 

and generally inaccessible except by trails, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive 

and waters unpolluted. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds: Birds that travel to Central America, South America, the 

Caribbean, and Mexico during the fall to spend the winter and then return to the United States 

and Canada During the spring to breed. These birds include almost half of the bird species that 

breed in the United States and Canada. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO): A 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. 

Non-mechanized Travel: Travel by foot or on an animal. 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Undeveloped federal land that has been 

inventoried and/or reviewed by a BLM interdisciplinary team and determined to possess 

wilderness characteristics such as those listed in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

These lands do not possess special management designations like WSAs or protective 

management measures such as the IMP. 

Noxious Weeds: A plant species designated by Federal of State law as generally possessing one 

or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or 

host of serious insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States. 

X-38 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Objective: A description of a desired condition for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and 

measured and, where possible, have established time frames for achievement. 

Occupied Habitat: An area occupied by a species during the development of this plan. 

Open: Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific 

program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV): Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or 

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any nonamphibious 

registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being 

used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the 

authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any 

combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies. 

One-Hundred-Year Flood: A hydrologic event with a magnitude that has a recurrence interval 

of 100 years. 

Open OHV Areas: Designated areas where off-road vehicles may engage in cross country 

travel. 

Operator: Any person who has taken formal responsibility for the operations conducted on the 

leased lands. 

Outstandingly Remarkable River Values: Values between those listed in Section 1(b) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are "scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, 

cultural, or other similar values..." Other similar values, which may be considered, include 

botanical, hydrological, paleontological, or scientific. Professional judgment is used to determine 

whether values exist to an outstandingly remarkable degree. 

Paleontological Resources (Fossils): The physical remains of plants and animals preserved in 

soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are important for understanding 

past environments, environmental change, and the evolution of life. 

Paleontology: A science dealing with the life forms of past geological periods as known from 

fossil remains. 

Plan of Development: A mandatory plan, developed by an applicant of a mining operation or 

construction project that specifies the techniques and measures to be used during construction 

and operation of all project facilities on public land. The plan is submitted for approval to the 

appropriate Federal agency before any construction begins. 

Plan of Operations: A plan for mining exploration and development that an operation must 

submit to BLM for approval when more than 5 acres a year will be disturbed or when an operator 

plans to work in an area of critical environmental concern or a wilderness area. A plan of 

Operations must document in detail all actions that the operator plans to take from exploration 

through reclamation. 

Planning Area: A geographical area, including all land ownerships, for which BLM land use 

and resource management plans are developed and maintained for the BLM-administered lands 

within that geographical area. 

X-39 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Planning Criteria: The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and 

interdisciplinary teams for their use in forming judgments about decision making, analysis, and 

data collection during planning. Planning criteria streamline and simplify the resource 

management planning actions. 

Potential Wild and Scenic River: A flowing body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or 

tributary thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, rills, and small lakes. 

Prescribed Fire: The introduction of fire to an area under regulated conditions for specific 

management purposes. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Non-motorized, non-mechanized and undeveloped 

types of recreational activities. 

Production Well: A well drilled in a known field that produces oil or gas. 

Project Area: The area of land upon which an operator conducts mining operations, including 

the area needed for building or maintaining of roads, transmission lines, pipelines, or other 

means of access. 

Project Plan: Detailed survey and design plan. 

Public Land: Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf, 

and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

Quarry: An open or surface working, usually for the extraction of stone, slate, limestone, etc. 

Range Development: A structure, excavation, treatment or development to rehabilitate, protect, 

or improve lands to advance range betterment. 

Rangeland: Land used for grazing by livestock and big game animals on which vegetation is 

dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs. 

Raptor: Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks such as hawks, owls, vultures, 

and eagles. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD): The prediction of the type and amount 

of oil, gas and other mineral activity that would occur in a given area. The prediction is based on 

geologic factors, past history of drilling, projected demand for oil and gas, and industry interest. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision 

that was preceded by the preparing of an environmental impact statement. 

Recreational River: A wild and scenic river classification that identifies those rivers are river 

segments that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along 

their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Relict: A remnant or fragment of the vegetation of an area that remains from a former period 

when the vegetation was more widely distributed. 

Resource Management Plan (RMP): A land use plan as prescribed by the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act which establishes, for a given area of land, land-use allocations, 

coordination guidelines for multiple-use, objectives and actions to be achieved. 

X-40 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Right-of-Way (ROW): A ROW grant is an authorization to use a specific piece of public land 

for a specific project, such as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and renewable energy and 

communication sites. The grant authorizes rights and privileges for a specific use of the land for 

a specific period of time. 

Riparian Area: A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and 

upland areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the 

influence of permanent surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas include lands along, 

adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial 

potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are ephemeral 

streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil. 

Riparian-Functioning at Risk (FAR): Riparian-wetland areas are considered to be in 

functioning condition, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible 

to degradation. 

Riparian-Non-Functioning (NF): Riparian-wetland areas that are clearly not providing 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large wood debris to dissipate stream energy associated with 

high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc. 

Riparian-Properly Functioning Condition (PFC): Riparian/wetland areas are in PFC when 

adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris is present to: dissipate high-energy water flow, 

filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve floodwater retention 

and groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks; develop diverse 

fluvial geomorphology (pool and channel complexes) to provide habitat for wildlife and support 

greater biodiversity 

Rock Art: Petroglyphs or pictographs. 

Route: A linear line for motorized travel. 

Rutting Habitat: An area where big game species engage in breeding activities during specific 

times of the year. 

Salable Minerals: Common variety minerals on the public lands, such as sand and gravel, which 

are used mainly for construction and are disposed of by sales or special permits to local 

governments. Also referred to as mineral materials. 

Scenic Byways: Highway routes, which have roadsides or corridors of special aesthetic, cultural, 

or historic value. An essential part of the highway is its scenic corridor. The corridor may contain 

outstanding scenic vistas, unusual geologic features, or other natural elements. 

Scoping: The process of identifying the range of issues, management concerns, preliminary 

alternatives, and other components of an environmental impact statement or land-use planning 

document. It involves both internal and public viewpoints. 

Section 7 Consultation: The requirement of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that all 

federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries 

Service if a proposed action might affect a federally listed species or its critical habitat. 

Section 106 Compliance: The requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act that any project funded, licensed, permitted, or assisted by the Federal Government by 

X-41 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

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. 

Sensitive Species: All species that are under status review, have small or declining populations, 

live in unique habitats, or need special management. Sensitive species include threatened, 

endangered, and proposed species as classified by the Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

Significant: An effect that is analyzed in the context of the proposed action to determine the 

degree or magnitude of importance of the effect, wither beneficial or adverse. The degree of 

significance can be related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively 

significant impacts. 

Slope: The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal. 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA): Areas, which require explicit recreation 

management to achieve recreation objectives and provide specific recreation opportunities. 

Special Status Species: Includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under 

the Endangered Species Act; State-listed species; and BLM State Director-designated sensitive 

species (see BLM Manual 6840-Special Status Species Policy). 

Stipulations: Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. Some stipulations are 

standard on all Federal leases. Other stipulations may be applied to the lease at the discretion of 

the surface management agency to protect valuable surface resources and uses. 

Strategic Plan: A plan that establishes the overall direction for the BLM. This plan is guided by 

the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act or 1993, covers a 5-year 

period, and is updated every 3 years. It is consistent with FLPMA and other laws affecting the 

public lands. 

Surface Disturbance: activities that normally result in more than negligible disturbance to 

public lands and that accelerate the natural erosive process. These activities normally involve use 

and/or occupancy of the surface, cause disturbance to soils and vegetation, and are usually 

caused by motorized or mechanical actions. Surface disturbance may result from activities using 

earth-moving and drilling equipment; geophysical exploration; off road vehicle travel; vegetation 

treatments; the use of pyrotechnics and explosives; and construction of facilities like powerlines, 

pipelines, oil and gas wells, recreation sites, livestock facilities, wildlife waters, or new roads. 

Surface disturbance is not normally caused by casual use. Activities that are not typically surface 

disturbing include, but are not limited to, proper livestock grazing, cross-country hiking, 

minimum impact filming and vehicle travel on designated routes. 

Sustainability: The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, 

biological diversity, and productivity over time. 

Threatened Species: Any plant or animal species defined under the Endangered Species Act as 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range; listings are published in the Federal Register. 

X-42 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Timing Limitation Stipulation: A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits surface use 

during specified time periods to protect identified resource values. The constraint does not apply 

to the operation and maintenance of production facilities unless analysis demonstrates that such 

constraints are needed and that less stringent, project-specific constraints would be insufficient. 

Undertaking: (16 USC Sec. 470w(7)) A project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part 

under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on 

behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a 

Federal permit, license or approval; and those subject to State or local regulation administered 

pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency. 

User Day: Any calendar day, or portion thereof, for each individual accompanied or serviced by 

an operator or permittee on the public lands of related waters; synonymous with passenger day or 

participant day. 

Utility Corridor: A parcel of land that has been identified by law, Secretarial order, through a 

land use plan or by other management decision as being the preferred location for existing and 

future right-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate one type of right-of-way or one or more 

rights-of-way which are similar, identical or compatible. 

Valid Existing Rights: Valid existing rights are legal rights to use the land that were in existence 

prior to implementation of the decisions in the RMP. The most significant types of valid existing 

rights are oil and gas leases, potash and salt leases, mining claims, and right-of-way 

authorizations. The oil and gas leasing stipulations specified for specific areas in the RMP would 

not apply to existing leases. These existing leases would be subject to the specific lease 

stipulations that were applied under the previous land use plan. Mining claims that exist on the 

effective day of a withdrawal may still be valid if they can meet the test of discovery of a 

valuable mineral required under the Mining Laws. An existing right-of-way would only be 

subject to the specific terms and conditions that were applied when it was authorized even if it is 

located within a right-of-way exclusion or avoidance area specified under the RMP. 

Vegetation Manipulation: Alteration of vegetation by using fire, plowing, or other means. 

Vegetation Type: A plant community with distinguishable characteristics described by the 

dominant vegetation present. 

Visual Resources: The visible physical features of a landscape (topography, water, vegetation, 

animals, structures, and other features) that constitute the scenery of an area. 

Waiver: Permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies 

anywhere within the leasehold. 

Water Quality: The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to 

its suitability for a particular use. 

Watershed: All lands, which are enclosed by a continuous hydrologic drainage, divide and lay 

upslope from a specified point on a stream. 

Way: A vehicle route within a wilderness study area that was in existence and identified during 

the FLPMA Section 603-mandated wilderness inventory. The Interim Management Policy for 

Lands under Wilderness Review (H-8550-1) defines a way as "a trace maintained solely by the 

passage of vehicles which has not been improved and/or maintained by mechanical means to 

X-43 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

ensure relatively regular and continuous use." The term is also used during wilderness inventory 

to identify routes that are not roads. The term developed from the definition of the term 

"roadless" provided in the Wilderness Inventory Handbook (September 27, 1978), as follows: 

"roadless: refers to the absence of roads which have been improved and maintained by 

mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by 

the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road." 

Wild, Scenic or Recreational River: The three classes of what is traditionally referred to as a 

"Wild and Scenic River." Designated river segments are classified as wild, scenic and/or 

recreational, but the segments cannot overlap. 

