Appendices
BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 939

Appendices

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009

This appendix contains the portions of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11, Title 

I, Subtitle O - Washington County, Utah) that created the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation 

Areas.

Subtitle O—Washington County, Utah

SEC. 1971. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:

(1) BEAVER DAM WASH NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA MAP.—The term ‘‘Beaver Dam Wash National 

Conservation Area Map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area’’ and dated 

December 18, 2008.

(2) CANAAN MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS MAP.—The term ‘‘Canaan Mountain Wilderness Map’’ means the map 

entitled ‘‘Canaan Mountain Wilderness’’ and dated June 21, 2008.

(3) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means Washington County, Utah.

(4) NORTHEASTERN WASHINGTON COUNTY WILDERNESS MAP.— The term ‘‘Northeastern Washington 

County Wilderness Map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Northeastern Washington County Wilderness’’ and dated 

November 12, 2008.

(5) NORTHWESTERN WASHINGTON COUNTY WILDERNESS MAP.—The term ‘‘Northwestern Washington 

County Wilderness Map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Northwestern Washington County Wilderness’’ and dated June 21, 

2008.

(6) RED CLIFFS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA MAP.—The term ‘‘Red Cliffs National Conservation Area 

Map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Red Cliffs National Conservation Area’’ and dated November 12, 2008.

(7) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means—

(A) with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture; and

(B) with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior.

(8) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State of Utah. 

(9) WASHINGTON COUNTY GROWTH AND CONSERVATION ACT MAP.—The term ‘‘Washington County 

Growth and Conservation Act Map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Washington County Growth and Conservation Act 

Map’’ and dated November 13, 2008.

SEC. 1972. WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM.—

(1) ADDITIONS.—Subject to valid existing rights, the following land in the State is designated as wilderness and 

as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System:

(A) BEARTRAP CANYON.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising 

approximately 40 acres, as generally depicted on the Northeastern Washington County Wilderness Map, which 

shall be known as the ‘‘Beartrap Canyon Wilderness.’’

(B) BLACKRIDGE.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately 13,015 acres, as generally depicted on the Northeastern Washington County Wilderness Map, which 

shall be known as the ‘‘Blackridge Wilderness.’’

(C) CANAAN MOUNTAIN.—Certain Federal land in the County managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management, comprising approximately 44,531 acres, as generally depicted on the Canaan Mountain Wilderness 

Map, which shall be known as the ‘‘Canaan Mountain Wilderness.”
940 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 941

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

 (i) the Bureau of Land Management; and

 (ii) the Forest Service.

(b) ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS.—

(1) MANAGEMENT.—Subject to valid existing rights, each area designated as wilderness by subsection (a)(1) 

shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), except 

that— 

(A) any reference in the Wilderness Act to the effective date of that Act shall be considered to be a reference 

to the date of enactment of this Act; and

(B) any reference in the Wilderness Act to the Secretary of Agriculture shall be considered to be a reference 

to the Secretary that has jurisdiction over the land.

(2) LIVESTOCK.—The grazing of livestock in each area designated as wilderness by subsection (a)(1), where 

established before the date of enactment of this Act, shall be permitted to continue—

(A) subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices that the Secretary considers necessary; and

(B) in accordance with— 

 (i) section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)); and 

 (ii) the guidelines set forth in Appendix A of the report of the Committee on Interior and Insular 

Affairs of the House of Representatives accompanying H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress (H.Rep. 101–405) and 

H.R. 5487 of the 96th Congress (H. Rept. 96–617).

(3) WILDFIRE, INSECT, AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT.—In accordance with section 4(d)(1) of the 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.1133(d)(1)), the Secretary may take such measures in each area designated as wilderness by subsection (a)(1) as the Secretary determines to be necessary for the control of fire, insects, and diseases 

(including, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, the coordination of those activities with a State or local 

agency).

(4) BUFFER ZONES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this section creates a protective perimeter or buffer zone around any area 

designated as wilderness by subsection (a)(1).

(B) ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE WILDERNESS.—The fact that an activity or use on land outside any area designated as wilderness by subsection (a)(1) can be seen or heard within the wilderness shall not preclude the activity 

or use outside the boundary of the wilderness.

(5) MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS.—Nothing in this section restricts or precludes— 

(A) low-level overflights of military aircraft over any area designated as wilderness by subsection (a)(1), including military overflights that can be seen or heard within any wilderness area;

(B) flight testing and evaluation; or 

(C) the designation or creation of new units of special use airspace, or the establishment of military flight 

training routes over any wilderness area.

(6) ACQUISITION AND INCORPORATION OF LAND AND INTERESTS IN LAND.—

(A) ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.—In accordance with applicable laws (including regulations), the 

Secretary may acquire any land or interest in land within the boundaries of the wilderness areas designated by 

subsection (a)(1) by purchase from willing sellers, donation, or exchange.

(B) INCORPORATION.—Any land or interest in land acquired by the Secretary under subparagraph (A) 

shall be incorporated into, and administered as a part of, the wilderness area in which the land or interest in land 

is located.

(7) NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS USES.— Nothing in this section diminishes—

(D) COTTONWOOD CANYON.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 

comprising approximately 11,712 acres, as generally depicted on the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area Map, 

which shall be known as the ‘‘Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness.”

(E) COTTONWOOD FOREST.—Certain Federal land managed by the Forest Service, comprising approximately 2,643 acres, as generally depicted on the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area Map, which shall be 

known as the ‘‘Cottonwood Forest Wilderness.”

(F) COUGAR CANYON.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising 

approximately 10,409 acres, as generally depicted on the Northwestern Washington County Wilderness Map, 

which shall be known as the “Cougar Canyon Wilderness.”

(G) DEEP CREEK.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately 3,284 acres, as generally depicted on the Northeastern Washington County Wilderness Map, which shall 

be known as the ‘‘Deep Creek Wilderness.’’

(H) DEEP CREEK NORTH.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately 4,262 acres, as generally depicted on the Northeastern Washington County Wilderness Map, 

which shall be known as the ‘‘Deep Creek North Wilderness.’’

(I) DOC’S PASS.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately 17,294 acres, as generally depicted on the Northwestern

Washington County Wilderness Map, which shall be known as the “Doc’s Pass Wilderness.”

(J) GOOSE CREEK.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately 98 acres, as generally depicted on the Northeastern Washington County Wilderness Map, which shall 

be known as the ‘‘Goose Creek Wilderness.’’

(K) LAVERKIN CREEK.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising 

approximately 445 acres, as generally depicted on the Northeastern Washington County Wilderness Map, which 

shall be known as the ‘‘LaVerkin Creek Wilderness.’’

(L) RED BUTTE.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately 1,537 acres, as generally depicted on the Northeastern Washington County Wilderness Map, which shall 

be known as the ‘‘Red Butte Wilderness.”

(M) RED MOUNTAIN.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising 

approximately 18,729 acres, as generally depicted on the Red

Cliffs National Conservation Area Map, which shall be known as the ‘‘Red Mountain Wilderness.”

(N) SLAUGHTER CREEK.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising 

approximately 3,901 acres, as generally depicted on the

Northwestern Washington County Wilderness Map, which shall be known as the ‘‘Slaughter Creek Wilderness.”

(O) TAYLOR CREEK.—Certain Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately 32 acres, as generally depicted on the Northeastern Washington County Wilderness Map, which shall 

be known as the ‘‘Taylor Creek Wilderness.”

(2) MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the 

House of Representatives a map and legal description of each wilderness area designated by paragraph (1).

(B) FORCE AND EFFECT.—Each map and legal description submitted under subparagraph (A) shall have 

the same force and effect as if included in this subtitle, except that the Secretary may correct any clerical or typographical errors in the map or legal description.

(C) AVAILABILITY.—Each map and legal description submitted under subparagraph (A) shall be available 

in the appropriate offices of—
942 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 943

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

(c) RELEASE OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS.—

(1) FINDING.—Congress finds that, for the purposes of section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782), the public land in the County administered by the Bureau of Land Management has 

been adequately studied for wilderness designation.

(2) RELEASE.—Any public land described in paragraph (1) that is not designated as wilderness by subsection (a)

(1)—

(A) is no longer subject to section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1782(c)); and

(B) shall be managed in accordance with applicable law and the land management plans adopted under section 202 of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1712).

(d) TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.—Administrative jurisdiction over the land identified as the Watchman Wilderness on the Northeastern Washington County Wilderness 

Map is hereby transferred to the National Park Service, to be included in, and administered as part of Zion National 

Park.

SEC. 1973. ZION NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘Federal land’’ means certain Federal land—

(A) that is—

 (i) located in the County and Iron County, Utah; and

 (ii) managed by the National Park Service; 

(B) consisting of approximately 124,406 acres; and

(C) as generally depicted on the Zion National Park Wilderness Map and the area added to the park under 

section 1972(d).

(2) WILDERNESS AREA.—The term ‘‘Wilderness Area’’ means the Zion Wilderness designated by subsection 

(b)(1).

(3) ZION NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS MAP.—The term ‘‘Zion National Park Wilderness Map’’ means the 

map entitled ‘‘Zion National Park Wilderness’’ and dated April 2008.

(b) ZION NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS.—

(1) DESIGNATION.—Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal land is designated as wilderness and as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to be known as the ‘‘Zion Wilderness.”

(2) INCORPORATION OF ACQUIRED LAND.—Any land located in the Zion National Park that is acquired 

by the Secretary through a voluntary sale, exchange, or donation may, on the recommendation of the Secretary, 

become part of the Wilderness Area, in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

(3) MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the 

House of Representatives a map and legal description of the Wilderness Area.

(B) FORCE AND EFFECT.—The map and legal description submitted under subparagraph (A) shall have the 

same force and effect as if included in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct any clerical or typographical 

errors in the map or legal description.

(C) AVAILABILITY.—The map and legal description submitted under subparagraph (A) shall be available in 

the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.

(A) the rights of any Indian tribe; or

(B) any tribal rights regarding access to Federal land for tribal activities, including spiritual, cultural, and 

traditional food-gathering activities.

(8) CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION.—In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et 

seq.) and subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, the Secretary may authorize the 

installation and maintenance of hydrologic, meteorologic, or climatological collection devices in the wilderness 

areas designated by subsection (a)(1) if the Secretary determines that the facilities and access to the facilities are 

essential to flood warning, flood control, or water reservoir operation activities.

(9) WATER RIGHTS.—

(A) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section— 

 (i) shall constitute or be construed to constitute either an express or implied reservation by the 

United States of any water or water rights with respect to the land designated as wilderness by subsection (a)

(1);

 (ii) shall affect any water rights in the State existing on the date of enactment of this Act, including 

any water rights held by the United States;

 (iii) shall be construed as establishing a precedent with regard to any future wilderness designations; 

 (iv) shall affect the interpretation of, or any designation made pursuant to, any other Act; or

 (v) shall be construed as limiting, altering, modifying, or amending any of the interstate compacts or 

equitable apportionment decrees that apportion water among and between the State and other States.

(B) STATE WATER LAW.—The Secretary shall follow the procedural and substantive requirements of the law of 

the State in order to obtain and hold any water rights not in existence on the date of enactment of this Act with 

respect to the wilderness areas designated by subsection (a)(1).

(10) FISH AND WILDLIFE.—

(A) JURISDICTION OF STATE.—Nothing in this section affects the jurisdiction of the State with respect to 

fish and wildlife on public land located in the State.

(B) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY.—In furtherance of the purposes and principles of the Wilderness Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Secretary may carry out management activities to maintain or restore fish and wildlife populations (including activities to maintain and restore fish and wildlife habitats to support the populations) 

in any wilderness area designated by subsection (a)(1) if the activities are—

 (i) consistent with applicable wilderness management plans; and

 (ii) carried out in accordance with— 

 (I) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and

 (II) applicable guidelines and policies, including applicable policies described in Appendix B 

 of House Report 101–405.

(11) WILDLIFE WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.—Subject to paragraph (12), the Secretary may authorize structures and facilities, including existing structures and facilities, for wildlife water development projects, 

including guzzlers, in the wilderness areas designated by subsection (a)(1) if—

(A) the structures and facilities will, as determined by the Secretary, enhance wilderness values by promoting 

healthy, viable, and more naturally distributed wildlife populations; and

(B) the visual impacts of the structures and facilities on the wilderness areas can reasonably be minimized.

(12) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the State that specifies the terms and conditions under which wildlife management activities in the wilderness areas designated by subsection (a)(1) may be carried out.
944 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 945

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

 (i) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);

 (ii) this section; and

 (iii) any other applicable law (including regulations).

(2) USES.—The Secretary shall only allow uses of the National Conservation Area that the Secretary determines 

would further a purpose described in subsection (a).

(3) MOTORIZED VEHICLES.—Except in cases in which motorized vehicles are needed for administrative purposes, or to respond to an emergency, the use of motorized vehicles in the National Conservation Area shall be 

permitted only on roads designated by the management plan for the use of motorized vehicles.

(4) GRAZING.—The grazing of livestock in the National Conservation Area, where established before the date of 

enactment of this Act, shall be permitted to continue—

(A) subject to—

 (i) such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices as the Secretary considers necessary; and

 (ii) applicable law; and

(B) in a manner consistent with the purposes described in subsection (a).

(5) WILDLAND FIRE OPERATIONS.—Nothing in this section prohibits the Secretary, in cooperation with 

other Federal, State, and local agencies, as appropriate, from conducting wildland fire operations in the National 

Conservation Area, consistent with the purposes of this section.

(f) INCORPORATION OF ACQUIRED LAND AND INTERESTS.—Any land or interest in land that is located in 

the National Conservation Area that is acquired by the United States shall—

(1) become part of the National Conservation Area; and

(2) be managed in accordance with—

(A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);

(B) this section; and

(C) any other applicable law (including regulations).

(g) WITHDRAWAL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal land located in the National Conservation Area 

are withdrawn from—

(A) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws;

(B) location, entry, and patenting under the mining laws; and

(C) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws.

(2) ADDITIONAL LAND.—If the Secretary acquires additional land that is located in the National Conservation 

Area after the date of enactment of this Act, the land is withdrawn from operation of the laws referred to in paragraph (1) on the date of acquisition of the land.

(h) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section prohibits the authorization of the development of utilities within the National 

Conservation Area if the development is carried out in accordance with—

(1) each utility development protocol described in the habitat conservation plan; and

(2) any other applicable law (including regulations).

SEC. 1975. BEAVER DAM WASH NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of 

present and future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, 

and scientific resources of the Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area.

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

SEC. 1974. RED CLIFFS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.

(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are—

(1) to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources of the National 

Conservation Area; and

(2) to protect each species that is—

(A) located in the National Conservation Area; and

(B) listed as a threatened or endangered species on the list of threatened species or the list of endangered species published under section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1)).

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN.—The term ‘‘habitat conservation plan’’ means the conservation plan 

entitled ‘‘Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan’’ and dated February 23, 1996.

(2) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘management plan’’ means the management plan for the National 

Conservation Area developed by the Secretary under subsection (d)(1).

(3) NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.—The term ‘‘National Conservation Area’’ means the Red Cliffs 

National Conservation Area that—

(A) consists of approximately 44,725 acres of public land in the County, as generally depicted on the Red 

Cliffs National Conservation Area Map; and 

(B) is established by subsection (c).

(4) PUBLIC USE PLAN.—The term ‘‘public use plan’’ means the use plan entitled ‘‘Red Cliffs Desert Reserve 

Public Use Plan’’ and dated June 12, 2000, as amended.

(5) RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘resource management plan’’ means the management plan 

entitled ‘‘St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan’’ and dated March 15, 1999, as amended.

(c) ESTABLISHMENT.—Subject to valid existing rights, there is established in the State the Red Cliffs National 

Conservation Area.

(d) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act and in accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary shall develop a comprehensive plan for the long-term management of the National 

Conservation Area.

(2) CONSULTATION.—In developing the management plan required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 

consult with—

(A) appropriate State, tribal, and local governmental entities; and

(B) members of the public.

(3) INCORPORATION OF PLANS.—In developing the management plan required under paragraph (1), to the 

extent consistent with this section, the Secretary may incorporate any provision of—

(A) the habitat conservation plan;

(B) the resource management plan; and

(C) the public use plan.

(e) MANAGEMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall manage the National Conservation Area—

(A) in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the resources of the National Conservation Area; and

(B) in accordance with— 
946 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 947

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

(5) WILDLAND FIRE OPERATIONS.—Nothing in this section prohibits the Secretary, in cooperation with 

other Federal, State, and local agencies, as appropriate, from conducting wildland fire operations in the National 

Conservation Area, consistent with the purposes of this section.

(f) INCORPORATION OF ACQUIRED LAND AND INTERESTS.—Any land or interest in land that is located in 

the National Conservation Area that is acquired by the United States shall—

(1) become part of the National Conservation Area; and

(2) be managed in accordance with—

(A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);

(B) this section; and

(C) any other applicable law (including regulations).

(g) WITHDRAWAL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal land located in the National Conservation Area is 

withdrawn from—

(A) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws;

(B) location, entry, and patenting under the mining laws; and

(C) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws.

(2) ADDITIONAL LAND.—If the Secretary acquires additional land that is located in the National Conservation 

Area after the date of enactment of this Act, the land is withdrawn from operation of the laws referred to in paragraph (1) on the date of acquisition of the land.

SEC. 1976. ZION NATIONAL PARK WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION.

(a) DESIGNATION.—Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) (as amended by section 

1852) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(204) ZION NATIONAL PARK, UTAH.—The approximately 165.5 miles of segments of the Virgin River and tributaries of the Virgin River across Federal land within and adjacent to Zion National Park, as generally depicted on the 

map entitled ‘Wild and Scenic River Segments Zion National Park and Bureau of Land Management’ and dated April 

2008, to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in the following classifications:

‘‘(A) TAYLOR CREEK.—The 4.5-mile segment from the junction of the north, middle, and south forks of 

Taylor Creek, west to the park boundary and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a scenic river.

‘‘(B) NORTH FORK OF TAYLOR CREEK.—The segment from the head of North Fork to the junction with 

Taylor Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(C) MIDDLE FORK OF TAYLOR CREEK.—The segment from the head of Middle Fork on Bureau of Land 

Management land to the junction with Taylor Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(D) SOUTH FORK OF TAYLOR CREEK.—The segment from the head of South Fork to the junction with 

Taylor Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(E) TIMBER CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES.—The 3.1-mile segment from the head of Timber Creek and 

tributaries of Timber Creek to the junction with LaVerkin Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(F) LAVERKIN CREEK.—The 16.1-mile segment beginning in T. 38 S., R. 11 W., sec. 21, on Bureau of Land 

Management land, southwest through Zion National Park, and ending at the south end of T. 40 S., R. 12 W., sec. 

7, and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a wild river.

‘‘(G) WILLIS CREEK.—The 1.9-mile segment beginning on Bureau of Land Management land in the SWSW 

sec. 27, T. 38 S., R. 11 W., to the junction with LaVerkin Creek in Zion National Park and adjacent land rim-torim, as a wild river.

(1) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘management plan’’ means the management plan for the National 

Conservation Area developed by the Secretary under subsection (d)(1).

(2) NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.—The term ‘‘National Conservation Area’’ means the Beaver Dam 

Wash National Conservation Area that—

(A) consists of approximately 68,083 acres of public land in the County, as generally depicted on the Beaver Dam 

Wash National Conservation Area Map; and 

(B) is established by subsection (c).

(c) ESTABLISHMENT.—Subject to valid existing rights, there is established in the State the Beaver Dam Wash 

National Conservation Area.

(d) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act and in accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary shall develop a comprehensive plan for the long-term management of the National 

Conservation Area.

(2) CONSULTATION.—In developing the management plan required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 

consult with—

(A) appropriate State, tribal, and local governmental entities; and

(B) members of the public.

(3) MOTORIZED VEHICLES.—In developing the management plan required under paragraph (1), the Secretary 

shall incorporate the restrictions on motorized vehicles described in subsection (e)(3).

(e) MANAGEMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall manage the National Conservation Area—

(A) in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the resources of the National Conservation Area; and

(B) in accordance with—

 (i) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);

 (ii) this section; and

 (iii) any other applicable law (including regulations).

(2) USES.—The Secretary shall only allow uses of the National Conservation Area that the Secretary determines 

would further the purpose described in subsection (a).

(3) MOTORIZED VEHICLES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except in cases in which motorized vehicles are needed for administrative purposes, or 

to respond to an emergency, the use of motorized vehicles in the National Conservation Area shall be permitted 

only on roads designated by the management plan for the use of motorized vehicles.

(B) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT RELATING TO CERTAIN AREAS LOCATED IN THE NATIONAL 

CONSERVATION AREA.— In addition to the requirement described in subparagraph (A), with respect to the 

areas designated on the Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area Map as ‘‘Designated Road Areas’’, motorized vehicles shall be permitted only on the roads identified on such map.

(4) GRAZING.—The grazing of livestock in the National Conservation Area, where established before the date of 

enactment of this Act, shall be permitted to continue—

(A) subject to—

 (i) such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices as the Secretary considers necessary; and

 (ii) applicable law (including regulations); and

(B) in a manner consistent with the purpose described in subsection (a).
948 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 949

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

‘‘(AA) ORDERVILLE CANYON.—The segment from the eastern boundary of Zion National Park to the 

junction with the North Fork of the Virgin River and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(BB) MYSTERY CANYON.—The segment from the head of Mystery Canyon to the junction with the North 

Fork of the Virgin River and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(CC) ECHO CANYON.—The segment from the eastern boundary of Zion National Park to the junction 

with the North Fork of the Virgin River and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(DD) BEHUNIN CANYON.—The segment from the head of Behunin Canyon to the junction with the 

North Fork of the Virgin River and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(EE) HEAPS CANYON.—The segment from the head of Heaps Canyon to the junction with the North Fork 

of the Virgin River and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(FF) BIRCH CREEK.—The segment from the head of Birch Creek to the junction with the North Fork of 

the Virgin River and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a wild river.

‘‘(GG) OAK CREEK.—The segment of Oak Creek from the head of Oak Creek to where the forks join and 

adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a wild river.

‘‘(HH) OAK CREEK.—The 1-mile segment of Oak Creek from the point at which the 2 forks of Oak Creek 

join to the junction with the North Fork of the Virgin River and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a recreational 

river.

‘‘(II) CLEAR CREEK.—The 6.4-mile segment of Clear Creek from the eastern boundary of Zion National 

Park to the junction with Pine Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a recreational river.

‘‘(JJ) PINE CREEK .—The 2-mile segment of Pine Creek from the head of Pine Creek to the junction with 

Clear Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(KK) PINE CREEK.—The 3-mile segment of Pine Creek from the junction with Clear Creek to the junction 

with the North Fork of the Virgin River and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a recreational river.

‘‘(LL) EAST FORK OF THE VIRGIN RIVER.—The 8-mile segment of the East Fork of the Virgin River 

from the eastern boundary of Zion National Park through Parunuweap Canyon to the western boundary of Zion 

National Park and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a wild river.

‘‘(MM) SHUNES CREEK.—The 3-mile segment of Shunes Creek from the dry waterfall on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management through Zion National Park to the western boundary of Zion National 

Park and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide as a wild river.’’.

(b) INCORPORATION OF ACQUIRED NON-FEDERAL LAND.—If the United States acquires any non-Federal 

land within or adjacent to Zion National Park that includes a river segment that is contiguous to a river segment of 

the Virgin River designated as a wild, scenic, or recreational river by paragraph (204) of section 3(a) of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) (as added by subsection (a)), the acquired river segment shall be incorporated 

in, and be administered as part of, the applicable wild, scenic, or recreational river.

(c) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) does not affect the agreement among the United 

States, the State, the Washington County Water Conservancy District, and the Kane County Water Conservancy 

District entitled ‘‘Zion National Park Water Rights Settlement Agreement’’ and dated December 4, 1996.

SEC. 1977. WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION 

MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior.

(2) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ means—

(A) with respect to land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Secretary; and

(B) with respect to land managed by the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture.

‘‘(H) BEARTRAP CANYON.—The 2.3-mile segment beginning on Bureau of Management land in the 

SWNW sec. 3, T. 39 S., R. 11 W., to the junction with LaVerkin Creek and the segment from the headwaters north 

of Long Point to the junction with LaVerkin Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(I) HOP VALLEY CREEK.—The 3.3-mile segment beginning at the southern boundary of T. 39 S., R. 11 W., 

sec. 20, to the junction with LaVerkin Creek and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a wild river.

‘‘(J) CURRENT CREEK.—The 1.4-mile segment from the head of Current Creek to the junction with 

LaVerkin Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(K) CANE CREEK.—The 0.6-mile segment from the head of Smith Creek to the junction with LaVerkin 

Creek and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a wild river.

‘‘(L) SMITH CREEK.—The 1.3-mile segment from the head of Smith Creek to the junction with LaVerkin 

Creek and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a wild river.

‘‘(M) NORTH CREEK LEFT AND RIGHT FORKS.—The segment of the Left Fork from the junction with 

Wildcat Canyon to the junction with Right Fork, from the head of Right Fork to the junction with Left Fork, and 

from the junction of the Left and Right Forks southwest to Zion National Park boundary and adjacent land rimto-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(N) WILDCAT CANYON (BLUE CREEK).—The segment of Blue Creek from the Zion National Park 

boundary to the junction with the Right Fork of North Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(O) LITTLE CREEK.—The segment beginning at the head of Little Creek to the junction with the Left Fork 

of North Creek and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a wildriver.

‘‘(P) RUSSELL GULCH.—The segment from the head of Russell Gulch to the junction with the Left Fork of 

North Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(Q) GRAPEVINE WASH.—The 2.6-mile segment from the Lower Kolob Plateau to the junction with the 

Left Fork of North Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a scenic river.

‘‘(R) PINE SPRING WASH.—The 4.6-mile segment to the junction with the left fork of North Creek and 

adjacent land 1⁄2-mile, as a scenic river.

‘‘(S) WOLF SPRINGS WASH.—The 1.4-mile segment from the head of Wolf Springs Wash to the junction 

with Pine Spring Wash and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a scenic river.

‘‘(T) KOLOB CREEK.—The 5.9-mile segment of Kolob Creek beginning in T. 39 S., R. 10 W., sec. 30, through 

Bureau of Land Management land and Zion National Park land to the junction with the North Fork of the Virgin 

River and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(U) OAK CREEK.—The 1-mile stretch of Oak Creek beginning in T. 39 S., R. 10 W., sec. 19, to the junction 

with Kolob Creek and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(V) GOOSE CREEK.—The 4.6-mile segment of Goose Creek from the head of Goose Creek to the junction 

with the North Fork of the Virgin River and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(W) DEEP CREEK.—The 5.3-mile segment of Deep Creek beginning on Bureau of Land Management land 

at the northern boundary of T. 39 S., R. 10 W., sec. 23, south to the junction of the North Fork of the Virgin River 

and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(X) NORTH FORK OF THE VIRGIN RIVER.—The 10.8-mile segment of the North Fork of the Virgin 

River beginning on Bureau of Land Management land at the eastern border of T. 39 S., R. 10 W., sec. 35, to 

Temple of Sinawava and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.

‘‘(Y) NORTH FORK OF THE VIRGIN RIVER.—The 8-mile segment of the North Fork of the Virgin River 

from Temple of Sinawava south to the Zion National Park boundary and adjacent land 1⁄2-mile wide, as a recreational river.

‘‘(Z) IMLAY CANYON.—The segment from the head of Imlay Creek to the junction with the North Fork of 

the Virgin River and adjacent land rim-to-rim, as a wild river.
950 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 951

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

(D) MAP.—A map that depicts the trail shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate 

offices of—

 (i) the Bureau of Land Management; and

 (ii) the Forest Service.

(2) MANAGEMENT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary concerned shall manage the trail—

 (i) in accordance with applicable laws (including regulations);

 (ii) to ensure the safety of citizens who use the trail; and

 (iii) in a manner by which to minimize any damage to sensitive habitat or cultural resources.

(B) MONITORING; EVALUATION.—To minimize the impacts of the use of the trail on environmental and 

cultural resources, the Secretary concerned shall—

 (i) annually assess the effects of the use of off-highway vehicles on—

 (I) the trail; and

 (II) land located in proximity to the trail; and

 (ii) in consultation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, annually assess the effects of the 

use of the trail on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

(C) CLOSURE.—The Secretary concerned, in consultation with the State and the County, and subject to 

subparagraph (D), may temporarily close or permanently reroute a portion of the trail if the Secretary concerned 

determines that—

 (i) the trail is having an adverse impact on—

 (I) wildlife habitats;

 (II) natural resources;

 (III) cultural resources; or

 (IV) traditional uses;

 (ii) the trail threatens public safety; or

 (iii) closure of the trail is necessary—

 (I) to repair damage to the trail; or

 (II) to repair resource damage.

(D) REROUTING.—Any portion of the trail that is temporarily closed by the Secretary concerned under 

subparagraph (C) may be permanently rerouted along any road or trail—

 (i) that is—

 (I) in existence as of the date of the closure of the portion of the trail;

 (II) located on public land; and

 (III) open to motorized use; and

 (ii) if the Secretary concerned determines that rerouting the portion of the trail would not signifi 

cantly increase or decrease the length of the trail.

(E) NOTICE OF AVAILABLE ROUTES.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, 

shall ensure that visitors to the trail have access to adequate notice relating to the availability of trail routes 

through—

 (i) the placement of appropriate signage along the trail; and

(3) TRAIL.—The term ‘‘trail’’ means the High Desert Off- Highway Vehicle Trail designated under subsection 

(c)(1)(A).

(4) TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘travel management plan’’ means the comprehensive travel and 

transportation management plan developed under subsection (b)(1).

(b) COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, in accordance with the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and other applicable laws (including regulations), the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies and State, tribal, and local governmental 

entities, and after an opportunity for public comment, shall develop a comprehensive travel management plan for 

the land managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the County—

(A) to provide to the public a clearly marked network of roads and trails with signs and maps to promote—

 (i) public safety and awareness; and

 (ii) enhanced recreation and general access opportunities;

(B) to help reduce in the County growing conflicts arising from interactions between—

 (i) motorized recreation; and

 (ii) the important resource values of public land;

(C) to promote citizen-based opportunities for—

 (i) the monitoring and stewardship of the trail; and

 (ii) trail system management; and

(D) to support law enforcement officials in promoting—

 (i) compliance with off-highway vehicle laws (including regulations); and

 (ii) effective deterrents of abuses of public land.

(2) SCOPE; CONTENTS.—In developing the travel management plan, the Secretary shall—

(A) in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, State, tribal, and local governmental entities (including 

the County and St. George City, Utah), and the public, identify 1 or more alternatives for a northern transportation route in the County;

(B) ensure that the travel management plan contains a map that depicts the trail; and

(C) designate a system of areas, roads, and trails for mechanical and motorized use.

(c) DESIGNATION OF TRAIL.—

(1) DESIGNATION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—As a component of the travel management plan, and in accordance with subparagraph 

(B), the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, and after an opportunity for public comment, shall designate a trail (which may include a system of trails)—

 (i) for use by off-highway vehicles; and

 (ii) to be known as the ‘‘High Desert Off-Highway Vehicle Trail’’.

(B) REQUIREMENTS.—In designating the trail, the Secretary shall only include trails that are—

 (i) as of the date of enactment of this Act, authorized for use by off-highway vehicles; and

 (ii) located on land that is managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the County.

(C) NATIONAL FOREST LAND.—The Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary and in 

accordance with applicable law, may designate a portion of the trail on National Forest System land within the 

County.
952 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 953

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

(4) WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL.—The approximately 80-acre parcel as generally depicted on the Washington 

County Growth and Conservation Act Map as ‘‘Parcel E’’, to Washington County, Utah, for expansion of the 

Purgatory Correctional Facility.

(5) HURRICANE EQUESTRIAN PARK.—The approximately 40-acre parcel as generally depicted on the 

Washington County Growth and Conservation Act Map as ‘‘Parcel F’’, to the City of Hurricane, Utah, for use as a 

public equestrian park.

(b) MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.—As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall finalize legal descriptions of the parcels to be conveyed under this section. The Secretary may correct any minor errors in the map referenced in subsection (a) or in the applicable legal descriptions. The map and 

legal descriptions shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land 

Management.

(c) REVERSION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—If any parcel conveyed under this section ceases to be used for the public purpose for which 

the parcel was conveyed, as described in subsection (a), the land shall, at the discretion of the Secretary based on 

his determination of the best interests of the United States, revert to the United States.

(2) RESPONSIBILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.—If the Secretary determines pursuant to paragraph (1) that the land should revert to the United States, and if the Secretary determines that the land is contaminated with hazardous waste, the local governmental entity to which the land was conveyed shall be responsible 

for remediation of the contamination.

SEC. 1981. CONVEYANCE OF DIXIE NATIONAL FOREST LAND.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) COVERED FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘covered Federal land’’ means the approximately 66.07 acres of land 

in the Dixie National Forest in the State, as depicted on the map.

(2) LANDOWNER.—The term ‘‘landowner’’ means Kirk R. Harrison, who owns land in Pinto Valley, Utah.

(3) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Conveyance of Dixie National Forest Land’’ and dated 

December 18, 2008.

(4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Agriculture.

(b) CONVEYANCE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may convey to the landowner all right, title, and interest of the United States 

in and to any of the covered Federal land (including any improvements or appurtenances to the covered Federal 

land) by sale or exchange.

(2) LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and legal description of the covered Federal land to be conveyed 

under paragraph (1) shall be determined by surveys satisfactory to the Secretary.

(3) CONSIDERATION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—As consideration for any conveyance by sale under paragraph (1), the landowner shall 

pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the fair market value of any Federal land conveyed, as determined under 

subparagraph (B).

(B) APPRAISAL.—The fair market value of any Federal land that is conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be 

determined by an appraisal acceptable to the Secretary that is performed in accordance with—

 (i) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions;

 (ii) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; and (iii) any other applicable law (in 

cluding regulations).

(4) DISPOSITION AND USE OF PROCEEDS.—

 (ii) the distribution of maps, safety education materials, and other information that the Secretary 

concerned determines to be appropriate.

(3) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section affects the ownership, management, or other rights relating to any nonFederal land (including any interest in any non-Federal land).

SEC. 1978. LAND DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of the Interior may sell public land located within 

Washington County, Utah, that, as of July 25, 2000, has been identified for disposal in appropriate resource management plans.

(b) USE OF PROCEEDS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than a law that specifically provides for 

a portion of the proceeds of a land sale to be distributed to any trust fund of the State), proceeds from the sale 

of public land under subsection (a) shall be deposited in a separate account in the Treasury to be known as the 

‘‘Washington County, Utah Land Acquisition Account’’.

(2) AVAILABILITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Amounts in the account shall be available to the Secretary, without further appropriation, to purchase from willing sellers lands or interests in land within the wilderness areas and National 

Conservation Areas established by this subtitle.

(B) APPLICABILITY.—Any purchase of land or interest in land under subparagraph (A) shall be in accordance with applicable law.

SEC. 1979. MANAGEMENT OF PRIORITY BIOLOGICAL AREAS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with applicable Federal laws (including regulations), the Secretary of the Interior 

shall—

(1) identify areas located in the County where biological conservation is a priority; and

(2) undertake activities to conserve and restore plant and animal species and natural communities within such 

areas.

(b) GRANTS; COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior may 

make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements with, State, tribal, and local governmental entities and private 

entities to conduct research, develop scientific analyses, and carry out any other initiative relating to the restoration or 

conservation of the areas.