Wild, and Scenic River Study: Rivers identified in Section 5 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

for study as potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The rivers shall 

be studied under the provisions of Section 4 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Wilderness Study Area: A roadless area or island of undeveloped federal land that has been 

inventoried and found to possess wilderness characteristics described under Title VI, Section 603 

of FLPMA and Section 2C of the Wilderness Act of 1964. These characteristics are: (1) 

generally appears to have been affected mainly by the forces of nature, with human imprints 

substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is large enough to make practicable 

its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, 

geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value.

Wilderness: A congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation that is 

protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions as described in Section 2A of the 

Wilderness Act of 1964.

Wilderness Characteristics: 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). Key 

characteristics of wilderness listed in section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 were used by 

BLM in conducting wilderness inventories. These characteristics are features of land associated 

with the concept of wilderness.

Wildfire: Any unwanted wild land fire. 

Wildland Fire: Any nonstructural fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wild land. 

Winter Range. The portion of the winter range to which a wildlife species is confined during 

periods of heaviest snow cover. 

Withdrawal: An action that restricts the use of public lands by removing them from the 

operation of some or all of the public land or mining laws. 

X-44 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

Woodland: A forest community occupied primarily by noncommercial species such as juniper, 

mountain mahogany, or quaking aspen groves; all western juniper forestlands are classified as 

woodlands, since juniper is classified as a noncommercial species. 

X-45 
Moab PRMP/FEIS Acronyms and Glossary 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

X-46 
REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for 

Hydrogen Sulfide. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Anyon, Roger. 1995. Letter to the Editor. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 13(5). 

Armour, C., D. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1994. The effects of livestock grazing on western riparian 

and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 19: 9-12. 

Atwood, D., J. Holland, R. Bolander, B. Franklin, D. E. House, L. Armstrong, K. Thorne, and L. 

England. 1991. Utah Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Field Guide. Bureau of 

Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

Atwood, G., and H. H. Doelling. 1982. History of Paradox Salt Deformation. Utah Geological 

and Mineral Survey Notes, Volume 16, No. 2. Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Bearnson, Margaret S. 1994. Moab [online publication]. Utah History Encyclopedia, University 

of Utah Press. [Last Accessed June 18, 2007]. Available at http://www.media.utah.edu/ 

UHE/m/MOAB.html. 

Belsky, A. Joy, and Dana M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics 

and soils in upland forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology 11(2):315-327. 

Bon, R. L., and Sharon Wakefield. 2002a. Map of large mine permits in Utah, 2002. In Utah 

Geological Survey Open File Report 398, 3 p., 1 pl. Approximate scale 1" = 14 miles. 

Bon, R. L., and Sharon Wakefield. 2002b. Map of small mine permits in Utah, 2002. In Utah 

Geological Survey Open File Report 405, 7 p., 1 pl. Approximate scale 1:750,000. 

Brown, P. E. 1996. A survey for bats of the Soledad Mountain project, Mojave, Kern County, 

California [online publication]. Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 

Sacramento. [Accessed April 13, 2005]. Available at http://www.ca.blm.gov/ 

GoldenQueen/pub-biob.htm. 

Brugge, D. 1983. Navajo Prehistory and History to 1850. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 

489-501. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10, W. Sturtevant, general ed. 

Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. 

Buckles, W. 1971. The Uncompahgre Complex: Historic Ute Archaeology and Prehistoric 

Archaeology of the Uncompahgre Plateau, West Central Colorado. PhD dissertation, 

Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado. University Microfilms, Ann 

Arbor. 

Buechner, H. K. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States: Its past, present and future. 

Wildlife Monograph 4. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2005. Regional Economic Accounts [online database]. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. [Accessed December 21, 

2005]. Available at http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/definitions/nextpage.cfm?key= 

Per%20capita%20personal%20income. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1979. Desolation and Gray Canyons of the Green River 

Management Plan [online publication]. Bureau of Land Management, Price River 

Resource Area, Moab District, Moab, Utah. [Last Accessed June 15, 2007]. Available at 

http://www.ut.blm.gov/planning/OTHERS/DESOGRP%20JUNE%201979.PDF. 

BLM. 1982. Management Situation Analysis for the Grand Resource Area. Bureau of Land 

Management, Grand Resource Area, Moab District, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1985a. Grand Resource Area Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab District, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1985b. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Book Cliffs Resource Management 

Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Vernal District, Vernal, Utah. July. 

BLM. 1985c. Grand Junction Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction District, 

Grand Junction, Colorado. 

BLM. 1985d. San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Montrose District, Montrose, Colorado. 

BLM. 1985e. Energy and Mineral Resources Assessment. Rel. 3-115. BLM Manual 3031. 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. June 19. 

BLM. 1986a. Statewide Desert Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 1986b. Visual Resource Contrast Rating. BLM Handbook H-8431-1. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 1987. Uncompahgre Basin Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Uncompahgre District, Montrose, Colorado. 

BLM. 1989a. San Rafael Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Bureau of Land Management, San Rafael District, Price, Utah. July. 

BLM. 1989b. Planning Criteria for Land Tenure Adjustments, Exchanges, Acquisitions, and 

Disposals: An Amendment to the 1985 Grand Resource Area Resource Management 

Plan. Bureau of Land Management. Moab District, Moab, Utah. February. 

BLM. 1990. Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land 

Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 1991a. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 

Thirteen Western States. BLM-WY-91-022-4320. Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne. May. 

X-2 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

BLM. 1991b. Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990s. BLM/WO/GI-91/001+4340. Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, Colorado. 

BLM. 1991c. Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City. October. 

BLM. 1992a. Environmental Assessment: Utah's Colorado Riverway Recreation Area 

Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1992b. Visual Resource Management. BLM Manual 8400. Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 1993a. Diamond Mountain Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Vernal District, Vernal, Utah. March. 

BLM. 1993b. Bighorn Sheep Rangeland Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Moab 

Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1993c. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. TR-1737-9. Bureau of Land 

Management, Proper Functioning Condition Work Group, Denver. 

BLM. 1993d. Greater Sagers Wash Watershed Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1994a. Sand Flats Recreation Area Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1994b. Mineral Reports, Preparation and Review. Rel. 3-284. BLM Manual 3060. Bureau 

of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 1995. Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review. BLM Handbook 

H-8550-1. Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento. 

BLM. 1997a. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management of BLM 

Lands in Utah. BLM-UT-GI-97-001-4000. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City. May. 

BLM. 1997b. Environmental Impact Statement for Lisbon Valley Copper Project, San Juan 

County, Utah. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 1998a. Revised Guidelines for Domestic Sheep and Goat Management in Native Wild 

Sheep Habitats. Instruction Memorandum No. 98-140. Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 1998b. General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management. BLM 

Handbook H-8270-1. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 1998c. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting 

Science for Lotic Areas. TR-1737-15. Bureau of Land Management, Proper Functioning 

Condition Work Group, Denver. 

BLM. 1999. Utah Wilderness Inventory. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt 

Lake City. 

X-3 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

BLM. 2000. Soils Suitability Extension (SSE), v1.0. An ArcView tool developed by the BLM 

for the management of soils. Bureau of Land Management, National Science and 

Technology Center, Denver. 

BLM. 2001a. Colorado Riverway Special Recreation Area Management Plan Amendment. EA # 

UT-062-99-151. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2001b. Mill Creek Canyon Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field 

Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2001c. Questar, Williams and Kern River Pipeline Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

State # 01-533. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 2001d. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. TR 1730-2. Bureau of Land 

Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver. 

BLM. 2002a. Preparation Plan for the Moab Field Office Resource Management Plan. Bureau of 

Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2002b. Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Recreation Management for 

BLM Lands in Utah [online publication]. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City. [Last Accessed June 15, 2007]. Available at http://www.ut.blm. 

gov/Recreation/recstandards.html. 

BLM. 2002c. Environmental Justice. Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-164. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. May. 

BLM. 2002d. Draft BLM Sensitive Plant Species List. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City. 

BLM. 2002e. Forest and Woodland Management Action Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2003a. Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado 

Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness. Bureau of 

Land Management, Grand Junction Field Office, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

BLM. 2003b. Canyon Rims Recreation Area Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2003c. Moab Field Office Visual Resource Inventory Map. Bureau of Land Management, 

Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2003d. Socioeconomic Profile - Pinedale. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field 

Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. January. 

BLM. 2003e. Native American Coordination and Consultation. BLM Manual 8160. Bureau of 

Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 2003f. General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation. BLM Handbook 

H-8160-1. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

X-4 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

BLM. 2004a. Moab Field Office Land Ownership (Memorandum). Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2004b. Three Rivers Withdrawal. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, 

Moab, Utah and Price Field Office, Price, Utah. 

BLM. 2004c. National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. November. 

BLM. 2004d. Moab Field Office Analysis of Management Situation. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2004e. Moab Field Office Social and Economic Baseline Study. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. April. 

BLM. 2004f. Relevance and Importance Evaluations of Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) Nominations. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2004g. Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Eligibility Determination, Moab Field Office. 

Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2004h. Email of development scenario questionnaire (developed by BLM NSTC-AQ 

staff), from Dave Moore, BLM, Vernal Field Office, to Craig Nicholls, BLM, April 12. 

BLM. 2005a. Land Use Planning Handbook. BLM Handbook H-1601-1. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 2005b. Cameo Cliffs Special Recreation Management Area Plan. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2005c. Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management, September. UTUSO-04-01 [online publication]. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt 

Lake City. [Last Accessed June 15, 2007]. Available at 

http://www.ut.blm.gov/fireplanning/ LUPEAFire92605FINAL.pdf 

BLM. 2005d. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Implementation of a 

Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. June. 

BLM. 2005e. Mineral Potential Report for the Moab Planning Area, Grand and San Juan 

Counties, Utah. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. August. 

BLM. 2005f. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2005g. Land and Mineral Records – LR2000 System Data [online database]. Bureau of 

Land Management, Washington, D.C. [Accessed January 15, 2005]. http://www.blm.gov/ 

lr2000/. 

BLM. 2005h. The Ancestral Pueblos (Anasazi) [website]. Anasazi Heritage Center, Bureau of 

Land Management, Colorado State Office. [Accessed December 14, 2005]. Available at 

http://www.co.blm.gov/ahc/anasazi.htm#Who. 

X-5 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

BLM. 2005i. Summary Data for Bureau of Land Management. Appendix D in Recreational Fee 

Demonstration Program Annual Report, FY 2003. Department of the Interior and 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 2006a. Normal Year Fire Rehabilitation and Stabilization Plan. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM. 2006b. Moab Fire District Fire Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Moab 

Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

BLM 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Record of Decision. USDI BLM. FES 

07-21. 

BLM 2007b. Final Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Report. USDI BLM. FES 0721. 

BLM 2007a. Northeast National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska Draft Supplemental Integrated 

Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. USDOI BLM, August 2007. Available 

at: http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/npra_general/ne_npra/ne_npra_supplement.html. 

Butler, B. S., G. F. Loughlin, V. C. Heikes, and others. 1920. The Ore Deposits of Utah. U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 111. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Chaneton, E. J., and R. S. Lavado. 1996. Soil nutrients and salinity after long-term grazing 

exclusions in a Flooding Pampa grassland. Journal of Rangeland Management

49(2):182-187. 

Chatman, M. L. 1987. Mineral Resources of the Black Ridge Canyons (CO-070-113), Black 

Ridge Canyons West (CO-070-113A/UT-060-1166/117), and Westwater Canyon (UT060-118) Wilderness Study Areas, Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah. 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Open-File Report MLA 44-87. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, 

D.C. 

Chenoweth, W. L. 1981. The Uranium and Vanadium Deposits of the Uravan Mineral Belt and 

Adjacent Areas, Colorado and Utah. New Mexico Geological Society Thirty-second 

Field Conference. New Mexico Geological Society, Socorro. 

Chenoweth, W. L. 1989. Uranium Deposits of the Canyonlands Area. Four Corners Geological 

Society Guidebook, Eighth Field Conference. Four Corners Geological Society, Durango, 

Colorado. 

Chenoweth, W. L. 1996. The Uranium Industry in the Paradox Basin. In Geology and Resources 

of the Paradox Basin – 1996 Special Symposium: Utah Geological Association and Four 

Corners Geological Society Guidebook 25, edited by A. C. Huffman, Jr., W. R. Lund, 

and L. H. Godwin, pp. 95-108. Utah Geological Association and Four Corners 

Geological Society. 

Clark, W. D., and J. R. Karr. 1979. Effects of highways on red-winged blackbird and horned lark 

populations. Wilson Bulletin 91: 143-145. 

X-6 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Connelly, John W., Michael A. Schroeder, Alan R. Sands, and Clait E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines 

to Manage Sage Grouse Populations and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 

967–985. 

Connelly, John W., Steven T. Knick, Michael A. Schroeder, and San J. Stiver. 2004. 

Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Constellation Copper Corporation (Constellation Copper). 2006. News Releases [internet 

website]. Constellation Copper Corporation. [Accessed March 2006]. Available at 

http://www.summominerals.com/press.html. 

Cowardin, L. W., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. 

Crawford, J. A., R. A. Olson, N. E. West, J. C. Mosley, M. A. Schroeder, T. D. Whitson, R. F. 

Miller, M. A. Gregg, and C. S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and 

sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Rangeland Management 57(1): 2-19. 

CRCT Task Force. 2001. Conservation agreement and strategy for Colorado River cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. 

Dames & Moore. 1978. Inventory and market analysis of the potash resources of the Paradox 

Basin. Job No. 08699-011. Prepared by Dames & Moore, Salt Lake City. Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. 

Dane, C. H. 1935. Geology of the Salt Valley Anticline and Adjacent Areas, Grand County, 

Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 863. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Department of Energy (DOE). 2003. Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public 

Lands. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 

DOE. 2005. Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, 

Utah, Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0355. Department of Energy, 

Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management (DOE and BLM). 2006. West-wide 

Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS Information Center: "Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in 11 Western 

States." DOE/EIS-0386 [internet website]. Department of Energy and Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. [Last Accessed June 15, 2007]. Available at http:// 

corridoreis.anl.gov/index.cfm. 

Desert Bighorn Council Technical Staff. 1990. Guidelines for management of domestic sheep in 

the vicinity of desert bighorn habitat. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 34:33-35. 

X-7 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Doelling, H. H. 1972a. Sego coal field. In Eastern and Northern Utah Coal Fields, compiled by 

H. H. Doelling and R. L. Graham, pp. 191-267. Utah Geological and Mineralogical 

Survey Monograph Series No. 2. Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, Salt Lake 

City. 

Doelling, H. H. 1972b. La Sal-San Juan coal fields. In Eastern and Northern Utah Coal Fields, 

compiled by H. H. Doelling and R. L. Graham, pp. 269-280. Utah Geological and 

Mineralogical Survey Monograph Series No. 2. Utah Geological and Mineralogical 

Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Doelling, H. H. 2002. Geologic map of the Moab and Eastern Part of San Rafael Desert 30' × 60' 

Quadrangle, Grand and Emery Counties, Utah, and Mesa County, Colorado. Utah 

Geological Survey Map 180. 3 sheets (scale 1:100,000). 

Doelling, H. H. 2004. Geologic map of the La Sal 30' × 60' Quadrangle, San Juan, Wayne and 

Garfield Counties, Utah, and Montrose and San Miguel Counties, Colorado. Utah 

Geological Survey Map 205. 2 sheets (scale 1:100,000). 

Doelling, H. H., A. D. Smith, F. D. Davis, and D. L. Hayhurst. 1979. Methane Content of Utah 

Coals. In Coal Studies, edited by Martha Smith, pp. 1-43. Utah Geological and Mineral 

Survey Special Studies 49. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Doelling, H. H., C. G. Oviatt, and P. W. Huntoon. 1988. Salt Deformation in the Paradox 

Region. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 122. Utah Geological and Mineral 

Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Draxler, R. R., and G. D. Hess. 1998. An overview of the HYSPLIT-4 modeling system for 

trajectories, dispersion and deposition. Australian Meteorological Magazine 47(4): 295–

308. 

Eckels, M. T., D. H. Suek, and P. J. Harrison. 2005. New, old plays in southern Uinta basin get 

fresh look with 3D seismic technology. Oil and Gas Journal 103(11):32-40. 

Edwards, T. C., Jr., C. G. Homer, S. D. Bassett, A. Falconer, R. D. Ramsey, and D. W. Wight. 

1995. Utah Gap Analysis: An Environmental Information System. Final Project Report 

95-1. Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State University, Logan. 

Eisinger, C., and C. Lowe. 1999. A Summary of the Ground Water Resources and Geohydrology 

of Grand County, Utah. Utah Geological Survey Circular. Utah Geological Survey, Salt 

Lake City. 

Elevatorski, E. A. 1978. Uranium Guidebook for the Paradox Basin, Utah-Colorado. Dana Point, 

California: Minobras. 

Ellis, M. S., and J. T. Hopeck. 1985. Geologic map showing coal beds in the Dakota Sandstone, 

Harley Dome quadrangle and parts of the Bitter Creek Well, Westwater 4 SE, and 

Westwater 4 SW quadrangles, Colorado and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Field Studies Map MF-1800. Approximate scale 1:50,000. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. 

Government [internet database]. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. 

[Accessed February 2, 2007]. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/. 

X-8 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Visibility in Mandatory Federal Class I Areas 

(1994-1998). Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

EPA. 2003a. Nonattainment Area Map [online database]. AIRData Homepage, Environmental 

Protection Agency. [Accessed April 11, 2003]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ 

nonat.html. 

EPA. 2003b. Monitoring Values Report [online database]. AIRData Homepage, Environmental 

Protection Agency. [Accessed July 2, 2003]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ 

monvals.html. 

EPA. 2003c. Visibility in our Nation's Parks and Wilderness Areas [internet website]. Visibility 

Homepage, Environmental Protection Agency. [Accessed May 22, 2008]. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/visibility/monitor.html. 

EPA. 2003d. Designated Sole Source Aquifers in Region VIII [online publication]. 

Environmental Protection Agency. [Last Accessed June 18, 2007]. Available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/qrg_ssamap_reg8.pdf. 

EPA. 2003e. STORET Legacy Data Center [online database]. Environmental Protection Agency. 

[Last Accessed June 18, 2007]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/storpubl/legacy/ 

gateway.htm. 

EPA. 2003f. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) [online database]. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [Accessed April 16, 

2006]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html. 

EPA. 2006. Chapter 1: External Combustion Sources, and Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources. In 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area 

Sources AP-42, Fifth Edition. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December. 

EPA. 2008. Emissions Factors & AP 42. Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for 

Inventories & Emissions Factors. Available at: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/. 

Ferguson, T. J. 1997. Hopi Reconnaissance of the Carlota Copper Project: Ethnohistoric 

Overview and Cultural Concerns. Available at SWCA Environmental Consultants, 

Tucson, Arizona. 

Ferguson, T. J., Kurt Dongoske, Leigh Jenkins, Mike Yeatts, and Eric Polingyouma. 1993. 

Working Together: The Roles of Archaeology and Ethnohistory in Hopi Cultural 

Preservation. CRM 16: 27-37. 

Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Niwot: 

Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 

Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. 

Conservation Biology 8(3): 629-644. 

X-9 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Fletcher, J. L. 1980. Effects of noise on wildlife: a review of relevant literature 1971-1978. In 

Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, 

edited by J. V. Tobias, G. Jansen, and W. D. Ward, 611-620. American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association, Rockville, Maryland. 

Fletcher, J. L. 1990. Review of noise and terrestrial species: 1983-1988. In Noise as a Public 

Health Problem Vol. 5: New Advances in Noise Research Part II, edited by B. Berglund 

and T. Lindvall, 181-188. Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm. 

Foreyt, W. J., and D. A. Jessup. 1982. Fatal pneumonia of bighorn sheep following association 

with domestic sheep. Journal of Wildlife Disease 18(2):163–168. 

Forman, R. T. T., and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 

Frid, A., and L. M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. 

Conservation Ecology 6(1): 11. 

Frison, G. 1978. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. New York: Academic Press. 

Galindo-Bect, M. S., and Glenn, E. P. 1999. Panaeid shrimp landing in the upper Gulf of 

California in relation to Colorado River freshwater discharge. Fishery Bulletin 98(1): 

222-225. 

Gautier, D. L., G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes. 1996. 1995 National Assessment 

of the United States Oil and Gas Resources – Results, Methodology, and Supporting 

Data. U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, release 2. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Gelbard, Jonathan L., and Jayne Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a 

semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):420–432. 

Gleason, R. S., and D. R. Johnson. 1985. Factors influencing nesting success of Burrowing Owls 

in southeastern Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 45:81-84. 

Gloyn, R. W. 2004. Uranium Potential in Utah. Unpublished report. Utah Geological Survey, 

Salt Lake City. 

Gloyn, R. W., C. D. Morgan, D. E. Tabet, R. E. Blackett, B. T. Tripp, and M. Lowe. 1995. 

Mineral, Energy, and Ground Water Resources of San Juan County, Utah. Geological 

Survey Special Study 86. Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 2007. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude 

Bands. Datasets and Images. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, Analysis Graphs and 

Plots. New York, New York. Available on the Internet: 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif. 

Goldhor-Wilcock, A., and B. Stevens. 2003. Economic Impact of Public Land Recreation and 

Tourism on Moab City and Grand County, Utah. Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C. 

X-10 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Grand County. 2004. Grand County General Plan Update. Prepared by Grand County, Moab, 

Utah. 

Grandison, K. W. 2004. Monitoring the effectiveness of bat compatible gates in the Silver Reef, 

East Reef and Tushar Mountain mining districts in southwestern Utah [online 

publication]. Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City. [Last 

Accessed June 20, 2007]. Available at http://www.blm.gov/aml/pdfs/ 

BLM2004SummaryReportUtahBat.pdf. 

Gualtieri, J. L. 2004. Geologic map of the Westwater 30' × 60' Quadrangle, Grand and Uintah 

Counties, Utah, and Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado. Utah Geological Survey 

Open File Report 441DM. 4 sheets (scale 1:100,000). 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee (GSRSC). 2005. Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Rangewide Conservation Plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. April. 

Hahn, Gregory, and Jon P. Thorson. 2002. Geology of the Lisbon Valley Sandstone-hosted 

Disseminated Copper Deposits, San Juan County, Utah. Unpublished manuscript. 

Available at Society of Economic Geologists, Littleton, Colorado. 