SEC. 1980. PUBLIC PURPOSE CONVEYANCES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the land use planning requirements of sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712, 1713), upon the request of the appropriate local governmental 

entity, as described below, the Secretary shall convey the following parcels of public land without consideration, subject to the provisions of this section:

(1) TEMPLE QUARRY.—The approximately 122-acre parcel known as ‘‘Temple Quarry’’ as generally depicted 

on the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act Map as ‘‘Parcel B’’, to the City of St. George, Utah, for 

open space and public recreation purposes.

(2) HURRICANE CITY SPORTS PARK.—The approximately 41-acre parcel as generally depicted on the 

Washington County Growth and Conservation Act Map as ‘‘Parcel C’’, to the City of Hurricane, Utah, for public 

recreation purposes and public administrative offices.

(3) WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.—The approximately 70-acre parcel as generally depicted 

on the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act Map as ‘‘Parcel D’’, to the Washington County Public 

School District for use for public school and related educational and administrative purposes.
954 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 955

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

(4) LAND TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RESERVATION.—Land taken into trust pursuant to this section 

shall be considered to be part of the reservation of the Tribe.

SEC. 1983. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this subtitle.

(A) DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS.—The Secretary shall deposit the proceeds of any sale of land under 

paragraph (1) in the fund established under Public Law 90–171 (commonly known as the ‘‘Sisk Act’’) (16 U.S.C. 

484a).

(B) USE OF PROCEEDS.—Amounts deposited under subparagraph (A) shall be available to the Secretary, 

without further appropriation and until expended, for the acquisition of real property or interests in real property 

for inclusion in the Dixie National Forest in the State.

(5) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may require any additional terms and conditions for any conveyance under paragraph (1) that the Secretary determines to be appropriate to protect the 

interests of the United States.

SEC. 1982. TRANSFER OF LAND INTO TRUST FOR SHIVWITS BAND OF PAIUTE INDIANS.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) PARCEL A.—The term ‘‘Parcel A’’ means the parcel that consists of approximately 640 acres of land that is—

(A) managed by the Bureau of Land Management;

(B) located in Washington County, Utah; and

(C) depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Washington County Growth and Conservation Act Map’’.

(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior.

(3) TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Tribe’’ means the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians of the State of Utah.

(b) PARCEL TO BE HELD IN TRUST.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of the Tribe, the Secretary shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe all 

right, title, and interest of the United States in and to Parcel A.

(2) SURVEY; LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—

(A) SURVEY.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through 

the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall complete a survey of Parcel A to establish the boundary of 

Parcel A.

(B) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL A.—

 (i) IN GENERAL.—Upon the completion of the survey under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 

publish in the Federal Register a legal description of—

 (I) the boundary line of Parcel A; and

 (II) Parcel A.

 (ii) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.—Before the date of publication of the legal descriptions un 

der clause (i), the Secretary may make minor corrections to correct technical and clerical errors in the legal 

descriptions.

 (iii) EFFECT.—Effective beginning on the date of publication of the legal descriptions under clause 

(i), the legal descriptions shall be considered to be the official legal descriptions of Parcel A.

(3) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section—

(A) affects any valid right in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;

(B) enlarges, impairs, or otherwise affects any right or claim of the Tribe to any land or interest in land other 

than to Parcel A that is—

 (i) based on an aboriginal or Indian title; and

 (ii) in existence as of the date of enactment of this Act; or

(C) constitutes an express or implied reservation of water or a water right with respect to Parcel A.
BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 957

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Planning Criteria

Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and guidelines that help to guide data collection and alternative formulation and selection in the development of new RMPs for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs, and the focused 

Amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP. In conjunction with the planning issues, planning criteria ensure 

that the planning process is focused. The criteria also help guide the final plan selection and provide a basis for judging the responsiveness of the planning options. 

The preliminary planning criteria were included in the Notice of Intent (Federal Register, May 10, 2010, Vol 75, No. 

89, pages 25876-25877), with an invitation for the public to comment on those criteria. 

Planning criteria for the NCA RMPs include the following:

▶ The RMPs for Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas must ensure the BLM conserves, 

protects, and enhances those resources and resource uses identified as NCA purposes in OPLMA.

▶ The RMPs will recognize valid existing rights.

▶ No land use plan decisions will be made relative to lands administered by other entities and decisions made 

within the RMPs will not apply to private lands. 

▶ The RMPs will be completed in compliance with OPLMA, Subtitle O, Section 1974 and 1975; FLPMA; NEPA; 

and all other applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, policies, and guidelines (including environmental 

laws and Executive Orders listed as supplemental authorities in Appendix 1 of H-1790–1). 

▶ To the extent possible, decisions in the RMPs will be compatible with the existing plans and policies of adjacent 

local, Tribal, State, and Federal entities, as long as the decisions conform to Federal laws and regulations that 

direct resource management on BLM lands.

▶ Native American Tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with BLM policy and Tribal concerns will 

be given consideration.

▶ Specific planning decisions will be established in the RMP for the Beaver Dam Wash NCA to protect, enhance, 

and interpret the values associated with the Congressionally-designated Old Spanish National Historic Trail. 

Decisions will be in conformance with the National Trails System Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, 

and consistent with policy identified in BLM Manual 6280.

▶ The Joshua Tree National Natural Landmark within the Beaver Dam Wash NCA will continue to be a valid 

administrative designation and will be carried forward in all alternatives for management of Beaver Dam Wash 

NCA.

▶ New wild and scenic river proposals will not be evaluated or analyzed in the NCA RMPs. 

▶ Decisions in existing BLM land use and implementation-level plans, and other plans identified in OPLMA, 

Subtitle O, Section 1974 and 1975 for Red Cliffs NCA, will be considered during the process of developing the 

new RMP. Where existing decisions remain valid and responsive to the purposes of the designation, they may be 

carried forward.

▶ The RMPs will incorporate the Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management (1997) and will lay out a strategy for ensuring that proper grazing practices are followed, where 

applicable. Grazing will be managed to maintain or improve the health of the BLM lands to enhance resource 

conditions. 

▶ The RMPs will address management of livestock grazing permits, in accordance with OPLMA, other applicable 

laws, rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines. 

▶ The RMPs will provide management direction for wildlife habitat on BLM-administered public lands while recognizing the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources’ responsibility to manage wildlife populations. The BLM will 

consult with UDWR in establishing policy for the purposes of ensuring public safety and land health, as well as 

public use and enjoyment.
958 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 959

APPENDIX B

▶ Lands within the two NCAs will be inventoried for visual resource and assigned a Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) class ranging from Class I to Class IV. These VRM classes will serve as guidance to ensure that future 

management activities are designed to meet the assigned classes. 

▶ Area designations (open, closed, or limited use) for motorized recreation will be consistent with the 

Congressionally-mandated Uses of the Beaver Dam Wash NCA (OPLMA, Section 1975 9(e) (1) and (3) related 

to motorized vehicles and the BLM Travel and Transportation Management guidance.

▶ Planning and management direction will be focused on the relative values of resources as guided by OPLMA 

and not the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or economic output. 

▶ The BLM will use best available scientific information, research, technologies, and results of inventory, monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate local and regional management strategies that will enhance or 

restore impaired systems.

▶ The planning process will include an analysis of the potential impacts associated with the proposed management 

alternatives, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be completed alongside the development of the 

RMP (43 CFR 1610 and 40 CFR 1500). 

▶ Public participation will be encouraged throughout the process. The BLM will collaborate and build relationships with tribes, State and local governments, Federal agencies, local stakeholders, and others in the community. Collaborators are regularly informed and offered timely and meaningful opportunities to participate in the 

planning process.

Planning Criteria for the Amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP

▶ The Amendment will comply with Congressional mandate from OPLMA, Subtitle O, Section 1974 and 1975 

to identify areas in Washington County where biological conservation is a priority and undertake activities to 

conserve and restore plant and animal species and natural communities within such areas. The planning effort 

will evaluate the need for Special Designation Areas or other management determinations and will provide an 

opportunity for the submission of nominations for additional ACECs and reevaluation of existing ACEC designations related to biological conservation. 

▶ Area designations (open, closed, or limited use) for motorized recreation will be consistent with the BLM Travel 

and Transportation Management guidance. The designated OHV ‘‘open’’ area of the Sand Mountain Special 

Recreation Management Area will remain open under all alternatives of the plan amendment, consistent with 

the agreement for joint management by the State of Utah’s Sand Hollow Reservoir State Park.

▶ The BLM will use best available scientific information, research, technologies, and results of inventory, monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate local and regional management strategies that will enhance or 

restore impaired systems.

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

Laws, Regulations, and Policy

In addition to the Omnibus Act and all applicable laws, rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines, the following specifically guide management on Federal lands and will guide and influence the development of management actions 

through the RMP process (note that this is not an all-inclusive list).

▶ The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978) (PL 95-341) - This Act requires Federal land managers 

to include consultation with traditional Native American or Alaska Native religious leaders in their land and 

resource management plans.

▶ The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) as amended (16 USC 470a, 470cc and 470ee) - This Act 

requires permits for the excavation or removal of federally administered archeological resources, encourages 

increased cooperation among Federal agencies and private individuals, and provides stringent criminal and civil 

penalties for violations. It also requires Federal agencies to identify important resources vulnerable to looting, 

and to develop a tracking system for violations.

▶ The Bald Eagle Protection Act (1940) (16 USC 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250) - This Act prohibits the taking or possession of, and commerce in, bald and golden eagles, with limited exceptions.

▶ BLM Manual 4180 and Manual H-4180-1 (Land Health and Rangeland Health Standards) - The purpose of 

this Manual and Handbook is to set forth the authorities, roles and responsibilities, and policies for developing 

and implementing land health standards on the National System of Public Lands in order to ensure sustainable 

public land health. Land health standards describe the minimum requirements for land health and are used to 

develop objectives in land use plans (H-16011).

▶ BLM Manual 1601 and Handbook H-1601-1 (Land Use Planning) - The purpose of this Manual and Handbook 

is to provide further guidance to BLM personnel on the requirements of Sec. 201 and 202 of the FLPMA, the 

BLM’s Planning Regulations (43 CFR 1600), and the NEPA. This Manual is designed to help ensure that the 

public lands are managed in accordance with FLPMA (43 USC 1701 et seq.) and other applicable laws, rules, 

regulations, policies, and guidelines, under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; in a manner that 

recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber; and in a manner that will 

protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water, and 

archaeological values.

▶ BLM Manual 1790 and Handbook H-1790-1 (NEPA Handbook) - The purpose of this Manual and Handbook 

are to help BLM personnel comply with the NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508).

▶ BLM Manual 6100 (National Landscape Conservation System Management) - This manual provides general 

policy to the BLM on managing public lands in the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), which 

includes National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, and National Scenic and Historic Trails.

▶ BLM Manual 6220 (National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, and Similar Designations) - This 

manual provides guidance to BLM personnel on managing and planning for BLM-administered National 

Monuments, National Conservation Areas, and similar designations.

▶ BLM Manual 6320 (Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process) 

- This Manual establishes guidance to the BLM regarding planning for areas that have inventoried wilderness 

characteristics. This does not apply to lands already designated as Wilderness by Congress or to Wilderness 

Study Areas.

▶ BLM Manual 6280 (Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails Under Study or Recommended as 

Suitable for Congressional Designation) - This Manual provide guidance on the management of National 

Scenic and Historic Trails. Within the Beaver Dam Wash NCA, this pertains to management of the Old Spanish 

National Historic Trail.

▶ BLM Manual 6340 (Management of Designated Wilderness Areas) - This Manual provides the BLM policy and 

program direction for the management of wilderness areas under the authority of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
960 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 961

APPENDIX C APPENDIX C

▶ BLM Manual 6840 (Special Status Species Management) - The purpose of this Manual is to provide policy and 

guidance for the conservation of BLM special status species and the ecosystems upon which they depend on 

BLM-administered lands. BLM special status species are: (1) species listed or proposed for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and (2) species requiring special management consideration to promote their 

conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA, which are designated as 

Bureau sensitive by the State Director(s). All Federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in 

the 5 years following delisting will be conserved as Bureau sensitive species.

▶ BLM Manual 8100 (The Foundations for Managing Cultural Resources) - This Manual Section is intended as a 

reference source to provide BLM managers with basic information and general summary guidance for managing 

cultural resources.

▶ BLM Manual 8120 (Tribal Consultation Under Cultural Resources) - This Manual provides basic policy direction on the BLM's consultation responsibilities under cultural resource-related laws and executive orders, 

regarding cultural, historical, and religious concerns of American Indians and Alaska Natives ("Tribes"). Its 

purpose is to clarify legal relationships between the BLM and Tribes relative to such concerns.

▶ BLM Manual 8140 (Protecting Cultural Resources) - This Manual provides general guidance for protecting cultural resources from natural or human-caused deterioration; for making decisions about recovering significant 

cultural resource data when it is impossible or impractical to maintain cultural resources in a non-deteriorating 

condition; for protecting cultural resources from inadvertent adverse effects associated with BLM land use decisions, pursuant to the NHPA, the NEPA, EO 11593, and the national Programmatic Agreement; and for controlling unauthorized uses of cultural resources.

▶ BLM Manual 8561 (Wilderness Management Plans) - This Manual provides policy direction on writing wilderness management plans for wilderness areas.

▶ The Carlson-Foley Act (1968) (42 USC 1241-1243) - This Act provides for the control of noxious plants on lands 

under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government by permitting the appropriate State agency to enter such lands 

to destroy noxious plants.

▶ The Clean Air Act (1990) (42 USC 7401, 7642) - The United States Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1963, 

the Air Quality Act in 1967, the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970, and Clean Air Act Amendments in 1977 and 

1990. The 1963 Clean Air Act relies on States to issue and enforce regulations regarding air pollution. Congress 

amended the Clean Air Act in 1970 and established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set and enforce national standards for air pollution. In 1990, the EPA was authorized to set National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), which establish acceptable concentrations of six criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon 

monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter (PM2.5).

▶ The Clean Water Act (1987) (33 USC 1251) as amended - This Act establishes objectives to restore and maintain 

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s water. The Act also requires permits for pointsource discharges to navigable waters of the United States. It provides for the protection of wetlands, and includes monitoring and research provisions for protection of ambient water quality. As authorized by the Clean 

Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.

▶ The Endangered Species Act (1973) as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.) - This Act directs Federal agencies to 

ensure that their actions do not jeopardize threatened and endangered species, and that through their authority 

they help bring about the recovery of such species.

▶ Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment - This EO directs Federal 

agencies to locate, inventory, nominate, and protect federally owned cultural resources eligible for the NRHP, 

and to ensure that their plans and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of non-federally 

owned resources.

▶ Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management - This EO provides for the restoration and preservation of national and beneficial floodplain values, and for the enhancement of the natural and beneficial values of wetlands 

in carrying out programs affecting land use.

▶ Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice - This EO requires that Federal agencies address the environmental justice of their actions on minority populations and on low-income populations.

▶ Executive Order (EO) 13112, Invasive Species - This EO directs Federal agencies to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species and to provide for control of invasive vegetation. It also directs Federal agencies to minimize the 

economic, ecological, and human health impacts resulting from invasive vegetation on public lands.

▶ Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments - This EO directs 

Federal agencies to respect tribal self-government and sovereignty, tribal rights, and tribal responsibilities whenever they formulate policies that may “significantly or uniquely affect Indian tribal governments.”

▶ Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds - This EO requires that 

Federal agencies that have, or are likely to have, a measurable adverse impact on migratory bird populations 

develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USFWS that shall promote the conservation of 

migratory bird populations.

▶ Executive Order 13307, Indian Sacred Sites - This EO directs Federal agencies that manage Federal lands to 1) 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and 2) avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.

▶ Executive Order 13443, Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation - This EO directs the 

Department of the Interior and its component agencies, bureaus and offices “to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.”

▶ The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) as amended (43 USC 1701 et seq.) - This Act established 

the land management authority of the BLM, and provides guidance for how public lands and related resource 

values are to be managed by the BLM. The BLM manages public lands based upon the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield. It requires that the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and 

atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values be protected. Section 202(a) requires the development 

and maintenance, and, as appropriate, the revision of land use plans.

▶ The Federal Noxious Weed Act (1974) as amended by Sec. 15, Management of Undesirable Plants on Federal 

Lands (1990) (7 USC 2814) - This Act requires that each Federal agency designate a lead office and person 

trained in the management of undesirable plants, establish and fund an undesirable plant management program, 

complete and implement cooperative agreements with State agencies, and establish integrated management 

systems in order to control undesirable plant species.

▶ The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (1980) as amended (16 USC 2901-2911) – This Act (commonly known 

as the Non-game Act) encourages States to develop conservation plans for non-game fish and wildlife of ecological, educational, aesthetic, cultural, recreational, economic, or scientific value. The States may be reimbursed for 

a percentage of the costs of developing, revising, or implementing conservation plans approved by the Secretary 

of the Interior. Amendments adopted in 1988 and 1989 also direct the Secretary to undertake certain activities 

to research and conserve migratory non-game birds.

▶ The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958) (16 USC 661-666) - This Act provides that, whenever the waters 

or channel of a body of water are modified by a department or agency of the United States, the department or 

agency will first consult with the USFWS, as well as with the head of the agency exercising administration over 

the wildlife resources of the State where construction will occur, with a view to the conservation of wildlife 

resources.

▶ The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978) (16 USC 742l; 92 Stat. 3110) - This Act authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to assist in training of State fish and wildlife enforcement personnel, to cooperate with other Federal or State agencies for enforcement of fish and wildlife laws, and to use 

appropriations to pay for rewards and undercover operations.

▶ The Historic Sites Act (1935) (16 USC 461) - This Act provides for the preservation of historic American sites, 

buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, thereby providing a foundation for the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
962 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 963

APPENDIX C APPENDIX C

▶ The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.) – This Act provides for 

the establishment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, special BLM accounts in the Treasury, the collection and disposition of recreation fees, the authorization for appropriation of recreation fee receipts, and other 

purposes. Authorizes planning, acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and facilities.

▶ Secretarial Order 3289, Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other 

Natural and Cultural Resources - This Order establishes a Department wide approach for applying scientific 

tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes 

and on the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resource s that the Department manages. 

The realities of climate change require us to change how we manage the land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage and tribal lands and resources we oversee. For example: Shifting wildlife and habitat populations 

may require investments in new wildlife corridors.

▶ The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) (16 USC 715) - This Act manages and protects migratory bird species 

through consultation with State and local governments. It also provides for the protection of land and water 

resources necessary for the conservation of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful.

▶ The National Environmental Policy Act (1969) (42 USC 4321 et seq.) - The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) established a national policy to maintain conditions under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony while fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations 

of Americans. It established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in order to coordinate environmental 

matters at the Federal level, and to advise the President on such matters. Under the law, all Federal actions that 

could result in a significant impact on the environment are subject to review by Federal, State, local, and Native 

American Tribal environmental authorities, as well as by affected parties and interested citizens. The NEPA 

requires systematic, interdisciplinary planning to ensure the integrated use of natural and social sciences and 

environmental design arts in making decisions about major Federal actions that may have a significant effect 

(impact) on the environment.

▶ The National Historic Preservation Act (1966) as amended (16 USC 470) - The National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) is the primary Federal law providing for the protection and preservation of cultural resources. The 

NHPA established the NRHP, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the State Office of 

Historic Preservation (SHPO). This Act expands protection of historic and archeological properties to include 

those of national, State, and local significance. It also directs Federal agencies to consider the impacts of proposed actions on properties eligible for, or included in, the NHRP.

▶ The National Trails System Act (1968) as amended (16 USC 1241-1251) - This Act establishes a National System 

of Trails, prescribes methods and standards by which additional components may be added to the system; 

recognizes the valuable contributions of that volunteers and private, nonprofit trail groups have made to the 

development and maintenance of the Nations Trail; provides direction for the administration and development 

of National Trails; and establishes a management standard.

▶ The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990) (25 USC 3001) - This Act provides a process for Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items (such as human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony) to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Native 

American Tribes.

▶ The Noxious Weed Control Act of 2004 (PL 108-412) - This Act establishes a program to provide assistance 

through States to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public 

and private lands.

▶ The Public Rangelands Improvement Act (1978) (43 USC 1901-1908) - This Act requires the BLM to manage, 

maintain, and improve the condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible.

▶ Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (1977) (16 USC 2001 - 2009) - This Act provides for conservation, 

protection and enhancement of soil, water, and related resources.

▶ The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC 315) as amended by the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 USC 1181d) - This 

Act introduced Federal protection and management of public lands by regulating grazing on public lands.

▶ The Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic EIS (2007a) and the Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic Environmental Report (PER) (2007b) - The PEIS analyzes the impacts of herbicide use on 

humans, plants, and animals, as well as other environmental and social resources associated with public lands.

▶ The Wilderness Act (1964) (16 USC 1131-36) - This Act provides management directions to protect Wilderness 

values and guides activities and permitted uses within these areas.

▶ The Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 4301) – This Act provides for the protection of 

caves on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, and the Secretary of Agriculture. Establishes terms and 

conditions for use permits, and penalties for violations.
BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 965

APPENDIX D

Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration

The BLM has developed the following Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and their companion rules-Standards 

for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM in Utah ([BLM-UT-GI-97-001-4000] U.S. 

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office 1997).

FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH

As provided by regulations, developed by the Secretary of the Interior on February 22, 1995, the following conditions 

must exist on BLM lands:

1. Watersheds are in, or making significant progress toward, properly functioning physical condition, including their upland, riparian –wetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant conditions support infiltration, 

soil moisture storage, and the release of water that are in balance with climate and landform and maintain or 

improve water quality, and timing and duration of flow.

2. Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are maintained, or there is 

significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support healthy biotic populations and communities.

3. Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, or is making significant progress towards achieving established BLM management objectives such as meeting wildlife needs.

4. Habitats; are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for Federal threatened and endangered Species, Federal proposed, Category 1 and 2 Federal candidate and other special status 

Species.

In 1997, the BLM in Utah developed rules to carry out the Fundamentals of Rangeland health. These are called 

Standards for Rangeland health and Guidelines for grazing management.

Standards spell out conditions to be achieved on BLM Lands in Utah, and Guidelines describe practices that will be 

applied in order to achieve the Standards.

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH

Standard 1. Upland soils exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site productivity, considering the soil type, climate, and landform.

As indicated by:

1. Sufficient cover and litter to protect the soil surface from excessive water and wind erosion; to promote infiltration; detain surface flow; and retard soil moisture loss by evaporation;

2. The absence of indicators of excessive erosion such as rills, soil pedestals, and actively eroding gullies;

3. The appropriate amount, type, and distribution of vegetation reflecting the presence of (1) the desired plant 

community IDPCI, where identified in a land-use plan, or (2) where the PVC is not identified, a community 

that equally sustains the desired level of productivity and properly functioning ecological conditions.

Standard 2. Riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition. Stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform.

As indicated by:

1. Stream bank vegetation consisting of or showing a trend toward species with root masses capable of withstanding high stream flow events. Vegetative cover adequate to protect stream banks and dissipate stream flow 

energy associated with high-water flows. Protect against accelerated erosion, capture sediment, and provide 

for groundwater recharge.

2. Vegetation reflecting: Desired Plant Community. Maintenance of riparian and wetland soil moisture characteristics, diverse age structure and composition, high vigor, large woody debris when site potential allows, and 

providing food, cover, and other habitat needs for dependent animal species.

3. Revegetating point bars: Lateral stream movement associated with natural sinuosity: channel width, depth, 

pool frequency, and roughness appropriate to landscape position.

APPENDIX D
966 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 967

APPENDIX D APPENDIX D

New rangeland projects for grazing will be constructed in a manner consistent with the standards. Considering economic circumstances and site limitations, existing rangeland projects and facilities that conflict with the achievement 

or maintenance of the standards will be relocated and/or modified.

Livestock salt blocks and other nutritional supplements will be located away from riparian/wetland areas or other 

permanently located, or other natural water sources. It is recommended that the locations of these supplements be 

moved every year.

The use and perpetuation of native species will be emphasized. However, when restoring or rehabilitating disturbed 

or degraded rangelands nonintrusive, nonnative plant species are appropriate for use where native species (a) are not 

available, (b) are not economically feasible, (c) can not achieve ecological objectives as well as nonnative species, and/

or (d) cannot compete with already established native species.

When rangeland manipulations are necessary, the best management practices, including biological processes, fire, and 

intensive grazing, will be utilized prior to the use of chemical or mechanical manipulations.

When establishing grazing practices and rangeland improvements, the quality of the outdoor recreation experience 

is to be considered. Aesthetic and scenic values, water, campsites, and opportunities for solitude are among those 

considerations.

Feeding of hay and other harvested forage (which does not refer to miscellaneous salt, protein, and other supplements) for the purpose of substituting for inadequate natural forage will not be conducted on BLM lands other 

than in (a) emergency situations where no other resource exists and animal survival is in jeopardy, or (b) situations 

where an authorized officer determines such a practice will assist in meeting a standard or attaining a management 

objective.

In order to eliminate, minimize, or limit the spread of noxious weeds, (a) only hay cubes, hay pellets, or certified 

weed-free hay will be fed on BLM lands, and (b) reasonable adjustments in grazing methods, methods of transport, 

and animal husbandry practices will be applied.

To avoid contamination of water sources and in advertent damage to non-target species, aerial application of pesticides will not be allowed within 100 feet of a riparian wetland area unless the product is registered for such use by the 

EPA.

On rangelands where a standard is not being met, and conditions are moving toward meeting the standard, grazing 

may be allowed to continue. On lands where a standard is not being met, conditions are not improving toward meeting the standard or other management objectives, and livestock grazing is deemed responsible, administrative action 

with regard to livestock will be taken by the authorized officer pursuant to CUR 4180.2(c).

Where it can he determined that more than one kind of grazing animal is responsible for failure to achieve a standard, 

and adjustments in management are required. Those adjustments will be made to each kind of animal, based on interagency cooperation as needed in proportion to their degree of responsibility.

Rangelands that have been burned, reseeded, or otherwise treated to alter vegetative composition will be closed to 

livestock grazing as follows: (1) burned rangelands, whether by wildfire or prescribed burning, will be ungrazed for a 

minimum of one complete growing season following the burn; and (2) rangelands that have been reseeded or otherwise chemically or mechanically treated will be ungrazed for a minimum of two complete growing seasons

Conversions in kind of livestock (such as from sheep to cattle) will be analyzed in light of rangeland health standards. 

Where such conversions are not adverse to achieving a standard, or they are not in conflict with BLM land-use plans, 

the conversion will be allowed.

4. Active floodplain.

Standard 3. Desired species, including native, threatened.

As indicated by:

1. Frequency, diversity, density, age classes, and productivity of desired native species necessary to ensure reproductive capability and survival.

2. Habitats connected at a level to enhance species survival.

3. Native species reoccupy habitat niches and voids caused by disturbances unless management objectives call for 

introduction or maintenance of nonnative species.

4. Appropriate amount, type, and distribution of vegetation reflecting the presence of (1) the Desired Plant 

Community DPC, where identified in a land use plan conforming to these Standards, or (2) where the DPC 

is identified a community that equally sustains the desired level of productivity and properly functioning ecologic processes.

Standard 4. BLM will apply and comply with water quality standards established by the State of Utah (R.317-2) and 

the federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. Activities on BLM lands will fully support the designated beneficial uses described in the Utah Water Quality Standards (R.317-2) for surface and groundwater.

As indicated by:

1. Measurement of nutrient loads, total dissolved solids, chemical constituents, fecal coliform, water temperature 

and other water quality parameters.

2. Macro-invertebrate communities that indicate water quality meets aquatic objectives.

3. Because BLM Lands provide forage for grazing of wildlife and domestic livestock, the following rules have 

been developed to assure that such grazing is consistent with the Standards listed here.

4. BLM will continue to coordinate monitoring water quality activities with other Federal, State and technical 

agencies.

GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Grazing management practices will be implemented that:

1. Maintain sufficient residual vegetation and litter on both upland and riparian sites to protect the soil from 

wind and water erosion and support ecological functions;

2. Promote attainment or maintenance of proper functioning condition riparian/wetland areas, appropriate 

stream channel morphology, desired soil permeability and permeability and infiltration, and appropriate soil 

conditions and kinds and amounts of plants and animals to support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and 

energy flow.

3. Meet the physiological requirements of desired plants and facilitate reproduction and maintenance of desired 

plants to the extent natural conditions allow;

4. Maintain viable and diverse populations of plants and animals appropriate for the site,

5. Provide or improve within the limits of site potentials, habitat for Threatened or Endangered Species;

6. Avoid grazing management conflicts with other species that have the potential of becoming protected or special status species;

7. Encourage innovation, experimentation and the ultimate development of alternatives to improve rangeland 

management practices;

8. Give priority to rangeland improvement projects and land treatments that offer the best opportunity for 

achieving the Standards.

Any spring or seep developments will he designed and constructed to protect ecological process and functions and 

improve livestock, wild horse, and wildlife distribution.
BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 969

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

Evaluation Report for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

EVALUATION REPORT FOR AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN IN THE 

ST.GEORGE FIELD OFFICE, BEAVER DAM WASH NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, AND THE 

RED CLIFFS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register on May 10th, 2010 announcing the start of this planning 

process it stated “the plan amendment will also consider nominations for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs) on public lands in Washington County ‘‘where biological conservation is a priority,’’ pursuant to section 

1979 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (OPLMA). While new ACECs could be designated in 

the NCAs, through the new RMPs, the SGFO RMP must be amended to make similar designations for public lands 

outside of the NCAs.

The St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan, approved in 1999, is being amended to consider the designation of additional Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) for the conservation of biological resources and 

natural communities. The public was invited to provide information about at risk species and areas where conservation could be a priority and to nominate these areas for consideration as ACECs. Due to the specific direction in 

OPLMA to preserve areas “where biological conservation is a priority”, this ACEC process only considers new ACECs 

that have a biological component or value. Areas nominated for scenic and cultural values were not considered at 

this time, but will be considered when the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan is revised in the future. 

In brief, BLM staff evaluated 41 nominations for ACECs, totaling 726,023 acres within the St. George Field Office 

decision areas. Of these, 28 areas totaling 76,834 acres met the criteria for relevant and important values, resources, 

natural systems or processes, or hazards/safety/public welfare (all of which are referred to collectively as values in this 

report) and were identified as potential ACECs. Because many areas were nominated by more than one group or individual, a further refinement of the potential ACECs was necessary. The 28 areas that met relevance and importance 

were combined into 14 potential ACECs totaling 14,245 acres that will be considered further in the Plan Amendment.

1.1 Federal Land Policy Management Act

In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall...give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern. —Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Title 

II, Sec 202(c) 3 

The term “areas of critical environmental concern” (often referred as “ACECs”) means areas within the public 

lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, 

fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

—FLPMA, Title I, Sec 103(a)

1.2 The Policy: BLM Manual 1613

BLM Manual 1613 provides direction for identifying, analyzing, designating, monitoring, and managing ACECs. Key 

points are as follows:

▶ The ACEC designation indicates to the public that the BLM recognizes that an area has significant values and 

has established special management measures to protect those values.

▶ Designation of ACECs is only done through the resource management planning process, either in a new RMP, a 

plan revision, or in a plan amendment.

▶ To be designated as an ACEC, an area must require special management attention to protect the importance and 

relevance values.

▶ Potential ACECs are identified as early as possible in the planning process.

▶ Existing ACECs are subject to reconsideration when plans are revised.
970 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 971

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

▶ Members of the public or other agencies may nominate an area for consideration as a potential ACEC. BLM 

personnel are encouraged to recommend areas for consideration as ACECs.

▶ No formal or special procedures are associated with nomination.

▶ An interdisciplinary team evaluates each resource or hazard to determine if it meets the relevance and importance criteria. The field manager approves the relevance and importance criteria.

▶ If an area is found not to meet the relevance and importance criteria, the analysis supporting that conclusion 

must be included in the RMP and associated environmental impact statement (EIS).

2.0 SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1 ACEC Nominations

Thirty-four ACEC nominations were received from the public during scoping and an additional 7 ACECs were recommended by the St. George Field Office (See Nominated ACEC Map, page 9), for a total of 41 nominated ACECs. 

Of the Thirty-four external nominations, 5 intersected with the Beaver Dam Wash NCA and 6 intersected with Red 

Cliffs NCA (for a discussion of nominations within the NCA’s see the section below, Potential ACECs within the 

National Conservation Areas). External nominations were submitted by Citizens for Dixie’s Future (CFDF), J.E. 

Deacon (University of Nevada, Las Vegas), Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), Utah Native Plant Society 

(UNPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Virgin River Land Preservation Association (VRLPA), Grand 

Canyon - Wildlands Council - The Wilderness Society (WS), and Western Watersheds Project (WWP). Nominations 

were evaluated in accordance with BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Evaluated values 

meeting the relevance and importance criteria were carried forward into the potential ACECs.

2.2 Potential ACECs

Following the evaluation of relevance and importance values, 28 areas totaling 76,834 acres were identified as potential ACECs. Because many areas were nominated by more than one group or individual, a further refinement of the 

potential ACEC’s was necessary. The 28 areas that met relevance and importance were combined into 14 potential 

ACEC’s totaling 14,245 acres that will be considered further in the planning process (See Potential ACEC map, page 

10). Potential ACECs were determined in two ways:

▶ The potential ACEC may be smaller than the nominated ACEC because the values determined relevant and 

important are found in only parts of the nominated area.

▶ Several areas were submitted by more than one nominator, these areas were combined into one or more potential ACECs.

2.3 Potential ACECs within the National Conservation Area

Nominations were received for areas within the Beaver Dam Wash NCA and Red Cliffs NCA specifically to protect 

the threatened species Desert Tortoise. These nominations were reviewed and evaluated by BLM, but not carried 

forward for analysis in the Draft RMPs for the two NCAs for the following reasons. The purpose of ACEC designation is to direct special management attention, through land use restrictions and management prescriptions, to 

ensure that the relevance and importance values of each ACEC are protected. Congressional designation of the NCAs 

for “conservation, protection, and enhancement” and the segregations made through OPLMA on activities and land 

uses that can be authorized in the NCAs, provides a high level of protection for all resource values of the public lands. 

Additionally, specific direction for the Red Cliffs NCA was given in OPLMA at sec 1974(a)2 “to protect each species 

that is - (A) located in the National Conservation Area; and (B) listed as a threatened or endangered species on the 

list of threatened species or the list of endangered species published under section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1))”. The administrative designation of ACECs within the NCAs would be duplicative 

and provide no higher standard of resource management or protection than that afforded by OPLMA. According to 

BLM policy: “If, however, the management attention provided under the Congressional designation is adequate to 

protect a resource or value, it is not necessary or appropriate to designate it as an ACEC” (BLM Manual 1613.51). For 

these reasons, designating new ACECs in the two NCAs was not carried forward as a planning issue during the development of the Draft RMPs/Draft EIS.