Hart, C. M., M. R. Gonzalez, E. P. Simpson, and S. H. Hurlbert. 1998. Salinity and fish effects 

on Salton Sea microecosystems: Zooplankton and nekton. Hydrobiologia 381: 129-152. 

Hart, E. Richard. 1993. The Fence Lake Mine Project: Archaeology as Traditional Cultural 

Property. CRM 16:38-41. 

Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In 

The Birds of North America, No. 61, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia: The 

Academy of Natural Sciences, and Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' 

Union. 

Hayden, M. 2003. UGS paleontology locality search for Grand County. Utah Geological Society, 

Salt Lake City. 

Hite, R. J. 1960. Stratigraphy of the saline facies of the Paradox Member of the Hermosa 

Formation of southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado. In Geology of the Paradox 

Fold and Fault Belt, Four Corners Geological Society Guidebook, Third Field 

Conference, pp. 86-89. Four Corners Geological Society, Durango, Colorado. 

Holmer, R. 1978. A Mathematical Typology for Archaic Projectile Points of the Eastern Great 

Basin. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 

Salt Lake City. 

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, North Carolina. 

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. 1995. Definition and Application of the TCP Concept for the 

Hopi Tribe. Available at Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, Kykotsmovi, Arizona. 

Horn, Jonathan C., Alan D. Reed, and Susan M. Chandler. 1994. Grand Resource Area Class I 

Cultural Resource Inventory. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose, Colorado. 

X-11 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Huffman, A. Curtis, Jr. 1996a. Paradox Basin Province (021). In 1995 National Assessment of 

United States Oil and Gas Resources—Results, Methodology, and Supporting Data, 

edited by D. L. Gautier, G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi and K. L. Vranes. U.S. Geological 

Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Huffman, A. Curtis, Jr. 1996b. Paradox Basin Province (021). In 1996 Digital Map Data, Text, 

and Graphical Images in Support of the 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil 

and Gas Resources, compiled by W. R. Beeman, R. C. Obuch, and J. D. Brewton. U.S. 

Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-35. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, 

D.C. 

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). 2006. Wildlife Crossings—Wild Animals and 

Roads [internet website]. Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. [Last 

Accessed June 20, 2007]. Available at http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_ 

wildlife/wildlife_crossings_wild_animals_and_roads/. 

IMPROVE. 2002. IMPROVE Optical Data Webpage [online database]. National Park Service 

and Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. [Last Accessed June 20, 2007]. Available at http://vista.cira. 

colostate.edu/ improve/Data/IMPROVE/Data_IMPOptical.htm. 

Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism (IORT). 2001. Utah River Study Results Report: 

Recreational Use, Value, and Experience of Boaters on Rivers Managed by the BLM in 

Utah. Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Basis (Summary for Policymakers). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England 

and New York, New York. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf. 

IORT. 2002. Slickrock Trail Mountain Bike Survey: Implications for Resource Managers and 

Area Communities. No. NR/RF/012. Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah 

State University Extension, Moab. 

Jackson, A. Lynn. 1983. Humates and their Development at Harley Dome: Utah, Grand Junction. 

In Geological Society – 1983 Field Trip, pp. 17-19. Utah Geological Society, Salt Lake 

City. 

Jackson, Lynn. 2003. Mancos Shale Dust Research Final Report. Document provided in an email 

to Yu Shan Huang, Trinity Consultants, on October 21, 2003. Bureau of Land 

Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

Jackson, M. K. 2000. Mineral Potential Report for the Shafer Canyon Wilderness Inventory 

Area. Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah. 

Jacobsen, S. L. 2005. Mitigation Measures for Highway-caused Impacts to Birds. General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 

Jessup, D. A. 1985. Diseases of domestic livestock which threaten bighorn sheep populations. 

Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 29:29-30. 

X-12 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Johnson, E. A. 2003. Geologic Assessment of the Phosphoria Total Petroleum System, UintaPiceance Province, Utah and Colorado. Chapter 9 in Petroleum Systems and Geologic 

Assessment of Oil and Gas in the Uinta-Piceance Province, Utah and Colorado, 

compiled by USGS Uinta-Piceance Assessment Team. U.S. Geological Survey Digital 

Data Series DDS-69-B. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Johnson, H. S., and William Thordarson. 1959. The Elk Ridge-White Canyon Channel System, 

San Juan County, Utah: Its Effects on Uranium Distribution. Economic Geology 54:119-

129. 

Johnson, M. G. 1973. Placer Gold Deposits of Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1357. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Katzenstein, A. S., L. A. Doezema, I. J. Simpson, D. R. Blake, and F. S. Rowland. 2003. 

Extensive regional atmospheric hydrocarbon pollution in the southwestern United States. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(21):11975–11979. 

Kauffman, J. D., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Effects of cattle grazing on riparian plant 

communities. Journal of Rangeland Management 36:683-685. 

Konrad, P. M., and D. S. Gilmer 1984. Observations on the nesting ecology of Burrowing Owls 

in central North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 16:129-30. 

Kufeld, R. C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Rangeland Management

26:106-113. 

Laronne, J. B. 1977. Dissolution Potential of Surficial Mancos Shale and Alluvium. Unpublished 

PhD dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 

Lentsch, L., and Y. Converse. 1997. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River 

Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the State of Utah. Publication 

Number 97-20. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

Leonard, S., G. Staidl, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, W. Hagenbuck, and D. Prichard. 1992. Riparian 

Area Management: Procedures for Ecological Site Inventory with Special Reference to 

Riparian-wetland Sites. BLM/SC/PT-92/004. Bureau of Land Management, Service 

Center, Denver, Colorado. 

Lewis, C. E., and T. J. Harshbarger. 1976. Shrub and herbaceous vegetation after 20 years of 

prescribed burning in the South Carolina Coastal Plain. Journal of Rangeland 

Management 29:13-18. 

Lloyd Levy Consulting. 2004. Job Generation in the Colorado Mountain Resort Economy: 

Second Homes and Other Economic Drivers in Eagle, Grand, Pitkin, and Summit 

Counties. Lloyd Levy Consulting, Denver, Colorado. 

Lowry Jr., J. H., R. D. Ramsey, K. Boykin, D. Bradford, P. Comer, S. Falzarano, W. Kepner, J. 

Kirby, L. Langs, J. Prior-Magee, G. Manis, L. O'Brien, T. Sajwaj, K. A. Thomas, W. 

Rieth, S. Schrader, D. Schrupp, K. Schulz, B. Thompson, C. Velasquez, C. Wallace, E. 

Waller and B. Wolk. 2005. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project: Final Report on 

Land Cover Mapping Methods. RS/GIS Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan. 

X-13 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Lyon, L. J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of 

Forestry 81:592-596. 

MacMahon, J. A. 1988. Introduction to Vegetation of Utah. In Atlas of the Vascular Plants of 

Utah, edited by B. J. Albee, L. M. Shultz, and S. Goodrich. Occasional Publication No. 7. 

Salt Lake City: Utah Museum of Natural History. 

Madsen, R. 1977. Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fremont. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic 

Series No. 6. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 

Martinsen, W., D. Paul, J. McCreary, F. P. Howe, T. Aldrich, J. R. Parrish, R. Berger, R. Player, 

S. Hedges, T. Wallace, J. Tuey, and D. Fagan. 2005. Coordinated Implementation Plan 

for Bird Conservation in Utah, Version 1.0. Utah Steering Committee, Intermountain 

West Joint Venture, Missoula, Montana. 

McFaul, E. J., G. T. Mason Jr., W. B. Ferguson, and B. R. Lipin. 2000. U.S. Geological Survey 

Mineral Databases—MRDS and MAS/MILS, U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 

DDS-52, 2 disks. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

McMurtrie, Deborah. 2002. Emission inventory data provided to Yu Shan Huang, Trinity 

Consultants, in a March 28 email. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake 

City. Forwarded by Teri Bateman, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake 

City. 

Merrell, H. W. 1979. Mineral Resource Inventory of the Paradox Salt Basin, Utah and Colorado. 

Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Report of Investigation No. 143. Utah Geological 

Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Molenaar, Molly R. 2003a. Utah Department of Transportation Highway 6 Improvement Project: 

Native American Consultation and the Identification of Traditional Cultural Properties. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City. 

Molenaar. 2003b. Stone Cabin 3D Seismic Survey Project: Native American Consultation and 

the Identification of Traditional Cultural Places. Prepared for Bill Barrett Corporation, 

Denver, Colorado. Submitted to Bureau of Land Management, Price Field Office, Price, 

Utah. 

Molenaar. 2003c. Native American Ethnographic Survey: Price and Vernal Resource 

Management Plans. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City. 

Monsen, Stephen B., Richard Stevens, and Nancy L. Shaw (compilers). 2004. Restoring Western 

Ranges and Wildlands. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-136-VOL-1. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Morgan, C. D. 1993. Paradox Basin Plays – Overview. In New Mexico Bureau of Mines and 

Mineral Resources Atlas of Major Rocky Mountain Gas Reservoirs, pp. 90-94. New 

Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Santa Fe. 

Morrow, L. A., and P. W. Stahlman. 1984. The history and distribution of downy brome in North 

America. Weed Science Supplement 32:2-6. 

X-14 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

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 at: http://dels.nas.edu/basc/ClimateHIGH.pdf. 

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004. Climate date for Utah [online database]. National 

Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. [Last Accessed 

June 20, 2007]. Available at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/city.html. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1974. Canyonlands National Park General Management Plan. 

National Park Service, Canyonlands National Park, Moab, Utah. 

NPS. 1979. Wild and Scenic River Study Final Environmental Statement, Colorado and Lower 

Dolores Wild and Scenic Rivers. National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, 

Colorado. September. 

NPS. 1989. General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan: Arches National Park, Utah. 

National Park Service, Arches National Park, Moab, Utah. 

NPS. 1995. Canyonlands National Park and Orange Cliffs Unit of Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area Backcountry Management Plan. National Park Service, Canyonlands 

National Park, Moab, Utah. 

NPS. 2003. Canyonlands National Park Long-range Interpretive Plan. National Park Service, 

Canyonlands National Park, Moab, Utah. 

NPS. 2006. Superintendent's Orders Established for Canyonlands National Park. Compendium 

on 36 CFR 1.7(b). National Park Service, Canyonlands National Park, Moab, Utah. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1981. Soil Survey of Grand County, Utah. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, 

D.C. 

NRCS. 1989. Grand Area Soil Survey – Central Part. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 

Nelson, S. M., and S. A. Flickinger. 1992. Salinity tolerance of colorado squawfish. 

Hydrobiologia 246: 162-168. 

Newton, Virginia. 1999. An Overview of Native American Land Use in East Central Utah, 

Grand, Emery, Carbon, Sanpete, and Utah Counties: The Aspen Products Pipeline 

Project. Cultural Resources Report No. 99-24. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt 

Lake City. 

Office of Pipeline Safety. 2005. Office of Pipeline Safety [internet website]. Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. [Last Accessed June 20, 

2007]. Available at http://ops.dot.gov/. 

Olff, H., and M. E. Ritchie. 1998. Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity. TREE

13(7):261-265. 

X-15 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Oliver, George V. 2000. The Bats of Utah: A Literature Review. UDWR Publication 00-14. Utah 

Natural Heritage Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

Parker, J. M. 1981. Lisbon Field Area, San Juan County, Utah. In Geology of the Paradox Basin, 

edited by D. L. Wiegand, pp. 89-100. 1981 Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists 

Field Conference. Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, Colorado. 

Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King. 1989. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 

Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register 38. National Park Service, Interagency 

Resources Division, Washington, D.C. 

Parrish, J. R., F. P. Howe, and R. Norvell. 2002. The Utah avian conservation strategy, version 

2.0. UDWR Publication No. 02-27. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

Patterson, Charles G. 1989. Mineral Resources of the Indian Creek, Bridger Jack Mesa, and 

Butler Wash Wilderness Study Areas, San Juan County, Utah. U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1754. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Perlman, Susan E. 1998. Traditional Cultural Properties Survey of the Mid-America Pipeline 

Company's Proposed Rocky Mountain Expansion Project, Northwestern New Mexico, 

Western Colorado, and Eastern Utah. Cultural Resource Report 98-163. SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. 

Pettit, Jan. 1990. Utes: The Mountain People. Boulder: Johnson Books. 

Piemeisel, R. L. 1951. Causes affecting change and rate of change in vegetation of annuals in 

Idaho. Ecology 32:53-72. 

Popolizio, C. A., H. Goetz, and P. L. Chapman. 1994. Short-term response of riparian vegetation 

to four grazing treatments. Journal of Rangeland Management 47: 48-53. 

Reed, Henry E. 1996. Limestone Exploration in the Paradox Basin. In Geology and Resources of 

the Paradox Basin, 1996 Special Symposium Guidebook 25. Utah Geological 

Association, Salt Lake City, and Four Corners Geological Society, Durango, Colorado. 

Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in 

woodland, 1: Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warblers breeding close to a 

highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 31: 85-94. 

Reiter, D., and D. Blahna. 2001. Utah River Study Results Report: Recreational Use, Value, and 

Experience of Boaters on Rivers Managed by the BLM in Utah. Institute for Outdoor 

Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan. 

Reiter, D., D. Blahna, and R. Von Koch. 1998. Off-highway Vehicle Four-wheeler Survey: A 

Summary Report of 1997 Moab Easter Jeep Safari Participants. Institute for Outdoor 

Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan. 

Roberts & Schaefer. 1996. Executive Report of the Revision to the Final Feasibility Study for the 

Lisbon Valley Copper Project Located in Lisbon Valley, Utah. Prepared by Roberts & 

Schaefer. Prepared for Summo USA Corporation. 

X-16 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Romin, L. A., and J. A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from 

Human and Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, 

Salt Lake City. 

Saab, V. A., C. E. Bock, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects in 

western North America. In Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds: A 

Synthesis and Review of Critical Issues, edited by T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, 311-353. 

London: Oxford University Press. 

San Juan County. 1996. San Juan County Master Plan. Prepared by San Juan County, 

Monticello, Utah. 

Sarr, D., R. A. Knapp, J. Owens, T. Balser, and T. Dudley. 1996. Ecosystem recovery from 

livestock grazing in the southern Sierra Nevada. Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research 

Institute, Missoula, Montana. 

Sawyer, H., R. Neilson, and L. McDonald. 2006a. Sublette Mule Deer Study (Phase II): Longterm Monitoring Plan to Assess Potential Impacts of Energy Development on Mule Deer 

in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area, 2006 Annual Report. Western Ecosystems 

Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Sawyer, H., R. M. Neilson, F. Lindzey, and L. L. McDonald. 2006b. Winter habitat selection of 

mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 70:396-403. 

Schroedl, A. 1991. Paleo-Indian Occupation in the Eastern Great Basin and Northern Colorado 

Plateau. Utah Archaeology 4(1):1-15. 

Seal, Franklin. 2002. Local prospector eyes humate mine near Crescent Junction, takes out lease 

from SITLA. Moab Times-Independent, p. A1-A2. 

Seidel, J. W. 1977. Elk calving behavior in west central Colorado. In Proceedings of the Western 

States Elk Workshop, pp. 38-40. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. 

Shackleton, D. M., C. C. Shank, and B. M. Wikeem. 1999. Natural History of Rocky Mountain 

and California Bighorn Sheep. In Mountain Sheep of North America, edited by R. Valdez 

and P. R. Krausman, pp. 78-138. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 

Shubat, M. A., B. T. Tripp, C. E. Bishop, and R. E. Blackett. 1991. Mines and Prospects 

Containing Gold in Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Open-File Report 207. 

Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Singer, F. J., L. C. Zeigenfuss, and L. Spicer. 2001. Role of patch size, disease, and movement in 

rapid extinction in bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 15(5):1347–1354. 

Sogge, M. K., R. M. Marshall, S. J. Sferra, and T. J. Tibbitts. 1997. A Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol. Technical Report NPS/ 

NAUCPRS/NRTR-97/12. U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, 

Colorado Plateau Field Station, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 

Sonoran Institute. 2003. Population, Employment, Earnings and Personal Income Trends: San 

Juan County, Utah. Sonoran Institute, Tucson, Arizona. April. 

X-17 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Sonoran Institute. 2005. Socioeconomic Profile: San Juan County Utah. Economic Profile 

System Community, Sonoran Institute, Tucson, Arizona. December. 

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. 

Sprinkel, D. A. 1999. Digital Geologic Resources Atlas of Utah. Bulletin 129DF. Utah 

Geological Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Squires, J. R., and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 298, edited by A. Poole and F. Gills. The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 

Stevens, R. 2004. Incorporating wildlife habitat needs into restoration and rehabilitation projects. 

In Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands, edited by S. B. Monsen, R. Stevens, and N. 

L. Shaw, 155-174. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-136-VOL-1. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, S. D. Bunnell, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, 

C. W. McCarthy, and M. A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive 

Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. December. 

Stokowski, P. A., and C. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and Social Effects of ATVs and ORVs: 

An Annotated Bibliography and Research Assessment. School of Natural Resources, 

University of Vermont, Burlington. 

Swarthout, E. C. H., and R. J. Steidl. 2003. Experimental effects of hiking on breeding Mexican 

spotted owls. Conservation Biology 17(1): 307-315. 

The Wilderness Society (TWC). 2004. The Economic Benefits of Wilderness: Focus on Property 

Value Enhancement. Ecology and Economics Research Department, The Wilderness 

Society, Washington, D.C. March. 

Trimble, S. W., and A. C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent: A critical review. 

Geomorphology 13: 233-253. 

Trinity Consultants (Trinity). 2003. 1996 Mesoscale Model (MM5) data processed using the 

CALMET meteorological model. Trinity Consultants, Phoenix. 

Trinity Consultants (Trinity), and Craig Nicholls. 2006. Air Quality Assessment Report - Vernal 

and Glenwood Springs Resource Management Plans. Trinity Consultants, Phoenix. 

August. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census of Population [online database]. U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, D.C. [Accessed December 22, 2005]. Available at http://www.census.gov/ 

main/www/cen2000.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Poverty [online database]. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. 

[Accessed December 22, 2005]. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/ 

poverty.html. 

X-18 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. 2002 Census of Agriculture [online database]. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. [Last Accessed 

June 18, 2007]. Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp. 

USDA, Forest Service (USFS). 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan, Manti-La Sal 

National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Manti-La Sal National Forest, Price, Utah. 

USFS. 1992. Recommended Old-Growth Definitions and Descriptions and Old-Growth 

Allocation Procedure. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. September. 

USFS. 1993. Characteristics of Old-growth Forests in the Intermountain Region. USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. April. 

USFS. 1996. Potential fossil yield classification (PFYC). Paleontology Center of Excellence and 

the Region 2 Paleo Initiative, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 

USFS, BLM, and NPS. 1996. Wild and Scenic River Review in the State of Utah, Process and 

Criteria for Interagency Use. Available at Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 2005. Payment In Lieu of Taxes: County Payments and 

Acres [online database]. U.S. Department of the Interior. [Accessed December 22, 2005]. 

Available at http://www.nbc.gov/pilt/search.cfm#search. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 1987. Environmental Assessment for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program, Lakewood, Colorado. 

USFWS. 1988. Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 1990a. Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Plan, 2nd Revised. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 1990b. Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Colorado River Fishes Recovery 

Team, Denver. Prepared for Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 1991. Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Colorado River Fishes 

Recovery Team, Denver. Prepared for Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 1995. Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 1999. Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Colorado River Fishes 

Recovery Team, Denver. Prepared for Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

X-19 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

USFWS. 2002a. Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Plan (Amendment and 

Supplement for Recovery Goals), Final Revision 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah 

Field Office, Salt Lake City. 

USFWS. 2002b. Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to 

the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie 

Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

USFWS. 2002c. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals, Amendment and Supplement to the 

Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan, Final Revision 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver. 

USFWS. 2002d. Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen fexanus) Recovery Plan, Amendment and 

Supplement for Recovery Goals, Final Revision 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Denver. 

USFWS. 2002e. Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax 

traillii extimus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque. 

USFWS. 2002f. Birds of Conservation Concern, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division 

of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 

USFWS. 2005. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and 

Gas in the Uinta-Piceance Province, Utah and Colorado. Compiled by Uinta-Piceance 

Assessment Team. U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-69-B. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2007. Environmental Effects of Off-Highway Vehicles on 

Bureau of Land Management Lands: A Literature Synthesis, Annotated Bibliographies, 

Extensive Bibliographies and Internet Resources. 

University of Utah, 2008. The Structure and Economic Impact of Utah’s Oil and Gas 

Exploration Industry Phase III – Grand County. Bureau of Economic and Business 

Research. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2001. Utah's Non-Point Source 

Management Plan [online publication]. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt 

Lake City. [Last Accessed June 18, 2007]. Available at http://www.waterquality.utah. 

gov/documents/NPS_Mgmt_Plan_2001.pdf. 

UDEQ. 2002. Utah's 2002 303(d) List of Waters. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Salt Lake City. 

Utah Department of Workforce Services (UDWS). 2005. Grand County: Demographic and 

Economic Profile [online database]. Utah Department of Workforce Services, Salt Lake 

City. [Accessed August 2005]. Available at http://jobs.utah.gov/. 

X-20 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Utah Division of Air Quality and Environmental Protection Agency (UDAQ and EPA). 2006. 

US EPA Air Data Mapping and Emissions Tool, Nonattainment Areas Maps for Utah 

[online database]. Utah Division of Air Quality, Salt Lake City. [Last Accessed June 18, 

2007]. Available at http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/ and http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ 

nonat.html?st%7EUT%7EUtah. 

UDOGM. 2008. Data Research Center [online database]. Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining. 

Available at http://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Data_Center/DataCenter.cfm#production 

Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining (UDOGM). 2002. Map of Abandoned Mine Sites within 

Grand County [online database]. Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program, Utah Division 

of Oil, Gas, and Mining, Salt Lake City. [Last Accessed June 15, 2007]. Available at 

http://www.ogm.utah.gov. 

UDOGM. 2004. December 2003 Production Book [online publication]. Utah Division of Oil Gas 

and Mining. [Accessed January 2004]. Available at http://ogm.utah.gov/oilgas/ 

PUBLICATIONS/Reports/2003_prd/book1203.htm. 

Utah Division of Travel Development (UDTD). 2004. 2004 State and County Economic Travel 

Indicator Profiles. Utah Division of Travel Development, Salt Lake City. 

Utah Division of Water Resources (UDWRe). 2000. Utah State Water Plan, Southeast Colorado 

River Basin. Utah Division of Water Resources, Salt Lake City. 