Nominated Area Acres

CFDF Virgin River 2,198

CFDF Zion Scenic Corridor 33,894

CFDF Gunlock-Square Top 35,365

CFDF Moody Wash 14,974

CFDF Upper Santa Clara River 1,923

J.E. Deacon Upper Virgin River 1,400

SUWA Beaver Dam Mountains 19,019

SUWA Greater Beaver Dam Slope 88,810

SUWA Lower LaVerkin Creek 8,539

SUWA North Creek 5,766

SUWA Santa Clara/Gunlock Expansion 5,800

SUWA Upper Beaver Dam Wash 65,837

UNPS Dwarf Bear-poppy West 2,461

UNPS Holmgren Milkvetch 2,330

UNPS Little Round Valley 366

USFWS Beaver Dam Slope Expansion 68,788

USFWS East Fork Beaver Dam Wash 887

USFWS Harrisburg Bench 394

USFWS LaVerkin Creek 1,780

USFWS Lower Virgin River Expansion 3,077

USFWS Red Bluff Expansion 8,337

USFWS Sand Mountain 5,612

USFWS Shinob Kibe 114

Nominated Area Acres

USFWS Webb Hill 579

USFWS Zion Park/BLM Boundary 14

VRLP Dry Creek 20,113

VRLP Virgin River and Tributaries 19,186

VRLP Webb Hill 579

WS Beaver Dam 132,433

WS Black Ridge 45,557

WS Pine Valley 21,925

WWP Beaver Dam Slope Expansion 73,925

WWP Red Cliffs 30,241

WWP Zion Gateway 83

SGFO Virgin River Mosquito Cove 338

SGFO Virgin River Grafton 72

SGFO Santa Clara River Baker 116

SGFO Santa Clara River Veyo 399

SGFO Shinob Kibe 498

SGFO Moody Wash 116

SGFO Hurricane Cliffs 2,178

Total 726,0231

1

 Not the actual surface acreage due to the overlap in acreage 

for nominated ACECs.

Potential ACEC Name Acreage

CFDF Virgin River 317

CFDF Zion Scenic Corridor 300

CFDF Moody Wash 24

CFDF Upper Santa Clara River 47

J.E. Deacon Upper Virgin River 1,400

SUWA Greater Beaver Dam Slope 9,363

SUWA North Creek 63

UNPS Dwarf Bear-poppy West 1,587

UNPS Holmgren Milkvetch 1,634

UNPS Little Round Valley 312

USFWS Beaver Dam Slope Expansion 9,648

USFWS Harrisburg Bench 109

USFWS Lower Virgin River Expansion 1,261

USFWS Red Bluff Expansion 1,949

USFWS Shinob Kibe 70

USFWS Webb Hill 518

Potential ACEC Name Acreage

USFWS Zion Park/BLM Boundary 14

VRLP Virgin River and Tributaries 450

VRLP Webb Hill 518

WS Beaver Dam 9,423

WWP Beaver Dam Slope Expansion 8,888

WWP Red Cliffs 28,602

SGFO Virgin River Mosquito Cove 87

SGFO Virgin River Grafton 45

SGFO Santa Clara River Baker 32

SGFO Santa Clara River Veyo 16

SGFO Shinob Kibe 134

SGFO Moody Wash 24

Total 76,8341

1

 Not the actual surface acreage due to overlaps in acreage for 

nominated ACECs.

Table E-1 Nominated ACECs

Table E-2 Potential ACECs before Consolidation
972 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 973

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

2.4 Existing ACECs

Ten ACECs, totaling approximately 153,000 acres, were administratively designated on public lands in Washington 

County in 1999, through St. George Field Office Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (refer to Map 

3-69). See Chapter 2 (Tables 2-27, 2-61, and 2-70) for more information on these ACECs.

3.0 RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE CRITERIA

The task of evaluating the ACEC nominations was done by a BLM Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team comprised of 

resource professionals (e.g., specialists in biology, botany, geology, archeology, etc.) who are familiar with the resource 

values and land uses of the two NCAs and the St. George Field Office. The ID Team met on a regular basis to:- ▶ Identify the potentially relevant biological values and natural processes of the nominated ACECs and evaluate 

which,if any met the relevance and importance criteria;

▶ Identify special management attention, if any, need to protect and manage relevant and important values.

3.1 Identifying Potentially Relevant Values

The team reviewed each of the 41 ACEC nominations to identify potentially relevant values. Only biological values 

and only values identified in the nominations were evaluated for relevance. 

3.1.1 Fish and Wildlife Resources

A fish and wildlife resource was determined relevant if it was: ▶ habitat for federally listed, or BLM Sensitive (Sensitive) wildlife species, or habitat essential for maintaining 

wildlife species diversity;

▶ documented as present within the nominated area; ▶ documentation included BLM, USFWS, or UDWR habitat maps; recovery plans; or other references. 

3.1.2 Natural Processes or Systems

Nominated natural processes or systems (e.g., plants, riparian areas, and geologic processes) were considered relevant 

if they were present within the nominated area and included the following: ▶ habitat for federally listed, or BLM Sensitive (Sensitive) plant species, or rare, endemic or relict terrestrial, 

aquatic or riparian plants or plant communities;

▶ documented as present within the nominated area; ▶ documentation included BLM, USFWS, or UDWR habitat maps; recovery plans; or other references.

Potential ACEC Name Acreage Nominated Areas included

Dalton Wash 14 USFWS Zion Park/BLM Boundary

Grafton 47 CFDF Virgin River

CFDF Zion Scenic Corridor

VRLP Virgin River and Tributaries

SGFO Virgin River Grafton

Harrisburg Bench 111 USFWS Harrisburg Bench

Moody Wash 24 CFDF Moody Wash

SGFO Moody Wash

Mosquito Cove 88 CFDF Virgin River

CFDF Zion Scenic Corridor

VRLP Virgin River and Tributaries

SGFO Virgin River Mosquito Cove

North Creek 54 CFDF Zion Scenic Corridor

SUWA North Creek

VRLP Virgin River and Tributaries

Santa Clara River Baker 32 CFDF Upper Santa Clara River

SGFO Santa Clara River Baker

Santa Clara River Veyo 16 CFDF Upper Santa Clara River

SGFO Santa Clara River Veyo

Scarecrow Peak 9,665 SUWA Greater Beaver Dam Slope

USFWS Beaver Dam Slope Expansion

WS Beaver Dam

WWP Beaver Dam Slope Expansion

Shinob Kibe 70 CFDF Virgin River

USFWS Shinob Kibe

VRLP Virgin River and Tributaries

SGFO Shinob Kibe

South Hills 1,950 UNPS Dwarf Bear-Poppy West

UNPS Holmgren Milkvetch

USFWS Red Bluff Expansion

State Line 1,410 CFDF Virgin River

UNPS Holmgren Milkvetch

UNPS Little Round Valley

USFWS Lower Virgin River Expansion

VRLP Virgin River and Tributaries

Virgin River 245 CFDF Virgin River

CFDF Zion Scenic Corridor

VRLP Virgin River and Tributaries

Webb Hill 520 USFWS Webb Hill

VRLP Webb Hill

Total 14,245

Existing ACEC Name Acres

Red Bluff 6,168

Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce 4,281

Santa Clara/Gunlock 1,998

Santa Clara/Land Hill 1,645

Lower Virgin River 1,822

Little Creek Mountain 19,302

Canaan Mountain 31,355

Red Mountain 4,854

Beaver Dam Slope 48,519

Upper Beaver Dam Wash 33,063

Total 153,007

Table E-3 Potential ACECs after Consolidation

Table E-4 Existing ACECs
974 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 975

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

3.2 Determining Importance

Only values determined relevant were evaluated for importance. Generally, the value, resource, system, or process 

described as relevant had to have substantial significance and values to meet the importance criteria.

3.2.1 Significance Qualities

For a relevant resource (or value, system, process, or hazard) to be judged important, it had to have more than locally 

significant qualities that gave it special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially 

compared with any similar resource.

Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Resources: A relevant fish, wildlife, or plant resource was determined more than locally 

significant if it was a species protected under federal law, regulation or BLM national policy that mandate the consideration and protection of species:

▶ Special status species, including—federally listed threatened or endangered species, BLM-sensitive species, State 

of Utah species of concern;

▶ Endemic to nominated area.

Riparian Resources: Riparian areas were deemed important according to Utah BLM riparian policy found in IM UT 

2005-091.

3.2.2 Special Values and Threats

The relevant resource (value, system, or process) was important if it had qualities or circumstances in the nominated 

area that made it—

▶ Fragile;

▶ Sensitive;

▶ Rare;

▶ Irreplaceable;

▶ Exemplary;

▶ Unique;

▶ Endangered;

▶ Threatened;

▶ Vulnerable to adverse change.

Determinations of special values, threats, and vulnerability to adverse change were made by staff specialists and the 

interdisciplinary team.

3.2.3 National Priority

The relevant resource (or value, system, or process) was determined important if it warranted special protection:

▶ Satisfy national priority concerns;

▶ Carry out the mandates of FLMPA.

Fish, Wildlife, and Plants: A relevant federally listed threatened or endangered species was also determined important 

(because of the Endangered Species Act).

Riparian Resources: Riparian areas were deemed important according to Utah BLM riparian policy found IM UT 

2005-091.

3.3 Special Management

During the alternatives process, special management was developed to address, mitigate, or prevent identified threats.

3.4 Mapping Potential ACECs

Values identified as having relevance and importance provided a basis for the potential ACECs. In many cases, the 

BLM interdisciplinary team determined that the boundary of the potential area was smaller than the nominated area. 

The potential ACECs will be carried into one or more alternatives of the Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS.
976 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 977

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E
978 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 979

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.0 EVALUATIONS OF ACEC NOMINATIONS

4.1 Dalton Wash

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: Dalton Wash 

Location of Potential ACEC: East of North Creek, adjacent to the Zion National Park Boundary

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: CFDF Zion Scenic Corridor, USFWS Zion Park/BLM Boundary

Acreage: 14 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the relevance criteria based on designated critical habitat (USFWS 2006b) for declining populations of Shivwits milkvetch 

(Federally Endangered Species) (USFWS 2001b, USFWS 2006a).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of the endangered species, Shivwits milkvetch.

Shivwits Milkvetch (Astragalus ampullarioides) was listed federally endangered on September 28, 2001(USFWS 

2001b) and presently occurs only in Washington County, Utah. Critical Habitat for Shivwits milkvetch was designated on December 27, 2006 (USFWS 2006b), and a recovery plan was developed for the Shivwits milkvetch in 2006 

(USFWS 2006a). The Shivwits Milkvetch Recovery Plan identified five populations across its range. Since 2006, two 

additional populations (Dalton Wash and Cole Springs populations) were discovered in 2010 (USFWS 2010d).

References:

USFWS, 2001b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2001. Final Rule to List the Holmgren Milkvetch 

and the Shivwits Milkvetch. 66 Federal Register 49560 49567, September 28, 2001.

USFWS, 2006a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2006. Recovery Plan for the Holmgren Milkvetch 

and Shivwits Milkvetch, September 2006. 

USFWS, 2006b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2006. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for 

Holmgren Milkvetch and Shivwits Milkvetch. 71 Federal Register 77971 78012, December 27, 2006.

USFWS, 2010d, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2010. Unpublished Surveys of Shivwits Milkvetch 

on BLM and Zion National Parks lands, April 23, 2010.
980 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 981

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.2 Grafton

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and impor-

tance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: Grafton 

Location of Potential ACEC: Virgin River, west of the town of Rockville, UT

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: CFDF Virgin River, CFDF Zion Scenic Corridor, VRLPA Virgin 

River and Tributaries, SGFO Virgin River Grafton

Acreage: 47 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following: ▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? ▶ A fish and wildlife resource? ▶ A natural process or system? ▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b), Birds of 

Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b), Desert 

Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and UDWR 2010a), Flannelmouth Sucker (Addley and 

Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2004, and UDWR 

2010a), Virgin Spinedace (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, 

UDNR 2002, UDWR 2002, UDWR 2010a), and riparian values.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial signifi-

cance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria: ▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and pub-

lic welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of BLM sensitive species: Desert Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, Virgin Spinedace, and riparian 

values. 

The Desert Sucker (Catostomus clarkia), is native to parts of the Colorado River system of the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs only in the Virgin River system in the southwestern corner 

of the state. Desert suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although insects and other in-

vertebrates are also occasionally consumed. Members of the species almost always occur in streams, where spawning 

occurs in riffles during the winter and spring (UDWR 2010b). 

The Flannelmouth Sucker, (Catostomus latipinnis), is native to the Colorado River system of the western United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs in the main-stem Colorado River, as well as in many of the 

Colorado River's large tributaries (Virgin River, and tributaries here in Washington County). Flannelmouth suckers 

are usually absent from impoundments. In recent times, Utah Flannelmouth sucker populations have been reduced 
982 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 983

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

in both numbers and distribution, primarily due to flow alteration, habitat loss/alteration, and the introduction of 

nonnative fishes. Flannelmouth suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although invertebrates and many types of plant matter are also consumed. The species spawns in streams over gravelly areas during 

the spring and early summer. Flannelmouth suckers prefer large rivers, where they are often found in deep pools of 

slow-flowing, low gradient reaches (UDWR 2010b). 

The Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis) is a small minnow originally found throughout the Virgin River system of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. However, due to dewatering, habitat fragmentation, flow alteration, and the introduction of nonnative fishes, Virgin spinedace populations declined in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, and the species was 

missing in portions of its historic range. Efforts are now underway to restore Virgin spinedace populations to acceptable levels. On May 18, 1994, the Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a Threatened Species (USFWS 1994b), 

and April 5, 1995, USFWS proposed designation of Critical Habitat (USFWS 1995b) under the Endangered Species 

Act. Later in 1995, the Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement was executed by state, local and federal agencies to 

provide enhancement and protection to the Virgin spinedace and habitat in an effort to remove threats, and thereby 

preclude the need for listing of this species (UDWR 2002). Implementation of the Virgin Spinedace Conservation 

Agreement has been very successful, and a number of beneficial actions have been completed for the protection and 

enhancement of this fish. The following, along with many other beneficial actions have been implemented: 1) extensive monitoring program, 2) re-occupation of historic habitats through establishment of in-stream flows, 3) connectivity of habits through removal of barriers and diversions, and 4) removal of predation, and competition from 

non-native species (UDWR 2008).

Virgin spinedace are opportunistic feeders, eating insects, insect larvae, other invertebrates, and plant matter. The 

species spawns during spring and late summer, usually during periods of high flows. Virgin spinedace prefer the clear, 

slow-moving water of creeks and small streams, and are usually found in areas with abundant cover. The subspecies of 

Virgin spinedace that occurs in Utah is Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis (UDWR 2010b). 

Nominated area contains important riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support populations of BLM Sensitive 

Species.

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, USFWS, 

2007), Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 

2007b). Nominated area contains habitat for several species of Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory 

Birds and Raptor Species). Nominated area was found to be of local importance only.

References: 

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2002. Revised Virgin Spinedace Conservation Strategy, 

January 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 02-22.

UDWR 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2004. Rangewide Conservation Agreement For 

Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker, and Flannel-mouth Sucker, January 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

January 27, 2004.

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

UDWR, 2008, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2008. Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy, 2000 to 2008 Assessment, December 2008.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

UDWR, 2010b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2010. Vertebrate Animal Factsheets, Website: <http://

dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/Search/SearchVerts.asp> Accessed January through April, 2010.

USFWS, 1994b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposal to List the Fish Virgin Spinedace as 

a Threatened Species. 59 Federal Register 25875 25880, May 18, 1994.

USFWS, 1995b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and Virgin Spinedace, and Notice of Public Meeting. 65 Federal Register 17296 

17311, April 5, 1995.

USFWS, 2007, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007. Final Rule to Delist the Bald Eagle in the 

Lower 48 States From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 72 Federal Register 37345 37375, July 

9, 2007.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
984 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 985

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.3 Harrisburg Bench

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and impor-

tance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: Harrisburg Bench 

Location of Potential ACEC: Eastern Washington County, South of the town of Leeds

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: USFWS Harrisburg Bench

Acreage: 111 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following: ▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? ▶ A fish and wildlife resource? ▶ A natural process or system? ▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the rel-

evance criteria based on the following species: designated critical habitat (USFWS 2006b) for declining populations of 

Shivwits milkvetch (Federally Endangered Species) (USFWS 2001b, USFWS 2006a). Nominated area contains habi-

tat for Gila monsters (BLM Sensitive, and Federally Petitioned Species) (BLM 2011b, USFWS 1982, USFWS 1985b, 

USFWS 1991, USFWS 1994d, USFWS 2011).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial signifi-

cance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria: ▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and pub-

lic welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of the endangered species Shivwits milkvetch.

Shivwits Milkvetch (Astragalus ampullarioides) was listed federally endangered on September 28, 2001(USFWS 

2001b) and presently occurs only in Washington County, Utah. Critical Habitat for Shivwits milkvetch was desig-

nated on December 27, 2006 (USFWS 2006b), and a recovery plan was developed for the Shivwits milkvetch in 2006 

(USFWS 2006a). The Shivwits Milkvetch Recovery Plan identified five populations across its range. Since 2006, two 

additional populations (Dalton Wash and Cole Springs populations) were discovered in 2010 (USFWS 2010d).

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Nominated area contains habitat for Gila monsters (BLM 

Sensitive and Federally Petitioned Species) (BLM 2011b, USFWS 1982, USFWS 1985b, USFWS 1991, USFWS 1994d, 

USFWS 2011). This habitat is found on the fringe of the Red Cliffs NCA (priority habitat for this species) and is not 

more than locally important. Additionally in June of 2011 the USFWS issued a finding that declined to list Utah 

populations of the Gila monster.

References:

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.
986 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 987

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

USFWS, 1982, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1982. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 47 Federal Register 58454 58460, December 30, 1982.

USFWS, 1985b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1985. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 50 Federal Register 37958 37967, September 18, 1985.

USFWS, 1991, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1991. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 56 Federal Register 58804 58836, November 21, 1991.

USFWS, 1994d, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, However, information not available to support listing. 59 

Federal Register 58982 59028, November 15, 1994.

USFWS, 2001b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2001. Final Rule to List the Holmgren Milkvetch 

and the Shivwits Milkvetch. 66 Federal Register 49560 49567, September 28, 2001.

USFWS, 2006a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2006. Recovery Plan for the Holmgren Milkvetch 

and Shivwits Milkvetch, September 2006. 

USFWS, 2006b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2006. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for 

Holmgren Milkvetch and Shivwits Milkvetch. 71 Federal Register 77971 78012, December 27, 2006.

USFWS, 2010d, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2010. Unpublished Surveys of Shivwits Milkvetch 

on BLM and Zion National Parks lands, April 23, 2010.

USFWS, 2011, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Utah Population of the Gila Monster as an Endangered or a 

Threatened Distinct Population Segment, 76 Federal Register 36049 36053, June 21, 2011.
988 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 989

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

in both numbers and distribution, primarily due to flow alteration, habitat loss/alteration, and the introduction of 

nonnative fishes. Flannelmouth suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although invertebrates and many types of plant matter are also consumed. The species spawns in streams over gravelly areas during 

the spring and early summer. Flannelmouth suckers prefer large rivers, where they are often found in deep pools of 

slow-flowing, low gradient reaches (UDWR 2010b). 

The Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis) is a small minnow originally found throughout the Virgin River system of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. However, due to dewatering, habitat fragmentation, flow alteration, and the introduction of nonnative fishes, Virgin spinedace populations declined in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, and the species was 

missing in portions of its historic range. Efforts are now underway to restore Virgin spinedace populations to acceptable levels. On May 18, 1994, the Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a Threatened Species (USFWS 1994b), 

and April 5, 1995, USFWS proposed designation of Critical Habitat (USFWS 1995b) under the Endangered Species 

Act. Later in 1995, the Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement was executed by state, local and federal agencies to 

provide enhancement and protection to the Virgin spinedace and habitat in an effort to remove threats, and thereby 

preclude the need for listing of this species (UDWR 2002). Implementation of the Virgin Spinedace Conservation 

Agreement has been very successful, and a number of beneficial actions have been completed for the protection and 

enhancement of this fish. The following, along with many other beneficial actions have been implemented: 1) extensive monitoring program, 2) re-occupation of historic habitats through establishment of in-stream flows, 3) connectivity of habits through removal of barriers and diversions, and 4) removal of predation, and competition from 

non-native species (UDWR 2008).

Virgin spinedace are opportunistic feeders, eating insects, insect larvae, other invertebrates, and plant matter. The 

species spawns during spring and late summer, usually during periods of high flows. Virgin spinedace prefer the clear, 

slow-moving water of creeks and small streams, and are usually found in areas with abundant cover. The subspecies of 

Virgin spinedace that occurs in Utah is Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis (UDWR 2010b). 

Nominated area contains important riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support populations of BLM Sensitive 

Species.

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, USFWS, 

2007), Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 

2007b) Spotted Bat (BLM Sensitive) (BLM 2011b, Rogers 1997). Nominated area contains habitat for several species 

of Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species). Nominated area was found to 

be of local importance only.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

Rogers, 1997, Rogers, Duke S., 1997. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) and Former C2 Species Inventory in 

Washington County, Utah, Final Report submitted to BLM, February 21, 1997.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2002. Revised Virgin Spinedace Conservation Strategy, 

January 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 02-22.

UDWR 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2004. Rangewide Conservation Agreement For 

Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker, and Flannel-mouth Sucker, January 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

January 27, 2004.

4.4 Moody Wash

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below. 

Name of Potential ACEC: Moody Wash

Location of Potential ACEC: Northwestern Washington County, tributary of the Santa Clara River

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: CFDF Moody Wash, SGFO Moody Wash

Acreage: 24 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b), Birds of 

Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b), Spotted 

Bat (BLM Sensitive) (BLM 2011b, Rogers 1997), Desert Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, 

and UDWR 2010a), Flannelmouth Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) 

(BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2004, and UDWR 2010a), Virgin Spinedace (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 

Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2002, UDWR 2010a), and riparian 

values.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of BLM sensitive species: Desert Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, Virgin Spinedace, and riparian 

values. 

The Desert Sucker (Catostomus clarkia), is native to parts of the Colorado River system of the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs only in the Virgin River system in the southwestern corner 

of the state. Desert suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although insects and other invertebrates are also occasionally consumed. Members of the species almost always occur in streams, where spawning 

occurs in riffles during the winter and spring (UDWR 2010b). 

The Flannelmouth Sucker, (Catostomus latipinnis), is native to the Colorado River system of the western United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs in the main-stem Colorado River, as well as in many of the 

Colorado River's large tributaries (Virgin River, and tributaries here in Washington County). Flannelmouth suckers 

are usually absent from impoundments. In recent times, Utah Flannelmouth sucker populations have been reduced 
990 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 991

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

UDWR, 2008, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2008. Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy, 2000 to 2008 Assessment, December 2008.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

UDWR, 2010b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2010. Vertebrate Animal Factsheets, Website: <http://

dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/Search/SearchVerts.asp> Accessed January through April, 2010.

USFWS, 1994b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposal to List the Fish Virgin Spinedace as 

a Threatened Species. 59 Federal Register 25875 25880, May 18, 1994.

USFWS, 1995b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and Virgin Spinedace, and Notice of Public Meeting. 65 Federal Register 17296 

17311, April 5, 1995.

USFWS, 2007, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007. Final Rule to Delist the Bald Eagle in the 

Lower 48 States From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 72 Federal Register 37345 37375, July 

9, 2007.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
992 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 993

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

in both numbers and distribution, primarily due to flow alteration, habitat loss/alteration, and the introduction of 

nonnative fishes. Flannelmouth suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although invertebrates and many types of plant matter are also consumed. The species spawns in streams over gravelly areas during 

the spring and early summer. Flannelmouth suckers prefer large rivers, where they are often found in deep pools of 

slow-flowing, low gradient reaches (UDWR 2010b). 

The Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis) is a small minnow originally found throughout the Virgin River system of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. However, due to dewatering, habitat fragmentation, flow alteration, and the introduction of nonnative fishes, Virgin spinedace populations declined in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, and the species was 

missing in portions of its historic range. Efforts are now underway to restore Virgin spinedace populations to acceptable levels. On May 18, 1994, the Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a Threatened Species (USFWS 1994b), 

and April 5, 1995, USFWS proposed designation of Critical Habitat (USFWS 1995b) under the Endangered Species 

Act. Later in 1995, the Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement was executed by state, local and federal agencies to 

provide enhancement and protection to the Virgin spinedace and habitat in an effort to remove threats, and thereby 

preclude the need for listing of this species (UDWR 2002). Implementation of the Virgin Spinedace Conservation 

Agreement has been very successful, and a number of beneficial actions have been completed for the protection and 

enhancement of this fish. The following, along with many other beneficial actions have been implemented: 1) extensive monitoring program, 2) re-occupation of historic habitats through establishment of in-stream flows, 3) connectivity of habits through removal of barriers and diversions, and 4) removal of predation, and competition from 

non-native species (UDWR 2008).

Virgin spinedace are opportunistic feeders, eating insects, insect larvae, other invertebrates, and plant matter. The 

species spawns during spring and late summer, usually during periods of high flows. Virgin spinedace prefer the clear, 

slow-moving water of creeks and small streams, and are usually found in areas with abundant cover. The subspecies of 

Virgin spinedace that occurs in Utah is Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis (UDWR 2010b). 

Nominated area contains important riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support populations of BLM Sensitive 

Species.

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, USFWS, 

2007), Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 

2007b). Nominated area contains habitat for several species of Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory 

Birds and Raptor Species). Nominated area was found to be of local importance only.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2002. Revised Virgin Spinedace Conservation Strategy, 

January 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 02-22.

UDWR 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2004. Rangewide Conservation Agreement For 

Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker, and Flannel-mouth Sucker, January 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

January 27, 2004.

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

4.5 Mosquito Cove

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: Mosquito Cove

Location of Potential ACEC: Virgin River, west of the town of Rockville, UT

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: CFDF Virgin River, CFDF Zion Scenic Corridor, VRLP Virgin River 

and Tributaries, SGFO Virgin River Grafton

Acreage: 88 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b), Birds of 

Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b), Desert 

Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and UDWR 2010a), Flannelmouth Sucker (Addley and 

Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2004, and UDWR 

2010a), Virgin Spinedace (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, 

UDNR 2002, UDWR 2002, UDWR 2010a), and riparian values.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of BLM sensitive species: Desert Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, Virgin Spinedace, and riparian 

values. 

The Desert Sucker (Catostomus clarkia), is native to parts of the Colorado River system of the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs only in the Virgin River system in the southwestern corner 

of the state. Desert suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although insects and other invertebrates are also occasionally consumed. Members of the species almost always occur in streams, where spawning 

occurs in riffles during the winter and spring (UDWR 2010b). 

The Flannelmouth Sucker, (Catostomus latipinnis), is native to the Colorado River system of the western United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs in the main-stem Colorado River, as well as in many of the 

Colorado River's large tributaries (Virgin River, and tributaries here in Washington County). Flannelmouth suckers 

are usually absent from impoundments. In recent times, Utah Flannelmouth sucker populations have been reduced 
994 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 995

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

UDWR, 2008, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2008. Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy, 2000 to 2008 Assessment, December 2008.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

UDWR, 2010b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2010. Vertebrate Animal Factsheets, Website: <http://

dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/Search/SearchVerts.asp> Accessed January through April, 2010.

USFWS, 1994b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposal to List the Fish Virgin Spinedace as 

a Threatened Species. 59 Federal Register 25875 25880, May 18, 1994.

USFWS, 1995b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and Virgin Spinedace, and Notice of Public Meeting. 65 Federal Register 17296 

17311, April 5, 1995.

USFWS, 2007, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007. Final Rule to Delist the Bald Eagle in the 

Lower 48 States From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 72 Federal Register 37345 37375, July 

9, 2007.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
996 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 997

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

in both numbers and distribution, primarily due to flow alteration, habitat loss/alteration, and the introduction of 

nonnative fishes. Flannelmouth suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although invertebrates and many types of plant matter are also consumed. The species spawns in streams over gravelly areas during 

the spring and early summer. Flannelmouth suckers prefer large rivers, where they are often found in deep pools of 

slow-flowing, low gradient reaches (UDWR 2010b). 

The Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis) is a small minnow originally found throughout the Virgin River system of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. However, due to dewatering, habitat fragmentation, flow alteration, and the introduction of nonnative fishes, Virgin spinedace populations declined in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, and the species was 

missing in portions of its historic range. Efforts are now underway to restore Virgin spinedace populations to acceptable levels. On May 18, 1994, the Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a Threatened Species (USFWS 1994b), 

and April 5, 1995, USFWS proposed designation of Critical Habitat (USFWS 1995b) under the Endangered Species 

Act. Later in 1995, the Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement was executed by state, local and federal agencies to 

provide enhancement and protection to the Virgin spinedace and habitat in an effort to remove threats, and thereby 

preclude the need for listing of this species (UDWR 2002). Implementation of the Virgin Spinedace Conservation 

Agreement has been very successful, and a number of beneficial actions have been completed for the protection and 

enhancement of this fish. The following, along with many other beneficial actions have been implemented: 1) extensive monitoring program, 2) re-occupation of historic habitats through establishment of in-stream flows, 3) connectivity of habits through removal of barriers and diversions, and 4) removal of predation, and competition from 

non-native species (UDWR 2008).

Virgin spinedace are opportunistic feeders, eating insects, insect larvae, other invertebrates, and plant matter. The 

species spawns during spring and late summer, usually during periods of high flows. Virgin spinedace prefer the clear, 

slow-moving water of creeks and small streams, and are usually found in areas with abundant cover. The subspecies of 

Virgin spinedace that occurs in Utah is Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis (UDWR 2010b). 

Nominated area contains important riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support populations of BLM Sensitive 

Species.

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, 

USFWS, 2007), Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, 

UDWR 2007b). Nominated area contains habitat for several species of Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical 

Migratory Birds and Raptor Species). Nominated area was found to be of local importance only.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2002. Revised Virgin Spinedace Conservation Strategy, 

January 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 02-22.

UDWR 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2004. Rangewide Conservation Agreement For 

Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker, and Flannel-mouth Sucker, January 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

January 27, 2004.

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

4.6 North Creek

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: North Creek 

Location of Potential ACEC: Eastern Washington County, north of the Town of Virgin.

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: CFDF Zion Scenic Corridor, SUWA North Creek, VRLP Virgin 

River and Tributaries

Acreage: 54 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b), Birds of 

Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b), Desert 

Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and UDWR 2010a), Flannelmouth Sucker (Addley and 

Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2004, and UDWR 

2010a), Virgin Spinedace (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, 

UDNR 2002, UDWR 2002, UDWR 2010a), and riparian values.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of BLM sensitive species: Desert Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, Virgin Spinedace, and riparian 

values. 

The Desert Sucker (Catostomus clarkia), is native to parts of the Colorado River system of the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs only in the Virgin River system in the southwestern corner 

of the state. Desert suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although insects and other invertebrates are also occasionally consumed. Members of the species almost always occur in streams, where spawning 

occurs in riffles during the winter and spring (UDWR 2010b). 

The Flannelmouth Sucker, (Catostomus latipinnis), is native to the Colorado River system of the western United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs in the main-stem Colorado River, as well as in many of the 

Colorado River's large tributaries (Virgin River, and tributaries here in Washington County). Flannelmouth suckers 

are usually absent from impoundments. In recent times, Utah Flannelmouth sucker populations have been reduced 
998 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 999

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

UDWR, 2008, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2008. Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy, 2000 to 2008 Assessment, December 2008.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

UDWR, 2010b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2010. Vertebrate Animal Factsheets, Website: <http://

dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/Search/SearchVerts.asp> Accessed January through April, 2010.

USFWS, 1994b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposal to List the Fish Virgin Spinedace as 

a Threatened Species. 59 Federal Register 25875 25880, May 18, 1994.

USFWS, 1995b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and Virgin Spinedace, and Notice of Public Meeting. 65 Federal Register 17296 

17311, April 5, 1995.

USFWS, 2007, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007. Final Rule to Delist the Bald Eagle in the 

Lower 48 States From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 72 Federal Register 37345 37375, July 

9, 2007.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
1000 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1001

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

in both numbers and distribution, primarily due to flow alteration, habitat loss/alteration, and the introduction of 

nonnative fishes. Flannelmouth suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although invertebrates and many types of plant matter are also consumed. The species spawns in streams over gravelly areas during 

the spring and early summer. Flannelmouth suckers prefer large rivers, where they are often found in deep pools of 

slow-flowing, low gradient reaches (UDWR 2010b). 

The Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis) is a small minnow originally found throughout the Virgin River system of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. However, due to dewatering, habitat fragmentation, flow alteration, and the introduction of nonnative fishes, Virgin spinedace populations declined in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, and the species was 

missing in portions of its historic range. Efforts are now underway to restore Virgin spinedace populations to acceptable levels. On May 18, 1994, the Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a Threatened Species (USFWS 1994b), 

and April 5, 1995, USFWS proposed designation of Critical Habitat (USFWS 1995b) under the Endangered Species 

Act. Later in 1995, the Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement was executed by state, local and federal agencies to 

provide enhancement and protection to the Virgin spinedace and habitat in an effort to remove threats, and thereby 

preclude the need for listing of this species (UDWR 2002). Implementation of the Virgin Spinedace Conservation 

Agreement has been very successful, and a number of beneficial actions have been completed for the protection and 

enhancement of this fish. The following, along with many other beneficial actions have been implemented: 1) extensive monitoring program, 2) re-occupation of historic habitats through establishment of in-stream flows, 3) connectivity of habits through removal of barriers and diversions, and 4) removal of predation, and competition from 

non-native species (UDWR 2008).

Virgin spinedace are opportunistic feeders, eating insects, insect larvae, other invertebrates, and plant matter. The 

species spawns during spring and late summer, usually during periods of high flows. Virgin spinedace prefer the clear, 

slow-moving water of creeks and small streams, and are usually found in areas with abundant cover. The subspecies of 

Virgin spinedace that occurs in Utah is Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis (UDWR 2010b). 

Nominated area contains important riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support populations of BLM Sensitive 

Species.

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, USFWS, 

2007), Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 

2007b) Spotted Bat (BLM Sensitive) (BLM 2011b, Rogers 1997). Nominated area contains habitat for several species 

of Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species). Nominated area was found to 

be of local importance only.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

Rogers, 1997, Rogers, Duke S., 1997. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) and Former C2 Species Inventory in 

Washington County, Utah, Final Report submitted to BLM, February 21, 1997.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2002. Revised Virgin Spinedace Conservation Strategy, 

January 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 02-22.

UDWR 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2004. Rangewide Conservation Agreement For 

Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker, and Flannel-mouth Sucker, January 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

January 27, 2004.

4.7 Santa Clara River Baker

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: Santa Clara River Baker 

Location of Potential ACEC: Western Washington County, Santa Clara River below Baker Dam Reservoir 

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: CFDF Upper Santa Clara River, SGFO Santa Clara River Baker

Acreage: 32 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b), Birds of 

Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b), Spotted 

Bat (BLM Sensitive) (BLM 2011b, Rogers 1997), Desert Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, 

and UDWR 2010a), Flannelmouth Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) 

(BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2004, and UDWR 2010a), Virgin Spinedace (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 

Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2002, UDWR 2010a), and riparian 

values.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of BLM sensitive species: Desert Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, Virgin Spinedace, and riparian 

values. 

The Desert Sucker (Catostomus clarkia), is native to parts of the Colorado River system of the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs only in the Virgin River system in the southwestern corner 

of the state. Desert suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although insects and other invertebrates are also occasionally consumed. Members of the species almost always occur in streams, where spawning 

occurs in riffles during the winter and spring (UDWR 2010b). 

The Flannelmouth Sucker, (Catostomus latipinnis), is native to the Colorado River system of the western United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs in the main-stem Colorado River, as well as in many of the 

Colorado River's large tributaries (Virgin River, and tributaries here in Washington County). Flannelmouth suckers 

are usually absent from impoundments. In recent times, Utah Flannelmouth sucker populations have been reduced 
1002 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1003

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

UDWR, 2008, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2008. Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy, 2000 to 2008 Assessment, December 2008.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

UDWR, 2010b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2010. Vertebrate Animal Factsheets, Website: <http://

dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/Search/SearchVerts.asp> Accessed January through April, 2010.

USFWS, 1994b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposal to List the Fish Virgin Spinedace as 

a Threatened Species. 59 Federal Register 25875 25880, May 18, 1994.