Utah Division of Water Rights (UDWRi). 2003. Water Use Records Application [application 

download]. Utah Division of Water Rights, Salt Lake City. [Last Accessed June 18, 

2007]. Available at http://waterrights.utah.gov/cgi-bin/wuseview.exe. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 1985a. Cisco Desert Habitat Management Plan. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 1985b. Hatch Point Habitat Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 1985c. Dolores Triangle Habitat Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 1986. The Potash-Confluence Habitat Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 1999. Statewide Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 2000a. Utah Upland Game Annual Report, 1999. Publication 00-27. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 2000b. Utah Black Bear Management Plan. Publication 00-23. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. June 27. 

UDWR. 2002. Strategic Management Plan for Sage-grouse. Publication 02-20. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. June. 

X-21 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

UDWR. 2005a. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Publication Number 05-

19. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. September. 

UDWR. 2005b. Utah Sensitive Species List. Unpublished document, Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR. 2006. Utah Big Game Annual Report, 2005. Publication 06-21. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 

UDWR, 2007. Aerial Survey Counts (Pronghorn). Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt 

Lake City. 

UDWR, 2007. Utah Bighorn Sheep State-wide Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources. Salt Lake City. 

UDWR, 2008. 2008 Antlerless Deer Permit Summary and Recommendations. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City. 

UDWR, 2008. 2008 Antlerless Elk Permit Summary and Recommendations. Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City. 

Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey (UGMS). 1966. Gold Placers in Utah – A 

Compilation. Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Circular 47. Utah Geological 

and Mineralogical Survey, Salt Lake City. 

Utah Geological Society (UGS). 2003. Maps [online database]. Utah Geological Survey, Salt 

Lake City. [Last Accessed June 18, 2007]. Located at http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/maps/ 

index.htm. 

Utah Native Plant Society. 2005. Utah Rare Plant Guide [online database]. Utah Native Plant 

Society, Salt Lake City. [Last Accessed June 15, 2007]. Available at http://www. 

utahrareplants.org/rpg_species.html. 

Utah State Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB). 2001. Cities and Counties of 

Utah: First in a Series of Census 2000 Analyses [online publication]. Utah State 

Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, Salt Lake City. [Accessed April 2002]. 

Available at http://www.governor.state.ut.us/dea/ccBrief3.pdf. 

GOPB. 2002. Race and Ethnicity in Utah: Third in a Series of Census 2000 Analyses [online 

publication]. Utah State Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, Salt Lake City. 

[Accessed April 2002]. Available at http://governor.utah.gov/dea/Minorities.pdf 

Venturoni, L., P. Long, and R. Perdue. 2005. The Economic and Social Impacts of Second 

Homes in Four Mountain Resort Counties of Colorado. 2005 Annual Meeting of the 

Association of American Geographers, Denver, April 7. 

Walcek, C. J. 2002. Effects of wind shear on pollution dispersion. Atmospheric Environment 36: 

511–517. 

Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2003. A Utah Flora, Third Edition, 

revised. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University. 

X-22 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2004. Temperature and precipitation for 

meteorological stations in Eastern Utah [online database]. Western Regional Climate 

Center, Desert Research Institute. [Last Accessed June 18, 2007]. Available at http:// 

www.wrcc.dri.edu/index.html. 

Witkind, I. J. 2004. Geologic map of the Huntington 30' and 60' Quadrangle, Carbon, Emery, 

Grand, and Uintah Counties, Utah. Utah Geological Survey Open File Report 440DM. 5 

sheets (scale 1:100,000). 

World Climate. 2003. Climate data for Moab, Grand County, Utah and Monticello, San Juan 

County, Utah [online database]. World Climate. [Last Accessed June 19, 2007]. 

Available at http://www.worldclimate.com/. 

Zeveloff, S., and F. Collett. 1988. Mammals of the Intermountain West. Salt Lake City: 

University of Utah Press. 

X-23 
Moab PRMP/FEIS References 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

X-24 
INDEX

B 

Beaver Creek, 2-11, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-30, 2-

40, 2-54, 2-57, 2-58, 2-101, 3-44, 3-69, 3-

70, 3-83, 3-26, 3-127, 3-144, 3-160, 3-174, 

3-187, 4-50, 4-59, 4-71, 4-76, 4-77, 4-81, 

4-97, 4-104, 4-114, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-

122, 4-123, 4-127, 4-128, 4-130, 4-132, 4-

134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-

141, 4-143, 4-145, 4-146, 4-148, 4-149, 4-

151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-158, 4-160, 4-

163, 4-165, 4-166, 4-171, 4-187, 4-201, 4-

202, 4-203, 4-207, 4-244, 4-337, 4-339, 4-

340, 4-341, 4-351, 4-352, 4-416, 4-457, 4-

495, 5-8, 5-10, 5-57, 5-128, 5-132, I-13, J23, J-63, J-64, J-73, J-86, J-87, P-3, P-4, U5 

Behind the Rocks Potential ACEC, 2-33, 4-

311, 4-312, 2-33, 2-45, 2-90, 4-189, 4-235, 

4-311, 4-312, 4-313, 4-417, 5-97, C-14 

Best management practices, 2-11, 2-15, 2-46, 

2-47, 3-125, 4-68, 5-51, 5-63, 5-81, 5-127, 

C-3, G-31, L-8, O-2, Q-4 

Black Ridge WSA, 2-45 

Black-footed ferret, 1-11, 2-46, 3-148, 3-150, 

4-359, 4-366 

Bonytail, 1-4, 1-11, 2-46, 3-133, 3-134, 3-

136, 3-139, 3-148, 3-151, 3-187, 4-357, 4-

361, I-11, I-16, I-21, J-27, J-30, J-33, J-36, 

J-40, J-42, J-66, J-68, K-19 

Bookcliffs Potential ACEC, 2-33, U-8, U-14 

Bookcliffs SRMA, 2-18, 4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 

4-298, 4-322, 5-135, U-10 

Burrowing owl, 2-48, 3-153, 3-157, 3-186, 4-

61, 4-359, 4-363, 4-366, 4-411, C-40, O-1, 

O-14 

C 

Cameo Cliffs SRMA, 2-19, 2-73, 3-78, 4-212, 

4-335, 4-391, 4-393, 5-85, U-10 

Canyon Rims Potential ACEC, 2-34, 4-315, 

4-316 

Canyon Rims SRMA, 2-19, 2-34, 2-74, 3-77, 

4-103, 4-138, 4-141, 4-213, 4-298, 4-315, 

4-390, 4-391, 4-445, 4-446 

Coal Canyon WSA, 2-46, 2-45, 4-189, 4-343 

Colorado Pikeminnow, 1-4, 1-11, 2-46, 3-

133, 3-134, 3-136, 3-139, 3-148, 3-151, 3-

187, 4-357, 4-361, I-11, I-16, I-21, J-27, J30, J-33, J-36, J-40, J-42, J-47, J-61, J-66, 

J-68, K-19 

Colorado River Corridor Potential ACEC, 2-

34, 4-319, 4-320, 4-321 

Colorado River SRMA, 1-13, 3-78, 3-79, 3-

85 

Colorado River, 1-2, 1-3, 1-7, 1-11, 2-11, 2-

14, 2-31, 2-32, 2-39, 2-47, 2-54, 2-55, 2-

101, 3-1, 3-15, 3-21, 3-24, 3-35, 3-36, 3-

39, 3-42, 3-44, 3-45, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-

76, 3-77, 3-78, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-89, 3-

91, 3-93, 3-94, 3-95, 3-98, 3-99, 3-101, 3-

102, 3-126, 3-128, 3-130, 3-133, 3-134, 3-

135, 3-136, 3-137, 3-139, 3-143, 3-144, 3-

148, 3-149, 3-150, 3-151, 3-152, 3-154, 3-

155, 3-158, 3-160, 3-161, 3-163, 3-164, 3-

167, 3-172, 3-174, 3-183, 3-187, C-5, C-6, 

C-12, C-16, C-40, C-42, E-1, E-2, E-3, ES1, F-5, F-14, F-15, I-5, I-6, I-10, I-11, I-14, 

I-16, I-17, I-20, I-21, I-23, I-25, J-4, J-5, J18, J-20, J-22, J-26, J-27, J-28, J-28, J-29, 

J-30, J-31, J-32, J-32, J-33, J-34, J-34, J35, J-36, J-37, J-38, J-38, J-39, J-40, J-40, 

J-41, J-42, J-43, J-44, J-45, J-47, J-48, J50, J-51, J-52, J-53, J-54, J-56, J-58, J-59, 

J-60, J-61, J-62, J-64, J-65, J-72, J-73, J75, J-76, J-77, J-78, N-5, N-7 

Colorado Riverway SRMA, 2-18, 2-20, 2-34, 

2-35, 2-34, 2-52, 2-74, 4-138, 4-140, 4-

141, 4-197, 4-201, 4-207, 4-214, 4-215, 4-

216, 4-217, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-

298, 4-299, 4-319, 4-321, 4-323, 4-342, 4-

343, 4-347, 4-348, 4-349, 4-390, 4-391, 4-

393, 4-447, 4-448, 4-472, E-3, I-29 

Colorado Riverway, 1-12, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-

92, 3-167, E-1, E-2, F-6 

Colorado Squawfish, 2-46 

Conservation Strategy, 2-12, 2-46, 2-47, 2-52, 

3-159, 3-160, 4-365, 4-375, 4-402, 4-407, 

4-422, 4-433, 4-456, 4-481
Moab PRMP/FEIS Index 

Cottonwood Canyon, 2-41, 2-45, 2-101, 3-94, 

3-143, 4-338, 4-339, 4-340, 4-343, J-18, J22, J-23, J-43, J-44, J-62, J-72, J-79 

Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Potential 

ACEC, 2-35, 4-233, 4-322, 5-61 

Cycladenia humilis, 2-48, 3-148, 4-149, 4-

359, K-15 

D 

Desert Bighorn Sheep, 1-4, 2-12, 2-55, 2-56, 

2-57, 3-44, 3-133, 3-134, 3-135, 3-136, 3-

139, 3-182, 3-183, 3-184, 4-75, 4-76, 4-80, 

4-82, 4-83, 4-112, 4-113, 4-201, 4-242, 4-

321, 4-411, 4-438, 4-439, 4-450, 4-454, 4-

457, 4-458, 4-459, 4-462, 4-463, 4-464, 4-

465, 4-467, 4-469, 4-476, 4-477, 4-482, 4-

483, 4-484, 4-485, 4-486, 4-487, 4-488, 4-

490, 4-491, 5-46, 5-98, 5-99, 5-102, 5-105, 

C-25, C-26, C-26, G-25, I-11, I-13, I-15, I16, I-21, J-36, J-39, J-42, N-3, N-4, N-5, 

N-6 

Desolation Canyon WSA, 2-45, 3-145, 4-189, 

4-344, 4-345, 4-349, J-88, J-90 

Dolores River Canyon SRMA, 4-341, 4-349, 

4-391, 2-18, 2-22, 2-74, 4-139, 4-140, 4-

141, 4-197, 4-207, 4-217, 4-218, 4-389, 5-

134, F-8, U-4 

Dolores River, 1-2, 1-13, 2-11, 2-14, 2-22, 2-

27, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-45, 2-47, 2-54, 2-

55, 2-78, 2-102, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39, 3-62, 3-

63, 3-64, 3-78, 3-86, 3-87, 3-89, 3-93, 3-

94, 3-95, 3-98, 3-99, 3-126, 3-143, 3-144, 

3-152, 3-160, 3-161, 3-164, 3-167, 3-174, 

3-187, C-5, C-6, C-40, E-1, E-2, E-3, ES-1, 

F-9, F-14, I-13, J-4, J-5, J-18, J-19, J-20, J22, J-23, J-24, J-31, J-32, J-34, J-56, J-57, 

J-58, J-58, J-59, J-60, J-60, J-61, J-62, J63, J-64, J-72, J-73, J-85, J-86, N-7 

Drought, 2-12, 2-52, 2-53, 2-80, 2-108, 3-2, 

3-3, 3-24, 3-28, 3-40, 3-124, 3-125, 3-133, 

3-158, 3-169, 3-170, 3-177, 3-182, 3-186, 

3-188, 3-189, 3-190, 4-13, 4-57, 4-73, 4-

109, 4-240, 4-421, 4-423, 4-483, 5-101, G25, H-6, I-10, L-1, L-4, L-7, L-8, L-12, L13, L-14, L-21, L-24, M-1, M-2, O-5 

E 

Emergency stabilization, 2-8, 2-10, 2-52, 3-

25, 3-28, 3-29, 3-135, 4-115, 4-282, 4-422, 

I-13 

Environmental justice, 3-121, 3-122, 4-8, 4-

254, 4-255 

EPCA, 1-11, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 4-85, 5-112 

Equestrian, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 

2-27, 2-29, 2-39, 2-52, 3-15, 4-139, 4-140, 

4-141, 4-156, 4-195, 4-197, 4-212, 4-224, 

4-227, 4-228, 4-231, 4-239, 4-390, 4-391, 

4-414, 4-420, 4-421, 4-437, 4-446, 4-448, 

4-472, E-4, F-3, F-4, F-6, F-9, F-11, G-2, 

G-19, G-26, G-27 

F 

Ferruginous Hawk, 2-48, 3-157, 3-186, 4-61, 

4-317, 4-359, 4-363, 4-366, 4-411, 5-50, 

C-40, J-29, J-32, N-7, O-1 

Floy Canyon WSA, 2-45, 4-189 

Flume Canyon WSA, 2-45, 2-46, 4-189 

G 

Grand County, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-10, 2-18, 2-24, 

2-26, 2-51, 2-120, 3-4, 3-10, 3-11, 3-16, 3-

17, 3-30, 3-33, 3-37, 3-45, 3-62, 3-64, 3-

67, 3-80, 3-82, 3-88, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 

3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 

3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 

3-115, 3-116, 3-117, 3-118, 3-119, 3-120, 

3-121, 3-122, 3-125, 3-137, 3-148, 3-150, 

3-162, 3-163, 3-164, 3-171, 3-172, 4-21, 4-

24, 4-27, 4-30, 4-222, 4-254, 4-261, 4-262, 

4-263, 4-264, 4-267, 4-269, 4-271, 4-272, 

4-273, 4-275, 4-301, 4-414, 5-4, 5-7, 5-8, 

5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-27, 5-28, 5-36, 5-

79, 5-81, 5-82, 5-83, 5-84, 5-85, 5-136, 5-

137, 5-137, 5-151, 5-154, 5-162, 5-163, 

ES-1, F-12, G-2, G-3, G-6, G-11, G-13, G14, G-15, G-16, G-17, G-18, G-19, G-21, 

I-4, I-17, J-4, J-11, J-13, J-76, J-77, L-8, T1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9, T-10, 