USFWS, 1995b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and Virgin Spinedace, and Notice of Public Meeting. 65 Federal Register 17296 

17311, April 5, 1995.

USFWS, 2007, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007. Final Rule to Delist the Bald Eagle in the 

Lower 48 States From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 72 Federal Register 37345 37375, July 

9, 2007.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
1004 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1005

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

in both numbers and distribution, primarily due to flow alteration, habitat loss/alteration, and the introduction of 

nonnative fishes. Flannelmouth suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although invertebrates and many types of plant matter are also consumed. The species spawns in streams over gravelly areas during 

the spring and early summer. Flannelmouth suckers prefer large rivers, where they are often found in deep pools of 

slow-flowing, low gradient reaches (UDWR 2010b). 

The Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis) is a small minnow originally found throughout the Virgin River system of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. However, due to dewatering, habitat fragmentation, flow alteration, and the introduction of nonnative fishes, Virgin spinedace populations declined in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, and the species was 

missing in portions of its historic range. Efforts are now underway to restore Virgin spinedace populations to acceptable levels. On May 18, 1994, the Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a Threatened Species (USFWS 1994b), 

and April 5, 1995, USFWS proposed designation of Critical Habitat (USFWS 1995b) under the Endangered Species 

Act. Later in 1995, the Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement was executed by state, local and federal agencies to 

provide enhancement and protection to the Virgin spinedace and habitat in an effort to remove threats, and thereby 

preclude the need for listing of this species (UDWR 2002). Implementation of the Virgin Spinedace Conservation 

Agreement has been very successful, and a number of beneficial actions have been completed for the protection and 

enhancement of this fish. The following, along with many other beneficial actions have been implemented: 1) extensive monitoring program, 2) re-occupation of historic habitats through establishment of in-stream flows, 3) connectivity of habits through removal of barriers and diversions, and 4) removal of predation, and competition from 

non-native species (UDWR 2008).

Virgin spinedace are opportunistic feeders, eating insects, insect larvae, other invertebrates, and plant matter. The 

species spawns during spring and late summer, usually during periods of high flows. Virgin spinedace prefer the clear, 

slow-moving water of creeks and small streams, and are usually found in areas with abundant cover. The subspecies of 

Virgin spinedace that occurs in Utah is Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis (UDWR 2010b). 

Nominated area contains important riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support populations of BLM Sensitive 

Species.

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, 

USFWS, 2007), Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, 

UDWR 2007b). Nominated area contains habitat for several species of Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical 

Migratory Birds and Raptor Species). Nominated area was found to be of local importance only.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

Rogers, 1997, Rogers, Duke S., 1997. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) and Former C2 Species Inventory in 

Washington County, Utah, Final Report submitted to BLM, February 21, 1997.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2002. Revised Virgin Spinedace Conservation Strategy, 

January 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 02-22.

UDWR 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2004. Rangewide Conservation Agreement For 

Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker, and Flannel-mouth Sucker, January 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

January 27, 2004.

4.8 Santa Clara River Veyo

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: Santa Clara River Veyo 

Location of Potential ACEC: Western Washington County, Santa Clara River south of Veyo, Utah

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: CFDF Upper Santa Clara River, SGFO Santa Clara River Veyo

Acreage: 16 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets 

the relevance criteria based on the following species: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b), Birds of 

Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b), Spotted 

Bat (BLM Sensitive) (BLM 2011b, Rogers 1997), Desert Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, 

and UDWR 2010a), Flannelmouth Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) 

(BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2004, and UDWR 2010a), Virgin Spinedace (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 

Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2002, UDWR 2010a), and riparian 

values.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of BLM sensitive species: Desert Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, Virgin Spinedace, and riparian 

values. 

The Desert Sucker (Catostomus clarkia), is native to parts of the Colorado River system of the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs only in the Virgin River system in the southwestern corner 

of the state. Desert suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although insects and other invertebrates are also occasionally consumed. Members of the species almost always occur in streams, where spawning 

occurs in riffles during the winter and spring (UDWR 2010b). 

The Flannelmouth Sucker, (Catostomus latipinnis), is native to the Colorado River system of the western United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs in the main-stem Colorado River, as well as in many of the 

Colorado River's large tributaries (Virgin River, and tributaries here in Washington County). Flannelmouth suckers 

are usually absent from impoundments. In recent times, Utah Flannelmouth sucker populations have been reduced 
1006 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1007

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

UDWR, 2008, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2008. Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy, 2000 to 2008 Assessment, December 2008.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

UDWR, 2010b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2010. Vertebrate Animal Factsheets, Website: <http://

dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/Search/SearchVerts.asp> Accessed January through April, 2010.

USFWS, 1994b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposal to List the Fish Virgin Spinedace as 

a Threatened Species. 59 Federal Register 25875 25880, May 18, 1994.

USFWS, 1995b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and Virgin Spinedace, and Notice of Public Meeting. 65 Federal Register 17296 

17311, April 5, 1995.

USFWS, 2007, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007. Final Rule to Delist the Bald Eagle in the 

Lower 48 States From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 72 Federal Register 37345 37375, July 

9, 2007.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
1008 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1009

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.9 Scarecrow Peak

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: Scarecrow Peak 

Location of Potential ACEC: Western Washington County, west slope of the Beaver Dam Mountains.

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: SUWA Greater Beaver Dam Slope, USFWS Beaver Dam Slope 

Expansion, WS Beaver Dam, WWP Beaver Dam Slope Expansion

Acreage: 9,665 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the relevance criteria based on the following species: Desert Tortoise (Federally Threatened Species) (USFWS 1994a, USFWS 

1990a, USFWS 1994c), Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 

2008b, UDWR 2007b), Desert Sucker (BLM Sensitive Species) (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, 

and UDWR 2010a), Virgin Spinedace (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) 

(BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2002, UDWR 2010a).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of Threatened species: Desert Tortoise.

Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) are long-lived herbivores that are active above-ground primarily during the 

spring, early summer, and fall months. The remainder of the year they spend in burrows, escaping the extreme 

weather conditions of the desert. It is characterized by transitional vegetation represented by sagebrush (Artemisia 

filifolia), black brush (Coleogyne ramosissima), and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma). Here, desert tortoises live 

in a complex and rugged topography consisting of rock caves, canyons, mesas, sand dunes, and sandstone outcrops 

(USFWS 1993b). Within these two recovery units, desert tortoises potentially can survive and reproduce where their 

basic habitat requirements are met. These requirements include a sufficient amount and quality of forage species, shelter sites for protection from predators and environmental extremes, suitable substrates for burrowing, nesting, and 

overwintering, various plants for shelter and adequate area for movement, dispersal, and gene flow (USFWS 1993b). 

The desert tortoise is long-lived with a relatively slow rate of reproduction. Animals do not reach sexual maturity 

until they are 10 to 15 years old. Tortoise populations are probably dependent on years of sufficient and timely precipitation to produce sufficient forage for reproduction and survival. This life history makes a species susceptible to 

environmental limitations that may affect recruitment of young animals into the population, or survival of breeding 

adults before replacement (USFWS 1990a).

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory 

Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b). Nominated area contains habitat for several species of 

Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species). Nominated area was found to be 

of local importance only. 

Nominated area contains habitat (Addley and Hardy 1993) with very low populations of Desert sucker (BLM 

Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and UDWR 2010a) and Virgin spinedace (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 

2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2008, USFWS 1994b, USFWS 1995b, and UDWR 2010a). Because of poor riparian vegetation, lack of permanent flows, and water quality (temperature), habitat potential is very low, so it is not more than 

locally important for Desert sucker and Virgin spinedace.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2002. Revised Virgin Spinedace Conservation Strategy, 

January 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 02-22.

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

UDWR, 2008, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2008. Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy, 2000 to 2008 Assessment, December 2008.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

USFWS, 1980, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1980. Final Rule to List the Beaver Dam Slope 

Population of Desert Tortoise as a Threatened Species and Designation of Critical Habitat. 45 Federal Register 55654 

55666, August 20, 1980.

USFWS, 1990a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1990. Final Rule to List the Mojave Population of 

Desert Tortoise as a Threatened Species. 55 Federal Register 12178 12191, April 2, 1990.

USFWS, 1993b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1993. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for the Mojave Population of Desert Tortoise. 58 Federal Register 45748 45768. August 30, 1993.

USFWS, 1994a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Final Determination of Critical Habitat for 

the Mojave Population of Desert Tortoise. 59 Federal Register 5820 5866. February 8, 1994.

USFWS, 1994b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposal to List the Fish Virgin Spinedace as 

a Threatened Species. 59 Federal Register 25875 25880, May 18, 1994.

USFWS, 1994c, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan, June 28, 1994.

USFWS, 1995b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and Virgin Spinedace, and Notice of Public Meeting. 65 Federal Register 17296 

17311, April 5, 1995.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
1010 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1011

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.10 Shinob Kibe

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and impor-

tance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: Shinob Kibe 

Location of Potential ACEC: Central Washington County, Virgin River at Shinob Kibe

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: USFWS Shinob Kibe, SGFO Shinob Kibe

Acreage: 70 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following: ▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? ▶ A fish and wildlife resource? ▶ A natural process or system? ▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the rel-

evance criteria based on the following species: Dwarf bearclaw poppy (Federally Endangered Species) (USFWS 1979b, 

USFWS 1985a).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial signifi-

cance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria: ▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and pub-

lic welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of the Endangered species: Dwarf bearclaw poppy. 

The Dwarf bearclaw poppy (Arctomecon humilis) was federally listed endangered on November 6, 1979 (USFWS 

1979b). In 1985, a recovery plan was developed for the dwarf bear-poppy (USFWS 1985a). Then in 1986, BLM devel-

oped a habitat management plan for this endangered plant (BLM 1986). The dwarf bearclaw poppy is a perennial herb 

endemic to gypsum soils derived from Moenkopi Formation (USFWS, 1985a).This plant found only in Washington 

County, Utah ranges from north of Wittwer Canyon south to White Hills and Val Spring Wash on the west to Shinob 

Kibe, Warner Ridge on the east (USFWS 1985a). Its habitat consists of rolling low hills and ridge tops composed of 

the gypsiferous clay soils, and the plant is found on barren, open sites in warm desert shrub communities where it is 

often associated with white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), Torry ephedra (Ephedra torreyi), shadescale (Atriplex confer-

tifolia), Mohave woodyaster (Xylorhiza tortifolia), and indigo bush (Dalea fremontii) (UNHP 2005).

References:

BLM, 1986, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1986. Dwarf bearclaw poppy Habitat Management 

Plan, Cedar City District, October 1986.

USFWS, 1979b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1979. Final Rule to List the Dwarf bearclaw poppy 

as an Endangered Species. 44 Federal Register 64250 64252, November 6, 1979.
1012 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1013

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

USFWS, 1985a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1985. Dwarf bearclaw poppy Recovery Plan, 

December 1985.

UNHP, 2005, Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP), 2005. Plant Information Compiled by the Natural Heritage 

Program: A Progress Report, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 05-40.
1014 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1015

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.11 South Hills

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below. 

Name of Potential ACEC: South Hills 

Location of Potential ACEC: South and west of Santa Clara and St. George, UT

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: UNPS Dwarf Bear-Poppy West, UNPS Holmgren Milkvetch, USFWS 

Red Bluff Expansion

Acreage: 1,950 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the relevance criteria based on the following species: Desert Tortoise (Federally Threatened Species) (USFWS 1994a, USFWS 

1990a, USFWS 1994c), Gila monsters (BLM Sensitive) (BLM 2011b, USFWS 1982, USFWS 1985b, USFWS 1991, 

USFWS 1994d, USFWS 2011), Dwarf Bear-Poppy (Federally Endangered Species) (USFWS 1979b, USFWS 1985a), 

and Holmgren Milkvetch (Federally Endangered Species) (USFWS 2001b, USFWS 2006a, USFWS 2006b).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria based on the presence of Threatened, Endangered, and BLM sensitive species: Dwarf Bear-Poppy and Holmgren 

Milkvetch. 

The Dwarf Bear-Poppy (Arctomecon humilis) was federally listed endangered on November 6, 1979 (USFWS 1979b). 

In 1985, a recovery plan was developed for the dwarf bear-poppy (USFWS 1985a). Then in 1986, BLM developed a 

habitat management plan for this endangered plant (BLM 1986). The dwarf bear-poppy is a perennial herb endemic 

to gypsum soils derived from Moenkopi Formation (USFWS, 1985a).This plant found only in Washington County, 

Utah ranges from north of Wittwer Canyon south to White Hills and Val Spring Wash on the west to Shinob Kibe, 

Warner Ridge on the east (USFWS 1985a). Its habitat consists of rolling low hills and ridge tops composed of the 

gypsiferous clay soils, and the plant is found on barren, open sites in warm desert shrub communities where it is often 

associated with white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), Torry ephedra (Ephedra torreyi), shadescale (Atriplex confertifolia), 

Mohave woodyaster (Xylorhiza tortifolia), and indigo bush (Dalea fremontii) (UNHP 2005).

Holmgren Milkvetch (Astragalus ampullarioides) was listed federally endangered on September 28, 2001 and presently occurs in Washington County, Utah, and Mohave County, Arizona (USFWS 2001b). Critical Habitat for Holmgren 

milkvetch was designated on December 27, 2006 (USFWS 2006b), and a recovery plan was developed for the 

Holmgren milkvetch in 2006 (USFWS 2006a). Holmgren milkvetch is an extremely short-lived perennial herb with 

low survivorship from germinated seedling to reproductive adult. Holmgren milkvetch grows on shallow, sparsely 

vegetated soils derived primarily from the Virgin limestone member of the Moenkopi Formation. 

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Nominated area contains habitat for Gila monsters (BLM 

Sensitive and Federally Petitioned Species) (BLM 2011b, USFWS 1982, USFWS 1985b, USFWS 1991, USFWS 1994d, 

USFWS 2011) and Desert Tortoise (Federally Threatened Species) (USFWS 1994a, USFWS 1990a, USFWS 1994c). 

This habitat is not more than locally important. Additionally in regard to the Gila monster, in June of 2011 the 

USFWS issued a finding that declined to list Utah populations of the Gila monster.

References:

Beck, 2005, Beck, D.D, 2005. Biology of Gila monsters and beaded lizards, University of California Press, Berkeley.

BLM, 1986, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1986. Dwarf Bear-poppy Habitat Management Plan, 

Cedar City District, October 1986.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

Fridell et al., 1998, Fridell, R.A., A.M. McLuckie, J.L. Nickolai, and L.D. Lentsch (Fridell et al.), 1998. Washington 

County sensitive species: native fish, amphibians, and reptile distribution assessment and inventory and monitoring 

plan. Publication #98-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah.

UDWR, 2010b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2010. Vertebrate Animal Factsheets, Website: <http://

dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/Search/SearchVerts.asp> Accessed January through April, 2010.

UNHP, 2005, Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP), 2005. Plant Information Compiled by the Natural Heritage 

Program: A Progress Report, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 05-40.

USFWS, 1979b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1979. Final Rule to List the Dwarf Bear-poppy as 

an Endangered Species. 44 Federal Register 64250 64252, November 6, 1979.

USFWS, 1982, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1982. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 47 Federal Register 58454 58460, December 30, 1982.

USFWS, 1985a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1985. Dwarf Bear-poppy Recovery Plan, December 

1985.

USFWS, 1985b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1985. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 50 Federal Register 37958 37967, September 18, 1985.

USFWS, 1990a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1990. Final Rule to List the Mojave Population of 

Desert Tortoise as a Threatened Species. 55 Federal Register 12178 12191, April 2, 1990.

USFWS, 1991, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1991. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 56 Federal Register 58804 58836, November 21, 1991.

USFWS, 1993b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1993. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for the Mojave Population of Desert Tortoise. 58 Federal Register 45748 45768. August 30, 1993.
1016 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1017

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.12 State Line

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and impor-

tance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below. 

Name of Potential ACEC: State Line 

Location of Potential ACEC: South of St. George, near the Arizona border

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: UNPS Holmgren Milkvetch, UNPS Little Round Valley, USFWS 

Lower Virgin River Expansion, VRLP Virgin River and Tributaries, WS Beaver Dam

Acreage: 1,411 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following: ▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? ▶ A fish and wildlife resource? ▶ A natural process or system? ▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the rel-

evance criteria based on the following species: Holmgren Milkvetch (Federally Endangered Species) (USFWS 2001b, 

USFWS 2006a, USFWS 2006b), and Gierisch Globemallow (Federal Candidate Species, and BLM Sensitive Species) 

(USFWS 2008e, BLM 2011b). 

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial signifi-

cance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria: ▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and pub-

lic welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and BLM sensitive species: Holmgren Milkvetch and 

Gierisch Globemallow.

Holmgren Milkvetch (Astragalus ampullarioides) was listed federally endangered on September 28, 2001 and present-

ly occurs in Washington County, Utah, and Mohave County, Arizona (USFWS 2001b). Critical Habitat for Holmgren 

milkvetch was designated on December 27, 2006 (USFWS 2006b), and a recovery plan was developed for the 

Holmgren milkvetch in 2006 (USFWS 2006a). Holmgren milkvetch is an extremely short-lived perennial herb with 

low survivorship from germinated seedling to reproductive adult. Holmgren milkvetch grows on shallow, sparsely 

vegetated soils derived primarily from the Virgin limestone member of the Moenkopi Formation. 

Gierisch globemallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii) was listed as a federal candidate species under Candidate Notice of 

Review on December 10, 2008 (USFWS 2008e). In this notice, habitat was identified on BLM lands in Utah, with the 

principle threat of OHV use. In April 2005, Atwood and Welsh (2005) conducted a survey on Gierisch globemal-

low populations in Washington County, Utah for future planning efforts by BLM. The Utah population of Gierisch 

globemallow ranges from the Utah Stateline (north of the Black Rock Interstate 15 Exit) north to the Virgin River 
1018 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1019

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

between Big and Little Round Valleys. In August of 2012 the USFWS published a federal register notice proposing to 

list Gierisch globemallow as an endangered species and to designate critical habitat in Utah and on the Arizona Strip.

References:

USFWS, 2001b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2001. Final Rule to List the Holmgren Milkvetch 

and the Shivwits Milkvetch. 66 Federal Register 49560 49567, September 28, 

USFWS, 2006a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2006. Recovery Plan for the Holmgren Milkvetch 

and Shivwits Milkvetch, September 2006. 

USFWS, 2006b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2006. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for 

Holmgren Milkvetch and Shivwits Milkvetch. 71 Federal Register 77971 78012, December 27, 2006.

USFWS, 2008e, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Gierisch Globemallow Candidate Species 

Notice of Review. 73 Federal Register 75175 75244, December 10, 2008.
1020 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1021

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

and many types of plant matter are also consumed. The species spawns in streams over gravelly areas during the 

spring and early summer. Flannelmouth suckers prefer large rivers, where they are often found in deep pools of slowflowing, low gradient reaches (UDWR 2010b). 

The Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis) is a small minnow originally found throughout the Virgin River system of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. However, due to dewatering, habitat fragmentation, flow alteration, and the introduction of nonnative fishes, Virgin spinedace populations declined in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, and the species was 

missing in portions of its historic range. Efforts are now underway to restore Virgin spinedace populations to acceptable levels. On May 18, 1994, the Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a Threatened Species (USFWS 1994b), 

and April 5, 1995, USFWS proposed designation of Critical Habitat (USFWS 1995b) under the Endangered Species 

Act. Later in 1995, the Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement was executed by state, local and federal agencies to 

provide enhancement and protection to the Virgin spinedace and habitat in an effort to remove threats, and thereby 

preclude the need for listing of this species (UDWR 2002). Implementation of the Virgin Spinedace Conservation 

Agreement has been very successful, and a number of beneficial actions have been completed for the protection and 

enhancement of this fish. The following, along with many other beneficial actions have been implemented: 1) extensive monitoring program, 2) re-occupation of historic habitats through establishment of in-stream flows, 3) connectivity of habits through removal of barriers and diversions, and 4) removal of predation, and competition from 

non-native species (UDWR 2008).

Virgin spinedace are opportunistic feeders, eating insects, insect larvae, other invertebrates, and plant matter. The 

species spawns during spring and late summer, usually during periods of high flows. Virgin spinedace prefer the clear, 

slow-moving water of creeks and small streams, and are usually found in areas with abundant cover. The subspecies of 

Virgin spinedace that occurs in Utah is Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis (UDWR 2010b). 

Nominated area contains important riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support populations of BLM Sensitive 

Species.

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, USFWS, 

2007), nominated area was found to be of local importance only.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2002. Revised Virgin Spinedace Conservation Strategy, 

January 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 02-22.

UDWR 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2004. Rangewide Conservation Agreement For 

Roundtail Chub, Bluehead Sucker, and Flannel-mouth Sucker, January 2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

January 27, 2004.

UDWR, 2008, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2008. Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy, 2000 to 2008 Assessment, December 2008.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

UDWR, 2010b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2010. Vertebrate Animal Factsheets, Website: <http://

dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/Search/SearchVerts.asp> Accessed January through April, 2010.

4.13 Virgin River

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below. 

Name of Potential ACEC: Virgin River 

Location of Potential ACEC: Virgin River isolated parcels in Washington County

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: CFDF Virgin River, VRLP Virgin River and Tributaries

Acreage: 245 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b), Desert Sucker 

(Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and UDWR 2010a), Flannelmouth Sucker (Addley and Hardy 

1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2004, and UDWR 2010a), 

Virgin Spinedace (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 

2002, UDWR 2002, UDWR 2010a), and riparian values.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of BLM sensitive species: Desert Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, Virgin Spinedace, and riparian 

values. 

The Desert Sucker (Catostomus clarkia), is native to parts of the Colorado River system of the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs only in the Virgin River system in the southwestern corner 

of the state. Desert suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although insects and other invertebrates are also occasionally consumed. Members of the species almost always occur in streams, where spawning 

occurs in riffles during the winter and spring (UDWR 2010b). 

The Flannelmouth Sucker, (Catostomus latipinnis), is native to the Colorado River system of the western United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs in the main-stem Colorado River, as well as in many of the 

Colorado River's large tributaries (Virgin River, and tributaries here in Washington County). Flannelmouth suckers 

are usually absent from impoundments. In recent times, Utah Flannelmouth sucker populations have been reduced in 

both numbers and distribution, primarily due to flow alteration, habitat loss/alteration, and the introduction of nonnative fishes. Flannelmouth suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although invertebrates 
1022 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1023

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

USFWS, 1994b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposal to List the Fish Virgin Spinedace as 

a Threatened Species. 59 Federal Register 25875 25880, May 18, 1994.

USFWS, 1995b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and Virgin Spinedace, and Notice of Public Meeting. 65 Federal Register 17296 

17311, April 5, 1995.

USFWS, 2007, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007. Final Rule to Delist the Bald Eagle in the 

Lower 48 States From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 72 Federal Register 37345 37375, July 

9, 2007.
1024 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1025

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.14 Webb Hill

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: Webb Hill 

Location of Potential ACEC: Webb Hill near Brigham Road in St. George, UT

Nominations included in the Potential ACEC: USFWS Webb Hill, VRLP Webb Hill

Acreage: 520 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The potential ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Dwarf Bear-poppy (Federally Endangered Species) (USFWS 1979b, 

USFWS 1985a). 

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the potential ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of the Endangered species: Dwarf Bear Poppy. 

The Dwarf Bear-Poppy (Arctomecon humilis) was federally listed endangered on November 6, 1979 (USFWS 1979b). 

In 1985, a recovery plan was developed for the dwarf bear-poppy (USFWS 1985a). Then in 1986, BLM developed a 

habitat management plan for this endangered plant (BLM 1986). The dwarf bear-poppy is a perennial herb endemic 

to gypsum soils derived from Moenkopi Formation (USFWS, 1985a).This plant found only in Washington County, 

Utah ranges from north of Wittwer Canyon south to White Hills and Val Spring Wash on the west to Shinob Kibe, 

Warner Ridge on the east (USFWS 1985a). Its habitat consists of rolling low hills and ridge tops composed of the 

gypsiferous clay soils, and the plant is found on barren, open sites in warm desert shrub communities where it is often 

associated with white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), Torry ephedra (Ephedra torreyi), shadescale (Atriplex confertifolia), 

Mohave woodyaster (Xylorhiza tortifolia), and indigo bush (Dalea fremontii) (UNHP 2005).

References:

BLM, 1986, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1986. Dwarf Bear-poppy Habitat Management Plan, 

Cedar City District, October 1986.

USFWS, 1979b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1979. Final Rule to List the Dwarf Bear-poppy as 

an Endangered Species. 44 Federal Register 64250 64252, November 6, 1979.

USFWS, 1985a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1985. Dwarf Bear-poppy Recovery Plan, December 

1985.
1026 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1027

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.15 Red Cliffs

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and impor-

tance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Potential ACEC: Red Cliffs 

Location of Potential ACEC: Red Cliffs NCA, north of St. George, UT

Nominations included in the Proposed ACEC: CFDF Virgin River, J.E. Deacon Upper Virgin River, VRLP Virgin 

River and Tributaries, WWP Red Cliffs

Acreage: 44,824 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following: ▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? ▶ A fish and wildlife resource? ▶ A natural process or system? ▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC meets the rele-

vance criteria based on the following species: Desert Tortoise (Federally Threatened Species) (USFWS 1994a, USFWS 

1990a, USFWS 1994c), Gila monsters (BLM Sensitive, and Federally Petitioned Species) (BLM 2011b, USFWS 1982, 

USFWS 1985b, USFWS 1991, USFWS 1994d), Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b), Golden Eagle 

(BLM 1993) and this species is federally protected under the Eagle Act, Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical 

Migratory Birds and Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b), Virgin River chub (Federally Endangered 

Species) (USFWS 2000,USFWS 1989b, USFWS 1995c, and USFWS 2008a), Woundfin (Federally Endangered Species) 

(USFWS 2000, USFWS 1970, USFWS 1995c, USFWS 2008a), Desert Sucker (BLM Sensitive Species) (Addley and 

Hardy 1993) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and UDWR 2010a), Flannel-mouth Sucker (BLM Sensitive Species) (Addley 

and Hardy 1993) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and UDWR 2010a), Virgin Spinedace (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM 

Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2002, UDWR 2010a), and riparian 

values.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial signifi-

cance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria: ▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and pub-

lic welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the proposed ACEC meets the importance criteria 

based on the presence of Threatened, Endangered, and BLM sensitive species: Desert Tortoise, Virgin River chub, 

Woundfin, Desert Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, Virgin Spinedace, and riparian values. 

Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) are long-lived herbivores that are active above-ground primarily during the 

spring, early summer, and fall months. The remainder of the year they spend in burrows, escaping the extreme weath-

er conditions of the desert. The Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (NCA) is at the extreme northeastern edge of 

the species’ range in the area of St. George (USFWS 1993b). It is characterized by transitional vegetation represented 

by sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia), black brush (Coleogyne ramosissima), and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma). 
1028 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1029

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

Here, desert tortoises live in a complex and rugged topography consisting of rock caves, canyons, mesas, sand dunes, 

and sandstone outcrops (USFWS 1993b). Within these two recovery units, desert tortoises potentially can survive 

and reproduce where their basic habitat requirements are met. These requirements include a sufficient amount and 

quality of forage species, shelter sites for protection from predators and environmental extremes, suitable substrates 

for burrowing, nesting, and overwintering, various plants for shelter and adequate area for movement, dispersal, and 

gene flow (USFWS 1993b). The desert tortoise is long-lived with a relatively slow rate of reproduction. Animals do 

not reach sexual maturity until they are 10 to 15 years old. Tortoise populations are probably dependent on years of 

sufficient and timely precipitation to produce sufficient forage for reproduction and survival. This life history makes a 

species susceptible to environmental limitations that may affect recruitment of young animals into the population, or 

survival of breeding adults before replacement (USFWS 1990a).

Virgin River chub (Gila seminude) is listed endangered (USFWS 1989b) and presently occurs in the Virgin River 

main-stem from Pah Tempe Springs downstream to the Mesquite Diversion (USFWS 1995c). Critical Habitat for 

Virgin River chub was designated on January 26, 2000 (USFWS 2000) and includes the main-stem Virgin River and 

its 100 year floodplain, extending from the confluence of LaVerkin Creek, Utah to Halfway Wash, Nevada. The Virgin 

River chub is a silvery, medium sized minnow that averages about 8 inches in total length but can grow to a length of 

18 inches. Virgin River chubs are most often associated with deep runs or pool habitats of slow to moderate velocities with large boulders or in-stream cover, such as root snags (USFWS, 1995c). The Virgin River chub has declined 

in numbers due to the cumulative effects of dewatering from numerous diversion projects, proliferation of nonnative 

fish, and alterations of natural flows, temperature, and sediment regimes (USFWS 2000).

Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) is listed endangered (USFWS 1970) and presently occurs from Pah Tempe 

Springs on the main-stem Virgin River and the lower portion of LaVerkin Creek in Utah, downstream to Lake Mead, 

Nevada (USFWS 1995c). Critical Habitat for Woundfin was designated on January 26, 2000 (USFWS 2000) and 

includes the main-stem Virgin River and its 100 year floodplain, extending from the confluence of LaVerkin Creek, 

Utah to Halfway Wash, Nevada. Adult and juvenile Woundfin inhabit runs and quiet waters adjacent to riffles with 

sand and sand/gravel substrates. The Woundfin is a streamlined, silvery minnow with a flat head and a conspicuous, sharp dorsal spine, from which its common name was derived. The diet of Woundfin is quite varied, consisting 

of insects, insect larvae, other invertebrates, algae, and detritus. The Woundfin has declined in numbers due to the 

cumulative effects of dewatering from numerous diversion projects, proliferation of nonnative fish, and alterations of 

natural flows, temperature, and sediment regimes (USFWS 2000).

The Desert Sucker (Catostomus clarkia) is native to parts of the Colorado River system of the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs only in the Virgin River system in the southwestern corner 

of the state. Desert suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although insects and other invertebrates are also occasionally consumed. Members of the species almost always occur in streams, where spawning 

occurs in riffles during the winter and spring (UDWR 2010b). 

The Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis) is native to the Colorado River system of the western United 

States and northern Mexico. In Utah, the species occurs in the main-stem Colorado River, as well as in many of the 

Colorado River's large tributaries (Virgin River, and tributaries here in Washington County). Flannelmouth suckers 

are usually absent from impoundments. In recent times, Utah Flannelmouth sucker populations have been reduced 

in both numbers and distribution, primarily due to flow alteration, habitat loss/alteration, and the introduction of 

nonnative fishes. Flannelmouth suckers are benthic (bottom dwelling) fish that primarily eat algae, although invertebrates and many types of plant matter are also consumed. The species spawns in streams over gravelly areas during 

the spring and early summer. Flannelmouth suckers prefer large rivers, where they are often found in deep pools of 

slow-flowing, low gradient reaches (UDWR 2010b).

The Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis) is a small minnow originally found throughout the Virgin River system of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. However, due to dewatering, habitat fragmentation, flow alteration, and the introduction of nonnative fishes, Virgin spinedace populations declined in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, and the species was 

missing in portions of its historic range. Efforts are now underway to restore Virgin spinedace populations to acceptable levels. On May 18, 1994, the Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a Threatened Species (USFWS 1994b), 

and April 5, 1995, USFWS proposed designation of Critical Habitat (USFWS 1995b) under the Endangered Species 

Act. Later in 1995, the Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement was executed by state, local and federal agencies to 

provide enhancement and protection to the Virgin spinedace and habitat in an effort to remove threats, and thereby 

preclude the need for listing of this species (UDWR 2002). Implementation of the Virgin Spinedace Conservation 

Agreement has been very successful, and a number of beneficial actions have been completed for the protection and 

enhancement of this fish. The following, along with many other beneficial actions have been implemented: 1) extensive monitoring program, 2) re-occupation of historic habitats through establishment of in-stream flows, 3) connectivity of habits through removal of barriers and diversions, and 4) removal of predation, and competition from 

non-native species (UDWR 2008).

Virgin spinedace are opportunistic feeders, eating insects, insect larvae, other invertebrates, and plant matter. The 

species spawns during spring and late summer, usually during periods of high flows. Virgin spinedace prefer the clear, 

slow-moving water of creeks and small streams, and are usually found in areas with abundant cover. The subspecies of 

Virgin spinedace that occurs in Utah is Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis (UDWR 2010b). 

Nominated area contains important riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support populations of BLM Sensitive 

Species.

The following species do not meet the importance criteria: Bald Eagle (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, 

USFWS, 2007), Golden Eagle (BLM 1993), Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor 

Species) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b). Nominated area contains habitat for several species of Birds of Conservation 

Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds and Raptor Species). Nominated area was found to be of local importance only.

Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum) On January 22, 2010, the Gila monster in Utah was petitioned for listing as an 

endangered species by WildEarth Guardians and Daniel Beck (WildEarth Guardians and Beck 2010) on the basis that 

Utah population was believed to be a genetically distinct population. In June of 2011, the USFWS issued a finding that 

declined to list Utah populations of the Gila monster (USFWS 2011).

The BLM ID team evaluation found that the Desert Tortoise, Virgin River chub, Woundfin, Desert Sucker, 

Flannelmouth Sucker, Virgin Spinedace meet the relevance and importance based on the following: Desert Tortoise, 

Virgin River chub, Woundfin, Desert Sucker, Flannelmouth Sucker, Virgin Spinedace are federally listed endangered, 

and BLM Sensitive species that occupy habitat with a limited distribution in Washington County, Utah. They are 

by definition a rare, fragile, and sensitive resource of more than local significance and are considered vulnerable to 

adverse change.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 1993, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1993. Red Mountain, and Sand Mountain Raptor 

Routes, Unpublished Studies, St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah,

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

Fridell et al., 1998, Fridell, R.A., A.M. McLuckie, J.L. Nickolai, and L.D. Lentsch (Fridell et al.), 1998. Washington 

County sensitive species: native fish, amphibians, and reptile distribution assessment and inventory and monitoring 

plan. Publication #98-14. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2002. Revised Virgin Spinedace Conservation Strategy, 

January 2002, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication No. 02-22.
1030 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1031

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

UDWR, 2008, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2008. Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy, 2000 to 2008 Assessment, December 2008.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

UDWR, 2010b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2010. Vertebrate Animal Factsheets, Website: <http://

dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/Search/SearchVerts.asp> Accessed January through April, 2010.

USFWS, 1970, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1970. Final Rule to List the Woundfin as an 

Endangered Species. 35 Federal Register 16047 16048, October 13, 1970.

USFWS, 1982, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1982. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 47 Federal Register 58454 58460, December 30, 1982.

USFWS, 1985b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1985. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 50 Federal Register 37958 37967, September 18, 1985.

USFWS, 1989b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1989. Final Rule to List the Virgin River Chub as 

an Endangered Species. 54 Federal Register 35305 35311, August 24, 1989.

USFWS, 1990a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1990. Final Rule to List the Mojave Population of 

Desert Tortoise as a Threatened Species. 55 Federal Register 12178 12191, April 2, 1990.

USFWS, 1991, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1991. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 56 Federal Register 58804 58836, November 21, 1991.

USFWS, 1993b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1993. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for the Mojave Population of Desert Tortoise. 58 Federal Register 45748 45768. August 30, 1993.

USFWS, 1994a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Final Determination of Critical Habitat for 

the Mojave Population of Desert Tortoise. 59 Federal Register 5820 5866. February 8, 1994.

USFWS, 1994b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposal to List the Fish Virgin Spinedace as 

a Threatened Species. 59 Federal Register 25875 25880, May 18, 1994.

USFWS, 1994c, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan, June 28, 1994.

USFWS, 1994d, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, However, information not available to support listing. 59 

Federal Register 58982 59028, November 15, 1994.

USFWS, 1995b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat 

for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and Virgin Spinedace, and Notice of Public Meeting. 65 Federal Register 17296 

17311, April 5, 1995.

USFWS, 1995c, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Virgin River Fish Recovery Plan, April 19, 

1995.

USFWS, 2000, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2000. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Virgin River Chub and Woundfin. 65 Federal Register 4140 4156, January 26, 2000.

USFWS, 2007, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007. Final Rule to Delist the Bald Eagle in the 

Lower 48 States From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 72 Federal Register 37345 37375, July 

9, 2007.

USFWS, 2008a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. The Virgin River Fish Five Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation, March 2008

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.

USFWS, 2011, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Utah Population of the Gila Monster as an Endangered or a 

Threatened Distinct Population Segment, 76 Federal Register 36049 36053, June 21, 2011.

WildEarth Guardians and Beck, 2010, WildEarth Guardians and Daniel Beck (WildEarth Guardians and Beck), 

2010. Petition To List The Utah Population Of The Gila Monster Under The U.S. Endangered Species Act, Petition 

Submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Interior, Action through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, January 22, 2010.
1032 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1033

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.16 CFDF Gunlock-Square Top

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: CFDF Gunlock-Square Top 

Location of Nominated ACEC: Western Washington County, west of the Santa Clara River

Acreage: 35,365 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: Nominated area is used by mule 

deer when they migrate between summer and winter range, and as winter range, and meets the relevance criteria 

based on mule deer habitat. Nominated area does not contain rare, endemic, relic plants or plant community. This 

nominated ACEC also included cultural resources as a relevant and important value. Due to the specific direction in 

OPLMA to preserve areas “where biological conservation is a priority”, this ACEC process only considers new ACECs 

that have a biological component or value. Areas nominated for cultural values were not considered at this time, but 

will be considered when the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan is revised in the future. Until the St. 

George Field Office Plan is revised, cultural resources in this area would be protected by the management prescriptions of the RMP, the National Historic Preservation Act and other laws and regulations, and the requirement that 

any ground disturbing activities would require a Class III level cultural resources inventory.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Nominated area contains mule deer habitat which was found 

to be of local importance only.
1034 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1035

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.17 Hurricane Cliffs

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: Hurricane Cliffs 

Location of Nominated ACEC: Eastern Washington County, southeast of Hurricane, UT

Acreage: 2,178 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The proposed ACEC meets the relevance criteria based on the following species: Golden Eagle nesting occurs (BLM 1993) and this species is federally 

protected under the Eagle Act, Birds of Conservation Concern (Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the nominated ACEC does not meet the importance criteria because the species present do not exceed the level of local significance, nor are they considered fragile, 

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, or vulnerable to adverse change. While golden eagles are listed in the 

Birds of Conservation Concern, they are considered locally common in the St. George Field Office. This species is not 

experiencing declining populations within the planning area.

Nominated area contains habitat for several species of Birds of Conservation Concern (Raptor Species). Nominated 

area was found to be of local importance only.

References:

BLM, 1993, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1993. Red Mountain, and Sand Mountain Raptor 

Routes, Unpublished Studies, St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 1993.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
1036 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1037

4.18 SUWA Beaver Dam Mountains

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and impor-

tance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: SUWA Beaver Dam Mountains

Location of Nominated ACEC: West Mountain Peak portion of Beaver Dam Mountains

Acreage: 19,019 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following: ▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? ▶ A fish and wildlife resource? ▶ A natural process or system? ▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC meets the rel-

evance criteria based on the following species: Gila monsters (BLM Sensitive, and Federally Petitioned Species) (BLM 

2011b, USFWS 1982, USFWS 1985b, USFWS 1991, USFWS 1994d), Common Chuckwalla, Desert Iguana, Desert 

Night Lizard, Mojave Rattlesnake, Speckled rattlesnake, Western Threadsnake, and Nevada Willowherb (BLM 2011b).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial signifi-

cance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria: ▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and pub-

lic welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Nominated area contains habitat for Gila monsters, Common 

Chuckwalla, Desert Iguana, Desert Night Lizard, Mojave Rattlesnake, Speckled rattlesnake, and Western Threadsnake 

populations on the Beaver Dam Slope (BLM Sensitive) (BLM 2011b). These species are found extensively in the 

Beaver Dam Wash NCA , Arizona, and Nevada and are not more than locally significant.

Nominated area contains habitat for Nevada Willowherb populations in the Beaver Dam Mountains (BLM Sensitive) 

(BLM 2011b). This plant is also found in similar habitats in Iron and Millard Counties. These plant populations were 

found to contain no special values, threats, or vulnerabilities.

References:

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

USFWS, 1982, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1982. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 47 Federal Register 58454 58460, December 30, 1982.

USFWS, 1985b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1985. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 50 Federal Register 37958 37967, September 18, 1985.

USFWS, 1991, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1991. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 56 Federal Register 58804 58836, November 21, 1991.

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E
1038 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1039

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

USFWS, 1994d, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, However, information not available to support listing. 59 

Federal Register 58982 59028, November 15, 1994.
1040 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1041

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

USFWS, 1991, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1991. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 56 Federal Register 58804 58836, November 21, 1991.

USFWS, 1994d, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, However, information not available to support listing. 59 

Federal Register 58982 59028, November 15, 1994.

4.19 SUWA Lower LaVerkin Creek

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: SUWA Lower LaVerkin Creek 

Location of Nominated ACEC: Eastern Washington County, LaVerkin Creek and watershed

Acreage: 8,539 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Gila monsters (BLM Sensitive, and Federally Petitioned Species) 

(BLM 2011b, USFWS 1982, USFWS 1985b, USFWS 1991, USFWS 1994d), Common Chuckwalla, Desert Iguana, 

Desert Night Lizard, Mojave Rattlesnake, Speckled rattlesnake, Western Threadsnake, and Nevada Willowherb (BLM 

2011b).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Nominated area contains habitat for Gila monsters, Common 

Chuckwalla, Desert Iguana, Desert Night Lizard, Mojave Rattlesnake, Speckled rattlesnake, and Western Threadsnake 

populations on the Beaver Dam Slope (BLM Sensitive) (BLM 2011b). These species are found extensively in the 

Beaver Dam Wash NCA , Arizona, and Nevada and are not more than locally significant.

Nominated area contains habitat for Nevada Willowherb populations in the Beaver Dam Mountains (BLM Sensitive) 

(BLM 2011b). This plant is also found in similar habitats in Iron and Millard Counties. These plant populations were 

found to contain no special values, threats, or vulnerabilities.

References:

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

USFWS, 1982, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1982. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 47 Federal Register 58454 58460, December 30, 1982.

USFWS, 1985b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1985. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 50 Federal Register 37958 37967, September 18, 1985.
1042 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1043

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.20 SUWA Santa Clara/Gunlock Expansion

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: SUWA Santa Clara/Gunlock Expansion 

Location of Nominated ACEC: Santa Clara River below Gunlock Reservoir 

Acreage: 5,800 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: Nominated area contains habitat 

for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcons, and prairie falcons (Birds of Conservation Concern) (BLM 

1993, USFWS 2008b).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Nominated area contains habitat for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcons, and prairie falcons (Birds of Conservation Concern) (BLM 1993, USFWS 2008b). 

However, the nominated area was found to be of local importance only and contains no special values, threats, or 

vulnerabilities. 

References:

BLM, 1993, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1993. Red Mountain, and Sand Mountain Raptor 

Routes, Unpublished Studies, St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 1993. 

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
1044 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1045

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.21 SUWA Upper Beaver Dam Wash

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and impor-

tance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: SUWA Upper Beaver Dam Wash 

Location of Nominated ACEC: West and East Forks of the Beaver Dam Wash 

Acreage: 65,837 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following: ▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? ▶ A fish and wildlife resource? ▶ A natural process or system? ▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds) (e.g. 

Lucy’s warbler, Cassin’s finch, juniper titmouse, green-tailed towhee, and Bell’s vireo) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b), 

golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcons, and prairie falcons (Birds of Conservation Concern) (BLM 1993, 

USFWS 2008b), desert sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and 

UDWR 2010a), Nevada Willowherb (BLM Sensitive) (BLM 2011b) and riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support 

populations of federally listed, and/or BLM Sensitive Species (USFWS 1970, USFWS 1989b, USFWS 1995a).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial signifi-

cance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria: ▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and pub-

lic welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Nominated area contains habit for several species (e.g. Lucy’s 

warbler, Cassin’s finch, juniper titmouse, green-tailed towhee, and Bell’s vireo) of Birds of Conservation Concern 

(Neotropical Migratory Birds) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b). Nominated area was found to be of local importance 

only.

Nominated area (Virgin River drainage and tributaries) contains habitat for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, per-

egrine falcons, and prairie falcons (Birds of Conservation Concern) (BLM 1993, USFWS 2008b). Nominated area was 

found to be of local importance only.

Nominated area (East Fork Beaver Dam Wash) contains habitat (Addley and Hardy 1993) with very low populations 

of desert sucker (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and UDWR 2010a). Because of poor riparian 

vegetation, lack of permanent flows, and water quality (temperature), natural habitat potential is very low, so is not 

more than locally important for desert sucker.

Nominated area (East Fork Beaver Dam Wash) contains poor to fair riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support low 

populations of federally listed, and/or BLM Sensitive Species (USFWS 1970, USFWS 1989b, USFWS 1995a). Because 
1046 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1047

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

of limited riparian vegetation, low flows, and water quality (temperature), natural habitat potential for BLM Sensitive 

Species is very low, so it is not more than locally important.

Nominated area contains habitat for Nevada Willowherb (BLM Sensitive) (BLM 2011b). This plant is also found 

in similar habitats in Iron and Millard Counties. These plant populations were found to contain no special values, 

threats, or vulnerabilities.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 1993, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1993. Red Mountain, and Sand Mountain Raptor 

Routes, Unpublished Studies, St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 1993. 

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

USFWS, 1970, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1970. Final Rule to List the Woundfin as an 

Endangered Species. 35 Federal Register 16047 16048, October 13, 1970.

USFWS, 1989b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1989. Final Rule to List the Virgin River Chub as 

an Endangered Species. 54 Federal Register 35305 35311, August 24, 1989.

USFWS, 1995a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Final Rule to List the Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher as an Endangered Species. 60 Federal Register 10693 10715, February 27, 1995.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010
1048 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1049

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.22 USFWS East Fork Beaver Dam Wash

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: USFWS East Fork Beaver Dam Wash 

Location of Nominated ACEC: East Fork Beaver Dam Wash

Acreage: 887 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds) 

(e.g. Lucy’s warbler, Cassin’s finch, juniper titmouse, green-tailed towhee, and Bell’s vireo) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 

2007b), golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcons, and prairie falcons (Birds of Conservation Concern) (BLM 

1993, USFWS 2008b), desert sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, 

and UDWR 2010a), and riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support populations of federally listed, and/or BLM 

Sensitive Species (USFWS 1970, USFWS 1989b, USFWS 1995a).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Nominated area contains habit for several species (e.g. Lucy’s 

warbler, Cassin’s finch, juniper titmouse, green-tailed towhee, and Bell’s vireo) of Birds of Conservation Concern 

(Neotropical Migratory Birds) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b). Nominated area was found to be of local importance 

only.

Nominated area (Virgin River drainage and tributaries) contains habitat for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcons, and prairie falcons (Birds of Conservation Concern) (BLM 1993, USFWS 2008b). Nominated area was 

found to be of local importance only.

Nominated area (East Fork Beaver Dam Wash) contains habitat (Addley and Hardy 1993) with very low populations 

of desert sucker (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and UDWR 2010a). Because of poor riparian 

vegetation, lack of permanent flows, and water quality (temperature), natural habitat potential is very low, so is not 

more than locally important for desert sucker.

Nominated area (East Fork Beaver Dam Wash) contains poor to fair riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support low 

populations of federally listed, and/or BLM Sensitive Species (USFWS 1970, USFWS 1989b, USFWS 1995a). Because 

of limited riparian vegetation, low flows, and water quality (temperature), natural habitat potential for BLM Sensitive 

Species is very low, so it is not more than locally important.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 1993, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1993. Red Mountain, and Sand Mountain Raptor 

Routes, Unpublished Studies, St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 1993. 

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

USFWS, 1970, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1970. Final Rule to List the Woundfin as an 

Endangered Species. 35 Federal Register 16047 16048, October 13, 1970.

USFWS, 1989b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1989. Final Rule to List the Virgin River Chub as 

an Endangered Species. 54 Federal Register 35305 35311, August 24, 1989.

USFWS, 1995a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Final Rule to List the Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher as an Endangered Species. 60 Federal Register 10693 10715, February 27, 1995.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
1050 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1051

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.23 USFWS LaVerkin Creek

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and impor-

tance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: USFWS LaVerkin Creek 

Location of Nominated ACEC: Eastern Washington County, LaVerkin Creek and watershed

Acreage: 1,780 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following: ▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? ▶ A fish and wildlife resource? ▶ A natural process or system? ▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Birds of Conservation Concern (Neotropical Migratory Birds) 

(e.g. Lucy’s warbler, Cassin’s finch, juniper titmouse, green-tailed towhee, and Bell’s vireo) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 

2007b), golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcons, and prairie falcons (Birds of Conservation Concern) 

(BLM 1993, USFWS 2008b), Desert Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 

2002), Flannelmouth Sucker (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, 

UDNR 2002, UDWR 2004, and UDWR 2010a), Virgin Spinedace (Addley and Hardy 1993) (BLM Sensitive, and 

Conservation Plan Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, UDWR 2002, UDWR 2010a), and riparian habitat (BLM 

2010e), which support populations of federally listed, and/or BLM Sensitive Species (USFWS 1970, USFWS 1989b, 

USFWS 1995a).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial signifi-

cance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria: ▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and pub-

lic welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Nominated area contains habit for several species (e.g. Lucy’s 

warbler, Cassin’s finch, juniper titmouse, green-tailed towhee, and Bell’s vireo) of Birds of Conservation Concern 

(Neotropical Migratory Birds) (USFWS 2008b, UDWR 2007b). Nominated area was found to be of local importance 

only.

Nominated area (Virgin River drainage and tributaries) contains habitat for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, per-

egrine falcons, and prairie falcons (Birds of Conservation Concern) (BLM 1993, USFWS 2008b). Nominated area was 

found to be of local importance only.

Nominated area (East Fork Beaver Dam Wash) contains habitat (Addley and Hardy 1993) with very low populations 

of desert sucker (BLM Sensitive Species) (BLM 2011b, UDNR 2002, and UDWR 2010a). Because of poor riparian 

vegetation, lack of permanent flows, and water quality (temperature), natural habitat potential is very low, so is not 

more than locally important for desert sucker.
1052 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1053

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

Nominated area (East Fork Beaver Dam Wash) contains poor to fair riparian habitat (BLM 2010e), which support low 

populations of federally listed, and/or BLM Sensitive Species (USFWS 1970, USFWS 1989b, USFWS 1995a). Because 

of limited riparian vegetation, low flows, and water quality (temperature), natural habitat potential for BLM Sensitive 

Species is very low, so it is not more than locally important.

References:

Addley and Hardy, 1993, Addley, R.C., T.B. Hardy. 1993. The Current Distribution and Status of Spinedace in the 

Virgin River Basin, 1993.

BLM, 1993, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1993. Red Mountain, and Sand Mountain Raptor 

Routes, Unpublished Studies, St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 1993. 

BLM, 2010e, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2010. Riparian Studies in Washington County, Utah 

(BLM Lands), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 2010.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

UDNR, 2002, Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), 2002. Program Document for the Virgin River 

Resource Management and Recovery Program, 2002.

UDWR, 2007b, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2007. Population Monitoring of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds in Riparian Habitats of Utah, UDWR Publication Number 07-17, August 15, 2007.

UDWR, 2010a, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009. Final Virgin Spinedace Population Monitoring 

Summary, 1994-2009, Publication # 10-04, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 2010.

USFWS, 1970, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1970. Final Rule to List the Woundfin as an 

Endangered Species. 35 Federal Register 16047 16048, October 13, 1970.

USFWS, 1989b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1989. Final Rule to List the Virgin River Chub as 

an Endangered Species. 54 Federal Register 35305 35311, August 24, 1989.

USFWS, 1995a, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995. Final Rule to List the Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher as an Endangered Species. 60 Federal Register 10693 10715, February 27, 1995.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.
1054 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1055

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

USFWS, 1985b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1985. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 50 Federal Register 37958 37967, September 18, 1985.

USFWS, 1991, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1991. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 56 Federal Register 58804 58836, November 21, 1991.

USFWS, 1994d, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, However, information not available to support listing. 59 

Federal Register 58982 59028, November 15, 1994.

USFWS, 2008b, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Website: <http://www.fws.gov/

migratory birds/>, Accessed June 2010.

USFWS, 2011, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Utah Population of the Gila Monster as an Endangered or a 

Threatened Distinct Population Segment, 76 Federal Register 36049 36053, June 21, 2011.

4.24 USFWS Sand Mountain

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: USFWS Sand Mountain 

Location of Nominated ACEC: Includes south and south-west side of Sand Mountain

Acreage: 982 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Golden Eagle nesting occurs (BLM 1993) and this species is federally protected under the Eagle Act, Birds of Conservation Concern (Raptor Species) (USFWS 2008b), Gila monsters 

(BLM Sensitive, and Federally Petitioned Species) (BLM 2011b, USFWS 1982, USFWS 1985b, USFWS 1991, USFWS 

1994d, USFWS 2011).

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: The area of the nominated ACEC does not meet the importance criteria because the species present do not exceed the level of local significance, nor are they considered fragile, 

sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, or vulnerable to adverse change. While golden eagles are listed in the 

Birds of Conservation Concern, they are considered locally common in the St. George Field Office. This species is not 

experiencing declining populations within the planning area.

Nominated area contains habitat for several species of Birds of Conservation Concern (Raptor Species). Nominated 

area was found to be of local importance only. Gila monster habitat is present, but was found to be of local importance only. Additionally, in June of 2011 the USFWS issued a finding that declined to list Utah populations of the Gila 

monster.

References:

BLM, 1993, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1993. Red Mountain, and Sand Mountain Raptor 

Routes, Unpublished Studies, St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah, 1993.

BLM, 2011b, United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2011. Utah State Office, State Directors List of 

Sensitive Species, February 3, 2011.

USFWS, 1982, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1982. Proposed Rule to consider Gila monster for 

addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 47 Federal Register 58454 58460, December 30, 1982.
1056 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1057

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.25 VRLP Dry Creek

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: VRLP Dry Creek 

Location of Nominated ACEC: Hurricane, Smith Mesa, and Dry Creek

Acreage: 20,113 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Nominated area contains crucial mule deer habitat.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Nominated area contains crucial mule deer habitat which was 

found to be of local importance only.
1058 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1059

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.26 WS Black Ridge

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: WS Black Ridge 

Location of Nominated ACEC: Area covers from I-15 on the west to Zion NP on the east, and Black Ridge on the 

north to Highway 9 on the south 

Acreage: 45,557 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Nominated area contains crucial mule deer habitat. 

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Nominated area contains habit crucial mule deer habitat 

which was found to be of local importance only. 
1060 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1061

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.27 WS Pine Valley

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed 

below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: WS Pine Valley 

Location of Nominated ACEC: Area covers from Highway 18 on the west to US Forest Service boundary on the east, 

and US Forest Service boundary on the north to Red Mountain Wilderness area on the south 

Acreage: 21,925 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC meets the 

relevance criteria based on the following species: Nominated area contains crucial mule deer habitat.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Nominated area contains habit crucial mule deer habitat 

which was found to be of local importance only. 
1062 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1063

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E

4.28 WWP Zion Gateway

Requirements for ACEC Designation: To be designated as an ACEC, an area must meet the relevance and importance 

criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613 (1988) and require special management to protect and prevent irreparable damage to relevant and important resource values. Evaluation of the relevance and importance critera are listed below.

Name of Nominated ACEC: WPP Zion Gateway 

Location of Nominated ACEC: Located south, east and north of East Fork Virgin River and North Fork Virgin River 

Acreage: 83 Acres

Relevance Criteria: Does the area contain one or more of the following:

▶ A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? 

▶ A fish and wildlife resource?

▶ A natural process or system?

▶ A natural hazard?

List the value(s), resource(s), process(es) or hazard(s) contained in this ACEC: The nominated ACEC does 

not meet the relevance criteria due to a lack of habitat for the following species: desert tortoise, Gila Monster, 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. These species do not occur on BLM managed lands in this area. This nominated 

ACEC also included scenic resources as a relevant and important value. Due to the specific direction in OPLMA to 

preserve areas “where biological conservation is a priority”, this ACEC process only considers new ACECs that have 

a biological component or value. Areas nominated for scenic and cultural values were not considered at this time, but 

will be considered when the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan is revised in the future. Until the St. 

George Field Office Resource Management Plan is revised, visual resources in this area would be protected by being 

managed as VRM Class II.

Importance Criteria: Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above have substantial significance or value? Does it meet one or more of the following criteria:

▶ Is it more than locally significant, especially compared to similar resources, systems, processes, or hazards within 

the region or nation?

▶ Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change?

▶ Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

mandates of FLPMA?

▶ Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare?

▶ Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property?

Describe the importance of the value(s) listed above: Not applicable.
1064 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1065

APPENDIX E APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

Best Management Practices for Management Actions

This appendix provides a list of common standard operating procedures and best management practices that are ap-

plicable to all alternatives in the resource management plans. Standard operating procedures are established guide-

lines that are followed by the BLM in carrying out management activities. While the list of standard operating pro-

cedures is complete, the list is not intended to be comprehensive; additional standard operating procedures could be 

developed and implemented to support achieving resource objectives. 

Best management practices are mitigation measures applied on a site-specific basis to avoid, minimize, reduce, rec-

tify, or compensate for adverse environmental or social impacts. They are applied to management actions to aid in 

achieving desired outcomes for safe, environmentally responsible resource development, by preventing, minimizing, 

or mitigating adverse impacts and reducing conflicts. Best management practices can also be proposed by project 

applicants for activities on public lands (e.g., trail construction). Best management practices not incorporated into the 

permit application by the applicant may be considered and evaluated through the environmental review process and 

incorporated into the use authorization as conditions of approval or right-of-way stipulations. Standard conditions 

of approval and right-of-ways stipulations are also provided in this appendix as appropriate. Additional best manage-

ment practices, conditions of approval, and right-of-way stipulations could be developed to meet resource objectives 

on the basis of local conditions and resource specific concerns.

1.0 Soils 

1.1 Best Management Practices ▶ Loosen compacted subsoil if needed by ripping to appropriate depth depending on site specific conditions. ▶ Consider hydrologic setting and existing hydrologic features in project design and layout ▶ Minimize soil exposure to erosional forces of wind and water by waiting until just before beginning construction 

to clear vegetation and to disturb the soil. 

▶ Minimize the area of bare soil within the approved work zone as much as possible. ▶ Where applicable, cover entrances of construction sites with gravel to prevent trucks from tracking sediment 

from the construction site onto roads. This sediment will eventually end up clogging roadway drainage systems 

or settling into wetlands. 

▶ Protect and maximize existing native vegetation and natural forest/rangeland floor, thereby reducing impervious 

areas on the site. 

▶ Disperse stormwater to areas of undisturbed forest/rangeland floor wherever possible, rather than concentrating 

it into channels. 

▶ Determine the volume of available topsoil existing on the site. Topsoil shall be spread at a minimum compacted 

depth of 4 inches (or as appropriate determined by soil type). 

▶ Stockpile topsoil so that it meets specifications and does not interfere with work on the site. ▶ Allow sufficient time in scheduling for topsoil to be spread and bonded with the subsoil prior to seeding, sod

-

ding, or planting. 

1.2 Conditions of Approval ▶ When saturated soil conditions exist on or along the right-of-way, construction shall be halted until soil material 

dries out sufficiently for construction to proceed without undue damage and erosion to the right-of-way. 

▶ All construction and travel on the road and right-of-way shall stop until soils dry if ruts greater than three 

inches are formed by vehicles and equipment. 

▶ The grant holder shall provide satisfactory reclamation of all sites disturbed by their activity. This may include 

installation of additional erosion control devices and seeding at the discretion of the BLM Authorized Officer. 

Storm water - BMPs identified in the Storm Water Management Plan shall be in place prior to any earth-dis-

turbing activity. Additional BMPs will be installed as determined necessary by the BLM Authorized Officer. All 
1066 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1067

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F

▶ After the areas to be topsoiled have been brought to grade, and immediately prior to spreading the topsoil, the 

subgrade shall be loosened by disking or scarifying to a depth of at least two inches (or as site specific analysis 

determines appropriate for soil type) to ensure bonding with subsoil. 

▶ Topsoil shall not be placed while in a frozen or muddy condition, when the subgrade is excessively wet, or in a 

condition that may otherwise be detrimental to proper grading or proposed sodding or seeding. 

2.0 Water Resources 

2.1 Best Management Practices 

▶ Design roads for minimal disruption of natural drainage patterns. 

▶ Reduce road corridor widths by building vertical cut slopes and stabilizing with rock retaining walls. 

▶ Provide energy dissipaters (e.g., rock piles and logs) where necessary at the downstream end of ditch relief culverts to reduce the erosion energy of the emerging water. 

▶ Drainage structures shall not be discharged onto erodible soils or fill slopes without outfall protection. 

▶ Avoid using roads during wet periods if such use will likely damage the road drainage features. 

▶ Grade road surfaces only as often as necessary to maintain a stable running surface and to retain the original 

surface drainage. 

▶ Avoid cutting the toe of cut slopes when grading roads or pulling ditches. 

▶ Keep road inlet and outlet ditches, catch-basins, and culverts free of obstructions, particularly before and during 

spring runoff. Routine machine-cleaning of ditches shall be kept to a minimum during wet weather. Leave the 

disturbed area in a condition that provides drainage with no additional maintenance. 

▶ Provide for erosion-resistant surface drainage by adding necessary drainage facilities and armoring prior to fall 

rain or snow. When erosion is anticipated, sediment barriers shall be constructed to slow runoff, allow deposition of sediment, and prevent sediment from leaving the site. In addition, straining or filtration mechanisms 

may also contribute to sediment removal from runoff. 

▶ Avoid grading sections of road that do not need maintenance, as this elevates sediment production from the 

newly disturbed surface. Raise the blade where grading is not needed. 

▶ Remove berms from the outside edge or roads where runoff is channeled. 

▶ Leave abandoned roads in a condition that provides adequate drainage without further maintenance. Close 

these roads to traffic, reseed and/or scarify, and, if necessary, re-contour and provide cross ditches or drain dips. 

▶ Cross stream channels at right angles if at all possible. 

▶ Concentrate right-of-way actions adjacent to stream courses as far landward as safety allows. 

▶ Remove all temporary stream crossings immediately after use and cross-ditch the ends of skid trails/two tracks/

right-of-ways to mitigate erosion from disturbed areas. 

▶ Place all excess material removed by maintenance operations in safe disposal sites and stabilize these sites to 

prevent erosion. Avoid locations where erosion will carry materials into a stream. 

▶ Evaluate potential effects of stream crossings/channel work on existing structures such as culverts, bridges, 

buried cables, pipelines, and irrigation flumes prior to construction activities to identify and mitigate foreseen 

impacts. 

▶ When designing protective/mitigation measures, consider the changes that may occur in the watershed hydrology and sedimentation over the design life of the measure. Moreover, design and construct roads that are 

self-maintaining and consider using road surfacing, such as gravel. Design and construct stream crossings that 

handle the 100-year flood, and consider culvert and bridge designs that facilitate aquatic life passage. 

▶ Exclude livestock and vehicles from spring sources and riparian areas in which on site evaluation and/or monitoring data indicate degrading conditions. 

▶ Exclude livestock, wildlife, and vehicles from developed spring sources. 

▶ Stabilize and maintain grades in natural or artificial channels to prevent the formation and advancement of gullies. 

temporary BMPs shall be removed once site stabilization and reclamation efforts have been deemed successful by 

the BLM Authorized Officer. 

▶ Topsoil shall be conserved during excavation and reused as cover on disturbed areas to facilitate regrowth of vegetation. Topsoil shall only be used for reclamation and shall not be used to bed or pad the pipe during backfilling. 

▶ To control erosion and sediment transport, roads shall be crowned or sloped, ditched, surfaced, drained with 

culverts and/or water dips, and constructed to BLM Gold Book standards. Culvert outlets shall incorporate controls such as rip-rap, sediment catchments, and anchored straw bales, to slow water velocity and prevent erosion 

and soil transport. Initial gravel application shall be a minimum of four inches. 

▶ The operator shall provide timely year-round road maintenance and cleanup on roads. A regular schedule for 

maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, crown or slope reconstruction, blading, ditch, culvert and 

catchment cleaning, road surface replacement, and dust abatement. When rutting within the traveled way 

becomes greater than three inches, blading, and/or gravelling shall be conducted as approved by the BLM 

Authorized Officer. 

▶ The grantee shall construct water bars, kicker dikes, ditch breaks, pocking, or other erosion control techniques, 

on all of the right-of-way, as directed by the BLM Authorized Officer. The water bars or dikes shall be constructed across the full width of the disturbed area. 

▶ Disturbed portions of the right-of-way surface shall be left rough and not smoothed to facilitate seed germination and seedling survival. 

▶ Top soil segregation will not occur when soils are saturated or frozen unless special authorization is granted by 

the BLM Authorized Officer. 

▶ A Winter Construction Plan will be submitted and approved by the BLM Authorized Officer before a Notice to 

Proceed will be authorized for construction activities in frozen soils. 

▶ Soil or loam that is stored or stockpiled during construction shall be handled in a way to preserve soil quantity 

and natural soil properties and productivity. 

▶ The face of cut/fill slopes will be stabilized and the face of all graded slopes shall be protected from surface runoff until they are stabilized. 

▶ The face of the slope shall not be subject to any concentrated flows of surface water such as from natural drainage ways, graded swales, and downspouts. 

▶ Subsurface drainage shall be provided where necessary to intercept seepage that would otherwise adversely affect slope stability or create excessively wet site conditions. 

▶ Slopes shall not be created so close to property lines as to endanger adjoining properties without adequate protection against sedimentation, erosion, slippage, settlement, subsidence or other related damages. 

▶ All disturbed areas shall be stabilized structurally or with vegetation in compliance with the appropriate BMPs. 

▶ All graded or disturbed areas including slopes shall be protected during clearing and construction in accordance 

with the approved erosion and sediment control plan until they are adequately stabilized. 

▶ All erosion and sediment control practices and measures shall be constructed, applied, and maintained in accordance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan. 

▶ Frozen material or soft, mucky, or highly compressible materials shall not be incorporated into fill slopes or 

structural fills. 

▶ Fill shall not be placed on a frozen foundation. 

▶ Any sign of rill or gully erosion shall be immediately investigated and repaired as needed or requested by the 

authorizing officer. 

▶ Fall and winter erosion control measures must be upgraded and refined to protect the site from spring runoff 

and snowmelt. 

▶ Topsoil stripping shall be confined to the immediate construction areas. A 4 to 6-inch stripping depth is common, but depth may vary depending on the particular soil. All perimeter dikes, basins, and other sediment 

controls shall be in place prior to stripping. 
1068 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1069

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F

▶ If requested by the BLM Authorized Officer, the holder shall furnish and install culverts of the gauge, materials, 

diameter(s), and length(s) as indicated and approved. 

▶ Culverts shall be free of corrosion, dents, or other deleterious conditions. 

▶ Spoil material from clearing, grubbing, and channel excavation shall be disposed of in a manner that will not interfere with the function of the channel and in accordance with all local, state, and Federal laws and regulations. 

▶ To protect water quality, anti-backflow devices shall be utilized while drafting fresh water from streams, springs, 

and wells. 

▶ Actions shall not result in adverse effects on the function of streams or stream corridors. 

▶ Actions shall not impair floodplain function. 

▶ New stream crossings shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year flood. 

▶ Provide for erosion-resistant surface drainage by adding necessary drainage facilities and armoring prior to fall 

rain or snow. When erosion is anticipated, sediment barriers shall be constructed to slow runoff, allow deposition of sediment, and prevent it from leaving the site. In addition, straining or filtration mechanisms may also 

contribute to sediment removal from runoff. 

▶ No operations using chemical processes (except for vegetation management) or other pollutants in their activities will be allowed to occur within 200 feet of any water bodies. 

▶ All stream crossings affecting perennial streams or streams supporting riparian habitat shall be professionally 

engineered (design, construction, and maintenance). 

▶ Water developments (springs, reservoirs, catchments; wells, pipeline and water troughs) will conform to BLM 

Manual H 1741-2. 

▶ Actual work in spring and stream beds will be done by hand where possible. 

▶ The source of all spring developments shall be fenced. 

3. 0 Vegetation: Rangeland 

Guidance may come from various sources. See individual resources. 

3.1 Standard Operating Procedures 

Utilize the techniques and methods for vegetation treatments identified in the Record of Decision for Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States (BLM 2007). 

3.2 Best Management Practices 

▶ Close and rehabilitate roads quickly once they are no longer needed. 

▶ Close selected routes to protect special status species and significant plant communities 

▶ Build roads to the appropriate standard, no higher than necessary for use and safety, and utilize primitive or 

two-track roads rather than newly constructed roads where feasible. 

▶ Pipelines (and electrical powerlines when possible) shall be placed within road corridors to minimize disturbance. 

▶ Minimize disturbance to soil and native vegetation as much as possible. 

▶ Stockpile topsoil for use in final reclamation. Topsoil shall be stored separately from other fill materials. 

▶ When timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not likely to occur, carefully select species 

that will not compete with or exclude botanical resources for re-vegetation efforts. Bare sites shall be seeded as 

soon as appropriate to prevent establishment of undesirable plant species. 

▶ Ensure that seed used for re-vegetation as well as straw and hay bales used for erosion control are certified free 

of noxious weeds. 

▶ Monitor re-vegetation sites to ensure successful establishment of desired species. 

▶ Monitor the long-term success of re-vegetation efforts to ensure successful establishment of desired species and 

detect any noxious weed infestations. If re-vegetation is unsuccessful, continue efforts to establish desired species in disturbed sites. 

▶ Utilize erosion control structures including but not limited to head-cut lay-backs, zuni-bowls, check dams, and 

sediment basins to retain soils in highly erodible areas and protect water quality. 

▶ Use vegetation or structures to stabilize and protect banks of streams, lakes, or excavated channels against scour 

and erosion. 

▶ Manage and manipulate invasive stands of brush and weeds on forest, range, pasture land by mechanical, chemical, or biological means or by prescribed burning to improve watershed function and condition. 

▶ Reduce soil erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters by protecting, maintaining, and reestablishing desirable vegetative communities in areas of highly erodible or critically eroding soils. 

▶ Utilize mechanical treatment methods to roughen and aerate soils in degraded sites identified for reclamation. 

▶ Avoid alteration of natural hydrologic function and condition in source areas for springs, seeps, and fens. 

Relocate surface-disturbing activities away from these sensitive areas as site conditions warrant. 

▶ Restore modified or damaged streams as close as practicable to natural conditions using bioengineering techniques to protect banks, and to reestablish riparian vegetation. 

▶ Maintain to the greatest extent practicable natural flow rates and chemical and physical properties of surface and 

groundwater during work within stream channels, floodplains, and/or riparian areas. 

▶ Low water crossings will be constructed at original streambed elevation in a manner that prevents any blockage 

or restriction of the existing channel. Material removed will be stockpiled for use in reclamation of the crossings. 