U-8, U-12, U-14 

Greater sage-grouse, 1-15, 2-47, 2-48, 2-106, 

3-153, 3-158, 3-185, 4-61, 4-107, 4-108, 4-

359, 4-365, 4-372, 4-380, 4-383, 4-385, 4-

386, 4-402, 4-403, 4-433, 4-434, 4-435, 4-

476, 4-477, 5-50, U-6 

Green River, 1-2, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-23, 2-

24, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-37, 2-39, 2-42, 2-

44, 2-47, 2-52, 2-54, 2-55, 2-57, 2-102, 3-

1, 3-18, 3-21, 3-35, 3-36, 3-55, 3-64, 3-65, 

3-66, 3-76, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-85, 3-86, 3-

87, 3-89, 3-93, 3-95, 3-98, 3-99, 3-101, 3-

X-48
Moab PRMP/FEIS Index 

115, 3-126, 3-131, 3-136, 3-137, 3-139, 3-

144, 3-148, 3-149, 3-150, 3-151, 3-152, 3-

154, 3-158, 3-160, 3-161, 3-166, 3-174, 3-

175, 3-182, 3-185, 3-187, C-5, C-6, C-40, 

E-1, E-2, E-3, ES-1, F-3, F-7, F-10, F-11, 

H-3, I-8, I-16, I-18, I-21, J-8, J-17, J-19, J35, J-39, J-41, J-65, J-66, J-67, J-68, J-68, 

J-69, J-73, J-74, J-89, N-5, N-8 

Gunnison prairie dog, 2-5, 2-47, 2-50, 2-106, 

4-61, 4-107, 4-108, 4-357, 4-359, 4-360, 4-

363, 4-366, 4-372, 4-383, 4-385, 4-386, 4-

387, 4-403, 4-404, 4-436, 4-477, C-24, C23, C-24, C-24, G-26, U-6 

Gunnison sage-grouse, 2-5, 2-47, 2-49, 3-44, 

3-153, 3-158, 4-61, 4-107, 4-108, 4-357, 4-

359, 4-363, 4-365, 4-372, 4-375, 4-379, 4-

380, 4-383, 4-385, 4-386, 4-402, 4-403, 4-

433, 4-435, 4-477, 5-50, 5-96, 5-101 

H 

Highway 279/Shafer Basin/Long Canyon 

Potential ACEC, 2-36, 4-324 

J 

Jones cycladenia, 3-133, 3-134, 3-148, 3-150, 

4-357, 4-359, 4-360, 4-363, 4-365, 4-367, 

4-383, 4-385, 4-386, 4-387, 4-406, 5-129, 

5-141, 5-143, C-44, C-45, C-47, C-48, I11, I-12, K-1, K-15, U-4 

K 

Kit Fox, 2-48, 3-156, 4-317, C-42 

L 

Labyrinth Canyon Potential ACEC, 2-36, 4-

326 

Lost Spring Canyon WSA, 2-45, 4-189 

Lower Gray Canyon SRMA, 2-25, 2-75, 4-

221, 4-222, 4-314, 4-344, 4-345, F-11, J-90 

M 

Mexican Spotted Owl, 1-4, 1-11, 2-46, 2-47, 

3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-150, 4-61, 4-357, 4-

360, 4-361, 4-362, 4-363, 4-364, 4-365, 4-

366, 4-367, 4-368, 4-369, 4-371, 4-372, 4-

373, 4-376, 4-377, 4-382, 4-383, 4-384, 4-

385, 4-386, 4-387, 4-388, 4-392, 4-393, 4-

394, 4-396, 4-399, 4-400, 4-401, 4-405, 4-

406, 4-408, 4-411, 4-412, 4-413, 4-433, 5-

141, 5-143, C-32, C-33, C-34, J-26, J-28, 

J-29, J-35, J-39, J-41, J-52, J-54, J-56, J66, J-68, K-1, K-3, K-4, K-5, N-7, N-8, O1, U-12 

Mill Creek Canyon Potential ACEC, 2-8, 2-

36, 4-327, 4-328, 5-79, 5-95 

Mill Creek Canyon WSA, 2-36, 2-45, 2-46, 4-

327, 4-329, C-17, F-13, J-84, J-85 

Mill Creek, 1-13, 2-8, 2-8, 2-13, 2-17, 2-26, 

2-30, 2-32, 2-43, 2-102, 3-43, 3-44, 3-69, 

3-71, 3-77, 3-80, 3-82, 3-84, 3-87, 3-91, 3-

93, 3-95, 3-98, 3-126, 3-127, 3-130, 3-136, 

3-137, 3-143, 3-145, 3-146, 3-163, 3-168, 

3-180, 3-188, C-13, C-17, C-29, E-1, E-2, 

E-3, E-4, G-19, I-5, I-6, I-17, I-23, I-26, J21, J-50, J-51, J-52, J-53, J-54, J-55, J-56, 

P-3, P-5 

Moab Extensive Recreation Management 

Area, 2-29, 4-391, F-9 

Motorcycle, 1-15, 1-16, 2-7, 2-25, 2-25, 2-51, 

2-64, 2-75, 2-76, 2-114, 3-84, 3-90, 3-165, 

4-50, 4-55, 4-223, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-

303, 4-367, 4-418, 4-419, 4-420, 4-478, 5-

72, 5-73, 5-144, 5-145, 5-146, 5-144, 5-

145, 5-146, 5-148, 5-149, 5-152, ES-3, F15, G-3, G-15, U-6, U-12, U-13, U-15 

Mountain biking, 1-3, 2-21, 2-24, 2-29, 2-74, 

2-75, 2-76, 2-77, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 3-76, 3-

78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-84, 3-85, 3-113, 3-

166, 3-167, 4-139, 4-194, 4-201, 4-211, 4-

212, 4-213, 4-214, 4-216, 4-217, 4-218, 4-

219, 4-220, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-

227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-231, 4-233, 4-234, 4-

237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-242, 4-390, 4-

392, 4-414, 4-416, 4-420, 4-421, 4-472, 4-

516, F-10, F-12, F-15, G-19 

N 

Negro Bill Canyon WSA, 2-21, 2-34, 2-46, 4-

189, 4-319, C-16, J-83 

Negro Bill Canyon, 2-17, 2-20, 2-21, 2-30, 2-

31, 2-32, 2-34, 2-43, 2-45, 2-46, 2-52, 2-

103, 3-42, 3-69, 3-71, 3-79, 3-80, 3-84, 3-

95, 3-97, 3-98, 3-133, 3-134, 3-143, 3-145, 

3-146, 3-174, 3-187, 4-114, 4-117, 4-120, 

4-122, 4-126, 4-128, 4-131, 4-132, 4-139, 

4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 

4-154, 4-155, 4-159, 4-161, 4-165, 4-188, 

4-189, 4-215, 4-216, 4-300, 4-319, 4-320, 

4-338, 4-340, 4-347, 4-351, 4-352, 4-353, 

4-354, 4-421, 4-425, 4-433, 5-132, 5-141, 

C-16, C-29, C-30, E-2, E-4, G-27, I-11, IX-49
Moab PRMP/FEIS Index 

12, J-21, J-34, J-47, J-48, J-50, J-72, J-82, 

J-83, P-4 

North Fork Mill Creek, 2-43, 2-103, 4-104, 4-

338, 4-340, 4-348, 4-351, 4-352, J-22, J73, J-84, J-85 

O 

Old Spanish Trail, 2-19, 2-39, 3-16, 3-138, 3-

139, 4-212, 4-306, 4-336, 4-355, F-4, I-19 

Onion Creek, 2-20, 2-21, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-

44, 2-52, 2-103, 2-111, 3-79, 3-84, 3-92, 3-

93, 3-95, 3-98, 3-126, 3-127, 3-128, 3-133, 

3-143, 3-163, 3-165, 3-174, 3-187, 4-104, 

4-143, 4-145, 4-148, 4-157, 4-188, 4-201, 

4-300, 4-301, 4-338, 4-339, 4-340, 4-348, 

4-351, 4-352, 4-444, 4-446, 4-447 

Onion Creek, 5-81, 5-128, 5-146, F-6, G-27, 

I-10, J-20, J-44, J-45, J-45, J-72, J-80 

P 

Petrified wood, 2-17, 2-38, 3-72, 3-73, 4-137, 

4-179, 4-332, J-38 

Planning criteria, 1-5, 1-6, 1-9, 2-1, 3-33, 5-

20, 5-22, 5-55, G-2, G-8, 1-6, 1-14, 2-1, 4-

1, 5-1, 5-13, 5-36, 5-44, 5-50, 5-55, 5-68, 

5-72, 5-94, 5-110, 5-111, 5-111, 5-123, 5-

125, 5-129, 5-136, 5-138, 5-153, 5-156, 

ES-2, ES-5, I-2, I-28, I-29, I-30, J-91, U-3 

prescribed fire, 4-500 

Professor Creek, 2-20, 2-21, 2-31, 2-32, 2-44, 

2-103, 3-95, 3-126, 3-143, 4-104, 4-143, 4-

145, 4-188, 4-300, 4-338, 4-339, 4-340, 4-

349, 4-351, 4-352, 5-134, J-21, J-46, J-72, 

J-80, J-81 

R 

Rattlesnake Canyon, 2-13, 2-25, 2-30, 2-44, 

2-103, 3-99, 3-144, 4-338, 4-340, 4-349, 4-

351, J-17, J-68, J-69, J-74, J-88, J-89 

Razorback Sucker, 1-11, 2-46, 3-133, 3-134, 

3-139, 3-152, 3-187, 4-357, 4-361, I-11, I21, J-27, J-30, J-33, J-36, J-40, J-42, J-66, 

J-68, K-19 

Reasonably foreseeable, 1-1, 4-3, 4-8, 4-177, 

4-381, 4-382, 4-490, 4-505, 4-507, 4-511, 

4-512, 4-513, 4-516, 4-517, 5-62, 5-68, 5-

126, J-12, J-75, J-77, J-79, J-80, J-81, J-82, 

J-83, J-84, J-85, J-86, J-87, J-88, J-91, U12 

Reintroductions, 2-47, 2-55, 3-150, 4-289, 4-

410, 5-8, 5-48, K-20 

Relinquishment, 2-12 

Richardson Amphitheater, 2-11, 2-17, 2-21, 

2-111, 3-84, 3-133, 4-140, 4-215, 4-216, 4-

444, 4-446, 4-447, 4-448, F-6, I-5, I-10, I11, I-25, J-34 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, 1-4, 2-57, 3-

132, 3-184, 3-185, 4-80, 4-82, 4-84, 4-112, 

4-113, 4-313, 4-411, 4-412, 4-438, 4-439, 

4-450, 4-455, 4-462, 4-463, 4-464, 4-466, 

4-467, 4-469, 4-476, 4-477, 4-484, 4-485, 

4-486, 4-487, 4-488, 4-491, 5-46, I-8, J-66, 

J-68, J-69, N-5 

S 

Salt Wash, 2-4, 2-44, 2-82, 2-104, 3-49, 3-52, 

3-57, 3-58, 3-60, 3-61, 3-95, 3-126, 3-143, 

4-4, 4-5, 4-15, 4-16, 4-21, 4-23, 4-26, 4-29, 

4-40, 4-44, 4-49, 4-53, 4-87, 4-92, 4-93, 4-

94, 4-96, 4-104, 4-175, 4-182, 4-183, 4-

184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-252, 4-289, 4-311, 4-

334, 4-338, 4-340, 4-349, 4-351, 5-67, J18, J-21, J-37, J-47, J-72, J-81, J-82, S-1, 

S-2, U-5 

San Juan County, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-10, 2-1, 2-

19, 2-26, 3-10, 3-11, 3-67, 3-100, 3-101, 3-

105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-112, 3-120, 3-121, 3-

122, 3-160, 3-163, 3-164, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 

4-27, 4-30, 4-212, 4-213, 4-254, 4-259, 4-

262, 4-264, 4-265, 4-267, 4-269, 4-414, 4-

508, 5-4, 5-7, 5-13, 5-14, 5-27, 5-36, 5-82, 

5-83, 5-84, 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-89, 5-91, 5-

92, 5-91, 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-

97, 5-98, 5-99, 5-100, 5-101, 5-102, 5-103, 

5-104, 5-105, 5-106, 5-107, 5-108, 5-109, 

5-110, 5-110, 5-111, 5-112, 5-113, 5-113, 

5-114, 5-115, 5-115, 5-116, 5-117, 5-162, 

5-164, ES-1, G-2, G-3, G-6, G-7, G-11, G12, G-13, G-14, G-15, G-16, G-17, G-18, 

G-21, I-4, I-14, J-11, J-13, J-78, T-1, T-2, 

T-3, T-4, T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9 

Sand Flats SRMA, 2-26, 2-75, 4-98, 4-139, 4-

141, 4-222, 4-391, 4-392, C-9, F-12 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, 1-4, 1-11, 

2-46, 2-47, 3-44, 3-45, 3-148, 3-151, 3-

187, 3-188, 4-61, 4-252, 4-357, 4-361, 4-

363, 4-367, 4-369, 4-370, 4-372, 4-373, 4-

376, 4-381, 4-382, 4-383, 4-386, 4-388, 4-

393, 4-394, 4-396, 4-399, 4-400, 4-401, 4-

402, 4-405, 4-406, 4-408, 4-410, 4-412, 4-

X-50
Moab PRMP/FEIS Index 

413, 4-434, 5-96, 5-98, C-37, C-39, J-26, J28, J-29, J-32, J-35, J-39, J-41, J-43, J-52, 

J-54, J-56, J-57, J-59, J-61, J-66, J-68, K-1, 

K-5, K-6, K-7, K-8 

Spruce Canyon WSA, 2-46, 4-189, J-79 

State of Utah, 1-8, 1-10, 2-7, 2-11, 2-23, 2-39, 

2-40, 2-53, 2-84, 3-11, 3-34, 3-39, 3-68, 3-

88, 3-105, 3-107, 3-123, 3-127, 3-141, 3-

147, 3-154, 3-155, 3-159, 3-168, 3-172, 3-

180, 3-181, 3-182, 4-22, 4-25, 4-27, 4-30, 

4-56, 4-69, 4-90, 4-173, 4-218, 4-219, 4-

220, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-267, 4-301, 5-

2, 5-4, 5-8, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-20, 5-27, 5-

36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-

43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49, 5-

50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-

57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 5-64, 5-

65, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-

73, 5-74, 5-75, 5-76, 5-77, 5-78, 5-79, 5-

80, 5-81, 5-82, 5-84, 5-92, 5-95, 5-141, 5-

152, G-29, G-33, H-4, I-4, I-15, J-3, J-4, J5, J-6, J-7, J-11, J-13, J-27, J-30, J-33, J77, J-90, J-92, J-93, J-94, O-9, Q-3, R-3, T1, T-2, U-3, U-4, U-6, U-8, U-11, U- 13, 

U-14 

T 

Ten Mile Wash Potential ACEC, 2-37, 4-329 

Thompson Canyon, 2-13, 2-45, 2-104, 3-144, 

3-180, 4-75, 4-83, 4-338, 4-339, 4-340, 4-

349, 4-351, 4-352, 4-457, J-23, J-62, J-73, 

J-87, J-88, N-5 

Total Maximum Daily Load, 2-30, 2-32, 3-

127, 3-128, 4-301, 5-80, 5-81, J-56 

Two Rivers SRMA, 2-20, 2-27, 2-76, 4-139, 

4-141, 4-197, 4-225, 4-272, 4-273, 4-275, 

4-341, 4-342, 4-344, 4-390, F-14, I-30, U4, U-10 

U 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1-11, 1-16, 1-

17, 2-5, 2-8, 2-11, 2-34, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 

2-55, 3-29, 3-147, 3-148, 3-151, 3-152, 3-

158, 3-176, 4-106, 4-258, 4-308, 4-317, 4-

356, 4-361, 4-363, 4-364, 4-365, 4-366, 4-

368, 4-369, 4-394, 4-402, 4-433, 4-484, 5-

2, 5-5, 5-27, 5-51, 5-96, 5-127, 5-129, 5-

139, 5-140, 5-141, 5-142, 5-143, 5-160, 5-

161, C-34, C-36, C-37, C-39, C-39, C-40, 

C-41, C-42, C-44, C-48, G-29, H-3, I-10, 

J-27, J-30, J-33, J-36, J-40, J-42, J-68, K-1, 

K-2, K-3, K-6, K-8, K-9, K-10, K-11, K12, K-13, K-14, K-15, K-16, K-17, K-18, 

K-19, K-20, K-21, N-4, O-1, O-2, O-8, O15, O-16, U-3, U-4, U-12, U-13, U-14 

Upper Courthouse Potential ACEC, 2-37, 4-

331 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1-13, 1-

17, 2-12, 2-33, 2-34, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 2-

49, 2-50, 2-52, 2-53, 2-55, 2-56, 2-57, 3-

131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-151, 3-152, 3-156, 3-

157, 3-158, 3-159, 3-160, 3-161, 3-162, 3-

176, 3-177, 3-178, 3-179, 3-180, 3-181, 3-

182, 3-184, 3-185, 3-187, 4-111, 4-317, 4-

363, 4-365, 4-366, 4-375, 4-380, 4-402, 4-

456, 4-457, 4-484, 4-492, 5-5, 5-15, 5-16, 

5-40, 5-49, 5-50, 5-73, 5-79, 5-86, 5-97, 5-

99, 5-100, 5-101, 5-102, 5-104, 5-105, I-8, 

I-10, I-28, J-57, J-59, J-61, K-2, K-3, K-8, 

N-1, N-2, N-4, O-1, O-2, O-3, O-8, U-2, 

U-4, U-7, U-9, U-13 

Utah Rims SRMA, 1-14, 2-28, 2-76, 4-227, 

4-228, 4-393, 5-85, U-5 

V 

VRM, see Visual Resource Management, 4-

148 

W 

Westwater Canyon Potential ACEC, 2-38, 4-

332 

Westwater Canyon WSA, 2-38, 2-46, 4-189, 

C-19, U-11 

White Wash Potential ACEC, 2-38, 4-333, 4-

334 

White-tailed prairie dog, 2-47, 3-132, 3-133, 

3-153, 3-157, 4-61, 4-107, 4-108, 4-317, 4-

318, 4-359, 4-372, 4-383, 4-385, 4-386, 4-

403, 4-432, 4-435, 4-436, 4-477, 5-47, 5-

139, C-22, C-23, U-7 

Wild and Scenic River, 4-148 

Wilson Arch Potential ACEC, 2-39, 4-335, 4-

336, 5-96 

Y 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo, 2-48, 3-148, 3-151, 3-

187, 4-61, 4-252, 4-357, 4-361, 4-363, 4-

372, 4-373, 4-376, 4-381, 4-383, 4-386, 4-

399, 4-400, 4-401, 4-405, 4-410, 4-434, C39, C-40, J-66, N-7, N-8

X-51
Moab PRMP/FEIS Index 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

X-52