▶ The operator shall institute measures such as surfacing, watering, and use of non-saline dust suppressants on all 

roads authorized in this project to minimize impacts from fugitive dust emissions. The use of chemical dust suppressants on public surface will require prior approval from the BLM Authorized Officer. 

▶ Livestock management practices, such as animal health, feeding, and salting, shall be done in a manner to protect water quality. 

▶ Minimize crossing of streams (intermittent and perennial) and wetlands with vehicles and heavy machinery. 

▶ Maintain appropriate vegetative/riparian buffers around water bodies to slow runoff and trap sediments and 

protect water quality. 

▶ Time work in wetlands and watercourses to occur during low flow season when conditions are driest. High 

flows occur during late summer early fall as a result of high intensity convective thunderstorm events. 

▶ Temporary BMPs used to filter sediments from water, thereby preventing sedimentation, shall be installed (per 

manufacturers recommendations) before any construction begins and shall subsequently be removed when the 

project is completed. 

▶ Consider rehabilitating closed routes to reduce erosion and restore landscapes. 

2.2 Conditions of Approval 

▶ The holder shall adhere to all requirements under the Clean Water Act. 

▶ Storm water BMPs identified in the applicant's State approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be in 

place prior to any earth-disturbing activity. 

▶ Additional BMPs will be implemented as determined necessary by the BLM Authorized Officer. 

▶ All temporary BMPs shall be removed once site stabilization and reclamation efforts have been deemed successful by the BLM Authorized Officer. 

▶ Culverts and water-bars shall be installed according to 9113 standards and sized for the 10-year storm event 

with no static head and to pass a 25-year event without failing. 

▶ Culverts shall be located on stable and straight stream reaches and along the stream grade. In steeper streams, it 

may be necessary to install natural channel design techniques downstream to minimize erosion. A hydrologist 

shall be consulted. 

▶ Erosion control features shall be maintained through periodic inspection and maintenance, including cleaning dips 

and cross-drains, repairing ditches, marking culvert inlets to aid in location, and clearing debris from culverts. 
1070 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1071

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F

▶ Identify sites where equipment can be cleaned. Remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before moving it into a project area. Seeds and plant parts shall be collected and incinerated when possible. 

▶ If certified weed-free gravel pits become available, the use of certified weed-free gravel will be required wherever 

gravel is applied to public lands (e.g., roads). 

▶ Maintain stockpiled, non-infested material in a weed-free condition. Topsoil stockpiles shall be promptly revegetated to maintain soil microbial health and reduce the potential for weeds. 

▶ Use competitive seed mixes when practical. A certified seed laboratory shall test each lot according to the 

Association of Official Seed Analysts standards (which include an all-state noxious weed list) and provide documentation of the seed inspection test. The seed shall contain no noxious, prohibited, or restricted weed seeds 

and shall contain no more than 0.5 percent by weight of other weed seeds. Seed may contain up to 2.0 percent 

of “other crop” seed by weight, including the seed of other agronomic crops and native plants; however, a lower 

percentage of other crop seed is recommended. 

5.1.2 Project Implementation 

▶ Minimize soil disturbance. To the extent practicable, native vegetation shall be retained in and around project 

activity areas, and soil disturbance kept to a minimum. 

▶ If a disturbed area must be left bare for a considerable length of time, cover the area with weed barrier until revegetation is possible. 

5.1.3 Post-project 

▶ Clean all equipment before leaving the project site when operating in weed infested areas. 

▶ Inspect, remove, and properly dispose of weed seed and plant parts found on clothing and equipment. Proper 

disposal means bagging and incinerating seeds and plant parts or washing equipment in an approved containment area. 

▶ Re-vegetate disturbed soil where appropriate to optimize plant establishment for that specific site. Define revegetation objectives for each site. Re-vegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, and certified weed-free mulching as necessary. Use native material where appropriate and feasible. 

▶ Monitor sites where seed, hay, straw, or mulch has been applied. Eradicate weeds before they form seed. In contracted projects, contract specifications could require that the contractor control weeds for a specified length 

of time. 

▶ Inspect and document all ground-disturbing activities in noxious weed infested areas for at least three growing 

seasons following completion of the project. For ongoing projects, continue to monitor until reasonably certain 

that no weeds are present. Plan for follow-up treatments on the basis of inspection results. 

6.0 Roads and Utilities 

6.1 Pre-project Planning 

▶ Communicate with contractors, local weed districts or weed management areas about projects and best management practices for prevention. 

▶ Remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before moving it into a project area. Seeds and plant 

parts shall be collected and incinerated when practical, or washed off in an approved containment area. 

▶ Avoid acquiring water for road dust abatement where access to water is through weed-infested sites. 

▶ Treat weeds on travel right-of-ways before seed formation so construction equipment doesn’t spread weed seed. 

▶ Schedule and coordinate blading or pulling of noxious weed-infested roadsides or ditches in consultation with 

the local weed specialist. When it is necessary to blade weed-infested roadsides or ditches, schedule the activity 

when disseminules are least likely to be viable. 

6.2 Project Implementation 

▶ Retain shade to suppress weeds by minimizing the removal of trees and other roadside vegetation during construction, reconstruction, and maintenance; particularly on south aspects. 

▶ In desert shrub/saltbush communities with biological soil crusts, require reclamation that includes but is not 

limited to: broadcasting bacterial inoculants, planting native grass, forbs, and shrubs seedlings, and 

exclosure fences. 

3.3 References

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2007. Final Vegetation Treatment Using 

Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States, Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement. BLM, Nevada State Office, Reno, NV. June 2007. 

4.0 Vegetation: Riparian Habitat and Wetlands 

4.1 Standard Operating Procedures 

▶ Utilize the techniques and methods for vegetation treatments identified in the Record of Decision for Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States (BLM 2007). 

4.2 Best Management Practices 

▶ Minimize crossing of streams (intermittent and perennial) and wetlands with vehicles and heavy machinery. 

▶ Locate residue piles (e.g., sawdust, field chipping residue) away from drainages where runoff may wash residue 

into water bodies or wetlands. 

▶ Maintain appropriate vegetative/riparian buffers around water bodies to protect water quality. 

▶ Manage riparian areas to provide adequate shade, sediment control, bank stability, and recruitment of wood into 

stream channels. 

▶ Locate project staging areas for refueling, maintenance equipment, materials, and operating supplies in areas not 

designated as riparian and/or stream bank management zones. 

▶ Determine the best locations and design for roads, the slope of roads, and the approach to stream crossings 

through proper planning. On perennial streams roads, which will be used for longer than one year, the crossings 

will be engineered and approved by the BLM Authorized Officer. 

▶ Do not locate roads or trails parallel to streams. Where roads must cross streams, cross perpendicularly and immediately exit the buffer zone. 

▶ Appropriate improvements, such as culverts, must be placed at stream crossings to keep vehicles/equipment out 

of the stream flow and to prevent direct sedimentation of streams. 

▶ Roads and trails (off-highway vehicle, horse, bicycle, hiking) will avoid wetlands and if avoidance is not possible 

will be designed and constructed in Technical Reference 2E22A68-NPS, Off-highway Vehicle Management. 

▶ Install and maintain cottonwood protection on existing and planted trees where beaver loss threatens survival. 

Work with volunteer groups and user groups to help with the maintenance of installed structures. 

5.0 Noxious and Invasive Weed Prevention 

This list incorporates many suggested practices under various land uses, and is designed to allow managers to pick 

and choose those practices that are most applicable and feasible for each situation. 

5.1 Site-Disturbing Projects 

5.1.1 Pre-project Planning 

▶ Environmental analyses for projects and maintenance programs shall assess weed risks, analyze high-risk sites 

for potential weed establishment and spread, and identify prevention practices. 

▶ Determine site-specific restoration and monitoring needs and objectives at the onset of project planning. 

▶ Learn to recognize noxious and invasive weeds. 

▶ Inventory all proposed projects for weeds prior to ground-disturbing activities. If weeds are found, they will be 

treated (if the timing is appropriate) or removed (if seeds are present) to limit weed seed production and dispersal. 

▶ Be cognizant of moving equipment and machinery from weed-contaminated areas to non-contaminated areas. 

▶ Locate and use weed-free project staging areas. Avoid or minimize travel through weed infested areas, or restrict 

travel to periods when spread of disseminules is least likely. 
1072 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1073

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F

• Preventing weed seed transportation 

• Maintaining healthy vegetation 

• Re-vegetation 

• Inspection 

• Education 

• Reporting 

▶ Provide certified weed-free supplemental feed in a designated area so new weed infestations can be detected and 

treated immediately. Pelletized feed is unlikely to contain viable weed seed. 

▶ If livestock may contribute to seed spread in a weed-infested area, schedule livestock use prior to seed-set or 

after seed has fallen. 

▶ If livestock were transported from a weed-infested area, annually inspect and treat entry units for new 

weed infestations. 

▶ Consider closing infested pastures to livestock grazing when grazing will either continue to exacerbate the condition or contribute to weed seed spread. Designate those pastures as unsuitable range until weed infestations 

are controlled. 

▶ Manage the timing, intensity (utilization), duration, and frequency of livestock activities to maintain the competitive ability of desirable plants and retain litter cover. The objective is to prevent grazers from selectively 

removing desirable plant species and leaving undesirable species. 

▶ Exclude livestock grazing on newly seeded areas with fencing to ensure that desired vegetation is well established, until objectives for seeding have been met. 

▶ Reduce ground disturbance, including damage to biological soil crusts. Consider changes in the timing, intensity, duration, or frequency of livestock use; location and changes in salt grounds; restoration or protection of 

watering sites and other areas of concentrated livestock use. 

▶ Inspect areas of concentrated livestock use for weed invasion, especially watering locations and other sensitive 

areas that may be particularly susceptible to invasion. Inventory and manage new infestations. 

▶ Livestock are to be excluded from burned areas until monitoring results show emergency stabilization and rehabilitation objectives have been met. 

10.0 Outfitting/Recreation Pack and Saddle Stock Use 

▶ Allow only certified weed-free hay/feed on BLM lands. 

▶ Inspect, brush, and clean animals (especially hooves and legs) before entering public land. Inspect and clean tack 

and equipment. 

▶ Regularly inspect trailheads and other staging areas for backcountry travel. Bedding in trailers and hay fed to 

pack and saddle animals may contain weed seed or propagules. 

▶ Tie or contain stock in ways that minimize soil disturbance and prevent loss of desirable native species. 

▶ Authorized trail sites for tying pack animals shall be monitored several times per growing season to quickly 

identify and eradicate new weeds. Trampling and permanent damage to desired plants are likely. Tie-ups shall be 

located away from water and in shaded areas where the low light helps suppress weed growth. 

▶ Educate outfitters to look for and report new weed infestations. 

11.0 Wildlife 

▶ Periodically inspect and document areas where wildlife concentrate in the winter and spring and cause excess 

soil disturbance. 

▶ Use weed-free materials for all wildlife management activities. 

▶ Incorporate weed prevention into all wildlife habitat improvement project designs. 

▶ Do not blade or pull roadsides and ditches infested with noxious weeds unless doing so is required for public 

safety or protection of the roadway. If the ditch must be pulled, ensure weeds remain on-site. Blade from least 

infested to most infested areas. 

6.3 Post-project 

▶ Clean all equipment (power or high-pressure cleaning) of all mud, dirt, and plant parts before leaving the project site if operating in areas infested with weeds. Seeds and plant parts shall be collected and incinerated 

when possible. 

▶ When seeding has been specified for construction and maintenance activities, seed all disturbed soil (except 

travel route) soon after work is completed. 

▶ Use a certified weed-free seed mix suitable for local environmental conditions that includes fast, early growing 

(preferably native) species to provide quick revegetation. Consider applying weed-free mulch with seeding. 

▶ Periodically inspect roads and right-of-ways for noxious weeds. Train staff to recognize weeds and report locations to the local weed specialist. Follow-up with treatment when needed. 

▶ When reclaiming roads, treat weeds before roads are made impassable. Inspect and follow up on the basis of 

initial inspection and documentation. 

▶ To avoid weed infestations, create and maintain healthy plant communities whenever possible, including utility 

right-of-ways, roadsides, scenic overlooks, trailheads, and campgrounds. 

7.0 Recreation Activities 

▶ Inspect and clean mechanized trail vehicles of weeds and weed seeds. 

▶ Wash boots and socks before hiking into a new area. Inspect and clean packs, equipment, and bike tires. 

▶ Avoid hiking through weed infestations whenever possible. 

▶ Keep dogs and other pets free of weed seeds. 

▶ Avoid picking unidentified "wildflowers" and discarding them along trails or roadways. 

▶ Maintain trailheads, campgrounds, visitor centers, picnic areas, roads leading to trailheads, and other areas of 

concentrated public use in a weed-free condition. Consider high-use recreation areas as high priority sites for 

weed eradication. 

▶ Sign trailheads and access points to educate visitors on noxious and invasive weeds and the consequences of 

their activities. 

▶ Inspect and document travel corridors for weeds and treat as necessary. 

▶ Encourage use of pelletized feed for backcountry horsemen and hunters. Pelletized feed is unlikely to contain 

weed seed. 

8.0 Watershed Management 

▶ Frequently and systematically inspect and document riparian areas and wetlands for noxious weed establishment and spread. Eradicate new infestations immediately since effective tools for riparian-area weed management are limited. 

▶ Promote dense growth of desirable vegetation in riparian areas (where appropriate) to minimize the availability 

of germination sites for weed seeds or propagules transported from upstream or upslope areas. 

▶ Address the risk of invasion by noxious weeds and other invasive species in watershed restoration projects and 

water quality management plans. 

9.0 Grazing Management 

▶ Consider prevention practices and cooperative management of weeds in grazing allotments. Prevention practices may include: 

• Altering season of use 

• Minimizing ground disturbance 

• Exclusion 
1074 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1075

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F

▶ Seed and straw mulch to be used for burn rehabilitation (e.g., for wattles, straw bales, dams) shall be certified 

weed-free. 

▶ Replace soil and vegetation right side up when rehabbing fire line. 

13.0 Fish and Wildlife Management and Special Status Species 

13.1 Standard Operating Procedures 

▶ Fences constructed will comply with applicable wildlife fence standards, such as those described in BLM 

Handbook H-1741-1, Fencing (BLM 1989). Current standards for fencing cattle out in deer and elk range is a 

four strand fence, 40 inches high with a spacing of wires from ground to top of 60” (smooth bottom wire), 6” 

(second wire barbed), 6” (third wire barbed), 12” (top wire preferably smooth but may need to be barbed in 

areas of intense cattle use). 

▶ The BLM will consult agency species management plans and other conservation plans as appropriate to guide 

management and devise mitigation measures when needed. 

▶ Lessees will be notified that a lease parcel contains potential habitat for threatened (T), endangered (E), proposed (P), candidate (C) and BLM sensitive (S) plants, fish and wildlife. 

▶ Existing plant location records will be consulted and site inventories will be conducted to identify suitable 

habitat for these plants. Surveys for occupied suitable habitat will be conducted prior to any ground disturbance. 

Surveys will take place when the plants can be positively identified, during the appropriate flowering periods. 

Surveys will be conducted by qualified field botanists/biologists who will provide documentation of their qualifications, experience and knowledge of the species prior to starting work. 

▶ For BLM sensitive species surface-disturbing activities will be avoided within 100 meters of occupied plant 

habitat wherever possible and where geography and other resource concerns allow. Fragmentation of existing 

populations and identified areas of suitable habitat will be avoided wherever possible. 

▶ Where development is allowed within 100 meters of occupied habitat for T, E, P and C species or BLM sensitive 

species, unauthorized disturbance of plant habitat will be avoided by on-site guidance from a biologist, and by 

fencing the perimeter of the disturbed area, or such other method as agreed to by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

In such instances, a monitoring plan approved by the Service will be implemented for the duration of the project 

to assess impacts to the plant population or seed bank. If detrimental effects are detected through monitoring, 

corrective action will be taken through adaptive management. 

▶ Surface disturbance closer than 20 meters to a listed plant will be considered an adverse effect. Mitigating 

measures within this narrow buffer are very important and helpful to individual plants, but we do not expect 

that all adverse effects can be fully mitigated within this distance. Some adverse effects due to dust, dust suppression, loss of pollinator habitat, and toxic spills will likely remain. There are two possible exceptions to this 

rule of thumb: 1) The new disturbance is no closer to a listed plant than preexisting disturbance and no new or 

increased impacts to the listed plant are expected; or 2) the listed plant is screened from the proposed disturbance (e.g., tall, thick vegetation or a berm acts as a screen or effective barrier to fugitive dust and other potential impacts). 

▶ Transplantation of potentially affected plants will not be used as a rationale to defend a “not likely to adversely 

affect” or a “no effect” determination for listed plant species. 

▶ Documentation will include individual plant locations and suitable habitat distributions. Prior to conducting 

plant surveys, the operator will provide maps (as hard copy and GIS files) of all proposed areas of disturbance 

to the BLM. Maps will include existing and proposed roads, pipelines, well pads, pits, parking lots, and all other 

work areas. Post-construction or as-built maps will also be submitted to account for any deviations from preproject maps. Specific polygons where rare plant surveys have been conducted will be included, along with the 

results of those surveys (positive or negative). The locations of any monitoring plots established to measure the 

status of rare plants and habitat in the vicinity of project activities will also be provided. 

▶ Protect pollinator species for endangered or threatened species by incorporating the standard operating procedures found in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States (BLM 2007). 

12.0 Fire 

12.1 Incident Planning 

▶ Increase weed awareness and weed prevention by providing training to new and/or seasonal fire staff on invasive 

weed identification and prevention. 

▶ Ensure that a weed specialist is included on a Fire Incident Management Team when wildfire or prescribed 

operations occur in or near a weed-infested area. Include a discussion of weed prevention operational practices 

in all fire briefings. 

▶ Use operational practices to reduce weed spread (e.g., avoid weed infestations when locating fire lines). 

▶ Identify and periodically inspect potential helispots, staging areas, incident command posts, and base camps and 

maintain a weed-free condition. Encourage network airports and helibases to do the same. 

▶ Develop a burned-area integrated weed management plan, including a monitoring component to detect and 

eradicate new weeds early. 

12.2 Fire-fighting 

▶ Ensure that all equipment (including borrowed or rental equipment) is free of weed seed and propagules before 

entering incident location. 

▶ When possible, use fire suppression tactics that reduce disturbances to soil and vegetation, especially when creating fire lines. 

▶ Use wet or scratch-lines where possible instead of fire breaks made with heavy equipment. 

▶ Given the choice of strategies, avoid ignition and burning in areas at high risk for weed establishment or spread. 

▶ Hose off vehicles on site if they have traveled through infested areas. 

▶ Inspect clothing for weed seeds if foot travel occurred in infested areas. 

▶ When possible, establish incident bases, fire operations staging areas, and aircraft landing zones in areas that 

have been inspected and are verified to be free of invasive weeds. 

▶ Cover weed infested cargo areas and net-loading areas with tarps if weeds exist and can't be removed or avoided. 

▶ Flag off high-risk weed infestations in areas of concentrated activity and show weeds on facility maps. 

▶ If fire operations involve travel or work in weed infested areas, a power wash station shall be staged at or near 

the incident base and helibase. Wash all vehicles and equipment upon arrival from and departure to each incident. This includes fuel trucks and aircraft service vehicles. 

▶ Identify the need for possible fire rehab to prevent or mitigate weed invasion during fire incident and apply for 

funding during the incident. 

12.3 Post-fire Rehabilitation 

▶ Have a weed specialist review burned area rehabilitation reports to ensure proper and effective weed prevention 

and management is addressed. 

▶ Thoroughly clean the undercarriage and tires of vehicles and heavy equipment before entering a burned area. 

▶ Treat weeds in burned areas. Weeds can recover as quickly as 2 weeks following a fire. 

▶ Schedule inventories 1 month and 1 year post-fire to identify and treat infestations. Eradicate or contain newly 

emerging infestations. 

▶ Restrict travel to established roads to avoid compacting soil that could hinder the recovery of desired plants. 

▶ Determine soon after a fire whether re-vegetation is necessary to speed recovery of a native plant community, 

or whether desirable plants in the burned area will recover naturally. Consider the severity of the burn and the 

proportion of weeds to desirable plants on the land before it burned. In general, more severe burns and higher 

pre-burn weed populations increase the necessity of re-vegetation. Use a certified weed-free seed mix. 

▶ Inspect and document weed infestations on fire access roads, equipment cleaning sites, and staging areas. 

Control infestations to prevent spread within burned areas. 
1076 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1077

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F

▶ An avoidance buffer helps to minimize dust transport, weed invasion, unauthorized vehicular activities, chemical and produced-water spills; and helps to protect pollinator habitat. 

13.4 References 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: the 

State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute, Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, and the California 

Energy Commission. Washington, DC, and Sacramento, CA. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Avian Protection Plan (APP) 

Guidelines, April 2005. Washington, DC. 

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1989. Handbook H-1741-1: 

Fencing. Release 1-1572. BLM, Washington, DC. December 6, 1989. 58pp. 

_____. 2007. Final Vegetation Treatment Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. BLM, Nevada State Office, Reno, NV. June 2007. 

Elliott, B.A., S. Spackman Panjabi, B. Kurzel, B. Neely, R. Rondeau, and M. Ewing. 2009. Recommended Best 

Management Practices for Plants of Concern. Practices developed to reduce the impacts of oil and gas development activities to plants of concern. Unpublished report prepared by the Rare Plant Conservation Initiative for 

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

14.0 Wildlife Damage Management 

14.1 Standard Operating Procedures 

▶ Control activities conducted by the US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Wildlife Services will be coordinated with the BLM on an annual basis, including review of authorized control 

areas and annual submittal of control activities on NCA lands. 

▶ US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services will notify the 

NCA before any damage control activity is implemented within the restricted area(s), and exceptions will be 

approved on a case-by-case basis. 

▶ All US Environmental Protection Agency use restrictions and requirements for toxicants are to be followed where 

control devices are used on public lands. BLM’s Authorized Officer must be notified before any toxicants are deployed and a map of the treatment area must be provided. Adequate signage must be provided and maintained. 

15.0 Cultural Resources 

15.1 Standard Operating Procedures 

▶ The holder of a BLM authorization to carry out land use activities on Federal lands, including all leases and permits, must notify the BLM, by telephone and written confirmation, immediately upon the discovery of human 

remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

10.4(g)). Activities must stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovery. The discovery must be protected from 

the authorized activity for a period of 30 days or unless otherwise notified by the (43 CFR 10.4(c) and (d)). 

▶ The National Historic Preservation Act as amended, requires that if newly discovered historic or archaeological 

materials or other cultural resources are identified during project implementation, work in that area must stop 

and the BLM Authorized Officer must be notified immediately. Within five working days the BLM Authorized 

Officer will inform the proponent as to: 

• Whether the materials appear eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; 

• The mitigation measures the proponent will likely have to undertake before the site could be used (assuming 

in situ preservation is not practicable), (36 CFR 800.13); and 

• A time frame for the BLM Authorized Officer to complete an expedited review under 36 CFR 800.11 to confirm, through the State Historic Preservation Office, that the BLM Authorized Officer’s findings were correct 

and mitigation was appropriate. 

▶ A standard Education/Discovery stipulation for cultural resource protection shall be attached to the land use 

authorization. The operator or its contractor is responsible for informing all persons who are associated with 

▶ Biological inventories must be completed prior to approval of operations in areas of known or suspected habitat 

of special status species, or habitat of other species of interest such as, but not limited to, raptor nests, , or rare 

plant communities. Surveys shall be conducted by qualified biologist(s) using protocols established for potentially affected species during the appropriate time period(s) for the species. Survey reports, data, and determinations shall be submitted to the BLM for review and confirmation according to BLM protocols. Operators, the 

BLM, and the BLM Authorized Officer will use the information gathered to develop an appropriate mitigation 

plan. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to, timing restrictions, relocation of development activities and fencing operations or habitat. If special status species are encountered during operation, operations 

will cease immediately, and the BLM Authorized Officer will be notified. 

▶ To protect key wildlife species, special status species, and their habitats, surveys may be required prior to surface 

disturbance, habitat treatments, or similar activities. Develop and implement standard survey protocol for key 

species on the basis of the latest science, conservation assessments, CDOW recommendations, and similar 

information. Special design and construction measures may also be required in order to minimize impacts to 

special status species.

13.2 Best Management Practices

▶ Raptors: 

• Protect nest sites from human disturbances by implementing CPW recommended buffers around known 

nest sites. 

• Provide perching and nesting structures as mitigation where disturbances are impacting raptors. 

• Apply guidance from Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: the State of the Art in 2006 

(Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 2006) and Avian Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines (Avian Power 

Line Interaction Committee and US Fish and Wildlife Service 2005) or most current guidance for new 

power line construction (including upgrades and reconstruction) to prevent electrocution of raptors. 

▶ Control noxious weeds using integrated techniques. Limit chemical control in areas with rare plant species to 

avoid damage to non-target species. Mechanical or chemical control in and near rare plant habitat shall only be 

implemented by personnel familiar with the rare plants. 

▶ Prohibit collection of rare plants or plant parts, except as permitted by the BLM Authorized Officer for scientific 

research. 

▶ The use of deicers and dust suppressants within 100 meters (328 feet) of road-side occurrences of special status 

plant species will require prior approval from the BLM. 

▶ Herbicide application shall be kept at least 200 meters from known plant populations, except in instances where 

weed populations threaten habitat integrity or plant populations. Great care shall be used to avoid pesticide drift 

in those cases. 

▶ Retain existing snags for wildlife use in places where they will not create a human hazard 

▶ Where linear disturbance is proposed edges of vegetation shall be feathered to avoid long linear edges of habitat 

and allow for greater habitat complexity for wildlife. 

▶ Protect existing temporary pools to providing breeding and hibernating habitat for amphibians. 

▶ Avoid fragmentation of wildlife habitat especially in wildlife migration and movement corridors.

▶ Where water is taken directly from areas containing special status fish a meshed screen will be placed on the 

intake hose of an appropriate size to minimize potential intake of specials status fishes.

 13.3 Notes 

▶ Occupied habitat includes areas historically or currently supporting plants and/or soils containing a viable seed 

bank. Suitable habitat is defined as an area that contains or exhibits the specific components or constituents necessary for plant persistence, as determined by existing maps plus field inspection and/or surveys. It may or may 

not be occupied by plants or a seed bank. Potential habitat is defined as an area that satisfies the broad criteria of 

the species’ habitat description. It is usually determined by preliminary in-house assessment. 
1078 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1079

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F

_____. 2004f. Manual 8140: Protecting Cultural Resources. 8-77. BLM, Washington, DC. December 3, 2004.

_____. 2004g. Manual 8150: Permitting Uses of Cultural Resources. 8-78. BLM, Washington, DC. December 3, 

2004.

_____. 2004h. Manual 8170: Interpreting Cultural Resources for the Public. 8-79. BLM, Washington, DC. 

December 3, 2004.

16.0 Tribal Consultation

16.1 Standard Operating Procedures

▶ The BLM has a responsibility to develop a government-to-government relationship with the tribes: the formal 

relationship that exists between the Federal Government and tribal governments under United State laws. Tribal 

governments are considered dependent domestic sovereignties with primary and independent jurisdiction (in 

most cases) over tribal lands. Concerning proposed BLM plans and actions, at least the level of consideration 

and consistency review provided to State governments must be afforded to tribal governments. 

▶ The BLM is responsible for consultation under General Authorities defined as “laws, executive orders, and regulations that are not considered ‘cultural resource authorities’.” The regulations implementing both Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act and NEPA require Native American consultation. The American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act and the Indian Sacred sites order (Executive Order 13007) pertain to the free exercise clause of the 

First Amendment (BLM H-8120-1 Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation [BLM 2004], Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act Title II, NEPA Section 102, 40 CFR 1501.2 and 1501.7) 

▶ Tribes must be consulted whenever other governmental entities or the public are formally involved in the BLM’s 

environmental review process in any NEPA documentation that entails public involvement or initial discussions 

with local or state governments (BLM Handbook H-1790-1, National Environmental Policy Act [BLM 2008a]). 

▶ NHPA Section 106 consultations for cultural resources that are significant to Indian tribes. Consultation with an 

Indian tribe must recognize the government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes. The agency official shall consult with representatives designated or identified by the tribal government. Consultation shall be conducted in a manner sensitive to the concerns and needs of the Indian tribe. (36 

CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(C). 

16.2 Best Management Practices 

▶ Notification is conducted by simple one-way written means. Consultation is generally construed to mean direct, 

two-way communication. 

▶ When publishing notices or open letters to the public indicating that the BLM is contemplating an action and 

that comments are welcome, managers shall send individual letters, certified mail or delivery confirmed to tribes 

requesting their input on actions being considered. If this is an opening dialogue, prior to having developed a 

strong working relationship with the tribe, if a timely response is not received the manager shall follow up with 

personal telephone calls. 

▶ For the benefit of both parties, managers are encouraged to strive for the most efficient and effective method of 

consultation. Whatever method is chosen, all consultation activities shall be carefully documented in the official 

record. 

▶ Consultation roles can be facilitated but may not be transferred to others. Cultural resource consulting firms 

working for land use applicants cannot negotiate, make commitments, or otherwise give the appearance of exercising the BLM’s authority in consultations. 

▶ Owing to their status as self-governing entities, tribes shall be notified and invited to participate at least as soon 

as (if not earlier than) the Governor, state agencies, local governments, and other Federal agencies. 

▶ Tribal consultation means dialogue between a BLM manager and an American Indian Tribe. The BLM managers 

are encouraged to visit tribal councils and appropriate tribal leaders on a recurring basis. This face-to-face meeting 

helps to develop relationships that can reduce the time and effort spent in later consultation or individual projects. 

This government-to-government consultation shall be treated with appropriate respect and dignity of position. 

the project operations that Federal laws protect cultural resources and they will be subject to prosecution for 

disturbing or destroying any historic or archaeological sites, or collecting any cultural objects, prehistoric or 

historic from Federal lands. 

▶ Strict adherence to the confidentiality of information concerning the nature and location of archeological resources will be required of any company issued a land use authorization and all of their subcontractors 

(Archaeological Resource Protection Act, 16 US Code 470hh). 

15.2 Best Management Practices 

▶ BLM specialists shall complete a File Search Request form and submit to the NCA Archaeologist as soon as 

there is proposed BLM activity or BLM authorized activity that will require preparation of a NEPA document. 

This will provide the specialist with immediate information as to the need for Class III inventory, whether that 

will be contracted or in-house, or the presence of Cultural Resources that may preclude or impede their project. 

▶ Evaluation of all BLM activities and BLM authorized activities shall be made in compliance with BLM Manual 

8100, The Foundations for Managing Cultural Resources (BLM 2004a), and subsequent 8100 series (BLM 

2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2004f, 2004g, and 2004h); Handbook of Guidelines and Procedures for Inventory, 

Evaluation, and Mitigation of Cultural Resources (BLM 1998, rev. 2007); and the current State Protocol 

Agreement between BLM and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 

▶ When possible, locate projects in areas that are previously disturbed. To comply with the National Historic 

Preservation Act the BLM must identify significant cultural resources. Under the current regulations and guidelines the BLM may decide that no inventory needs to be conducted because the proposed action is located in an 

environment where ground disturbance has modified the surface so extensively that the likelihood of finding 

intact cultural resources is negligible. 

▶ When a NEPA document specifically stipulates the need for an archaeological monitor during construction or 

a project is located in areas that require an archaeological monitor to be present it is the applicant’s responsibility to contract an archaeological consultant holding a current Utah BLM permit and authorized to work in the 

NCA. Fieldwork authorizations are required prior to any construction monitoring. 

▶ Where proposed projects or development will adversely affect a cultural resource, testing, data recovery or full 

excavation to recover scientific information may be required as mitigation. The applicant or operator bears the 

full cost of mitigation and is encouraged to consider avoiding adverse effects through project relocation or redesign rather than mitigating adverse effects. 

▶ A cultural resource must be allocated to public use prior to:

• authorizing or implementing any Heritage Tourism project;

• when Special Recreation Permits are issued that will use a cultural resource; or

• a BLM recreation project is proposed that involves the use or interpretation of a cultural resource.

A File Search Request form must be submitted to the Field Office Archaeologist identifying the site and the proposed 

use so the allocation to public use can be confirmed.

15.3 References

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2004a. Manual 8100: The 

Foundations for Managing Cultural Resources. Release 8-72. BLM, Washington, DC. December 3, 2004.

_____. 2004b. Manual 8110: Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources. 8-73. BLM, Washington, DC. 

December 3, 2004.

_____. 2004c. Manual 8120: Tribal Consultation Under Cultural Resources. 8-74. BLM, Washington, DC. 

December 3, 2004.

_____. 2004d. Manual 8120-1: General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation. 8-75. BLM, 

Washington, DC. December 3, 2004.

_____. 2004e. Manual 8130: Planning for Uses of Cultural Resources. 8-76. BLM, Washington, DC. December 3, 

2004.
1080 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1081

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F

16.3 References 

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2004. Manual 8120: Tribal 

Consultation Under Cultural Resources. 8-74. BLM, Washington, DC. December 3, 2004. 

_____. 2004. Manual 8120-1: General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation. 8-75. BLM, 

Washington, DC. December 3, 2004. 

_____. 2008. Handbook H-1790-1: National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC. January 2008. 

17.0 Geological and Paleontological Resources 

17.1 Standard Operating Procedures 

Attach lease notices, stipulations, and other requirements to permitted activities to prevent damage to paleontological 

resources. 

▶ Require a geologic hazard survey prior to construction projects (e.g., camping areas, trailheads, communication 

structures, and BLM roads) in order to protect public health and safety. 

18.0 Visual Resources 

18.1 Best Management Practices 

▶ Impacts to dark night skies will be prevented or reduced through the application of specific mitigation measures 

identified in activity level planning and NEPA level review. These measures may include directing all light downward, using shielded lights, using only the minimum illumination necessary, using lamp types such as sodium 

lamps (less prone to atmospheric scattering), using circuit timers, and using motion sensors. 

▶ Any facilities authorized will use the best technology available to minimize light emissions 

▶ Any new permits/authorizations, including renewals, will be stipulated to use the best technology available to 

minimize light emissions as compatible with public health and safety. 

▶ All new surface-disturbing projects or activities, regardless of size or potential impact, will incorporate visual 

design considerations during project design as a reasonable attempt to meet the Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) class objectives for the area and minimize the visual impacts of the proposal. Visual design considerations will be incorporated by: 

▶ Using the VRM contrast rating process (required for proposed projects in highly sensitive areas, high impact 

projects, or for other projects where it appears to be the most effective design or assessment tool), or by 

▶ Providing a brief narrative visual assessment for all other projects that require an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

▶ Measures to mitigate potential visual impacts could include the use of natural materials, screening, painting, project design, location, or restoration (See Appendix H; BLM Handbook H-8431-1, Visual Resource Contrast Rating; 

or online at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/8431.html, for information about the contrast rating process). 

▶ Restrict visual intrusion in VRM Class I and II areas and within 0.25-mile of historic trails. 

▶ Screening facilities from view and avoiding placement of production facilities on steep slopes, hilltops, 

and ridgelines. 

▶ Paint all facilities a color that best allows the facility to blend with the background (Operator-committed BMP). 

▶ Gravel color of road shall be similar to adjacent dominant soil colors. 

▶ Bury distribution powerlines and flow lines in or adjacent to access roads. 

▶ Repeat form, line, color, and texture elements to blend facilities with the surrounding landscape 

▶ All above ground facilities including power boxes, building doors, roofs, and any visible equipment will be painted a color selected from the latest national color charts that best allows the facility to blend into the background. 

▶ Conduct final reclamation re-contouring of all disturbed areas, including access roads, to the original contour or 

a contour that blends with the surrounding topography. 

▶ To the extent opportunities are practicable, extreme visual contrast created by past management practices or 

human activities will be minimized. Examples include right-of-way amendments, mineral material sites, abandoned mines, and areas impacted by unauthorized off-road driving. 

▶ All new roads will be designed and constructed to a safe and appropriate standard, “no higher than necessary” 

to accommodate intended vehicular use. Roads will follow the contour of the land where practical. 

19.0 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

19.1 Standard Operating Procedures/Best Management Practices: Fuels Management

▶ Construct fuel breaks or green strips to protect wildland-urban interface communities and important wildlife 

habitat and provide for firefighter safety by using mechanical, chemical, and biological fire treatment methods.

▶ Construct fuel breaks and green strips in areas containing a good understory of native perennials in order to 

successfully compete with and deter the establishment and spread of annual species. 

▶ Seed green strips in areas that do not have a good understory of desirable native perennials that can successfully 

compete with annual species. 

▶ Where practicable, use large-scale landscape planning to connect fuel breaks and avoid small piecemeal projects. 

▶ Maintain fuel breaks and green strips to ensure effectiveness. 

▶ Prevent seeded species from being grazed during the first two growing seasons (>18 months) following seeding, 

or until site-specific analysis and/or monitoring data indicate that vegetation cover, species composition and 

litter accumulation are adequate to support and protect watershed values, meet vegetation objectives and sustain 

grazing use. 

▶ Provide fire prevention and mitigation outreach information and education to communities surrounding the NCA. 

19.2 Standard Operating Procedures 

Fire Suppression 

▶ Resource Advisors and other applicable specialists shall be utilized to advise the Incident Commander and suppression resources on the natural resource values during the suppression effort. 

▶ Avoid applying fire retardant in or near drinking water sources. 

▶ Avoid the application of retardant or foam within 300 feet of a waterway or stream channel. Deviations from this 

procedure are acceptable if life or property is threatened. 

▶ Fire lines will not be constructed by heavy equipment within riparian stream zones. If construction is necessary 

due to threats to life or property, control lines shall terminate at the edge of the riparian zone at a location determined appropriate to meet fire suppression objectives on the basis of fire behavior, vegetation/fuel types, and fire 

fighter safety. 

▶ Lands will be temporarily closed to other uses in areas where fire suppression is being implemented. 

▶ If it is determined that use of retardant or surfactant foam within 300 feet of a waterway or stream channel is appropriate due to threats to life or property; alternative line construction tactics are not feasible because of terrain 

constraints, congested areas, or lack of ground personnel; or potential damage to natural resources outweighs 

possible loss of aquatic life, the unit administrator shall determine whether there have been any adverse effects 

to federally listed species. If the action agency determines that adverse effects were incurred by federally listed 

species or their habitats, then the action agency must consult with the Service, as required by 50 CFR 402.05, as 

soon as practicable. 

▶ Avoid whenever possible burning out unburned islands of native vegetation, specifically sagebrush communities. 

▶ Minimize/mitigate impacts to cultural resources and pristine vegetative communities. 

▶ Vehicle and equipment shall be washed before being assigned to fires to minimize the spread of noxious weeds. 

Especially out of area equipment. Larger fires with incident management teams assigned may need to have a 

weed wash station. 

▶ Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 
1082 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1083

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F

▶ Stabilize areas that have low potential to naturally re-vegetate and that have high wind and soil erosion potential. 

Treatments include the following: 

▶ Installing water bars and other drainage diversions, culverts along fire roads, dozer lines, and other cleared areas; 

▶ Seeding and planting to provide vegetative cover; 

▶ Spreading mulch to protect bare soil and discourage runoff; 

▶ Repairing damaged roads and drainage facilities; 

▶ Clearing stream channels of structures or debris that is deposited by suppression activities; 

▶ Installation of erosion control structures; 

▶ Installation of channel stabilization structures; 

▶ Fence or restrict areas to livestock and wild horse and burro grazing to promote success of natural re-vegetation 

or establishment of seeded species; 

▶ Lands may be temporarily closed to other uses during emergency stabilization and rehabilitation practices if 

activities inhibit treatment; 

▶ Repair or replace range improvements and facilities; and 

▶ Monitor emergency stabilization and rehabilitation treatments. 

20.0 Livestock Grazing 

20.1 Standard Operating Procedures 

▶ Exclude livestock grazing on newly seeded areas with fencing to ensure that desired vegetation is well established, until objectives for seeding have been met. 

▶ Development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated resources shall be designed to 

maintain the associate riparian area and assure attainment of standards. 

▶ Disturbance to established rangeland study sites shall be avoided to provide for the continuation of monitoring 

efforts, which involves comparisons of data to previous records of that site. 

▶ Facilities shall be constructed a minimum of 0.125-mile from livestock gathering spots such as water sources 

and gathering facilities to prevent disruption of the use of these facilities and potential damage to the facility 

by livestock. 

▶ Exclosures shall be established in areas where the vegetative potential of the area is questionable or to compare 

the effectiveness of grazing management. 

▶ New fences shall be constructed to BLM standards allowing for the appropriate wildlife passage. 

▶ Bird ramps shall be installed in all troughs. 

▶ Access routes to functioning range improvements shall be retained to allow for periodic maintenance and prevent cross country travel. 

▶ Maintain range developments to maintain or improve distribution. 

▶ Rangeland and vegetation monitoring will be conducted to detect changes in grazing use, trend, and range 

conditions. These data will be used to support and direct grazing management decisions consistent with national 

policy. These efforts will help ensure that livestock grazing meets objectives for rangeland health and resolves 

conflicts with wildlife habitats or may provide a benefit to wildlife habitats. 

▶ Grazing management decisions will be based on monitoring data, both short-term and long-term, which will be 

jointly developed by grazing permittees and the appropriate Federal land management agency. 

▶ Surface-disturbing activities will be coordinated with livestock grazing permittees to minimize the effects of the 

surface disturbance on other approved operations. To the maximum extent practicable, this effort will include 

consulting on scheduling of operations to mutually minimize effects. 

▶ Any damage to the function of range improvements (e.g., fence damage, cattle guard cleaning, livestock loss) 

from other approved operations will be repaired immediately or remedied by the operator causing the damage. 

20.2 Best Management Practices 

▶ Follow the Grazing Guidelines established along with the Utah Standards for Rangeland Health. 

▶ Use grazing systems that contain rotation, deferment, and rest to produce a mosaic of habitat patches and increases the density, height and distribution of native plants. 

▶ Avoid re-grazing the same plants in one growing season. 

▶ Adjust grazing seasons to benefit both warm and cool season grass species by providing periodic rest from grazing for each type. 

▶ Allow for adequate litter cover following grazing use to protect soil surface and enhance soil moisture retention. 

▶ Allow for rest/recovery periods before or after grazing during critical growth periods. Recovery shall include the 

production of seed to allow for the regeneration of desirable plant species. 

▶ Adjust intensity, timing and/or duration of grazing during periods of forage drought. 

▶ Manage livestock grazing, including dormant season use, to insure adequate residual grass when soil moisture 

and wildlife habitat are concerns. 

▶ Avoid use most years in areas of valuable woody plants during times when they are selected. 

▶ Avoid the following grazing management practices: 

• Long seasonal use with no recovery time 

• Heavy use -stresses plants, 

• Little or no regrowth before winter -little stubble for root crown protection 

• Use at the same time every year -repeating the stress 

• No rest or growing season recovery -little recovery with long seasons of use 

• Little or ineffective herding 

• Salt placed in the same locations year after year 

• Livestock left behind after pasture moves 

• Grazing during the critical growth period year after year 

▶ When using livestock to control noxious or invasive weeds, match animal dietary preference or tolerance to the 

target species. 

▶ Use the target weed’s biology when developing a grazing strategy. 

▶ Manage heavy grazing on target weed species to account for any intermixed desirable species. 

20.3 Best Management Practices (Vegetation/Riparian Zone Management Guidelines) 

▶ To reduce negative impacts to grazing, determine the critical period(s) of a riparian site, and then limit grazing 

during the critical period(s) to no more often than once every three or four years. Critical periods and impacts 

are likely to be either in late spring-early summer, when stream banks are more easily broken down by trampling; or late summer-early fall, when excessive browsing may damage vegetation. Each site has its own critical 

period that shall be individually determined. Important critical period variables are soil moisture, plant species 

composition, animal behavior patterns. Site may be grazed every year if use does not occur during the critical period(s). Extended periods of rest or deferment from grazing may be needed to enable recovery of badly 

degraded sites.

▶ To maintain stream bank stability, limit cattle access to surface water when adjacent stream banks and shorelines are overly wet and susceptible to trampling and sloughing. Stream bank trampling can often be reduced by 

capitalizing on the natural foraging behavior of cattle. Cattle generally avoid grazing excessively wet sites or in 

cold-air pockets. Cattle seek out wind-swept ridges, and they graze on upland forage when it is more palatable 

than forage in riparian areas. Avoid hot season grazing of riparian areas. 

▶ To graze a site more than once per growing season, moisture and temperature conditions shall be conducive 

to plant growth. For such sites, allow a recovery period of at least 30 to 60 days, depending on vegetation type, 

before re-grazing within the same growing season. Grazing more often and for shorter periods-that is, 3 weeks 

or less at a time-is preferable to fewer and longer grazing periods. 
1084 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1085

APPENDIX F APPENDIX F

▶ To control the timing, frequency, and intensity of cattle grazing, managers shall consider creating smaller riparian pastures with similar, or homogenous, features. Adjusting timing, frequency, and intensity of grazing in 

individual pasture units is more important than adopting a formalized grazing season. 

▶ To protect stream banks, prevent cattle from congregation near surface waters. Fencing, supplemental feeding, 

and herding work best. Provide remote watering systems for cattle. Manage the riparian area as a separate and 

unique pasture. Inappropriate cattle grazing will usually first be evidenced by excessive physical disturbance to 

stream banks and shorelines. (Mosley et al. 1997) 

▶ On riparian areas that are determined to be non-functioning or functioning at risk as a result of livestock grazing impacts, limits of bank disturbance will be determined and included within the Terms and Conditions of the 

Grazing Permit. Monitoring of bank disturbance will use the Multiple Indicator Method. 

▶ Winter grazing minimizes soil compaction and potential stream bank deterioration and allows maximum 

growth of vegetation and plant vigor. Livestock use shall not exceed 70% and stubble height shall be at least four 

to six inches after the grazing period.

▶ To protect stream banks, discourage trailing up and down the channel by placing logs across trails, perpendicular to the stream channel. 

▶ Adjust intensity, timing and/or duration of grazing during periods of forage drought. 

21.0 Recreation 

▶ Special Recreation Permits will contain noxious weed management stipulations (e.g., pre-event inventories 

to avoid infested areas, event management to avoid or isolate activities that could cause weed introduction or 

spread, monitoring and treatment of infestations exacerbated by the activity, and other appropriate noxious 

weed management stipulations). 

▶ Lands may be temporarily closed to other uses during recreation events that are conducted under special recreation permits (e.g., equestrian endurance rides or motorcycle events). 

22.0 Lands and Realty 

22.1 Standard Operating Procedures 

▶ Power lines shall be constructed in accordance to standards outlined in Suggested Practices for Raptor 

Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996 (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 2006). Rightof-way applicants shall assume the burden and expense of proving that proposed pole designs not shown in 

the above publication are “raptor safe.” Such proof shall be provided by a raptor expert approved by the BLM 

Authorized Officer.

▶ Right-of-ways and other lands and realty authorizations, including power lines, pipelines and transmission 

corridors will contain noxious and invasive plant management terms or stipulations for all ground-disturbing 

actions. These will include conducting a pre-disturbance noxious weed inventory, designing to avoid or minimize vegetation removal and weed introduction or spread, managing weeds during the life of the right-of-way 

or authorization to prevent or minimize weed introduction or spread, abandoning the right-of-way or authorization to establish competitive vegetation on bare ground areas, and monitoring re-vegetation success and weed 

prevention and control for a reasonable number of years.

▶ Right-of-ways will be constructed to avoid physical damage to range improvements and rangeland study areas. 

22.2 Standard Design Practices 

▶ All construction activities shall be confined to the minimum area necessary. The exterior boundaries of the construction area shall be clearly flagged prior to any surface-disturbing activities. 

▶ Existing roads will be used wherever possible. Additional roads shall be kept to the minimum. Route locations 

must be approved by the BLM prior to construction. 

▶ Roads will be constructed and maintained to BLM road standards (BLM Manual 9113 [BLM 1985]). All vehicle 

travel will be within the approved driving surface.

22.3 Stipulations 

▶ The Holder shall notify the BLM Authorized Officer at least 48 hours prior to the commencement construction, 

reclamation, maintenance, or any surface-disturbing activities under this grant. 

▶ Copies of the right-of-way grant with the stipulations shall be kept on site during construction and maintenance 

activities. All construction personnel shall review the grant and stipulations before working on the right-of-way 

or permitted area. 

▶ All facilities shall be labeled with the authorization number, operator, and contact information. 

▶ No signs or advertising devices shall be placed on the premises or on adjacent public lands, except those posted 

by or at the direction of the BLM Authorized Officer. 

▶ The Holder shall promptly remove and dispose of all waste caused by its activities. The term “waste” as used 

herein means all discarded matter including, but not limited to, human waste, trash, garbage, refuse, petroleum 

products, ashes, and equipment. No burning of trash, trees, brush, or any other material shall be allowed. 

▶ The Holder shall notify all existing right-of-way holders in the project area prior to beginning any surface-disturbance or construction activities. The Holder shall obtain an agreement with any existing right-of-way holders 

or other parties with authorized facilities that cross or are adjacent to those of the holder to assure that no damage to an existing right-of-way or authorized facility will occur. The agreement(s) shall be obtained prior to any 

use of the right-of-way or existing facility. 

▶ The Holder shall participate in the formation of a Road User’s Association for the road if new right-of-ways are 

granted for use of the existing road. All new users will be required to join the association. 

22.4 References 

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1985. BLM Manual 9113: Roads. Release 

9-247. BLM, Washington, DC. June 7, 1985. 83 pp. 

23.0 Transportation and Access 

23.1 Standard Operating Procedures 

▶ Continue coordination with counties and other agency road entities to promote utilization of best management 

practices for road maintenance they conduct within NCA boundaries. 

▶ Maintain an inventory of existing road and trail systems. 

▶ BLM Manual 9113, Roads (BLM 1985a) and BLM Handbook 9113-2, Roads – Inventory and Maintenance 

(BLM 1985b) will be used to guide all maintenance and road construction designs and requirements. Include 

definitions for functional road classification and maintenance levels for BLM roads. 

▶ All highway right-of-ways and other road authorizations will contain noxious and invasive weed stipulations 

that include prevention, inventory, treatment, and re-vegetation or rehabilitation. Road abandonment will include at least three years of post-abandonment monitoring and treatment. 

23.2 Best Management Practices

NEPA Requirements – No new NEPA analysis will be required for road maintenance activities within the defined 

maintenance disturbance/easement footprint, which is defined as previously disturbed or maintained. Disturbance 

outside of the defined maintenance disturbance/easement footprint or road realignment will be subject to additional 

NEPA compliance. 

23.4 References 

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1985a. BLM Manual 9113: Roads. 

Release 9-247. BLM, Washington DC. June 7, 1985. 83 pp. 

_____. 1985b. BLM Handbook 9113-2, Roads – Inventory and Maintenance. Release 9-250. BLM, Washington 

DC. December 19, 1985. 18 pp.
BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1087

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX G

Migratory Birds and Birds of Conservation Concern

BDWNCA Migratory Birds And Birds Of Conservation Concern 

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Count 1992-2010

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Verified 9

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Verified 6

American Robin Turdus migratorius Verified 6

Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Verified 222

Bendire’s Thrasher Toxostoma bendirei Verified 12

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Verified 25

Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis Verified 26

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Verified 8

Black-throated Gray Warbler Setophaga nigrescens Verified 10

Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Verified 1363

Blue Grosbeak Passerina caerulea Verified 11

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Verified 396

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Verified 14

Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri Verified 58

Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus Verified 13

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Verified 59

Bullock’s Oriole Icterus bullockii Verified 4

Cassin’s Kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Verified 37

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Verified 20

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Verified 32

Common Black-Hawk Buteogallus anthracinus Verified 4

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Verified 10

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Verified 6

Cordilleran Flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis Verified 2

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Verified 2

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Verified 6

Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii Verified 7

Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior Verified 178

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Verified 1

House Wren Troglodytes aedon Verified 2

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Verified 5

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Verified 28

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena Verified 4

Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria Verified 61

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Verified 14

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Verified 1

Lucy’s Warbler Oreothlypis luciae Verified 16

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Verified 11

Table G-1 BDWNCA Migratory Birds And Birds Of Conservation Concern
1088 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1089

APPENDIX G APPENDIX G

BDWNCA Migratory Birds And Birds Of Conservation Concern 

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Count 1992-2010

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Verified 9

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Verified 6

American Robin Turdus migratorius Verified 6

Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Verified 222

Bendire’s Thrasher Toxostoma bendirei Verified 12

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Verified 25

Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis Verified 26

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Verified 8

Black-throated Gray Warbler Setophaga nigrescens Verified 10

Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Verified 1363

Blue Grosbeak Passerina caerulea Verified 11

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Verified 396

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Verified 14

Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri Verified 58

Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus Verified 13

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Verified 59

Bullock’s Oriole Icterus bullockii Verified 4

Cassin’s Kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Verified 37

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Verified 20

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Verified 32

Common Black-Hawk Buteogallus anthracinus Verified 4

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Verified 10

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Verified 6

Cordilleran Flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis Verified 2

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Verified 2

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Verified 6

Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii Verified 7

Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior Verified 178

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Verified 1

House Wren Troglodytes aedon Verified 2

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Verified 5

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Verified 28

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena Verified 4

Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria Verified 61

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Verified 14

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Verified 1

Lucy’s Warbler Oreothlypis luciae Verified 16

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Verified 11

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Verified 399

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Verified 6

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Verified 4

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Verified 1

BDWNCA Migratory Birds And Birds Of Conservation Concern 

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Count 1992-2010

Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens Verified 7

Plumbeous Vireo Vireo plumbeus Verified 225

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Verified 1

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Verified 36

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli Verified 2

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Verified 2

Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya Verified 63

Scott’s Oriole Icterus parisorum Verified 26

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Verified 1

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Verified 15

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Verified 84

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Verified 18

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Verified 25

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Verified 101

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Verified 119

Virginia’s Warbler Oreothlypis virginiae Verified 7

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Verified 1

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Verified 136

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Verified 44

Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus Verified 1

White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis Verified 254

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica Verified 1

Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Verified 12

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens Verified 2

RCNCA Migratory Birds And Birds Of Conservation Concern 

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Count 1962-2010

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Verified 1

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Verified 2

American Coot Fulica americana Verified 32251

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Verified 2178

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Verified 1480

American Pipit Anthus rubescens Verified 10113

American Robin Turdus migratorius Verified 8448

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Verified 7

American Wigeon Anas americana Verified 13772

Anna’s Hummingbird Calypte anna Verified 12

Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Verified 1

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 0

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Verified 206

Table G-2 RCNCA Migratory Birds And Birds Of Conservation Concern
1090 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1091

APPENDIX G APPENDIX G

RCNCA Migratory Birds And Birds Of Conservation Concern 

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Count 1962-2010

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia Verified 1

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Verified 1

Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis Verified 1

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Verified 68

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Verified 1

Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Verified 5

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Verified 30

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Verified 14

Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia Verified 1

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Verified 39591

Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri Verified 70

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Verified 912

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Verified 1207

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Verified 18

California Gull Larus californicus Verified 138

Canada Goose Branta canadensis Verified 5431

Canvasback Aythya valisineria Verified 925

Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus cassinii Verified 210

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Verified 7

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Verified 1983

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Verified 17

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera Verified 15

Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii Verified 10

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Verified 574

Common Loon Gavia immer Verified 9

Common Merganser Mergus merganser Verified 1657

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Verified 70

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Verified 23

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii Verified 369

Costa’s Hummingbird Calypte costae Verified 5

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Verified 15434

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Verified 108

Dunlin Calidris alpina Verified 2

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Verified 292

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Verified 274

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Verified 14

Gadwall Anas strepera Verified 516

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Verified 145

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Verified 15

Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Verified 14

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Verified 340

Great Egret Ardea alba Verified 14

RCNCA Migratory Birds And Birds Of Conservation Concern 

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Count 1962-2010

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Verified 20

Green Heron Butorides virescens Verified 10

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Verified 3

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Verified 910

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Verified 35

Herring Gull Larus argentatus Verified 3

House Wren Troglodytes aedon Verified 11

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Verified 1762

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Verified 11

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Verified 29

Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria Verified 4054

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Verified 1010

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Verified 122

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Verified 590

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Verified 1

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Verified 21

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Verified 9549

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Verified 702

Merlin Falco columbarius Verified 133

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Verified 1131

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Verified 10072

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Verified 1578

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Verified 831

Northern Pintail Anas acuta Verified 479

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Verified 4315

Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata Verified 178

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Verified 20

Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens Verified 2

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Verified 793

Pine Siskin Spinus pinus Verified 1004

Plumbeous Vireo Vireo plumbeus Verified 1

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Verified 137

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Verified 4

Redhead Aythya americana Verified 1062

Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis Verified 155

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Verified 3

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Verified 1761

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Verified 112112

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Verified 7102

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Verified 16405

Ross’s Goose Chen rossii Verified 34

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Verified 2063
1092 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1093

APPENDIX G APPENDIX H

APPENDIX H

Special Recreation Management Areas

Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area

Beaver Dam Wash Special Recreation Management Area

Recreation Setting Characteristics Matrix

RCNCA Migratory Birds And Birds Of Conservation Concern 

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence Count 1962-2010

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Verified 9415

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli Verified 619

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Verified 8

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Verified 2

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Verified 2243

Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya Verified 1498

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Verified 347

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Verified 1

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Verified 41

Snowy Egret Egretta thula Verified 3

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Verified 3261

Sora Porzana carolina Verified 45

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Verified 4

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Verified 771

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Verified 2

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus Verified 1

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Verified 9

Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi Verified 66

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Verified 5

Vermilion Flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus Verified 31

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Verified 98

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Verified 155

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Verified 297

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Verified 1

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Verified 12643

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Verified 1

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Verified 131551

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica Verified 108

Williamson’s Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Verified 1

Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata Verified 29

Wilson’s Warbler Cardellina pusilla Verified 2

Wood Duck Aix sponsa Verified 293

Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Verified 1

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Verified 19

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Verified 25

Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata Verified 1659

SOCIAL COMPONENTS 

Qualities Associated with Use

Social Component Primitive Backcountry Frontcountry

Contacts (average 

for other groups) 0 to 2 encounters per day. 0 to 5 encounters per day and designated trails.

1 to 6 encounters per day on 

primitive roads and designated 

trails.

Group Size (average for other 

groups)

1 to people per group. 1 to 4 people per group. 2 to 8 people per group.

Evidence of Use

No alteration of the natural 

terrain. 

Footprints only observed. Sounds 

of people rare.

Alteration of the natural terrain 

limited to primitive roads, designated trails, and user-created 

trails. 

Sounds of people and traffic 

infrequent.

Alteration of the natural terrain consists of graded roads, 

primitive roads and designated 

trails with some widening of the 

tread and impacts to vegetation 

observed. 

Sounds of people and traffic frequently heard.

PHYSICAL COMPONENTS 

Qualities of the Landscape

Physical 

Component

Primitive Backcountry Frontcountry

Remoteness

Adjacent to primitive motorized 

routes.

No routes are present.

Portions adjacent to paved 

highway.

Primitive motorized routes and 

mechanized routes with natural 

surfacing are present.

Adjacent to paved highway.

County roads, primitive motorized routes, and mechanized 

routes with natural surfacing are 

present.

Naturalness Undisturbed, natural appearing 

landscape.

Mostly natural landscape 

with some livestock grazing 

modifications.

Landscape partially modified but 

development does not overpower 

the natural landscape.

Facilities No developed trails.

No structures present. 

Mix of designated dispersed 

campsites, constructed trails and 

unmaintained primitive routes. 

Trail structures consist of infrequent directional and regulatory 

signs. 

Trailhead facilities consist of 

designated dispersed campsites, 

fenced parking and interpretive 

kiosks. 

Trail structures consist of frequent directional and regulatory 

signs. 
1094 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1095

Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area

Beaver Dam Wash Special Recreation Management Area

RMZ Supporting Information

Introduction

The enabling legislation for the Beaver Dam Wash NCA is Public Law 111-11 of 2009 (OPLMA). It stated that the 

purpose of the Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation area was: “to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, 

natural, educational, and scientific resources of the National Conservation Area.”

The enabling legislation clearly recognized recreation as one of the values of the NCA.

Even though it lacks the heavy, intensive use that the Red Cliffs NCA receives, NCA status has given Beaver Dam 

Wash a higher profile which has resulted in a corresponding increase in visitation. The area has long been a popular destination for rock climbers as there are classic limestone crags around every corner. The area is also a favorite 

winter/spring destination for OHV users to experience the Mojave Desert’s northern most Joshua tree community 

and the rugged landscape of the Beaver Dam Mountains juxtaposed against sweeping alluvial floodplains. Upland 

game bird hunters also enjoy quail hunting on the lower slopes of the Beaver Dam Mountains. Because of the overlap of critical tortoise habitat and a diverse set of increasingly popular recreational activities, Special Recreation 

Management Area (SRMA) status is proposed in all action alternatives. 

SMRA Objectives

Objective Statement—Beaver Dam Wash SRMA

The Beaver Dam Wash SRMA offers high quality sustainable recreation opportunities and visitor services, while conserving and protecting other resource values of the NCA. Participants in visitor assessments would report an average 

4.0 realization of the targeted experience and benefit outcomes listed below. (4.0 on a probability scale where: 1 = Not 

at all realized to 5 = totally realized).

RMZ Objectives: Frontcountry

The Frontcountry RMZ offers high quality sustainable hiking, hunting, camping, mountain biking, rock climbing and 

equestrian opportunities, while conserving and protecting other resource values of the NCA.

Activities 

▶ Upland game bird hunting, ATV riding, and vehicle touring on easily accessible roads and primitive roads

 Experiences 

▶ Enjoying a wide variety of recreational opportunities

▶ Having the ability to participate in outdoor activities so close to town 

▶ Enjoying self-directed exploration

 Benefits

▶ Improving outdoor skills and abilities

▶ Escaping everyday responsibilities

▶ Stronger ties with family and friends

RMZ Objectives: Backcountry

The Backcountry RMZ offers challenging, and sustainable backcountry, non-motorized opportunities, while conserving and protecting other resource values of the NCA.

Activities 

▶ Hiking, mountain biking on long, challenging trails

▶ Secluded backcountry rock climbing

 Experiences 

▶ Testing endurance

APPENDIX H APPENDIX H

OPERATIONAL COMPONENTS 

Conditions Created by Management and Controls over Recreation Use

Operational 

Component

Primitive Backcountry Frontcountry

Access (types of 

travel allowed)

Foot and horse travel only. 

Off trail travel allowed.

Four-wheel drive vehicles on 

primitive roads.

 Mountain bike, foot, and horse 

travel on designated trails. 

No off-trail travel allowed.

Two-wheel drive vehicles on 

graded roads. Four-wheel drive 

vehicles on primitive roads.

Mountain bike, foot, and horse 

travel on designated trails. 

No off-trail travel allowed.

Visitor Services 

and Interpretation

Detailed maps and brochures 

available off-site. 

Staff is not present. 

Detailed maps and brochures 

available off-site. 

Staff is rarely present. 

Detailed maps and brochures 

available off-site. Directional, 

regulatory, and interpretive signs 

are common.

Staff is occasionally present. 

Managment 

Controls (signing)

No posting or signing of rules, 

regulations, or ethical standards. 

Directional signing is minimum 

required for public safety.

Basic regulations clearly posted at 

heavy traffic locations. 

Directional signs posted at critical 

primitive road and trail junctions.

Detailed rules, regulations, and 

ethical standards clearly posted at 

multiple locations. 

Directional signs evident at critical road intersections and along 

trail routes.

Managment 

Controls 

(camping)

Dispersed camping allowed. 

Limited to backpacking and 

horsepacking.

Dispersed camping allowed at 

designated sites only.

Dispersed camping allowed at 

designated sites only.

Management 

Controls (law 

enforcement)

Law enforcement and non-LEO 

Park Rangers rarely patrol. 

Respond to incidents and rescues 

only.

Law enforcement and non-LEO 

Park Rangers patrol infrequently. 

Respond to incidents and rescues.

Law enforcement and non-LEO 

Park Rangers patrol occasionally. 

Respond to incidents and rescues.

Management 

Controls 

(monitoing)

Annual recreational impact 

monitoring conducted.

Monitoring conducted annually 

to determine maintenance needs 

and collect information on the 

extent of visitor impacts.

Monitoring conducted quarterly 

to annually depending on location to determine maintenance 

needs and collect information on 

the extent of visitor impacts.

Existing Setting

Prescribed Setting
1096 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1097

▶ Sharing challenging outdoor adventure with friends

▶ Experiencing a wide variety of outdoor environments

 Benefits

▶ Gaining greater self-confidence

▶ Stronger ties with family and friends

▶ Temporary freedom from urban life

RMZ Objectives: Primitive

The Primitive RMZ offers remote, adventurous, and sustainable non-motorized opportunities, while conserving and 

protecting other resource values of the NCA.

Activities 

▶ Hiking and horseback riding on rugged, challenging, and remote terrain

Experiences 

▶ Enjoying strenuous physical exercise

▶ Enjoying risk-taking activities

▶ Developing self-sufficiency

 Benefits

▶ Stronger ties with friends through shared experiences

▶ Greater environmental awareness

▶ Increased adaptability to outdoor challenges

Recreation Setting Characteristic Descriptions: Frontcountry

Physical Components

This RMZ is accessed directly from Highway 91. It contains graded County roads and primitive two-tracks. The landscape is partially modified but development does not overpower the natural landscape. Transmission lines in the IPP 

power line ROW are visible from many areas within the zone. Mechanized routes with natural surfacing are planned 

and would be a primary recreational component. Road and trail structures would consist of frequent directional, 

regulatory, and interpretive signs. 

 Social Components 

Visitors to this RMZ can expect between 1-7 encounters per day on primitive roads and trails, with group sizes ranging from 2-8 people per group. Alteration of the natural terrain consists of graded roads, primitive roads, and designated trails. Sounds of people are frequently heard.

 Operational Components

Two-wheel drive vehicles are common on roads and four-wheel drive vehicles are common on primitive roads. All 

traffic, both motorized and non-motorized, is restricted to designated roads and trails. Because this zone is primarily 

within critical desert tortoise habitat, no off-trail travel is allowed. Dispersed camping is allowed at designated sites 

only, each of which is marked and contains a metal campfire ring. Detailed maps and brochures are available off-site 

and directional, regulatory, and interpretive signs are common. Detailed rules, regulations, and ethical standards 

clearly posted at multiple locations. Directional signs evident at critical locations and along trail routes. Law enforcement and non-LEO Park Rangers patrol this zone occasionally, but primarily respond to incidents and rescues. 

Monitoring is conducted quarterly depending on location to determine maintenance needs and collect information 

on the extent of off-trail impacts.

Recreation Setting Characteristic Descriptions: Backcountry

Physical Components 

This RMZ is accessed primarily from the Frontcountry Zone, and in some locations, directly from County roads or 

Old Highway 91. It contains primitive roads that are used for ATV riding, hunting, and rock climbing access. The 

landscape is mostly natural with some livestock grazing modifications. Transmission lines and water utility structures 

are visible in a few locations. A mix of maintained and unmaintained, natural surface primitive roads and non-motorized routes are the primary recreation component. Primitive road and trail structures consist of infrequent directional and regulatory signs. 

Social Components

Visitors to this RMZ can expect between 1-6 encounters per day on primitive roads and designated trails, with group 

sizes ranging from 1–5 people per group. Larger groups are rare in this zone. Alteration of the natural terrain limited 

to primitive two-tracks and trails. Sounds of other people are infrequent. Solitude can be found in this zone.

Operational Components

Four-wheel drive vehicles are occasionally seen on primitive roads. All traffic, both motorized and non-motorized, 

is restricted to designated roads and trails. Because this zone is partially within critical desert tortoise habitat, no offtrail travel is allowed. Dispersed camping may be allowed in designated sites only. Detailed maps and brochures available off-site and basic regulations are posted at heavy traffic locations. Directional signs are the minimum required 

for public safety. Law enforcement and non-LEO Park Rangers patrol infrequently and their main interaction with 

this zone is response to incidents and rescues. Monitoring is conducted annually depending on location to determine 

maintenance needs and collect information on the extent of off-trail impacts.

Recreation Setting Characteristic Descriptions: Primitive

Physical Components

This RMZ has a few primitive roads that were closed by Congress in OPLMA. It is accessed primarily from the 

Frontcountry and Backcountry Zones and in one location, directly from a maintained County road. The landscape is 

undisturbed and natural appearing. No structures are present. 

Social Components

Visitors to this RMZ can expect between 0-2 encounters per day, with group size ranging from 1 to 4 people per 

group. Alteration of the natural terrain consists of user created trails. Sounds of other visitors are rare. Solitude can be 

found throughout this zone.

 Operational Components

Travel is limited to foot and horse traffic only and off trail travel is allowed. Dispersed camping is allowed but limited 

to backpacking and horsepacking. Detailed maps and brochures are available off-site. Rules, regulations, and ethical 

standards are posted outside the zone boundary. Law enforcement and non-LEO Park Rangers do not patrol and their 

main interaction with this zone is response to incidents and rescues. Monitoring is conducted annually depending on 

location to determine maintenance needs and collect information on the extent of off-trail impacts.

Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions

Recreation and Visitor Services Program 

The key component of SRMA management used to protect setting characteristics will be the development of a 

Recreation Master Plan. The RAMP will identify specific management actions for recreational activities and visitor 

services within the SRMA and would include, but is not limited to:

▶ Non-motorized trail standards;

▶ Motorized routes;

▶ Rock climbing;

▶ Dispersed camping;

▶ Architectural design standards ;

▶ Recreational impact monitoring standards and procedures.

Other Programs 

Section 1975 (a) of OPLMA mandates the Secretary, to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Beaver 

Dam Wash NCA to achieve the following Congressionally-defined purposes:

APPENDIX H APPENDIX H
1098 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1099

To conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, 

scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources of the NCA

OPLMA specifically restricts allowable uses by withdrawing the public lands of this NCA, subject to valid existing 

rights, from:

 all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws; 

▶ location, entry, and patenting under the mining laws; and

▶ operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws.

These Congressional actions, combined with the existing critical desert tortoise habitat inside the NCA, provide overarching protection for recreation settings in the Beaver Dam Wash SRMA. It restricts all recreation activities outside 

the Rural Zone to non-motorized modes of travel.

Implementation Decisions

The primary implementation decision required for the long term success of the Beaver Dam Wash SRMA is completion of the St. George field Office Travel Management Plan. The travel planning effort is on a separate, but parallel 

track to this land use planning effort and its release will follow closely behind this plan.

There is an implementation decision in Chapter 2 that states "Construct new trails in the Rural, Frontcountry, or 

Backcountry Zones, as shown in the Travel Management Plan for Alternative (B, C, D)." This is an implementation 

decision and it was included because the travel plan is certainly the most anticipated part of the current SGFO planning efforts. 

The travel plan for the NCA mirrors the aspirational goals of the individual alternatives in this plan. But it also recognizes the reality that the NCA contains critical desert tortoise habitat. The travel plan is based on the assumption that 

the greater St. George metropolitan area will continue to grow and visitation to the NCA will rise at a corresponding rate. In order to effectively manage recreational use and protect critical habitat, the trail system must provide the 

experience that visitors are seeking. 

Red Cliffs National Conservation Area

Red Cliffs Special Recreation Management Area

Recreation Setting Characteristics Matrix

APPENDIX H APPENDIX H

SOCIAL COMPONENTS 

Qualities Associated with Use

Social Component Primitive Backcountry Frontcountry Rural

Contacts (average 

for other groups)

0 to 3 encounters per 

day on primitive routes.

1 to 6 encounters per 

day and designated 

trails.

2 to 12 encounters per 

day on designated trails.

5 to 40 encounters per 

day in campgrounds and 

at developed trailheads.

Group Size (average for other 

groups)

1 to 3 people per group. 1 to 6 people per group. 2 to10 people per group. 2 to 15 people per group.

Evidence of Use

Alteration of the natural 

terrain consists of user 

created trails. 

Sounds of other visitors 

rare.

Alteration of the natural 

terrain limited to designated trails with some 

widening of the tread. 

Sounds of other visitors 

infrequent.

Alteration of the natural 

terrain limited to designated trails. Trail braiding is common. 

Sounds of people frequently heard.

Large areas of alteration prevalent. Paved 

surfaces common. 

Sounds of people constantly heard. 

PHYSICAL COMPONENTS 

Qualities of the Landscape

Physical 

Component

Primitive Backcountry Frontcountry Rural

Remoteness

Within 1⁄2 mile of 

paved municipal roads, 

highways, and unpaved 

County roads.

Primitive routes are 

present.

Within 1⁄4 mile of 

paved municipal roads, 

highways, and unpaved 

County roads. 

Mechanized routes with 

natural surfacing are 

present.

Adjacent to paved municipal roads, highways, 

and unpaved County 

roads

Unpaved utility roads 

and mechanized routes 

with natural surfacing 

are present.

Paved municipal roads, 

highways, and unpaved County roads are 

present.

Naturalness

Undisturbed, natural appearing landscape.

Boundary corresponds with designated 

wilderness. 

Mostly natural landscape with some 

modifications. 

Transmission lines and 

water utility structures 

visible in some locations.

Landscape partially 

modified with development dominating the 

natural landscape in a 

few areas.

Paved and unpaved 

roads and utility developments are typically 

visible.

Natural landscape considerably modified. 

Utility development, 

paved highways, municipal subdivisions, and 

campgrounds dominate 

the landscape.

Facilities

Trails are unmaintained 

primitive routes, typically in washes. 

No structures present.

Mix of maintained and 

unmaintained trails. 

Trail structures consist 

of infrequent directional 

and regulatory signs. 

Maintained and marked 

trails.

Trail structures consist 

of frequent directional, 

regulatory, and interpretive signs. 

Facilities consist of 

paved roads, campgrounds, restrooms, 

day-use areas, fenced 

parking, and interpretive 

kiosks.
1100 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1101

Red Cliffs National Conservation Area

Red Cliffs Special Recreation Management Area

RMZ Supporting Information

Introduction

The enabling legislation for the Red Cliffs NCA is Public Law 111-11 of 2009 (OPLMA). It stated that the purpose of 

the Red Cliffs National Conservation area was: “to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of 

present and future generations the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, 

and scientific resources of the National Conservation Area.”

The enabling legislation clearly recognized recreation as one of the values of the NCA.

Even though it lacked an official BLM Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) designation, the NCA has been 

effectively managed as an SRMA since the adoption of the Public Use Plan (PUP) for the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve 

in June 2000. This document was tiered to the Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan and it recognized the 

value of this open space for dispersed, non-motorized recreation opportunities. It also recognized that recreational 

use needs to be intensively managed in order to protect the critical desert tortoise habitat that was the driving force 

behind the Reserve. Because of the overlap of critical habitat, urban interface, and existing recreation management, 

SRMA status is proposed in all action alternatives. 

SMRA Objectives

Objective Statement—Red Cliffs NCA

The Red Cliffs SRMA offers high quality sustainable recreation opportunities and visitor services, while conserving 

and protecting other resource values of the NCA.

RMZ Objectives: Rural

The Rural RMZ offers high quality, sustainable, family-friendly activities and educational opportunities, while conserving and protecting other resource values of the NCA.

Activities 

▶ Car camping at the Red Cliffs Recreation Area

▶ Day-use activities like picnicking and visiting interpretive displays

▶ Exploring interpreted archaeological and paleontological sites

 Experiences

▶ Participating in self-education activities

▶ Enjoying family and friends

 Benefits

▶ Stronger ties with family and friends

▶ Greater respect for cultural heritage

▶ Temporary freedom from urban life

RMZ Objectives: Frontcountry

The Frontcountry RMZ offers high quality sustainable non-motorized recreation opportunities, while conserving and 

protecting other resource values of the NCA.

Activities 

▶ Hiking, biking, and horseback riding on easily accessible trails

▶ Rock climbing just minutes from the urban interface

Experiences 

▶ Enjoying a wide variety of recreational opportunities

▶ Having the ability to participate in outdoor activities so close to town 

▶ Getting much needed exercise

APPENDIX H APPENDIX H

OPERATIONAL COMPONENTS 

Conditions Created by Management and Controls over Recreation Use

Operational 

Component

Primitive Backcountry Frontcountry Rural

Access (types of 

travel allowed)

Foot and horse travel 

only. 

Off trail travel allowed

Four-wheel drive vehicles on administrative 

roads.

 Mountain bike, foot, 

and horse travel on designated trails. 

No off-trail travel 

allowed.

Two-wheel drive vehicles on administrative 

roads.

Mountain bike, foot, and 

horse travel on designated trails. 

No off-trail travel 

allowed.

Ordinary highway auto 

and truck traffic on 

paved and unpaved, 

graded roads. 

Off trail travel allowed 

by non-motorized users.

Visitor Services 

and Interpretation

Detailed maps and brochures available off-site. 

Staff is not present. 

Detailed maps and brochures available off-site. 

Staff is rarely present. 

Detailed maps and brochures available off-site. 

Directional, regulatory, 

and interpretive signs 

are common.

Staff is occasionally 

present. 

Detailed maps and 

brochures available on 

and off-site. Directional, 

regulatory, and interpretive kiosks at all entry 

points.

Staff is consistently 

present.

Managment 

Controls (signing)

No posting or signing 

of rules, regulations, or 

ethical standards. 

Directional signing is 

minimum required for 

public safety.

Basic regulations clearly 

posted at heavy traffic 

locations. 

Directional signs posted 

at critical trail junctions.

Detailed rules, regulations, and ethical standards clearly posted at 

multiple locations. 

Directional signs evident 

at critical locations and 

along trail routes.

Comprehensive rules, 

regulations, and ethical 

standards clearly posted 

at all access points. 

Directional signing 

evident on roads and at 

trailheads.

Managment 

Controls 

(camping)

Dispersed camping allowed. Limited 

to backpacking and 

horsepacking.

Dispersed camping allowed at designated sites 

only.

Dispersed camping not 

allowed.

Camping allowed in the 

Red Cliffs Campground 

and Sand Cove Primitive 

Campground only. 

Dispersed camping not 

allowed. 

Management 

Controls (law 

enforcement)

Law enforcement and 

non-LEO Park Rangers 

rarely patrol. 

Respond to incidents 

and rescues only.

Law enforcement and 

non-LEO Park Rangers 

patrol infrequently. 

Respond to incidents 

and rescues.

Law enforcement and 

non-LEO Park Rangers 

patrol occasionally. 

Respond to incidents 

and rescues.

Law enforcement and 

non-LEO Park Rangers 

patrol on a regular basis. 

Respond to incidents 

and rescues.

Management 

Controls 

(monitoing)

Annual wilderness 

impact monitoring 

conducted.

Monitoring conducted 

annually to determine 

maintenance needs and 

collect information on 

the extent of visitor 

impacts.

Monitoring conducted 

monthly to bi-annually 

depending on location 

to determine maintenance needs and collect 

information on the 

extent of visitor impacts.

Monitoring conducted 

daily to weekly in high 

use areas to determine 

maintenance needs and 

collect information on 

the visitor impacts.

Existing Setting

Prescribed Setting
1102 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1103

Benefits

▶ Improving outdoor skills and abilities

▶ Gaining greater self-confidence

▶ Escaping everyday responsibilities

RMZ Objectives: Backcountry

The Backcountry RMZ offers challenging, and sustainable backcountry, non-motorized opportunities, while conserving and protecting other resource values of the NCA.

Activities 

▶ Hiking, biking, and horseback riding on long, challenging trails

 Experiences 

▶ Testing endurance

▶ Sharing challenging outdoor adventure with friends

▶ Experiencing a wide variety of outdoor environments

 Benefits

▶ Stronger ties with family and friends

▶ Temporary freedom from urban life

▶ Increased adaptability to outdoor challenges 

RMZ Objectives: Primitive

The Primitive RMZ offers remote, adventurous, and sustainable non-motorized opportunities, while conserving and 

protecting other resource values of the NCA.

Activities 

▶ Hiking and horseback riding on rugged, challenging, and remote terrain

▶ Traditional rock climbing on remote crags

 Experiences 

▶ Enjoying strenuous physical exercise

▶ Enjoying risk-taking activities

▶ Developing self-sufficiency

 Benefits

▶ Stronger ties with friends through shared experiences

▶ Greater environmental awareness

▶ Increased adaptability to outdoor challenges

Recreation Setting Characteristic Descriptions: Rural

Physical Components

This RMZ contains all roads, trailheads and access points for the NCA, including paved municipal roads, highways, 

and unpaved County roads. It includes highly developed areas like the Red Cliffs Recreation Area. Power lines, 

water facilities, paved highways, and municipal subdivisions are immediately adjacent and dominate the landscape. 

Facilities in this RMZ consist of paved roads, campgrounds, restrooms, day-use areas, fenced parking, and interpretive kiosks. 

Social Components

Visitors to this RMZ can expect people to be everywhere, even during the week. 5-40 encounters per day in campgrounds and at developed trailheads is common. Group sizes range from 2-15 people per group with the larger 

groups primarily in developed day-use areas. Large areas of alteration prevalent and paved surfaces are common. 

Sounds of other visitors are everywhere. Comprehensive signage that contains rules, regulations, and ethical standards are clearly posted at all access points. 

Operational Components 

Visitors to this RMZ can expect a steady stream of highway auto and truck traffic on paved and unpaved, graded 

roads. This RMZ has the highest number of operational controls. Detailed maps and brochures available both on 

and off-site. Directional, regulatory, and interpretive kiosks can be found at all trailheads and entry points. Staff is 

consistently present and Law enforcement and non-LEO Park Rangers patrol on a regular basis. Directional signing 

is evident on roads and at trailheads. Camping is allowed in the Red Cliffs Campground and Sand Cove Primitive 

Campground only. Dispersed camping is not allowed. Monitoring is conducted daily to weekly in high use areas to 

determine maintenance needs and collect information on the visitor impacts.

Recreation Setting Characteristic Descriptions: Frontcountry

Physical Components

This RMZ is accessed from the roads and trailheads in the Rural Zone. It is adjacent to paved municipal roads, highways, and unpaved County roads. It contains unpaved utility roads that are used for administrative access to electrical 

and water utilities. The landscape is partially modified with development dominating the natural landscape in a few 

areas. Paved and unpaved roads and utility developments are visible from many areas within the zone. Mechanized 

routes with natural surfacing that are maintained and marked are the primary recreational component. Trail structures consist of frequent directional, regulatory, and interpretive signs. 

Social Components 

Visitors to this RMZ can expect between 2-12 encounters per day on designated trails, with group sizes ranging from 

2-10 people per group. Larger groups are often part of commercial hiking, biking, and climbing permit holders and 

are accompanied by guides. Alteration of the natural terrain limited to designated trails. Because use is typically 

heavy, trail braiding is common, particularly where equestrian use is common. Sounds of people frequently heard but 

considerably less than the Rural Zone.

Operational Components

Two-wheel drive vehicles that service water and power utilities are common on administrative roads. Mountain bike, 

foot, and horse travel is allowed on designated trails only. Because this zone is primarily within critical desert tortoise 

habitat, no off-trail travel or dispersed camping is allowed. Detailed maps and brochures are available off-site and 

directional, regulatory, and interpretive signs are common. Detailed rules, regulations, and ethical standards clearly 

posted at multiple locations. Directional signs evident at critical locations and along trail routes. Law enforcement 

and non-LEO Park Rangers patrol this zone occasionally, but primarily respond to incidents and rescues. Monitoring 

is conducted monthly to biannually depending on location to determine maintenance needs and collect information 

on the extent of off-trail impacts.

Recreation Setting Characteristic Descriptions: Backcountry

Physical Components

This RMZ is accessed primarily from the Frontcountry Zone and in some locations, directly from the Rural Zone. It 

is within 1⁄4 mile of paved municipal roads, highways, and unpaved County roads. It contains a few unpaved utility 

roads that are used for administrative access to electrical and water utilities. The landscape is mostly natural with 

some modifications. Transmission lines and water utility structures are visible in some locations. A mix of maintained 

and unmaintained, natural surface mechanized routes are the primary recreation component. Trail structures consist 

of infrequent directional and regulatory signs. 

Social Components

Visitors to this RMZ can expect between 1-6 encounters per day on designated trails, with group sizes ranging from 

1–6 people per group. Larger groups are rare in this zone. Alteration of the natural terrain limited to designated trails 

with some widening of the tread. Sounds of other people are infrequent. Solitude can be found in this zone.

Operational Components

Four-wheel drive vehicles that service water and power utilities are occasionally seen on administrative roads. 

Mountain bike, foot, and horse travel is allowed on designated trails only. Because this zone is partially within critical 

APPENDIX H APPENDIX H
1104 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1105

desert tortoise habitat, no off-trail travel is allowed. Dispersed camping may be allowed in designated sites only. 

Detailed maps and brochures available off-site and basic regulations are posted at heavy traffic locations. Directional 

signs are the minimum required for public safety. Law enforcement and non-LEO Park Rangers patrol infrequently 

and their main interaction with this zone is response to incidents and rescues. Monitoring is conducted annually 

depending on location to determine maintenance needs and collect information on the extent of off-trail impacts.

Recreation Setting Characteristic Descriptions: Primitive

Physical Components

This RMZ corresponds with designated wilderness. It is accessed primarily from the Frontcountry and Backcountry 

Zones and in one location, directly from the Rural Zone. It is within 1⁄2 mile of paved municipal roads, highways, and 

unpaved County roads. The landscape is undisturbed and natural appearing. Primitive, unmaintained routes are present, and are primarily in washes or across slickrock. No structures are present. 

Social Components

Visitors to this RMZ can expect between 0-3 encounters per day on primitive routes, with group size ranging from 1 

to 3 people per group. Alteration of the natural terrain consists of user created trails. Sounds of other visitors are rare. 

Solitude can be found throughout this zone.

Operational Components

Travel is limited to foot and horse traffic only, and off trail travel allowed. Dispersed camping is allowed but limited 

to backpacking and horsepacking. Detailed maps and brochures are available off-site. Rules, regulations, and ethical 

standards are posted outside the wilderness boundary. Law enforcement and non-LEO Park Rangers rarely patrol and 

their main interaction with this zone is response to incidents and rescues. Annual wilderness character monitoring 

conducted.

Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions

Recreation and Visitor Services Program 

The key component of SRMA management used to protect setting characteristics will be the development of a 

Recreation Master Plan. The RAMP will identify specific management actions for recreational activities and visitor 

services within the SRMA and would include, but is not limited to:

▶ Non-motorized trail standards;

▶ Motorized routes;

▶ Rock climbing;

▶ Developed camping;

▶ Dispersed camping;

▶ Architectural design standards ;

▶ Recreational impact monitoring standards and procedures.

Other Programs 

Section 1974 (a) of OPLMA mandates the Secretary, to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Red Cliffs 

NCA to achieve the following Congressionally-defined purposes:

To conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the ecological, 

scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources of the NCA

OPLMA specifically restricts allowable uses by withdrawing the public lands of this NCA, subject to valid existing 

rights, from:

▶ all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws; 

▶ location, entry, and patenting under the mining laws; and

▶ operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws.

These Congressional actions, combined with the existing Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan provide 

overarching protection for recreation settings in the Red Cliffs SRMA. It restricts all recreation activities outside the 

Rural Zone to non-motorized modes of travel.

Implementation Decisions

The primary implementation decision required for the long term success of the Red Cliffs SRMA is completion of the 

St. George field Office Travel Management Plan. The travel planning effort is on a separate, but parallel track to this 

land use planning effort and its release will follow closely behind this plan.

There is an implementation decision in Chapter 2 that states “Construct new trails in the Rural, Frontcountry, or 

Backcountry Zones, as shown in the Travel Management Plan for Alternative (B, C, D).” This is an implementation 

decision and it was included because the travel plan is certainly the most anticipated part of the current SGFO planning efforts. In the NCA, the travel plan is considered crucial because it proposes a complete overhaul of the existing 

non-motorized trail network. 

The travel plan for the NCA mirrors the aspirational goals of the individual alternatives in this plan. But it also recognizes the reality that the NCA is the urban interface for the greater St. George metropolitan area and recreational 

visits will continue to grow. The travel plan is based on the assumption that in order to eliminate illegal trail use and 

protect critical habitat, the trail system must provide the experience that visitors are seeking. To do this, some new 

trail construction has to occur.

APPENDIX H APPENDIX H
BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1107

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

Criteria for the Placement of Natural Surface Trails

The following criteria are used to determine suitable locations for new trails and trail reroutes within the Beaver 

Dam Wash and Red Cliffs NCAs. This document utilizes terminology from the Recommended Standardized Trail 

Terminology for Use in Colorado (COTI 2005).

These criteria are to be followed as guidelines. Not all of the criteria can be met on every segment of every trail. Their 

purpose is to help create sustainable, low maintenance trails that provide quality recreation experiences on the basis 

of predetermined trail management objectives (TMOs). Specialty trails requiring higher maintenance may be allowed 

in appropriate locations.

1. Know and understand trail management objectives. TMO’s provide the framework for what the trail will look 

like, who will be using the trail, and how the trail will be managed. Different TMO’s may allow different applications of the criteria below.

2. Create loops and avoid dead end trails. All trails should begin and end at a trailhead or another trail. A wellplanned stacked loop trail system offers a variety of trail options. Easier, shorter loops are arranged close 

to the trailhead, with longer, more challenging loops extending further beyond the trailhead. Occasionally, 

destination trails to a point of interest will require an out-and-back trail, but only if they cannot be reasonably 

incorporated into a loop.

3. Identify control points and use them to guide trail design and layout. Control points are specific places or 

features that influence where the trail goes. Basic control points include the beginning and end of the trail, 

property boundaries, intersections, drainage crossings, locations for turns, and other trails.

4. Positive control points are places where you want users to visit, including scenic overlooks, historic sites, 

waterfalls, rock outcroppings, lakes, rivers and other natural features or points of interest. If the trail does not 

incorporate these features, users will likely create unsustainable social trails to get to them.

5. Negative control points are places you want users to avoid, such as low-lying wet areas, flat ground, extremely 

steep cross slopes or cliffs, unstable soils, environmentally sensitive areas, sensitive archaeological sites, safety 

hazards, and private property.

6. Knowing these control points provides a design framework. Try to connect the positive control points while 

avoiding the negative control points

7. Use cross slope and avoid flat ground whenever possible. The trail tread should generally run perpendicular to 

the cross slope and should utilize frequent grade reversals. This is the best way to keep water off the trail. Use 

curvilinear design principles to create a trail that follows the natural contours of the topography, sheds water, 

blends with the surrounding terrain, and provides fun recreation opportunities.

8. The following grade guidelines will help determine appropriate tread locations.

9. The Half Rule: “A trail’s grade shouldn’t exceed half the grade of the hillside or sideslope (cross slope) that the 

trail traverses. If the grade does exceed half the sideslope, it’s considered a fall-line trail. Water will flow down 

a fall-line trail rather than run across it. For example, if you’re building across a hillside with a (cross slope) of 

20 percent, the trail-tread grade should not exceed 10 percent” (IMBA 2004). Steeper cross slopes allow more 

flexibility for sustainable tread grades while flat or low angle cross slopes can be problematic. There is an upper 

limit to this rule. Sustaining a 24 percent tread grade, even on a 50 percent cross slope is unlikely. Additionally, 

trail segments may break this rule on durable tread surfaces such as solid rock.

10.The Ten Percent Average Guideline: The average trail grade over the length of the trail should be 10 percent or 

less for greatest sustainability. Short sections of the trail may exceed this, but the overall grade should remain 

at 10 percent or less.

11. Maximum Sustainable Grade: This is the upper grade limit for those short trail segments that push the limits 

of the previous two guidelines. It is determined by a site-specific analysis that is based on TMO’s, environmental conditions, and observations of existing trails – what’s working, and what’s not?
1108 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1109

APPENDIX J

12. Grade Reversals: Frequent changes in the direction of tread grade (gentle up and down undulations) will ensure that water is forced off the trail at frequent intervals.

13. Locate trails in stable soils. Avoid clays, deep loam and soils that do not drain rapidly. Consider season of use 

and type of use. The capabilities of motorized vehicles to function in wet/muddy conditions make it imperative to avoid unstable or poorly drained soils. Trails that are less likely to be used when wet may be located in 

less-desirable soils if necessary. In western Colorado’s arid environment, the best soil conditions for trails are 

those with high rock content.

14. Drainage crossings are key control points and should be selected carefully. Consider both the trail’s impact on 

the drainage (erosion and sedimentation), and the drainage’s impact on the trail (changing tread surface, water 

channeling onto trail). The trail should descend into and climb out of the drainage to prevent water from flowing down the trail. Avoid long or steep entries into drainages. Design grade reversals into the trail on each side 

of the approach to minimize water and sediment entering from the trail. Look for drainage crossings on rock.

15. Dry washes can be excellent travel ways. They are well defined, contain noise, and are periodically resurfaced 

by flowing water. As long as the wash does not support riparian vegetation and has no major safety problems, 

like water falls, they are well suited to be part of a recreational trail system.

16. Avoid switchbacks. Switchbacks are difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to construct, and require regular 

maintenance. Users often cut them, causing avoidable impacts. Utilizing curvilinear design principles eliminates the need for most switchbacks. Climbing turns are easier to construct and maintain and utilize natural 

terrain features (benches, knolls, rock outcrops) to change the direction of a trail.

17. Avoid ridge tops. Ridge tops are often primary transportation corridors for wildlife, and were often used by 

Native Americans as travel routes. Noise from ridge top trails is broadcast over a wide area. Locate trails on 

side hills, off ridge tops, using ridges and watersheds as natural sound barriers to isolate noise.

18. Use vegetation and other natural features to conceal the trail and absorb noise. This can be difficult in a desert 

environment. Try to minimize the visual impact of the trail by following natural transitions in vegetation or 

soil type. A trail near the base of a sideslope or on rimrock is usually less visible than a mid-slope trail. Denser 

vegetation will hide a trail, lessen noise transmission, and can dissipate the energy of falling raindrops on the 

bare soil of the trail tread.

19. Carefully design intersections to avoid safety problems. When locating a bicycle or motorized vehicle trail be 

aware of sighting distance and sight lines. Collisions can be avoided if riders can see each other. Avoid four 

way intersections. Offsetting the cross traffic helps reduce speeds and reduces the risk of collisions.

References

Off Highway Motorcycle and ATV Trails: Wernex, 2nd edition, American Motorcycle Assoc. 1994

Off Highway Vehicle Trail and Road Grading Equipment, Vachowski, Maier, USDA Forest Service Missoula 9 

Technology and development Center 1998 Doc# 7E72A49

Mountain Bike Trails: Techniques for design, construction and Maintenance, McCoy Stoner, USDA Forest 

Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center

Recommended Standardized Trail Terminology for Use in Colorado, Colorado Outdoor Training Initiative 

(COTI). 2005

Trail Construction and Maintenance Handbook, Hesselbarth, Vachowski, USDA Forest Service (4E42A25-Trail 

Notebook) 2004

Trail Solutions, IMBA’s Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack, International Mountain Bicycling Association 

(IMBA) 2004.

USDA Forest Service Travel Management Handbook, FS 2309.18

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX J

Actual Use in the Beaver Dam Wash NCA Grazing Allotments

Table J-1 Actual Use in the Beaver Dam Wash NCA Grazing Allotments 1993-2003

Allotment

(Annually Permitted AUMs)

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Beaver Dam Slope (2708)

 Actual Use (AUMs) 1573 1783 1850 1965 1557 2217 2058 1525 1395 1390 511

 Percent Use 58.1% 65.8% 68.3% 72.6% 57.5% 81.9% 76.0% 56.3% 51.5% 51.3% 18.9%

Scarecrow Peak (4582)

 Actual Use (AUMs) 3645 3367 3973 2684 3452 3708 3228 2221 2850 1440 890

 Percent Use 79.6% 73.5% 86.7% 58.6% 75.3% 80.9% 70.4% 48.5% 62.2% 31.4% 19.4%

Castle Cliffs (514)

 Actual Use (AUMs) 252 309 323 317 266 422 431 360 381 322 100

 Percent Use 49.0% 60.1% 62.8% 61.7% 51.8% 82.1% 83.9% 70.0% 74.1% 62.6% 19.5%

Cedar Pockets (375)

 Actual Use (AUMs) No 

Data

No 

Data

No 

Data

No 

Data

93 57 64 103 209 211 203

 Percent Use - - - - 24.8% 15.2% 17% 27.4% 55.7% 56.2% 54.1%

Table J-2 Actual Use in the Beaver Dam NCA Grazing Allotments 2004-2013

Allotment

(Annually Permitted AUMs)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Beaver Dam Slope (2708)

 Actual Use (AUMs) 807 1478 958 909 1867 1491 1673 1758 1762 2016

 Percent Use 29.8% 54.6% 35.4% 33.6% 68.9% 55.1% 61.8% 64.9% 65.1% 74.4%

Scarecrow Peak (4582)

 Actual Use (AUMs) 1409 2891 2227 2150 2646 2190 2357 3303 1837 3593

 Percent Use 30.8% 63.1% 48.6% 46.9% 57.7% 47.8% 51.4% 72.1% 40.1% 78.1%

Castle Cliffs (514)

 Actual Use (AUMs) 274 382 403 131 219 387 404 471 465 495

 Percent Use 53.3% 74.3% 78.4% 25.5% 42.6% 75.3% 78.6% 91.6% 90.5% 96.3%

Cedar Pockets (375)

 Actual Use (AUMs) 203 203 185 14 240 146 64 260 334 283

 Percent Use 54.1% 54.1% 49.3% 3.7% 64% 38.9% 9% 69.3% 89% 75.4%

Table J-1 Actual Use in the Beaver Dam Wash NCA Grazing Allotments 1993-2003

Table J-2 Actual Use in the Beaver Dam Wash NCA Grazing Allotments 1993-2003
BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1111

APPENDIX K

APPENDIX K

Linear Disturbance Study in Red Cliffs NCA 2012

As part of the HCP implementation, Washington County fenced across all critical access points and urban interface 

boundaries in the Reserve, to prevent motorized vehicle intrusions and unauthorized uses Motorized intrusions still 

occur, but they are infrequent and rarely occur in critical habitat.

In 2000, the PUP designated approximately 178 miles of non-motorized trails (Table K-1) and associated trailheads at 

the most heavily used access points as available for public recreation use. Of the 178 trail miles, 44 miles (26%) were 

existing two-track roads, the majority of which were power line or water line maintenance roads. Nine miles (3%) 

were paved bicycle/pedestrian trails along State Highway 18 and the Red Hills Parkway. Primitive routes, which were 

unmarked, undeveloped, and unmaintained trails, totaled approximately 47 miles (27%). Primitive routes, because of 

their popularity, were included on visitor maps and interpretive publications. Developed and maintained singletrack 

totaled 79 miles (44%).

All other roads, trails, and linear disturbances not included in the 178 mile authorized trail system were officially 

closed. At the time the PUP was implemented, it was assumed that the new trail system, cobbled together as it was 

from a disparate mix of roads, two-tracks, and horse trails, would meet the recreational demands of the greater St. 

George metropolitan area well into the future. When implementation occurred in the late 90’s, non-motorized recreation on natural surface trails was not considered to be in high demand and given that the primary objective of the 

Reserve was to protect tortoise habitat, designation of the new trail system was considered a reasonable decision.

Implementation of the HCP freed up adjacent private lands for development and the housing boom that followed saw 

a steady influx of new residents. Between 2000 and 2007, the population of the greater St. George metropolitan area 

grew an average of 7% annually. Many of the newcomers were active retirees, drawn by Washington County’s warm 

weather and abundant recreational opportunities. This population increase is considered the beginning of the boom 

in local non-motorized recreation, driven primarily by increasing numbers of road cyclists, triathletes, hikers, rock 

climbers, and mountain bikers.

An increase in recreational visits to the Reserve mirrored the population increase, and it was at this point that deficiencies in the existing trail system began to surface. Local realtors were advertising homes “adjacent to the Red Cliffs 

Desert Reserve” and new residents seeking recreational experiences on heavily promoted “nearby hiking trails” were 

disappointed when they realized that this meant hiking on power line roads, old two-tracks, and other linear disturbances created by ranching and utility infrastructure. Predictably, local residents began to pioneer new routes that 

produced the kind of backcountry experience they were seeking.

This increase in unauthorized use did not go unnoticed by HCP and BLM staff, and in an attempt to document 

the problems that were occurring, the Reserve implemented the recreational impact monitoring plan described in 

3.39.1.3. The monitoring plan was structured to do two things: monitor potential degradation of the existing trail 

system, and document new off-trail impacts that deviated from the existing system. Monitoring is performed annually by Northern Arizona University and has produced mixed results. Further analysis has shown the program to be 

largely unsuccessful. There are three reasons for this:

1. The program monitors only the existing authorized trail system. This ignores many of the impacts that are occurring adjacent to subdivisions that have no physical access to the trail system.

2. The monitoring program documents impacts to the trail tread itself. This is of little value beyond documenting 

the need for trail maintenance. While changes in trail width does mean that a loss of habitat is occurring it is 

unclear how this information could be used to curtail habitat degradation, or even if it would be worthwhile.

Road Paved Trail Singletrack Trail Primitive Route Total

Upland Zone 12 0 18 36 66

Lowland Zone 32 9 61 12 113

Miles Overall 44 9 79 47 178

Table K-1 Miles of Non-Motorized Trails by Route Type
1112 Appendices BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment BDWNCA • RCNCA • SGFO Plan Amendment Appendices 1113

APPENDIX K APPENDIX K

3. The monitoring process documents the number of illegal trails that deviate from the system as well as the 

type of user causing the impact. The program does not capture the length, width, and use levels of these illegal 

trails, it only documents that there is a linear disturbance that deviates from an authorized trail.

No studies had been conducted that accurately mapped unauthorized linear disturbances within the Reserve, so as 

part of this planning effort the SGFO conducted a thorough analysis.

The project began in the summer of 2012 with a spatial analysis using high resolution aerial imagery to capture all 

unauthorized linear disturbances within the Reserve/NCA boundary. Digital, georeferenced aerial photographs that 

were recorded in 2011 were employed. All images had a minimum resolution of 1-meter which allowed for accurate 

mapping. A vector data set was produced by digitizing all visible linear disturbances found on the imagery.

These data were then loaded into resource-grade GPS units running a mobile GIS program and the data was “groundtruthed” in the field. The field work also included the use of GPS-enabled digital cameras. Every unauthorized linear 

disturbance within the Reserve/NCA was mapped and documented in its entirety, utilizing the following data collection procedures:

▶ The presence or absence of each linear disturbance was verified;

▶ The length of each verified linear disturbance was documented;

▶ The average width of each verified linear disturbance was documented;

▶ A georeferenced photograph(s) was taken of each linear disturbance;

▶ The user type for each linear disturbance was recorded by documenting the type and volume of visible tracks. 

Because motorized uses have been eliminated from the Reserve/NCA, the linear disturbances were in use by nonmotorized users only. The following non-motorized uses (or combination of uses) were documented:

▶ Hikers;

▶ Mountain Bikers;

▶ Equestrians.

The use level of each linear disturbance was mapped by documenting the number of tracks and their relative density 

and frequency. The following criteria were used:

▶ Light – used twice a week or less;

▶ Medium – between twice a week and daily;

▶ Heavy – multiple users daily;

▶ Historic – used in the past, but no current tracks;

▶ Does Not Exist – could not locate a disturbance.

This effort produced the following data:

▶ The length of each disturbance;

▶ The average width of each disturbance (Table K-2);

▶ Who was using each linear disturbance;

▶ How often each linear disturbance was being used (Table K-3).

Once the data had been collected and compiled, three spatial intersections were performed. The first categorized all 

linear disturbances by HCP Management Zone (Zones 1-5) (Table K-4). The second did the same for the Recreation 

Management Zone (Upland/Lowland Zone) (Table K-5). Finally, the third intersection captured miles of linear disturbance by land owner or managing agency (BLM, SITLA, State Parks, Private) (Table K-6).

While the linear disturbance mapping was being conducted, a separate but related analysis was performed using 

historical aerial photography. Digital, georeferenced ortho-photography from 1990 was used to determine if the linear 

disturbance existed prior to the creation of the Reserve; the 1990 photography was the closest available data to the 

creation date of the Reserve. Table K-7 shows the number of linear disturbances that existed prior to 1990 and the 

number of disturbances created after 1990.

These data were used in Chapter Four to assist in the following analyses:

▶ Measure the cumulative effects of non-motorized recreational use to tortoise habitat ;

▶ Analyze the effectiveness of the existing authorized trail system;

▶ Analyze whether changes to the authorized trail system could reduce unauthorized use.

Analysis of the data shows that there are 83 miles of unauthorized routes being used in the Red Cliffs Desert 

Reserve at least once a week, with 51 of those miles in critical tortoise habitat. Given that these disturbances were 

all closed to the public in 1999, the data suggests that the current trail system is inadequate for the number of users, insufficiently maintained, and ineffectively patrolled.

Historical Use Light Use Medium Use Heavy Use Total Miles

Linear Disturbance – Miles 19 31 36 16 102

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5

Linear Disturbance – Miles 1 11 67 21 4

Percentage of Total Miles 1 11 64 20 4

BLM State Parks SITLA State – DWR Private

Linear Disturbance – Miles 75 7 9 .25 13

Percentage of Total Miles 72 7 9 <1 12

Lowland Zone Upland Zone Total

Linear Disturbance – Miles 68 34 102

Existed Prior to 1990 Created After 1990 Total Miles

Linear Disturbance – Miles 85 19 104

Percentage of Total Miles 82 18 100

< 2 Ft 2 ft avg 4 ft avg 6ft avg 8ft avg > 8ft Total Miles 

Average Width -- Miles 6 26 16 27 22 5 102

Table K-3 Miles of Linear Disturbance by Use Level

Table K-4 Linear Disturbances by HCP Management Zone

Table K-6 Linear Disturbances by Managing Agency

Table K-5 Linear Disturbances by Recreation Management Zone

Table K-7 Approximate Date When Linear Disturbance was Created

Table K-2 Average Width of Linear Disturbance